No wonder no one wants to show the flag, its a symbol of tyranny! Let see it represents: The dude in charge (William of Orange), his minions (The Government), his seat of power (Nassau duchy).

Just Kidding.


IIRC Orange is a mix of Red and Green, meaning someone making a flag would have to mix those colors in a dye, while Red and Blue are two of the primary colors and thus easy to make. White is of course an absence of color.

You are quite correct...my apologies. Wales was already united to England when the first version of the Union Flag was designed in 1606. :oops:

http://www.know-britain.com/general/union_jack.html

Nor does the building of churches, nor does the building of mosques. If there's another mosque built, how will that affect my identity as a Norwegian? How will it affect your identity as Dutch?



Not really. Everywhere you go you get McDonald's and Burger King, and various taco and kebab shops. The halal and kebab stands are no more detrimental to any culture than McDonalds, Burger King or KFC. Or 7-11, for pete's sake. They're everywhere, but there's much more to culture than that.

As for mosques, it's more or less the same thing: there are churches all over Europe (all over the world, in fact), but the churches are all different. Though I'm an atheist, I love visiting churches when I'm abroad, as long as they have some antiquity to them. The architecture of the great cathedrals is really breathtaking, and I love history. The Moors also left many traces of their presence in Spain, and isn't that just a good thing? I think it is good for people to leave their mark behind. And so long as there is religious freedom in the Netherlands, there can be nothing anti-Dutch about churches, mosques, Buddhist temples or whatever. The only difference is that you are used to churches and the sound of church bells - you are not used to minarets and sounds of Muslim prayer. It's a new flavour to you, and maybe you don't like the flavour, but as long as the new flavour conforms to local morals and laws, why let it rub you the wrong way?


Seconded :yep:

Kissaki - the biggest concern is exactly what you bring up - the non-conformity. Islam has overwhelmingly agitated for ITS way to be followed - regardless of the morals or customs of the area. Everything from insisting women be "fully covered" to demands that Sharia Law be put into place.

Its important to note that Islam isn't the only religion ever to do this - Xtianity historically was known for doing the same - until it figured out that it needed to adapt as well as cause adaptation of its surrounding society. The issue is that Islam - and its followers, are not willing to do so. Sure - that is a "blanket generalization" - but look at all the riots in france for example as examples of muslims who are unwilling to respect any but their own views.....

Christianity has adapted itself beyond beliefs. For example, to win more pagan souls the Christians "invented" lots of holidays that just "coïncidentally" happened to match pagan holidays.
Or rather, just gave the already existing pagan holidays a Christian meaning.
They literally copied an astounding amount of symbology from heathen festivities.

For example, Christmas is no more than simply the winter solstice. The Christmas Tree being taken from the Germanic use of holding the Winter Solstice activities around a large tree.
The "Santa Clause" part of Christmas comes from the Dutch holiday of Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas' holiday). That in itself is largely copied from Germanic Yule festivities.
Note this typical picture of Sinterklaas:
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3117/dak2vz5.jpg
Sinterklaas (=Odin) with a grey beard (literally copied from Odin) and a staff (=Gungnir) in his hand on his gray horse (=Sleipnir) that can climb roofs (Sleipnir could fly) throws presents (=gifts/candy, just like nowadays) down the chimney, in exchange for small gifts (=offerings) in the form of carrots, straw etc. (literally copied from Pagan customs) for Sinterklaas' horse.

To say that Christianity adapted to the Germanic society would be an understatement. They almost made themselves immerse into Germanic society instead to convert us "from within".

It will affect my identity as a Dutchman because it changes our culture. It brings large, instantly recognizable aspects of a foreign culture into ours.
Many mosques with no minarets or calls to prayer would hardly matter. One mosque with minarets and calls to prayer would hardly matter. In both cases it doesn't influence the Dutch culture significantly.
But when you build many mosques with minarets and calls to prayer, you are bringing Arabic influences into our culture on a large scale.
Thus changing the Dutch culture.
Thus changing my identity as a Dutchman.

That kebab shops are not very detrimental to our culture is simply because the foreign cultural influences remain relatively contained inside the kebab stands. Whenever I enter a kebab shop, a Chinese restaurant or an Italian pizza shack, I immediately notice the foreign cultures. I smell the food. I see foreign ornaments and decorations. I hear the Turkish, Chinese or Italian music. But the moment I set one step out the door, I'm back in the Netherlands again.

Minarets and calls to prayer however are easily visible/audible from well outside the enclosed environment of the Mosque.

And also these differences in churches around Europe are a sign of differencing cultures. Our Dutch churches look very different from e.g. Breton churches (just picking a region I've regularly visited) or Norwegian churches (Urnes stave church, wooow!:o Definitely on my list of places I want to visit in my life:up:)

I don't know if the Moorish influences are a good thing. I know too little of the historical Spanish and Moorish culture and especially about the differences between the two to say anything useful about it.
And besides, it would be just a matter of opinion anyway.

Fact is that the Spanish culture is already "contaminated" by the muslims (Moors) while the Dutch culture hasn't been yet.
Also, Moorish influence in Spain is quite logical. They were neighbouring people, there are always mutual influences in those cases.

