Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Muslims in Germany

by PeWi Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 06:18:27 AM EST

This has been brought up in the Salon, but I thought it was worth some further presentation, as the conclusion were presented rather skewed in the source provided. Also there was a rather heated discussion I gather on Burqa and what frenchness means etc.


From the diaries - Nomad


Germany Has 1 Million More Muslims than Previously Thought (all quotes from this article)

Under the headline CHALLENGING STEREOTYPES, the article describes a  study - commissioned by the Interior ministry - that states that Muslims in Germany are much more integrated than previously thought:

One of the study's most surprising findings is that Germany is home to many more Muslims than was previously believed. The researchers concluded that between 3.8 million and 4.3 million Muslims live in the country, making up around 5 percent of the total population of 82 million.

picture sueddeutsche

Regarding the issue of citizenship, the study revealed that around 45 percent of Muslims living in Germany have a German passport.

Contrary to popular stereotypes, 70 percent of female Muslims do not wear a headscarf, with second generation immigrants less likely to wear a headscarf than their mothers.

(Bild: FR-Infografik)


The study also found that the majority of Muslims consider themselves religious. Around a third described themselves as "very religious" and a half said they were "somewhat religious." However only about a third of respondents regularly attended a mosque, although 76 percent said they wanted Islamic religious education classes in schools.

Also, only half of those that women that called themselves very religious are wearing the headscarf.

And Muslim girls, who are commonly imagined to be closeted away by their families, are much more involved in school activities than generally believed: Some 90 percent of female Muslim students take part in school trips while 93 percent take part in swimming lessons, another hot-button issue in Germany.

The interesting thing for me is this.

This is the first study of its kind in Gemany.
The facts contradict common missconceptions and are actually more positive than righwing scarmonges want to make out
only 25% of Muslims in Germany feel they are fully represented through the faith organisations "ohne Einschränkungen" (without limitations), but more than 50% are a member of a German Verein (association - but not really translatable - its is a term like Gemütlichkeit, or Heimat in its German-ness).

So - more everyday integration - less diversity.

And the reason that more are in a lower social class or unemployed? Nothing to do with the religion, and more with the social surrounding of the upbringing. Young second or third generation Muslim women are quickly catching up with their Non-Muslim with regard to success in school etc.

More links (all in German):
Mehr Muslime in Deutschland als bekannt Die Zeit
Schäuble findet eine Million Muslime Taz

Gläubig und integriert Sueddeutsche Zeitung

Das Ende des gemeinen Feld-, Wald- und Wiesen-Muslims Der Spiegel

Viel mehr Muslime als gedacht Faz

The actual study will be published on Thursday.

Display:
Spiegel graph; "religiousity of Muslims", red category: "not at all religious"... With such Anglo-American style categorising, it is not suprising that the result was not what they previously thought...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 04:31:34 PM EST
As for what others thought about the integratedness of Muslims in Germany; quoting myself from 2005:

One 2003 study (pdf!) counts 3,112,000 inhabitants with a Muslim cultural identity, of which 2,365,120 (76%) profess a Muslim religious identity, but only 309,000 (9.9%) are organised. Even in the year after 9/11 and up to the Iraq War, the number of Friday prayer attendants is just 464,000 (14.9%), and that of daily prayers in a mosque 185,000 (5.9%) - not dissimilar to similar numbers in the 'Christian' population! Prior to 9/11, weekly attendance was about 9%, but that was down from 22% measured in a study in the middle of the nineties (see towards the end here).

We discussed another study of Muslims in Germany in April 2008; some findings: 48% never studied at a Koran school, low numbers of mosque-goers, 46 years and older is the only generation in which more went are pro-headscarf than women.

A little less informative was the multi-country study afew analysed in Europe Overrun etc.

Not unrelated is a subthread of the Terrorist thread, discussing another aspect of integratedness: the decrease of fertility.

So, this study is NOT the first of its kind; it's more that in the last six years, the media paid more attention to the paranoid images of Islamofascism-monger Islamophobes than actual sociologists.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 04:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Studie zur Integration: Schäuble findet eine Million Muslime - taz.de Study on integration: Schäuble finds one million Muslims - taz.de
"Für Experten sind diese Zahlen nicht überraschend", sagt Ahmet Toprak, Professor für Erziehungswissenschaften in Dortmund und Mitglied der von Schäuble einberufenen Islamkonferenz. Weil aber in der Öffentlichkeit immer nur über die Probleme geredet werde, "gerät die große Mehrheit, die keine Schwierigkeiten macht, meist völlig aus dem Blick"."For experts, these figures aren't surprising," says Ahmet Toprak, who is a professor for Education Sciences in Dortmund and a member of the Islamic Conference convened by Schäuble. However, because in public, it's always only the problems discussed, "the great majority who make no trouble get mostly wholly out of sight."


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 07:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure where the terminology comes from and if those terms were used in the questions, it would be good to have a closer look at the published report and see if the questions are included (if it gets online after Thursday).

