Well! Our first formal day has come to an end! It was certainly a busy day, filled with almost too much interesting information, amazing lecturers and a beautiful city. We met in the classrooms at the Prins Hendrikkade location and kicked off the program with, no surprise, a brief orientation: to each other, the resident faculty, and the city itself. We were graced by Prof. Mirjam Schieveld of the Universiteit van Amsterdam, who provided an amazing background on Dutch politics, legislation and the repercussions therein. Interestingly, while the Netherlands is technically a parliamentary democracy, it is still a constitutional monarchy: that is, the legislation is governed by Parliament and the Prime Minister, but the head of state is Queen Beatrix, (whose role is more ceremonial than in the past) moderates between parties when compiling a new cabinet.
Principle socio-cultural differences between the United States and the Netherlands (as a function of legislation):
The legality of sex work, soft drugs and gay marriage. Two main points to keep in mind: the Dutch pride themselves on their pragmatism but also the idea of compassion instead of punishment. While sex work is legal in the Netherlands, this does not mean that it has social/societal approval. Just because it is not criminalized as it is in the United States does not mean that it is a fully accepted practice or profession. The emphasis is on work, prostitution is seen as a necessity: the oldest profession in the world (another example of Dutch pragmatism). There are main concerns for the population (both for prostitution and soft drugs): abuse of minors and public nuisance. With such a densely populated country, most Dutch laws are to "keep the peace" and prevent/reduce any public disturbances.
Finally, while gay marriage is legal here (in the Netherlands), it is a purely secular practice. This, to me, is the fundamental issue in the United States: it seems to me that US citizens are unable to separate civil marriage from holy matrimony. I'm not about to dictate your religious practices or comment on your spirituality, and while I feel that same-sex couples should be granted the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, maybe that's just my pragmatism speaking. If gay couples are going to exist anyway, why discriminate against an unavoidable situation? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are not preventing homosexuality or preventing the formation of same-sex couples; not providing basic rights is not preventative, so how can you justify this type of legal discrimination?
The whole legal issue surrounding soft drugs originated in the 1970s and they certainly provide a health/medical issue. Drugs are seen as a reality: people are going to use them, so do not criminalize them. The original goal of this legislation was to separate the worlds of 'normal use' and criminality. A lot of people are able to use (soft) drugs without becoming addicted, and of course, coffeeshops pay specific taxes for operation. While it is legal for coffeeshops to have up to 500g of cannabis on the premises, and only able to sell 5g per customer, it is illegal to grow marijuana. While seven plantations are shut down every day, seven more are opened. If the local government wants to enforce the law, they can do so (the iron fist in the velvet glove), it looks liberal and tolerant, but is actually a highly controlled and regulated practice. This applies not only to the drug policies, but also policies concerning sexwork.
The legality of sex work, soft drugs and gay marriage. Two main points to keep in mind: the Dutch pride themselves on their pragmatism but also the idea of compassion instead of punishment. While sex work is legal in the Netherlands, this does not mean that it has social/societal approval. Just because it is not criminalized as it is in the United States does not mean that it is a fully accepted practice or profession. The emphasis is on work, prostitution is seen as a necessity: the oldest profession in the world (another example of Dutch pragmatism). There are main concerns for the population (both for prostitution and soft drugs): abuse of minors and public nuisance. With such a densely populated country, most Dutch laws are to "keep the peace" and prevent/reduce any public disturbances.
Finally, while gay marriage is legal here (in the Netherlands), it is a purely secular practice. This, to me, is the fundamental issue in the United States: it seems to me that US citizens are unable to separate civil marriage from holy matrimony. I'm not about to dictate your religious practices or comment on your spirituality, and while I feel that same-sex couples should be granted the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, maybe that's just my pragmatism speaking. If gay couples are going to exist anyway, why discriminate against an unavoidable situation? By not legalizing gay marriage, we are not preventing homosexuality or preventing the formation of same-sex couples; not providing basic rights is not preventative, so how can you justify this type of legal discrimination?
The whole legal issue surrounding soft drugs originated in the 1970s and they certainly provide a health/medical issue. Drugs are seen as a reality: people are going to use them, so do not criminalize them. The original goal of this legislation was to separate the worlds of 'normal use' and criminality. A lot of people are able to use (soft) drugs without becoming addicted, and of course, coffeeshops pay specific taxes for operation. While it is legal for coffeeshops to have up to 500g of cannabis on the premises, and only able to sell 5g per customer, it is illegal to grow marijuana. While seven plantations are shut down every day, seven more are opened. If the local government wants to enforce the law, they can do so (the iron fist in the velvet glove), it looks liberal and tolerant, but is actually a highly controlled and regulated practice. This applies not only to the drug policies, but also policies concerning sexwork.
Amsterdam Architecture: A Brief Introduction
We ended Prof. Schieveld's lecture with a short lunch break, followed by a quick trip across the street to ARCAM: the Architectuurcentrum Amsterdam, where we were privy to the architectural history of Amsterdam from 1,200 CE - present. We discussed the natural topography and ecology. As many of you may know, the Netherlands are somewhat sunken; Rotterdam, Europe's largest port, is the lowest point sitting at 7m below sea level. Additionally, the area where Amsterdam is now, used to be (and would really love to return to) swampland. The city was built by pounding in tree-sized poles (12m long, to be on the safe side) into the ground, through the swamp, to the stable layer of sand below (sound kind of sketchy? This was actually how Seattle was originally constructed before the city burned in 1889) This too explains why most of the buildings in the old city center/canal neighborhood lean in on each other. As Dick Weeda (our tour guide) explained, the buildings are designed to lean forward, over the street - but the sideways bit, that's because whoever constructed the structure didn't use 12m poles for the foundation, they skimped out a little (in some cases, this wasn't a big deal - the sandy layer could be as shallow as 8m but usually no deeper than 10m). As the poles sink, the buildings' foundations sink as well, leaving these structures to appear precarious, at best.
Holland's architectural heyday was actually just recently (unlike it's economic pinnacle in the 17th century) due to architects like Aldo van Eyck and Rem Koolhaus. The Historicism period (also known as the Amsterdam Renaissance) began at the turn of the 19thC, creating such structures as the St. Nicholaaskerk (the church pictured above). The primary architect during this period was P.J.H. Cuypers. This style combines both gothic and renaissance architecture in an effective and monumental manner, without the gilding of the Rococo or the overwhelming tenderness of the Baroque. Also around the beginning of the 20thC, the Art Deco movement was taking hold all over Europe, leaving a more subtle mark in Amsterdam.
The next major period of Dutch architecture was that of the Amsterdam School, which is what Modern Dutch architecture looked like for the better part of the 20thC. Influenced by P.J.H. Cuypers and H.P. Berlage, the Amsterdam School is typical of modern architecture; similar to the International Style, but much more intimate. After WWII, this style is infused with socialist ideals; utilizing curving lines and organic concepts. Berlage also built the Stock Exchange Building (1903), now known as the Beurs van Berlage which can be seen above with the NYSE flag waving proudly.
No comments:
Post a Comment