Well, it is not really news anymore: There will be no Love Parade in Berlin this year. Although many attempts had been made in order to save this festivity the organizers couldn't find a way to finance it.
The Love Parade is the largest Techno Party on the planet. Still... for those who have never heard of it(I don't know where you have been for the past ten years), here is a history of the event.
Anyway, the Love Parade has always been controversial. While many people supported it because it brought tourists to town (about a million for the weekend during the best years of the event) others stressed the negative effect on Berlin's parks. The parade route led right through the Tiergarten (sort of the equivalent of New York's Central Park for Berlin).
Garbage and urin from several hundred thousands of techno lovers wasn't really good for flora and fauna.
I didn't enjoy the event very much. But that is mostly connected to the fact that I don't like techno music.
A few years ago - right before Love Parade weekend - I was riding the subway when a few rhimes came to my mind. Since it was boring to sit in the train I tried to make a poem out of them.
When I had reached my destination I just had to write them down. The poem is meant to be a little funny. I didn't want to insult any techno fan. Ok, here it is. (I never translated the poem, sorry):
Der Raver
Jedes Jahr zur Sommerszeit
Im Juli macht er sich bereit,
Damit er durch Berlin nun tanze.
Love Parade - so heißt das Ganze.
Ob die Sonne scheint, oder ob's regnet,
Mit Enthausiasmus reich gesegnet
Erträgt der Raver Hitz' und Nässe,
Solang nur aufgedreht die Bässe.
Erblickt er eine schmucke "Sie",
Schluckt er Red Bull und Ecstasy,
Um für den Balztanz fit zu sein.
Natürlich sagt sie da nicht nein.
Im Tiergarten, so in der Mitte,
Sie pfeifen auf die gute Sitte
Und geben sich der Liebe hin;
Der Raver mit der Raverin.
Doch... leider hat er's nicht geahnt:
Der Freund der Raverin, er bahnt
Den Weg zum Liebespaare sich
Und schlägt den Raver fürchterlich.
Halbtot liegt er am Wegesrand,
Die Mutter hätt' ihn kaum erkannt.
Und doch er freut sich - das ist klar -
Auf's nächste Mal, in nächsten Jahr.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Political theorist Carl Schmitt and Nazi ideology
On Tuesdays I attend a psci class on modern theories of democracy.
Yesterday we talked about Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political (in the edition of 1932).
For Schmitt politics comes down to a simple question. Friend or foe? Therefore political action is uniting with your friends to fight the foe. If you quarrel with someone but none of you would be (at least theoretically) willing to use arms then it is not politics.
He mainly views politics as something international (conflicts between states). However, he says that so-called partisan politics can be politics if there is a chance for civil war emerging from the differences.
He also states that politics is completely separate from good/evil, beautiful/ugly, useful/harmful. This means your enemy could be good and beautiful and useful and still be your enemy.
The only thing determining the enemy would be the feeling that someone/something would be so foreign and different that you feel threatened in your way of life by it.
Of course it is obvious that the Nazis shared these positions when singling out the Jews as their enemies using this kind of reasoning for their genocide. Your Jewish neighbor could be morally good, nice, helpful and still would have to be eliminated because "Jewism" would threaten the "German way of life".
While the connotations are not clear in this edition in 1932, they are implied. The more we get into the 1930s the more Schmitt is coming clearer with what he means. In later works he names the foe. The foes are the Jews.
Schmitt felt his work as an answer to earlier theorists, especially to Thomas Hobbes. Therefore he published a discussion on the Leviathan himself in 1938.
Schmitt agrees with Hobbes that the state of nature is brutal, a war of everyone against everyone. While Hobbes constructs a social contract that enables people to fly from that grim state at least within a nation(Hobbes is a liberalist in that sense because it is the people who constitute society even if it is an absolute monarchy) Schmitt denies that ability. For him the state of nature is a reality that we have to recognize in order to be ready to deal with it. This is how he comes to the simple question: friend or foe?