In my (limited) experience with these kind of questionnaires they are very often compound questions that then lead to this conclusion. (I hope they used some experienced sociology of religion experts in developing the questions, there are some good and long running studies on social cohesion, that also include religiosity. f.e Shell-Jugendstudie
Jugendliche und ihre Religiosität
15. Shell-Jugendstudie 2006

Detlev Pollack arbeitet als vergleichender Kultursoziologe. Für ihn sind eine Vielzahl von Definitionen für Religion möglich. Die Shell-Studie folgt der religionssoziologischen Definition von Meulemann (1998), angesichts der ,,hier interessierenden, subjektiven Seite der Religion, der Religiosität." Meulemann geht davon aus, ,,dass im menschlichen Leben die religiöse Frage am stärksten herausgefordert wird, wenn es um den Umgang mit dem Tod geht" (205). Er verbindet Religion mit der möglichen Frage nach einer Weiterexistenz nach dem Tode und im Sinne einer religiösen Antwort, in der ,,Neigung auf ein Jenseits zu blicken". Setzt man darauf, ,,diesen Glauben bereits als Religiosität zu bezeichnen, wogegen einiges für Gensicke spricht (205), wäre somit das Objekt der Religiosität der Bereich jenseits der gegebenen Welt. Ein Glaube, der unter Jugendlichen relativ weit verbreitet ist und der messbar wäre, etwa in Form des Glaubens an ein Leben nach dem Tode.

Nach diesem Kriterium kann man Glauben bei etwa der Hälfte bis zu zwei Dritteln der Jugendlichen nachweisen, die Ausnahme bilden Jugendliche in Ostdeutschland, ,,die nicht nur zum Christentum in Distanz stehen, sondern auch zum Glauben an dieses besagte Leben nach dem Tode." Ein Standpunkt, der für Gensicke bereits Epikur herausarbeitete in der Feststellung:,,Gewöhne dich an den Gedanken, dass der Tod uns nichts angeht." Diese Einsicht macht das sterbliche Leben genussvoll, indem sie das Verlangen nach Unsterblichkeit beseitigt. (siehe Fußnote 43 S.206)

Für Gensicke erhebt das Christentum den Anspruch, vorauswirkend die diesseitige ,,Moralität" der Lebensführung von Gläubigen zu prägen, ebenso wie der Islam, was jedoch diesen religiösen Typ moralsicherer Prägung des Lebens bei Jugendlichen, heute betrifft, gelingt dies den großen Kirchen nur noch eingeschränkt. Dies hat verschiedene Gründe, die die Träger der christlichen Glaubenslehren seit längerem spüren, durch die physische und geistige Abwesenheit der jungen Leute, selbst aus den eigentlich religiösen Kreisen. Womöglich leben die Jugendlichen ,,bereits ein Zukunftsszenario vor, in dem die Kirchen letztlich auf rituelle und soziale Serviceeinrichtungen reduziert werden?" (207)

Zugleich sind den Kirchen zur religiösen Durchdringung des Lebens im Laufe der Modernisierung deutliche Beschränkungen auferlegt worden, trotz der Begünstigung durch das Staatsrecht und den Kirchen wohlgesonnene politische Parteien in Deutschland (Fußnote 47,S.207). Weil ,,der Dekalog eben nicht die wesentliche Grundlage unserer Verfassung ist, sondern vielmehr die Werte der Aufklärung und die Idee der unveräußerlichen Menschenrechte" (S.207) und in der angestrebten europäischen Verfassung es keinen Gottesbezug gibt, nicht einmal einen Hinweis auf das Christentum, so der Interpret, wird in Europa auch die Bibel als Quelle von Gesetzen niemals den Stellenwert haben, wie ihn der Koran in islamischen Staaten hat. Eine Interpretation des Autors vor dem Hintergrund einer wahr zu nehmenden religiösen Durchdringung des Lebens ,,in Deutschland und Europa vor allem in den Migrationskulturen" (207). Auch mit Blick auf bewusste evangelikale Einflussnahme bei Wahlentscheidungen in den USA, sind mögliche Konflikte ernst zu nehmen, zwischen Jugendliche mit ausgeprägter Diesseitsorientierung und dem gegenüber stehenden religiösen Forderungen.

Vor diesen (religions-)soziologisch und philosophischen und gesellschaftspolitischen Überlegungen versucht die Studie eine Typisierung der jugendlichen Religiosität. Dazu formuliert sie vier Gruppen unter den Stichpunkten: kirchennah Gottesgläubig, kirchenfern religiös, glaubensunsicher und kirchenfern (211).


Maybe they used a similar sociological approach to the question with this questionnaire. But again, that is speculation and I would have to be able to get to the source (and understand it (-:  )
The picture btw is from the sueddeutsche. I'll put the source in the text.
by PeWi on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 05:01:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Even without looking at it, I suspect the study is pretty exact on its categories. But media reports and government press releases aren't.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 05:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry for being dismayed by the spin rather than be happy about the publication of another stereotype-busting study; but I see it gets worse: all the headlines are about the increase in the estimated number of Muslims... that plays on the they-are-gonna-out-immigrate-and-breed-us fear.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 04:56:49 PM EST
hmm I can see, that the headlines are rather catching, but I what I got was the sense in all the articles, saying the public perception is wrong on all counts, starting with the numbers.

Not: There are so many, be afraid! Rather: There are so many, see you didn;t notice because they are so well integrated.

