Surely We're Not Going There Again!

[chrispillertkd]

Listen to this racist:

"When one doesn't speak the language of the country in which one lives that doesn't serve anyone, neither the person concerned, the country, nor the society," ... "That is why I tell them at every opportunity that they should learn German, and speak it fluently and without an accent. That should start at nurseries."

And he has the nerve to call himself the President of Turkey...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101017/wl_afp/germanymuslimreligionimmigration

Pax,

Chris

 

[Tez3]

Yeah, the President of a country that kills it's Kurdish citizens. You might call him a racist thinking you are mocking but you need to actually look at whats going on in Turkey and the civil rights issues that are being ignored because it's a Muslim country thats also in NATO. You might like to look up who the Turks are that are emigrating to Germany and why. Then you'll see why the President of Turkey likes to pretend they are causing the problems there themselves.
http://www.hrw.org/en/by-issue/essential-background/218

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119109.htm

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=199996
"In an annual report released on Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the top judicial body to rule on human rights violations in Europe, found that Turkey is by far the worst violator of human rights among the 47 signatory states of the European Convention on Human Rights."

Easier for him to blow smoke in peoples eyes by saying well of course it's all the emigrants fault, he's in a position of authority, no doubt rich, has influence and power, what the hell would he know about poor Turks lives in Germany, they've left Turkey why the hell would he even care?

Gentlemen, not everything is black and white especially in politics.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Yeah, the President of a country that kills it's Kurdish citizens. You might call him a racist thinking you are mocking but you need to actually look at whats going on in Turkey and the civil rights issues that are being ignored because it's a Muslim country thats also in NATO. You might like to look up who the Turks are that are emigrating to Germany and why. Then you'll see why the President of Turkey likes to pretend they are causing the problems there themselves.
http://www.hrw.org/en/by-issue/essential-background/218

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119109.htm

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=199996
"In an annual report released on Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the top judicial body to rule on human rights violations in Europe, found that Turkey is by far the worst violator of human rights among the 47 signatory states of the European Convention on Human Rights."

Easier for him to blow smoke in peoples eyes by saying well of course it's all the emigrants fault, he's in a position of authority, no doubt rich, has influence and power, what the hell would he know about poor Turks lives in Germany, they've left Turkey why the hell would he even care?

Tez, I probably know more about Turkey than you realize (or care about as long as you have an excuse to rant about someone/something). I'm well aware of Turkey's history of human rights abuses, especially as it pertains to minorities witin the country.

As someone already mentioned regarding Merkel, a person can be wrong about one (or more) issues and still be right about something else.

As for why the President would care about what Turks do when they leave the country, off the top of my head I'd think it has to do with Turkey's relationship with Germany. Not every Turk in Germany isn't going to become a citizen and so is actually going to be a "guest"; as such he's probably motivated to keep good relations with Germany since he is a politician and politics actually does have a legitimate role in promoting relations between peoples. This reason would hold true even given the high number of Turks who do become German citizens. Promoting assimilation of Turks who come to Germany is smart because it shows the Germans that he's not just "offloading" people he doesn't want to deal with as someone else's problem. Promoting literacy in German is at least going to show germany that he's interested in diplomatic issues.

The Turksih president might be engaging in this behavior for these or any number of other reasons but the fact remains the behavior is a good one (i.e. promoting literacy and through that a degree of assimilation to the culture of the country one is immigrating to) regardless of whether the motivations is great (interest in helping people), good (having his country's diplomatic interests at heart), or other (not wanting to come off personally as a jerk to the Germans).

Gentlemen, not everything is black and white especially in politics.

You just might want to consider this very thing the next time you decide to post a reply to a political thread.

You can hardly fault Gul for promoting German literacy amongst Turks who live in Germany, after all.

My comment about him being a "racist" was a jab at the people who would equate wanting immigrants to assimilate to the country the immigrate to with racism. I have no idea if you were able to pick up on that since you're usually quick on the draw when it comes to replying to people who dare disagree with your positions.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Big Don]

It isn't about race/religion/ethnicity it IS about voluntarily becoming a part of where you live, and part of that, unless you're blind, deaf and mute, means learning the language.

 

[Sukerkin]

That is something that I think is very important, aye, Don. :tup:.

I think what Tez is trying to say, tho, with particular reference to the Turks in Germany, is that they have never been given the chance to try even if they wanted to. It has to be a two way street at the end of the day.

