In the novel A Murder in Amsterdam by Ian Buruma, the author follows the stories of prominent politicians and distinctive civilians that have recently come to shape Dutch society. The lives of Pim Fortuyn, Theodore Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Mohammed Bouyeri intersect in many ways throughout the book, despite their different backgrounds and in some cases, beliefs. Murder in Amsterdam discusses the negative consequences of booming multiculturalism in the traditional society of the Netherlands and the reactions of up and coming politicians and disgruntled immigrants.
Through the first five chapters of the novel, Buruma’s main sources and narration are focused on the anti-immigration stance of Fortuyn, Van Gogh, and Hirsi Ali. These charismatic politicians fight against multiculturalism, especially Muslims, because they believe that Islam is incompatible with the laws and lifestyle of the Dutch nation. In these chapters, it was difficult for me to see the other side of the argument for immigration with all of the first-hand accounts of citizens and influential politicians strongly speaking out against it. Outspoken and offensive remarks about Islam littered the first few chapters of the book with very little opposition or critique from the author. Although he did have primary accounts from moderate Muslims like Nora Choua, a law student from Morocco who supports multiculturalism, many of the others were quite biased. But with the bias of the accounts, Buruma did in fact remain impartial in his narration of those chapters even though they were dealing with very extreme views.
When it did come time for Buruma to choose a side, pro or anti multiculturalism, he surprisingly supported it. With many narratives and resources that were against immigration, Buruma’s choice was unexpected. In the final chapter, he made a very good and necessary point that the situation in the Netherlands with the Jews in the past and the Muslims in the present were not related. They are two very different conflicts and the Dutch only related them because it had “become a natural reflex when the question of ethnic or religious minorities came up” (240). And although the tensions have been high among Muslims and Dutch in the Netherlands and lots of his accounts were against the Muslims and their faith, Buruma concluded the novel by saying “people [Muslims] should be free to work these issues [balancing religion and fitting into a new nation] out for themselves” (260).
While his opinions and beliefs were subtle throughout Murder in Amsterdam, I appreciate that he finally spoke what he believed to be right by the end of the novel. It would have been better if the point of view was more apparent earlier on in the book because from my perspective I only saw offensive narratives from the politicians he chose to recount stories about, with little critique of their faults.