And how would you know that there are so many that are so well integrated when all you always hear are the conflicts but then there are the examples, swimming lessons and sex education (8% of Muslim girls are not allowed to attend sex ed compared to 15% of strong christian girls) - those are hot topics as example of integration - but they only concern a minority of Muslim in Germany.

I got the sense of surprise in these articles, and a positive surprise that our assumptions about integration of Muslims in Germany are wrong.

by PeWi on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 05:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
given the scaremongering in the press on this topic. Remember Eurabia?



In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 05:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then again, you are someone reading beyond the catchy headlines.

By the way: the "extra" one million are the result of doing statistics more properly. Until now, the only way to count "Muslims" (more correctly: immigrants from Muslim countries and their descendants) was to add the current figures for resident foreign nationals and the sum total of foreign nationals given a German pass over the past 20 years, for those Muslim countries of origin for which the statistics office gave figures.

So the "extra" 1 million comes from counting/estimating the remaining countries of origin, and the children of the nationalised (and substracting the dead...).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 07:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the "extra" one million

"Extra"?  I'm reminded of something somebody spray-painted on a building on the Florida State campus back in the '70s.

"Free Soviet Jews," one had written.

At some point later, another person came by and wrote "(with $5 purchase)".

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 07:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I lived for 6 years in Remscheid, Germany, the city with the highest percentage of Muslims of any (mostly Turkish.)  I was told the official figure was around 22%, very significant, out of a total population of some 120,000.

Except for very isolated instances, I never saw any kind of trouble.  in fact, when Germany played Turkey in the EM semis, there was a kind of joyous rivalry which spilled onto the streets.  My impression of the entire time there was that integration was proceeding quite well.

This is not to say there weren't people who were extremely prejudiced, merely that social integration was gradually working.

Even among the older women there were some who did not dress according to Muslim tradition, as well as young girls who did.  On the surface at least, all were accepted.

Personally, i had a very positive experience interacting with a completely different culture.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 06:40:40 AM EST
Hijabs!  ZOMG!

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 06:50:55 AM EST
Considering the gargantuan effort the Germans made to rid Germany of a middle-eastern descended minority just a few decades ago, this little demographic joke is as they say in a language spoken by nobody in Germany, then or now, a  "bittereh gelehter".
by rootless2 on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 07:39:28 AM EST
"The Germans".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 07:46:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
standard english.
by rootless2 on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 08:03:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Standard English is capable of differentiating. (F.e.: "the Nazis".)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 10:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Americans wiped out the Native people.
The Spanish instituted a policy of latifunda.
The English engaged in a world-wide slave-trade.
The Israelis oppressed the Palestinians.
The Germans exterminated the Jewish minority.
The Hutu engaged in genocide.
The French export wine.
The Dutch engage in a tulip trade.
by rootless2 on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 10:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So?

your original post contains no point whatsoever. What has the one (historical extermination of Jews in Germany) to do with the other (contemporary immigration of Muslims to Europe, Germany included)? Nothing. No way one reads that sentence does any sense come out of it, good or bad, comical or serious. Just fail.

by marsanges on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 12:55:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not a hard point to get, unless you don't want to get it.
by rootless2 on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 02:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you sure you want to insinuate ulterior motives in everyone put off by your comment?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 03:19:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know how to explain an obvious irony.
by rootless2 on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 04:04:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obvious to you, but apparently not to everyone.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 12:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As marsanges said. In addition:

  • Who are the "Native people"? Or does it get too convoluted with "Native Americans"?
  • The Spanish and Portuguese colonialists instituted latifundia.
  • Israel opresses [present tense] Palestinians.
  • The Hutu militias engaged in genocide. (And Tutsi militias in revenge genocide.)
  • France (and many other countries) export wine.

And so on. Nuance takes so little effort. Leaving it away can give all the wrong associations. Like yours between European Jews under the Third Reich and Muslims in modern Germany.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 01:15:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think your defensiveness speaks for itself. If someone tells me that "the Americans used white phosphorous in Iraq" and I were to respond, "don't generalize, it was the Republicans", I'd be, rightly, considered to be attempting an evasion.
by rootless2 on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 02:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, and me, who is neither German, nor American, nor Democrat or Republican, would say that the US army used white phosporus in Iraq... and consider "it was the Republicans" silly if standing in itself, and an evasion if applied as part of a defense for the US military. Whatever.

Returning to the Third Reich and modern Germany, given that the latter was formed in explicit opposition of the former (what with the Holocaust denial laws and all), I get your point even less.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 03:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the past is not dead, in fact it's not even past
- Billy Faulkner.
by rootless2 on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 04:05:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but for me, your comment is offensive. Germany is Germany. A new government does not make the holocaust disappear or, like some bankruptcy proceeding, assign it to an old entity that can be discarded. The European delusion that one can draw a line somewhere in the 1950s and pretend that King Leopold and Herman Goering and Lord Lucan did not exist or that we do not in many senses live in the world that they made is not really morally supportable. Most Germans of today did not live during the Nazi period and they do not inherit a mark of cain, but they do live in a rich european nation on the graveyard of the German Jews - whose communities in Germany lasted over a 1000 years. To claim that a anti-nazi law or two makes that disappear is like claiming that the emancipation proclamation in the US negates the heritage of slavery.

