42 pages • 1 hour read
Ian BurumaMurder in Amsterdam: Liberal Europe, Islam, and the Limits of Tolerance
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2006A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Chapter 2Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Chapter 2 Summary: “Thank You, Pim”
Chapter 2 of Murder in Amsterdam is devoted to the late Dutch author, professor, and politician Pim Fortuyn, who was assassinated by a radical animal rights activist named Volkert van der Graaf on May 6, 2002. Known for his outspoken and controversial views about immigration, Islam in the Netherlands, and multiculturalism, Fortuyn was referred to as the “divine baldy” by Theo van Gogh and a thorn in the side of the traditional, liberal regenten (39) that dominated much of Dutch politics during Fortuyn’s lifetime.
Buruma frames the rise of Fortuyn, “[a] Roman Catholic fantasizer, a gay man who talked openly of sexual adventures in bathhouses and ‘backrooms,’ a show-off with the gaudy style of a showbiz impresario” (46), against the change of a Dutch political landscape. Until the 1990s, Dutch politics were dominated by a liberal “virtuous elite […] discreetly wielding power, supposedly for the common good, and brooking no interference” (49).
In his way, Pim Fortuyn’s stance against Islam in the Netherlands was embedded firmly in the Enlightenment principles of Western Europe, and though his message may have been confrontational due to the fact that he did not partake in the liberal group-think that had so dominated Dutch politics before his arrival, his opposition to Islam stemmed from having no “desire to have to go through the emancipation of women and homosexuals all over again” (56-57).
Ultimately, his murder was not at the hands of an Islamic extremist but a Dutch national who viewed him as tantamount to “Hitler” (41) and one who used “opportunism” (58) to advance his own cause at the expense of the downtrodden. Although an unlikely figure to rise to such national prominence given his background, upbringing, and persona, in a 2004 poll, Fortuyn was named “the greatest figure in Dutch history” (45) ahead of such notables as William of Orange, Rembrandt, Erasmus, and Spinoza.
Chapter 2 Analysis
In Chapter 2, through the figure of Pim Fortuyn, Buruma tries to offer a palpable example of all of the paradoxes that exist in the modern Netherlands. It is as though Buruma is saying that only within this context can a figure like Fortuyn can rise to such a national prominence. Fortuyn both fully encapsulates the values and norms of Dutch culture while simultaneously being the complete opposite of what traditional Dutch values tend to espouse. Contradiction and paradox are recurring undercurrents that inform Murder in Amsterdam. In Dutch society, tolerance and freedom of speech are two highly prized virtues, yet they are also in a way diametrically opposed to each other.
The image of Fortuyn—who managed both to be fully “Dutch” while also railing against the complacency and apparently lazy blindness of the Dutch ruling elite—allows for the Dutch confusion of identity to be manifested in a person. Both able to tap into a growing Dutch resentment of immigrants seemingly eroding the foundation of many Dutch Enlightenment institutions and personifying the type of counter-figure that has long been welcomed in the Netherlands, Fortuyn manages to be both an outsider and insider at the same time. Thus, he is perfectly positioned to comment on the policies of the Dutch government without easily being labeled as one thing or another.
His assassination not only heralds that of Theo van Gogh, but shows how, while the Netherlands likes to pride itself on inclusion and secular mores, it is now very susceptible to radicalism in all forms by those who view purity, whether intellectual or religious, as the ultimate goal of society. Dissent, if it is not seen as either pure or valid, must be silenced, and any means necessary is permissible.
