…and this is a 
Some of you may have noticed that we got hit hard by a Turkish spammer last night: several hundred comments, mostly saying the same thing, all linking back to a farm of Turkish spam sites. It's extremely annoying, and I'm in the process of cleaning it all up. Normally that wouldn't take long at all, but right now Scienceblogs is seizing and sputtering, like usual, so I delete 10 or 20 at a time, get the stupid timeout message, and have to reload and restart the despammer tools…so it might take a little while.
And it is all so pointless. They get a few hours of their url on my blog, but what I do in addition to deleting their spam is pluck out urls and unusual keywords and tuck them into my automatic spam filter file…which, after a few years of this nonsense, is looking like a goddamned Turkish dictionary. That means that a lot of Turkish words and links get automatically rubbished if you try to use them here — there must be a lot of national pride over there in Asia Minor, where they're doing a phenomenal job of making Turkish the pariah language of the internet.
Comments
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 13, 2009 10:37 AM
Who in Turkey, besides the few, cowed sensible people, are going to care that Adnan Oktar's pet spammers are turning Turkish into the lingua franca of spam filters? I mean, Adnan Oktar has single-handedly cut off Turkey from the rest of the Internet, what with his eagerness to appeal to the Turkish courts to ban whatever site displeases him.
Posted by: Newfie | June 13, 2009 10:46 AM
..young hearts be free tonight
Posted by: waldteufel | June 13, 2009 11:00 AM
Turkey has a long history of genocide (Ask your friendly neighborhood Armenian about this), suppression of thought, and suppression of speech.
While pretending to be a secular state, the odious cesspool of theocracy bubbles just under the surface.
Now, Turkey wants to pretend to be a modern state worthy of admittance to the E.U. Not bloody likely.
Posted by: Dan J | June 13, 2009 11:02 AM
It's really sad. I had to implement a "country by IP address" filter for a client's site in order to present users from a couple selected countries with specifically different options on a couple pages. The spammers ruin it for everybody.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 13, 2009 11:03 AM
Spammers and this Jamdu moron are giving Turkey a bad name.
Interesting to hear the SB machine is not only sputtering for us worker ants !
Posted by: Colin | June 13, 2009 11:07 AM
Viagra ister misiniz? Alın kalın ereksiyon şimdi.
Just kidding.
Posted by: blf | June 13, 2009 11:07 AM
Most of Europe has had bouts of genocide, heavily influence by various and varied mythologies/religons, engaged in suppression of thought and speech, including putting people to death after appalling tortures at the behest of the religous. Just like waldteufel's claims about Turkty. Hence, using the same "logic", none of the EU should be in the EU.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 13, 2009 11:08 AM
And how, pray tell, are you gonna keep the religious fanaticism contained by making the average Turk-in-the-street feel excluded and unwanted in (supposedly) democratic Europe?
Turkey is secular, but wankers like you are making it damn hard to keep it that way.
I'd rather have secular Turkey than über-Catholic Poland any day of the week. I propose we swop - the Poles don't want Turkey in anyway.
Posted by: Ruttle | June 13, 2009 11:13 AM
"An Illusion of Harmony" by Taner Edis is a good read on the subject of Turkey and its relationship with science. Edis is a prof of physics at Truman State University. I heard him speak at a CFI event a couple of years ago, and his insights as a Turkish American scientist are very intriguing. He was also a very nice guy, so there is that as well.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 13, 2009 11:17 AM
Bit too late for that one,unfortunately,as far as the EU is concerned.
I agree somewhat,although having been raised in a country with 5 million turkish immigrants(Germany) my opinion regarding their secularity and ability to integrate into the Western europe of humanism and enlightenment culturally and socially,is somewhat different,I think a lot of turkish people have shown (similar to a lot of asian people over here in Australia btw) quite a marked tendency to cultural isolation and failure or unwillingness to integrate.
Poland,of course,is another matter altogether.
Posted by: Joel | June 13, 2009 11:25 AM
For some reason, I get a great deal of Russian-language spam, complete with Cyrillic script.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 13, 2009 11:27 AM
Btw PZ,
Normally that wouldn't take long at all, but right now Scienceblogs is seizing and sputtering, like usual
I have no problems whatsoever on any other SB i visit and comment on,Pharyngula is the only one right now.
But Im sure its being looked into !
Oh,no,hang on,that was last week....
Posted by: protocol | June 13, 2009 11:37 AM
To Rorscach,
I think the ability or inability to "integrate" as you term is is also a function of class. Middle-class Turks seem to be able to "integrate" fine in North America and much of Europe. Same goes for "Asian" immigrants (though the term itself is uber vague; Asia includes a large chunk of the world). Also, by integration I hope you mean values of tolerance and not much else (since how people lead their lives is their business, so long as they do not impinge on others' ways). Also give me a break with the "European enlightenment" bullshit. Europe happened to be one of the most bloodthirsty and unenlightened continents until quite recently (some gall coming from Germany!). And modern European "enlightenment" happens, to a large degree, a function of economic development etc. And please don't mention Australia in the same breath as "enlightenment". Australia entered the "enlightened" world also quite late, about the 1970s.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 13, 2009 11:37 AM
Excellent towels, though.
Pretty good hash, too, as I recall.
Posted by: Britomart | June 13, 2009 11:37 AM
Darn, I missed it
or did I?
Was this the same Haroun ha ha fan that was bleating a few days ago?
What a joke that site was! Can we send him to the debunk pictures of the fishing flys ?
Posted by: Rorschach | June 13, 2009 11:53 AM
@ 13,
No argument from me here.In some aspects its still catching up.
Used in this context,not regarding the fact Europe still fought wars until 65 years ago,I dont think thats bullshit at all,but a remarkable achievement.
Huh?
Let me be more precise,when I said Asians(this applies to Chinese as well as Indians and others)and compared them to the Turkish immigrants,I referred to the fact that a lot of them will not learn the language,keep their religious and cultural traditions and keep among themselves socially,and I used that as an example that the cultural/social/religious divide between the traditional western european culture and Turkey is still significant.
Posted by: waldteufel | June 13, 2009 11:56 AM
blf makes a good point about fits of genocide in Europe fueled by various religions and mythologies. And, I agree. Most of the world exhibits the ills brought on by religion.
The difference between Europe and Turkey, however, is that most of Europe has moved on and Turkey has not. Turkey continues to suppress speech as a matter of law. Just try to stand on a street in Ankara and try to criticize anything about Kamal Attaturk and see what happens.
See what happens if you try to distribute leaflets on a street corner in Adana decrying the genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks. I can tell you what would happen in both cases, and it isn't pretty. Maybe blf would like to address these points.
Posted by: protocol | June 13, 2009 12:10 PM
See my point was that "enlightenment" is all good in theory, but in practice, European states, until recently, have been far from "enlightened". Yes there were streams of European thought in the 17th and 18th centuries that went against religious and other dogmatism, and was promoted--to a certain extent--by some rulers in the context of their feud with the Church (and historians have given a name to all these events;the "enlightenment" is not objective in the sense that trees and mountains objectively exist). You can find the same thoughts expressed during the course of the "enlightenment" in many eastern philosophies too (esp. chinese and indian philosophical traditions). It was the political situation that allowed these thoughts and ideas to be somewhat highlighted in Europe.
Also I see nothing inherently "wrong" with people of similar cultural backgrounds sticking together (though I personally am not a big fan) so long as they do not force others to adjust to their cultural preferences (though integration ideally should be a two way street). About language, I agree, principally because of practical reasons and what I said above. But here I find it hard to believe that Indians in Australia do not speak english (they may speak it with a heavy accent, but they do speak it).
