As a result, the guy really lives in a bubble where everything he says almost immediately happens, but only in Turkey. This does not stop him to order doing something about that stupid foreign press, and all his advisors think is to ask the German govt to suppress free press in Germany.
Expect more from him in the coming months since he's on a ride to the top of idiocy.
And see, criticism of Erdogan is not really forbidden. Criticism in its every form is forbidden, if you're powerful enough. Criticise Ataturk, and what happens? Lawsuits, and you'll probably be jailed (1). Say that the Armenian Genocide happened, you'll be jailed. Criticise the party leaders, and they sack half of the party, e.g. the recent MHP situation.
Erdogan does not like criticism, but it's our culture that allows him to actually enforce a surpression thereof. There was a guy who reported his own wife because she spoke pejoratively about Erdogan. Here there still is a godly ruling class, the class of devlet buyukleri. Until they become merely the citizens with the duty to decide for us for a limited time and with full responsabilities, the status quo will go on.
(1) A very recent example is the havoc against a documentary that criticised him.
It's even "better" than that, because it is so easy for a leader to re-spin outside criticism from "attack against me" to "attack against us", strengthening his position internally. And this pattern is not even limited to dictators and the like: when Americans made fun of Bush junior, it was perfectly fine application of of free speech. If Europeans did the same, it was antiamericanism making Americans rally around the flag to protect him.
So in the interplay between international and domestic opinion, there seems to be some kind of inverse Streisand effect. Can we please have a word for that? It would make the whole world easier to understand... (german has "Burgfriedensmentalität“, but that is the resulting state, not the mechanism that causes it)
It hurts your country's ability to leverage foreign minds when you begin to censor the outside world. Plus, with the internet, censorship becomes really impractical. China and North Korea don't do this completely successfully and they spend a lot of effort to keep their citizens on some form of lock down. So not only do you end up missing out on the collective conscience of foreigners, but you also lose some portion of your own population's trust and creativity.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is working together to solve problems in an open, concerted manner. I'm not saying our world is perfect but I think it's fairly obvious that censorship, in the days of the internet, is not the right way to the future.
We need to get over ourselves, stop being so sensitive, and recognize that even when governments make laws to protect people's feelings, people will still say mean and negative things. I don't want to read those garbage comments here on HN because it fills up the thread, but I can tolerate them in the real world because I know I can just walk away. The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence, and I'm sorry to all the extremist Muslims, but drawing a picture is not viewed as inciting violence by most of the world, including most of the people who follow similar forms of that faith.
> The only time speech should be regulated is when it incites violence [...]
Speech should not be regulated in any ways, or we will have millions of who decides questions. A picture of Mohammad is annoying to each and every muslim, because the religion expressly forbids the likeness of the holy figures. Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks. This does not in any way justify the violence, but does not help either. Have you seen the latest cover of Hebdo, Papa où t'es? That's within freedom of speech too, but freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning. It is possible to criticise, or even attack in a civil, graceful way. In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?
If someone says "everybody, let's go kill this person or group of people on Saturday at Noon". THAT, is inciting violence.
If the courts and police starts prosecuting that kind of euphemism laden language, then they shift further.
On the other hand, keep everything open and people tend to learn and build filters for stuff like this.
The US is strong in the business world because they endure differing opinions!
Astute businessmen can see how limiting free speech limits their own success. Good businessmen do not surround themselves with yes-men.
When you limit free speech of a country, you cut off most of your people from certain intelligence. You could argue the intelligence agency has access to everything, however, at some point, the original guys will retire. They will be replaced with people who grew up without consistent access to the entire world picture. They will thus be disadvantaged when engaging in international politics and trade deals.
I guess it comes down to, do you think current and former leaders of the likes of China and North Korea are more or less happy or successful than current and former leaders of the likes of the US and France.
> Speech should not be regulated in any ways
You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. Governments set limits to every right in order to balance public safety. If you think that's wrong, that's your choice. I'd just point out that you grew up in a society that benefited from this increased safety while sacrificing some portion of its people's rights. Unless you were raised in the jungle :-D.
Yes, you are. Look at "Trope Two" in the link below. The post linked is written by Ken White who specializes in the 1st amendment.
Come on mate, I thought we're talking about political speech :)
With regards to Erdogan as a businessman, the thing is, he is using his position to prosper as a rich man. I repeat, he has no care about what happens to the country. There are no ideologies, no nothing here. He uses the state as a means to cash in what he can. And he has his circle of assistants etc., what he wants is to be able to steer the politics and ultimately the state the way he wants w/o any friction.
I just said he would prosper more by accepting the diversity that exists in his region and the world. You're not even reading my comment, you're just repeating the same thing you said before.
When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.
Thanks, I see that now. Some of @gkya's words sounded like they take the opposite viewpoint, such as,
>> Speech should not be regulated in any ways
>> Freedom of speech does not mean irresponsible and banale flow of whatever one thinks.
>> freedom of speech must not mean that one can be reckless, inconsiderate and demeaning.
It reads like it was unedited and is very hard to follow
> When one looks at his actions in the light of those motives his actions make a lot of sense. Without those motives his actions appear stupid.
I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.
> I disagree, see my comments about astute businessmen not using yes-men above. No worries if we don't agree here. Countries are most certainly businesses. They're in the business of acquiring people who generate money.
Right, but that is assuming that Erdogan is trying to do what is best for the country in the long term. Many would argue his primary concern is Erdogan's interests in the short term.
Former dictators who censored speech don't generally have happy post-political careers. I wouldn't imagine trying to put a strangle hold on a whole country's speech is exactly stress free either.
Whether he is planning for the short term or for his whole life, Erdogan isn't so bright as @gkya would have you believe. He certainly doesn't have the best interests of his country in mind. However, I'll add something else you may not expect me to believe, which is that I believe everyone does things in their own interests. I wouldn't expect anyone to do otherwise. Erdogan's behavior is simply a matter of foresight. He's not seeing his own future clearly.