There's an obvious, if bitter, irony in the fact that a generation after German gangs marched all over europe singing about the Jew-free europe of their dreams, a sizable minority of people of middle eastern descent has reappeared in Germany. If you don't like that irony, that's fine. If you want to tell me it doesn't exist I can only say that it is not me that you are fooling.

by rootless2 on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 06:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There´s indeed an irony here, and that is that you talk of Jews as if they were an ethnic or a race, basically accepting the Nazi propaganda.
by marsanges on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 06:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
goodbye.
by rootless2 on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 07:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What was the rating for?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 06:06:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For such a blatantly dishonest, malign, rhetorical trick.
by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 09:10:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why is it a blatantly dishonest, malign, rhetorical trick? And why is 'you're upset, proving I'm right' not one?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 11:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because European Jews as an ethnic minority is not a concept invented by Nazis and to claim that by implicitly accepting that concept I've agreed with the Nazis is to use a dishonest rhetorical trick common to racists worldwide.  
by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 01:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Deafness often seen on this site. Too busy looking at belly buttons.

If you must have it spelled out, it's not often a non-Jew writes anything but a few standard yiddish phrases. And then, even. So, when you get a person who is citing something in yiddish called basically a nazi, we get to the height of a certain level of nombrilism I seldom see but here. Keep it up guys, you're making this site look completely respectful of minoritries! (A few excepted, of course...)

And, to top off the extreme tone-deafness, Dodo keeps at it, wondering however could it be that one such person, so far very enjoyably subtle in his or her pokes, would find it offensive to be crudely called a nazi.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 02:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Most white gentile europeans agree that there is no more racism and anti-semitism in Europe.

And who would know better?

by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 02:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
rootless2:
Most white gentile europeans agree that there is no more racism and anti-semitism in Europe.

Nonsense. Yes, there is racism and antisemitism in Europe. But most "white gentile Europeans" agree racism and antisemitism no longer exist?

That kind of assertion needs evidence to back it up.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 09:03:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's an interesting question given the unchallenged assertion to start this line of discussion.

My assertion is based on purely anecdotal evidence of my own experience and what I hear from other non-gentile visitors to or inhabitants of Europe. One of my former students, a Moroccan, who lives in Germany told me that he's learned to speak english when meeting people in order to get treated as an American instead of a Turk. I've repeated this story to a number of white european liberals and always get the same hostile response. None of the jews/arabs/turks/africans in Europe I've told this story to finds it at all surprising.

I also base it on the very angry defensive response here to criticism of Jostien Garder's anti-semitic op-ed.

by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 02:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, I'mgoing to look like a nitpicker again, for redstar to get his rocks off jibing at, but what do you understand by gentile?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 02:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"As in the King James Bible, from the 17th century onwards gentile was most commonly used to refer to non-Jews. This was in the context of European Christian societies with a Jewish minority."

Wikipedia. Are we conducting a class on the English language here?

Just to forestall what I guess, perhaps incorrectly, as the probable next move in this gambit, belief or non-belief is not material.

by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 03:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought gentile meant non-Jew but are you using it in the meaning of Christian by referring to a Moroccan Muslim as a non-gentile? Or am I assuming the Moroccan is Muslim when he's Jewish?

I'm an atheist - am I Gentile (non-Jew) or non-Gentile (non-Christian)? Or am I Christian because I was baptised?

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 03:14:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, what I wrote was "Most white gentile europeans agree that there is no more racism and anti-semitism in Europe."

The Moroccan fellow I was discussing was neither white nor european.

But "gentile" is, of course, a context dependent word. Mormons use it for non-mormons. I don't think the way "gentile" is used historically in discussing European/Jewish/Christian divisions would include Morrocans, but ...

My point was that people in the normative/dominant cultural group don't see the same world that people in other groups see.

by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 03:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
what I wrote was "Most white gentile europeans agree that there is no more racism and anti-semitism in Europe."

I was reacting to what I hear from other non-gentile visitors to or inhabitants of Europe.

To be honest, the expression "non-gentile" sounds to me like "non-barbarian" or "non-gaijin".

My point was that people in the normative/dominant cultural group don't see the same world that people in other groups see.

No debate from me there.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 03:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To be honest, the expression "non-gentile" sounds to me like "non-barbarian" or "non-gaijin".

Everyone is someone else's foreigner.

by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 04:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
rootless2:
But "gentile" is, of course, a context dependent word. Mormons use it for non-mormons. I don't think the way "gentile" is used historically in discussing European/Jewish/Christian divisions would include Morrocans, but ...
So "gentile means whatever I want it to mean"?

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 at 05:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No. But in this discussion I am using it in the common way to refer to christian culture Europeans.
by rootless2 on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 at 04:57:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then you should say Christian-culture Europeans because "the usual meaning" is "non-Jew" as far as I can tell.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 at 05:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Most white gentile europeans agree that there is no more racism and anti-semitism in Europe."

Which is still unsubstantiated. They might not be aware of it's extent, they might not have felt it themselves, they might claim they weren't racist or anti-Semitic in spite of behaviour, but I don't know how many would say there wasn't racism or anti-semitism in Europe. There quite clearly is, just like there is in the US, or Russia, or the Middle East or Israel.