Posted by: Rorschach | June 13, 2009 12:24 PM
True.They do.
Posted by: blf | June 13, 2009 12:27 PM
Wear nazi insignia in Germany. Not allowed. Therefore Germany—and the other countries with similar restrictions—should not be in the EU.
Irish “laundries” and “industrial schools” were only shut down in the 1990s, and it's not ended, the culprits won't be prosecuted. See the recent report for details; waldteufel's conclusion should be Ireland shouldn't be in the EU.
Persecution of the various travelling communities (Gypsies, Travellers, Roma, etc.) is disturbingly wide-spread in the EU (and as I recall, didn't Berlusconi in Italy—who is not exactly enlightened or committed to democratic secularism—recently propose doing something nasty to the travelling community there?). Again, the (many) countries where that sort of shite happens shouldn't be in the EU, according to the "logic" which is being deployed to frustrate/deny Turkey's request to join.
Posted by: Otto | June 13, 2009 12:33 PM
I visited Turkey for about 4 weeks during the early 60s. I enjoyed it very much, a great country of natural and man made marvels. Being modern and secular was the in thing then. Unfortunately the secular rulers screwed up badly with incompetence and corruption so now religion is back.
Also there is the fact that Turkey so far refuses to face the Armenian genocide in its past.
As I said, I had a great time in Turkey and is sad to watch things go off track. I wish the EU had a more positive attitude towards Turkey.
The Turkish immigrants to Germany are mostly from poor villages with low education. They were seen in Germany as temporary visitors and not much was done to create a home for them. No wonder they are now a culture apart.
Posted by: TK | June 13, 2009 12:52 PM
Every time I hear something about Turks I've just gotta hit you with the sad reality of my home country.
The culture and politics of Turkey is pretty similar to what the US would be had we elected McCain and gone on to elect conservative presidents and congresses for the next few election cycles.
There are a few differences:
The military is still anti-religious-influence-in-government... but that can change.
It's a higher faux pas to criticize Ataturk and the nation than it is to criticize religion.
(Turkish) conservative economic platforms are working quite well.
Turkish conservatives are seeking to ban guns and alcohol. (People who cling to their guns and alcohol still vote for them because they're religious).
The reason you get all this Turkish spam is because the extreme nationality of the people and the hatred they receive from pretty much the entire world gives no guilt to anyone who wishes to cause trouble on the internet. There's the whole genocide issue, the joining of the Axis powers in WWI, the overwhelming Islamic population, and the mass emigration to other countries (we're effectively the Mexicans of Germany). Our history before Ataturk was pretty bad, and the only way the conservatives at the top know how to deal with it is to push nationalism and religion on the populace.
As for the genocide, it's tough to say what true intentions are, but it's not unlikely that it was a genocide. The leaders during the fall were nationalistic and religious nutcases. After the fall, ethnic groups from all over were moved into their respective regions. This happened not only to Armenians but many others in the region. It also happened with Turks in other countries. Many of my ancestors were tortured and killed by Greeks while trying to escape to Turkey. The push for the acknowledgment of Armenian genocide is used to divert attention from other atrocities.
Posted by: Ploon | June 13, 2009 1:05 PM
EU: European Union. Since only a tiny bit of Turkey is actually in Europe, I tend to disqualify it on the basis of geography alone. Next we'll have Canada or Brazil wanting to join...
Posted by: Ploon | June 13, 2009 1:10 PM
Plus the eternal baloney about the EU needing a buffer against or bridge to the Muslim world. Last time I checked, you build a moat or bridge outside the walls of the castle, not inside. And no one in the EU really wants to share an external border with Iraq, thank you very much. The only reason Turkey is even considered is because of pressure from the US because Turkey is a loyal NATO ally. Has absolutely nothing to do with EU membership.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 13, 2009 1:35 PM
Trust me, as an Armenian, Turkish is the pariah language of Asia minor, with or without the internet. So a small group of culturally influential central asians migrated into a power vacuum created by a corrupted and decaying Byzantine Empire and subsequently, subjugated whole populations into shifting towards a culture, language, and religious belief. Some of us remained unaffected by the language replacement, but unfortunately, a Genocide took care of that. Now we're looking from the outside in at our ancestral homelands being used to wreck havok on the intertubes. Can't be satisfied with a couple of Genocides and their denials, can you Turks?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 13, 2009 1:50 PM
Follow in your books as we learn three new words in Turkish.
Towel.
Bath.
Border. "May I see your passport, please."
To the list we must now sadly add "Spamatiforia Maliforous."
. . . four . . . ack . . .four new words . . . ack . . . five new words in Turkish.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 13, 2009 1:54 PM
<headdesk>
What have the overlords wrought.
To be fair, my generation treats Radio Maryja as a running joke, a source of national embarrassment, or both (depending on temperament).
Stupidest excuse ever.
And for the record, I don't see why Canada shouldn't join. Is it metric enough? :-)
Remember what the most basic idea behind the EU is: to prevent a war between its members from being an even halfway realistic option. From that point of view, the whole fucking world should join eventually, as soon as its economy is sufficiently intertwined with those of Germany and France.
Now this is a real argument.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 2:10 PM
wait, what? David M is Polish? With the way Marjanović is spelled, I was thinking Czech, or even Croatian... :-p
I second the notion that Radio Maryja is a running joke
Posted by: Marc | June 13, 2009 2:15 PM
You should try to get a moderator for the comments of some sort lol
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 13, 2009 2:15 PM
No, I'm not Polish, and my surname is Serbian. (Czech doesn't have consonant letters with an accent.)
I just go to Poland every summer to dig for Late Triassic fossils. This August will be the third time. :-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 2:21 PM
ah, that makes more sense now :-)
and I think I confused č with ć, that's why I thought Czech :-p
Posted by: Peter Lund | June 13, 2009 3:48 PM
I thought you wrote earlier that you were Austrian?
Was your family one of those left behind when Kakania fell apart? There are lots of Austrians with names like Smrčka, Jelinek, and Somogyi.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
June 13, 2009 4:02 PM
Trivially off topic, I see sitemeter's stats will put visits to Pharyngula at 5.0 X 10^7 in about 8 days.
Is this a non-occasion, or do we need to recognise it somehow?
Posted by: resident_alien | June 13, 2009 4:44 PM
blf @20:Why,pray tell,should we Germans allow people to strut around in Nazi insignia? Oh,don't tell me...Free speech,right? O.K.,how do I put this...Hate speech=/= free speech.Nazi insignia==hate speech.Nazi insignia==implying inferiority of other nations/races,approval of violence against other races/nations,maintaining values irreconcilable with & hostile to the contitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.U.S.citizens (excluding Coulter and Limbaugh et al) don't have the freedom of speech to run around shouting "I wanna kill the president,let's go kill the president!",do they? That technically constitutes a felony because it's a threat against the Republic,am I right? Well,brandishing a swastika is considered a threat against our republic.Can you follow?
Posted by: Alistair Wall | June 13, 2009 5:13 PM
Last week, ScienceBlogs was spluttering when I posted a comment, and blocking ping.chartbeat.net fixed it.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 13, 2009 5:18 PM
Impinging on others' ways is a pretty broad brush to paint with, however.
I think immigrants should make an effort to integrate, and by that I mean:
1. make an effort to speak adequately one of the local languages. Emigrating to a new land and then isolating oneself by refusing to learn the local language is something really irks me. Especially if this sort of thing is accompanied by requests for accommodation (wah, everyone else should speaky my language).
2. make an effort to accept and live within the local culture - no sharia, no honour killings, no genital mutilation in Canada, for example because in Canada the culture is that we already have a legal system that we expect everyone to follow and we don't cut people up for shits and giggles.
3. expect no special reverence or accommodation for the culture of your homeland - you left there, you live somewhere different now, see point 2.
I really don't think those three things are too much to ask of anyone immigrating to your country, whatever that country is.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 13, 2009 5:23 PM
Canada in the EU would rock! The US would shit itself, so the entertainment value alone would be worth it.
Of course, we'd really have to put up the loud, unwarranted whining about the seal hunt, and Spanish and Portuguese megatrawlers taking all the fish off Newfoundland. That would all wear thin pretty fast.
Actually, maybe being in the US bloc isn't so bad.
Posted by: Steve Dutch | June 13, 2009 6:39 PM
I was stationed in Turkey in the military back when it was a real rarity for American military people to go to a Muslim country. I developed great respect for the Turks and their accomplishments. As somebody once said, if you want a moderate pro-Western Muslim country, Turkey isn't just the best game in town, it's the ONLY game in town. But they seriously need to grow up and deal with the darker side of their history.
The stakes for the West in Turkey are huge. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks launched on a deliberate campaign of secularization and Westernization. They consciously realigned themselves with Europe and dropped the Arabic alphabet in favor of the Roman alphabet. Last time National Geographic published a map of Europe, they excluded Turkey as usual. In response to protests they replied that they followed traditional practice. My response is "get out your crayons and color Turkey part of Europe before we lose them." This is incomparably more important than pedantic and outdated geographic conventions. BTW, I let my NG subscription lapse because their content became so banal I just couldn't take it any longer.>/p>
Bashing Turkey because it has nut jobs who deny evolution and the Armenian genocide is like bashing, say, New York because it has nut jobs who deny evolution and the Holocaust.
The whole cult of personal honor is THE driving force for poverty and oppression in the world. It keeps women oppressed, perpetuates the zero sum game mentality that believes any person's success must come at the expense of someone else, and locks people into traditional roles simply because they're traditional. And the fastest growing populations aren't in Catholic countries - they're in countries driven by the idea that your status as a man or woman is dictated by how many children you can spit out. Frankly, since gerbils can get pregnant at the age of three months, I've never seen fertility as much of a skill test.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 13, 2009 6:40 PM
Never heard of Radio Maryja before. I was thinking of the Wonder Twins and the late Popeosity.
In the sixties Danish women went to Poland to get abortions. A coupla years ago I read the stream had turned.
Has that changed?
Wonder Twin No. 1 wanted to reïntroduce the death penalty - after they'd joined the Union. For fuck's sake!
They suggested the votes be apportioned according to dead citizens because so many people hadn't been killed in the War, Poland would have had a larger population now, so it was plainly unfair that they were 'underrepresented'.
And they don't want Turkey to join.
And fuck the "Turkey is not Europe" 'argument' - People have bloody suggested Israel join! Fucknoodles! (At least noöne takes that serious.)
/arrgle-rarrgle-blarrgle
Posted by: isil | June 13, 2009 8:54 PM
It is sad to see some Turkish punk decided to spam the blog, however I believe there are still far more spammers who use English language, so it will be hardly the pariah language of the Internet.
As for Turkey, being both secular and Muslim is a hard position. There are some Turks from the upper and middle class who prefer to lead complete secular lives, besides their religious belief, but the recent government is pulling things backwards, trying to go back to a more Islamic state. But still the daily life in big cities is quite secular, where you can drink a beer on the street or wear a bikini and go to the beach. Two things you can never do in any other Muslim predominant country.
Of course there are lots of religious people or creationist idiots, just like those in the USA. ( Lucky for us, we don't have anti-vax idiots, YET!) And of course there is the "fake-fish-bait anti-Darwinist guy", who makes a living out of the legal suits, so I won't utter his name. And I am pretty sure that the spammer was one of his followers.
To waldteufel;
You can also ask your Native American, Vietnamese, Japanese, Cambodian and Iraqi neighbor about the Americans. Every country and the nation has its own hateful and shameful episode, and neither Turkey nor US or any other country is an exception. People are people everywhere, and they lust after power, money and land; and religion or nationalism gives them the perfect excuse to eliminate others.
And if EU can accept Germany as a member I don't see why they wouldn't let Turkey because of its history. But the real issue is neither history nor religion, but the young and unemployed workforce of Turkey. They admitted the eastern block countries and saw what happened, and they don't want to make the same decision again.
Posted by: Ticker | June 13, 2009 9:12 PM
One of the rather large problems with the fear for the invasion of the turks is that they're largely already here. Exactly how we've "prevented" their invasion is beyond me.
The Armenian genocide isn't the main reason Turkey's entry into the EU is so badly opposed. It's because they're muslims (omg TERRORISM!), slightly unkind to some of their domestic minorities, and Greece has it in for them (they veto for any excuse) on account of them being Turks, and the unresolved Cypriot situation.
Some of the criticism is rather idiotic, but some of it actually has a point to it, about human rights, respecting one's neighbours (even though they're Greek) and ironically, religious freedom.
That said, I still think it's ridiculous they let Bulgaria in but want to say that Turkey isn't good enough. It's no wonder the average Turk in the streets isn't particularly sold on how lofty and superior the EU is.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 13, 2009 9:18 PM
The problem here Isil isn't that Turkey stands alone in committing atrocities of the past, but they are in serious denial of a well-documented genocide that pretty much erased Armenians from their ancestral homeland. Further, the oppression that Turkey exercises in denying Kurds their legal right, as well as other minorities within Turkey is also well documented. Before Turkey is allowed to join the EU, it must first, truly show remorse to previous crimes and injustice, as well as strive to maintain social justice for all its citizens. Denying Armenians in Istanbul the right to build on acquired property is one current common practice that must be relinquished. Further, the issues of Northern Cyprus should be resolved as well. Last I recall, it wasn't Greece that invaded Cyprus and continues to occupy it. Turkey must concede to some very difficult concessions that will try their social fabric and conscience. Should they succeed, then there is no reason why their involvement with the EU should be an obstacle. For most people opposing Turkish involvement in the EU, it isn't racism, as Turks wish to believe, but an issue of human rights and a political shift that aligns with the standards of the EU. IF you wish to visit the peak of the mountain, you should endeavor to climb it first. Turkey is indeed far along on its way to the top, and there is no need to regress. For a secular Muslim country, Turkey is indeed an exception and shouldn't be denied access based on their differing religious and cultural roots. Instead, its eventual inclusion into the EU would be expedited if Turkey renounced its bloody and violent past, maintained respectable human rights practices, and allowed truly free government (not one controlled excessively by the radicalized judicial and military branches).
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 13, 2009 9:19 PM
I highly doubt it, since you can't even get an IUD in Poland.
I find Poland less dangerous than Turkey for the simple reason that they're less populous than Turkey. Letting a country like Poland join didn't make a dent in the overall EU demographics; Turkey on the other hand would become the 2nd most populous country in the EU, so it's a question of how much influence you want to give to a country that has some truly egregious human rights violations and is having a REALLY hard time keeping its crazies at bay. The only possible option would be a very gradual phasing in, a sort of junior membership
and then there's the border with Iraq, indeed...
Posted by: John Morales | June 13, 2009 9:50 PM
isil,
Hm. Dunno about drinking beer on the street* (not something I do, actually), but I've been on holiday to Malaysia and there're plenty of bikinis** to be seen at the beach. Note that Malaysia is also an Islamic country.--
* But Malaysian beer ain't bad, and I did drink it in my hotel room.
** Photo found by internet search; not mine.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 13, 2009 10:01 PM
Another thing it does have in common with other muslim countries is ,you can get blown up in a cafe on the beach
Posted by: SC, OM | June 13, 2009 10:08 PM
BTW, re Canada, there's a new book out:
http://www.fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/402
I don't know how good it is, but it looks interesting.
Posted by: isil | June 14, 2009 2:33 AM
To Rorschach:
Very true and very sad.
But fanatics are everywhere, unfortunately.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523581,00.html
Religion drives people out of their minds, their ethics and morals. ( and we have been taught that it should be the other way around!)
Helioprogenus:
I totally agree with you. Pretending some things doesn't exist does not solve them, and that is what the Turkish governments have been doing. And the current government in Turkey is definitely not the most democratic and open minded one. Things are getting worse, instead of getting better, people are turning towards nationalism, religion and racism. Hope all will change for the better in the future, but since almost all of the world becoming more conservative and religious each passing day it seems quite unlikely in the short run.
Posted by: Sara | June 14, 2009 6:20 AM
So Jamshed is out from commenting...
Posted by: Sili
|
June 14, 2009 7:59 AM
I don't recall the UK getting thrown out of the EEC when the IRA bombed London?I still think it'll be easier to make Turkey make amends if they were at least shown a bit of good faith. Why should they want to apologise or improve if new obstacles are continually put in the way? They have already bent over backwards to accomodate EU demans, and all that happens is that the goalposts keep getting shifted.
Border to Iraq? Who would you rather have guarding it? Embittered fanatics or European police?
Posted by: Stever | June 14, 2009 9:10 AM
@26 Crudely,
Hmmm... This picture doesn't look at all like you, now does it sir?
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 9:46 AM
I agree somewhat,although having been raised in a country with 5 million turkish immigrants(Germany) my opinion regarding their secularity and ability to integrate into the Western europe of humanism and enlightenment culturally and socially,is somewhat different,I think a lot of turkish people have shown (similar to a lot of asian people over here in Australia btw) quite a marked tendency to cultural isolation and failure or unwillingness to integrate. - Rorschach
Well, could that possibly have anything to do with the fact that until 2000, children born in Germany had no right to citizenship if their parents were foreigners? Up until then, the whole idea was that all Turks in Germany were "Gastarbeiter" (guest-workers) who would return to Turkey when their labour was no longer required, while anyone of "German blood" could walk straight into citizenship. Moreover, there was no significant government attempt to help the Turkish immigrants integrate.
Posted by: astrounit | June 14, 2009 10:05 AM
"...there must be a lot of national pride over there in Asia Minor, where they're doing a phenomenal job of making Turkish the pariah language of the internet."
Are you kidding?
1. More than half of the Turkish population doesn't even know they have world-class spammers in action. (Why? Because more than half of them don't even know what "spam" is...let alone have had any oppoortunity to operate their own personal computer).
2. Of those who do know, over half would chuckle at the thought that their hounds are good at targeting western nations, especially Europe and the US. (Of the ones who are illiterate, the vast majority would concur...after they'd been appropriately briefed by the powers that prevail in that country, of course).
3. Almost the entire remainder just doesn't give a damn, or are just too damned scared to complain (if they happened upon a personal reason to).
4. A few brave and honest stalwarts understand the situation and see it for what it is: the result of a pathetic government that pretends to exercise "secularly" lawful authority over their national policy and citizens, when everyone knows the government is thoroughly saturated by religious interests - many of them extremist - who would very much like to see their influence strengthened out there in that great land of infidels across the Bosporus...
In short, to be perfectly blunt and to the point about it: the crooks have the wheel there.
Posted by: Peter Lund | June 14, 2009 10:37 AM
"They have already bent over backwards to accomodate EU demans, and all that happens is that the goalposts keep getting shifted."
The first part is patently untrue. The latter part is true insofar as EU law doesn't stand still. The Acquis in 1999 is different from the Acquis in 2009.
Turkey is scary because it is huge, backwards, poor, corrupt, nepotistic, religious, barely competent, not particularly democratic (the coups, and threats thereof, by the military actually kept Turkey /more/ democratic!).
The population is already large and it's growing fast. If they join in 20 years time they will most likely be the biggest country in the EU. They were about 40 million in 1975 and they are close to 80 million now. Do you want civilized, educated, peaceful, democratic Germany to have the biggest vote or do you want Turkey to haveit?
Turks, together with Pakistanis and Arabs, are also not exactly known for being model immigrants.
(Immigrants from Western countries are practically statistically indistinguishable from the natives here in Denmark. Immigrants from some non-Western countries such as Thailand and China are different but they are employed and no more criminal than the rest of us. Turks/Pakistanis/Arabs do tend to show up in the statistics in not so pleasant ways and they are a net drain on our resources. Depending on what you include in the calculations you end up with costs of 20-40 billion DKK per year. That makes free movement of labour, one of the essential freedoms that the EU is built upon, a very scary prospect when/if Turkey joins.)
So no matter what, we have a problem. Turkey is scary outside the union as well as inside it. The best thing we can do is to try and civilize it (and any Turks who read this will undoubtedly balk at my use of words -- they are plenty civilized, thank you, heirs as they are of the great Ottoman Empire and all that). The best civilizing project the EU has is the long negotiation process leading towards entry. It worked for Spain, Portugal, and Greece (all former dictatorships shortly before joining). It worked for the former Communist block, much better than could be hoped for, actually.
If only Turkey was willing to break up into smaller pieces that could be integrated separately and at their own speed...
(Istanbul could join pretty quickly, then. They aren't much worse than Bulgaria or Romania that weren't quite ready, either, when they joined.)
Posted by: maddogdelta | June 14, 2009 10:55 AM
As long as "taffy" isn't filtered out....mmmmm T___h taffy....
Posted by: Rorschach | June 14, 2009 11:00 AM
knockgoats @ 51,
That doesnt sound right to me,but I will look it up.
Evidence needed to support that claim! That might have been true in the 50s when the first immigrants started to arrive,maybe even up until the 70s,but certainly not in the 80s or 90s,and with 2nd generation turkish people.There are studies out there showing that the ones that learn the language and go through the german education system integrate much better and have a better social standing than many of the unskilled workers that came over earlier.
Posted by: Peter Lund | June 14, 2009 11:03 AM
Knockgoats, are you by any chance American?
Claiming that Germany is racist because its Turks predominantly aren't citizens is a very common trope in US discussions of Europe (because it seemingly shows how hypocritical and racist Europe is compared to the free and civilized US which has long since moved beyond such matters).
The fact of the matter is that almost all of the Turks in Germany could have had German citizenship a long time ago if they'd wanted it. But the evil and racist Germany confers lots of rights on permanent residents so it doesn't matter all that much in practice. And if they wanted German citizenship they would have had to give up their Turkish citizenship with ensuing loss of rights in Turkey, leading to problems with land ownership and heritage when anyone back home dies.
And they /were/ guest workers, originally. They just happened to stay (which guests aren't supposed to, you know). And get their wifes to follow them. Which was remarkably easy to do in evil and racist Germany.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 11:18 AM
Peter Lund,
Knockgoats, are you by any chance American?
That's a good one! No, I'm British - often accused by right-wing Americans of anti-Americanism -
and of course Britain has plenty of official racism toward existing and potential immigrants too. In this respect, I think the USA does in fact do much better than most European countries.
You don't consider it racist to give citizenship to those of "German blood", wherever born, and refuse it to those born in Germany who are not of "German blood"? Interesting - but I think we might have gathered where you're coming from from your own willingness to condemn entire populations@53.
And if they wanted German citizenship they would have had to give up their Turkish citizenship with ensuing loss of rights in Turkey, leading to problems with land ownership and heritage when anyone back home dies.
