Because if you have an interest in Germany continuing to exist in the future, you need German people.
A country filled with Arabs, Africans, and Afghans isn't Germany, peoples aren't fungible in that way.
A country filled with Arabs, Africans, and Afghans isn't Germany, peoples aren't fungible in that way.
You can be non-Caucasian and still be German. That is what you were getting at right?
You certainly can be German and non-caucasian, but you actually have to believe yourself to be German and be part of German culture.
Many Puerto Ricans consider themselves both Puerto Rican AND American. This is especially interesting given Puerto Rico is an American territory yet it is considered a different cultural group.
Germans of Turkish descent are in fact still Turkish regardless of generation. Similarly Germans of Chinese descent are still Chinese while also being German.
Your final sentence is the nut. The rest of it is just discrimination (small d) of people into cultural groups.
(Edit: As an aside... Is Doner German culture? Or is it Turkish?)
I don't think it's easy to say what culture it is. The German Döner is still very similar to the traditional meal, but "Eating a Döner" has engrained itself deeply into German culture.
Normally, when eating foreign food, you'd call it by the country it comes from. If you order a burrito, you're "Eating Mexican", if you order a Pasta you're "eating Italian" and if you are having sushi you are "eating Asian". But you don't "eat Turkish" when eating a Döner.
I don't have an Answer, I just thought I'd share my thoughts.
Ie they are both enthusiastically adopted and adapted to local mores. Some of the changes even make it back to Turkey and India.
Hamburger are about as American as it gets. Of course, the name gives the origin away.
My wife & I are immigrants in Germany (and pay a lot more taxes than the median German family, draw far fewer benefits, speak German and have plenty of German friends and acquaintances) and our son was born in Germany.
I would expect him to believe himself to be German when he grows up, but would also see it as unfortunate if he doesn't also see himself as Israeli & Austrian at the same time.
So why would you like your son to see himself as "Austrian" and "Israeli" just because his parents lived there, instead of simply as having a genetic heritage in the region that goes back millennia before the modern conception of the German and Austrian State?
I would like him to know and acknowledge his cultural background, the same as I would like him to be able to speak Hebrew (at the very least so he could speak to his grandparents and extended family). And I don't see anything negative in that, there is no limit of having only a single identity.
I also don't see what genetics have to with it. Indeed my grandparents had to flee Europe for similarly phrased reasons (being ashkenazi didn't help them at the time) and I find them just as distasteful now as then.
What I found strange was that you thought he would want to identify with a neighboring political entity(Austria) instead of just as Germanic-European and Ashkenazi-European.
Also what I saw occuring was this symptomatic absurdity that occurs from our genuine desire to not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Which is acting like a migrant from Afghanistan or Syria is the same thing as an immigrant from Austria(!) or even Israel, Askenazim are mostly European.
In our fervor to not repeat past mistakes, we are willfully blinding ourselves to the fact that not all people are the same. And the kinds of societies that result when different peoples form societies are very different.
Thinking all these muslim migrants are going to somehow become model germans is madness.
The sad irony is, who do you think the biggest anti-semites in Europe are today? Muslim migrants and the Muslims already in Europe...
It's a shame Yiddish couldn't take that place that Hebrew got.
You say "[a] country filled with Arabs, Africans, and Afghans isn't Germany" and then question someone who wants to preserve their child's Israeli and Austrian heritage.
Trying to use genetic heritage to determine nationality is an unproductive use of one's time. You would be right in saying that the native populations of South Germany and Austria are similar genetically, but native North Germans are more similar genetically to the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish. Perhaps you also argue for those nationalities to identify as German?
I wrote the preceding sentences before checking your comment history (and remembering the neo-Nazi reference of your username). Now that I have, I can see why you would have a problem with non-Caucasians identifying as German and German parents wanting their children to remember their non-German heritage.
Differences among all those groups can be teased out when comparing them among themselves, but when comparing to Arabs, Africans, or Afghans, the differences among Europeans effectively vanish.
That was the point.
For Europe as we know it to continue to exist it's population must be Europeans.