My point was that people in the normative/dominant cultural group don't see the same world that people in other groups see.

And neither sees the real world - both groups tend to have distorted perceptions.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 03:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jews are rather obviously an ethnicity. They are equally obviously a race. In the first case because a pretty large number of Jews see themselves that way, in the latter, to the extent that antisemitism exists, they're a race.

Race is largely defined by others - e.g. Black americans are a race because society sees them that way.

Ethnicity is mainly a question of self-identification - e.g. African Americans are an ethnic group because they say so.

Note that it is definitely not necessary to be racist to understand a group as a race - it can be merely and acknowledgement of social reality. Thus for example, Jews aren't really a race in the US, at least in the NE (the part I'm familiar with) but they certainly are in Poland.

by MarekNYC on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 06:44:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A new government does not make the holocaust disappear

You indeed misunderstood me, but now I am beginning to understand what you were projecting here. You are claiming a continuity, without specifying clearly the continuity of what. Now it's about government. There was people, country and government so far; and in neither case was your original point made clear.

If you would want to say that the modern German state (and, through it, German taxpayers) should be responsible for the Holocaust in the form of damage paments and keeping up the memory, there would be no debate. If you say that "the Germans" committed the Holocaust, and connect that to something concerning the group of people alive today who are also described by "the Germans", that's not only silly, but ignores the entire post-war history of Germany. E.g., when you say:

The European delusion that one can draw a line somewhere in the 1950s and pretend that King Leopold and Herman Goering and Lord Lucan did not exist or that we do not in many senses live in the world that they made is not really morally supportable.

...that's as crude a mis-characterisation of European, but at the very least West German reality as it gets. We live on a continent very much aware of the past insanities, building structures and institutions and cultural mores meant to prevent a return to that. If you think a more inclusive modern Germany is an irony, you are denying history yourself.

I also wonder about the "middle-eastern-descended". The anti-semitism of the Nazis wasn't based on the geographic region in which (most) ancestors of modern Jews lived 1900 years earlier, and wasn't constrained to the domestic minority. It was a racism combined with grand conspiracy theories, with an ambirion to kill everyone in its reach. To boot, if we talk history, Turkey used to be an ally of Germany (of the Second Reich in WWI). Thus that connection to today's ethnic Turks in Germany seems rather forced.

I also failed to properly decode "bittereh gelehter".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 06:04:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't think I agree, though I may just be misunderstanding what you're saying.

To the extent that contemporary Germans identify as 'Germans' and see themselves as in some way connected to a 'Germanness' that goes back before 1945 - whether it be Beethoven and Goethe, or Prussia or 1848 or whatever, then that also includes the Nazis and the Holocaust. That is also true for the descendants of postwar immigants who identify as 'German' in such a way.

And a clarification on the anti-semitism - it isn't racism plus conspiracy theories, but rather that conspiracy theories are one of the key components of anti-semitism.

by MarekNYC on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 06:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To the extent that contemporary Germans identify as 'Germans' and see themselves as in some way connected to a 'Germanness' that goes back before 1945 - whether it be Beethoven and Goethe, or Prussia or 1848 or whatever, then that also includes the Nazis and the Holocaust.

Well -- yes of course; and being "proud of one's nation" always involves selectiveness (and you know how I view the idea of "nation"). But, a criticism of such is no support for rootless2 when s/he seems to deny any possible elements of 'Germanness' contemporary or newer than the Nazis and the Holocaust -- and when he claims a passive denial of those.

it isn't racism plus conspiracy theories, but rather that conspiracy theories are one of the key components of anti-semitism.

On anti-semitism in general, OK - but for modern antisemitism, isn't racism the other key? E.g. that you are considered part of the conspiracy by descent (in particular, irrespective of your actual religion, which used to be the reason for both in-group, out-group identification and self-identification as 'Jew').

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 06:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For what it's worth, when I was a child, "German" was used pretty much as a synonym for Nazi (though the opposite was regarded as bad taste even then).

But I've come to believe that using "German" in that way was not a generalisation. It was in fact the opposite-a linking of the Holocaust to a specific nationality.  In other words, I am not German and the mass of UK subjects are unlikely to become German. The Holocaust is therefore safely "other".

Link the Holocaust to something far more general-like an ideology: worse, an ideology admired by some British establishment figures-and it all gets a lot less clear cut.  We might even have to accept that Nazism did not spring from a vacuum and consider whether some of our own historic ethnic crimes and attitudes predict we would have been immune in the same circumstances.

by Sassafras on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 08:35:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is that, too. For people in the onetime vassal states of the Third Reich, it gets more direct.

I recall a protest a few years ago called by the local Association of Antifascists in Buda Castle. I believe it was one against an international neo-Nazi gathering to commemorate the 1944 siege of Budapest. One speaker blasted the Arrowcrossers and spoke about responsiblity in his speech. Then I overheard two well-clad old ladies talking, who expressed perplexion about "why the speaker focused on the Arrowcrossers, when it was the SS and Wehrmacht who occupied us, and did most of the killing and gathered the Jews". Huh. (Actually, it was the Arrowcrossers who shot Jews and leftists into the Danube, and earlier it was the gendarmerie that collected and put on trains most Jews -- they were dissolved after WWII for that.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 12:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"But, a criticism of such is no support for rootless2 when s/he seems to deny any possible elements of 'Germanness' contemporary or newer than the Nazis and the Holocaust -- and when he claims a passive denial of those."