I've mentioned before how the process of integration stalled and reversed here in Britain, particularly in the Potteries area where I spent a lot of years (about twenty). Back when I was young, the Indian population was settling in wonderfully and contributing to the communities in which they lived.

The cliche was the corner shop owned and run by an extended family. You'd walk in and they'd be talking away in Punjabi or Gujarati et al but when they talked to you it'd be in the broadest Stokie accent you'd ever heard .

I was quite taken aback the first time I went into one as a young student and spoke to an Indian. Never having met one before and not knowing what to expect I was somewhat nervous; especially as the lass on the counter was absolutely gorgeous (resplendent in sumptuous sari with headress, nose chains, gold coins everywhere).

My eyebrows must have climbed spectacularly when she spoke to me:

"Eh up duck. Ow at!"

:lol:

What changed between then and now I am at a loss to explain - it's so tempting to lay the blame at religious radicalism causing a rift, or that the influx contained more and more people who did not want to be part of England; they just didn't want to be Indian/Pakistani in the poverty of their countries of origin.

Certainly this whole Burka malarkey is not helping matters. It is claimed to be their 'culture' - well it wasn't a generation ago; it was precisely that kind of thing they wanted to leave behind. Putting that aside, it inflames opinions and creates rifts, managing to be both oddly intimidating and symbolising anti-feminist attitudes at the same time.

How to get things moving forwards towards a more united community again is something I don't have the answer for, especially as, altho' the official political line is not so openly "Ein volk" as Germany, there is a powerful sentiment boiling under that will blow the lid off 'multi-culturalism' sometime soon. A society can be mutli-ethnic quite easily. We have been for millenia. Splinter the culture tho' and things fall apart.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Why should any government, cater to those who refuse to learn the language?

Are you bi-lingual? I ask because it ain't easy.
Sean

 

[Big Don]

Are you bi-lingual? I ask because it ain't easy.
Sean

No, I am not. However, I have never immigrated to a country where English isn't the predominant language either. If I do, I'll learn the language there.

 

[Archangel M]

No, I am not. However, I have never immigrated to a country where English isn't the predominant language either. If I do, I'll learn the language there.

What? You wouldn't demand that your host country be "inclusive" and take on English as an "official language"???

 

[Carol]

A very similar sentiment has been echoed by Director Juan Sepulveda, a senior staffer in the Obama Administration.

Juan Sepulveda, at a meeting with reporters at San Juan’s Sacred Heart University, said that it is “very important” for Latinos to speak English well to be able to have more opportunities so they can get ahead in the United States.

(snip)

Regarding the educational problems confronting Hispanics in the United States, he emphasized that the percentage of Latinos going to college is still much lower than the average in society as a whole.

Sepulveda emphasized that currently only about 11 percent of young Hispanics attend college in the United States, while the figure is about 30 percent among non-Hispanic whites.

He said that his job consists of increasing the number of Latinos who attend a university, thus contributing to the objective set out by President Barack Obama that 60 percent of young U.S. citizens get a college education.

Another example -- the Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette, who performed in the Vancouver Olympics. Her mother arrived in Vancouver to watch her perform, had a heart attack, and died at a Vancouver hospital a few days before the competition began. Ms. Rochette mustered up the courage to skate the performance of her life and earned the Bronze medal. Afterwards, Ms. Rochette was interviewed on American television, in English. When the interviewer complimented on her English abilities, Ms. Rochette acknowledged that her mom insisted that she also learn English, otherwise she would never have the option of building a life for herself outside of Quebec.

Learning the local language is not easy, and there are a few factors that make a tough process even more difficult in practice. The biggest stumbling block is illiteracy. I have volunteered as an ESL teacher, as have other people in my family. It was nearly impossible to teach English to people that were nearly illiterate in their native language.

I don't know how to get around these stumbling blocks.


Mr. Sepulveda's quote:

http://theamericano.com/2009/09/29/a-white-house-aide-stresses-importance-of-latinos%E2%80%99-learning-english/


Joannie_Rochette wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joannie_Rochette

 

[Bruno@MT]

Language is not seen much as an issue in Belgium. There are 3 official languages in an area the size of NYC. No kid can go through high school without learning at least 2 and usually 3 languages (Dutch, French, English) and a fair amount of people learn 4 (German as well). We also don't mind speaking any of those languages to accomodate foreigners. People start learning their second language from the start of grade school.

