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.

The problem here is not Culture or Religion. These are results of the problem.
The problem is that the ethnic dutch population is being replaced by a non-ethnic dutch population. This problem is mot unique to the dutch. If the problem persists the dutch (and other europeans) will become a minority within the borders od what once WAS their own country. At which point they will be subjected to the laws, and will of the former minority. Once that happens, it's only a matter of time until the dutch people are moved to the borders of extinction.

Can't happen?
One only need to look to North America, South America, and Australia.
It can happen. It has happened. And it's happening again, in Europe.
It needs to be stopped "yesterday".

I could have sworn Darkfish recently spent quite some time stating that church bells marking prayer times were not a thing that happens in Holland and were not established as part of Dutch society.
Its quite amazing how he has changed views, maybe he walked past a few churches and cathedrals in the past week.

Interesting viewpoint:hmmm: Hadn't even thought of it like that myself...
Very disturbing now you say it... If more than 50% of our population are foreigners, we essentially transfer all power to them. We'd be at their mercy.


BTW, should anyone think that whatever crap tribesman posted is worthwile answering, just say so and I'll read his post and reply to it.

Not sure how to answer that since that is a rather subjective thing. After all what is worth responding to?

This is what he said anyways, you can answer your own question then.

Well that's for someone else to answer. I find his posts not worth responding to anyway.
But since you quoted his post anyway now:
In the thread Tribesman mentiones, I have never ever said church bells don't ring in the Netherlands and are not an established part of Dutch society.
That he thinks otherwise just shows he hasn't thoroughly read my posts.

Anyone who doubts me can read it for himself in the following thread: http://subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=169535

Thats rather rich mentioning "crap" when you wrote that your father was cleared in court when her was found guilty as charged.
But hey stick to posting falsehoods :rotfl2:

The irony is heavy. Thoroughly read the posts:rotfl2:
Starting with the quote he just used and the answer he gave, as I didn't say he claimed they never ever rang, I said he claimed no dutch churches rang regularly to mark the daily prayer rituals:up:

Would it? Only if you started eating Arab food and speaking Arabic. My cultural identity has always been completely devoid of Arab or Eastern European aspects, and Saami aspects for that matter. But even if Arab, Eastern European or Saami aspects did manage to "sneak" their way into my cultural identity - so what?


Yes, because they have a history. It wasn't always so, though. Every single thing about what you associate with Dutch was "un-Dutch" once.


The introduction of cars into a society will naturally leave an impact on society, because it affects the standard of living. Technology makes a tremendous visual impact on society, but culture is so much more than what can be captured on a photography.


This is simply not true. From our perspective, if we simply look at the architecture, yes, then it looks remarkably similar (and goes to prove my point: culturally-specific architecture requires maturing). But culture was far more diverse in those days than it is now. You could notice differences in customs from one village to the next, simply because society was much less international in those days. The values and identity of a medieval farmer, used to a feudal society, would be extremely different from the values and identity of a farmer 100 years ago. The technology wouldn't be all that different from the one to the other, but like I said, culture is so much more than what is immediately visible.


Indeed, so why not live and let live? Why oppose it as if it threatened you, somehow? Resistance to change is always to be expected (and is possibly a very useful moderating force in any society), but I guess I see protest marches as an overreaction.


But no one has "always" been there. At one point the Netherlands was populated by dinosaurs.


The people you perceive as having "always" been there are also the result of outside influences. How much is left of the cultures of the Germannic tribes in Netherlands? Things change, and new people bring change with them. This is just natural, and right. If you were to move to another country, you shouldn't be expected to abandon your Dutch heritage, either.


I agree, insofar as laws and customs are concerned. You shouldn't be expected to change your taste in music, literature, food or anything else, though. You still bring your old identity with you, and I put it to you that it would be impossible for you to rid yourself of it.


Yes, and it turned out in the very next post that you and I were operating under very different definitions of culture. You expect them to blend in 100% in every single aspect, but this is impossible. To me, conformity to local laws and values is what is required, and all that is required.


Please read back a few posts. You seem to have forgotten how we discussed different definitions of culture, and how I was not using your all-encompassing definition. At no point have I changed my mind; at no point have I contradicted myself.


Yes, of course it is your right, but if you see something as a problem then you should also be able to say why it is a problem.


