almost a diary, compulsory reading

Kraut-bashing. Some personal context.

Kraut-bashing is *so* passé. That is at least what the British comedian Frank Skinner tried to tell his countrymen when he publicized his support for the German team before last year’s World Cup final. His arguments have been summarised and endorsed by the BBC but as the article tells us, there was not just enthusiastic support for his stance. The Sun subsequently called Skinner “Franz” and digi-dressed him wearing lederhosen – they had gone Brazil nuts!

No one should have been surprised by this display of journalistic creativity. Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids as well as all other specimen of British quality publishing like to spice up dull English headlines with some Tscherman words from time to time. And it is certainly true that a vicious circle of linguistic militarism is fueled by them as well as by those English fans whose choice of words demonstrates that football can be so much more than just a game whenever a match between the old Germanic rivals looms on the playground. Their strange confusion of war and sports is very visible on the famous 1918-1945-1966-T-shirts.

But I suppose to some, T-Shirts and Blitzkrieg-laden headlines are only side effects, as Der Spiegel’s recent suspicion (link in German) that Germans have become “prisoners of history”, at least in Britain, shows. The magazine’s attention had been sparked by an article, published in the Guardian earlier last December, in which the new German ambassador to the United Kingdom, Thomas Matussek, lashed out against the country’s history curriculum –

“I want to see a more modern history curriculum in schools. I was very much surprised when I learned that at A-level one of the three most chosen subjects was the Nazis.”

– alleging that it contributed to an anti-German sentiment responsible not only for hunny headlines but also for physical and psychological violence committed against Germans in the United Kingdom.

“You see in the press headlines like ‘We want to beat you Fritz’. It ceases to be funny the moment when little kids get beaten up…”.

The ambassador’s remarks point to an incident in October last year, when two German schoolbays on an exchange programme were assaulted by a gang of British youth in Morden, south London. According to the Guardian, they were heckled as Nazis before one had his glasses broken and the other was shoved into a bush.

I am terribly sorry for the pupils’ experience. And I think it is entirely appropriate for a German ambassador to demand a more prominent place for the post ’45 “model Germany” in British textbooks. But I don’t believe that those studying the Nazi dictatorship for their A-level exams will become notorious Kraut-bashers – quite to the contrary.

In Britain – as everywhere else – physical violence against Germans for ascriptive reasons is de facto nonexistent and most instances of verbal Kraut-bashing are likely not of malevolent intent. They are simply an element of the usually acclaimed British humour Germans often have a hard time to find funny.

There are plenty of stories like the one a young German Navy officer told me last week. When he went to the UK on NATO business recently, he was greeted with a joyful “Heil Hitler” by his British comrades. However, the British soldiers lifting their right arms in all likelihood did not intend to imply he was actually a Nazi or even seriously insult him. In their eyes, it probably was a joke honouring the tradition of John Cleese’s famous “Don’t mention the war”-episode of Fawlty Towers.

Although the young officer was not amused about the incident, I would like to point out that, yes, even for a Kraut, Kraut-bashing sometimes can be fun. I know I may be generalising a bit here, but people have always made fun about alleged ascriptive characteristics of other people. But only very few are serious about them. Being able to tell the difference is what is important – for both parties involved. Quite a few usually well meaning people in the UK do not seem to understand that there are different kinds and styles of Kraut-bashing. And believe me, I know what I am talking about: I have been Kraut-bashed by Brits, too.

We all know that there are inappropriate derogatory terms for people of all ethnicities and nationalities in all languages. And we all know that the same derogatory words can have a very different, sometimes positive, meaning in a different context. It’s exactly the same with Kraut bashing. My British flatmates in Paris were allowed to Kraut-bash me. Just as I kept joking about the British “cuisine”, the Empire they lost and how their German would be much better now if the US had not saved their country’s ass twice.