Consider the types of societies one finds across the Arab world and Africa to the societies one finds in Europe.
neo-Nazi reference
I didn't even know about the "neo-Nazi reference" thing until someone pointed it out before(you?).
The truth is there are a series of account that were made when the number of saved stories was limited. i.e. cb1 ... 18
I just happened to stop on 18.
It's really absurd if every time you see the number 18 you shriek and go Nazi!!!
Do you watch sports where they wear numbers? Do you ever see prices in stores that say 18? There must be nazis hiding everywhere huh?
Let's do that:
European societies are nationalist (with distinct nations) and also functional.
African and Middle Eastern societies are pan-Arabic/pan-Islamic and dysfunctional.
I'm not claiming it's casuation not a mere correlation, but we should probably not fix what's not broken. Call when pan-Islamic Caliphate or pan-Arab Federation happens and is a success.
That's a well known code for Nazis.
- e.g. the, lamentable sub par state of most muslim countries. Many of those countries have so much (oil) money but look what stupid things their regimes are doing with it. Certainly not building a modern society. It's oppression almost everywhere - stop the population explosion would be another subject. Contrary to 50 years ago we have now the medical means to stop it. No wonder everybody gets poorer 'when a small farm has to be shared between 10 children'...
(But of course you (all) know this - and a cure is difficult)
Like the rise of xenophobic, populistic, nationalistic, fascist groups in Europe - where I live.
> lamentable sub par state of most muslim countries.
I suggest you take care of that. It's not my business. I have nothing to do with muslim countries.
> stop the population explosion
Where I live, there is no such thing.
It's true that creating series of 18 accounts just to make a concealed Nazi reference is pretty extreme, so maybe it's just a coincidence this time. False alarm guys, put away the pitchforks.
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cb18 2227 days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cb17 2253 days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cb16 2257 days ago
...
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cb3 2668 days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cb2 2787 days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=cb1 No such user.
But wait, there is no cb1! We've caught him in his crafty lies. Since there are actually only 17 accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_SS_Panzergrenadier_Divisi...) his cover is blown. Unless he can immediately clear his name by somehow proving the existence a cb1 account created 8 years ago, we've (essentially) _proved_ that he is a Nazi who is not worthy of refutation!
For Europe as we know it to continue to exist it's population must be Europeans.
Less sarcastically, I think it would be better to debate the points he makes rather than dismissing him by shrieking "Nazi". Is Europe defined by its genetic heritage or its culture? Which is more important? Do the two go hand-in-hand? At what cost is it worth preserving either?
It's really absurd if every time you see the number 18 you shriek and go Nazi!!!
You tried to slip that last reference in at the end where no one would notice, but I saw it. Nazi!!!
Just define it by geography, problem solved?
You have zero knowledge of European history.
Carl Zuckmayer:
Vom Rhein - noch dazu. Vom Rhein. Von der großen Völkermühle. Von der Kelter Europas! Ruhiger Und jetzt stellen Sie sich doch mal Ihre Ahnenreihe vor - seit Christi Geburt. Da war ein römischer Feldhauptmann, ein schwarzer Kerl, braun wie ne reife Olive, der hat einem blonden Mädchen Latein beigebracht. Und dann kam ein jüdischer Gewürzhändler in die Familie, das war ein ernster Mensch, der ist noch vor der Heirat Christ geworden und hat die katholische Haustradition begründet. Und dann kam ein griechischer Arzt dazu, oder ein keltischer Legionär, ein Graubündner Landsknecht, ein schwedischer Reiter, ein Soldat Napoleons, ein desertierter Kosak, ein Schwarzwälder Flözer, ein wandernder Müllerbursch vom Elsaß, ein dicker Schiffer aus Holland, ein Magyar, ein Pandur, ein Offizier aus Wien, ein französischer Schauspieler, ein böhmischer Musikant - das hat alles am Rhein gelebt, gerauft, gesoffen und gesungen und Kinder gezeugt - und - und der der Goethe, der kam aus demselben Topf, und der Beethoven und der Gutenberg, und der Matthias Grünewald und - ach was, schau im Lexikon nach. Es waren die Besten, mein Lieber! Die Besten der Welt! Und warum? Weil sich die Völker dort vermischt haben. Vermischt - wie die Wasser aus Quellen und Bächen und Flüssen, damit sie zu einem großen, lebendigen Strom zusammenrinnen. Vom Rhein - das heißt: vom Abendland. Das ist natürlicher Adel. Das ist Rasse. Seien Sie stolz darauf, Hartmann - und hängen Sie die Papiere Ihrer Großmutter in den Abtritt. Prost.