There's nothing anti-Dutch about mosques in itself.
The thing I find anti-Dutch are the minarets and calls to prayer, because they change the Dutch culture, and thus are automatically "anti".

Darkfish - your absolutely right on with Xmas. The fact that Jesus was obviously not born in the middle of winter seems to escape alot of people LOL. Still - you see Islam doing anything like that?

Like I said before, Christianity had the benefit of growing up alongside our culture, which is why it is familiar and "safe" for us. The Age of Enlightenment did wonders for secularism in Europe, but overall the Church is now as it has always been, just as stubborn as Islam. The various denominations don't want to be changed by outside influences, and neither does Islam. The only thing we can reasonably demand of immigrants is that they follow the laws of the land. As long as they do that, we don't have a right to criticize them for their ways.

Also, if you look at the riots in France, you'll find that the rioters were mostly kids, not Muslims. Same as football hooligans, who will jump at any opportunity to wreak havoc: football is just an excuse.

How? If it doesn't make you Muslim, how does it affect your identity?


Yet on the outside you can still see the shops and smell the food. It's not like you only notice the foreign element once you go inside. And why should that even matter? What you define as "Dutch", how "Dutch" would that be to Dutchmen 100 years ago? And someone immigrating to the Netherlands, and whose children become Dutch citizens, are they not allowed to decide on what is "Dutch" every bit as much as you?


I really don't see the problem with that.


And that's exactly what I am saying: there are Dutch churches, so why not Dutch minarets? Christianity was just as alien to that region once as Islam is today.


Why "contaminated"? Tomorrow's generation of Dutchmen may be accustomed to minarets, seeing them as being just as Dutch as church towers. Why would that be a bad thing?


Again I have to ask, how?

Making or not making me muslim doesn't have much to do with it, it changes my identity as a Dutch by changing the Dutch culture. By changing the culture, it changes what I am as a Dutchman, what being Dutch stands for, and thus changes my identity as a Dutchman.

You can notice foreign elements when you're outside, but not nearly as good as when you're inside, and only when you're right in front of the shop. Minarets and calls to prayer are much more prominent elements that you can see from much, much farther away.

I never said culture doesn't change.
There's a difference though between culture changes caused by advances in technology, and changes caused by foreign elements extensively brought into a culture.

That's the same as saying that a country has to adapt to its immigrants, instead of the immigrants to the country. Until an immigrant has adapted to the culture of his host country, I really don't see why he should be allowed to decide on what defines the host country's culture.

And that's where our opinions differ, I really do see the problem with that.

You are confusing religion with culture. Churches/mosques are part of religion, while (the architecture of) church towers/minarets are an aspect of culture.

In this context, with contaminated I don't necessarily mean a bad thing. Just that the old 'pure' Spanish culture was 'contaminated' by Moorish culture to form the modern Spanish culture.

I could ask you just as well how that would not be a bad thing. 'Bad' is subjective.

Besides, they can never be as Dutch as church towers. As you pointed out yourself, churches all over Europe are very different. Dutch churches look completely different from French, Norwegian or British churches. But "Dutch" minarets look exactly the same as [random Islamic country] minarets.

You mean, "how do they change culture?"
I already answered that:
"It brings large, instantly recognizable aspects of a foreign culture into ours.
Many mosques with no minarets or calls to prayer would hardly matter. One mosque with minarets and calls to prayer would hardly matter. In both cases it doesn't influence the Dutch culture significantly.
But when you build many mosques with minarets and calls to prayer, you are bringing Arabic influences into our culture on a large scale."

The kids were mostly Muslim kids. Not Catholic kids or Buddhist kids or Hindu kids. All those other kids didn't "jump at the opportunity to wreak havoc", so simply saying it are just "kids" that did it isn't right. A large difference between the rioting kids and the non-rioting kids is that the rioting kids were mostly muslim.

I won't say that being muslim was the sole (if any) reason for those kids to riot.
But you are saying that being muslim was "just an excuse" to riot, while being kids was the cause.

I must admit, I have yet to see Islam make any adaption to western society.

But note that I'm talking about Islam and not about muslims. I have seen many muslims who have adapted to western society, which proves that Islam could do it if they wanted.

To make a generalization here, most muslims seem to want Dutch society to adapt to theirs, instead of the other way around.

To keep that generalization, it's the pretty much the same here in Germany too.

That doesn't answer my question. In what way does it change? The cultural flavour of the country changes, yes, but I do not see how that affects your identity in the slightest. Don't just say that it does change, be a bit more specific as to what the differences between the new DarkFish identity and the old Darkfish identity would be. I certainly don't feel any change to my Norwegian identity just because of immigration, or the flavour they bring to Norway.


How is it any different from church bells?


Are those the only things that can change culture? Technology hasn't even been touched on so far, by the way.

But be that as it may: what makes one sort of change ok, and the other not ok? Isn't it just reasonable that if 30% of a nation's population is Muslim, that the nation's culture should reflect this? The greater the Muslim part of the community, the greater the Muslim part of the cultural flavour. I really don't see anything objectionable about this.