I did that? All I said was that the Germans killed off the Jews and now find themselves, ironically, living with another middle eastern descent minority. And then, in response to you I rejected the idea that it is impermissible to say "the Germans" when, according to you, I needed to use "the Nazis". I find that wording evasive as well as historically inaccurate. And, as I pointed out, wording of the form I used is standard English usage, everyone knows what it means. As I said, someone who insists that we say "The US Army fired white phosphorous" in place of "The Americans fired white phosphorous" is demanding less accuracy, not more.

I'm not willing to have other people insist that I use euphemisms. The Germans killed the Jews - in fact, many of the people who killed the German Jews or cooperated in their slaughter were not members of the Nazi party and, as it is well known, many members of the Nazi legal and academic system transitioned seamlessly to the post-war state. This is something every German knows and, in fact, was a subtext of the Baader-Meinhof period rebellion. I find efforts to pretend otherwise as intellectually acceptable as the constant whining by white American racists that "slavery ended 100 years ago".

by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 09:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your argument is silly.

If it were true, why did the Germans stop killing the jews? Why did Germans not start killing the jews much earlier? Why is that when you meet someone from Germany now, the chances of them showing any enthusiasm for killing jews are vanishingly small?

Since Germans are still German, and presumably some even take some pride in being German, it's obviously possible to be German without - inexplicably - feeling any need to go on a jew-killing rampage.

On the other hand, if you find yourself some Nazis, or their fascist equivalents in other countries. I suspect they'll be much more enthusiastic about jew killing.

Fascism is a process and a social pathology, not a nationality. It's a pathology which doesn't just try to farm hatred for out-groups for political power, but also ends in self-destruction for the fascist order.

The Nazis didn't just kill the jews, they also killed their own vision of Germany, and millions of Germans with it. That's what fascists and authoritarians do. They don't just legitimise the murder of out-groups - given enough time and enough opportunity they'll lead any country or group into collective suicide.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 11:45:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, but I agree with most of what you said and so am mystified about why you are taking me to task about it.

In standard English usage, if we are speaking of Cromwell and I say "The English massacred the Irish" there is no connotation that all English people took part in it or approved or that Cromwell's policies in Ireland are enthusiastically endorsed by today's English people. If you were to object and insist that I say "The New Army massacred the Irish, the Levelers and cavaliers had nothing to do with it", you'd be asking me to import an excuse into a simple statement of fact.

by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 02:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did that?

In fact you did more than that: you effectively accused all Europeans of Holocaust denial. That's the meaning of what you wrote.

You wrote that we Europeans "live in the world that they made", to counter my argument that we live in a world that was remade after them, in reaction to them. That's what I term a demial of post-war history.

I find that wording evasive as well as historically inaccurate.

Why? What you said qualified all Germans then (that's 70 million people) an now (because of the lack of temporal distinction) as killers. (Not merely as part responsible by association or benefit, not merely as "bearing the mark of cain" - heh, whatever that means -, but killers.) The actual killers with German citizenship were a fraction of that, hardly historically precise. To boot, you are leaving out the non-German helpers in killing of the Nazi regime across Europe, be it the SS legions from the Baltic states, Vichy France, or the state machinery of the Horthy regime here in Hungary and the succeeding Arrowcrossers. Even less historically precise.

standard English usage, everyone knows what it means

...is no argument for anything. (It's the logical fallacy called "Argumentum ad populum".)

As I said, someone who insists that we say "The US Army fired white phosphorous" in place of "The Americans fired white phosphorous" is demanding less accuracy, not more.

No. You said "Republicans", not "US Army"; and if you said the above, I find it very ridiculous. One can blame "Americans" for failing to not elect/elect off the imperial regime and/or not block it with civic resistance, but "The Americans fired white phosphorous" has nothing to do with precision. At this point, I must ask: do you approve of the concept of collective guilt?

insist that I use euphemisms

That you consider these euphemisms only proves that you are incapable of seeing distinctions.

as it is well known, many members of the Nazi legal and academic system transitioned seamlessly to the post-war state

Yep. The '68 movement grew in large part on a movement from the fifties to expose and push these people from positions of power.

the Baader-Meinhof period rebellion

What is the "Baader-Meinhof period"? Is that how you call 1968 and what followed, or the era of the first generation of the Red Army Faction, or the time until the suicides in prison, or the seventies?...

It is true that the RAF grew from the 1968 movement, and that they used to accuse those in power of being crypto-Nazis (even if they weren't), it is not true however that the Nazi holdovers remained in power without disturbance.