In summary, Schmitt's theory is fit to justify genocide out of some paranoid notion.
Endless discussions have been going on about whether one can use some parts of his work in modern political discourse. Some would distinguish between his very clear analysis of political processes and the conclusions he and his followers drew from that analysis.
The fact that Schmitt's thinking still prevails (sometimes people don't even know that they think along Schmitt's lines) makes it obvious at least that we will talk about his ideas in the future.
Yesterday we talked about Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political (in the edition of 1932).
For Schmitt politics comes down to a simple question. Friend or foe? Therefore political action is uniting with your friends to fight the foe. If you quarrel with someone but none of you would be (at least theoretically) willing to use arms then it is not politics.
He mainly views politics as something international (conflicts between states). However, he says that so-called partisan politics can be politics if there is a chance for civil war emerging from the differences.
He also states that politics is completely separate from good/evil, beautiful/ugly, useful/harmful. This means your enemy could be good and beautiful and useful and still be your enemy.
The only thing determining the enemy would be the feeling that someone/something would be so foreign and different that you feel threatened in your way of life by it.
Of course it is obvious that the Nazis shared these positions when singling out the Jews as their enemies using this kind of reasoning for their genocide. Your Jewish neighbor could be morally good, nice, helpful and still would have to be eliminated because "Jewism" would threaten the "German way of life".
While the connotations are not clear in this edition in 1932, they are implied. The more we get into the 1930s the more Schmitt is coming clearer with what he means. In later works he names the foe. The foes are the Jews.
Schmitt felt his work as an answer to earlier theorists, especially to Thomas Hobbes. Therefore he published a discussion on the Leviathan himself in 1938.
Schmitt agrees with Hobbes that the state of nature is brutal, a war of everyone against everyone. While Hobbes constructs a social contract that enables people to fly from that grim state at least within a nation(Hobbes is a liberalist in that sense because it is the people who constitute society even if it is an absolute monarchy) Schmitt denies that ability. For him the state of nature is a reality that we have to recognize in order to be ready to deal with it. This is how he comes to the simple question: friend or foe?
In summary, Schmitt's theory is fit to justify genocide out of some paranoid notion.
Endless discussions have been going on about whether one can use some parts of his work in modern political discourse. Some would distinguish between his very clear analysis of political processes and the conclusions he and his followers drew from that analysis.
The fact that Schmitt's thinking still prevails (sometimes people don't even know that they think along Schmitt's lines) makes it obvious at least that we will talk about his ideas in the future.
Opera with a special guest
I went to the opera yesterday night. Salome by Strauss. While waiting in the lobby the newly elected German president and his wife walked by. Whoever recognized him greeted him friendly and he was so kind.
Later he took his front row center seat and was applauded by the audience. He seems to be a very humble man. I just feel sorry for him if that was his first visit to the Deutsche Oper Berlin. Well, the director gave a very unusual setting for the story. It was all placed in a madhouse. Salome played with a very realistic head of John, blood everywhere. Finally when Salome is killed her limbs fly around...
graphic, to say the least. Furthermore Prof. Köhler got a perfect up-skirt view on Salome when she was lying on her back, feet to the audience.
Anyway, the singing and acting was exquisite. For me, that saved the day.
Later he took his front row center seat and was applauded by the audience. He seems to be a very humble man. I just feel sorry for him if that was his first visit to the Deutsche Oper Berlin. Well, the director gave a very unusual setting for the story. It was all placed in a madhouse. Salome played with a very realistic head of John, blood everywhere. Finally when Salome is killed her limbs fly around...
graphic, to say the least. Furthermore Prof. Köhler got a perfect up-skirt view on Salome when she was lying on her back, feet to the audience.
Anyway, the singing and acting was exquisite. For me, that saved the day.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Keeping track of user traffic
From now on there will be no illusions about how many people read my blog because I included some code to analyse user traffic.
I use statcounter. It is free and very powerful. Time will show if there is any downside to it. They say they don't sell any private information, neither of me nor of my users. They say they earn money from ads shown to me on their site when I check the statistics and from nothing else.
There is an option to let anyone see my statistics but I don't plan to use that option. Unless there is a way to limit the results shown. For example, I would show from which countries users access my site but not from which town or IP. Haven't figured these things out yet.
A good thing is that my own visits on my blog won't be counted because a cookie is blocking that function for my browser. I guess since I probably only have very few readers my own visits would distort the results a lot.
I use statcounter. It is free and very powerful. Time will show if there is any downside to it. They say they don't sell any private information, neither of me nor of my users. They say they earn money from ads shown to me on their site when I check the statistics and from nothing else.
There is an option to let anyone see my statistics but I don't plan to use that option. Unless there is a way to limit the results shown. For example, I would show from which countries users access my site but not from which town or IP. Haven't figured these things out yet.
A good thing is that my own visits on my blog won't be counted because a cookie is blocking that function for my browser. I guess since I probably only have very few readers my own visits would distort the results a lot.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Prof. Köhler new German President
A new President has been elected today. Prof. Horst Köhler will take over from Johannes Rau in July.
Köhler is an economy expert. He used to be the head of the International Monetary Fund and only stepped down from that function in order to be a candidate for the office of Germany's highest representative.
His opponent Prof. Gesine Schwan is an expert in Political Science. I am sure that both candidates would have served the country well.
Prof. Köhler outlined the issues important to him in his first speech as elected president. He stressed that Germany has to become a family friendly country, he stressed the importance to use Globalisation in order to fight poverty and injustice and furthermore he talked about the need for inner reforms. Germany will have to be transformed into a country of ideas.
(As a sidenote: Köhler did something uncommon for German politicians. He asked for God's blessing for the country.
Last year I criticised trends in US politics to utilize religion for politic goals.
I still hold true to this opinion. However, Prof. Köhler's plea for God's blessing had nothing political. In contrast to what I have criticised he never created the impression that God's blessing would favor Germany above all the other countries of the world.)
Köhler is an economy expert. He used to be the head of the International Monetary Fund and only stepped down from that function in order to be a candidate for the office of Germany's highest representative.
His opponent Prof. Gesine Schwan is an expert in Political Science. I am sure that both candidates would have served the country well.
Prof. Köhler outlined the issues important to him in his first speech as elected president. He stressed that Germany has to become a family friendly country, he stressed the importance to use Globalisation in order to fight poverty and injustice and furthermore he talked about the need for inner reforms. Germany will have to be transformed into a country of ideas.
(As a sidenote: Köhler did something uncommon for German politicians. He asked for God's blessing for the country.
Last year I criticised trends in US politics to utilize religion for politic goals.
I still hold true to this opinion. However, Prof. Köhler's plea for God's blessing had nothing political. In contrast to what I have criticised he never created the impression that God's blessing would favor Germany above all the other countries of the world.)
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Quo vadis, Iraq?
How long will it take until Iraq can have peace? I don't know. Will the "coalition of the willing" bring it? Again, I don't know. Somehow, I get the suspicion that the Bush administration is looking for an easy exit. They continue to press on handing over government action to Iraqi officials quickly.
Sounds good? Yes, sounds good. But it might be done for a selfish purpose: If Iraqis are in power again, the Bush administration can claim not to be responsible anymore and pull the troops out...
To what end? My guess is that after a sizable period of total chaos a fundamentalistic system will emerge. The Middle East won't get safer but more instable than it already is. That doesn't sound so good, does it?
I have been following the news about the torture scandal for several weeks now. Up until now, I didn't want to write anything about it, because the facts were not easy to comprehend. Furthermore it seemed unclear whether the accusations are thruthful or if the pictures were forged. In the blogs I read, this issue has hardly been discussed as well. Maybe it is time for this, now.
I just read a lenghty essay in New York Times (online) Magazine by Susan Sontag about the torture pictures from Iraq.
(If you don't already have a free nytimes account you need to open one in order to read the article.)
While I don't agree with everything she says, I fully support her criticism towards holding "detainees" indefinitely. America came to bring law and order and freedom (or so Bush said). Some U.S. soldiers seem to have missed that during briefing. (Referring to the torture/abuse scandal)
The other explanation, of course, would be all the more horrible... that soldiers might have been briefed to abuse the prisoners. Would that surprise us? Not me. Maybe that sort of thing is bound to happen if government officials keep saying: "THEY attacked us, we strike back." Iraq attacked? With what? Where is the clear link to Al Qaeda? It's here. Oh, and while we are on the subject... where are the Iraqi WMD?
Many people around the world, but especially in the Middle East, might regard the photos as proof for an American attitude of superiority. An attitude that says we are better than you, we have a right for our liberties but you don't. You are just like dogs therefore you get leashed.
Of course, this doesn't do the majority of Americans justice. So many Americans I know are just proud of their country. Why not? However, I don't agree with the Bush administration to label the tortures in Iraq un-american. There is no such thing. Bad people live in all countries.
America stands for a lot of good things, even for some "good" wars. But it has a record of atrocities as well. Which country doesn't? Still, some Americans tend to forget their own share of it. Slaugther of civilians in Vietnam, genocide on the American Indians, Concentration camps for Japanese during WW2... Today similar camps exist as well. Look to Cuba or to the prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Another issue would be the detention of German soldiers at the end of WW2 on the "Rheinwiesen". It is hard to find reliable sources on this. Official sources indicate that 5000 to 10000 people died of starvation and deseases in the swamp-like Rheinwiesen. Inofficial numbers go up to 750000. The issue is not widely discussed. Unfortunately, most sources seem to come from a right-wing background. Therefore they may very well be biased. So at the moment I can not tell you which numbers are correct.)
Are these things un-american? What is American? Hamburgers and BBQ or guns and lynch law? Labeling the tortures in Iraq un-american is the attempt to find an easy way out of this mess. It implies: "Just a few erroneous soldiers, but the system is great." I challenge the notion of moral superiority.
Democracy lives because of checks and balances. Even in times of war this should not be forgotten. Sad thing is, the war on terror seems to justify almost anything.
EDIT: I posted this last night at 2.30 in the morning. I was very sleepy, so I didn't make myself clear at all points. I tried to correct that this morning.
Sounds good? Yes, sounds good. But it might be done for a selfish purpose: If Iraqis are in power again, the Bush administration can claim not to be responsible anymore and pull the troops out...
To what end? My guess is that after a sizable period of total chaos a fundamentalistic system will emerge. The Middle East won't get safer but more instable than it already is. That doesn't sound so good, does it?
I have been following the news about the torture scandal for several weeks now. Up until now, I didn't want to write anything about it, because the facts were not easy to comprehend. Furthermore it seemed unclear whether the accusations are thruthful or if the pictures were forged. In the blogs I read, this issue has hardly been discussed as well. Maybe it is time for this, now.
I just read a lenghty essay in New York Times (online) Magazine by Susan Sontag about the torture pictures from Iraq.
(If you don't already have a free nytimes account you need to open one in order to read the article.)
While I don't agree with everything she says, I fully support her criticism towards holding "detainees" indefinitely. America came to bring law and order and freedom (or so Bush said). Some U.S. soldiers seem to have missed that during briefing. (Referring to the torture/abuse scandal)
The other explanation, of course, would be all the more horrible... that soldiers might have been briefed to abuse the prisoners. Would that surprise us? Not me. Maybe that sort of thing is bound to happen if government officials keep saying: "THEY attacked us, we strike back." Iraq attacked? With what? Where is the clear link to Al Qaeda? It's here. Oh, and while we are on the subject... where are the Iraqi WMD?
Many people around the world, but especially in the Middle East, might regard the photos as proof for an American attitude of superiority. An attitude that says we are better than you, we have a right for our liberties but you don't. You are just like dogs therefore you get leashed.
Of course, this doesn't do the majority of Americans justice. So many Americans I know are just proud of their country. Why not? However, I don't agree with the Bush administration to label the tortures in Iraq un-american. There is no such thing. Bad people live in all countries.
America stands for a lot of good things, even for some "good" wars. But it has a record of atrocities as well. Which country doesn't? Still, some Americans tend to forget their own share of it. Slaugther of civilians in Vietnam, genocide on the American Indians, Concentration camps for Japanese during WW2... Today similar camps exist as well. Look to Cuba or to the prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(Another issue would be the detention of German soldiers at the end of WW2 on the "Rheinwiesen". It is hard to find reliable sources on this. Official sources indicate that 5000 to 10000 people died of starvation and deseases in the swamp-like Rheinwiesen. Inofficial numbers go up to 750000. The issue is not widely discussed. Unfortunately, most sources seem to come from a right-wing background. Therefore they may very well be biased. So at the moment I can not tell you which numbers are correct.)
Are these things un-american? What is American? Hamburgers and BBQ or guns and lynch law? Labeling the tortures in Iraq un-american is the attempt to find an easy way out of this mess. It implies: "Just a few erroneous soldiers, but the system is great." I challenge the notion of moral superiority.
Democracy lives because of checks and balances. Even in times of war this should not be forgotten. Sad thing is, the war on terror seems to justify almost anything.
EDIT: I posted this last night at 2.30 in the morning. I was very sleepy, so I didn't make myself clear at all points. I tried to correct that this morning.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Filmmaker Michael Moore
Michael Moore is an interesting guy. He is the most successful left-wing activist in the US although coming only from a highschool background. He is from Flint, MI and used to edit a paper there until he made the famous documentary Roger and Me in 1989.
In this movie he shows the downfall of his hometown from the car capital of the world to the worst place to live in the US (according to Money Magazine) I couldn't find the list of worst places online but you 'll find it in the movie. He criticised General Motors for laying of thousands of workers while earning record profits.
Until now Moore has continued to show and attack aberrations in society. During a tour through the country promoting his book "Downsize this!" he made a new film: The Big One. In this movie, he addresses a variety of issues leading to the climax of the film when Moore interviewed Nike CEO Phil Knight. He was trying to convince him to stop producing shoes in Indonesia with child labor and instead to open a shoe factory in Flint.
In 2003 Moore received an Oscar for his documentary "Bowling for Columbine". His reception speech made news world wide because he attacked President Bush in it.
Bowling for Columbine is a large scale assault on the gun lobby in the US headed by Charlton Heston.
Moore's style is to use a mix of compassion and humor. He shows compassion for the victims and ridicules the people he deems responsible. However, he never makes fun of them directly. Instead he trys to let them make fools out of themselves on their own.
His new movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is competing at the Festival in Cannes right now. It has been very well received there.
This one is said to be aimed at unsure voters of the US. Moore is trying to convince them to vote Bush out of office. Apparently Moore is showing connections of Bush's clan to Saudi princes and the Bin Laden family. Furthermore he is reporting that Bush spent half of his time as president on vacation till 9/11.
Anyway, Moore is an interesting guy because he might be decisive on who will lead the US for the next four years.
In this movie he shows the downfall of his hometown from the car capital of the world to the worst place to live in the US (according to Money Magazine) I couldn't find the list of worst places online but you 'll find it in the movie. He criticised General Motors for laying of thousands of workers while earning record profits.
Until now Moore has continued to show and attack aberrations in society. During a tour through the country promoting his book "Downsize this!" he made a new film: The Big One. In this movie, he addresses a variety of issues leading to the climax of the film when Moore interviewed Nike CEO Phil Knight. He was trying to convince him to stop producing shoes in Indonesia with child labor and instead to open a shoe factory in Flint.
In 2003 Moore received an Oscar for his documentary "Bowling for Columbine". His reception speech made news world wide because he attacked President Bush in it.
Bowling for Columbine is a large scale assault on the gun lobby in the US headed by Charlton Heston.
Moore's style is to use a mix of compassion and humor. He shows compassion for the victims and ridicules the people he deems responsible. However, he never makes fun of them directly. Instead he trys to let them make fools out of themselves on their own.
His new movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is competing at the Festival in Cannes right now. It has been very well received there.
This one is said to be aimed at unsure voters of the US. Moore is trying to convince them to vote Bush out of office. Apparently Moore is showing connections of Bush's clan to Saudi princes and the Bin Laden family. Furthermore he is reporting that Bush spent half of his time as president on vacation till 9/11.
Anyway, Moore is an interesting guy because he might be decisive on who will lead the US for the next four years.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Change of style
I changed the look of my blog.
seems like no comments from old post can be transfered.
Am sorry for that.
seems like no comments from old post can be transfered.
Am sorry for that.
Standards of morale, family values, bigotry?
Politics very often is a morale issue. Whether it is having an affair with a White House intern, or accepting money from anyone who would finance your campaign....On other occasions it just comes down to portraying a "healthy" family life.
Just this morning i watched a rerun of a Jack and Jackie Kennedy documentary. There had been so many rumors about JFKs love affairs around but the tabloids didn't really pick them up.
So back then there have been double standards on morale issues. The president could do what he liked, without much fear of the press.
Times had changed by the 90s. In 1998/99 you just couldn't get away from yet another story of Clinton's sex life when zapping through the channels.
(ok, I am exaggerating. You could switch to the disney channel)
So are double standards done? Is it that people are more accepting of behavior that does not conform to traditional family life?
Well, yes. In parts. There is a vivid gay community. Interracial relationships are being accepted. But wait.... not really, right?
How many hate crimes against gays every year?
How many countries where being gay is illegal?
How many countries where Bill and Monica would have gone to jail for their particular practise?
How would you feel as a white walking with your black girlfriend through a black neighbourhood?
How would you feel walking with her through small town suburbia instead?
Or as a black:
how good are your odds that your white girlfriend's parents would like you from the start? without prejudice?
Ok, people are more open about sex, true. But not everywhere and not under all circumstances. We don't have to go to far-away countries for that. To my knowledge the Federal Republic of Germany was never ruled by a single.
Or the U.S.: has there been a not-married president? If so, he probably was a widower.
Is someone who is single less fit to be in a public office?
Politicians still feel the pressure of portraying healthy family values.
I like family! Having a wife and a few kids is how I see myself within the next ten years. It may be safe to say that a majority of people share visions like that. But are we open enough to accept people who disagree not only on a private level (friends) but also on a political level(Heads of State)?
I will believe that we are an open society as soon as a single-mom can gather enough votes to become Chancellor, Prime Minister, or President.
For Germany, things may be on the move right now. We will have a new President next week. But the office only has representational functions. Furthermore the female candidate Prof. Gesine Schwan is not expected to win. Also, she was married but her husband passed away.
(I like her, I attended her class on Hobbes and Rousseau when she taught PSCI at my University in the late 90s)
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify, I am not talking about a representational office but one of executive power.
How is it in your home countries? Is it realistic that anyone can be elected?
Just this morning i watched a rerun of a Jack and Jackie Kennedy documentary. There had been so many rumors about JFKs love affairs around but the tabloids didn't really pick them up.
So back then there have been double standards on morale issues. The president could do what he liked, without much fear of the press.
Times had changed by the 90s. In 1998/99 you just couldn't get away from yet another story of Clinton's sex life when zapping through the channels.
(ok, I am exaggerating. You could switch to the disney channel)
So are double standards done? Is it that people are more accepting of behavior that does not conform to traditional family life?
Well, yes. In parts. There is a vivid gay community. Interracial relationships are being accepted. But wait.... not really, right?
How many hate crimes against gays every year?
How many countries where being gay is illegal?
How many countries where Bill and Monica would have gone to jail for their particular practise?