A country is defined by its people. Culture is defined by its people. It is unreasonable to expect, let alone demand, that someone should abandon their entire identity and create a brand new one just because they move to another country. It is also unreasonable to demand that second generation immigrants ignore their own heritage and embrace a new historical identity from their new country.

Then if you would be so kind as to explain it to me, because I don't get it.


Exactly. And given enough time, the architecture of mosques and minarets in the Netherlands will adopt their own particular Dutch twist, just like the churches have.


And at one point, the Germannic tribes of what is now the Netherlands were "contaminated" by Roman culture, and "contaminated" by Christianity. Do you object to that "contamination" as well?


No, you actually couldn't ask me that, because you are the one who claims it is bad to begin with. Therefore you are the one who decides that it is bad, you are the one who sits on the definition, and being the one to advance the claim, you are the one with the burden of evidence. You can't use "how is it not bad" as an argument that it is bad.


That's because Christianity has a 1500 year history in the Netherlands, and Islam not even a century. It hasn't had time to adopt a Dutch flavour yet, but it will: it is inevitable.


I mean how is it anti-Dutch? If it is anti-Dutch to change culture, then the very word progress is anti-Dutch, because that changes culture, too. It's not like it's going to change Dutch culture into something not Dutch: the new culture will be the new Dutch culture.

You're not happy with the current development of Dutch culture, but this is true of every conservative person everywhere. You can bet your rear end that Dutchmen 100 years ago were bewailing the "erosion" of Dutch culture, as well.

Pretty much, though an oversimplification. Let me refer back to football hooligans: it is not because they like football that they cause football riots, they simply use it as an excuse. Football is not the cause of football riots, or we'd see riots at nearly every football match. Likewise, Islam was not the cause of the riots in France, or we wouldn't be talking about the riots in France, but more like World War III.

My culture is a part of my identity. If you change that part, you change my identity.
My 'old' identity would be one of Dutch architecture, Dutch food and Dutch speech. My 'new' identity (in the worst case) would include Arabic architecture, Arabic food and Arabic speech.

A church bell is different from a call to prayer in that church bells are an accepted and established part of Dutch society.

No, of course they're not the only things. But in the last few centuries they (especially technology, up until now) have been the most important. Other factors that cause cultural change tend to change a culture only on a very slow rate.

If you look at early medieval culture and late medieval culture for example, you'll find that the cultures are remarkably similar. Hell, you could even compare a medieval farmer with a farmer some 100 years ago, and still their cultures wouldn't differ in a huge manner.

This is subjective. What may be okay for you, might not be okay for me. There is no objective way of determining whether a change is okay or not.

Once again, you confuse the religion with the culture. "Muslim" isn't a culture on itself, it's a religion. Therefore I'll reply to this as if you had written "Arabic" instead of "Muslim".

It depends on if that Arabic presence has always been there, or is a recent development. If the Arabians have always been there, they're part of the culture and the nation's culture should reflect that.
If they are, however, new to that country, they should adapt to the nation's culture. Not demand the nation's culture to reflect their culture.

I find it quite reasonable to expect that. If you want to move to another country, be my guest, but adapt to the local culture.
I can't help but notice this quote by you:
At what point in this discussion did you change your mind? Because what you say here is quite the opposite of what you say above.
First you say the newcomer must adapt to the establishment, and now you say it's unreasonable to expect a newcomer to do so?

It's a matter of opinion. Just as it is your right to not see the problem, it is my right to do see the problem.

It will eventually happen. But not in the near future, and it would have Arabic culture to start with. Therefore being a flavour of Arabic culture, instead of one of Dutch culture. That is, provided that the Arabics don't get a stronger foothold in Dutch society than they've got already.

Yes, I would. Christianity/Roman culture has definitely introduced some things I'd rather not have seen.
For example, the death penalty and torture only appeared after we converted to Christianism.

But there is one major difference between the cultural changes at the time, and the current cultural changes. The Germanic people at the time changed their own culture out of their free will, while nowadays Dutch culture is changed by foreigners, against the will of most Dutchmen.

What I claim is something personal. I don't have any obligation to prove that I find something bad, because it's true by definition. That's why "bad" is subjective. The fact that a person's opinion is equal to that person's opinion is true by default.

Besides, would the answer matter? Would it be any different if I said "because the cookie monster ordered me to", "because I'm racist" or "because I'm a devoted Christian and I don't want muslim influences"? (All of which are not reasons of mine)

Eventually, yes. But not in the near future.

I already answered this as well. It's anti-Dutch because minarets and stuff change the Dutch culture. If it changes the Dutch culture, it's not in conformity with the Dutch culture. If it's not in conformity with the Dutch culture, it's anti-Dutch.

So yes, using that definition any progress that changes the Dutch culture is anti-Dutch as well.

Except for the fact that Dutch culture back then wasn't changing at the rate it does now by far, and for the fact that cultural changes at that time weren't because of extensive foreign influences.

Islam is not the direct cause of the riots in France. But the difference in demographics between rioters and non-rioters does suggest Islam played a large role in it.