I find efforts to pretend otherwise

Again with the insinuations. What exactly is your point here? Is it that modern Germany is a continuation of the Third Reich, with cosmetic changes?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 11:57:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I cannot help if you take offense at plain language. As I noted, "Germans killed the Jews" is standard English usage that carries no further connotation than an acknowledged historical fact. The claim that I must say "Nazis killed the Jews" is as ridiculous as the simplistic conclusions you draw. In history, the situation of Jews in Germany has varied over time and is not invariant. I could as well have said that the increasing influence of Indian/Pakistani culture in the UK is ironic given that the British imposed racist system of colonization on India. I suppose you would object that it was the East India Company and not the British as a whole or that my observation of the irony was tantamount to saying that all English people want to reimpose colonial rule on India.

In response to your original complaint, I have made the further argument that the denial of history is a commonplace in Europe and I think a dangerous one.

by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 01:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you are right because you say so. That's the end of the debate, then.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 01:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, I'm right because empirically, the words I used are correct and standard usage. If you want to read into them an indictment of all Germans past and present, I cannot stop you, but that's not what it means.
by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 01:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When posters here (rarely) say "Jews kill Palestinians", there is an immediate reaction from members (editorial or not, and I will be very prompt to be among them) to refuse that generalisation to all Jews from the behaviour of Israel.

Are we right or wrong?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 08:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But "Israelis killed Palestinians" is accurate. Look, the basic issue is whether "The Germans killed the Jews" is an acceptable statement - and I continue to note that it is common usage acceptable english and it neither requires a disclaimer nor carries the implication that all Germans are currently anti-semitic murderers.
by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 11:05:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I continue to note that it is common usage

I think DoDo's point is that "common usage" is perhaps not the best language, and perhaps not even adequate language, for discussing these issues.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 12:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And, to me, Dodo's objection is a demand for an excuse to be inserted in the language. The holocaust is part of German history, not part of some untethered Nazi history that exists on its own.

Of course, I do not believe, nor have I said or implied that Germany today is exactly the same as it was in 1940 or that most Germans are actively anti-semitic or that all Germans supported the Nazis. But I do not believe and will not say that "the Nazis" were some alien force from outer space - they came out of and reflected something in German culture and history.

We have the same demands here in the USA, from people who want to insist that "slavery was a long time ago" and nobody today is guilty - and therefore, apparently, nobody can speak about "the South" and black slavery. A generalization always involves some inaccuracy, but denying the essential truth of a generalization is a demand for obscurity.

by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 01:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On second thought, two clarfications.

  1. Of course not all German citizens who participated in or helped the extermination of Jews were NSDAP members. Then again, there is a loose usage of "Nazis" that encompasses all who agreed, not just card-carrying members; and including 60 million to cover an extra half million (while missing out on non-Germans) is hardly more precise or moraslly justified.

  2. At the root of the difference between my take on post-war history, and your misreading of it, seems to be that you see a claim of a momentary changeover, where I am speaking about a process.

And yet again back to the original point in yet another formulation: the fact that today's Germany is home to a large religious minority of post-war immigrants, almost half of whom are naturalised -- as well as the120,000 Jews Detlef reminded us , most of them post-1989 immigrants --, is in the context of history a confirmation of de-Nazification, so irony and bitter laughs are out of place. (Pissing on Hitler's figurative grave is more in place.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 01:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps the issue is simply that you are making some peculiar use of "irony". I was lucky enough to attend a speech given during the primary elections by Obama at the Texas state capitol. A huge multi-racial crowd gathered to cheer Obama - and the stage obscured a statue placed on the front of the capitol building in the early 1900s that has on it the legend "in memory of the Confederate soldiers who died to protect the rights of states given in the constitution." That is, in my mind, an enormous irony although a very pleasant one.

The bitterness of the irony in Germany is maybe not apparent to you, but to me, when I travel in germany and see muslim women in headscarves, I think of photographs of my great grandmother in her headscarf in her village in Lithuania before the Germans arrived with guns and shovels. When I pass the empty synagogue in Koln, I think of the people who worshipped there for many generations. When I talk to Turkish Germans and find them "more german than the germans" it reminds me of the reputation of German Jews among the ostjuden. And yes, it's a bitter irony. And the fact that the Nazis would have found it a defeat doesn't lessen the irony or the bitterness.

by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 01:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"I also failed to properly decode "bittereh gelehter".

Yiddish term meaning "bitter/ironic joke".

by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 09:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to detract from your major point here which - I think - is pretty obvious to any German.

And my question...
Do you count people of Turkish descent or from the Balkans as coming from the Middle East?
If not, it´s entirely possible that Jewish people are the largest group "of people of Middle Eastern descent" in Germany.

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 11:06:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's easy to get entangled in nonsense on these topics because, as is well known, "race" and "ethnicity" are poorly defined and often illogically and inconsistently defined and definitions change over time. The categories exist all the same. I may be sensitive to this issue because over the past decade or two a favorite tacitc of American racists has been to claim that discussion of racism or race is itself.(see the discussion of "color blind" in the wiki steve colbert piece)
Colbert describes himself as racially color-blind and unable to visually identify a person's race,[44] explaining, "Now, I don't see race ... People tell me I'm white, and I believe them, because I own a lot of Jimmy Buffett albums."[45] His race-blindness is a recurring joke, and this statement is often repeated on the show with different punch lines.[46] For this same reason he believed that he was black (even though he's obviously not) when he had an emotional breakdown after watching Obama's inauguration video. He later qualified these statements in his book, stating, "When I say I don't see race, I mean I don't see Black people. But I can spot a Mexican at a hundred paces."[23]

Turkey is usually considered middle eastern. I will cite Wikipedia again, no less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East

by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 01:31:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ahh. Question answered then.
In your last sentence. :)

I asked because many people don´t include Turkey when they talk about the "mess in the Middle East".

