utemia utemia

Homesick for dictatorship

Homesick for dictatorship

I found this article today. It is totally incomprehensible for me how people can be so stupid, but it is a sad truth. If it was up to me I'd repatriate the lot of them to WhiteRussia, they can live their dream of a communist/socialist dictatorship of the soviet variety there.

Article here Spiegel Online International (in english)

Majority of Eastern Germans Feel Life Better under Communism

Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an "illegitimate state." In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.

The life of Birger, a native of the state of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania in northeastern Germany, could read as an all-German success story. The Berlin Wall came down when he was 10. After graduating from high school, he studied economics and business administration in Hamburg, lived in India and South Africa, and eventually got a job with a company in the western German city of Duisburg. Today Birger, 30, is planning a sailing trip in the Mediterranean. He isn't using his real name for this story, because he doesn't want it to be associated with the former East Germany, which he sees as "a label with negative connotations."

And yet Birger is sitting in a Hamburg cafe, defending the former communist country. "Most East German citizens had a nice life," he says. "I certainly don't think that it's better here." By "here," he means reunified Germany, which he subjects to questionable comparisons. "In the past there was the Stasi, and today (German Interior Minister Wolfgang) Schäuble -- or the GEZ (the fee collection center of Germany's public broadcasting institutions) -- are collecting information about us." In Birger's opinion, there is no fundamental difference between dictatorship and freedom. "The people who live on the poverty line today also lack the freedom to travel."

Birger is by no means an uneducated young man. He is aware of the spying and repression that went on in the former East Germany, and, as he says, it was "not a good thing that people couldn't leave the country and many were oppressed." He is no fan of what he characterizes as contemptible nostalgia for the former East Germany. "I haven't erected a shrine to Spreewald pickles in my house," he says, referring to a snack that was part of a the East German identity. Nevertheless, he is quick to argue with those who would criticize the place his parents called home: "You can't say that the GDR was an illegitimate state, and that everything is fine today."

As an apologist for the former East German dictatorship, the young Mecklenburg native shares a majority view of people from eastern Germany. Today, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, 57 percent, or an absolute majority, of eastern Germans defend the former East Germany. "The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there," say 49 percent of those polled. Eight percent of eastern Germans flatly oppose all criticism of their former home and agree with the statement: "The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today."

These poll results, released last Friday in Berlin, reveal that glorification of the former East Germany has reached the center of society. Today, it is no longer merely the eternally nostalgic who mourn the loss of the GDR. "A new form of Ostalgie (nostalgia for the former GDR) has taken shape," says historian Stefan Wolle. "The yearning for the ideal world of the dictatorship goes well beyond former government officials." Even young people who had almost no experiences with the GDR are idealizing it today. "The value of their own history is at stake," says Wolle.

People are whitewashing the dictatorship, as if reproaching the state meant calling their own past into question. "Many eastern Germans perceive all criticism of the system as a personal attack," says political scientist Klaus Schroeder, 59, director of an institute at Berlin's Free University that studies the former communist state. He warns against efforts to downplay the SED dictatorship by young people whose knowledge about the GDR is derived mainly from family conversations, and not as much from what they have learned in school. "Not even half of young people in eastern Germany describe the GDR as a dictatorship, and a majority believe the Stasi was a normal intelligence service," Schroeder concluded in a 2008 study of school students. "These young people cannot, and in fact have no desire to, recognize the dark sides of the GDR."

"Driven Out of Paradise"

Schroeder has made enemies with statements like these. He received more than 4,000 letters, some of them furious, in reaction to reporting on his study. The 30-year-old Birger also sent an e-mail to Schroeder. The political scientist has now compiled a selection of typical letters to document the climate of opinion in which the GDR and unified Germany are discussed in eastern Germany. Some of the material gives a shocking insight into the thoughts of disappointed and angry citizens. "From today's perspective, I believe that we were driven out of paradise when the Wall came down," one person writes, and a 38-year-old man "thanks God" that he was able to experience living in the GDR, noting that it wasn't until after German reunification that he witnessed people who feared for their existence, beggars and homeless people.

Today's Germany is described as a "slave state" and a "dictatorship of capital," and some letter writers reject Germany for being, in their opinion, too capitalist or dictatorial, and certainly not democratic. Schroeder finds such statements alarming. "I am afraid that a majority of eastern Germans do not identify with the current sociopolitical system."

Many of the letter writers are either people who did not benefit from German reunification or those who prefer to live in the past. But they also include people like Thorsten Schön.

After 1989 Schön, a master craftsman from Stralsund, a city on the Baltic Sea, initially racked up one success after the next. Although he no longer owns the Porsche he bought after reunification, the lion skin rug he bought on a vacation trip to South Africa -- one of many overseas trips he has made in the past 20 years -- is still lying on his living room floor. "There's no doubt it: I've been fortunate," says the 51-year-old today. A major contract he scored during the period following reunification made it easier for Schön to start his own business. Today he has a clear view of the Strelasund sound from the window of his terraced house.

