9 hours ago, exchemist said:

Well yes I can agree this describes a particular attitude within Dutch society, but not that it is the official policy of the Netherlands. If the author asserts it is the latter, I would take issue with that, on the basis of my own experience of living there.

I think that is exactly the point. There are elements of hard policy, like passing a test, citizenship rules, etc. But there is also the bigger, much less defined notion of cultural integration, where issues such as this are present as data slides and become part of public discussion. I have not lived in the Netherlands, but from my experience in Germany, public discourse really makes the fine distinction that you are doing. Though the discussion has changed perhaps between 2010-2015 and then changed yet again.

From an immigrant perspective, the societal demands remain nebulous. What the author states is less about official policy, but more a critique on framing and methodologies, and while I cannot be sure, I think it was part of a discussion that tried to shift the discussion. You do see a shift in the official reports over time, for example. Especially post 9/11 there were big discussions regarding fear of radicalization by Islam and, after van Gogh's murder also in terms of broader social tension. Especially around this time Islam was strongly associated with being a risk factor to integration. After 2010, at least in my reading (not specific to the Netherlands, but more a general Western Europe reading) there was a slow shift to recognize Islam as part of religious diversity, rather than predominantly a risk factor. However, with the rise of ISIS the debate shifted yet again and then again in more recent times, where discrimination is increasingly recognized as an integration issue (rather than exclusively the property of immigrants, thus inching towards the aforementioned two-way street of integration). But the latest shift generally is used as fuel by right-wingers as part of the great replacement theory, which we started off with.

The issue is a bit that the official line (e.g. passing tests or citizenship rules) are insufficient for broader society to accept individuals as one of their own. In Germany, there is a continued distinction between Germans and Germans with a migration background. There are good reasons, but the recent debate of "remigrating" non-integrated Germans shows how vulnerable the position is and how persistent the distinction between native and non-native is. What the author claims is that, inevitably the discussion is rooted in notions of ethnicity and race, even if "culture" is used, as societal acceptance tends to stratify on those lines.

I do think most all immigrants try to assimilate into the new culture, I mean, they left their home, and everything they know for a 'better' life in a foreign country; they are obviously trying to get away from some aspects of their culture they don't agree with.
It is only when they are labelled, feared and overwhelmingly blamed for crime that they become 'militant'.
( note that I am a former immigrant to Canada, of Italian heritage/culture )

That being said, some cultures are definitely weird.
I have befriended, in the last couple of years ( through work ) some 5-6 Indian young men.
One, a dear friend who still keeps in touch after moving to Western Canada, is a strict vegetarian, but in the 5 years I worked closely with him, I never saw him eat any raw vegetables; every thing was processed and out of a bag.
Needless to say, he had high blood pressure and borderline diabetes at 28 years of age.
Maybe that was his way of assimilating to the Canadian 'way of life'.

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

I do think most all immigrants try to assimilate into the new culture, I mean, they left their home, and everything they know for a 'better' life in a foreign country; they are obviously trying to get away from some aspects of their culture they don't agree with.
It is only when they are labelled, feared and overwhelmingly blamed for crime that they become 'militant'.
( note that I am a former immigrant to Canada, of Italian heritage/culture )

That being said, some cultures are definitely weird.
I have befriended, in the last couple of years ( through work ) some 5-6 Indian young men.
One, a dear friend who still keeps in touch after moving to Western Canada, is a strict vegetarian, but in the 5 years I worked closely with him, I never saw him eat any raw vegetables; every thing was processed and out of a bag.
Needless to say, he had high blood pressure and borderline diabetes at 28 years of age.
Maybe that was his way of assimilating to the Canadian 'way of life'.

I think assimilate is a bit of a misnomer as especially in the European context the public often demands a form of erasure. It may seem weird in the Canadian context which not only has two official languages, but is also (increasingly) aware of the many pre-colonial native languages. As you said, Canada strives for a mosaic, which allows for maintaining some level of cultural context, which does create a unique vision of Canadian identity. I will also say that this, of course is not without friction and there is a lot to say about how folks think about the term heritage Canadians (and especially First Nations folks). I think, as stated before, there needs to be a two-way street where other cultures are allowed to play some role of the overall societal fabric, otherwise, the system will, on average, push folks toward the fringes. If cultures do not interact, they won't blend. You cannot just demand to one become the other.