In fact, an Irish friend of mine told me that it is hard for him to learn Dutch in Belgium, because as soon as people notice he's Irish, they switch to English themselves.

The one thing where we make an exception is Belgians speaking the language of the 'home team'. If a Flemmish guy he finds himself on the French speaking side of the country, he'd better speak French. Ditto for the Walloon finding himself on the Dutch speaking part of the country. I once had a French speaking colleague in a company in Antwerp. Since he didn't speak Dutch, we settled on English.

It's not that we mind speaking French (though I am not fluent by any means) to a foreigner. But a Belgian is supposed to be able to speak the language of the locality where he is at that moment. And if he can't... that is really frowned upon.

 

[girlbug2]

Language is communication. How are all the multi cultures to unite as one if they cannot even communicate with one another?

Tez's point is well taken that it may not have been made easy for the Turkish population to learn German--the fault of the Germans, then, if indeed their multiculturalism has failed.

 

[Brian King]

Here is a timely and interesting article from STRATFOR. If you follow the link below their story has a number of hyper-links in it that lead to all kinds of interesting reading relating to the subject and that area of the world.

Regards
Brian King

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR, at the beginning or end of the report.

"Germany and the Failure of Multiculturalism is republished with permission of STRATFOR."http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/2010...readmore&elq=ae8c25bbcbec4d41a7f1169c71ff91b9

Germany and the Failure of Multiculturalism

By George Friedman

German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared at an Oct. 16 meeting of young members of her party, the Christian Democratic Union, that multiculturalism, or Multikulti, as the Germans put it, “has failed totally.” Horst Seehofer, minister-president of Bavaria and the chairman of a sister party to the Christian Democrats, said at the same meeting that the two parties were “committed to a dominant German culture and opposed to a multicultural one.” Merkel also said that the flood of immigrants is holding back the German economy, although Germany does need more highly trained specialists, as opposed to the laborers who have sought economic advantages in Germany.

The statements were striking in their bluntness and their willingness to speak of a dominant German culture, a concept that for obvious reasons Germans have been sensitive about asserting since World War II. The statement should be taken with utmost seriousness and considered for its social and geopolitical implications. It should also be considered in the broader context of Europe’s response to immigration, not to Germany’s response alone.

The Origins of the German Immigration Question

Let’s begin with the origins of the problem. Post-World War II Germany faced a severe labor shortage for two reasons: a labor pool depleted by the devastating war — and by Soviet prisoner-of-war camps — and the economic miracle that began on the back of revived industry in the 1950s. Initially, Germany was able to compensate by admitting ethnic Germans fleeing Central Europe and Communist East Germany. But the influx only helped assuage the population loss from World War II. Germany needed more labor to feed its burgeoning export-based industry, and in particular more unskilled laborers for manufacturing, construction and other industries.

To resolve the continuing labor shortage, Germany turned to a series of successive labor recruitment deals, first with Italy (1955). After labor from Italy dried up due to Italy’s own burgeoning economy, Germany turned to Spain (1960), Greece (1960), Turkey (1961) and then Yugoslavia (1968). Labor recruitment led to a massive influx of “Gastarbeiter,” German for “guest workers,” into German society. The Germans did not see this as something that would change German society: They regarded the migrants as temporary labor, not as immigrants in any sense. As the term implied, the workers were guests and would return to their countries of origin when they were no longer needed (many Spaniards, Italians and Portuguese did just this). This did not particularly trouble the Germans, who were primarily interested in labor.

The Germans simply didn’t expect this to be a long-term issue. They did not consider how to assimilate these migrants, a topic that rarely came up in policy discussions. Meanwhile, the presence of migrant labor allowed millions of Germans to move from unskilled labor to white-collar jobs during the 1960s.

An economic slowdown in 1966 and full-on recession following the oil shock of 1973 changed labor conditions in Germany. Germany no longer needed a steady stream of unskilled labor and actually found itself facing mounting unemployment among migrants already in country, leading to the “Anwerbestopp,” German for “labor recruitment stop,” in 1973.

