my take on things - comments about all the world and his brother
Published on July 4, 2009 By utemia In Misc

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.

 


Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Feb 23, 2010

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.

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.

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?

 

on Feb 23, 2010

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.

 

on Feb 23, 2010

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".
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.

on Feb 23, 2010

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:

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

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.


Leauki
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.

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.


Leauki
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.

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.

on Feb 23, 2010

utemia
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.

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.

on Feb 23, 2010

The same way topics change when you go out with friends and have few drinks in a bar - you brought up the indians and *bam* now we're talking about the indians. Your fault, this! lol Other than the fact that it doesn't really fit in with the OP, it is an interesting part of US history which doesn't get much recognition in the public outside of melodramatic movies and books. But I could be wrong about that, it just appeared that way to me.

on Feb 23, 2010

utemia
The same way topics change when you go out with friends and have few drinks in a bar - you brought up the indians and *bam* now we're talking about the indians. Your fault, this! lol Other than the fact that it doesn't really fit in with the OP, it is an interesting part of US history which doesn't get much recognition in the public outside of melodramatic movies and books. But I could be wrong about that, it just appeared that way to me.

1 - You are right!  Guilty!

2. - It actually does, but I guess more internally than externally (kind of like you fight with your geschwestern, but if someone else picks on them, you all rally around them).

on Feb 24, 2010

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.

In five thousand plus years of recorded history when has mankind ever been moral? Hell we can't even be moral in the name of morality!

on Feb 26, 2010

What happend to our German friend from Berlin with the great trust in our western system of government?

 

on Feb 26, 2010

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

Jewelry doesn't require iron.

The advantage of iron was that you could use it for weapons. Most other metals tend to be fairly unusable for the purpose. Bronze was good, which is why there was a Bronze Age.

 

on Feb 26, 2010

Leauki

Jewelry doesn't require iron.

I did not mean to imply it does.  But the basic skill of metalurgy is the same (casting or welding).  So while the tribes devoted their skills to jewelry (mostly gold and silver), Europeans applied theirs to weapons.  The knowledge and skill sets were similar, but as we saw, weapons rule when it comes to war.

As an after thought, the Chinese Invented Gun Powder which the Europeans borrowed.  In order to use this new invention, the europeans then made metal weapons.  The tribes of the Americas did not know of gun powder, so perhaps that is why they saw no need to develope metalic weapons.  I would defer to historians to determine the cause and effect there, but there does seem to be a strong causality.

4 PagesFirst 2 3 4