How would you feel as a white walking with your black girlfriend through a black neighbourhood?
How would you feel walking with her through small town suburbia instead?
Or as a black:
how good are your odds that your white girlfriend's parents would like you from the start? without prejudice?
Ok, people are more open about sex, true. But not everywhere and not under all circumstances. We don't have to go to far-away countries for that. To my knowledge the Federal Republic of Germany was never ruled by a single.
Or the U.S.: has there been a not-married president? If so, he probably was a widower.
Is someone who is single less fit to be in a public office?
Politicians still feel the pressure of portraying healthy family values.
I like family! Having a wife and a few kids is how I see myself within the next ten years. It may be safe to say that a majority of people share visions like that. But are we open enough to accept people who disagree not only on a private level (friends) but also on a political level(Heads of State)?
I will believe that we are an open society as soon as a single-mom can gather enough votes to become Chancellor, Prime Minister, or President.
For Germany, things may be on the move right now. We will have a new President next week. But the office only has representational functions. Furthermore the female candidate Prof. Gesine Schwan is not expected to win. Also, she was married but her husband passed away.
(I like her, I attended her class on Hobbes and Rousseau when she taught PSCI at my University in the late 90s)
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify, I am not talking about a representational office but one of executive power.
How is it in your home countries? Is it realistic that anyone can be elected?
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Riots in Berlin - Attempt of a Summary
Whenever May 1st draws near the residents in Berlin are in a mood of expectation.
Will this day remain peaceful? It hasn't been since 1987. That year the first "Revolutionäre 1. Mai Demo" (revolutionary may 1st rally)was held. This is what followed: barricades, stones, burning cars, pillaged shops on the one hand.... teargas, batons, water cannons on the other hand.
Intensity has varied over the years, so have the strategies employed by the police. This year, a mixed strategy of deescalation and zero tolerance of violence was attempted.
While the Walpurgisnacht (the night before May 1st) went relatively peaceful (many arrests, many injuries but only light ones) things heated up the next day.
I am not going to give you a detailed account because I wasn't there.
On the fringes of a NPD rally (right wing extremists) violence occurred in the afternoon between skinheads, left wing radicals and the police. 55 arrests.
Later that day, a festival was held in Kreuzberg which should promote non-violence. That worked till about 8pm.
Then the usual (sad) thing happened: radicals erected and burned barricades, attacked the police force with bottles and stones and this was met by watercannons and teargas.
The police acted swiftly and struck hard.
Overall, comments suggest that this year was better than expected.
Sidenote: Again lots of teens were there for the fun. Witnesses often saw people hooding and afterwards photographing themselves with their cell phones. Also, this year some anti-american resentments could be seen as at least in one occasion an American flag was burnt.
Will this day remain peaceful? It hasn't been since 1987. That year the first "Revolutionäre 1. Mai Demo" (revolutionary may 1st rally)was held. This is what followed: barricades, stones, burning cars, pillaged shops on the one hand.... teargas, batons, water cannons on the other hand.
Intensity has varied over the years, so have the strategies employed by the police. This year, a mixed strategy of deescalation and zero tolerance of violence was attempted.
While the Walpurgisnacht (the night before May 1st) went relatively peaceful (many arrests, many injuries but only light ones) things heated up the next day.
I am not going to give you a detailed account because I wasn't there.
On the fringes of a NPD rally (right wing extremists) violence occurred in the afternoon between skinheads, left wing radicals and the police. 55 arrests.
Later that day, a festival was held in Kreuzberg which should promote non-violence. That worked till about 8pm.
Then the usual (sad) thing happened: radicals erected and burned barricades, attacked the police force with bottles and stones and this was met by watercannons and teargas.
The police acted swiftly and struck hard.
Overall, comments suggest that this year was better than expected.
Sidenote: Again lots of teens were there for the fun. Witnesses often saw people hooding and afterwards photographing themselves with their cell phones. Also, this year some anti-american resentments could be seen as at least in one occasion an American flag was burnt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
