Living History

SO, WE TRIED TO KILL ALL THE WORLD'S JEWS AND WE WILL NEVER FORGET IT!! This is not history in an unread dusty textbook. Rather, this is the living history of a nation that lost its way once and seeks stability, seeks an identity other than that of pariah. How do you go forward without risking repeating old mistakes, old patterns? This is the eternal question in Germany and one experiences the presence of this question through the architecture, the placards explaining this or that former national socialistic court, or other such infamous (beruchsichtigt) place. For example, many people, many Germans, are not aware of the meaning of the little brass squares that are in front of buildings all over the city. These squares bear the names of Jewish holocaust victims who lived in the buildings where the squares are placed. I guess, like everything, one gets accustomed to seeing these in front of one's home. It nevertheless amazes me, these little brass squares. It remains a fair question, has Germany, have the German people really learned the lessons of WWII and the Third Reich? I have to say, based upon my experience in Berlin, yes. Although I continue to hear rumors of the neo-Nazis who live in various parts of the city, I have, fortunately, neither seen them nor felt their presence. They do not exert a great influence on the city.

Ein geschichtlicher Perspektiv

Vor eine Woche, hab ich gelesen, daß der Bundesstaatspräsident des Bundesstaats Virginia April als Volkstrauermonat für die aus Virginia Gestorbenen des Bürgerkrieges Amerikas feiern will. Für viele Amerikaner, wäre das so ähnlich als ob die Deutsche Regierung ein solchen Volkstrauermonat für die gestorbenen Nazis der NS Zeit feiern würden. Das wäre hier unvorstellbar. Aber in Amerika, das Land des unsichtbaren Erinnerungs, wo viele Leute offensichtlich fast kein Wert auf eine wahrliche Kenntnis der Geschichte legen geht das. Tja. Obwohl ich in einiger Massen Amerika vermisse, für diesen Tendenz, diese Neigung unsere echte Geschichte mehr oder weniger abzusagen hab ich weder Bock noch Geduld.

From Above or From Below

Just had a very interesting discussion with a German architect friend in which we discovered, once again, our respective Euro v. American way of viewing the world. This time the theme was, art/architecture. Actually, the theme was more, who has the right to determine meaning. With what he asserts represents a very American predisposition, I argued my unwillingness to surrender to artists the sole right to determine meaning. Namely, you cannot put a pile of shit (i.e., real shit) on a piece of board and tell me that it represents the next coming of Christ. Alternatively, you can tell me that, as you can tell me that it means anything you want, but I am under no obligation to accept your commentary or explanation of this shit. If I just see shit on cardboard, and nothing more, that is perhaps all there is to this piece. Moreover, if everyone who sees this sees just that, shit on cardboard, the question arises, is there something more?

Apparently, as an American, raised amidst the cacophony of our celebration of democracy and the democratic ideal, the celebration of the "every man", I believe largely (with, perhaps, some limits about which I'll have to give more thought) in the supremacy of the masses to determine meaning. I must say, I generally abjure the singular authority of the individual, in this case an artist, to determine meaning. I do this for, what to me, seems the simple reason that communication (of which art seems just a form) is a discourse between and amongst persons. A discourse, moreover, that relies upon shared symbology and iconography. If communication is to have meaning, then there must, at some level, be accord between the mutual parties regarding what the thing means. Of course, that doesn't mean that we can't fight around the edges (which may be quite broad, those edges). In fact, the great majority of language describing a thing of controversy engages almost exclusively these edges. At some point, however, there must be accord about basic aspects of representation. Furthermore, if you are bringing new meanings, new iconography, into the cultural language, then you, nevertheless, must bring me, the audience, along. Otherwise it seems you are talking just to yourself.

While talking to oneself might not be a bad thing, and I might even enjoy listening in, at such a point, I'm no longer trying to ascertain A Meaning to your piece; I'm doing one of two other things. Either I'm seeking to enjoy the piece on my own idiosyncratic terms. Or I pell mell adopt the author's perspective, without either understanding or perhaps really seeking to understand it and just, so to say, go with it. In either case, I have effectively bereaved the author of his presumed authority over meaning. This, I believe, is the right of either party to a dialogue. Of course, my conceptualization of art (or, at least, the presentation of it, and that may make a big difference in my thoughts on the matter, whether it's presented or not) is as a dialogue. I appreciate that others perhaps consider it more a monologue. The latter perspective, one evoking an image of the artist speaking to herself, seems somewhat fatuous, at least if it's published work about which we're speaking. But I'm not even convinced that unpublished work should/would escape this same analysis. Eventually, the author is always seeking to realize something (ideas, feelings, moods, etc.) in an artistic medium. That something relies, essentially, upon the artist's understanding of a shared/cultural symbology. And it seems not unreasonable to say, if NO ONE (and I mean, for argument sake, NO ONE) gets it, then it doesn't mean what the artist claims it means.