However you can also see how broad inclusion can be disappointing for "German Germans". You see, as an Israeli you have more flexibility and perhaps specific community support and, being a minority, additional lobbying power.
Whereas "German German", while being exactly same German as you (or your son), lacks all that and therefore at a disadvantage. They become "just Germans". These incentives lead to fragmentation of core German identity: everybody gains from declaring them as "German and Somebody Else". But fragmented society is a liability how we saw in Syria or Bosnia or many other troubled countries.
Therefore, while "German Germans" and "non-German Germans" should be equal almost everywhere, the former should have distinct weight at shaping society culture and policy. It's just more natural that way.
Disclaimer: I'm not a German but from a country that have similar issues.
To your specific example, I'd say football is a pretty big part of German culture and there are footballers who identify with the country they came from but feel more comfortable in a German shirt. They choose to represent Germany for that reason, becoming a massive part of that culture. Now would you say that Mesut Özil or Sami Khedira or Emre Can or Jerome Boateng aren't that German just because they remember where their family came from?
If you do, its interesting because others in Germany share that opinion. For example, one leader of a political party said a couple of days ago that Boateng remained "alien" despite his popularity and that people would not want "someone like Boateng as a neighbor." [1]
[1] - http://www.dw.com/en/afd-provokes-anger-with-racist-comments...
You can be non-Caucasian and still be German.
A country is the spirit and character of a people. That's what makes a country what it is. Not political boundaries on a map. And groups of people don't just take on a new spirit and character if they move into new political boundaries en masse.
The spirit and character of a people comes from their DNA. And their DNA comes from their environment over many thousands of years.
If the majority of the population in Germany were to be African or Arab, do you really think Germany would retain it's particular character that makes it European and German? No of course not! You would have to be insane to think that it would.
Were that to come to pass, Germany would look a lot more like countries in Africa or the Middle East than a European country.
With the recent migrant madness we are already seeing troubling signs of this, with loads of horrendous crimes hitherto unknown in Europe.
It's not just the excess of crime that doesn't bode well, but that these foreign populations, even into 2nd 3rd generation receive welfare at much higher rates than the general population.
Why would it ever be a good idea to take in loads of immigrants who are a net drain on the economy in multiple ways? Europe can't babysit the world in this way. Not only does make it make no sense, but it is unsustainable, the time at which our welfare states have become totally dismantled from this looting is rapidly approaching.
Many resources are finite. Why should grandparents who spent a life time contributing to the system have their benefits cut, so politicians can try to import future voters in order to extend their reign? It's madness. It is destroying the western world.
So, that's a long-winded way of saying, no a "non-caucasian" or anything else but an ethnic European, ethnic German cannot be a "german." Maybe someone else is a citizen of the Bundesrepublik. But that is just a piece of paper symbolizing an abstract system of agreements. The biological reality of what makes the German people what they are and by extent what Germany is, is another thing entirely.
---
I'm sure all of the Germans of Turkish familial origin
Funny you picked the Turks, who are notoriously unintegrated in Germany. Just like all the muslims across Europe of course, but some of the Turks have been here since the 1970s. So it makes people take notice and say, "uh oh!" In fact, this was more or less the reason for Angela Merkel's dictum years back saying "Multiculturalism has failed."
You're just trying to have a "filthy migrants are all criminals" whine dressed up as something other than bigotry.
Try to make the same exercise with the Aboriginal Australians: It doesn't matter if they don't reproduce; there's plenty of whites around to take their place.
