I was also asked to say something about cultural differences between East and West Berlin.
I am from the West, my girlfriend is from the East. I live in Reinickendorf, she lives in Hellersdorf. There are like 30 km between us.
Are there still differences?
Yes, while Berlin is definitely growing together, this is not happening with the speed most people hoped.
Many people in former West Berlin feel like they gave a lot of money to people who wouldn't work with enough effort, therefore the East appears to them as a money swallowing bottomless pit. This is - of course - doing East Berliners injustice. What is true, however is that many people in former East Berlin needed some time to adapt to West German way of life. Of course many of them don't want to. And that is totally fine. People in East Germany didn't revolt in order to become just like West Germans, they revolted in order to gain similar liberties and similar standard of living. While remaining with a different cultural identity is no big deal in one's spare time it was expected of them to assimilate in work life because (no matter whether it is sad or not) West Germans run the show economically.
On the other hand many people from former East Berlin are disappointed with what happened after reunification. They hoped to gain the standard of living of West Germans of their generation. Instead they lost their jobs because the East German industry couldn't compete well enough and many of them became welfare cases. They wanted to work and felt like 2nd tier citizens when they saw that they didn't get the chance to contribute. The problem wasn't always the bad state of East German industry. Often times Western companies received government money for transforming East German companies into a modern industry. The outcome was often the opposite: Managers bought the companies, took the money from the government and then let the East German economy die. It was an easy way to get rid of competition.
Again, there are two sides, however. Large parts of the economy are productive now after releasing like 90% of their work force.
When you look at Berlin today, yes it is growing together. There are parts where it is hard to determine whether they belonged to the East or to the West. On the other hand the differences can not be overlooked either. They also translate into election results. The socialist PDS party which had goverened the GDR under its original name SED for 40 years gets a large share of votes in East Germany. In Berlin it has enough votes to form a coalition government with the SPD.
It has been widely discussed in Germany whether the PDS would be a passing phenomenon or not. Well, I can't judge on that. My estimate is that it will remain influential as long as there are people who are not content with capitalism. This may be a long, long time.
Another thing to cultural differences is the phenomenon of "Ostalgie" a word play from Nostalgie, meaning a romantic image of what life was like in the GDR.
So special Ostprodukte are being bought again, movies are being made about how fun it was to be young in East-Berlin, and so on.
Famous movies of that sort are "Sonnenallee" (a comedy) and "Good Bye, Lenin" (a more serious comedy about the months of change in 1989/90).
While both movies made tons of money in Germany the second one is very successful internationally, as well. You can get it on amazon.com. (Btw, I recommend both.)
Finally, I would like to stress that I am not an expert in all of this. I am just reflecting some of the things I notice in everyday life. If you have questions or differing opinions, I 'll be glad to read and respond to them.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Turkish people in Berlin
I have been asked to say something about Turkish people in Berlin (in response to my comment on May 1st riots and that they have nothing to do with the Turkish community)
So I thought about Turkish people in Berlin. The first answer is quite striking, I don't know that many.
Most of them live in other parts of Berlin: Kreuzberg, Schöneberg, Wedding, Neukölln (all parts of former West Berlin). I live in Reinickendorf. (Northern part of former West Berlin) When the Turkish people came as foreign workers during the 60s they came into neighborhoods with more affordable rents. To a large extent they still live there.
So the few Turkish people I know, don't live in these areas:
1. A colleague of my mom. I played with his kids (same age as me) when we where young
2. My doctor. He graduated from medical school in Istanbul before coming to Germany. He lives around the corner.
3. A classmate. In my graduation year from highschool we were 128 graduates. One of them was Turkish.
On the other hand, there are areas in Berlin where turkish people are the majority. However, I would not see those areas as ghettos or slums. I have accidentally come through a slum in Chicago and have been through some less nice neighborhoods of LA, I don't see any areas in Berlin that could compare.
These days talking about people who pray to Allah is often connected to radical Islamism. There are many mosques in Berlin and Islamism is an issue. However, Berlin has worse problems than Islamism. While some German girls are afraid to walk through Wedding by night, I am not. I actually feel more threatened in other areas of Berlin like Marzahn or Hellersdorf. These areas in former East Berlin are notorious for skinheads and neo-nazis.
In summary,
a lot is left to do to integrate foreign people better into our community while not making them abandon their cultural identity. It is tough and both sides need to increase their efforts. However, the Turkish community in Berlin always has been and still is a valuable part of Berlin culture.
Even the Nazis eat Döner Kebab. (famous Turkish fast food, first made in Berlin and nowhere else to be found cheaper or better than here)
So I thought about Turkish people in Berlin. The first answer is quite striking, I don't know that many.
Most of them live in other parts of Berlin: Kreuzberg, Schöneberg, Wedding, Neukölln (all parts of former West Berlin). I live in Reinickendorf. (Northern part of former West Berlin) When the Turkish people came as foreign workers during the 60s they came into neighborhoods with more affordable rents. To a large extent they still live there.
So the few Turkish people I know, don't live in these areas:
1. A colleague of my mom. I played with his kids (same age as me) when we where young
2. My doctor. He graduated from medical school in Istanbul before coming to Germany. He lives around the corner.
3. A classmate. In my graduation year from highschool we were 128 graduates. One of them was Turkish.
On the other hand, there are areas in Berlin where turkish people are the majority. However, I would not see those areas as ghettos or slums. I have accidentally come through a slum in Chicago and have been through some less nice neighborhoods of LA, I don't see any areas in Berlin that could compare.
These days talking about people who pray to Allah is often connected to radical Islamism. There are many mosques in Berlin and Islamism is an issue. However, Berlin has worse problems than Islamism. While some German girls are afraid to walk through Wedding by night, I am not. I actually feel more threatened in other areas of Berlin like Marzahn or Hellersdorf. These areas in former East Berlin are notorious for skinheads and neo-nazis.
In summary,
a lot is left to do to integrate foreign people better into our community while not making them abandon their cultural identity. It is tough and both sides need to increase their efforts. However, the Turkish community in Berlin always has been and still is a valuable part of Berlin culture.
Even the Nazis eat Döner Kebab. (famous Turkish fast food, first made in Berlin and nowhere else to be found cheaper or better than here)
Friday, June 18, 2004
The Great Wet Wedding
My younger brother tied the knot today with Julia. The had been engaged for years. Today was the official state ceremony. Tomorrow they will marry in church fashion.
Unfortunately the weather is bad. It is a mix of rain and sunshine. I am pretty moved by the whole thing, however. How long will it be till I am married? I guess it will not be before 2007. Maybe even later. In three years I 'll be 30. Still not that old. So, there is no reason to rush anything. :-)
By now, I can't offer any pics from the wedding. I have some pics from bachelor's night, however.
Not all of them are very presentable, though.
My bro was dressed up in a weird costume (somehow like little red ridinghood) and had to collect kisses from the girls we met while touring through one of Berlin's top tourist areas in the city center, the Oranienburger Straße.
The next one was fun. She was from Sweden:
Somehow she distracted our cameraman...
I am the one with the bright red tie.
At the end of the day, some of us needed a rest...
Some more than others:
Unfortunately the weather is bad. It is a mix of rain and sunshine. I am pretty moved by the whole thing, however. How long will it be till I am married? I guess it will not be before 2007. Maybe even later. In three years I 'll be 30. Still not that old. So, there is no reason to rush anything. :-)
By now, I can't offer any pics from the wedding. I have some pics from bachelor's night, however.
Not all of them are very presentable, though.
My bro was dressed up in a weird costume (somehow like little red ridinghood) and had to collect kisses from the girls we met while touring through one of Berlin's top tourist areas in the city center, the Oranienburger Straße.
The next one was fun. She was from Sweden:
Somehow she distracted our cameraman...
I am the one with the bright red tie.
At the end of the day, some of us needed a rest...
Some more than others:
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
PSCI: Spinoza
Yesterday, I attended my weekly PSCI class again. This time we talked about Spinoza. (see other works by him as well)
Of course, I had heard of him before. However, usually he seems to be regarded as something of a footnote to Thomas Hobbes. But he has a lot more to offer. (Hobbes' philosophy with democratic twist, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state)
Unfortunately, I am in a hurry. I hope to write more about Spinoza later.
Of course, I had heard of him before. However, usually he seems to be regarded as something of a footnote to Thomas Hobbes. But he has a lot more to offer. (Hobbes' philosophy with democratic twist, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state)
Unfortunately, I am in a hurry. I hope to write more about Spinoza later.
Friday, June 04, 2004
Discussion on Anti-Americanism
A very heated discussion on Anti-Americanism has been going on for some time on LivingInEurope.net
If you are interested in that sort of thing have a look. It might take an hour or so to read through the thread.
I commented as well, most recently towards reasons for Germany's mediocre army and lack of war-enthausiasm.
If you are interested in that sort of thing have a look. It might take an hour or so to read through the thread.
I commented as well, most recently towards reasons for Germany's mediocre army and lack of war-enthausiasm.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Hannah Arendt: power and violence
Yesterday, that PSCI class was on Hannah Arendt and the opinion that Habermaß had on her work.
I am sorry, but I am in a hurry. So I am afraid this post will not be comprehensive.
When I mentioned last week that Carl Schmitt had very clear (easy to understand) definitions for the main terms of his work this is even more true for Hannah Arendt. We talked about "Macht und Gewalt". (This might be the English edition but I am not quite sure.)
She differentiates between terms like strength, power, force, authority and violence because using those terms synonymously would imply that politics could be reduced to the simple question of who governs whom? She disagrees and give definitions of the terms.
She says that power can never be exercised by a single person (that would be strength or violence) but only by a group acting jointly. This means for states that the power can only come from the people. In democracies this is obvious but she explains why this would even more so be the case for a monarchy.
The monarch is only one. If his people decide not to follow his orders he will be killed. Only as long as a significant proportion of the people backs the monarch he can rule.
So, one could ask the question: What do I need power for if I can exercise violence?
Her point is you wouldn't be able to exercise violence for a long time. The monarch can't do anything if his orders aren't followed.
This ties into her analysis of the phenomenon of revolutions.
She says that whenever revolutionary violence met state violence then the state won.
However, successful revolutions happen when the state loses its means to exercise violence (meaning if army officers refuse to fire at the people).
The downfall of the GDR might be explained this way. The policemen just opened the border to West-Berlin instead of shooting at the crowd although they had received no order to let anyone through. Infact, people who had ben trying to come to West-Berlin had been fired at for more than 20 years at the time.
However, Arendt is not saying that revolutions are bound to occur whenever a regime is powerless. Regimes like that can last a while if there is no (organised) group who would claim the power and responsibility by acting jointly. She gives France as an example. (In the 1960s there was a student revolt which in her opinion could have overthrown the regime. But that had never been the intention of the students.)
Arendt's concept of power also is related to legitimacy. (this is obvious from the way she defines power in contrast to violence) The people are sovereign in Arendt's philosopy.
I'll have to run now. Maybe I'll post more later. Comments and additional info are welcome (as usual).
I am sorry, but I am in a hurry. So I am afraid this post will not be comprehensive.
When I mentioned last week that Carl Schmitt had very clear (easy to understand) definitions for the main terms of his work this is even more true for Hannah Arendt. We talked about "Macht und Gewalt". (This might be the English edition but I am not quite sure.)
She differentiates between terms like strength, power, force, authority and violence because using those terms synonymously would imply that politics could be reduced to the simple question of who governs whom? She disagrees and give definitions of the terms.
She says that power can never be exercised by a single person (that would be strength or violence) but only by a group acting jointly. This means for states that the power can only come from the people. In democracies this is obvious but she explains why this would even more so be the case for a monarchy.
The monarch is only one. If his people decide not to follow his orders he will be killed. Only as long as a significant proportion of the people backs the monarch he can rule.
So, one could ask the question: What do I need power for if I can exercise violence?
Her point is you wouldn't be able to exercise violence for a long time. The monarch can't do anything if his orders aren't followed.
This ties into her analysis of the phenomenon of revolutions.
She says that whenever revolutionary violence met state violence then the state won.
However, successful revolutions happen when the state loses its means to exercise violence (meaning if army officers refuse to fire at the people).
The downfall of the GDR might be explained this way. The policemen just opened the border to West-Berlin instead of shooting at the crowd although they had received no order to let anyone through. Infact, people who had ben trying to come to West-Berlin had been fired at for more than 20 years at the time.
However, Arendt is not saying that revolutions are bound to occur whenever a regime is powerless. Regimes like that can last a while if there is no (organised) group who would claim the power and responsibility by acting jointly. She gives France as an example. (In the 1960s there was a student revolt which in her opinion could have overthrown the regime. But that had never been the intention of the students.)
Arendt's concept of power also is related to legitimacy. (this is obvious from the way she defines power in contrast to violence) The people are sovereign in Arendt's philosopy.
I'll have to run now. Maybe I'll post more later. Comments and additional info are welcome (as usual).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