Quite so - a very useful way of discouraging them. Most countries, of course, allow dual citizenship.
And get their wifes to follow them.
Oh, those wicked Turks - actually wanting to enjoy a normal family life!
Posted by: Rorschach | June 14, 2009 11:18 AM
Peter Lund,
knockgoats is from the UK.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 11:32 AM
Rorschach,
See Germany: Immigration in Transition.
The section "Key Policy Developments" says that until 2000, children born to foreign parents in Germany were not given German citizenship. The section "Structuring Immigration, Fostering Integration" implies that prior to 2001, few efforts to foster integration were made. If you have evidence of any that were, please produce it.
BTW, I'm still awaiting your defence of Freud's scientific status.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 11:34 AM
what Peter and Rohrschach said.
also Knockgoats are you claiming that immigrants from Turkey were discriminated against (as opposed to immigrants from everywhere else) by government agencies responsible for integration? cuz that's the only way that statement of yours could make any sense. all of my family got plenty of support, for example free language courses, and free adult education.
also, I hate the argument that Germany was racist because it had heritage-citizenship rather than birth-citizenship. It simply was never designed to be an immigrant country. when it became obvious that the guest workers weren't going anywhere though, they started figuring out ways to get them integrated and naturalized... 2nd and 3rd generation german turks could get citizenship since 1991, btw. and 15 years residence in Germany also meant you could get citizenship (that easily covered all the original guest workers).
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 11:45 AM
Jadehawk,
Non-German immigrants from Turkey, and other countries, were most certainly discriminated against relative to those of "German blood". Other European immigrants, being less obviously "foreign", probably found it easier to integrate in the face of popular prejudice - and don't tell me there's none of that in Germany, as there is everywhere! I think it quite obvious that "heritage citizenship" is racist, and Germany was certainly designed to be "an immigrant country" in that anyone "of German blood" could (and was encouraged to) settle there. The UK, shamefully, has also adopted a form of blood-citizenship, but at least never denied citizenship to those born here, or obstructed dual nationality.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 14, 2009 11:45 AM
Funny coincidence,I was thinking about that on my way to work today !
I thought,I should remind you of your skepticism of psychoanalysis and Freud's work everytime you accuse a creationist here of projection.
LOL
As to citizenship,from your link above,if that was indeed the case,Im the first to say it was wrong and good they changed it.
I find it very hard to rationally argue anything regarding German immigration policy or similar issues with British people,maybe its your media's influence,cant have a soccer match without getting the "tanks","blitzkrieg" etc vocabulary out,and you have shown that tonight with this "German blood" rhetoric,there is other words in your language to use to describe the fact that german immigration laws might have sucked.Not that its the only country in the world to have had regulations like these.
Long day at work,early start tomorrow,nite for now.
Posted by: Peter Lund | June 14, 2009 11:50 AM
"You don't consider it racist to give citizenship to those of "German blood", wherever born, and refuse it to those born in Germany who are not of "German blood"? Interesting - but I think we might have gathered where you're coming from from your own willingness to condemn entire populations@53."
I consider it strange, silly, weird, counterproductive -- and a tad racist. Why non-German speaking Soviets who just happned to have the right family history should have a fast track to immigration is beyond me.
But citizenship was never "refused" to people of non-German extraction. They just had to prove they were good bets by having lived in Germany for some time without causing trouble and without draining the German coffers. Which I think is fair enough. We can discuss how long they should have to wait, how much German they should know, how much unemployment support they should be allowed to draw etc. Those are fair points. But claiming that the Turks in Germany are refused citizenship is just wrong. Almost all of them can get citizenship if they want to. Apparently most of them don't. That's not Germany's fault.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 11:57 AM
Rorschach,
As has already been pointed out, Germany, unusually, does not allow dual citizenship. If you make that straightforward, and still find most Turkish immigrants don't take German citizenship, you'll have a point. Until then, you don't. Numerous events over the past century - some of them in Germany - make it clear that ethnic minorities are always wise to have an alternative to staying where they are.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 12:09 PM
I was thinking about that on my way to work today !
I thought,I should remind you of your skepticism of psychoanalysis and Freud's work everytime you accuse a creationist here of projection.
LOL - Rorschach
So, you still haven't found anything to counter my points; I thought not. In fact, I have seldom if ever used the "projection" line - I don't think it's much of an argument, and it's easily turned around and aimed at the user. Can you cite any examples of me using it?
I find it very hard to rationally
argue anything regarding German immigration policy or similar issues with British peopleFixed for you; no thanks necessary. If you can't do better than the sort of bullshit that follows the above, my advice to you is to refrain from commenting, and thus making it obvious you're an idiot.
Posted by: Peter Lund | June 14, 2009 12:34 PM
"You don't consider it racist to give citizenship to those of "German blood", wherever born, and refuse it to those born in Germany who are not of "German blood"? Interesting - but I think we might have gathered where you're coming from from your own willingness to condemn entire populations@53."
I consider it strange, silly, weird, counterproductive -- and a tad racist. Why non-German speaking Soviets who just happned to have the right family history should have a fast track to immigration is beyond me. But that's a risk the Germans are fully allowed to run and they shouldn't be blamed for that.
But citizenship was never "refused" to people of non-German extraction. They've always had the possibility of naturalization. They just had to prove they were good bets by having lived in Germany for some time without causing trouble and without draining the German coffers. Which I think is fair enough.
We can discuss how long they should have to wait, how much German they should know, how much unemployment support they should be allowed to draw etc. Those are fair points. But claiming that the Turks in Germany are refused citizenship is just wrong. Almost all of them can get citizenship if they want to. Apparently most of them don't. And that's not Germany's fault.
Posted by: Peter Lund | June 14, 2009 1:01 PM
Knockgoats: "Germany was certainly designed to be "an immigrant country" in that anyone "of German blood" could (and was encouraged to) settle there."
They had to do something with the 9 million Germans that Russia and Poland threw out when they stole the land. And with the other 9 million ethnic Germans who got thrown out and had their houses and properties stolen.
Ethnic cleansing happens to Germans, too.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 1:36 PM
They had to do something with the 9 million Germans that Russia and Poland threw out when they stole the land. And with the other 9 million ethnic Germans who got thrown out and had their houses and properties stolen. - Peter Lund
Those Germans who had been thrown out were mostly already in Germany when the postwar West German constitution was adopted (as you say, they had been thrown out). Nothing to prevent those drawing up the constitution from saying "anyone resident in the Federal Republic of Germany at the time the constitution is adopted, and anyone born there subsequently, can be a citizen if they want - oh, and dual citizenship is OK too". Do you see any problem there? And while I don't approve of land theft and ethnic cleansing, it is hardly surprising that they were inflicted on Germans in 1945, given the use Hitler made of ethnic German minorities in Czechoslovakia and Poland (with the eager cooperation of large parts of those minorities), and his nearly successful attempt to conquer the whole of Europe (involving land theft dwarfing the postwar retaliation, alongside many worse things).
Posted by: Anonymous | June 14, 2009 1:40 PM
As I see it Peter Lund is another marginalised Dane, because of all those Denmark versus Muslims conflict. (In which they are trying to sell rabid anti-Muslim racism -in the form of Turk/Arab/Pakistani categories- as free speech). He is unfortunately hypnotised by the violent environment and people around him. In Denmark the government is a pro-Bush neocon one and when it comes to Muslims they are far worse than the Republican nuts in United States. Which makes his preempted strike on US only laughable. He demonstrated very well how he sees Muslims, by defining them uncivilised, scary, and having a criminal nature. He also demonstrated his total igrorance about Turkey by daring to claim that Istanbul was nearly ready as a seperate city to be admitted to the EU.