'People Lie and Cheat Everywhere Today'

 

Wall decorations from Bali decorate his living room, and a miniature version of the Statue of Liberty stands next to the DVD player. All the same, Schön sits on his sofa and rhapsodizes about the good old days in East Germany. "In the past, a campground was a place where people enjoyed their freedom together," he says. What he misses most today is "that feeling of companionship and solidarity." The economy of scarcity, complete with barter transactions, was "more like a hobby." Does he have a Stasi file? "I'm not interested in that," says Schön. "Besides, it would be too disappointing."

His verdict on the GDR is clear: "As far as I'm concerned, what we had in those days was less of a dictatorship than what we have today." He wants to see equal wages and equal pensions for residents of the former East Germany. And when Schön starts to complain about unified Germany, his voice contains an element of self-satisfaction. People lie and cheat everywhere today, he says, and today's injustices are simply perpetrated in a more cunning way than in the GDR, where starvation wages and slashed car tires were unheard of. Schön cannot offer any accounts of his own bad experiences in present-day Germany. "I'm better off today than I was before," he says, "but I am not more satisfied."

Schön's reasoning is less about cool logic than it is about settling scores. What makes him particularly dissatisfied is "the false picture of the East that the West is painting today." The GDR, he says, was "not an unjust state," but "my home, where my achievements were recognized." Schön doggedly repeats the story of how it took him years of hard work before starting his own business in 1989 -- before reunification, he is quick to add. "Those who worked hard were also able to do well for themselves in the GDR." This, he says, is one of the truths that are persistently denied on talk shows, when western Germans act "as if eastern Germans were all a little stupid and should still be falling to their knees today in gratitude for reunification." What exactly is there to celebrate, Schön asks himself?

"Rose-tinted memories are stronger than the statistics about people trying to escape and applications for exit visas, and even stronger than the files about killings at the Wall and unjust political sentences," says historian Wolle.

These are memories of people whose families were not persecuted and victimized in East Germany, of people like 30-year-old Birger, who says today: "If reunification hadn't happened, I would also have had a good life."

Life as a GDR Citizen

After completing his university degree, he says, he would undoubtedly have accepted a "management position in some business enterprise," perhaps not unlike his father, who was the chairman of a farmers' collective. "The GDR played no role in the life of a GDR citizen," Birger concludes. This view is shared by his friends, all of them college-educated children of the former East Germany who were born in 1978. "Reunification or not," the group of friends recently concluded, it really makes no difference to them. Without reunification, their travel destinations simply would have been Moscow and Prague, instead of London and Brussels. And the friend who is a government official in Mecklenburg today would probably have been a loyal party official in the GDR.

The young man expresses his views levelheadedly and with few words, although he looks slightly defiant at times, like when he says: "I know, what I'm telling you isn't all that interesting. The stories of victims are easier to tell."

Birger doesn't usually mention his origins. In Duisburg, where he works, hardly anyone knows that he is originally from East Germany. But on this afternoon, Birger is adamant about contradicting the "victors' writing of history." "In the public's perception, there are only victims and perpetrators. But the masses fall by the wayside."

This is someone who feels personally affected when Stasi terror and repression are mentioned. He is an academic who knows "that one cannot sanction the killings at the Berlin Wall." However, when it comes to the border guards' orders to shoot would-be escapees, he says: "If there is a big sign there, you shouldn't go there. It was completely negligent."

This brings up an old question once again: Did a real life exist in the midst of a sham? Downplaying the dictatorship is seen as the price people pay to preserve their self-respect. "People are defending their own lives," writes political scientist Schroeder, describing the tragedy of a divided country.

 

44,439 views 56 replies
Reply #26 Top

Complicated issue all in all (for me), because it all seems to come down to the question of how society should be like and how it should be governed. I don't see how a modern state could function without potentially alot of government. There are alot of issues that could be adressed on this issue - like in what departments and areas less government would make sense, because it is not a universally known truth for everything. I don't know enough about economic theory or state philosophy to have a detailed concept or proposal for how things would work better for everyone, even though I think it is a really interesting field and I wish  that I knew more. But I do know that there is no simple answer.

Reply #27 Top

Complicated issue all in all (for me), because it all seems to come down to the question of how society should be like and how it should be governed.
End of quote

Exactly!  You come from the strong central government experience so you cannot grasp the minimal one.  America, until recently, was the exact opposite (and a conundrum to most Europeans).  We still are less centralized than most European governments, but as you read today the difference is growing smaller.

Reply #28 Top

I can only imagine a lot of chaos if a country with 300+ million citizens were governed with minimal government. I think you refer mostly to the economic aspect of overregulation by the government, but as you said, I grew up with the german model of a social market economy where the government sets the frame within the market can develop on its own. It is always a tightrope walk though because there is  too much brureaucracy invovled in some aspects. All in all, it would make sense to have certain aspects centralized, otherwise you have a huge chaos with different satelaws and regulations (as you do right now, apprently).

For me, I sort of swing from cursing the government for its stupid rules and being glad other rules are in effect. I don't believe either a completely minimal government or a very strong government are ideal, but prefer a mixture of both. For me, society can not only exist in everybody doing what they please without regard of the others. It would be ruthless, because I don't believe that market economy is only rooted in absolute selfishness. But if you allowed ruthless business types to have their whim it would most likely end in quasi feudal structures again. A social component of fairness (and apparently, fair play is a strong yankee trade, according to PT Barnum anyway lol) is essential and a however strong or weak government can guarantee, in fact should guarantee that. That is why I prefer a powerful government at times because you have to keep the wolfes at bay somehow. But I am not a communist, because that would make me a communist in some american's view.