Nonetheless, the halt in migration did not resolve the fact that guest workers already were in Germany in great numbers, migrants who now wanted to bring in family members. The 1970s saw most migration switch to “family reunions” and, when the German government moved to close that loophole, asylum. As the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese returned home to tend to their countries’ own successive economic miracles, Muslim Turks became the overwhelming majority of migrants in Germany — particularly as asylum seekers flocked into Germany, most of whom were not fleeing any real government retribution. It did not help that Germany had particularly open asylum laws in large part due to guilt over the Holocaust, a loophole Turkish migrants exploited en masse following the 1980 coup d’etat in Turkey.

As the migrants transformed from a temporary exigency to a multigenerational community, the Germans had to confront the problem. At base, they did not want the migrants to become part of Germany. But if they were to remain in the country, Berlin wanted to make sure the migrants became loyal to Germany. The onus on assimilating migrants into the larger society increased as Muslim discontent rocked Europe in the 1980s. The solution Germans finally agreed upon in the mid-to-late 1980s was multiculturalism, a liberal and humane concept that offered migrants a grand bargain: Retain your culture but pledge loyalty to the state.

In this concept, Turkish immigrants, for example, would not be expected to assimilate into German culture. Rather, they would retain their own culture, including language and religion, and that culture would coexist with German culture. Thus, there would be a large number of foreigners, many of whom could not speak German and by definition did not share German and European values.

While respecting diversity, the policy seemed to amount to buying migrant loyalty. The deeper explanation was that the Germans did not want, and did not know how, to assimilate culturally, linguistically, religiously and morally diverse people. Multiculturalism did not so much represent respect for diversity as much as a way to escape the question of what it meant to be German and what pathways foreigners would follow to become Germans.

Two Notions of Nation

This goes back to the European notion of the nation, which is substantially different from the American notion. For most of its history, the United States thought of itself as a nation of immigrants, but with a core culture that immigrants would have to accept in a well-known multicultural process. Anyone could become an American, so long as they accepted the language and dominant culture of the nation. This left a lot of room for uniqueness, but some values had to be shared. Citizenship became a legal concept. It required a process, an oath and shared values. Nationality could be acquired; it had a price.

To be French, Polish or Greek meant not only that you learned their respective language or adopted their values — it meant that you were French, Polish or Greek because your parents were, as were their parents. It meant a shared history of suffering and triumph. One couldn’t acquire that.

For the Europeans, multiculturalism was not the liberal and humane respect for other cultures that it pretended to be. It was a way to deal with the reality that a large pool of migrants had been invited as workers into the country. The offer of multiculturalism was a grand bargain meant to lock in migrant loyalty in exchange for allowing them to keep their culture — and to protect European culture from foreign influences by sequestering the immigrants. The Germans tried to have their workers and a German identity simultaneously. It didn’t work.

Multiculturalism resulted in the permanent alienation of the immigrants. Having been told to keep their own identity, they did not have a shared interest in the fate of Germany. They identified with the country they came from much more than with Germany. Turkey was home. Germany was a convenience. It followed that their primary loyalty was to their home and not to Germany. The idea that a commitment to one’s homeland culture was compatible with a political loyalty to the nation one lived in was simplistic. Things don’t work that way. As a result, Germany did not simply have an alien mass in its midst: Given the state of affairs between the Islamic world and the West, at least some Muslim immigrants were engaged in potential terrorism.

Multiculturalism is profoundly divisive, particularly in countries that define the nation in European terms, e.g., through nationality. What is fascinating is that the German chancellor has chosen to become the most aggressive major European leader to speak out against multiculturalism. Her reasons, political and social, are obvious. But it must also be remembered that this is Germany, which previously addressed the problem of the German nation via the Holocaust. In the 65 years since the end of World War II, the Germans have been extraordinarily careful to avoid discussions of this issue, and German leaders have not wanted to say things such as being committed to a dominant German culture. We therefore need to look at the failure of multiculturalism in Germany in another sense, namely, with regard to what is happening in Germany.

Simply put, Germany is returning to history. It has spent the past 65 years desperately trying not to confront the question of national identity, the rights of minorities in Germany and the exercise of German self-interest. The Germans have embedded themselves in multinational groupings like the European Union and NATO to try to avoid a discussion of a simple and profound concept: nationalism. Given what they did last time the matter came up, they are to be congratulated for their exercise of decent silence. But that silence is now over.

