Buruma Knows Best?

Ian Buruma has written an interesting book to say the least. The main problem presented to us in this novel is the battle raging between the native Dutch and Muslim immigrants. The Dutch feel that they’ve been tolerant of immigration for far too long and it is about time that they took action to save their country from this foreign menace. Maybe the Dutch should have realized that allowing such a great influx of immigrants into their country would cause some sort of shift in national identity so why were the Dutch so open-minded about immigration in the first place? That’s mostly due to the Dutch feeling guilty about World War II and Anne Frank and how they vowed to never turn their back on a minority ever again. Well, that’s all very nice and heroic but when most Dutch feel threatened that their national

identity is deteriorating then maybe actions should have been taken to prevent such large numbers of immigrants or at least make sure that these immigrants were able to integrate into society at least.

And that’s where the main conflict occurs. Once again we find ourselves back upon the subject of globalization and how it has led to the deterioration of national identities. The Moroccans feel isolated in the strange Netherlands and therefore flock to their faith in order to preserve some semblance of their Moroccan identity. This leads to a divide, where it is Dutch versus Islamic identity and there seems to be no middle ground. It’s a battle of two extremes. On one side you have the Dutch extremists like Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh whose sole purpose in life is to instigate and offend others and, by doing so, they believe they can bring about some kind of change in society. On the other side, you have extremists such as Mohammed Bouyeri, who believe that the only answer is to kill the infidels. A problem arises when both sides are unwilling to listen to the problems the other side brings forth; when there is no communication, there can be no understanding and this lack of understanding leads people to turn towards other solutions. 

Along with Theo and Pim,  you have the hate filled tirades of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She attacks Islam and declares that it is a primitive and barbaric religion by basing her ideas on her own personal experiences. Yes, you had a terrible and oppressive childhood and no, you cannot decree an entire religion and it’s billion followers to be evil imbeciles. She preaches that we should go back to “Enlightenment ideas” and “strip away culture” therefore leaving only the human individual. I can’t help but see the similarities with this idea of a man solely with his thoughts and stripping the culture to leave only a man and God. So, if one strips away culture, you’re either left with an Enlightened person or with a Islamic extremist. We can’t exactly go back to the way Voltaire critiqued the Catholic Church since 1.) in Islam, there is not central power such as the Catholic Church, so a criticism of Islam is instead viewed as a direct attack on a person’s identity and 2.) any inflammatory remarks are instantly dissipated via the Internet and you’ll have a fatwa on your head within the hour. 

In the end, I feel as if Buruma doesn’t offer a substantial solution and rather leaves us with the thought that extremism is bad and that this kind of illogical behavior can happen anywhere. And so, with that knowledge imparted, we must learn that extremist behavior, on either side of the spectrum, leads to the closure of the negotiation channels and we’re left with nothing but our fists and hatred towards the other side. Moral of the story: moderation is key.