The US is strange in some regards. Your consitutional rights for freedom of speech allow sometimes some really awful things. I just read a long article about child pornography in the internet. It is diffcult to fight the spread of this because of the decentralized way the internet works and the fact that many servers are stationed in different countries. Anyway, in 1996 the Child Protection Pornography Act was passed which had made the production, ownership and distribution of computer generated or drawn pictures illegal. But serverl pornography producers formed a "Free speech coaltion" and sued. In 2002, the supreme court ruled that such pictures were protected by the right of free speech, because  no child had been harmed in the production of the pictures or comic strips. If it were up to me, I'd just ignore the consitution on this special instance and make an exception that reinstates the protection act. I can't bring myself to accept the fact that computer generated pictures allow pedophiles (among the worst people I can imagine) to live out their urges without harming actual children. It is sitll wrong and should not be legal in any way or form. It would be nice to be king and just forbid it.

Reply #29 Top

My amature "theory" is that Europe grew out of a feudal system, where king or Kaiser basically provided all for his subjects (or hers if it was Queen).  As democracy took hold, in order to compete, it had to mimic the model.

America was born out of rebellion.  We kicked the king out of the country - almost all on our own.  In that was born a spirit of independance and can do attitude.  And that is the main difference.

Reply #30 Top

It certainly shaped european mentality, I agree.

I would say that the US was shaped by a frontier mentality. Settlers had to fight to make the wilderness arable and defy all sorts of dangers which gave them a tremendous self confidence and that can do attitude. The wish to push boundaries and make the impossible possible is a very american trait.

The ideal combination for that is a mixture between germans and american. You got the americans with the great ideas and visions and the germans with their zeal for accuracy and perfectionism to realize them. :)

Reply #31 Top

Starting a rant about the GDR with your first paragraph does only show that you have about the same mindset as the GDR gouvernment had, or worse. You dont want to hear others opinion and are going to forcefully repatriate them, if you had it your own way?! How can anyone take you serious from that point on?

I am not defending the GDR, but if you can't lean back, reflect upon the whole picture and see that the GDR was no worse then a whole lot of other countries (including, for instance the USA), and still better then about half of the rest of world you should better not starting such a thread.

And before you start to damn other governments you look at our own, and take a very close look. I dont see someone in the news with torch and pitchfork storming the Reichstag and putting them into their place. Where is your zeal, where are you? Contend with what you have and glad you're not living in africa right now, i guess.

Reply #32 Top

I am not defending the GDR, but if you can't lean back, reflect upon the whole picture and see that the GDR was no worse then a whole lot of other countries (including, for instance the USA), and still better then about half of the rest of world you should better not starting such a thread.
End of quote

Funny post!  I guess for some, saying "it could be worse" is a sustitute for striving for the best.  However, the proof of the error of your statements lies in the facts.

Fact: 238 people killed trying to ESCAPE the GDR. (Another 5000 were more fortunate).

Fact: 12-20 million people are IN the USA illegally.  In other words, they could not wait for the paperwork.

So I dare say that the GDR is nothing like America in any respect.  Free people voted with their lives.  You lost.

Reply #33 Top

Another Egads double post.

Reply #34 Top

Quoting OsirisDawn, reply 31
Starting a rant about the GDR with your first paragraph does only show that you have about the same mindset as the GDR gouvernment had, or worse. You dont want to hear others opinion and are going to forcefully repatriate them, if you had it your own way?! How can anyone take you serious from that point on?

I am not defending the GDR, but if you can't lean back, reflect upon the whole picture and see that the GDR was no worse then a whole lot of other countries (including, for instance the USA), and still better then about half of the rest of world you should better not starting such a thread.

And before you start to damn other governments you look at our own, and take a very close look. I dont see someone in the news with torch and pitchfork storming the Reichstag and putting them into their place. Where is your zeal, where are you? Contend with what you have and glad you're not living in africa right now, i guess.
End of OsirisDawn's quote

Where do you live? We can't be talking about the same country. I think it should have been obvious that my comment about repatriating those who glorify the good old days under communist rule in the GDR to a country where most of what they praise and love is a reality was not "dead" serious, but rather an exasperated attempt to tear off the pink goggles. If they like it so much, those who fit the bill should love to live there anyway, so it'd be like doing them a favour.

I leant back and reflected and the GDR was a pretty bad place to live if you did anything but follow the rules. Loud protest of the regime would land you in a lot of trouble, often prison. And then there is the whole Stasi method of using "inofficial" employees who spied on friends and neighbours and informed the Stasi about many things that were said in the privacy of family and friends. The evaluation of those archives will keep the historians busy in the next decades.