My European friend, however, argues that in Europe, they're more willing to surrender to the artist the determinative authority over meaning. Resulting from their experience with masses having made greivous mistakes (and that's why I think this may be more of a German thing, but he says no, it's Europe-wide) or just their general preference for hierarchies (also having to do with a monarchical history versus an exclusively "democratic" one), they are willing to cede their judgment to that of the expert or, in this case, the artist. Interesting how a preference for the viewpoint/opinion of the individual (artist, expert, etc.) arises from a history of deference to monarchs and a preference for the common person, or rather group of "common" persons, from a history built upon the rights of the individual.

Alas the question is, which one of us is right? Or need we even choose?

Nationalitism v. Racism (work in progress, feel free to assist my thinking on this complex issue with your comments)

Ok, this is a question that has intrigued me since I arrived in Berlin. So much so, I feel I have to create a new term to properly discuss the issue. Nationalitism, of course, describes a bias against persons of different nationalities as opposed to classifying (and/or discriminating against) persons along racial lines. Over the past 8 months, I've thought a lot about what it means to be a minority in Germany. I've written on this blog about the issue. The longer I've been here, the more my thinking has evolved on this issue. Germany has a very complicated relationship with those of its residents that are either of "migratory" (their word, not mine) background or persons of color. This includes all persons who are not of "pure" German stock. That's the only way I can capture this concept.

The fact that everyone who's parents, or grandparents, or almost any linear relatives who are not "pure" german are considered to be of migratory background, makes it difficult to think of Germany from a racialist perspective. Being of migratory background would, naturally, be true of Caucasian persons who's ancestors hail from other countries as well. I continue to be curious about the distinction, if any, however between the experiences of white persons of "migratory" background and those of persons of color. I imagine, it's highly different. In the first instance, unlike persons of color, I doubt that, to the extent they are fluent in the language, the first question asked to them is "where are you from". Similarly, I speak about persons of Turkish origin as if they are not white. In America's reductionist racialist construct they would be so considered and, on that basis, more easily absorbed into the white majority (even more so if they were either not muslim, or not very devout in their faith). Because of Germany's emphasis upon nationality, however, they are generally not considered German.

I've had countless conversations with Germans regarding race and nationality. More specifically, I've spoken with many about the issue of Turkish persons living in Germany. I am particularly interested in the Turkish experience in Germany. The arrival of the Turkish persons in the early 60's resulted from economic exigency. They did not intend to remain. Although they chose to locate to Germany, in contrast to the arrival of the first African persons in America, their position as the largest immigrant group in Germany, and the group that has had the most significant difficulties integrating into German society, makes their experience feel acutely similar to that of African Americans at home, notwithstanding the various distinctions in their route to Germany or, as well, their legal standing in the country presently.

In discussing the difficulties of integration for Turkish persons in Germany, I often sense a significant degree of defensiveness from Germans with respect to this theme. Although they understand that the integration of the Turks has, in many ways, been a failure, their history with National Socialism and its racism make them reflexively deflective of the suggestion that they are, somehow, to blame for this. But the question of blame seems distracting. It's not necessary to apportion blame in order to discuss the integration of persons of Turkish origin and other minorities in Germany. But that seems to be another Germany proclivity, perhaps more their burden, viz., obsession with blame.

Personally, I see only very little real integration. The Germans seem satisfied with the evolution of Turkish schools, colleges, economies, etc. They are quick to note the "problems" caused by Turkish youth, the crime or drug problems. And, like African Americans, persons of Turkish heritage are responsible for a disproportionate amount of such activities. To speak to persons of Turkish heritage about their experience here seems like speaking to persons who live in completely different countries, different realities from their "German" compatriots (itself an odd term for persons who do not necessarily feel a sense of shared identity).

Notably, it's true that there is a strong sense of their belonging to a different culture. Germans mention this as well, that the Turkish Germans are not "culturally" German. I'm not sure that's true, since both groups mention that the German Turkish population is not received in Turkey as "real" Turks. That seems to suggest that there has been a significant hybridization of the cultures within the German Turkish population. The Turkish Germans have evolved from their original state. In this sense, they would be prototypical Americans. For what is an American other than a person, from a foreign culture, who's been melted into our grand melting pot, who's lost much of her former culture and adopted much of the prevailing American one?

More interestingly, however, it raises the question of the reasonableness, perhaps the viability, of being simultaneously of multiple cultures. We see the tension of multiculturarity in the U.S. with various of our immigrant populations. For the most part, as a nation founded upon immigration, this is a non-issue. Americans have been calling themselves xAmerican for what seems like 20 years now, so, highlighting our sense of dual, or multiple, ethnicity. To an American, it seems almost axiomatic, that a free society is tolerant of "legal" immigrants and their retention (within limitations) of their native culture. There are limitations. Though Americans (and what does that mean) are generally tolerant of multiple cultures, we do expect newly minted Americans to, at least, make an effort to learn the language.

This use of the term American leads to exactly the central point. In the U.S., everyone who is legally a citizen is an American. Because we are a land principally based upon the ideal of personal/individual freedom, everyone who "works hard", pays taxes, and, perhaps, stands for the national anthem is an American. If everyone hails from someplace else, then, essentially, no one is "more" American than anyone else. Of course there are racists in both Germany and America that I am really not considering here. For such persons, in both countries, no one outside of quite narrow (and somewhat capricious) definitional parameters, is a member of the allegedly dominant culture. I mean more the main-stream, people on the streets, ordinary Americans. For them, the concept of American has little to do with a sense of who is American by blood and has more to do with who is American by legal right, and as evidenced by limited shared values.

In Germany, only persons who are of German blood are "real Germans". It's of course somewhat odd this sense of germanness, given that, as a unified land, Germany's history is relatively young (only since the second half of the 19th C.). Nevertheless, it seems to be a concept laden with a sense of both place, time, and race. I say the last, because there are numerous persons of other nationalities (e.g., Russian or Polish) who automatically receive German citizenship regardless of the fact that they were born abroad to parents who, themselves, were born abroad. They receive their German citizenship because they have identifiable German heritage (similar, in this sense, to Israel).

It's Been a While

I guess I haven't had much to say for some time. The winter really sucked in Berlin and it saw me really turning inward. The sun rarely shone, it was really cold, and snow was on the ground for more than 60 consecutive days. That's a lot to take. But spring is here now, I have moved to an enormously cooler space, and, therefore, I'm back.

Arschkalt in Berlin

Ok, es ist wirklich arschkalt hier. Minus 14 ist ja lächerlich. Wie du vielleicht siehst, kanns aber auch ganz schön sein. Im letzen Tagen, hatte ich fast gar keine Lust rauszugehen. Ich hab, aber, nen Gast aus Dänemark, der natürlich ausgehen wollte und bin ich, deswegen, viel mehr unterwegs gewesen als ich am sonst wäre. Tja. Ich hab's überlebt und die Zeit richtig genossen. Bis bald alle die diesen Eintrag lesen können.

Race and Germany II

WOOOOHOOOO!!!!!!!! MY FIRST IMAGE POSTED TO MY BLOG. I just figured out how to do this.

OK. So, on Xmas day, I had dinner with a friend and some of her friends. One of her friends was an Asian Canadian woman. In a general conversation about what it means to be German (and whether any of us present would ever be considered German), the Asian woman mentioned that she has experienced an inordinate degree of racism in Germany. Must say, this surprised me somewhat, given both my own experiences and those that I cited previously resulting from conversations from other Asian German people. It was amazing the statements she's said people have brazenly made to her. Similarly amazing was the seemingly blame-the-victim response that she's received when addressing this issue with other Germans (ones not calling her the bone-chillingly racist terms). Later that evening, I was addressing this issue with, yet another, Asian-German guy who, again, assured me that he had experienced next to no racism of any serious kind over the past 20+ years living in Germany.

Fast forward to this evening, at the end of a long ping-pong evening, there were just four persons left, including the Asian German guy. One of the guys, Joe, who has made numerous subtle and not-to-subtle jabs against my German. This guy first started speaking this mock Viatnemese. I was really mortified. I took great pains to try to explain to him exactly why this was offensive. He just didn't get it. He then asked this Vietnamese guy, who is of small stature, "so, Taowan, how tall are you?" I had enough. I railed at him in German for about a minute. Then he did something he's often done, and acted as if he didn't understand what I'd said to him in German. Funny how after speaking with billions of Germans everyday with no dissatisfied customers, he, in the context of my being livid at his blatant racial insensitivity (to say the least), feigned difficulty understanding me. So I moved to English (he's about 20% as good at English as I am at German) to make the point more clearly (at least to me). He then feigned (though this time it was not a feignt) less understanding. After this tete-a-tete, I left, feeling like a martian amongst earthlings. Since then, I've noted Joe and Taowan playing chess and arriving at Dr. Pong together quite frequently. So, whatever my American racial sensitivities, it's obvious Taowan does not share them. Oh well. For his children's sake, I hope he finds a voice, eventually.