And regarding the issue of political Islam and with all its complication: these sort of movements are, similar to other far-right loons, stronger in disenfranchised groups that do not see themselves as somehow excluded from society. And honestly, I see little difference between those guys and the far-right extremists who are becoming increasingly stronger with their weird view on how society should look like, the role of women (and men), the rise of manosphre and white nationalism- all of it fits pretty much the same common narrative of perceived threat by... something and the need for radicalization, scapegoating and essentially ending democracy to counter this perceived threat.

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe that was his way of assimilating to the Canadian 'way of life'.

Hah, I have vegetarian students, but they all gain weight when they are home and promptly lose it when around here. Probably they are not well-assimilated. CAD for all (coronary artery disease)!

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

think assimilate is a bit of a misnomer as especially in the European context the public often demands a form of erasure.

It certainly has been a misnomer here, as per my earlier allusion to indigenous tribes in the US. Where it was definitely about erasure. It's some better now, and the nearest high school to us now has Lakota (the language of the Sioux tribes around here) as an elective course.

Agree with your comments about the fears of "replacement" or marginalizing as drivers of FR authoritarian subversion of democracy. Some of the manosphere loonies are especially worried about manly men disappearing as all are replaced by "soyboys." The mention of veganism reminded me of this and generally the way mythologies proliferate from some starting single kernel of anxiety.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

It certainly has been a misnomer here, as per my earlier allusion to indigenous tribes in the US. Where it was definitely about erasure. It's some better now, and the nearest high school to us now has Lakota (the language of the Sioux tribes around here) as an elective course.

True. Also, when it comes to First Nations or other Indigenous groups the idea of native is much more complicated than white nationalists would like it to be. But that is another topic, of course.

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

It may seem weird in the Canadian context which not only has two official languages, but is also (increasingly) aware of the many pre-colonial native languages.

Only 2 ?

In a country the size of a continent!

On 8/26/2026 at 1:53 AM, TheVat said:

To many Americans, accustomed to a highly heterogenous patchwork quilt of cultures, there's a tendency to find phrases like "______ integration" offensive. Integration is a word that somehow always conjures its opposite. Having lived next to an indigenous reservation, I know "assimilation" (with it's very dark history out here) also makes good people bristle. Such terms are a reminder of how often a core ideal of America has been tarnished by its own citizens. Groupthink, usually paranoia-driven, subverts all the fine talk enshrining individualism.

I don't think it's driven by paranoia, it's driven by advertising within a biased media, which doesn't really care about a culture other than it's cost benefit equation.

Part of the issue here is a notion of culture as a static thing, which it most decidedly is not. People have a mental snapshot of it which feeds the illusion, but if culture weren’t fluid parents would have a much easier time of relating to their kids. Music popularity changes, fashion changes, technology changes — all of these things (and more) are part of, or affect, culture.

The premise of the OP is that being British is based on being white and that being immutable while ignoring a lot of the rest of the ever-changing culture. Which IMO is racist and myopic. The description of being <Nationality> is not a static thing.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The premise of the OP is that being British is based on being white and that being immutable while ignoring a lot of the rest of the ever-changing culture. Which IMO is racist and myopic. The description of being <Nationality> is not a static thing.

A fallacy that was thrown into sharp relief by the kerfuffle caused when a 2018 genetics study of the mid-mesolithic Cheddar Man indicated he likely had a bit of a tan.. A finding that had the bleached Anatolian farmers and Pontic steppe pastoralists of the Home Counties choking on their cornflakes

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Only 2 ?

In a country the size of a continent!

Officially yes, but the list of spoken languages are way more diverse, of course.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The premise of the OP is that being British is based on being white and that being immutable while ignoring a lot of the rest of the ever-changing culture. Which IMO is racist and myopic. The description of being <Nationality> is not a static thing.

