From the very first day of war, the Dutch reception of Ukrainian refugees has been in a bad mood – at least, on the left. The enthusiasm with which this country greets them would, according to many, be ‘heartwarming’ but at the same time ’embarrassing’ and ‘painful’, show ‘nationalism’ and above all testify to a ‘double standard’.
Indifference
That’s how I read de Volkskrant that ‘the indifference’ to the fate of East African refugees, for example, ‘is in stark contrast’ with the civic initiatives that the Dutch are currently developing for Ukrainians. This solidarity, said Leiden historian Leo Lucassen, cannot be seen in isolation from the xenophobic and Islamophobic climate of recent decades, in which refugees from Islamic countries or with a different skin color in particular are wrongly portrayed as a major cultural threat. ‘.
Contrary to what you might think, said the Amsterdam philosopher of law Nanda Oudejans, ‘after all, our dealings with refugees perpetuates the dichotomy between our own and the unfamiliar’. How is it possible, wrote Fidelitycolumnist Babah Tarawally, that the suffering of the Ukrainians does open the closed hearts of the Dutch and that of refugees like himself not? “Is it because they have blue eyes and white skin?”
Dubious motives
Some people formulate it more complicated than others, but the suggestion is clear: Dutch people who support Ukrainian refugees do so for dubious reasons. Otherwise, they would have devoted themselves just as diligently to the non-white, non-blue-eyed, non-Christian asylum seekers who reported to the border in recent years.
On Tuesday, this newspaper even devoted a real report to the issue: why do the Dutch respond more cordially to refugee Ukrainians than to refugee Syrians or Afghans? Neuroscientist Christian Keysers did not want to call it racism, but he did use the term discrimination. Discrimination, he knew, is evolutionarily ingrained. ‘In the animal world, species that mainly focus on their own group and are stingy towards the outside world have the best chances of survival.’ He also pointed to the reporting that would less often portray Syrians or Afghans as ‘people like us’, so that we are less likely to become ’empathically involved’ with them.
I like to believe it. Yet it still escapes me why the warm welcome for the Ukrainian refugees should be dubious at all. Because of course, every human life should count equally. And of course human rights are universal and indivisible. But feelings aren’t as far as I know.
Not heartless
I don’t think it’s heartless to be, just to name a few, more sad about the terminal illness afflicting your mother than the terminal illness afflicting a vague acquaintance. It’s not weird to be upset about a shooting around the corner, while skipping reports of violence in another city. It is not strange to be upset about a plane crash in the Bijlmer, while a plane crash over Chinese waters leaves you indifferent.
Likewise, it is not dubious that a war that unfolds in your backyard, so to speak, affects you more than one that takes place on a continent further away. Why would you be petty about that? Perhaps there are saints (m/f/x) who are equally concerned about all the misery in this sublunary. I’ve never come across them.
shopping
The good news seems to me that in a civilized country like ours, the law tends to keep such empathetic preferences in check. Admittedly, that could be better. For example, I first read that municipalities that only wish to accommodate Ukrainians are not allowed to do so. They were told by the COA reception organization that ‘shopping’ in the group of refugees is not possible ‘for reasons of principle and practicality’.
On Wednesday I understood from a debate in the House of Representatives that such a thing is possible after all. State Secretary Eric van der Burg of Justice and Security called it ‘a mistake in the law’. A mistake that we should fix soon.
Elma Drayer is a Dutch scientist and journalist. She writes a change column with Asha ten Broeke every other week.