The way we talk to a person only depends on the kind of relationship and our mutual respect. What may be in order for a friend is likely entirely inappropriate for a stranger. And I know how much being told you are what you want to be least does hurt, especially if you’re not expecting
it.

My stranger’s name was Julia. She was the friend of a friend of one of my flatmates and in Paris for a night in Summer 1998. So we all met in a bar somewhere in the Marais (for those who know Paris). I have to say that her first attack was as much a surprise for me as it was for my British friends.

I think you get a useful idea of Julia when I tell you that the only thing she wanted (or was able?) to talk about were her freshly pedicured toenails. But being the gentleman that I am I complimented her, just as expected. But her reply was as unexpected as inappropriate – she told me that she wasn’t interested in my bloody Nazi opinion anyway.

You probably remember – the first time does hurt. And it did. I was stunned. I did not know what to say. No one had ever silenced me by telling me I were a Nazi. And she was serious about it. Not knowing how to deal with the situation, I made the fatal mistake of actually trying to explain to her that I was no Nazi, which clearly provided sufficient incentive for her to keep bashing me until she was eventually silenced by my friends.

However much it hurt that day, I now think of the episode as a valuable experience. It helped me realise the difference between those who joke about beating “Fritz” [ or decapitate the Kaiser, for instance ;-) ] and those who actually do beat him. It also taught me how to deal with the very few Julias around.

And there are only very few Julias around. Thus, in my opinion, those trying construct a theory of German victimhood around incidents like the the teenage clash mentioned above or negligeable individual experiences like mine are creating an urban myth rather than a useful representation of reality. In a letter to the publisher, a German exchange student in North England told the magazine last week that she had spent a year in Britain and never experienced anything like the alleged British anti-German sentiment. She felt “stabbed in the heart” by the article, she said.

When I lived in London, I never experienced anything even slightly reminiscent of the Julia-episode. I walked past the “Bomber Harris” memorial almost every day and never cared about it until a British friend told me how embarassed he was when the Queen (of German descent…) unveiled a memorial for a person responsible for WW2 area bombing German cities in the early 1990s.

Another interesting encounter I had with respect to the anti-German sentiment in Britain was one with an older lady, who had clearly survived at least one, if not two world wars, and who explained to me that, yes, the British fought the Germans in two world wars but, after all, they’re decent people, as opposed to those frog-eating French.

While German tourists are still scared by the myth not to speak German in London Buses to avoid trouble, there are literally tens of thousands of Germans working in the City everyday. When you enter any of the fifty Starbucks outlets between Fleet Street and Monument tube station, chances are, you will hear almost as many German conversations as English ones.

The BBC is certainly right to admit that

“British hostility to Germany simply isn’t reciprocated – [and i]t could be that by using outdated stereotypes – the British are saying more about themselves than anyone else.”

But, in my experience, less and less people are seriously thinking in those stereotypes. Kraut-bashing may not be *so* passé yet, but it is definitely passé.

Last November, the American writer, Pulitzer price laureate, and Princeton University literature professor C.K. Williams made a very interesting argument in the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit (link in German, Archive.org) about how Germans have become a group no longer defined by what they actually are or what they actually do – but what they stand for. In his opinion, the eyes of the world see Germans, more than anything else, as a symbol of evil – they have become Ze Tschermans.

While my personal experience is largely different, Mr Williams is probably right to some extent – some Tschermans are still out there, on celluloid, in the history books and, most importantly, in the memories of those who suffered unspeakable horrors under the Nazi dictatorship. As long as we define ourselves as German, we have to accept the historic context which we have been handed – just like everybody else. While history does by no means excuse ascriptive prejudices, it can help explain their existence. Time may be a healer, but big wounds heal slowly.

Sometimes it is up to us to explain where we feel things are no longer funny. The young German officer clearly told his British comrades that he did not enjoy their joke. All people but the very few Julias around will not cross that line again.

And Sometimes we should just relax. Julia taught me to no longer care if some stupid person believes I am a Tscherman. Why should I? I know I am not. And those I care about do know that, too.