The racist part is also apparent from the assumption that British identity is being erased if families are mixed, which of course culturally does not make any sense. Rather it is akin to the explicitly single-drop concept. Some authors (including the one I cited) extend the criticism to the concept of society writ large which assumes some kind of common-sense definition that is a) not aligned with actual societal composition and b) includes ephemeral notions that are part of a usually exclusionary vision of society.

This is also reminiscent to what a lot of illiberal and/or fascists systems like to do: envision a reality based on a past that never existed. And of course evidence to the contrary such as those

47 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

A fallacy that was thrown into sharp relief by the kerfuffle caused when a 2018 genetics study of the mid-mesolithic Cheddar Man indicated he likely had a bit of a tan.. A finding that had the bleached Anatolian farmers and Pontic steppe pastoralists of the Home Counties choking on their cornflakes

Are promptly ignored.

At school in the 1950s I remember being taught that the British are a 'mongrel race and that is their great strength' as each invasion/addition/immigration has added something unique and worthwhile to the nation.

It is sad that our governments continue to short change as many of these incomers as it can and always has done.

Edited August 27Aug 27 by studiot

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

At school in the 1950s I remember being taught that the British are a 'mongrel race and that is their great strength' as each invasion/addition/immigration has added something unique and worthwhile to the nation.

It is sad that our governments continue to short change as many of these incomers as it can and always has done.

And traces of that can be found in mesh-up in the language as well and the sometimes seemingly random French pronunciation of words.

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And traces of that can be found in mesh-up in the language as well and the sometimes seemingly random French pronunciation of words.

Yes that's right.

The lesson included the information that this is why beef comes from cows, pork comes from pigs and so on.

I'm not sure one can really define a single "American culture" in any meaningful way. The culture on Haight Street in San Francisco, California is vastly different from Main Street in Wheatfield, Indiana. It seems it mostly comes from the amount of conformity expected, there are many things that would be considered outrageous in Wheatfield that almost nobody in SF would think to be unusual. Therein lies the debate, which version is the "real" American culture and who gets to say what it is?

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes that's right.

The lesson included the information that this is why beef comes from cows, pork comes from pigs and so on.

I still cannot get over how long it took me to realize where knight came from, especially as a German speaker.

8 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I'm not sure one can really define a single "American culture" in any meaningful way. The culture on Haight Street in San Francisco, California is vastly different from Main Street in Wheatfield, Indiana. It seems it mostly comes from the amount of conformity expected, there are many things that would be considered outrageous in Wheatfield that almost nobody in SF would think to be unusual. Therein lies the debate, which version is the "real" American culture and who gets to say what it is?

To quite some degree you can do that for most countries. And even smaller countries have distinct areas with distinct dialects and even languages. Much of nationalism are fairly recent constructs as those identities are not really that old, all things considered and even within that time period have changed markedly, as Swansont mentioned.

10 hours ago, studiot said:

The lesson included the information that this is why beef comes from cows, pork comes from pigs and so on.

When I asked my mother why all the meats had French names, she put it quite succinctly:

It's so everyone knew who got to raise the animals, and who got to eat them.

On 8/16/2026 at 3:08 PM, TheVat said:

I have to ask: are you on the spectrum? This quote is so clearly someone responding to your prejudice with some withering sarcasm, that I have to wonder if you cannot pick up on basic social signals.

Try to zoom back a bit from your own written words and consider what they reveal.

Also.... evidence? Beyond your personal anecdotes about raper/pillagers named Bob, and your hot takes on what seem to be impoverished areas?

My prejudices are based on my own personal experience, on the spectrum yes definitely! We all have prejudices, whether we like to admit them or share them depends. I'm proud of my heritage and want to protect it, what's wrong with that? it seems that only certain groups are allowed to do so, others branded racist or "prejudice".

The irony of all this though is that there is a possibility that all cultures will fall, to AGI.

On 8/16/2026 at 12:51 PM, swansont said:

It’s racist when you paint all people as the same, based on the actions or traits of an individual.

As far as “any other culture” goes, I think that’s just a fabrication. Other cultures are going through similar things and seeing the same kind of reactions, pro and con. You also say “the British” when it’s “some British” which is also stereotyping. It deflects individual responsibility for the racism when you can say everybody is doing it, just like it makes it easier to treat people a certain way if they're all painted with the same brush.