Ergo, Erdogan isn't bright.
No one - least of all @gkya - is saying he is bright. They are saying his actions aren't stupid.
Former dictators who censored speech don't generally have happy post-political careers.
Plenty have died in office while still holding power, too. Most of Turkey's immediate neighbors have had dictators who died while in power.
Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.
For example, France, which seems freer than Turkey, actually just fined a comedian that have insulted the prime minister of half retarded Musolinni. That's not okay and it's not fundamentaly different of what's happening in Turkey.
It seems like many countries have limitations on free speech, which according to this definition would mean they do not actually have free speech.
> In the end, though, this should be left to the authors will, to decide whether or not it is moral to say what he says. Because when state is involved the slightest, it can be involved more. Who decides what incites violence?
So to this I agree:
> Actually, it is. Freedom of speech can't be whatever seems civil to each person, it's a binary issue. Either you have it or you don't.
What I say is, the individuals should be considerate when using their freedom to speech. Freedoms bear responsabilities. One cannot say anything and go by. If what you say is lies, or pure insults, or if it's provocative, there will be consequences, or else it conflicts with the right to human dignity of the one(s) at the receiving end of your speech. One should be responsible and mindful of what he says.
Yes you CAN. Nobody has a right not to be offended. You don't have to be mindful of what you say. That's not freedom of speech.
You're free to insult, but you don't have to. If you do so, people will get offended, and you'll be excluded, ignored, or insulted back at. Again, you're free to insult, but there will be consequences, and by insulting you take the responsibility, and accept being excluded, or insulted at.
And everybody has a right to not be offended, which has to protect them from bullying, demeaning, racism, etc., called the "right to human dignity":
> Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. (Article 1)
> Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. (Article 3/1)
> The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right. (Article 10/2)
> Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. (Article 11)
> Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. (Article 21/1)
> Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. (Article 21/2)
Either you believe in free speech or you don't. Don't pussy foot around it.
If you believe that people should be arrested for insulting people in the wrong way then SAY it! Dont hide behind some human dignity double speak.
Sure, "free speech exactly like in the US" is a binary issue.
Free speech, as sensibly construed, is a whole spectrum.
And free speech is not very useful unless you have access to ways to practice it. In a country where mass media practice active censorship voluntarily (against "wardrobe malfunctions" and swear words) in order to avoid state sanctions, that absolutist view gets a bit problematic.
But however much I might disagree with Erdogan, I know that he probably isn't actually be an idiot: people who can grab and hold that much power rarely are. Your explanation of how he's manufacturing this kerfuffle for a domestic audience makes a lot more sense.
What are divorce laws like in Turkey? I'm betting this guy just wanted to get rid of his wife, and found this to be a convenient way to do so.
So it really is forbidden, just not enforced until you actually start making an impact?
So it's mostly an abuse of the law via installed judges and misuse of the constitution. The parliamenters are immune to lawsuits during their duty, so it's easier for them to act so.
I wonder, will Erdogan bring back Janissaries? Or has he already through his full control of the security forces?
And I guess if we preserved the ruling house like the Brits and the spaniards did, and also some form of the Caliphate that acted like Vatican, maybe the things would be easier (I'm a secular agnostic, and I'm completely anti-nationalist). Nowadays there is no entity that is respected as a unifier of the Muslim world.
And further, maybe the Empire was better for middle-east. Here, the nation failed, for the bindings among people are mostly based on kinship, belonging to the same mahalle and memleket, and ultimately religion. But in Turkey you'll find many adjacent mosques and churches, for, AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started. Under the Ottomans, yes, the muslim were a bit more advantageous, but not less subject to the sultanate than the christian subjects.
Only if you ignore the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians and other minority Christian groups.
Think before you write.
I say this, in the sentence before the one you quote:
> AFAIK, it wasn't until nationalism took on that the major conflicts started.
The genocide happened during the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. Armenians were under Ottoman rule since long before, so were Greeks.
Berlusconi was nowhere near Erdogan's style of strongman politics, but unfortunately, during his term, Berlusconi did stifle press freedom somewhat in Italy... primarily via questionable libel lawsuits against any critical outlet if I recall.
It's easy for me to see Donald Trump following a similar pattern, of attempting to sue any critical outlet into silence.
Unfortunately for Trump, the courts have consistently sided with the press when they report accurate and factual statements, even if they may be unflattering. This doesn't seem to register with Trump. If asked to define what "treating me fairly" actually, genuinely means, I'm pretty sure he couldn't.
Do you think the media needs to be a little more accountable or the hysteria is good?
Practically I don't think Trump would get very far with any sort of libel lawsuits. Even in Italy, Berlusconi's "sue into silence" strategy was not 100% effective -- and Berlusconi is a much more dominant player in comparative national medias than Trump is.
Even so, my gut feeling is that Trump would be perfectly okay with a Putin / Erdogan style strongman media takeover if he could get away with it.
And Europe is helpless as it braces for the massive waves of immigrants coming its way, with Turkey winning big political concessions in exchange for "stopping" them.
I can only imagine how Erdogan handles that.
But it's not just Turkey.
I'm afraid this can be said about more and more leaders in lots of countries around the world.
Most of the former USSR has developed such political systems/leaders, with Putin leading the pack.
Corruption is growing all over the world and these types of leaders are consequences of that.
In the end it's up to the people of all this countries to use the still remaining democratic levers to bring new people into power.
Don't worry, we'll join those other countries later this year when we elect our own queen of corruption, Hillary.
- Erdogan's intolerance for satire or criticism is very disturbing indeed, but the law that is used in these cases was introduced in 2005, during Ahmet Necdet Sezer's presidency (TCK 299), being an expert in constitutional law, he should have vetoed it. Erdogan knows that media eroded his predecessors power,(e.g. Turgut Ozal) and unlike them, he will do anything to not allow that for himself.
- Police force had always been controlled by internal affairs ministry. There is nothing new there.
- That "barely standing democracy" was actually also a semi dictatorian state as well, only controlled by military and minority bureaucrat elite.
- In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down, I have faith in Turkish people, they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
I think Erdogan lost his cool after the affair with Gulen cult, has too many yes mans around and apparently does not care about streisand effect. I don't see him in power for long time.
Also he will be in power for a long long time - he has a big core of pious Turks that support him. The recent elections were always about him getting a supermajority.
In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down,
I have faith in Turkish people,
they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
- In the end, it still takes a single election to take him and his party down, I have faith in Turkish people, they did it before to others, they will do it to him as well.
Not to mention that his voters are the religious people and mostly not the most educated type. They get easily manipulated by the media. We are at brink of civil war and our international relationship is suffering but he still gets the votes because "he is so charismatic and religious"
I really don't think having turkey as a migration buffer is worth paying the price of making the european union look like a club you can buy your way into regardless of ethics. What's the use of values if we're starting to ignore them so easily?
Having seen a bit of German politics from the inside, I can assure you that everyone grapples with choices like this. I've witnessed ministers of finance changing their opinion on life-or-death (for Greece) matters three times in a day. Not because they lack conviction or idealism, but because they have a set of believes that are sometimes conflicting. Plus lack of sleep, incomplete information etc.
I wish more of that process could be shown on TV, but politicians who actually voice these ambiguities are unfortunately seen as weak and thus at some point a decision is made internally and is then communicated with absolute confidence publicly.
Regarding Turkey: rest assured, they're never going to be an EU member if things don't change dramatically. Medium-term, Turkey does actually belong in the EU: it's got enormous economic potential, could be a bridge to the middle east etc. Maybe that should have actually happened in the 1995-2008 timeframe and we'd have a different Turkey today. But EU leaders closed the door back then, possibly b/c Turkey was too poor, probably also because there's always one EU head of state who's a fucking racist.
And I don't follow the arguments for Turkey joining. Yes, it may have enormous potential; but nobody would say Mexico should join the US just because it has potential.
On the other hand wouldn't they be subject to certain laws to prevent or reduce the authoritarianism if they were part of the EU?
The EU simply has very little oversight of internal politcs of countries and because there is no way you can be kicked out, once you are in, you can do pretty much as you want. That is, as long as you don't need massiv amounts of financial aid.
Even when politicians do the right things (get a panel of experts to write a detailed report, and then try to act on the findings) - headlines contain only the barest hint of the depth of the analysis and the findings are chastised by various ill informed commentators who don't even bother to read the damned reasoning.
I actually feel sorry for those trying to govern.
It looks like you are so unsure about your own arguments that you need insulting them to feel better.
The main reason EU closed the door to Turkey had nothing to do with race(their race is the same of Europeans'), and everything to do with culture and religion, specially religion.
You could disagree with them and their arguments, but insulting them is not ok.
Turkey is a Muslim country. People like Erdogan don't like Western values, he is very clear about that, they prefer a Muslim theocracy in which every part of life is controlled by this (non sense) book written 1500 years ago.
To think seriously about the consequences of letting a hundred million Muslims entering Europe is not racist, it is the politicians' job.
But the more interesting post is to point out that if you allow racists the power to destroy an entire line of argumentation for all purposes forever by using it, you are ceding to them enormous power to control the discourse, even accidentally, by completely determining the bounds of acceptable debate.
Racism is bad, but the way we treat it as radioactive waste nowadays has itself become a danger to society. It's merely bad. It is not the One True Sin, it is not the cause of all life's problems, it is not the One Temptation in life that if resisted means we can stop worrying about our moral status, it is not something that permanently twists everything it touches into an eternerally-unredeemable black goo, even ye unto a dozen generations. It's merely a bad thing that hurts people. Giving it the power to be those other things is an error too.
So, yes, it is perfectly valid to address the question of "incompatible cultures and values". Of course, it does require one to admit that cultures have values that can differ from one another, which is, admittedly, a door that once you walk through does suddenly make a lot of the prepackaged really "nice" answers in current discourse suddenly obviously too oversimplified to be useful for any purpose, but such is reality.
Art 9. – As an amendment to Article 24 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 24 (a) is as follows written: <<Art. 24 (a). - those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one year's imprisonment or a fine.
In Turkey you literally can't admit that a genocide happened.
I also wouldn't be welcoming a country that refuses to acknowledge the full independence of another EU member state (Cyprus).
If you want to play the racism/xenophobia card and pretend that these are not the big issues we have against Turkey in EU go ahead, but I can't tell you that you are not convincing anyone.
Really? Because Cyprus would:
>Cyprus is in favor of Turkey's Accession to the EU with the hope it will facilitate a viable and just solution of the Cyprus Problem.
The current situation is just Erdogan having his revenge on Europe for dropping Turkey.
Not to mention the PKK would obviously help end ISIS.
Even Iraqi Kurds trying to ban PKK because they know what's going on in that organization. Even Kurds in turkey are not happy with PKK. They want a reform , but most of them wants stay in turkey, while the "being Turkish citizen definition changed".Look at how popular HDP is in Kurdish areas in Turkey.
You have no clue what are you talking about.
for further reference , please read/listen to Henri Barkey from Woodrow Wilson which is well respected political scientist.
This is pure nonsense.
Are you kidding me?
do you have any idea what you are talking about?
You have no clue what are you talking about.
wasting people times in HN
Hard politics isn't a great fit for HN to begin with, but if you're
going to contribute to such discussions as inevitably arise, it's
important to follow these rules—particularly when others
are being wrong and provocative.
(None of this is a comment on your politics, only on how you're
presenting them. The same applies to all HN users.)
But in a case like this, dang may be happy to let you edit or delete the comment.
You should email email@example.com to request this.
- "How could Isis be eliminated? In the region, everyone knows. All it would really take would be to unleash the largely Kurdish forces of the YPG (Democratic Union party) in Syria, and PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ party) guerillas in Iraq and Turkey. These are, currently, the main forces actually fighting Isis on the ground. They have proved extraordinarily militarily effective and oppose every aspect of Isis’s reactionary ideology." (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-...)
- Erdogan went apeshit after HDP deprived him his parliament majority: "The cynicism behind Erdogan’s calculation to launch a full-scale war against the PKK is stunning." (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/21/erdogans-deadly-ambition...)
- “'Kurdish people are fighting for our rights, and Turkey is trying to finish us off,' says 53-year-old Ramazon Sakci as he stands in the garden of his home, which is riddled with bullet holes.” (http://www.thenation.com/article/turkey-is-fighting-a-dirty-...)
That's a form of personal attack which is inevitably provocative of a much worse thread. Please edit such rudeness out of your posts here. Your question would have been fine, and less self-undermining, had you done so.
Why? Abuse stays with people during the day, and it is better to ever-so-slightly reflect it back on the abuser, than for it to come out on your employees (or friends, children, dog...)
 "You have no clue what are you talking about", "how much people can be stupid and naive", etc.
The big irony is here , how much people can be stupid and naive. My claim wasn't against Chomsky , It is quite opposite , Chomsky is completely right, But you don't know what you are talking about, Chomsky does not support PKK as he multiple times stated PKK have done seriously bad things. but at the other hand Turkish government have done so many bad things too, this is your shallow understanding about politics, which you think in every case there should be Good vs Evil. That is not the case at all . please come to the real world. you don't have clue what you are engaging to. Most of the time (almost 99% time) it is Evil vs Evil and only people got hurt is simple ordinary people.
There is a narrow line between "Erdogan is dictator (which is absolutely correct and turkey law is ridiculously weak in human rights) and PKK is good" and "Erdogan is dictator and PKK does use this opportunity to improve its position, and PKK does not give fuck about Kurds" (which is Noam Chomsky position in this video too, look at how he condemn PKK at to ordinary people, but he dos not attack PKK because he knows establishment media in west will make great deal of it to prove their point which is Chomsky fighting against it). Sadly people like you are incapable of understanding these tactics used by politicians.
if you want to check real protector of Kurd's people, look at HDP (if you do know turkey at all) and don't waste people time.PKK is not popular in east turkey, I have so many friends lives in northern Iraq north-west of iran and east of turkey and most of them (all of them Kurds which do want their rights) don't give fuck about PKK. At the other hand look at how HDP protects and fights for Kurds in right way.
look at this part. it completely proves my point!
How much people like you can be naive.
Chomsky: They’re killing Yazidis. So what do you do? You support the people who are saving the Yazidis. Who happen to be on the US terrorist list.
Hasan: The PKK.
Chomsky: Yes. They are the ones who are primarily responsible for saving the Yazidis.
Hasan: If the Americans say, "We will drop bombs, and they have been working with various Kurdish groups." Do you support that? I’m just wondering. You, as a critic, do you support that?
Chomsky: Support working with the Kurds? Yeah.
Chomsky: To the extent that they are supporting the Kurds in Rojava, as they call it, so the Kurdish area of Syria, have defended their territory, seem to be developing, as well as you can under these conditions, a fairly decent society, very different from anything else in Syria, they certainly merit support.
Where the terms "multicultural" and "religiously tolerant" apparently mean something quite a bit different from today (just like Athenian democracy from ours, for example).
I know this is a taboo subject, but we should stop acting as if religion was a racial attribute. It's not. Religions are opinions, and people will have to accept that others will take those opinions into account when it comes to forming a political union.
The difficult thing is that only individuals can hold opinions but only countries can join the EU. So we are forced by the very nature of this decision to make a summary judgement that ignores individual opinions and therefore will be very unfair to some.
This is something I am personally struggling with when it comes to Turkish EU membership.
The issue, however, is religion. EU has enough problems as is with religion (less than the US, and less than it used to have, but still), but still people are wary.
Although IIRC Turkey used to be less religious than it is now, under Erdogan.
For most Turks, you couldn't tell the difference between them and Iranians, IMO. Nonetheless, you can definitely tell them apart from a Western white European, a Eastern Slavic-Rus European, and a Mediterranean European.
Armenians, due to historic ties going back thousands of years, look far more Iranian.
(Pardon the invocation of Godwin's law here) When Hitler envisioned his Aryan race, a source of influence was the classical "Athenian Greek." (Another random tidbit, as the story goes, he had such respect for the Greeks, it was with great reluctance that he invaded /greekpride ) Many Greeks still have Blonde hair, blue eyes, and hardly any hair, like my mother and her side of the family. Compare that to my father, who is from an island in Greece, we are basically darker than most Arabs you meet (and indeed thats how I came out. I am more easily passed as an Arab, specifically an Egyptian at times)
(To continue on my random tirade, sorry) If you basically draw an oval around the Mediterranean, from the Greek Islands, Sicily, to parts of Morroco, and such, you could basically pick a few people at random and we would all look related like brothers or cousins to most Americans.
And yes I am one of those crazy people who advocates Mediterranean as a different race than "White." All my life filling out forms, and applications, and throughout schooling, I had to mark down "White" and feel as if I was fraudulent. I am not sure what exactly the US uses as its criteria for a "race" but we are as different from a Anglo-Saxon, Western European type as Native Americans are. We have our distinct features (usually big noses, pronounced foreheads, and lots of hair!), share common values, and even have our own diseases!(see Mediterranean blood disease)
"Südländer" ("people from Southern countries") are effectively treated as an ethnic group, although this includes Italians and Spaniards alongside Turks (but in some cases also Arabs and other non-"whites"). There's also the racist slur "Ölauge" ("oil-eye"), which while ostensibly about eye colour is typically used to refer to "Südländer"s.
There are also "Osteuropäer" ("Eastern Europeans"), which effectively refers to Slavs but also "Deutschrussen" (i.e. descendants of German settlers in Eastern Europe who migrated back to Germany recently but are culturally distinct from "native" Germans).
I do agree however that "racism" in Germany tends to be less about specific "foreign" ethnicities (as in the US) but more about nationality (or nationality of the parents/ancestors) -- there's no denying that well-adjusted black Germans face discrimination in Germany but so do less well-adjusted Italians. It's more of a blanket ethno-nationalism than the typical racism you hear about on the anglophone interwebs.
It's not really surprising if you think about the historical roots: while Germany has a colonial history and thus isn't a stranger to mistreating brown people, our history is overshadowed by the Third Reich and its ideals about nationalism and racial purity (blonde, blue-eyed "Aryans" being distinct from mere "whites"). The US OTOH had an entire civil war about slave ownership and even then carried on a long tradition of racial apartheid.
White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race by Ian Haney Lopez covers the legal history of whiteness in the US.
German racism tends to be based largely on anti-immigrant nationalism and xenophobia. It's closer to American racism towards Latinas/-os (and people who fall in the same mental category) than to American racism towards black people.
But maybe we do have the kind of racism black people experience in the US and we're just culturally less aware of it because our ethnic demographics are different.
Without delving too deeply into armchair sociology I think that two major events defining our biases are 1) the attitude towards (predominantly Turkish) immigrants in the third quarter of the last century and 2) the immigration of Russian Germans after WW2.
The Turkish immigrants were greeted as "guest workers" during the post-war boom of our economy and at the time largely filled the kind of badly paid low prestige jobs that became available en masse as our industry grew. Because we only considered them temporary we never acknowledged them as German and were utterly surprised that they would decide to stay and live in "our" country.
The "German Russians", as I described earlier, were (for the most part) ethnically and culturally German settlers who had of course culturally diverged over the course of a century or so before they migrated back to Germany in the aftermath of WW2 and the post-war tensions between Russia and Germany. They were Germans to the Russians but Russians to the Germans they came home to.
All in all it's a huge mess based on a decades long attitude to immigration that could be at best described as sticking your head in the sand and hoping the migrants just go away again rather than adapting them into our culture or even allowing each other to influence each others' cultures to find a common ground.
But looking at the poverty-stricken immigrant districts around Paris and Brussels I guess we didn't do that badly. Though that relief likely won't help anyone looking even remotely foreign if our ethno-nationalism gets any stronger (for a nightmarish outlook consider the recent election results of the AfD, the German nationalist party).
There's one concept most people (especially those who haven't studied sociology) call "racism". It's a mechanism that used to be very useful for our survival 40k-odd years ago when people who looked different were likely not from our tribe and likely hostile to us or at least had no allegiance to our tribe and could thus not be trusted. They're different, they don't know us, we don't know them, they might hit us over the head with a rock, we should be cautious or even chase them away. In a modern society this instinct is still present but obviously far less helpful and tends to make things difficult for us.
The other concept is also called "racism", although I'd prefer to call it "Racism" (with a capital R). This is what feminists try to talk about when they tell people they're "racists". It's not necessarily about the actions or thoughts of any individual and certainly not about mere acknowledgement of the differences between two cultural or ethnic groups of people. It's about the systemic effect (lowercase r) racism can have in a society, making life hard for people in groups that are already disadvantaged and preventing them from achieving equality.
You could argue that the "technical term" for the former type of racism is actually xenophobia. You could argue that academia gets to define semantics and everybody else please should stop using the terms incorrectly thank you very much. But it's more productive to acknowledge that widely used terms have well-established meanings in colloquial English and communication can ultimately only work if the majority can agree on what they are talking about.
Their purpose is not to win arguments with logic. They try to win the spectators over using emotion. They use "racist" to smear their opponents, for allegedly being discriminatory, but they're just the same themselves - they just target other underprivileged groups (e.g. nerds, poor conservatives, ...).
This is elaborated in this post: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
Which of course fueled Erdogan support ...
Erdogan and AKP do not have that much of actual support, but the conjecture helps them. An oppositional government can only be forced with these: The secular CHP with about 25 percent support, the nationalist-racist MHP, with about 15-20 percent support, and with the kurdish-nationalist, leftist HDP. Last summer the outcome of the elections allowed these to form a government, but MHP, on the night of the ballot declared that under no circumstances would they have an accord with HDP. And somehow, the sleepy, cease-firing PKK started tumultising southeast again, out of nowhere, and people voted for AKP instead of a crisis in which we live with temporary minority governments or with no actual government at all.
German here, I completely agree. I don't necessarily think Turkey would be a good fit for the EU, quite the opposite. But I do believe in the near future Europe will have to solve problems on a large scale that Turkey poses to a way lesser extent. If we cannot handle the Turkey situation, I don't see what future the European way of life (whatever that is supposed to be) has 100 years from now, in an ever changing world.
This situation disturbs me two folds: 1) For the reasons you mentioned already, 2) The power gained through this dirty game being used to suppress the already heavily weakened opposition further in my once democratic country (However, I feel more attached to Germany, to be honest).
As a fellow German, it's encouraging to hear that immigrants sometimes still feel they can identify with Germany as their new country, despite all the obvious hurdles.
My ex girlfriend's parents moved back to Turkey recently after spending pretty much their entire working lives in Germany, which got me thinking a lot. They said their primary reasons were that they could do more with their retirement money in Turkey and that the weather is nicer - but at the end of the day it means a liberal, secular couple felt like they would be better off moving into a country with a failing democracy, increasing religious fundamentalism, with a wannabe Putin in charge, as opposed to staying where they spent most of their lives.
Also, I wouldn't discount monetary, climatic and religious reasons so easily. I'm a theological noncognitivist and have thankfully no serious financial issues but sometimes I think about moving to somewhere with a nicer weather - especially in those depressing-weather days =) The best candidate would be then Spain but well, I really like it here.
So, I can totally understand why the parents would want to move to Turkey for their retirement. And to be fair, there are many English and German retired couples who move to Turkey just as they do to Spain or France.
I think the experience of this particular group-based conflict varies wildly depending on life circumstances. In particular, living in a nice neighbourhood and purposefully modelling their lives on middle class Germans, my ex' parents didn't see a lot of conflict or direct hostility. But I can still see how they may have felt isolated or unwelcome in a thousand little ways that simply added up over time.
To make it extra clear, in case that didn't come across in my original comment: I totally understand why they're doing this. They probably felt alienated and badly integrated. Heck, I'm a native-born German and I feel culturally alienated too, even though my cultural perspective is entirely different than theirs. If I think Germany is a cold place in general, that impression must be even more amplified from an immigrant's perspective.
I like to think it's all because of missing proper education (not mis-education), which has to start with the parents.
But I fully agree with your observation. But I think there is hope. For instance, the mayor of the second-largest Dutch city (Rotterdam) is a Moroccan immigrant. Such people are role models for people with an immigrant background (you can make it in The Netherlands) and a Dutch background (in terms of acceptance).
The only way to counter all of it are cold hard scientific truths, not sentiments out of existential scares due to too many "others" being around.
I've always wondered how the Brits managed to integrate people of African heritage so well. Maybe it's just that they're for the most part Christians. But that would be too simple an explanation me thinks.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam : 834.119 inhabitants
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam : 630.383 inhabitants
Maybe you are confused with The Hague, which is smaller than both, but the seat of the parliament and government? (Or perhaps you are looking at the surface area, which is not really interesting in this context.)
I don't know anything about Germany nor Morocco. I am a Turk. I lived in Spain, Finland one year each and I'm now in Sweden. I felt that treatment against Turks in Finland. No matter what you do, if you say something about your origin, make sure yourself that something is going to be bad. Spain was awesome and I was totally accepted and respected by the society but NO IT jobs. So, I had to move to Sweden. From what I have observed so far, Sweden has a big immigration problem. I'm sure they will solve this somehow. But, the best I love about Sweden is that they are more open to foreign culture or people with foreign background comparing to Finland. They can also notice the difference between a kebab guy and a computer scientist. I'm not saying kebab business is low level job. It is more about mind-set.
Despite being here for decades they have made no effort to assimilate, in contrast to some other groups. 40% (!) of Moroccan youths has a criminal record. They speak poor Dutch. They don't consider themselves Dutch. Let us not pretend the effect was the cause.
Also, same arguments have been brought up against Turkish, Romanian and many other large group of immigrant in other countries. It also has a name: Racism.
Don't put words in my mouth, I said no such thing. You offered no rebuttal to what I said, only slander. Explain to me why Moroccan immigrants have not assimilated and why they are so grossly overrepresented when it comes to crime. To say this is all the result of the natives being racist towards Moroccans in particular, that they are forced into this bad behaviour by us, is absolutely ridiculous. They are problematic in France, Belgium and other countries as well. Any negative views towards them are the result of their own actions rather than some grand conspiracy to keep them down.
Here, you are implying something. Why don't you just tell it?
> Don't put words in my mouth
I'm just asking, as I can't think anything else on their side that would put them systematically at fault here, which you suggest is the case.
> To say this is all the result of the natives being racist towards Moroccans in particular, that they are forced into this bad behaviour by us, is absolutely ridiculous.
I really don't understand. I bet you are a nice person, and I really like the Dutch culture - people seem to be really nice over there but there's a problem which applies to people of specific race in your country and you try to deny the blame. Why? Who else can you blame? It's like hearing some people in my country say "you know, I like Kurds and all, but most of the terrorists are Kurdish. There are many minorities in Turkey but only Kurds have so much problems." Do you understand what's wrong with those sentences?
Maybe you really have no bad intentions but didn't really anyone tell you that what can be deduced from your words ends up being racist?
I don't see the problem with making the statement that most of the terrorists in Turkey are Kurds, when that is the case. It's not an irrelevant statistic, it's indicative of some problem somewhere. The Moroccans in the Netherlands are nothing like the Kurds and Turks though - there is no (historical) feud, they simply came here and never changed their ways. In my opinion the responsibility to adapt lies with the immigrant, not the host. The only things I fault the native Dutch people for in this case are their naivety and short-sightedness.
No, from your previous comment:
> in contrast to some other groups. 40% (!) of Moroccan youths has a criminal record.
This is also interesting:
> To me it seems obvious that the problem is their culture (islam included).
So you actually think Moroccan/Islamic culture directs people towards crime? Incredible. I really don't like religions but this is... I actually don't know what this is.
> I don't see the problem with making the statement that most of the terrorists in Turkey are Kurds, when that is the case. It's not an irrelevant statistic, it's indicative of some problem somewhere.
Yes, in this particular case it indicates that a significant part of the population is being suppressed into assimilation and they rightfully want to keep their identities.
> In my opinion the responsibility to adapt lies with the immigrant, not the host.
"Hey guys, being such angels, we allowed you, all potential criminals because of your culture and Islam into our great country which has only the right values! Now, please be perfect citizens and speak our language because we have so many things to share. Thank you." With this elitist attitude, you expect them to "integrate"? And why should only they integrate? Why not present it as a "meet in the middle for mutual benefit" kind of thing?
The ironic thing is that a few years ago, when the generals still kept the government in check to ensure the secular nature of the Turkish state, the streak in the European left was "Turkey is not democratic because the military has too much power", and the 2002 reforms were heralded as a major improvement. Something about a frying pan and a fire comes to mind...
Most expats are expats because the grass was greener where they went. Why are some of us expats while others are merely "immigrants"?
Just using that word makes it seem filthy for people from the middle east to come to europe. How are they different from europeans leaving their countries behind? Language is powerful.
Do you feel welcome in germany? Just curious.
Yes. After living even in a "conservative" town, I feel more welcome than I feel in the city I was born - Istanbul. In my first 5 years, I usually had to ask people to speak to me in German, they usually switched to English to make me more comfortable. Sure, I can give many examples of racism but the great thing about Germany is that racists aren't significant threats to my rights as a resident. Also, I think back in Turkey, there were many more cases of racism - it's just that they don't get any attention among "bigger problems" (what being a bigger problem is another topic I'd rather not dig into). After all, I'm happy that here people are ready to discuss such things.
> Why are some of us expats while others are merely "immigrants"?
I would guess if you came here to advance your career, then you are eligible to be an expat. Of course I'm kidding. I think many people, for not-so-evil-but-still-a-bit-disturbing reasons, would not like to be called an immigrant. I actually do not care and am happy with the word.
That's really all there is to it, everything else is exactly the same. Though usually people from wealthy countries would not like to be known as 'immigrants', they are expats, of course.
I wouldn't call refugees expats, but their intentions aren't any different. They just do what's in their best interest.
The fear of Turks in Europe solidified after the defeat in Vienna and left a deep mark that predisposed the idea of Europe as a Christian club. Go look around statues and stuff in Vienna to see what I mean. I have Turkish friends in Germany who, given the treatment, experience being called a Turk as a racial slur. In some sense it's good that so many real arabs are in Germany right now, which should show the broader population the difference between Anatolians and Middle-Easterners. The Turkish population is of quite a mixed ethnic background, even today. This is normal for a place that's not tiny and partly due to cross-pollination too.
The way the EU has evolved is highly questionable and the memberships of many are even more dubious to say the least, so there are much deeper problems than whether another place like the UK, just with almost no Christianity, should get laxer trade agreements or not. Think about why some very central European Christian countries don't use the EURO or in the case of Iceland aren't even fully in the EU but could have been.
Turkey was the hearth of the Ottoman empire with whom most of Europe had been at intermittent war for centuries until it was dissolved already after WWI (in fact, because of the outcome of WWI).
They were certainly not a friend and the main historical current is that the rulers of Europe accepted the dangers of the existence of the very powerful Austo-Hungarian empire exactly so that they would act as a military barrier between the Ottoman empire and Europe, otherwise the other European kingdoms would never accept the Austro-Hungarians to have such power inside Europe.
What I meant is that after the defeat in Vienna the fate was sealed and it put the final nail into the box for votes of acceptance into the Euro club. It wasn't as clear before. The UK doesn't fear Turks because they didn't have the experience Hungary and Austria had for example.
WW1 and WW2 are both the result of mainly one mis-educated and ill-suited German ruler as the main initiator of the conflict(s), funny enough. WW1 it was the relative of the English king who was just plain stupid and thought war is better than economic dominance and didn't wait a couple days longer for some Austrian correspondence I forgot the details about or it would have been avoided in that year at least.
WW2 was funny enough initiated by Austria, who have always wanted to rejoin Germany.
The way I see it it's a family of monarchies across Europe and Russia who had their quarrels and caused the world devastating losses.
Turkey was a Muslim Empire, or as you say, club. They took Christians and enslaved them or made them fought their wars with exclusive privileges only to Muslims.
Let's not forget history:
Christians were expelled from Turkey or simply exterminated not that long ago. There is people alive that remembers it. From 1 person in five being Christian to 2 in a hundred.
UK has almost no Christianity? Ohhh, dear, everything in UK is Christian. I have lived in UK and in a non Christian country(China, Japan or Korea)to know.
While it's important to process past atrocities, we need to prevent current ones, and I'd include many state sponsored activities of major forces in the world in the list atrocities. Modern genocide may look vastly different than a mass shooting. This is something where we can (without a time machine) make a difference.
And the thing with genocide is that some countries get away with denying some occurrences and only a select few are getting accused of it vocally. If all atrocities in all places were treated the same way, we might have better chances of processing them officially. I mean these aren't crimes where you can make a deal with the DA and remove some items off the list.
> UK has almost no Christianity?
I meant "a UK without Christianity".
But for Germans - i think that the internalized guilt that was whipped into the German society after WWII just prevents them from thinking - EU and his people/interests first, Germany first or criticizing foreigners.
We all will pay dearly for supporting "religious freedom" Erdogan against his army in the early 00s
As much as we all hate the growth of Islam, we can't really do much about it. If we suppress the Islamic populists for too long, we risk creating more caliphates around the world.
It was Kemal Ataturk himself that set up the things that way.
Erdogan is an idiot. He overplayed his cards and does not realize it. I hope Turkey stays out of the EU forever.
There is one famous picture, showing Merkel at a very young age in the outskirts of Berlin in front of a house of a dissident that was under observation. WTF was she doing there? And why did she forbid any further publication of this picture, after is was shown by a Magazine from Switzerland?
I saw this picture myself and it is not available anymore in the internet.
The case Havemann
A concrete clue look at the Merkel-critics for their presumption that it does not take quite as accurate the Chancellor in describing their past with the truth. It concerns Robert Havemann, a famous regime-critic who had to live under house arrest in the GDR since 1976 and was under permanent Stasi observation. The authors of a television documentary for WDR met in 2005 at the Search for a film about the Stasi secret to the Act of Robert Havemann - and in there was a controversial detail: a photo of Angela Merkel. The picture was in a series of Stasi shots that people showed who were staying around the plot of Robert Havemann over the years or those visited. What did Angela Merkel there? Was she the officers conducting the observation? Visited them the critics of a harmless reason? Not likely, because the access to the house only selected people were allowed. Visited they him so in an official capacity to pump him? From Merkel herself there to little enlightening. She was taken by a fellow student from the Havemann Family with the plot. That was all, no further comments. Spicy is in this context, however, a fact that is occupied. During her time in the Academy of Sciences she shared an office with Havemann's son, also worked as a physicist. Just a coincidence? Angela Merkel claimed that it had practically to do with Havemann Junior hardly anything.