Well, there is already a lot of Roman and Arab aspects of Dutch culture. You use Roman letters and Arab numbers, architecturally you owe a lot to the Romans, and Christianity is itself a Middle Eastern religion which also has left a very considerable mark on Dutch culture. What, exactly, is "Dutch", which doesn't originate from outside the region?


You really think there was no death penalty or torture in the local Germannic tribes? If you go back far enough, I shouldn't be surprised to find human sacrifice as well.


You really think they changed their ways voluntarily? You think there wasn't resistance to change just as there is resistance to change now? Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change themselves - that's human nature, and just as true then as it is now. Roman culture wasn't popular among the conservatives at the time, and neither was Christianity. Not because the change was for the worse, but because there are always those who will want to stick to "the old ways".


I'm not asking you to prove the fact that you find something to be bad. I'm asking you to explain why you think it is bad.



If that's how you wish to define it. But then you must also agree that if minarets become a normal aspect of Dutch scenery in the future, then they will no longer be "anti-Dutch".


Culture changes a lot faster these days, it is true. This is mostly due to communication and information access, which has internationalized just about every country. And what does it matter if cultural change comes from immigration, religious reformation, technology or whatnot?

^ Same goes for any of these posts, if someone does really want an answer, I will provide it. But unless I'm explicitly asked to reply to those posts, I won't even read them.

Let me further elaborate on why I do like discussing these things with you (Kissaki), while I absolutely hate (discussing with) Tribesman.
It's not because you come up with bad arguments. On the contrary. Your arguments often require very hard thinking of mine to come up with a good counter-argument.
It is because I have the feeling you do actually read my posts. You seem to be quite able to grasp the main point of what I'm saying, and you come up with counter-arguments on exactly that. You don't go nitpicking over grammatical irregularities to supposedly prove your point, while in fact I meant to say something different, something that 99% of all people would have understand, although maybe it might mean something slightly different when you look at it literally.
Also you don't claim any expertise in a field you clearly know much less about than I do. (I'm not talking about this topic)
Or even better, you don't go completely twist what I say, and claim something I've just proven wrong.

I like those people to discuss with. Because in the end I believe that the ultimate goal of debate is to make you think about things. Not to prove your points.
One thing I've learned is that in a discussion usually neither of the participants is completely right. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, especially in this topic since we're discussing opinions here. But discussing these things surely makes me wonder why I think what I think, and makes me further define my thoughts. A good discussion never hurts anyone.

Kudos to you for that:up:

There's a difference between two populations blending over the generation through breeding, and ethnic cleansing. If the future Europeans are mostly or completely white, black, brown, red, yellow or purple, what difference does it make? They'd still be Europeans.

I admit there is something "safe" and "homely" about seeing mostly white faces in my home town, but does it really matter?

I know, I rock :|\\

I just hope my most recent reply doesn't make you change that perception :oops:

True, the Carthusian dutch Cathedrals Monestaries and abbeys were a religious tradition from across in Cologne originally. While the Benedictines are up from Italy, though the Italians found the dutch bells nicer and more traditional, though of course some of that tradition was latterly a remnant of Spanish rule espercially in the churches round roermond where you can hear the bells calling prayer times as regularly as you can in Utrecht or even surprisingly ......Arnhem.

I am not surprisded, it must be frustrating when you keep going "but you are foriegn so I know better" yet end messing up rather badly on your local stuff.

It doesn't necessarily have to copy the Arab culture. Even if the Dutch culture is just heavily influenced by Arab culture, it isn't the current Dutch culture anymore.

Should such influences sneak their way into your culture, if you mind it or not is a personal matter.

I agree. Eventually, if you go back in time far enough, you'll find that most "Dutch" aspects once weren't "Dutch" at all.

Agreed, but the impact of technology is much more than just "visual" things. Take modern technologies like cell phones, and how they've influenced communication. And along with that social behaviour.

While it is true that customs (and thus "culture"), hell even language, were often different between neighbouring villages, the "macro-culture" of the average farmer barely changed. The average farmer on the countryside, wouldn't have noticed a single thing about the enlightenment and all that. They did things exactly like their father and grandfather before it did. Norms and values didn't change much. Architecture didn't change much. Food didn't change much.
You do have a point with the feudal society, but well after the middle ages noble titles still existed, and the common people still had to pay taxes to those.