I don't see anybody that needs to be put in place in Berlin. And if there would be, the next election will come around soon enough to allow me to express my anger by voting those that I don't like out of office. That is an option the GDR never offered as they manipulated every result of elections to have the one that the regime wanted in the end. To equal the GDR with the USA is laughable - your whole post makes it difficult to take you seriously, as a matter of fact. Please get your historic facts straight. I am not interested in polemics.

Reply #35 Top

Quoting Dr, reply 32

I am not defending the GDR, but if you can't lean back, reflect upon the whole picture and see that the GDR was no worse then a whole lot of other countries (including, for instance the USA), and still better then about half of the rest of world you should better not starting such a thread.


Funny post!  I guess for some, saying "it could be worse" is a sustitute for striving for the best.  However, the proof of the error of your statements lies in the facts.

Fact: 238 people killed trying to ESCAPE the GDR. (Another 5000 were more fortunate).

Fact: 12-20 million people are IN the USA illegally.  In other words, they could not wait for the paperwork.

So I dare say that the GDR is nothing like America in any respect.  Free people voted with their lives.  You lost.
End of Dr's quote

Thats great. Now tell me how many native americans where resettled (forcefully) or killed, and what was that funny stuff about that imprisonment camp the was going through press? I remember your precious agency abducting people even from germany because they might, maybe (or not all, but how knows) terrorists.

Selective memory is such a beautifull thing, isnt it. But mayby you never had any history lessons.

Reply #36 Top

Quoting utemia, reply 34



Quoting OsirisDawn,
reply 31
Starting a rant about the GDR with your first paragraph does only show that you have about the same mindset as the GDR gouvernment had, or worse. You dont want to hear others opinion and are going to forcefully repatriate them, if you had it your own way?! How can anyone take you serious from that point on?

I am not defending the GDR, but if you can't lean back, reflect upon the whole picture and see that the GDR was no worse then a whole lot of other countries (including, for instance the USA), and still better then about half of the rest of world you should better not starting such a thread.

And before you start to damn other governments you look at our own, and take a very close look. I dont see someone in the news with torch and pitchfork storming the Reichstag and putting them into their place. Where is your zeal, where are you? Contend with what you have and glad you're not living in africa right now, i guess.


Where do you live? We can't be talking about the same country. I think it should have been obvious that my comment about repatriating those who glorify the good old days under communist rule in the GDR to a country where most of what they praise and love is a reality was not "dead" serious, but rather an exasperated attempt to tear off the pink goggles. If they like it so much, those who fit the bill should love to live there anyway, so it'd be like doing them a favour.

I leant back and reflected and the GDR was a pretty bad place to live if you did anything but follow the rules. Loud protest of the regime would land you in a lot of trouble, often prison. And then there is the whole Stasi method of using "inofficial" employees who spied on friends and neighbours and informed the Stasi about many things that were said in the privacy of family and friends. The evaluation of those archives will keep the historians busy in the next decades.

I don't see anybody that needs to be put in place in Berlin. And if there would be, the next election will come around soon enough to allow me to express my anger by voting those that I don't like out of office. That is an option the GDR never offered as they manipulated every result of elections to have the one that the regime wanted in the end. To equal the GDR with the USA is laughable - your whole post makes it difficult to take you seriously, as a matter of fact. Please get your historic facts straight. I am not interested in polemics.
End of utemia's quote

Ich sage nicht, dass die DDR ein toller Ort war, sondern lediglich, dass vieles von der Presse aufgebauscht wurde. Ich kenne viele die in der DDR gelebt haben, und ja, Kritiker hatten ein beschissenes Los. Aber viele mit denen ich gesprochen habe, können diese ganze Verdammung nicht nachvollziehen. Es gab im Osten viel schlechtes, aber auch gutes und die Beurteilung sollte denen überlassen werden, die dort gelebt haben und darunter zu leiden hatten, oder eben nicht. Jeden zu verdammen, der seine eigene Meinung kundtut, und nicht der Masse folgt, ist heuchlerisch und basiert m.E. auf der Propagander der Sieger. Ich persönlich habe nicht im Osten gelebt und kann mir deswegen kein Urteil erlauben, und meine Meinung ist eben genau nur das, eine Meinung.

Die Stasi war großer Mist, da stimme ich dir zu. Aber zu glauben, das es in der westlichen Welt wesentlich anders zu geht, wenn auch sehr viel subtieler, ist meiner Erfahrung nach ein Trugschluss.

Ich beneide Dich um diesen Glauben. Aber der Machtmißbrauch und die Korruption sind in der BRD genauso ausgeprägt, wie sie es im Osten waren. Eurofighter? Lewandowski? Bankerettung? Kohl verschwundene Parteimillionen? Parteiauslandskonten der SPD (oder wars CDU? hm) Auch das jüngste Beispiel, Westerwelles Hotelsteuersenkung hat natürlich überhaupt nichts mit den Millionenspenden vor der Wahl zu tun. Wirklich nicht. Ehrlich. Und ob du zur Wahl gehst oder nicht, macht doch gar keinen Unterschied mehr, die Personen wechseln, aber die Machtgefüge bleiben die gleichen. Die neue Regierung hat das ja wohl sehr eindrucksvoll bewiesen. Jede Partei ist dermaßen voll von Lobbyisten, das eine Politik für den Bürger gar nicht mehr möglich ist.

Aber nichts für ungut, du hast ein Recht auf deine Meinung. Und das akzeptiere ich. Unsere erfahrungen scheinen einfach zu verschieden.

Oh, und ich lebe in Berlin.

---------------

I am sorry for that german wall of text, but my english is not good enough to write my thougts in that matter. If it is against board rules, please delete and forget :)

Reply #37 Top

THe main problem with a german wall of text is that fairly few on this forum can actually read it. :)

Anyway, I suggest watching 'Good Bye Lenin'. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0301357/

 

Reply #38 Top

The main problem with a german wall of text is that fairly few on this forum can actually read it.

End of quote

I can. :)

But coming back to the problem, I see two easy solutions.

For those who miss living under communism, the following should be sufficient:

1. Give away three quarters of your income to charity, live off the rest. Even in rich, succesful communist societies people make less than 25% of what people make in the west.

2. Give away your mobile phone, as communist countries don't have them. Cut your telephone land line as in East Germany most people didn't have telephones.

3. Quit your job and go work in a dirty factory. Insist that most safety regulations be dismissed. Communist countries don't have the solid safety regulations found in the west.

4. Add some poisenous chemicals to the water before you drink it. Most communist countries did not have clean water (or even clean rivers).

5. Don't drive. Most people in communist countries waited decades for a car.

6. Don't travel. People were usually not allowed to leave the country under communism.

There you go. Communism is alive again.

And for those who miss the socialism, the feeling of togetherness, there are a few things that can be done:

1. Volunteer on a kibbutz in Israel. Kibbutzniks live in a socialist society and share everything.

2. Or, if you don't like Jews much, found your own kibbutz movement in Germany. If you are also a communist, you can add a secret police and a wall around the location. But statistics show that there are more socialists in Germany than there are kibbutz volunteers from Germany. Odd, that.

3. Leave Germany (or whichever western country you are from) and its welfare payments and health insurance system behind and volunteer in some poor place in Africa.

4. Volunteer for your local church. They are always looking for people who want to help others. But again statistics show that there are more socialists in Germany than there are people who voluntarily contribute to help others.

5. Get a job, work hard, and pay taxes. Contribute more to society than other people.

Problem solved.

 

Ich beneide Dich um diesen Glauben. Aber der Machtmißbrauch und die Korruption sind in der BRD genauso ausgeprägt, wie sie es im Osten waren. Eurofighter? Lewandowski? Bankerettung? Kohl verschwundene Parteimillionen? Parteiauslandskonten der SPD (oder wars CDU? hm) Auch das jüngste Beispiel, Westerwelles Hotelsteuersenkung hat natürlich überhaupt nichts mit den Millionenspenden vor der Wahl zu tun.

End of quote

You know, as long as we don't live in poverty and can still leave the country, I really don't care much about government corruption.

The fact that you can complain about government scandals in a public forum is the difference between West-Germany and East-Germany. Who says that democratic governments are necessarily less corrupt than dictatorships.

You do not only "envy people for their faith" [in the western system] ("Ich beneide Dich um diesen Glauben.") but you yourself show strong faith in the system when you criticise it publicly.

There are two types of faith: spoken faith and true faith. And while some people are honest enough to speak what they feel, others speak one thing but show, through their actions, that they really feel differently.

Your open criticism of the western system makes it obvious that you totally and absolutely trust the system: you do not just believe but you KNOW that you can criticise the system without fear.

 

Aber zu glauben, das es in der westlichen Welt wesentlich anders zu geht, wenn auch sehr viel subtieler, ist meiner Erfahrung nach ein Trugschluss.

End of quote

"But to believe that in the western world things are really different, even though much is more subtle, is, according to my experiences, an error."

May I ask what your experiences are? Have you ever been in prison for speaking up against the system? Do you expect to go to prison for what you wrote here? I don't think so.

I'll make a wild guess here and say it:

You, my friend, have never had any such experiences as you speak of.

You have only experienced the western system as the best thing that ever happened to you. That's why you dare to criticise it openly. That's why. You TOTALLY and COMPLETELY trust this system.

If you really had any bad experiences, you wouldn't speak up any more. Very few people who have felt the power of the dictatorship continue to speak up. It takes courage that I don't think you have, that most people don't have.

 

 

Reply #39 Top

I CAN read it well enough, I sort of forgot to answer. To summarize the German Wall of Text - which coincides with the article: People are mad because the verdict of the GDR is really negative. Osiris thinks that only people who have lived there should be the ones to judge it - which I think is unrealistic. Historians are able to judge and evaluate events decades, centuries or even millenia after they happened. They do that by looking at the documents (the "evidence") that is left behind. So, no OsirisDawn, it is possible to come to an informed oppinion of the political system and to judge it. That isn't meant as a personal attack on the people who lived there. I think those two things become confused sometimes.

Then Osiris relativized the Stasi and their way of operating by stating that other nations have secret intelligence agencies as well and thus weren't any better. But the german secret service never paid other west germans to spy on their friends and family which is one of the  most heinous aspects of the Stasi.

Also, corruption, lobbyism and powermiuse happen in the Federal Republic of Germany all the time so calling the GDR an unjust system is the pot caling the kettle. Which of course doesn't c hange the fact of what went on in the GDR one bit - it's a wellused defense mechanism.

Hallo nach Berlin aus Freiburg.

Reply #40 Top

Quoting OsirisDawn, reply 35
Thats great. Now tell me how many native americans where resettled (forcefully) or killed, and what was that funny stuff about that imprisonment camp the was going through press? I remember your precious agency abducting people even from germany because they might, maybe (or not all, but how knows) terrorists.

Selective memory is such a beautifull thing, isnt it. But mayby you never had any history lessons.
End of OsirisDawn's quote

You will note I did not say that America (or the west) was perfect.  There is a reason for my omission.  Nothing of Man's is perfect, and no society ever created by man has been either.  America has its sins, and the treatment of the Souix, Arapaho, Seminole, and others (they as much hate "native american" as they do "indian" since both are constructs of the victorious Europeans, and not really accurate - it was not America before Vespucchi figured out it was not India) is perhaps the blackest of its sins (but definitely not the only one).

My "precious agency"?  Again you claim something I did not say.  Nor is the CIA (I gather that is your reference) pure either.  But then you can complain about past excesses because at least for now, it is a free and open society that roots out the excesses and exposes them.  And man will make mistakes (and the more power you give to man, the more mistakes he makes).  You say I have selective memory.  I challenge you to show me where.  I did not give a complete history of the world in my brief synopsis, I merely listed some facts that support a conclusion.  Not all the facts do, but then not all are relevant to the discussion at hand.  And that is why I did not clutter up my response with how many toes Lincoln had, or how many times JFK cheated on Jackie.

Quoting OsirisDawn, reply 36
Es gab im Osten viel schlechtes, aber auch gutes und die Beurteilung sollte denen überlassen werden, die dort gelebt haben und darunter zu leiden hatten, oder eben nicht.
End of OsirisDawn's quote

When I was a young lad in High School (Gymnasium), a girl - of questionable mental capacity - told me that I had no business judging anyone who used drugs because I did not use them.  Being young, I was not rendered speechless and quickly retorted "I don't use Arsenic, but I will condemn it!".  And so this statement of yours I use the same logic.  Clearly not many of us (relative to the cognizant world) lived under the Stasi in the GDR, but all are more than qualified to discuss it, perhaps more so than the people who never lived under anything else.  If you don't know what freedom is, how can you comment on it?  Yet many Ostdeutschen, not having any taste of freedom, still made a strong statement about it.  Risking their lives (and sometimes losing the risk) to gain it.  They along with all Ostdeutschen and all people are qualified to talk about it, from my perspective, since it is a natural right (not one given to people, but one that all are born with).  We do not have to tastte arsenic to know it is poison, nor do we have to live under tyranny to know it is not a good thing (not that it is all evil - some tyrants are benevolent).

I am sorry for that german wall of text, but my english is not good enough to write my thougts in that matter. If it is against board rules, please delete and forget
End of quote

As far as I know, there is no language qualifications on posts.  We have one Algerian who posts in French, and answers in French (when we post in english).  Others stick to their native tongue, and with help, we can make out what is being said.  My German is very rusty, and with the help of Leauki and Utemia, I was able to read most of your post.  And a quick referral to a German-English dictionary helped with the rest.  I actually appreciate reading it as it wipes some cobwebbs from my brain and makes me use what I have not used in a long time (but would rather not totally forget).  Danke Shoen.

Reply #41 Top

I remember in 1992 - 500 years celebration of the discovery of the american continent by Columbus - that many native first nation tribes were sort of pissed off at the celebration because it hadn't been any good news for them. I think some even went to Europe and declared it as their territory to mirror what happened in the wake of Columbus.

The worst US president for native american tribes was Andrew Jackson in the 1830ies. He was quite the little dictator and forced the tribes to move beyond the Mississippi, away from their fertile lands where they had settled before. If I remember correctly, the relationshp between the settlers and tribes wasn't bad at all, too. But they wanted the land so the 5 civilized tribes were forced off. Interestingly enough, one chief sued against that in the Supreme Court and won, but that didn't help in the end.

Reply #42 Top

I remember in 1992 - 500 years celebration of the discovery of the american continent by Columbus - that many native first nation tribes were sort of pissed off at the celebration because it hadn't been any good news for them. I think some even went to Europe and declared it as their territory to mirror what happened in the wake of Columbus.

End of quote

Political correctness made those Indians target the wrong man.

Columbus did not enslave the Indians, his Spanish masters did. And then did those who came after them. Columbus only discovered the land (for Spain) and wanted to become rich through trade. I cannot condemn him for that. Even the nicest American Indian would want the same if he had the technology to contact remote civilisations.

Many Indian tribes and nations also profitted from the arrival of the Europeans, namely those who were slaves or tributaries of the more powerful nations and who chose to be allies of the Spanish rather than slaves of other Indian nations. Not all of them became victims. And not all of those who became victims had been entirely innocent before.

The Indians had a chance to celebrate what should have been a wonderful experience, the first contact between civilisations, instead they chose to blame the contact for everything that happened later. They blamed Columbus for the crimes committed by others. Instead of celebrating the man who tried to connect people, they gave up a chance to tell Europeans and European-Americans what they really did wrong, how they should have handled the situation, and what they could do to create a better future for everyone.

Discovering America was not the great crime the politically correct crowd pretend it was.

Enslaving and killing a population is a crime. But finding out that they exist is not.

 

But they wanted the land so the 5 civilized tribes were forced off. Interestingly enough, one chief sued against that in the Supreme Court and won, but that didn't help in the end.

End of quote

Just to put this in perspective:

The five civilised tribes were called such because the white settlers, quite in contrast to the racist image they have now, really did regard those tribes as "civilised".

Of the five tribes, two allowed slavery like the southern states did. Indians owned black slaves just like the European-Americans did.

In the Civil War, two tribes fought on the side of the rebels and two fought on the side of the Union. One tribe was divided and one half fought on the rebel side and one half on the Union side.

Many or most of those Indians adopted a "white" lifestyle and simply became "Americans". The rest were eventually removed.

The "Trail of Tears", the most symbolic example of the crimes committed against Indians by Americans affected some 15,000 Indians, 4,000 of whom died in the process. In total less than 50,000 Indians were removed in that manner. Those tribes were dramatically smaller than we imagine now. (Of course, if something that happens in Europe kills a mere 4,000 people, we wouldn't even mention it in history books. We have much higher standards.)

The tribes that were not "civilised" were often hunter gatherer societies who take up a lot more land to live than agricultural societies (like the Americans). The same thing happened in Europe 10,000 years when the farmers arrived from the Middle-East and replaced the natvie European population of hunter gatherers.

 

 

Reply #43 Top

I never said that Columbus was the villain. But the celebrations centered around his discovery and accomplishment. The criticism by the protesters wasn't about him but generally on colonialization. I don't really remember many details about it, it was 18 years ago. 
If you were to take the net benefit that natives gained in total and weighed it against the total negative impact I think the negative would win by far.

I said that the 5 civilzed tribes went along ok with the white settlers. They had their own alphabet and court system and so possessed many similarities. They were agrictultural and raised crops and sold them. But more and more settlers arrived and they wanted the fertile land, and so the Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830. For not being a very large group the 5 tribes owned quite a bit of land and greed raised its ugly head.

Ah..and I wouldn't quite compare the neolithic age with the situation in the the americas in the 17th, 18th and 19th century which implies a sort of natural development which might be used to justify driving those "primitive nomads" off the great plains. Not that you saidand meanth it that way, but some people argue like that.

Reply #44 Top



I never said that Columbus was the villain. But the celebrations centered around his discovery and accomplishment. The criticism by the protesters wasn't about him but generally on colonialization. I don't really remember many details about it, it was 18 years ago.

End of quote


If it wasn't about him but about colonisation, the protesters chose a very bad day for their protest.




If you were to take the net benefit that natives gained in total and weighed it against the total negative impact I think the negative would win by far.

End of quote


I think a lot of that has to do with the romanticised image we have of Indian life.

If you imagine the typical life of a hunter gatherer, it is more difficult to imagine how joining civilisation wouldn't be a net win for the tribe.

This is why the five civilised tribes did it. They saw an actual advantage in being "civilised tribes". The fact that they were betrayed by the Americans has nothing to do with the fact that civilisation was an advantage for them.

How do you want to measure whether there was a net gain or not?




I said that the 5 civilzed tribes went along ok with the white settlers. They had their own alphabet and court system and so possessed many similarities. They were agrictultural and raised crops and sold them. But more and more settlers arrived and they wanted the fertile land, and so the Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830. For not being a very large group the 5 tribes owned quite a bit of land and greed raised its ugly head.

End of quote


Exactly. They owned quite a bit of land and were not a large group. When we see the same scenario in other places, it is usually thought that the people who want to redistrubute the land from the few to the many are the good guys.




Ah..and I wouldn't quite compare the neolithic age with the situation in the the americas in the 17th, 18th and 19th century which implies a sort of natural development which might be used to justify driving those "primitive nomads" off the great plains. Not that you saidand meanth it that way, but some people argue like that.

End of quote


I don't know if there is a "natural development". But I do know that an agriculatural society allows for more people to exist and for more people to live longer lives.

Instead of a group of 20 where the typical old man is in his thirties you have a village of 200 where the typical old man is in his sixties. And boy do these village people multiply!

I don't know if the Indian tribes had metal tools or whether they were stuck in the stone age.

Note that western Europe was still in the stone age when the Middle-East was a 1000 years into its bronze age. It's entirely possible that North-America was even further behind.

Reply #45 Top

Exactly. They owned quite a bit of land and were not a large group. When we see the same scenario in other places, it is usually thought that the people who want to redistrubute the land from the few to the many are the good guys.
End of quote
It was theft, pure and simple, which resulted in 4000 deaths (as mentioned by you above in regards to the trail of tears). They were there first. It would be the same if I went into a large house with a group of friends where only a few people lived in and kicked them out because it would be a more "just" redistribution few to many. Quite the socialist concept.

History went as it did, but I find the way the first nation tribes were treated morally and ethically very questionable because every treaty that had been made was broken. It was always justified by needing more land, or some security issues. Even when they protested against that treatment by using the US legal system (they sued against it - very modern actually) which ruled in their favour, it still didn't help them. Nobody questions that. Or are you saying that it was OK by employing the utilitarian argument of what is good for the benefit of most people is the best solution? Quite a way to judge quasi genocide.

I don't really know many details about indian culture,  but there were enough tribes that were high developed. They weren't primitive. I don't know if they used metal though. But even if they didn't, where does it say that the use of metal is the qualifier for a worthy and respectable civilization and culture?

 

Reply #46 Top

It was theft, pure and simple, which resulted in 4000 deaths (as mentioned by you above in regards to the trail of tears). They were there first.

End of quote

I don't know if land can be private property. How can you be so sure?

All the land in the world has been used "first" by someone. I don't think any of us can ever live on land that isn't "owned" by somebody else.

The only authority that can grant land titles is a government. And a government might or might not recognise another government. In the case of land "stolen" from the Indians, the American government simply didn't recognise the Indians as having a government and hence claimed land that was unowned.

 

It would be the same if I went into a large house with a group of friends where only a few people lived in and kicked them out because it would be a more "just" redistribution few to many. Quite the socialist concept.

End of quote

It is.

Except that the house was built by people and the land wasn't.

I find the comparison with land reform more apt than the comparison with theft.

Do you think it is a good idea to let some families go hungry without land while others own more than they can farm, just because the first group was there "first"? Forget about skin colours and think about the relative importance, for the morality of it, of being "first" as opposed to being "more people".

Which particular moral system values the first over the more?

 

Reply #47 Top

You forgot to mention the consequences that went along with the "redistribution", namely the poverty and dismal conditions that followed in its wake on the reservations. So now they went hungry and had no land - explain to me how that is positive? There is no way to spin it that would show this in a positive light. The US government had granted titles to the indians  (the land west of the Mississippi was to be theirs to live there unbothered under Jackson) but simply disregarded that fact time and again by promises of "new land" elsewhere that would only belong to them. Taking land from someone by force who owns the title or simply saying that that title isn't worth the paper its written on and isn't recognized as valid all of a sudden is theft. The US government broke every single agreement they made.

 

Reply #48 Top

Do you think it is a good idea to let some families go hungry without land while others own more than they can farm, just because the first group was there "first"? Forget about skin colours and think about the relative importance, for the morality of it, of being "first" as opposed to being "more people".
End of quote
It could have had happened differently if they had treated the Indians as equals that also had a right to stay on their lands. Killing someone or driving someone into poverty and uncertain conditions because you need what they have without regard to their needs is immoral.

Reply #49 Top

I always wonder how topics change in the comments.  Wonder as in in awe of, not how could they (they almost always do). But on to the new topic:

Quoting Leauki, reply 44
If it wasn't about him but about colonisation, the protesters chose a very bad day for their protest.
End of Leauki's quote

can't hardly blame them!  After all it is a stupid holiday (not that I object since I do get it off).  Celebrating a man who did not know where he was, or how he got there or who he was talking to!  Well, that is mankind in a nutshell.


Quoting Leauki, reply 44
Exactly. They owned quite a bit of land and were not a large group. When we see the same scenario in other places, it is usually thought that the people who want to redistrubute the land from the few to the many are the good guys.
End of Leauki's quote

Owned was not really the same concept as the Europeans had.  It did not make it worse or better, but the tribes "owned" the horse (plains indians) and other possessions they could carry or move.  The "tribe" owned the land.


Quoting Leauki, reply 44
Note that western Europe was still in the stone age when the Middle-East was a 1000 years into its bronze age. It's entirely possible that North-America was even further behind.
End of Leauki's quote

One misconception is to look at the tribes as some type of monolithic society that were all on the same social scale.  When in fact, there were more differences than similiarities in a lot of respects.  While some of the more "bountiful" tribes were little more than communal hunter/gatherers, others had a social system and civilization that rivaled the Europeans in all but weaponry and aggression.  While we know the Aztecs were very highly advanced in the sciences (although some would claim they were central, not North American), the Pueblos were almost as equally advanced.  Indeed, perhaps comparing continents to each other we see that while the romans were far advanced the Gauls were not.  America was no different in that respect (except in their agressiveness).  You had the good old boys who liked to "whoop it up" and count coup, and then the "scholars" who had already figured out a lot more about agriculture and astronomy than the europeans (and of course some that figured out a lot more about human sacrafice too).

Indeed, some of the tribes had discovered metalurgy, but mostly for jewelry, not cannons.

Reply #50 Top

Quoting utemia, reply 48
It could have had happened differently if they had treated the Indians as equals that also had a right to stay on their lands. Killing someone or driving someone into poverty and uncertain conditions because you need what they have without regard to their needs is immoral.
End of utemia's quote

Waging war is one thing.  Betraying trust is another.  America betrayed the trust of the tribes, and that is our greatest sin.  If we had to do it over, I would hope we would at least be moral about it.

The term "indian Giver" is not a slur on the tribes, but on the white man who "gave" to the tribes only then to take it away again when it suited their purpose.