Why do you hate diversity?
"German-ness" is emphatically not genetic.
German-ness comes from ethnic Germans which are a genetic subgroup.
"spirit and character" are not either.
Then where else would it come from? Spirit and character come from people, people are genetic.
---
Just answer this, you don't need to go into too much detail.
If an Icelandic couple moves to Africa, learns a Bantu language, and has a child who then also learns the language, is the child then a Bantu?
I'd argue what's far more problematic is the desire to portray oneself as the target of attacks as a method of evading argument, while posing reductio-ad-absurdium trick questions, but we digress…
German-ness comes from ethnic Germans which are a genetic subgroup.
I don't agree that this is the definition of nationality. It seems obviously false, given that at some point fairly recently in evolutionary terms there was no such thing as an "ethnic German" - so where did they come from? Following your argument, the only thing that can produce an "ethnic German" is the process of other "ethnic Germans" having children. I'm sure you see why that's not possible.
Isn't it far more likely that nationality is defined by shared cultural and social context? One becomes "German" by participating in and sharing the experience of other Germans? By its nature, this is going to be a fuzzy concept. One could certainly be forgiven for arguing that a first-generation immigrant who makes no effort to learn the German language or participate in German civil society isn't "German", but even then it's not clear.
Then where else would it come from? Spirit and character come from people, people are genetic.
People are far more cultural and social than they are genetic - that is, social and cultural differences between people are far greater than genetic differences. It would seem ludicrous for example to suggest that a child born in Germany, who speaks German and is an active participant in that society is somehow not German because of both of their parents were from, say, Turkey.
If an Icelandic couple moves to Africa, learns a Bantu language, and has a child who then also learns the language, is the child then a Bantu?
Isn't this exactly an example of where nationality and ethnicity is fuzzy?
If said child grows up in Africa, and the cultural experience of that upbringing is Bantu (the culture rather than the ethnicity) then why would that child not be Bantu? Simply because their genetic history took a detour via Scandinavia? That seems silly to me.
Would you then suggest that a country of mixed-nationality immigrants, like Canada, can never have a national identity? Do you believe that the patriotic affinity between Canadians is somehow lesser than that between Germans, because we don't share a well-defined genetic heritage?
You're right, Turks have integrated poorly in Germany. Temporary foreign workers were brought over en masse and ghettoized to fuel the economic rejuvenation of the nation; unsurprisingly, many chose to stay. Too many to integrate properly. The result is a huge chasm between German-born Turks and Germans, with resentment on both sides. But this was the result of a poorly-executed policy, albeit one that may have been necessary at the time; either way, it's not the normal way that immigration happens in Germany or other countries.
Lesser patriotic affinity for minorities? Absolutely. (I am Canadian)
There's even a study[1] showing that with increasing diversity, you get:
Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
Less likelihood of working on a community project.
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
Fewer close friends and confidants.
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".
[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007....
Switzerland is a better example---since they don't have big groups that want to split the country.
because we don't share a well-defined genetic heritage
This is not true. The genetic heritage of both Canada and the USA is European. It is only in recent decades that there has been non-European immigration of any significance.
Therefore the national identity of Canada and the USA is European. After all, they are part of the western world, they have the characteristics that are common to the European/western world.
When I have to explain this stuff, I feel like the world is going crazy. I mean it is so obvious. But it if helps someone, great.
But you are right, Germany does a pretty bad job at integrating newcomers.
"Preußen und die Marktwirtschaft" (whttps://www.amazon.de/Preu%C3%9Fen-die-Marktwirtschaft-Erhar...) is a fun read, if you don't mind taking it with a pinch of salt or two.
The author argues how much more efficient the Prussian state was compared to modern Germany. Eg 200 years ago they were devastated from the defeat by Napoleon but managed to invent and establish the modern university that everyone copied---and all that with less public servants for the whole of Prussia than a medium sized town these days.
The genetic arguement is completely bogus, shouldn't you be removing all the dogs first before you start splitting difference between humans?
Still, doesn't make too much sense.