Merkel prevented publication
Assuming the already discussed WDR documentary "In the Eye of the power the images of the Stasi" in any case wanted to disclose the relevant Merkel photo, but got from the Chancellor office a rejection. For "reasons of protection of their privacy" permission was refused. In the film, then the photo of Merkel has shown herself but defaced. In some Swiss magazines, however, the controversial photo was published. There you suspect the Chancellor in numerous articles then, more practically, to have been active as a Stasi informant. A claim that would establish the authors of the WDR-Reportage otherwise not in their documentation. For this process to derive a spying activities Merkel, is quite wrong and untrustworthy, the author wrote Holger Kulick to the makers of the "Chronicle Berlin", had constructed such a relationship. Indeed, Merkel did Posted therefore not agreed to, because they do not want to fall in the back her political mentor Helmut Kohl, who at the time publicly against it struggled to publish his Stasi file. But is this statement? Is that really the only reason? Here alone is Angela Merkel's words.
I feel the same thing applies to Putin, but we'll never see the term used due to the immense power he and his Russia wield internationally when compared to small fry Turkey
Which of course doesn't make the situation any better.
I find it worrying. Turkey seemed to be such a success until a few years ago. A booming, increasingly western economy, seeming stability. Somehow you expect dictatorship to come with a revolution, but it seems it can slowly creep up on you. All it seems to take is a strong, popular leader.
People think they like strong, popular leaders, but I find them a threat to democracy. They tend to think they're doing everyone, the country, a favor by latching on to power and never letting go again.
And they want to join the EU...!
I've found the following 2013 status report  which is surprisingly readable. From this document (my interpretations, not quotes):
As a prelude to EU membership, the EU and Turkey entered a Customs Union in 1995. The formal accession process, which requires that Turkey ratify and comply with 35 chapters, was started in 2001 but put on hold in 2004 by Turkey's refusal to accept Cyprus (a new EU member) as part of the Customs Union.
Between 2006 and 2011, hardly any progress was made, with the EC and EP basically playing good-cop bad-cop with Turkey: the Commission would highlight the few positive steps made, while the Parliament kept slamming Turkey over the slow pace of change. This made the support for the EU changes wither in Turkey.
In July 2012, Cyprus gained presidency of the EU and Turkey halted all formal talks, although the EC (again playing good cop) did continue negotiations about visa requirements between Turkey and the EU. Then the 2013 Gezi park protests happened, and that only soured the relationship more.
As of today, only 15 out of 35 chapters in the accession process have even been opened, and only one (Science&Research) has been completed. Since Turkey's first application for EU membership in 1987, 17 states have completed the full membership process, while Turkey's PM keeps making clear that he doesn't even understand the fundamental principles underlying Europe's free society.
No, I really don't see Turkey moving closer towards the European Union. Maybe when the AKP loses power...
Mr. Erdogan brandishing a fire extinguisher at a laptop, while threatening, “Either you erase this video, or I will extinguish the Internet.”
In German 'löschen' does mean to extinguish a fire (as the cartoon implies with the fire extinguisher), but more generally this is what you'd use for 'delete' in most/all cases.
So while the translation is certainly correct, the double meaning of 'I will delete the internet' is lost.
I agree that it works better in German but it translates surprisingly well into English.
Modern Turkey was built on openness, education, strong secularization and liberal values (in 1934 already they granted women full political rights, way before many others). Now we see a country which has drifted towards the most rancid nationalism and authoritarianism.
It's a pity really. Turkey enjoys so many geographical and cultural advantages (being the door between Europe and Asia), that had it steered towards the modern democracy path by keeping Atatürk's legacy alive, it would have easily become a notable member of the EU and a major player in the stability of the region.
Oh and the song with english subtitles:
I can't believe that he really expected Germany and/or German people to back down about such a topic.
Yes, that in fact, minus the strong opposition. His power is not that big, but the conjecture allows him to keep on: The three strong opposition parties cannot form an alliance against his. See my other comments.
Not exactly. Germans have to pay the Rundfunkabgabe which directly funds the TV stations, it's not a position in the government's bookkeeping.
Either they are for him or against him. If they are against him, he is going after them - regardless of who employs them.
Well those tv stations are controlled by boards on which members of the ruling political parties are, so the influence thing is kind if ridiculous, but that's the official version, yes.
Western democracies are unable to protect democracy or even stand for democratic rights. Instead they are more fearful about some refugees.
Who does not learn from history, is doomed to repeat it.
Rather reminiscent of "Finlandization" during the Cold War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization#Self-censorship...
> Turks on average read 1 book every 10 years.
How did you end up with this conclusion? http://mentalfloss.com/article/55344/which-country-reads-mos...
> I blame the generation came before us not to educate themselves.
Do you really believe that your generation is properly educated?
I don't hold as much hope for people on who, counter to their stated aims, Streisand people into prominence by no-platforming them.
Screaming “Terrorist Erdogan” and displaying homemade signs, a group of protesters are approached by members of the Turkish president’s security detail, who then proceed to comically yell and drown out the negative chants.
Böhmermann killed that freedom today with his song though ;)
PS: for a quick solution, use incognito mode.
Thank you for your inspiring comment.
Why is it hard to understand that "real" muslims are convinced that western values are simply weaknesses that must be quickly exploited to destroy the western civilization?