The Re-emergence of German Nation Awareness

Two things have forced the re-emergence of German national awareness. The first, of course, is the immediate issue — a large and indigestible mass of Turkish and other Muslim workers. The second is the state of the multinational organizations to which Germany tried to confine itself. NATO, a military alliance consisting mainly of countries lacking militaries worth noting, is moribund. The second is the state of the European Union. After the Greek and related economic crises, the certainties about a united Europe have frayed. Germany now sees itself as shaping EU institutions so as not to be forced into being the European Union’s ultimate financial guarantor. And this compels Germany to think about Germany beyond its relations with Europe.

It is impossible for Germany to reconsider its position on multiculturalism without, at the same time, validating the principle of the German nation. Once the principle of the nation exists, so does the idea of a national interest. Once the national interest exists, Germany exists in the context of the European Union only as what Goethe termed an “elective affinity.” What was a certainty amid the Cold War now becomes an option. And if Europe becomes an option for Germany, then not only has Germany re-entered history, but given that Germany is the leading European power, the history of Europe begins anew again.

This isn’t to say that Germany must follow any particular foreign policy given its new official view on multiculturalism; it can choose many paths. But an attack on multiculturalism is simultaneously an affirmation of German national identity. You can’t have the first without the second. And once that happens, many things become possible.

Consider that Merkel made clear that Germany needed 400,000 trained specialists. Consider also that Germany badly needs workers of all sorts who are not Muslims living in Germany, particularly in view of Germany’s demographic problems. If Germany can’t import workers for social reasons, it can export factories, call centers, medical analysis and IT support desks. Not far to the east is Russia, which has a demographic crisis of its own but nonetheless has spare labor capacity due to its reliance on purely extractive natural resources for its economy. Germany already depends on Russian energy. If it comes to rely on Russian workers, and in turn Russia comes to rely on German investment, then the map of Europe could be redrawn once again and European history restarted at an even greater pace.

Merkel’s statement is therefore of enormous importance on two levels. First, she has said aloud what many leaders already know, which is that multiculturalism can become a national catastrophe. Second, in stating this, she sets in motion other processes that could have a profound impact on not only Germany and Europe but also the global balance of power. It is not clear at this time what her intention is, which may well be to boost her center-right coalition government’s abysmal popularity. But the process that has begun is neither easily contained nor neatly managed. All of Europe, indeed, much of the world, is coping with the struggle between cultures within their borders. But the Germans are different, historically and geographically. When they begin thinking these thoughts, the stakes go up.

 

[Tez3]

Tez, I probably know more about Turkey than you realize (or care about as long as you have an excuse to rant about someone/something). I'm well aware of Turkey's history of human rights abuses, especially as it pertains to minorities witin the country.

As someone already mentioned regarding Merkel, a person can be wrong about one (or more) issues and still be right about something else.

As for why the President would care about what Turks do when they leave the country, off the top of my head I'd think it has to do with Turkey's relationship with Germany. Not every Turk in Germany isn't going to become a citizen and so is actually going to be a "guest"; as such he's probably motivated to keep good relations with Germany since he is a politician and politics actually does have a legitimate role in promoting relations between peoples. This reason would hold true even given the high number of Turks who do become German citizens. Promoting assimilation of Turks who come to Germany is smart because it shows the Germans that he's not just "offloading" people he doesn't want to deal with as someone else's problem. Promoting literacy in German is at least going to show germany that he's interested in diplomatic issues.

The Turksih president might be engaging in this behavior for these or any number of other reasons but the fact remains the behavior is a good one (i.e. promoting literacy and through that a degree of assimilation to the culture of the country one is immigrating to) regardless of whether the motivations is great (interest in helping people), good (having his country's diplomatic interests at heart), or other (not wanting to come off personally as a jerk to the Germans).



You just might want to consider this very thing the next time you decide to post a reply to a political thread.

You can hardly fault Gul for promoting German literacy amongst Turks who live in Germany, after all.

My comment about him being a "racist" was a jab at the people who would equate wanting immigrants to assimilate to the country the immigrate to with racism. I have no idea if you were able to pick up on that since you're usually quick on the draw when it comes to replying to people who dare disagree with your positions.

Pax,

Chris

:lol2:


Oh Chris, I'm sure you post just to amuse me. I hope the view is good up where you are looking down on us.

Dare to disagree with me? Indeed, how do they dare! But never fear with you to protect the innocent I'm sure we'll rub along fine, could do with less of the personal comments though, bit against the rules here, old chap.