http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/2107962/oplichte...ielzoekers.html

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009..._for_dark_r.php

On the basis of a citizen's initiative, asylum seekers in the Limburg village of Tienray are being issued reflective vests to wear when they walk around at night. Residents are frightened by the fact that they can't see the asylum seekers in the dark. According to representive of the village, dark people are less visibile on the street in the evenings. It is not mandatory says the representative. It's similar to the way that people walking their dogs put on reflective vests. It's about safety and has nothing to do with racism, says the spokesman.

It is becoming normal that people walking at night wear a reflective vest. I see it all the time. I don't know the azc in Tienray, but I know the azc near Roermond. There are always people walking in the neighbourhood. Probably because they don't have a car and they aren't that used to cycling. Now to protect them the asylum seekers in Tienray can use a reflective vest. While I agree that the way it is communicated to the press is not exactly diplomatic, the only reason behind it is safety. I read the comments on dutchnews and I think it is very sad that some people are turning this into a racism issue.

The problem is that most of us English speakers come from societies that are, what, smoother, more alert, more sensitive, etc about race relations. In the US (and increasingly in the UK) it's all about race. Political correctness can go overboard sometimes, but cultural sensitivity is a normal and necessary part of our multicultural societies. The Dutch don't get this of course. To you political correctness is seen as negative, cultural sensitivity as a betrayal of one's own culture. The real story is not that a village council could be racist, but that it would be so utterly unaware of how something like this would be perceived.

My dear Stone, what an arrogance and utter nonsense to single out "us English speakers" as smoother, more alert, more sensitive, etc. about race relations!
The fact is that racism is still a huge problem in most countries, including "English speaking" countries. I suppose you did not watch BBC1's Panorama 2 days ago, a programme made by a fake Pakistani couple with a candid camera. Never in my life have I seen such horrible images or have I heard such obscene racist language, even from 10 year old British kids in a supposedly "normal" Bristol suburb.

Btw, I do agree that the Dutch, like ALL other Europeans, Asians and North Americans, sometimes express themselves in ways that obviously hurt/can hurt the sensitivity of non white people. Being black myself, I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. However, the Dutch are obviously not more "insensitive" than the other Europeans as far as racism is concerned.

How do you explain the expat outrage on DutchNews.nl? That's what I was trying to explain.

My comment was more about political correctness and government bodies. My point is that official bodies should be more media conscious.

But turning to the point of general racism (which is not really what I was talking about), I have two words for you: Zwarte Piet.

I suppose my post was arrogant. I'm agreeing with you.

But frankly it's hard not to sneer when a Dutch council does something like this. It's not Kazakhstan here, but how ***** naive do you have to be to suggest that blacks wear reflective vests?

In my opinion what happened here is a pr-nightmare. The person responsible for the press release should search for another job. He definitely had no idea how his words could be perceived. They should have only stated that free reflective vests would be provided to ensure road safety.
And frankly I don't understand the outrage on Dutchnews. Reflective vests are used by all kind of people in the Netherlands. They are not unique to any group. Where I live a lot of cyclists wear them too.

Yes, but how on earth did this get connected to asylum seekers? Stupid, stupid stupid.

I lived near an AZC for a while, and I can certainly see where they're coming from. I imagine cycling through town was one of the few avenues of entertainment open for these people, but for some of them driving a bike through traffic was clearly a bewildering experience, and where/how to keep right or to yield wasn't always obvious to them either. And yeah, bicyclists generally have poor visibility at night to begin with, and black people are even harder to see.

As for the political correctness thing, if enough people take offense to it, the standards of society will shift. If not, then they won't.

I can't believe you wrote this.

First of all, it's simply not true. In a lifetime of being surrounded by blacks and working with blacks, I have never heard anyone, ever, say this about black people. I've never thought it or noticed it myself.

And if this is such a problem why as it arisen in Tienray of all places?

I know you are well meaning, but people who say this are making a negative generalisation about people on the basis of the colour of the skin. Perhaps it's benign, but it feeds into the fears that some people have about blacks committing crime. It connects the words "fear" and "black". What's worse is that this is disguised as a "fact", a spurious fact.

My point about this is the same as for the council. It's not really surprising that you're thinking this (because frankly I don't hold the Dutch to a high standard in this regard), but that you would make this statement in public. It's this unwittingness that sets the Dutch apart when it comes to this issue. It's like you're not even trying to be careful about what you say in public about race.

It's physics. Dark colours reflect less light than light colours. Good on foggy mornings, less so at night. And a lot of asylum seekers (at least where I lived) were from regions of Africa where people's skin colour is as close to black as it gets, not brown like most black people.



Don't be absurd. Negative generalisation about black people happens when I read an article like the one you posted about the forcibly tattood girl, and I briefly try to picture a guy named "Melvin" from "Rotterdam". And yeah, for all I know, he's native Dutch. But that's not the impression I'm going to get from the article.