I don't live and let live because I'm against this change.
I do feel threatened actually. I'm afraid for the loss of the Dutch culture.
(BTW, you won't likely see me in any protest marches;))

That's true. In this context, with "always" I mean "long enough to have become part of the common culture of that area".

Then I guess you could argue that if the Arabs would stay here for a few more centuries, they'd become part of the "new" Dutch culture. And they would. But they haven't been here for that long yet, and thus aren't part of our culture yet.

You'd be surprised. In fact, if you take the moral values of the Germanics, and compare it to both the Christian moral and the present moral, you'll find that the Germanic moral often corresponds with the present moral a lot more than with the Christian.

Abandoning and adapting are different words. I would not "abandon" my Dutch heritage, I would always see me as having a Dutch origin, and would be proud of that.

But I would adapt to the local culture. I would learn the local language. I would learn the local norms and values. And I would comply to those. Even if they went straight against the Dutch norms, I would act as the locals would expect me to. Because I know that if I want to be accepted into their society, I have to follow the rules of that society.

Which is something I do often not see when Muslim foreigners are concerned. Not rarely do I see some of those who haven't even bothered to learn the Dutch language.:nope:

Then this difference in our definitions explains it:) The blame is entirely on me.

Very well then. There are two major reasons:
- I like every country to have a different culture. What an utterly boring world would this be if all people had the same culture.

- Some self-developed "racial/cultural" theory of mine, based on Darwinism. This is why I'm so afraid of giving my reason for finding it a problem. Because as soon as I say the word "race", I'm sure everyone immediately starts jumping on me and accusing me of racism. Even though in my theory, every race is essentially equal.
I'm not going to elaborate any further about the exact contents of it, and "proof" for it, as it's rather off-topic and it would take quite a long post to do so while I'm too lazy to type such long texts:lol:

The difference is in that we Dutch copied these influences out of our own free will. We saw the Arab numerals, and we thought "hey, that's a much smarter system than our own! Let's use it!"

But if you read into these accounts of human sacrifice, you'll find they quite often were voluntarily. Read this account by the 10th century Arab writer Ibn Fadlan, paragraph 88.
Which tribes did or did not use involuntary human sacrifice seems to depend on the tribe, because most tribes I know about seem to not have used this practice.

But even when they did, it was never used as punishment. Torture was definitely never used as punishment, neither as a means of making someone confess.
I quote wikipedia here:
"Corporal or capital punishment for free men does not figure in the Germanic law codes, and banishment appears to be the most severe penalty issued officially."

But the people that converted to Christianism were Germanic nonetheless. While there are utterly few Dutchmen converting to Islam.

The people that converted at the time did it voluntarily.

Well, in that case my answer is essentially the same as the one I gave a few quotes back. The one with the 2 reasons.

I agree with that. But until they have become a normal aspect, they are.

That changes caused by technology and many other things come from within the country. The people who lived there have devised these cultural changes of their own. And thus these cultural changes are essentially the will of the people (otherwise they wouldn't have happened).
While changes caused by immigration is a change from outside the external environment, against the will of the people.

certainly not:)

If they'd be adapted to our culture, they would definitely be Europeans in my point of view.

Last week I met a black guy, and it seemed to me he had lived in the Netherlands for generations, so well did he speak Dutch. So well did he comply to our norms and values, to our behaviour.
But then he told me he came from Mozambique only 12 years ago, as a young boy.
I quote (well, pretty much since it's already a weak ago:)) him:
"When I came here, I wanted to learn the local language.
[...]
I wanted to eat the local food. And even though I didn't like it at first, I kept eating it because I knew that was what they ate here."

I really admire people like that. They should have all the right to be a full part of Dutch society. No matter what skin color they have, no matter where they come from.

Luckily times are closing when we dont need twenty pages discussions to establish that European people have a right to their culture.:yeah:

Im starting to read with anticipation stories like the one today.

Two African males are wanted for the abduction of a 16 year old girl in Finland.
They snatched her during her school trip in a van.
Took her to the woods and left her tied to a log in a stream from waist down,
luckily someone found her in time.
The details are not public yet and the perpetrators are still at large.

These immigrant crimes are often defended in Finland by saying that different cultures cause clashes.
Easy solution for that, dont mix cultures.:yeah: