Toward the end of class today (April 17th), we began to discuss the issue of cultural genocide, specifically in relation to colonialism both in Latin America and in the American west. I feel that there was a general consensus among us that the elimination of a group’s identity or way of life constitutes cultural genocide, at least as conceived by Raphael Lemkin. I firmly agree that the acts perpetrated by not only Spanish, but English, French, Portuguese, and all other colonial powers against native populations with the intent (and possibly even effect) of destroying or “converting” their way of life constitutes cultural genocide. In fact, Robins’ article has opened my mind to viewing Stalinism through this culturally genocidal lens and helped me to come to terms with some issues in the Soviet case that I have been struggling with these past few weeks.
But I don’t want to stop there. Robins discussion of subaltern genocide has also challenged other preconceptions I found I held regarding genocide. As this class has demonstrated to all of us, there is little that is black and white in genocide, yet in reading his analysis of insurrection movements I discovered my own bias or tendency toward assuming the immutable righteousness of victim groups. This discovery led me to some questions: Would the class agree or disagree that indigenous populations in Latin America committed genocide as described by Robins? Are all identities protected from cultural genocide? Can minority groups perpetrate genocide, cultural or otherwise? In reflecting on these questions, I want to challenge the class to put aside some of our collective biases against Western Powers (ones I certainly share), and explore a current case study in cultural genocide. I will not assert that this case is or is not cultural genocide, but I feel it can spark both interesting and productive discussion. Get ready for some irony. The victim? Germany.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/16/us-germany-merkel-immigration-idUSTRE69F1K320101016
(I highly recommend you read the above article before reading further.)
German multiculturalism has failed. At least according to Angela Merkel and many other native Germans. In the past few decades, Germany has experienced a boom in its Muslim population. Mosques are increasingly becoming a part of the German landscape. Merkel has asserted that multiculturalism without integration is simply not working and has stressed the importance of immigrants learning German and adapting to German society. Throughout the article there is a palpable frustration, that of the Germans towards this seemingly invading population.
It is easy to quickly dismiss this as German xenophobia. Obviously they must be Islamophobic, why else would a majority of Germans agree with such a blanket statement as ‘Muslim immigrants lower the intelligence of German society’? But these hurtful words stem from a real fear Germans have of losing their cultural identity in a sea of other immigrant identities. One reader left this comment:
txgadfly wrote:
Yes, the Germans have a history. As does everyone else. And they all should have the right to exist as separate entities. That also includes the Germans. And everyone else.
Muslims around the world experience real and horrendous discrimination and violence due to their identity and beliefs. I in no way intend or wish to discredit this. But I feel that this case study forces us to at least pause in making quick assumptions or assertions regarding Western politics and policies. Does Germany have the right to preserve its cultural identity within its own borders? Let me know what you think.
Just as Ms. Muscott admits in her post above, I too have the tendency to consider all Western powers as those who do not need protection of any kind, cultural of otherwise. Countries such as the United States, England, and Germany dominate the international marketplace and international dialogue, which makes it easy to always label these superpowers as perpetrators in any crime and the other, lesser country as the victim. This bias does not go without large historical support, especially when taking into account colonization, re: the Robins' article.
ReplyDeleteYet when I read the article Ms. Muscott posted above, I was torn between automatically assuming that the Germans were targeting the foreign groups and attempting to see them as a culture in jeopardy. Upon reading the article multiple times, I'm not sure if I have a strong viewpoint. Instead, I would like to point out interesting aspects of the article. I was confused mostly with the line of the argument of this article, which began with the headline that "German multiculturalism has utterly failed." Yet further on in the article, it states that Merkel herself is pushing for new immigrants to adopt German culture, German language, and to merge into German society seamlessly. To further round out this incredibly confusing argument, the article then goes on to portray this unwillingness for foreigners to adopt German culture as threatening the existence of this culture and the German right to its own identity.
This is where I become thoroughly confused. it is unclear whether Merkel believes that multiculturalism has failed because immigrants, specifically Muslims, have not adopted German culture or because Germans are becoming influenced by their culture. This can be tied into Robins' argument that genocide/ colonization has two parts: destruction and imposition. While it would be straining the idea of "imposition" to argue that the immigrant Muslims of Germany are imposing their culture on German citizens by NOT adapting and adopting German culture, it helps to round out the article's point.
Still, it is difficult to overlook the extremes that Merkel speaks of IMPOSING (??) on incoming immigrants, such as the ability to speak German and a "willingness to adapt to German society." This in particular raises another question: do immigrants have a right to the safety of their culture in a foreign country? Are they the victim if they are forced to adapt to their new and freely chosen national culture? Or is the state the victim when incoming immigrants refuse to adopt the local culture and instead propagate their own?
In response to Miss Vari's confusion: I understood the article to mean that multiculturalism in Germany has failed because there is no exchange of culture or cultural understanding in either direction, as it states that native German and immigrant communities live "side by side without integrating". Presently, it seems that few Muslims learn German, few Germans learn Arabic, and there is very little religious conversion. “German” and “Muslim” have therefore remained separate identities.
DeleteFrom that, this conversation (to me) raises questions of intent. Can an immigrant minority population commit genocide, cultural or otherwise, against a native majority group? Yes, if they intend to, as we have seen with the Conquistadors, et al.. However, in the German case, because there is so little interaction between the immigrant group and the native group, it seems as if neither the minority nor the majority is attempting to change the other. In this situation it would be hard to make a case for a genocidal intent from either side.
When considering the other possibility, that German policies might constitute an act of cultural genocide against an incoming immigrant minority, we need to consider the issues of national sovereignty and, as Miss Vari noted, the agency of the immigrants. When any one of us travels to a foreign country we are subject to the laws of that country, whether we agree with them or not. Professor Dumancic referenced this in passing today (5/8) in class when he mentioned having to think before choosing where to vacation, as some areas are not safe due to discrimination against LGBT folk. In many countries discrimination exists not only among the population but is built into the laws as well.
Just as we are allowed to choose which countries we visit, immigrants are allowed to choose their new home. While I realize that there may be limited options or extenuating circumstances for under-privileged immigrants, refugees, or those seeking asylum, I would venture to say that in this case most immigrants were not forced to move, and made their own decisions concerning their new home. Because they chose to enter Germany, they should be expected to abide by German laws. If they find German policies disagreeable, it probably would have been advisable to move somewhere else in the first place.