I can find myself in this. Over time it ingrains in society and it is considered as normal. I can also see that happening to other “problems” that are currently present in the Netherlands.
That whole party is a joke and I’m happy it’s falling apart. Hopefully everyone will see what an horrible thing that man is/was doing.
Strange thing is that I’ve seen interviews with him were he is quite congenial and intelligent. It’s just the idiotic notions the man has and his desperation for attention.
I was trying to be succinct (a thing for which I have little natural talent). Was – rightly or wrongly – looking at the business as really getting rolling, from around the time of the Napoleonic Wars.
My perception – apparently at least partly shared with MrDibble, as of his post immediately before yours – is that it’s “apples and oranges” re the Dutch of Holland vis-a-vis the Afrikaners; the latter culture, an offshoot of the former which went in its own direction, a considerable while back. Others may see the matter otherwise.
What with humankind’s general track record: even disliking categories of people, but letting them alone and doing them no overt harm unless you are personally impinged on; could – rather sadly – be seen as not such bad going.
That is real tolerance.
Why should I be impressed that you ‘tolerate’ people you like or identify with? That’s like upholding the free speech of people whose opinions you agree with.
No, the crucial test–the whole point, really–is whether you accept that people have rights even when you don’t necessarily like what they do.
It seems like it, but it’s still a horrible place when people openly say homosexuals are disgusting, or “no child of mine” etc, but you’ll allow them to marry because you don’t care what they do.
So I would say real tolerance is “I don’t want to have sex with a dude, but I’m totally cool with you wanting to have sex with a dude”. The Dutch, in the beginning, were just averting their eyes. They weren’t totally cool with it. Which perhaps is less bad than being openly hostile, but is still homophobic.
Anyway, it worked out. My traditional, religious grandFIL was completely cool with and proud of his gay granddaughter. 
People should not have to be “totally cool” with any and everything that other people might wish to think or practice in the society around them. Ultimately it’s not even possible; some groups will want to think and practice things that are diametrically opposed to one another–religions being the easiest example. I am not totally cool with everthing every religious sect is about, and no one sincerely could be. But I accept that they have the right to go about their lives and participate in society (or not) as they see fit, within the same broad terms (not infringing on others’ rights) as everyone else.
Look, I too welcome the progress of any culture toward not having/wanting to ‘avert their eyes’ from gay people. I am totally for multiculturalism. But it’s not morally necessary that everybody embrace everybody else. Letting folks be, is. And as vontsira says, just such tolerance is in short enough supply.
Understood, no problem. 
Agreed. Lately I’ve started to worry that being open and inclusive means a person has to quash their own ethics and values rather than saying enough is enough. There are beliefs and practices in some cultures which are harsh and intolerant. I think it is reasonable to say you do not agree and even restrain such practices.
The two examples which most readily come to mind are female circumcision in some Islamic populations, and child/wife beating in Pacific Island communities.
You could argue it began much earlier, with say the capture of Ceuta by the Portuguese in 1415. The Portuguese also had colonies in South America and Indian by the early 1500s.
My husband was purchasing a blowgun from an Indonesian, could be twenty years ago now, and he was trying to discover what they were once used to hunt? What animals. But the fellow spoke no English and hubby only fractured Malay so it was tough going. When a more fluent person appeared he reasked the question and was surprised how casually he responded, ‘the Dutch.’ And he seemed in earnest.
Also when you stay in losmen, or guesthouses, they often provide a large bolster like bed thingy, to make sleeping in the tropical heat more bearable. You sort of drape an arm or leg over it. This item is routinely called a Dutch wife!
And lastly I could swear when I visited Bandung there was a commemorative plaque of some sort of other, marking the introduction of ‘third world’ in it’s current usage, having been coined at some heavy political meeting in that location. Could have been in the sixties maybe?
At that time, 1st world meant the ‘free’ democratic/capitalist world, 2nd world was the Commies (China, Russia, etc), 3rd world was the developing nations, and the 4th world, (which no one actually labelled or mentioned), effectively the dead in the water economies of places like Africa. It’s easy to see that the world doesn’t break down this way anymore. These days I think ‘third world’ is now less a definition of politics and economics and more about infrastructure.
Possibly because the British kicked the Dutch out of Malacca more than 200 years ago and the Dutch didn’t seem to do much when they were there - most of their energy was focussed on Batavia. They built the Stadthuys and the Christ Church and generally didn’t seem to bother anyone too much, apparently.
Before the Dutch, the Portugeuse were running the place and their rule seems to be remembered by the Malaysians largely for introducing Christianity to the region, helping create Nonya cuisine and building a fort whose ruined gate now makes a popular tourist attraction.
I’ve always thought it was interesting that of all the colonial powers, the French are the only ones who still have any significant overseas territories nowadays.
You’re thinking of the Non-Aligned Movement, which took its origin from the 1955 Bandung Conference sponsored by Sukarno. The NAM was formally founded in Belgrade in 1961 sponsored by Tito. It was a way for leaders of non-NATO, non-Warsaw Pact nations, like Nasser and Indira Gandhi, to form a counterpoise to the dichotomously dipolar balance of power in the Cold War, to defend the interests of nations who did not want to take their marching order from either Washington or Moscow. It was not synonymous with “Third World,” but largely overlapped the concept.
Not to be confused with the soft drink called bandung, which is sweetened milk colored pink and flavored with rosewater. I don’t know if there’s a connection between the two.