What else could be important?

Standard
almost a diary, compulsory reading

Does Dennis MacShane really want to decapitate Tony Blair?

The British Minister for Europe, Dennis MacShane, apparently tried to appeal to the British public by telling the FT earlier this week that

“… the German position [of enhancing the EU commission’s president powers as opposed to the Franco-British position of electing a president from within the European Council ] is for giving all power to a new kind of European kaiser, a Commission president who will tell all the other European institutions what to do. I had long discussion with Gerhard Schröder on this and I explained that 350 years ago we separated a king’s head from his body because we didn’t want to take orders from one individual.”

I am not too firm in English history but if I remember correctly, the story of the decapitation of Charles I is slightly more complicated than alleged by Mr MacShane. He died because he lost against Chromwell’s army in a religious power struggle. Decapitating a king may have been a fundamental democratic experience, but at least the immediate consequences were limited.

Shortly thereafter, Oliver Chromwell became Lord Protector. I am certainly not trying to reduce the English/British democratic/parliamentary innovations in any way – after all, I did have the opportunity to work for an MP in the mother of Parliaments myself.

But I do find it funny that a British minister talks about the veto-prone European decision process as some sort of absolutist government given that he is part of a governmental system which many scholars of British politics have (ironically, but with slight concern) called an “elected dictatorship” because of the centrality of Prime Ministerial power and the problematic legal doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty [ by the way – this evil fascist dictator test, apparently put online by an Oxford student, gives you the opportunity to test your Prime Ministerial potential.

Apparently, according to the test’s scoring guide,

I will be a corrupt, ruthless, but surprisingly effective figure on the world stage.

[ Not bad for this time of the day, I have to say ;-) ]

But anyway – the British must have learnt to take orders from one (elected) individual by now, for I don’t think Mr MacShane is actually after Tony’s head. He’s definitely even more dependent on his employer’s goodwill than most of his compatriots.

Standard
almost a diary

Ring Out The Old, Ring In The New

I love the pseudo-should-auld-aquaintance-be-forgot-melancholy a day like New Year’s Eve is providing en masse. That may also have something to do with me being German. And while the rest of the world has slowly come to grasp the national German obsession with melancholy, you can believe me if I tell you that things have changed. In 2002, many people in this country no longer believed in mere melancholy but have instead turned to outright depression. Thus, they’re clearly not too unhappy to ring out the Old, even though they are not too confident about the New either.

I am not quite sure yet, but I sense the national depression is actually about to end. Maybe 2003 will finally be the year in which people as well as the country leave the decade of post unification paralysis behind and finally get going. A Chancellor’s New Year’s Eve speech usually will not be a useful indicator for political developments, but in conjunction with some reform papers the government floated recently, some of Schroeder’s words could actually mean something this time. The gist of his speech is: We have finally accepted reality and and we will therefore implement the necessary changes. Some will scream. But we will all benefit in the end.

C’mon, 2003, let’s roll. I will certainly see to it.

And now, let me close this blog’s first year by wishing all of you, my gentle readers, a very pleasant New Year’s Eve and a happy 2003!

Standard
almost a diary

Did it happen? Does it matter?

Could it actually be telling that the first press statement about a cloned human baby comes from a company, Clonaid, founded by a strange sect, the Raelians, and headquartered in Hollywood (although, Hollywood, Florida)? Currently, 62% of the people voting in a CNN online poll believe it is. They do not think a cloned baby has been born yesterday. Maybe they’re right. Maybe we have been saved from making up our minds for the time being.

But let’s face it. If it has happened already or is about to happen in the near future does not really matter. But it does matter that it will happen. It does matter a lot. The successful cloning of a human being is announcing the end of the era of sexual reproduction of mankind. Here, genetical variation will be planned or a technical mistake. It could, in some sense, mark the end of evolution. I am not going to sketch possble consequence just now, but personally, I am convinced this is bad for mankind. Very bad.

The baby that has or will eventually be born clearly is no monster. But we will all – globally – have to answer the questions if those who (will have) created her/him are. Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s “The Physicists” gives some useful ideas about how to handle the fundamentals behind the question. I feel I should reread it, too.

Standard
almost a diary, compulsory reading

I am getting old(er). Christmas shopping 2002.

Today I did the bulk of my Christmas shopping and discovered three interesting things.

Firstly, age compression, big time: when did it become fashionable among 13 year old guys to be knowledgeable about Eau de Toilettes? I was slightly stunned while listening to three youngsters’ conversation about the intricacies of three different types of Jil Sander Eau de Toilette. Not that I mind EdTs. That is, these days.

When I was thirteen, my friends and I were interested in fighter jets, racing cars, and handling advice for the first hangover – not in the amount of alcohol in EdTs. We eventually all learned to give our appearance the finishing touches (well, in our opinion…) by applying olfactory aids. But that was not until a few years later. And I did not learn more about the inner workings of EdTs until I did a luxury industry case study in Business School. I am confused. We got more sophisticated in the olfactory sense because girls told us to (well, they never actually told us to, that would have made things a lot easier…). So I can’t help but wonder – is the episode also telling me something about today’s pre-teen girls’ behavior? Or have guys changed so much without being obliged to by young Lysistrata?

Secondly, there are still some guys who really don’t know how to improve their appearance using olfactory aids. While listening to the three kids, some 45 year old guy grabbed one of the test flacons and quasi-emptied it over his head and coat. And I am not kidding. I wonder what the boys thought of that ;-).

Thirdly, baggy trousers that are literally so baggy they sweep the streets. The ones I saw today were soaked in water (it was raining) up to their proprietors calfs. I think that local governments have not yet realised how much public cleaning costs can be privatised to these fashion victim’s families, and will be, moreover, (more or less) willingly borne by their parents to avoid noisy fights…

In other news, I actually managed to get most of my presents today. But that’s not too difficult. I am none of the people who spend months figuring out the perfect present. Most of the people I am giving presents to already have most of the stuff I believe they could possibly want (well, within reasonable German-definition-upper-middle- class-limits… I believe, most would not mind a free Porsche.)

So giving presents is theoretcially complicated. I realise I am generalising a bit, but I think there are usually roughly two and half alternatives when it comes to buying Christmas presents. Either you’re giving something that is admired on the coffee table during Christmas and then stuffed into a cardbord box on the attic on December 30th. Or you’re giving something not quite as exciting but with a longer lasting appeal. Most of the times I tend to stick with the second alternative and give books which, if nothing else, are a good pass-time and sophisticated sedative during the sudden urges to decapitate a distant aunt on Boxing Day for her remarks about the beautiful socks she gave us, or in case the tv programme does again become all too dreadful.

The last semi-alternative is the theoretical possibility of the above mentioned perfect present – something that clearly exhibits that one knows enough about a person to figure out her/his underlying interests, needs or emotions and devoted enough time on brainstorming and then getting or creating this perfect, most of the times material, incarnation thereof. But that’s probably as likely to happen as winning a million in a lottery.

Do I need to mention that I don’t participate in lotteries?

Standard
almost a diary, oddly enough, traveling

Don’t judge a book by it’s cover? Certainly not in Amsterdam.

You certainly know that the idea of not judging something/someone based on appearance is only partly useful.

Covers usually do transmit a significant amount of information about the book’s content. But we also know that looks can deceive, especially concerning human beings. That’s why the headline of this entry can be quite handy: it reminds us to remain open to the fact that the information we receive by decoding the cover does not necessarily convey the correct social rules of interaction. So we have to remain vigilant.