Well, since I don't have much of your esteem to lose, I can speak freely. I didn't say anything about race. I said something about skin colour. And I think that, in the English speaking world in particular, skin colour has become such a taboo that people are more shocked by a mention of it than by actual discrimination.

In the Netherlands, certainly, most African or Hindustani Surinamese, have darker skin tone than Antillians. Yet it's the last group that strikes fear in the hearts of Wilders supporters. Most mediterranean people can easily pass as Moroccans in terms of skin colour. Yet public opinion about Spaniards, Italians and Turks differs markedly from public opinion about Moroccans.

What we have in the Netherlands--in terms of real, genuine problems that impede the functioning of society--is culturism, or identity-ism. It's not so much about how you look, it's mostly about how you dress, how you speak, how you act, what your name is, and where you're from.

A guy like Ahmed Aboutaleb is perfectly acceptable to all but the hard-core Wilders voter base. Why? Because he looks and acts like he eats Hutspot for dinner every evening, and has carefully stripped his behaviour of anything that might remind Dutch people too much of the swarthy fur-trim hooded youngsters they so fear.

Nowadays, we even have a word for Dutch for this kind of servile, cowardly abandonment of one's identity, and our government communicates to every newcomer that it is a truly desirable thing.

You do come from a culture (if we can consider the English-speaking world to be a single, communicative culture) that has been more succesful in absorbing other identities than we have, so you have every right to point out things in Dutch society that you think are wrong. But simply transporting taboos from the English-speaking world to a society that hasn't "earned" them isn't going to work. Ever.

excellent post :-) I especially like your use of the term 'culturalism' and 'identity-ism'. Much more applicable in the Netherlands than 'rasicm' in most cases.

It is a good post SZ. I don't quite agree with everything you've said though.



It's not physics. If this were the case, why wouldn't black people in London, or Amsterdam for that matter, be issued with vests for safety reasons? Are there any studies showing that skin colour plays a role in traffic accidents? Or that it is even remotely relevant? No, it's just the subjective impression of some people in Tienray.

I have to add that playing with race-related "facts" is playing with fire. It's better just not to go there.

And even if it is true, why didn't they issue the vests to all black people in Tienray. Why just asylum claimants?

And what about the asylum claimants who have white skin? Or light brown skin? Or yellow skin? They are presumably easier for the good citizens of Tienray to see in the dark. Why do they need to get reflective vests?



You call my point absurd, but then make a comment that's completely irrelevant to it. I agree that negative generalisations are made all the time. That's racism, and people should be more sensitive to it. But how does that relate to the fact that it was done here?

I agree that there was a racist undertone to the Melvin article.The problem seems to be actually that many people assume that crimes committed are committed by certain groups. This is a problem in the UK as well. To a certain extent every crime story has a racist undertone. Newspapers have to be careful what details they release in a story. If it's not relevant, it shouldn't be reported. In this case the name was reported by the Dutch journalist, and I think it was relevant, both in general and in this specific story. However, like I said, you haven't really addressed my points. They are perfectly valid.



Americans have a word for this: uncle tomism. But what is the equivalent in Dutch?



I really agree with this comment, SZ. Thanks for making it.

The fact remains that racism is a taboo in the Dutch-speaking world as well. I haven't looked at the Dutch blogs reacting to this article. Perhaps Dutch people also think it was insensitive, or at least a public relations blunder.

I'm surprised we're even still 'debating' the 'race' issue.
30 yrs ago I was going on Anti Nazi League and Rock Against Racism protest and marches and gigs.

I saw Nick Griffin of the British National Party make an arse of himself on Qusetion Time last week.
And it just made me think how little we have progressed.
A lot of it is down to the fact that mass media has continued to perpetuate hatred amongst races....and governments over the years haven't done much to help either...but then again,governments prefer us to all be fighting one another.

Racism is not only a taboo in the Swamp. It is also met with (sincere) vehement denial by many Dutch people. Many just don't see it and are genuinely surprised/horrified when I explain them that their attittude/view etc. must be catatlogued as "raciism". Several times I have been insulted, once even physically attacked, because I accused Duitch people of racist behaviour.
This being said, all in all the situation in the Swamp is much better than in its neighbouring countries. If you like racist horror stories, please visit Britain, Ireland, Belgium, France or Germany! The more continental in Europe you go, the worse it gets! Don't let me start on the Czech Republic or Poland for example! And in Moscow, of course, black people are slaughtered in the streets like animals.

Yes, I watched that and found it sickening. Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me... certain parts of many countries have these types of people.

I've even seen some explicit clips of these murders on You Tube...sickening indeed.

I didn't think YouTube would show such explicit material...

Well, maybe they've taken them off now. It was two years ago.

'tis. It's the same thing if you wear a black jacket rather than a white jacket at night. Secondary school physics, common knowledge.



Because it's the gestalt of the visibility measures and the bicyclist's awareness that matters. A dark-skinned person in dark clothes on a bike without lights is going to be a little less visible than a light-skinned person in dark clothes on a bike without lights. A bicyclist driving on an unlit, quiet country road past eight in winter is in more danger than a bicyclist with enough experience to take a detour.



