3 Comments »

1. 1 David

   May 30, 2007 @ 8:33 pm CEST

   1. I’m currently reading “Murder in Amsterdam” by Ian Buruma. As a Dutch national what do you think of this book’s observations about the Netherlands (if you’ve read it)?

   2. I have not yet read it in full, but there is an interesting piece on Tariq Ramadan, the British media’s favourite Islamic “reformer” by Paul Berman in New Republic at:
   http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070604&s=berman060407
   Coming from the Author of Terror and Liberalism it should be an interesting read.

2. 2 Michael van der Galien

   May 30, 2007 @ 8:36 pm CEST

   Haven’t read it. Describe his observations?

3. 3 David

   May 30, 2007 @ 9:25 pm CEST

   The observations are too detailed to repeat.

   The murder which gives the book its title is that of Theo van Gogh. Buruma is a Dutch born academic who has lived in the USA since 1975. The book paints verbal portraits of van Gogh (rich, privileged, obnoxious and quite naive about any risk to himself) of Pim Fortyn (an ostentatious social climber) and various others.

   A few of the observations in the book that I would be interested in your comments on would be that Buruma regards the Netherlands as a quiet and religious country until the early 1960s. He says that in 1964 there was a great outrage at a parody of the 10 commandments on a satirical TV programme, yet 4 years later Amsterdam was a centre of the European counter-culture. Despite this much of rural Holland is still fairly conservative, especially in the Calvinist parts.

   He states that the death of Pim Fortyn was regarded a bit like the death of Princess Diana in the UK, that it led to a great national outpouring of sentimental and unDutch emotion.

   There is much more about the class backgrounds and accents of the people he meets. I’ve only just started his section on Hirsli Ali…..

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.