In Amsterdam looks are sometimes almost as deceptive as the fly-over-country-bank featured in Michael Moore’s latest film, Bowling for Columbine. You think it’s just a bank. But it’s actually a bank – and a licensed gun store. In Amsterdam, where a large portion of GDP is made by directly following the idea of making love, not war, people don’t buy guns. They buy porn.

And that’s exactly why you should be careful about looks. A lot of souvenir shops in Amsterdam are conventional souvenir shops only on the outside, featuring the usual displays of postcards, t-shirts and disposable cameras. Inside, their range of products features a slightly different kind of ‘typical’ Amsterdam memorabila.

The kind labelled with a significant number of Xs…

Standard
almost a diary, traveling

English in Amsterdam

Let me briefly remind you of the fact that you will be socially slaughtered and then eaten (most likely without your consent) should you ever attempt to talk in English to a French person without any previous attempt to clarify whether he or she is able and willing to communicate in the aforementioned language (you should also add a “Monsieur” or “Madame” at the end of any question you ask a stranger, should you actually expect an answer).

Most of the times and in most of the countries I have ever been, asking if someone I want to talk to in English is able to speak is not only a matter of politeness and respect but the most natural thing to do as not everybody will actually be able to speak English.

But in the Netherlands, things are slightly different. When I ordered coffee (and yes, it *was* coffee) in Amsterdam on Saturday, I suddenly wondered whether it is actually more impolite to ask if a salesperson does speak English than not to ask, as asking does imply the assumption the person could not be *able* to speak English in a country (ok, I’m in Amsterdam, not in Gouda) in which everyybody speaks English.

When I asked some Dutch people at a party what their preference would be, the result was mixed. Some prefer to be asked, some don’t. Should you now ask me for a generalised recommendation, I would say – don’t ask, but be *very* polite in language and tone.

Given the special nature of the service sector in this town, there are a lot of impolite English speaking people on the streets. They, too, will get their coffee, of course. But they won’t get the waitress’s smile. And seriously, given the temperatures here this weekend, such a smile can provide life-saving warmth.

Standard
almost a diary, traveling

Trains. Again.

As much as I like trains for sleeping reasons (see earlier entry), I hate their operating company, Deutsche Bahn AG. Not only are they about to increase prices for spontaneous travellers like me by I-don’t-know-how-many-thousand percent on Sunday but they are clearly conspiring against their customers.

I am sure this has happened to all of you who have used a German train in the last 10 years: The one time that you hope a train will actually be five minutes late, as they usually are, it is on time and you miss it because this one time only you’re not on time – as you usually are.

Usually you have to wait for trains. And you do wait. All the time. Wasting days of valuable lifetime on a random platform earning money for the operating company by watching the advertisments they put on for entertainment. But does that mean the one train that arrives on time train would actually consider waiting for you (or even those suctomers who (for good reason) usually add five minutes to the time indicates on the timetable? Only a minute? Only once?

Certainly not. So now I’ll have to wait for two hours (and 10 additional minutes, as usual), which is how this entry came about.

Standard
almost a diary, oddly enough

To Sonya: The One With The Best Nap Ever.

Do you remember the “Friends” episode in which Ross and Joey fall asleep together on a sofa and later discover that it was the “best nap” they ever had?

Well, I did not fall asleep on another guy, but in the train on the way back from Cologne. But in that train, I did have my best nap ever.

And I thought I’ll shock all you, my gentle readers, with the following statement: Call me crazy, but sleeping in trains is the most relaxing experience I can think of. I can’t tell you why, but I suppose it must have something to do with the constant low pitch background noise and slight vibration the (high speed) train is producing when in operation. I guess that’s why I wake up when it stops in a station for a bit.

If you think I lost my mind, I’ll let you into a little secret of mine. When I was a little boy and would not fall asleep, my dad took me for a ride in the car. Once he was driving on a highway with a constant speed, I would instantly fall asleep. Hmm, I wonder if I should invent a noisy, vibrating bed and become rich and famous by changing the world’s sleeping habits.

Standard