[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by DarkFish

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 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.

I can't help but notice this quote by you:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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)

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.

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.

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".

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.

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?