It's not a race-related fact. It's a colour related fact. Military personnel engaged in covert operations wear black clothes, and paint their faces black. Are they doing that as some kind of vestigal and racist impersonation of dark-skinned people? No, they're simply trying to minimize visibility.



My point is more, why is this considered to be a negative generalisation? The answer to that seems to be purely that it deals with skin colour.



The article is perfectly factual. Replace "Melvin" by "Maarten" to see how that works. Whatever racism is attached to it sits between the ears of the reader. But maybe the justice department should stop publishing suspects' names in press releases altogether.

The problem that most multi-cultural societies seem to be obsessed with is the management of public perception of a racial or cultural identities. If a prejudiced statement like, say, "all Moroccans are criminals" gains wide acceptance, that's a prelude to more serious problems, the kind of which we see here in the Netherlands.

The Anglophonic world seems to have tried to inoculate itself against this possibility by proclaiming all intentional negative stereotyping of identities to be taboo. However, such taboos are a means to an end, and they may not be all that effective in achieving it.

Putting it differently, "Melvin" (who may actually be white!) may be far more damaging to the public perception of Antilian identity than "Lucy" (who actually is white). And that the reflective vests don't even show up on the radar.



I hope I've made my disagreement more clear, and sufficiently addressed my feelings about them this time. I don't think we disagree about validity as much as we disagree about relevance.



There's "excuusallochtoon" (after "excuustruus"), but that means "token foreigner" more than "uncle tom".

having just read the article again: its not about people on bikes without lights being invisible, or on bikes at all, its about people walking - maybe they are doing so in unexpected places too, certainly it states that they are often walking along the road. I know as a driver its often impossible to see people (anyone) till the last second on many dark rural roads. The article also says the vests are not verplicht but they are available at the door for people to pick up on the way out if they want to. My only concern is that someone considered it to be newsworthy AND published it.

I don't have time to respond at length to your post. It's a good post, although it shows how differently we think. For example, I assumed these vests were for pedestrians and that the good citizens of Tienray were frightened (because that's the word that was used) at having to share the sidewalk with young black men at night. You've turned it into a Dutch story about cyclists and well-meaning Dutch scientists measuring the luminosity of the skin colour of various races.

I just want to say that it would be healthier for this society (because the Netherlands is now indeed a multicultural society) to act as if people were not of different backgrounds or races. Just ignore it.

Spouting "facts" about blacks or Moroccans is not the way to go. It's clear you've never experienced how fast this discussion can deteriorate.

This is how it goes:
Black skin reflects light poorly.
Skin colour matters.
Race matters.

Before you know it you have scientists claiming that Moroccans are genetically disposed to commit crime and blacks have lower IQs than whites.

They should simply stop collecting statistics based on race and ethnicity. Dutch people should stop talking about it. Stop dividing people in this way.

This is difficult for a technocratic people to understand, but some "facts" are not relevant and are ultimately damaging and primarily serve the interests of people who believe they are relevant. Facts related to skin colour and race should simply not be part of the public discourse. The media should police themselves and refuse to print reports about facts of this nature, even if the facts are perfectly true. (However, usually, as here, the facts turn out not to be true at all.)

And at the same time they can get rid of this ridiculous notion that Zwarte Piet has to be black and Sint white. It's this attention to race-related facts that get the Dutch in trouble.

I think you're wrong to be defending the people of Tienray. At the very least, they are inept at race relations and public relations. But beyond that they seem to be traumatised by these dark souls wandering aimlessly at night through the fields and streets of their town. Give them vests, that's the answer.

OK, this turn out to be longer and more lecture-y than I intended. Sorry.

well.. it doesnt exactly say the are traumatised, it says: "The committee report states the jackets are needed because of asylum seekers 'dark skins' which mean 'people only see them at the last minute, which can give people a fright'."

You could interpret it that it means they are frightened of the black people on the street, (nowhere does it mention that they are men) but in the context of the article I believe it should be interpreted that it gives them a fright to suddenly see someone at the last minute who is walking and they could have run them over. That is scary regardless of the colour of the person, and I assume that is why many of the residents already wear these vests themselves when they are out walking the dog etc. Apparently they want to share these vests with the asylum seekers so that they too can be visible. Youre right that the colour of the wearers is irrelevant (otherwise why mention that the current residents, presumably the majority of whom are white like the rest of the country) are also wearing them in this situation.

I say again, its non-news. I suspect its only news because of the possibility of mentioning (like name-dropping) that it: involves black people, and it involves asylum seekers - both of whom seem to have the ability to sell newspapers (particularly the telegraaf...)

And the word "frightened" seems to be the problem. You say that that is the word that was used. But most likely it is an ambiguity in translation. The word that was used was probably "schrikken". "De bestuurder schrikt van de voetganger" gets "De drivers is frightened/scared by the pedestrian". And in this context that is a wrong translation. It's the situation that is frightening, not the pedestrian himself.