In places with the most migrants (Amsterdam), the long-standing Dutch tolerance and liberal values aren't at risk or being tested.
Areas with nearly no migrants and no long-standing tolerance or liberal values continue to have no migrants and no tolerance or liberalism.
A few very poor areas with poor populations continue to suck for both 'migrants' and 'native Dutch', as they always have. Both sides and a few opportunist populists overplay these areas. This situation would exist if the 'migrants' were Muslim, Catholics, or Rastafarians, because it really isn't about values, but instead economics and racism.
Funny you mention Amsterdam, where a large portion of the original inhabitants moved to Almere which accidentally happens to be one of the hotspots of the PVV. People tend to vote with their feet if nobody listens to them. Same happened in Suriname.
Not that I don't agree to the fact that Amsterdam still is one of the coolest places in the world also because of all the different people living there together. But sometimes you could acknowledge that not everybody that comes to Amsterdam comes with the idea to make it a better place together. Wouldn't you agree a true citizen of Amsterdam would be tolerant toward people of the same sex walking hand in hand?
But the famous red light district has been closed for a large part, new ridiculous rules for coffeeshops, ban on magic mushrooms (together with a rush of half or non true news items that seemed a throwback to the time the US wanted to ban marijuana in the 1920's and needed popular support for that).
It just goes on and on and on and all measures really only seem to affect people's liberties never the true criminals.
If that's true, how would you explain that tensions like that, and much, much, much worse exist everywhere that minority lives ? Especially in places where said minority is in fact a majority.
I mean, I'm all for tolerance. But denying the problem makes it worse. Even denying that this particular "minority" is particularly problematic, it might seem discriminatory, but it's also the blatant in-your-face truth. That makes it worth pointing out, and worth asking the simple question : why ?
In most religions the founder was the instigator of large-scale warfare (usually a foreignor or otherwise non-local person that managed to whip a large group of people into open revolt, like Moses or Muhammad). In islam, this is particularly obvious, as it's prophet probably came from Syria, and is responsible for massacres totalling at least 10000 bodies.
But islam is an exception in the opposite way of Christianity. Where Christianity is famous for choosing not to fight in situations where reasonable people would probably have picked up arms. Additionally Christianity is famous for having guilt for actions that Christians at best contributed to, but that no reasonable person can consider state actions. America is a good example, who feel guilty for massacring native Americans. Well, reading the history books, tell me this : what killed native Americans ? Conflict with the colonists ? Or diseases the colonists carried (which they did not know they carried at the time. And yes, some assholes existed. But look at historical massacres in, say, India. Tell me this : were they an accidental situation + a few assholes ? Or were they a systematically coordinated extermination campaign organized and carried out by an army ?). Good look finding a Turk that feels guilt about the Armenian massacre. Or a Pakistani that feels guilty about the partition massacres, about causing the biggest massacre of the 20th century, and then doing it again a decade later. Or an Iranian that feels guilt about the massacres they committed recently (ie. 30 years ago) in Iraq. Or an Iraqi that feels guilty about what Irak's army did in Iran. Or a Maroccan that feels guilty about what happened in Western Sahara to the indigenous population. Or ... Sorry to state the obvious, but this is part of muslim culture.
Islam is famous for committing huge massacres in small conflicts. This was true when islam was 1 year old (and 200 years away from being a religion), and it's true today. And yes, we do know islam was famous for committing massacres when it was very young, because we have written accounts of negotations between the prophet's emissaries and local leaders that say exactly that, both in the islamic history version of them, and in kept records. Muslim religious history accounts, incidentally, don't deny this : Islam massacred an entire city in a conflict was essentially about the location of Muhammad's tent camp, which was judged not sufficiently prestigious by him (He was a slave -and other wares- trader at the time). Another city was massacred because they did not let a woman "marry" one of the muslim commanders. This is not denied in those historical accounts, this is told, and presented as the way people should behave. What was massacred in the name of Islam recently, I don't think requires any real explanations.
But all this sort of talk, while it can prepare one for what is coming ("he who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it" and all), is water under the bridge. Whether or not we tolerate islam is not a decision we can make, or anyone can make really. This is going to frustrate a lot of people, but it is simply not how history works. Everybody seems to be under the ridiculous impression that this is the first time Europe sees massive muslim immigration, that racism is new, or that current attitudes to immigrants are particularly innovative somehow ... when of course in reality it's more like the tenth time this happens. Of course, the ten previous times can pretty much be summarized like this : muslims move in, get into ever more conflicts, commit genocide but suffer military defeat, get shot/knifed in large numbers and islam gets outlawed.
So let's ask ourselves the question : if history is to be learned from, what's coming is a large scale "terrorist" act, not with a single perpetrator, but a large group of muslims (say 500-1000 or more) committing a large scale massacre in a large European city, then the local army moves in, and after the soldiers see the dead bodies "somehow" every muslim gets killed, including a couple hundred that weren't part of the "terrorist" act.
What will the response to that be ?
And sorry to point out the obvious : most people are against war because of the very real costs wars have on normal people. That is the real cause of tolerance, not some moral imperative. The (justified) fear of war, fear of conflict. Needless to say, when the generally observed cost of not going to war massively exceeds the cost of going to war, this will reverse. So the response of modern states is not going to be all that different from the response of the hundreds of states that have historically faced this issue.
As I said, I don't care. I don't believe anyone has any choice in this, so opinions don't matter. Yours. Mine. That doesn't stop me from stating my opinion. Really, I see this as nothing more than a writing exercise. It's more fun than the writing I do at my job, and that, well I need that.
Also I work in the US. I have controversial opinions, which I believe to be based on obvious facts, but for obvious reasons I don't express them at work.
I disagree with that charge and am actively against it. I am grateful for waps's insight. It is absolutely dead-on based on my experiences and not only that, it was good writing. It helped me express in words some unconscious ideas and emotions that I've been having.
Areas with nearly no migrants and no long-standing tolerance or liberal values continue to have no migrants and no tolerance or liberalism.
A few very poor areas with poor populations continue to suck for both 'migrants' and 'native Dutch', as they always have. Both sides and a few opportunist populists overplay these areas. This situation would exist if the 'migrants' were Muslim, Catholics, or Rastafarians, because it really isn't about values, but instead economics and racism.