I don't think I personally said that "all" people of a certain culture are doing it, perhaps implied such. But I stand corrected if so.

I think for people who aren't living the experience its easy to sit back and stand on a soap box and tell us that we are wrong, or racist or what whether narrative is in vogue. Politicians live in their posh suburbs, with an healthy incomes, living outside of reality for the majority, how can they prescribe for something they have no real life experience of?

On 8/22/2026 at 1:06 PM, MigL said:

I was vacationing in Europe since the 5th and missed this ...

Ignorant people, like all MAGA and Lynkey, should be reminded that, with the current birthrate in the UK ( as well as the rest of Europe, North America, and Oriental nations like S Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc. ) there will not be ANY Britons left in less than 200 years.
What is preferable, an empty island, or one populated by different cultures ( and young people who work and pay taxes to support the pensions of the aged Britons ) ?

I would think, not only should they be bringing in immigrants, but also providing their children with free education to help them assimilate into the British way of life, and rid them of some negative cultural 'baggage' that they may bring with them.
But of course, MAGA and Linkey view this as immigrants getting 'freebees' even though it helps alleviate the problems they often cite.

But what you described is not what is happening, I along with most welcome immigration. Its healthy for the economy and culture. But the vast majority of immigrants coming into the UK are illegal young men who are in majority looking for an easy life and free ride. They have no intention of integrating and working and paying towards the system they reek the benefit of.

Unfortunately the utopian society of multiculturism, diversity and equality is not a reality. Currently immigration is just breeding unrest, division and more unlawful activity. Native British working class people are in general struggling to pay bills, yet they see their tax money being spent on housing illegal immigrants in big hotels, not for a few weeks but for years. There are 2 hotels in our town which have housed illegal immigrants for nearly 8 years, at the tax payers expense. All while the town's basic maintenance is ignored. The town is a ghetto now. This is not integration, its an invite for more illegals to come and live for free off other people.

For those of you who don't live this, have experienced this, it may come across as though people, like myself, who are starting to stand up against it are prejudice.

On 8/16/2026 at 2:55 PM, StringJunky said:

Nothing and nowhere stays the same. We see what we want to see and ignore the rest.

We can't stop change, I agree entirely. It should be welcomed if its in the best interests of society as a whole. True diversity with integration can achieve this. But in reality that is not what is happening. Society as a whole is not benefiting from the change.

So should we sit back and ignore this? People tend to choose to ignore what is not in vogue even when the real issues are staring them in their face.

Are you brave enough to face a reality that is uncomfortable, which if you stand against might make you appear to be something you don't like?

Good or bad, the real you is in your heart and you and only you know it. What other people think of you is irrelevant.

On 8/16/2026 at 1:58 PM, npts2020 said:

I'm not British but it seems to me the US and UK are fairly similar when it comes to values and morals and we hear the same line about "eroding our values, etc...". However, there are some of us who don't care for the hypocrisy of, "might makes right" unless it is against us or the hoarding mentality of too much is never enough, that is endemic in both cultures, so maybe change is not such a bad thing. People complain about "sharia law" without even knowing what it is. Seems to me most of the complainants would like sharia law in the civil arena since it prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation and really isn't that much different from laws anywhere else. It's mostly in the religious part where practitioners have to be hypocrites to allah instead of god that they differ. Other than that it seems both want to impose their own fanatical beliefs on anyone deemed worthy of not being killed...

Of course there are people (tend to be classed as far right) who are selfish and dead against any change, any integration, any diversity or equality. those people are just as, and possibly the worst type for a society as a whole. I think people in general are happy for diversity and integration. The problem arises when this is not achieved in a way that is best for the society as a whole. Religion often is the driving force behind the difference in the morals and culture. I'm not religious in any sense of the word. The little I have read I find faults, but also good points in all religions. Any culture that impose fanatical beliefs is not good for a diverse and peaceful society. But this is happening within our cities.

6 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I'm not sure one can really define a single "American culture" in any meaningful way. The culture on Haight Street in San Francisco, California is vastly different from Main Street in Wheatfield, Indiana. It seems it mostly comes from the amount of conformity expected, there are many things that would be considered outrageous in Wheatfield that almost nobody in SF would think to be unusual. Therein lies the debate, which version is the "real" American culture and who gets to say what it is?

I think the American stereotypes basically covers both as it does for us Brit's, culture is the wrong word to use, in this context, society seems a better fit.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My prejudices are based on my own personal experience, on the spectrum yes definitely! We all have prejudices, whether we like to admit them or share them depends. I'm proud of my heritage and want to protect it, what's wrong with that? it seems that only certain groups are allowed to do so, others branded racist or "prejudice".

A common statement in defence of this position is "my best friend is black/jewish/muslim/christian/irish"...

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think for people who aren't living the experience its easy to sit back and stand on a soap box and tell us that we are wrong, or racist or what whether narrative is in vogue. Politicians live in their posh suburbs, with an healthy incomes, living outside of reality for the majority, how can they prescribe for something they have no real life experience of?

If you wait long enough the political fashion will cough up someone from your street, save your vote for them, whatever their colour/creed.

One of the best here in Blighty was Aneurin Bevan and he was Welsh!!!

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't think I personally said that "all" people of a certain culture are doing it, perhaps implied such. But I stand corrected if so.

The “you” was meant as the generic you. I should have said “one”

The people who are claiming to fear e.g. all Pakistanis based on the utterance of one, using it to justify their attitude and actions.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think for people who aren't living the experience its easy to sit back and stand on a soap box and tell us that we are wrong, or racist or what whether narrative is in vogue. Politicians live in their posh suburbs, with an healthy incomes, living outside of reality for the majority, how can they prescribe for something they have no real life experience of?

That’s probably part of the problem; in the US we have politicians describing big cities they don’t live in as hellscapes, describing problems that don’t exist as justification for hating the cities and the people living there. Other people latch on to those descriptions as being true, yet the folks who actually live there are doing just fine.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm proud of my heritage and want to protect it, what's wrong with that? it seems that only certain groups are allowed to do so...

Who is keeping you from your heritage?

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

.Any culture that impose fanatical beliefs is not good for a diverse and peaceful society. But this is happening within our cities.

What fanatical beliefs have been imposed on you? Were you forced to attend a mosque? Marry a 13 year old? Sacrifice a goat during Eid Al-Adha? Join a jihad?

You keep making the claim you have personal experience of cultural imposition - what are examples?

Edited August 28Aug 28 by TheVat

What is 'heritage' when societies are a kaleidoscope of constant change. Modern societies are not like the much slower changing societies pre-industrial revolution.

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

There are 2 hotels in our town which have housed illegal immigrants for nearly 8 years, at the tax payers expense. All while the town's basic maintenance is ignored. The town is a ghetto now. This is not integration, its an invite for more illegals to come and live for free off other people.

This does seem like a policy decision and it is somewhat curious that in your mind it is the fault of the immigrants, who, needless to say, have no power to change policy. Also, it is not a zero-sum game. Typically, asylum seekers are paid for by the government, not by municipalities. Also note that the UK has banned asylum seekers to work while waiting for a decision (usually a 12 month frame). Assuming that asylum seekers intend to live for free is also a stereotypical claim. The overall employment rate of asylum seekers with status is 45-50%, which is lower than the general population >70%. However there are likely barriers (policy, economic or otherwise). In the US, labor participation among asylum seeker was higher than the US average (72% vs 62% in 2025) and in Canada it is likewise pretty close. IOW if the issue is indeed an economic one (which is doubtful, to be honest) then there are likely structural and policy changes to improve that.

But I would argue that that asylum seekers actually play a critical role here. If they are all gone and the infrastructure remains crappy, who is left to blame? Having a group to scapegoat is a time-honored tradition to avoid accountability and you wouldn't want to lose that.

After all, NHS was fixed by Brexit, right?

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

What fanatical beliefs have been imposed on you? Were you forced to attend a mosque? Marry a 13 year old? Sacrifice a goat during Eid Al-Adha? Join a jihad?

Maybe ate a shawarma?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

What is 'heritage' when societies are a kaleidoscope of constant change. Modern societies are not like the much slower changing societies pre-industrial revolution.

Sounds like one of those words that means whatever people want it to mean when they're trying to form a sense of personal identity combined with a sense of belonging.

A lot of people just check the trad boxes, nationality and religion. That doesn't work for me too well, since I'm a blend of ancestral nationalities and religious sects, plus several who more or less rejected parts of those. One even burned down a forest belonging to a king, to protest excesses of the monarchy. They didn't talk about him much on that side of the family.

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Maybe ate a shawarma?

No wonder he's disgruntled. It probably made him start to hate English cooking.

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

fter all, NHS was fixed by Brexit, right?

HaHa!
Love it ( but it's not too late to go back ).

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

  27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Maybe ate a shawarma?

No wonder he's disgruntled. It probably made him start to hate English cooking

At least EEnglish cooking has clearly defined meat, like cheap fish or mutton; swarma has 'mystery' meat 😄 .

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Native British working class people are in general struggling to pay bills, yet they see their tax money being spent on housing illegal immigrants in big hotels, not for a few weeks but for years. There are 2 hotels in our town which have housed illegal immigrants for nearly 8 years, at the tax payers expense.

I quote from The Migration Observatory (University of Oxford)

How can someone become an unauthorised migrant in the UK?

There are four main ways in which a person can become an unauthorised migrant in the UK:

1. Enter the UK legally on a visa and overstay (including when their visa is cancelled due to a criminal conviction).

2. Enter the UK without authorisation or through deception, such as using forged documents.

3. Remain in the UK after an asylum application has been rejected and all rights of appeal exhausted.

4. Be born in the UK to parents who are unauthorised migrants, because the UK does not have birthright citizenship.

Figure 1

Research indicates that many unauthorised migrants first arrived in the UK legally, usually by air, rather than without authorisation. Some people who claim asylum will initially have entered the UK without authorisation or lost legal status after overstaying a visa. People with pending asylum claims tend to be described as “asylum seekers” and not “unauthorised migrants”, since they have some legal protections (most notably, against being removed to their country of origin).

The only group housed for any length of time in ''big hotels at taxpayers expense" are individuals with pending asylum claims who are unable to support themselves financially. These people have an entirely legal right to remain until their application has been rejected and all rights of appeal exhausted. You are clearly very confused. Which group exactly are you complaining about?

In passing The Migration Observatory also has clear data on taxpayer cost:

How much does the UK spend on its asylum system?

Large backlogs increase the cost of the UK’s asylum system. Asylum seekers are generally not allowed to work while their applications are pending. Those who are destitute can receive support from the government, primarily in the form of accommodation. In addition, they receive £49.18 per week in asylum support to cover food and other living costs. This is reduced to £9.95 per week for those living in hotels that provide meals.

The UK spent around £4.8bn on its asylum system in the 2024/25 financial year, 12% less than the previous year, but still high by historical standards. Around 107,000 asylum seekers were receiving government support at the end of 2025, close to record levels. Since the initial decision backlog was only 49,000, this indicates that a majority of people in asylum accommodation had been refused and were awaiting appeal (or, in a smaller number of cases, removal).

When more accommodation is needed than the Home Office has available, contingency accommodation is used. In practice, this has mostly been hotels. The number of asylum seekers in hotels peaked at 46,000 in 2023 and stood at 31,000 at the end of 2025. The government has pledged to close all asylum hotels by the end of this parliament in 2029. Achieving this would require a sharp decline in the combined initial decision and appeals backlog, a meaningful expansion of longer-term dispersal accommodation, or both (for more details, see Asylum accommodation in the UK).

Since the new Labour goverment has dramatically reversed the long term (deliberate?) neglect of this issue, and promised to close all asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, I imagine they must have your wholehearted support.

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

All while the town's basic maintenance is ignored. The town is a ghetto now

And who exactly has presided over the decline of your town over the bulk of the last twenty years? And encouraged you to blame it on the immigrants rather than the greed of their financial backers? (A bait you seem to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker)