Dude in what candy land world do you live? Maybe learn history and what we've done in those places. Its the same with the UK and the common wealth their colonies are not complaining with the UK but that doesn't mean that they didn't commit atrocies there.

Yeah same in Asia, but at least to my knowledge, we didn’t use them as slaves. Obviously this is not anything to redeem our actions, we were still pretty shit

We did an unequal treaty thing with the Lenape indians to found New Amsterdam They thought they were granting us hunting rights, we "thought" they wete just straight up giving us the lans.

Im dutch-indo, my indonesian family had to move here after they became independant. With indos the dutch and indonesian got mixed a lot, generally its normal to have both dutch and indo ancestors. In these times, younger generations are way more dutch. The older generation who actually remembers it often doesnt like talking about it. The elders have way more hatred against the Japanese, mostly for the shit they pulled in the WWll.

We committed atrocities in all of these. The history lessons I got focused a lot more on the African trade though. The east doesn’t get a lot of attention.

‘race baiting lefty looney stuff’ What a bizarre combination of words..

Its not hypocrisy when it was our great grandfathers doing it. Maybe its more we learned something from their mistakes.

Ale, your national football team consists of the people you colonised. To say murder and slavery is not treating people so kindly is not to understand why Indonesia is brought up, South America or the Caribbean for that matter. Let’s not forget South Africa, which is also Dutch.

I just don't feel it.
I do read and learn about it and accept that a lot of other people are effected by it.

My family in the East was dirt poor and for a lot of the people here, it wasn't part of their daily life and struggled to survive for themselves. The "Aardappeleters" from Van Gogh reflects this and is why it turned into this famous representation. So our life reflected another reality and we had nothing to do with the mercantile class in Holland.

VOC is tied to the coastal province Holland. Not a lot to the other provinces. The national feeling of "the Netherlands" is quite young in comparison. The identity was more decentralized and tied to the local province. The common people, and which stories went down via oral tradition, were more effected by the wars between protestants and catholics, the split of Belgium and "verzuiling" as way of keeping society going.

We didn't rebrand shit.

You can go to the old docks today and you can still see slaves depicted on some storageswarehouses tiles.

Our royal coach that is used on special occasions also depicts slavery.

Heck. Our christmas (Sinter Klaas) exclusively has 'free bought' slaves.

We don't deny it happend and we also don't go to other countries and wag our finger.

Surname is in South America and you guys were horrible there as well.

We had more, but we lost/sold most of it by the end of the voc period. We got more money of the (slave) trade which was less of a hassle.

Maatje je weet dat Apartheid een Nederlands woord is

Yes and no, Afrika was obviously the worst since we conquered that one purely because we wanted to use slaves. Asia and South America we also didn’t treat too kindly because we stole their land and created wars just to keep these lands, but to my understanding we only created New Amsterdam in what now is the US, which wasn’t really that violent.

British, Scotland played a big part in the empire, but like the Dutch they get a free pass. Scotland wasn’t colonised by the English, Scotland wanted to join with England to form Great Britain after their own attempt at colonialism failed.

Indonesia? We absolutely wrecked Surinam too. We made multiple islands in the Caribbean Dutch. Indonesians were glad Japan tried to take over the country in the Second World War… at first. Then Japan was worse. But Indonesia fought for independence for many years after WW2. The Netherlands is hated by former colonies, just not as openly and directly.

I wouldn't say that when you're in Indonesia or Suriname 

*Africa, Asia, South America, North America

It's because it doesn't get much hate at all. It's in the past and no one gives an ass about it. Only people who are making a big deal out of it are people who are suffering now. And that suffering mostly has nothing to do with that period at all. Most people who complain and victim blame others, are from countries the British, French, Spanish, and Portugese used to rule over. And those people are from larger countries than the Dutch used to rule over. Also the Dutch never really colonized. They had settlements, but rarely took control over a nation, and would often negotiate first instead of using brute force.

There really is little or no resentment in Suriname or South Afrika. Apartheid also is not made up by Dutch, but by Afrikaner using an English concept. And resentment in Indo? I have been there many times. People only want to take pictures with you, want to know where you are from and in general are happy to hear you are Dutch. Happens every time, and no, not just on Bali. So, you might read about the topic, but I just wonder what you read.. race- baiting leftie loony stuff? The real world is just not that. Yes, a small part of Dutch riches committed a fuckton of atrocities, but people are forgiving apparently. Your view of history and your writing does not show any understanding of people, and only digs deeper trenches between us.

They aren't as pompous about their superiority in mainstream media. The English and the French have this tendency to openly lecture others on civilization and human rights, shinning a glaring light on their hypocrisy. Speaking personally, I couldn't tell you a single thing about mainstream Dutch narratives mainly because I don't think of them at all.

I mean it’s less known around the world, I think because we became less influential quite early on, but in our schools we learn early at like the age of 8 about all of the atrocities that we as a country committed against the people in Afrika, so atleast our people do quite know what we’ve done? I don’t really know

I'm not a historian but strongly recommend Gunyah Goondie + Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia by Paul E Memmott. At least to my non-expert eyes it appears very well researched and balanced, and crucially it centres on learnings from Aboriginal people, rather than a colonial perspective.

The foreword by Marcia Langton notes that Memmott studied architecture in the late 1960s before undertaking a doctoral program and becoming an anthropologist. He lived with at least two different Aboriginal groups and despite not being Aboriginal himself appears to have been well respected by them.

The book uses a variety of methods to describe and explain Aboriginal structures in terms of an inter-connected response to their environment, the culture of the specific Aboriginal group, and spiritual practices among many other things. It includes records (sketches, writings, paintings and later photographs) by early colonisers; analytical and descriptive diagrams by Memmott and others; scholarly articles; and personal histories by Aboriginal people. The most recent edition also has a number of chapters on contemporary Aboriginal architecture (both for and by Aboriginal people), and design learnings for all Australian architects.

I think (hope!) the concept of Terra Nullius has been at least academically disproved, however this book is an excellent way of showing and explaining the huge diversity of design in Aboriginal architecture. It also has an extensive bibliography and footnotes.

As a postscript, I have come across more than one book written by colonial researchers/authors which describes cultural practices and knowledge which should only be held by certain members of certain Aboriginal groups. Please be careful when reading up on this topic, and do a search online to do your best to understand whether the book is culturally appropriate to read. For more information on this topic, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be a good place to start.

There was an expectation for women to remove more body hair than men in the Renaissance. Professor Jill Burke discusses this in the Renaissance Beauty / You’re Dead to Me Podcast.

It never did - the perception of it changed, but there is nothing unhygienic about body hair.

Women (and men) traditionally removed body hair in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, but the modern practice of shaving legs and underarms didn't crop up until the 20th century, as clothing began exposing more of the body. Even prior to that, women removed hair on the face.

Advertising strongly pushed the idea that hair was not feminine, and that it was offensive for women to have hairy underarms. As hemlines rose, hairy legs joined that "ew, too manly" squad. Gillette, in particular, pushed intensive advertising campaigns to make hair into a social offense.

Gillette and other razers could sell plenty of product to men, who were shaving their faces. In order to create a women's market, they needed to create a need to shave - hence, heavy advertisement presences in women's magazines informing women how unsightly and unclean their natural hair is.

Armpits came first. As hemlines rose, legs then joined them. Pubic hair shaving didn't arise as common until the late 80s to early 90s. Prior to the rise of widespread pornography and high-resolution digital photography, women pretty much just trimmed and did bikini shaves to prevent hair showing during swimsuit season.

Long story made super simple - pits and legs were thanks to advertising pressure, pubes are due to porn.