So, if you include Turkey...
We here in Germany then got roughly 3 million people of "Middle Eastern descent" (not including North Africa and South East Asia and the Balkans). Around 90% of them Muslims and around 10% of them Jews.

By the way, if you want to learn yiddish, there are several summer courses available in Germany this year.
Just google them in German.

And just to mention it.
I utterly reject that Jews are a separate race. They´ve got a different religion and they are - of course - free to define themselves as a different "ethnicity". As in, they are descendants of "Israeli origin".

Just like people of Polish, Turkish or Spanish origin for example are free to claim their own "ethnicity" in Germany.

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 03:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, "race", has no scientific definition. It is a social construct. So reject what you will, but social constructs exist nonetheless.

As for Yiddish - it was a language that German Jews did not speak much after 1700s.

 

by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 09:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Last time I was in Germany, an otherwise quite pleasant and liberal fellow we were discussing a business contract with, after a few too many glasses of wine, said to me "Well, as a typical Jew, you are reluctant to spend the money, I understand." I'm not religious, so perhaps this was a reference to "ethnicity"?
by rootless2 on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 at 09:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you expect your readers to make of that anecdote? The person that said that to you was not "pleasant and liberal". Are you suggesting that this was a "typical German"? That mindless antisemitic prejudice is still typical of Germans?

Anecdotes prove nothing, but they may be used to insinuate far more than they are worth.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 08:50:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pointing out that "race" is generally a function of "racism". As long as some people believe and act as if other people belong to a "race", the category has a meaning. Arguing that "Jews are not a race" is like arguing that anti-semitism can't apply to Jews because Arabs are semites. The argument is a mischaracterization of what words mean.
by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 11:08:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with you on the social construct. My question concerned the usefulness of the anecdote.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 12:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that was the point.
by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 12:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My second point is that it's pure denial to believe that a prejudice of centuries, deeply embedded in culture, can just disappear like that. Things change - and certainly multi-cultural Berlin today is not what it was in the 1940s, but it's not something de-nova either.
by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 11:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I sincerely hope he didn't get the contract.

I'm sorry you had to go through that, but can you explain how saying "Germans are/did" is different from saying "Jews are/did"?

by Sassafras on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 09:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But, of course, "Jews are/did ... " is a perfectly fine construction in the appropriate context. "Eastern European Jews spoke Yiddish" is totally clear - most of us know that not all of them did so and many spoke other languages too.
by rootless2 on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 11:13:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
dodo is PNing to try and keep distinctions clear, and any possible hint of racism nipped in the bud, very worthy, but still PN, i think.

rootless is not insinuating anything, and in fact defends him/herself dispassionately.

it's good to be vigilant, but i think this is a bit over the top, as while technically true, i don't feel any bad will to the germans in rootless' comments, just perhaps a conflation, a generalisation quite appropriate for a discussion like this, all the more understandable when the family history is laid out.

it is too easy to make the nazis something 'other', and yet all european countries have abused jews throughout history, the german nazis just took it to its nightmarish conclusion most recently, so no-one here feels unsullied somewhat by our collective past in this and other regards.

the past is very much alive and much still unexpiated, by rights palestinians should hate hitler more than anyone, and this thread reveals how the phenomenon of fascism wounded so many people in so many countries, and those wounds have very thin new skin over them.

her in italy i get a distinct impression that fascism has not been processed completely, and the germans outrageousness was easy to point to, saying 'at least we never did that, when colluding was an integral part of that 'chain of pain'.

the fact that the new uber-right is gathering momentum in europe is another sad sign we have not learned our lessons well enough, that sweeping things under the historical rug is always a bad idea.

denial...

the first time i visited germany with my s.o. every time i saw a smoking chimney i felt sick, and i lost no relatives through warcrimes.

it seems obvious to me that rootless' comments are in good faith, and PNing them has led us into a forest of misunderstanding, though i applaud anyone keeping a hyperscanner alert for any whiff of racism.

it's not racist per se to state a truth, even a general one, and the guilt of nazism tainted many without german borders, even supported by 'high-class' financiers from europe and the usa.

plenty of guilt to go around, i give a lot of credit to the germans for how hard they have tried to expiate what they did, yet the comment about how many graveyards the new germany was built over was a slam to the gut.

both are right in this discussion, just talking past one another a bit, i reckon.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 02:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What "little demographic joke" is there in the diary?

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 at 12:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
despite some heated words.

May I simply suggest that when there is an incomprehension or a perceived incomprehension, both sides make an extra effort to clarify what they mean, or to ask about what they fear they interpret, rather than resorting to elliptical responses or refusals to acknowledge that there may simply be a good faith disagreement, or PN comments on a narrow sub-issue?

In this case, it turns out there are some disagreements of substance, but once each made its position more detailed, it led to a very useful and interesting conversation.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 at 06:26:55 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]