As a Turk I agree with every word of post #42 which was written by an Armenian. Because he or she makes valid criticism of the country no matter how harsh it may sound to a Turkish nationalist. Her or his message has no racism or paranoia unlike the unfortunate ones posted by Mr Lund.
As long as Europe has this exemplary Armenian's attitude we will have no problem accomplishing many great things for our region and the world. I sincerely hope the voices raised nowadays even more loudly by people like Mr Lund (see latest EP elections) are only a temporary trend and Europe will get rid of this untolerant poison once again in its history and this time for good.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 1:48 PM
Sorry, my #64 should have been addressed to Peter Lund, not Rorschach.
Posted by: Peter Lund | June 14, 2009 2:42 PM
Anonymous, the Danish government is not and never was pro-Bush. Or if it were pro-Bush, it is now pro-Obama and previously pro-Clinton. It is, and always has been for the last sixty years, pro-American. This is the case no matter whether the government here is headed by Socialdemocrats or Conservatives or Liberals (*) and no matter whether the US administration is Democrat or Republican. We are a loyal friend and ally of
RomeAmerica. Just like you are.States don't have friends, they have interests. And, as a tiny country, it is in our interest to suck up to the strong countries. That doesn't have to mean we like it. I, for one, wish we weren't such a faithful ally of the US. And I personally loathe Bush the lesser and consider him a war criminal on par with Kissinger.
Secondly, I am no more anti-Muslim than I am anti-Christian. The Christians in Slavic Catholistan scare me a lot more than the Muslims in Turkey or the Muslim immigrants in Denmark qua Muslims. Although I do wish we could kick out some of our more rabid Imams -- I bet you wouldn't like them much, either.
Thirdly, our current government is very far from being neocon (in the US sense). It is, in fact, mostly Socialdemocrat in practice, despite nominally being a Liberal-Conservative coalition with parliamentary support from a bunch of nationalistic populists (whom I despise).
Fourthly, the Turks, the Arabs, the Pakistanis, and (recently) the Somalis have been our most troublesome immigrants. That has very little to do with their being Muslims -- in fact only about 2/3 of them are Muslims and many of them mostly culturally so. Many don't even go to the mosques or prayer houses. Furthermore, I am in no way saying that they are all criminal or uncivilized. Almost all of them are not. But they are overrepresented amongst the criminals in this country, even /after/ correcting for social class. And they do cause more trouble and they are harder to integrate and they do treat their women worse, on average. Turks and Arabs (and Somalis!) are also less educated, on average, than the background population. Second generation immigrants of Pakistani descent are unique (and fantastic!) in that they are actually better educated than the rest of us, on average. If you visit the technical universities and faculties of medicine, you will see lots of Pakistani faces (AFAIR, about 25% of the students). Go Pakistanis :)
Immigration is a huge bet both for the immigrants themselves and for the countries they migrate to. Denmark has historically been notoriuosly bad in sorting the would-be immigrants to improve the odds of a good outcome (for Denmark) but we are getting better. We have also been notoriously bad in nurturing the chances of a successful immigration for those who got here -- but we are also improving in that respect, thanks not just to the current "neocon" government but also to the previous Socialdemocrat one. And make no mistake, we have spent oodles of money on trying to help the integration. We just didn't spend them on the right things (or we had other mechanisms that counteracted it).
It used to be extremely hard for a non-EU and non-Nordic citizen to immigrate to Denmark, even if one had a job at hand. But it was extremely easy to get here by arranged (often forced) marriage between a permanent resident (didn't have to be a citizen) and a foreigner. We got lots of barely literate Turks from the countryside in that way. Practically the only choices for the immigrant with only a few years of schooling and who didn't speak Danish or English would then be lousy low-skill jobs with long or odd hours -- or unemployment. My hat's definitely off to those who chose the lousy jobs, they have my deepest respect.
And educated Turks who couldn't use the backdoor of marriage would at the same time find it practically impossible to get here. Don't you find this laughably stupid of us? (And a bit evil?)
These days, it is much easier to get in as a migrant worker or as a guest student. And much harder to get here by arranged marriage. Which is the way it should be.
Stating the above should not be called rabid or racism (or anti-Muslim!) and it should pretty damn well be covered by free speech!
As Orac writes on one of the sister blogs, a statement of fact can never be insolent.
Finally, you seem to indicate that I'm wrong about Istanbul. I might very well be. If that's the case, I am very interested in learning more. Is Istanbul (taken in isolation from the rest of the country) in any worse shape than Bulgaria and Romania?
---
*) Liberals means something different in Europe than it does in the US. It is not a synonym for commies ;)
Posted by: Walton | June 14, 2009 3:02 PM
Jadehawk, Knockgoats, Rorschach et al., re immigration:
The way I see it, in the end, the notions of "national boundaries" and "citizenship" are necessarily arbitrary ones. The nation-state is not, and in any free society cannot be, based on any kind of cultural unity or shared heritage. This is the case whether a country bases its citizenship law on the ius soli (citizen by virtue of being born on a country's soil) or the ius gentium (citizen by virtue of being descended from citizens of a country). Both of these discriminate on an arbitrary basis. They have to do so, because there is no non-arbitrary basis for conferring the rights and privileges of citizenship. Nations are an inherently discriminatory concept.
As a classical liberal, I recognise, therefore, that nations and nation-states are not true communities but arbitrary dividing-lines. Until we have free immigration between all countries (which will never foreseeably be the case), people cannot be said to "choose" to be a part of their country of citizenship. Which is why placing obligations on citizens, and awarding positive entitlements on citizens, is a necessarily unfair exercise - and therefore we should do it as little as possible.
Ideally, I would allow more-or-less open-border immigration, and easy acquisition of citizenship based on long-term residence, regardless of descent or place of birth. If someone is willing to live and work in a given place, and another person is willing to employ them, then it is fundamentally illiberal to prevent them from doing so based on arbitrary national boundaries. I believe in freedom of movement and freedom of contract.
This would only be feasible, however, if we were to scrap the majority of government benefits (free healthcare and welfare in particular) or, at least, make them available only to those who have lived and worked in a country for a given amount of time. Otherwise there would be an obvious incentive for people to move to a country merely to take advantage of its welfare state.
Posted by: Peter Lund | June 14, 2009 3:53 PM
"The nation-state is not, and in any free society cannot be, based on any kind of cultural unity or shared heritage."
Err... the nation state by definition is ;)
(But true nation states are precious few -- Iceland is about the only one I can think of but many Icelanders live permanently in Denmark and Iceland has close cultural ties with Denmark and Norway.)
Personally, I think the concept of the nation state is evil and has caused so much spilled blood in Europe. I much prefer Verfassungspatriotismus.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 14, 2009 5:52 PM
Walton,
We're not talking about your looneytarian utopia, nor my global democratic socialist one, but about current immigration policies, possible Turkish membership of the EU, and where we go from here. Why do you have to turn every discussion into your own personal wankfest?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 7:27 PM
knockgoats, I find "citizenship" to be an outdated model in general, whether it's heritage or birth citizenship. residential rights are the only one's that make any sense in a globally interconnected and mobile world.
and Germany does allow dual citizenships for the most part, it's just not part of the official policy for various reasons. I for example have two. The problem arises from something else often: the fact that few other nations allow their citizens to serve in the army of a foreign country, and Germany requires that, (and incidentally, so do other countries, don't know about Turkey). All of my male cousins etc. had to drop their Polish citizenship. so, immigration-policy(via draft policy) is definitely sexist, but it's not racist. It is nationalist however (which, incidentally, is also an outdated concept, and I'm glad Europe is slowly moving away from that now)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 7:36 PM
holy fuck, I only now read Waltons post, and I realized I basically agreed with Walton on immigration :-p
anyway, my point is that "citizenship", should be available on the basis of residence, not birth or heritage
Posted by: Walton | June 14, 2009 7:42 PM
Regarding Turkish membership of the EU: the EU is a fundamentally illiberal and morally bankrupt institution which should be eradicated, so I don't really give a fuck either way. The EU's trade policies (in particular the iniquitous CAP) keep the Third World in poverty by preventing non-European producers from competing on an equal footing. There is nothing the EU does which is remotely worthwhile (except maintain free movement across borders, which we could achieve by other means) and I don't see how any reasonable person can actually take the institution seriously. It's a tragic, expensive, horrific joke on a spectacular scale.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 7:44 PM
It's a tragic, expensive, horrific joke on a spectacular scale.
rrrright... keeping central/western Europe war-free for 60 years and counting is indeed tragic.
spoiled brat.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 14, 2009 7:56 PM
KG @ 65,
No,I havent looked because I have a rather busy life outside of internet blogs.
Shouldnt have expected you to be aware of what kind of war rhetoric you were using I guess."German blood",please !
Nobody outside the UK talks like that,certainly not Germans,or anyobe else Ive ever met.
Walton,
The EU has its problems,big problems,the bureaucracy is ludicrous,other problems,the expansion was done too quickly,however,the alternative is much worse,and Europe has had peace between former archenemies for 60 years now.
To say its totally useless can only come from an ideologue like yourself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 14, 2009 8:03 PM
spoiled brat.
I've never understood why so many coddle him here.
He inevitably cycles back to the same positions, regardless of how much time anyone here spends trying to remove his ignorance. Don't know what background managed to twist his brain so thoroughly, but twisted it is, and twisted it remains.
Do people here REALLY think there is a diamond under all that rough?
If so, shouldn't his parents be the ones to do the polishing?
I think it's rather sad to see all the effort people spend on him here. Surely there are better candidates to spend time on, not even on this blog, but in your own community?
Yes, I'm sure many will think me a "heartless monster", but I haven't really seen any change worthy of note, frankly.
He can spin a pretty tune once in a while, but it's still an ugly fucking bird singing it.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 14, 2009 8:14 PM
I rather suspect that his parents are part of the problem. no-one could possibly manage to be so naive and clueless at 20 without valiant protection from reality by family and their select social circle...
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 14, 2009 8:29 PM
Ah, fuck. I've seen this routine a dozen times now.
Walton criticizes some aspect of the current political system and advocates some libertarian alternative. Many point out the problems in his "solution" and ask him to stop hijacking threads. He acknowledges the problems and modifies his proposal. People point out that his "new" solution is exactly what we have now. Insults fly. Walton then becomes self-pitying and pathetic. Many try to comfort him, but tell him to get some life experience/a job/read non-libertarian sources/counseling /go drinking (though this almost stopped after that one episode)/ a hooker.
This is getting quite old.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 3:51 AM
knockgoats, I find "citizenship" to be an outdated model in general, whether it's heritage or birth citizenship. residential rights are the only one's that make any sense in a globally interconnected and mobile world. - Jadehawk
That's a reasonable point, except that anyone, and particularly a member of an ethnic minority, may need an alternative to the place they are living. It also depends on what rights residence affords - e.g. the right to vote does not usually come with it. Birth citizenship has the advantage that if all countries adopted it, everyone would have at least one citizenship.
As to "we can't have dual citizenship because of conscription" - well, give up conscription. After all, Germany's political and military elites are not planning anything that requires a big army.
Shouldnt have expected you to be aware of what kind of war rhetoric you were using I guess."German blood",please ! - Rorschach
You've been shown to be wrong about rights to citizenship, and you have no counter to the 2001 official German report noting the need for government efforts to improve integration. It's routine that those who have lost an argument start whining about terminology. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_citizenship says:
"German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis." Even if you are not a Latin scholar, you might possibly be able to guess what "sanguinis" means.
Oh good grief, Walton's off on another of his hobby-horses. Yeah, yeah Walton, the EU is the root of all evil - let's just call it the EUSSR shall we, snarf, snarf.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 15, 2009 4:18 AM
Ah,Wikipedia !
That settles it I guess.
Btw,from that article:
Not just Germany then,it would seem.
I believe jadehawk showed you to be wrong about dual citizenship as well.And I said I had to look it up because I couldnt say with confidence.
Funny where we ended up given the original thread topic !
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 5:05 AM
Ah,Wikipedia ! That settles it I guess.
It certainly settles that "Jus sanguinis" or (in translation) "law of blood" is the standard term, and thus showed you up for the idiot you are in objecting to my use of the term "German blood".
Not just Germany then,it would seem. - Rorschach
If you look, you'll find that I pointed out that Britain has also, shamefully, adopted such a law. If you'd care to recall, the whole topic came up only because you started bellyaching about Turks in Germany refusing to integrate. I would have taken much the same line with a British racist moaning about Pakistanis refusing to do so. IOW, your ludicrous insinuations that I'm anti-German demonstrate nothing but your own understandable defensiveness.
I believe jadehawk showed you to be wrong about dual citizenship as well.
No, not really. It remains a fact that Germany puts restrictions on dual citizenship which few other countries do.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 15, 2009 5:26 AM
I did insinuate no such thing,I know you well enough,others might have upthread.
I tried to point out how your "german blood" phrase appeared to be,to me,close to WW2 rhetoric,and I also pointed out that the British and their media tend to use that sort of lingo a lot,even for everyday events like soccer matches.
Appreciate the reference to ius sanguinis,and in that context the term doesnt sound so terribly outdated I guess.
I wasnt aware that Ireland,say,uses the same principle.
In Australia,you can apply to go from permanent resident to citizen after a certain amount of time,5 years I think,if you so wish,no blood needed.
Posted by: KarinS | June 15, 2009 8:26 AM
Knockgoats # 64: Numerous events over the past century - some of them in Germany - make it clear that ethnic minorities are always wise to have an alternative to staying where they are.
And this is exactly the reason why West Germany offered the ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe the possibility to immigrate and acquire the citizenship. Your assertion that all ethnic Germans had been ”thrown out” by 1949 is not true: In 1950, about 4 million ethnic Germans lived in Eastern Europe, mostly in the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Rumania (source, in German). For example, the Volga Germans had not been expelled from the Soviet Union, but deported from the Volga River to Kazakhstan.
And your assertion that anybody of "German blood", wherever born (# 57) is given German citizenship is not true either.
Article 116 Paragraph 1 Grundgesetz (the Constitution) says:
Unless otherwise provided by statute, a German within in the meaning of this Constitution is a person who possesses German citizenship or who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the frontiers of 31 December 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such a person. (my boldening)
A person of German ethnic origin must be a refugee or expellee to be considered German according to Art. 116 Paragraph 1 GG. Ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe were considered refugees because of the Communist political system and because it was assumed that they were being discriminated against because of their German ethnicity. Art. 116 GG has never been applied to people from other regions of the world than Eastern Europe. A U.S. citizen, e.g., is not a German according to Art. 116 Paragraph 1 GG, no matter how many German ancestors he/she has.
Knockgoats # 83: "German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis." Even if you are not a Latin scholar, you might possibly be able to guess what "sanguinis" means.
The very next sentence from your own source, Wikipedia: In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.
Ius sanguinis means citizenship by birth. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. The child of a naturalized German citizen acquires German citizenship by birth, too, regardless of the "blood" in his/her veins.
