Politeia utopia
30-01-2007, 12:03
So muslims need to be integrated and to do that both muslims and the hosts need to work towards it. Why?
Why does the host need to change to accomodate? There is only 1 Netherlands in the world. If the Dutch (and flemish) culture becomes half Dutch half muslim 70 years later, that'd suck, in my opinion. Kinda like the extinction of a species. In this case hybridisation of a species to prevent it from going extint ("muslims need to be integrated or they may take over because they are more sure..." Something like that)
People are giving a lot of thought to this integration bussiness. More can be achieved if more thought is given to develop poorer countries instead of importing poverty into modern countries ("half of muslims are on welfare")
You make some popular assessments, that nonetheless are flawed;
Let us assert that we are speaking of culture, a vague concept that can nonetheless be useful in this debate. First of all, national culture, like that of the Netherlands, with a common history and language is a construct as a result of the development of the Nation State.
Naturally, to one raised in a certain culture, it represents more than that. For, it represents the common norms, values and practices, which one has learned and internalized when growing up. Often, this is no more than silent agreement on how to act; we could well have agreed upon other ways to act but we have not. For example does one shake hands, kiss or bow, and what is the comfortable speaking-distance (an conversation between an Italian and an Englishman will likely end up with them waltzing through the room until the Englishman is cornered). Note that I am not speaking of state structure, which does not equal culture.
The thing is, one will always feel at home in the culture one is brought up in, and one will even consider that familiar way of doing things “the right way”, by which we measure all other ways. Naturally, in many cases there is no right or wrong way.
Moreover, culture, like that of the Netherlands, is neither uniform nor static and it has never been this way. Within any given culture we find very distinct sub-cultures based on class, home-town or music style. Cultures evolve over the course of time (what was your country like 30 or 50 years ago, how about 200 hundred years ago?) and through migration; there has always been migration, yet, the distances have diminished. Migration used to come from other cities and provinces, later from neighbouring countries and today from another continent. However, because of this increased migration flows one could speak of a Dutch culture. If you lived in the capital of the Netherlands Amsterdam a hundred or more years ago, for example, then that was your culture and when people migrated from other provinces or Belgium, they where looked upon as weird, jobless troublemaker; these problems have always solved themselves in three or four generations, becoming a first a subculture within the indigenous culture and later going up in the culture entirely, not without slightly changing the dominant culture. However this does not really matter; I see few angry Dutch saying how their culture has been changed by migrants from Antwerp in Belgium a few hundred years ago.
Consequently, we already see a European Muslim subculture emerging; problems arise when young people can neither identify with the culture of their parents, nor with the dominant culture, which is usually solved in three generations. However, treating another group as an enemy, in order to try to keep the other out of the dominant culture will only prolong these difficulties. For, it will lead those rejected by the dominant culture to militantly reject the dominant culture, which will lead to clashes.
The host does not need to change, for it only needs to accommodate; ensure that people are embedded in either the parental culture or the dominant culture. Do not force assimilation to the dominant culture on migrants but allow gradual integration. Ensure that especially the children of migrants, can find their way in the new culture by investing in language education. Furthermore, actively fight racism and prejudice.
Why does the host need to change to accomodate? There is only 1 Netherlands in the world. If the Dutch (and flemish) culture becomes half Dutch half muslim 70 years later, that'd suck, in my opinion. Kinda like the extinction of a species. In this case hybridisation of a species to prevent it from going extint ("muslims need to be integrated or they may take over because they are more sure..." Something like that)
People are giving a lot of thought to this integration bussiness. More can be achieved if more thought is given to develop poorer countries instead of importing poverty into modern countries ("half of muslims are on welfare")
You make some popular assessments, that nonetheless are flawed;
Let us assert that we are speaking of culture, a vague concept that can nonetheless be useful in this debate. First of all, national culture, like that of the Netherlands, with a common history and language is a construct as a result of the development of the Nation State.
Naturally, to one raised in a certain culture, it represents more than that. For, it represents the common norms, values and practices, which one has learned and internalized when growing up. Often, this is no more than silent agreement on how to act; we could well have agreed upon other ways to act but we have not. For example does one shake hands, kiss or bow, and what is the comfortable speaking-distance (an conversation between an Italian and an Englishman will likely end up with them waltzing through the room until the Englishman is cornered). Note that I am not speaking of state structure, which does not equal culture.
The thing is, one will always feel at home in the culture one is brought up in, and one will even consider that familiar way of doing things “the right way”, by which we measure all other ways. Naturally, in many cases there is no right or wrong way.
Moreover, culture, like that of the Netherlands, is neither uniform nor static and it has never been this way. Within any given culture we find very distinct sub-cultures based on class, home-town or music style. Cultures evolve over the course of time (what was your country like 30 or 50 years ago, how about 200 hundred years ago?) and through migration; there has always been migration, yet, the distances have diminished. Migration used to come from other cities and provinces, later from neighbouring countries and today from another continent. However, because of this increased migration flows one could speak of a Dutch culture. If you lived in the capital of the Netherlands Amsterdam a hundred or more years ago, for example, then that was your culture and when people migrated from other provinces or Belgium, they where looked upon as weird, jobless troublemaker; these problems have always solved themselves in three or four generations, becoming a first a subculture within the indigenous culture and later going up in the culture entirely, not without slightly changing the dominant culture. However this does not really matter; I see few angry Dutch saying how their culture has been changed by migrants from Antwerp in Belgium a few hundred years ago.
Consequently, we already see a European Muslim subculture emerging; problems arise when young people can neither identify with the culture of their parents, nor with the dominant culture, which is usually solved in three generations. However, treating another group as an enemy, in order to try to keep the other out of the dominant culture will only prolong these difficulties. For, it will lead those rejected by the dominant culture to militantly reject the dominant culture, which will lead to clashes.
The host does not need to change, for it only needs to accommodate; ensure that people are embedded in either the parental culture or the dominant culture. Do not force assimilation to the dominant culture on migrants but allow gradual integration. Ensure that especially the children of migrants, can find their way in the new culture by investing in language education. Furthermore, actively fight racism and prejudice.