You seem to think that it is the principle of ius sanguinis which entitled the ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe to claim German citizenship. It is not.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 8:46 AM
KarinS,
Thanks for the detailed information, which I accept. However, it remains true that people of "German ethnic origin" who had never lived in Germany were privileged over immigrants who had lived there for years. If that's not racist, it's hard to think what the word could mean.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 8:48 AM
KarinS,
- and not only over those who had lived there for years, but over their children born in Germany.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 8:52 AM
KarinS,
Incidentally, it's hard to think of a better way of making governments of the east European countries where ethnic Germans resided after 1945 suspicious of those Germans, than giving them the automatic right to German citizenship - given the history of Hitler's use of ethnic German minorities against Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Soviet Union.
Posted by: KarinS | June 15, 2009 10:20 AM
Knockgoats # 90, the opposite is true. Hitler used the German minorities residing in Czechoslovakia etc. to make territorial claims for Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination. The goal of German policy after 1949 was to encourage the ethnic Germans to leave Eastern Europe, to remove all German minorities from there and thus to avoid all future conflicts because of them.
Posted by: Walton | June 15, 2009 10:59 AM
Ichthyic,
You can fuck off. I have had a really, really bad couple of weeks in real life, and I am not going to take abuse from some arrogant asshole on the internet. You very rarely bother to substantively engage with my views; you just insult me. I am fucking fed up with your constant claims that anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow little worldview must be stupid, ignorant and twisted.
It is simple bullshit to assert that the EU is responsible for peace in Europe for 60 years. We have had peace in Europe for 60 years because, fundamentally, of nuclear weapons. The threat of mutual destruction is the only thing that stopped NATO and the Warsaw Pact smashing each other to pieces. If any international organisation deserves credit for preserving peace, it is NATO, not the EU.
The EU is not just a bureaucratic nightmare and a waste of money. It isn't just an inconvenience or a joke. It kills children. The EU's programme of farm subsidies, tariffs and "anti-dumping laws" prevents producers in the Third World from competing on an equal footing. While the IMF and World Bank have forced Third World countries to abandon protectionism, the EU (and the US) hypocritically sit behind trade barriers and happily continue subsidising inefficient farming, allowing Western agribusinesses to grow fat at the expense of the taxpayer while African children starve to death. The European Commission are responsible for massive death and destitution. This is not hyperbole, and I make no apology for it. I defy any of you to defend the CAP. And I defy any of you to show me that, as long as the EU exists, this iniquitous policy will ever be abolished.
Until we have universal freedom to trade, no decent moral human being should be satisfied.
That said, I don't support the aims of UKIP. They are narrow nationalists who simply want Britain to leave the EU. Because I am not a nationalist, I am not merely concerned with British interests; I'm not looking out for what's best for Britain, but for what's best for the world. I don't just want to opt out of the EU; I want it to be completely destroyed, and to move to a new global order in which everyone in the world has unconditional freedom to trade with everyone else. I don't care if this is utopian. I'm not going to give in to woolly-minded "pragmatism". I have principles, I will fight and die for them, and anyone who doesn't like them can fuck off.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 15, 2009 11:21 AM
*** awkward silence ***
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 11:22 AM
While the IMF and World Bank have forced Third World countries to abandon protectionism, the EU (and the US) hypocritically sit behind trade barriers and happily continue subsidising inefficient farming, allowing Western agribusinesses to grow fat at the expense of the taxpayer while African children starve to death. - Walton
Yes, you moron, it's called capitalism. I notice you're not calling for the destruction of the US, despite admitting that it is as much to blame for unfair trade structures as the EU. However, you're quite wrong in thinking that removing all trade barriers (even if there was any chance of that happening while capitalism survives) would solve the problem. Rather, small farmers would be thrown off their land in poor countries by agribusiness - as indeed, already happens on a large scale. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the rich will always use differences in wealth to secure and enhance inequality. Democracy, trades unions, free education and health care, not "free markets", are what give the poor a chance.
I have principles, I will fight and die for them
The sooner the better. We can well do without fuckwits like you.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 11:25 AM
KarinS@91,
Good point.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 11:35 AM
Walton,
What makes you think that if the EU were "destroyed" (how are you planning to do that, BTW?), the individual member states would suddenly see the looneytarian light and remove all their tariff barriers and export subsidies?
Whatever the relative contributions of the EU, NATO and other factors to the lack of European wars in the last 60 years, one thing the EU can take credit for is the spread and consolidation of democracy. NATO was quite happy to include dictatorships - Portugal, Turkey, Greece - but democracy has always been a condition of EU membership. Spain, Portugal, Greece, and much of eastern Europe moved rapidly and apparently irreversibly to democracy in large part to benefit from EU membership - and the process is still ongoing in the western Balkans. But of course, we know your hatred of democracy, so I suppose you'll chalk that up as another evil outcome of the satanic EU.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 15, 2009 2:22 PM
oh yeah. nuclear weapons have prevented wars all over the world, which is why, for the last 60 years, there hasn't been a single war anywhere.
you're historically ignorant.
you got that mostly backwards. the problem is not so much that the EU has farm subsidies, the problem is that developing countries are forced by the IMF and World Bank to NOT have them. While the EU and US subsidies are excessive, a certain amount is inevitable for stability. we can see what happens without such subsidies in countries that aren't allowed any by your laisses-faire capitalist cronies: everytime the prise of some cash-crop drops, millions of people are suddenly starving.
If the whole world suddenly got rid of subsidies, food would be wholly susceptible to the vagaries of the market. and we've already seen how well THAT works out. no, what's needed is for every country in the world to have enough subsidized farming to be able to withstand food-supply crises.
The fault of the US and EU is not that they have subsidies, it is the hypocrisy of providing themselves the stability of subsidies, while trying to force "capitalism good; socialism bad" on everybody else
learn something about redundancy systems vs. efficiency systems and how they react in crisis situations, and then come back to this discussion. (hint: you're advocating efficiency systems)
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 2:34 PM
Jadehawk's quite right. Without subsidies, farming would simply have disappeared in many parts of the world, including much of Europe. Oh, fine, say the Waltons of this world, that's the workings of the market, which can do no wrong, getting rid of inefficiency. But then, imagine we have a large-scale drought - as happened in Australia very recently, contributing to the rocketing price of food last year. Oh fine, says Walton, so now all the areas that went out of farming will be farmed again, as the market dictates. Only they won't - they'll be under ten years of scrub, and in any case there won't be either the skilled workers, the farm machinery, or the storage, transport and marketing infrastructure available. Whoops. Still, the Waltons of this world won't be the ones starving, so that's OK.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 15, 2009 2:40 PM
just what the world needs: more martyrs for wrongheaded ideologies, AKA "reality can go fuck itself, I'm sticking with my story"
Posted by: Watchman | June 15, 2009 3:31 PM
When did "Europe" become "the word"? That's a rare and unusual strawman from you, Jadehawk. Those aren't your stock in trade. Why use one now?
How could the EU have kept peace in Europe for sixty years? It wasn't created until 1993. And I assume nobody's talking about the EEC here. Walton is right about that. It was NATO containment plus nuclear detente between the Soviets and the USA kept "the peace" in Europe. Such as it was. At the very least, it kept the peace between the USSR and the West, at no small benefit to the member nations of NATO and their neighbors.
Crediting all that peace to nuclear weapons is an interesting angle. It could be true. Nobody has dared start a world war since we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. However, I am not inclined to romanticize the peace-keeping effects of nuclear balance. Sustaining and maintaining such a balance is a dangerous and expensive game. (The deterrence of MAD tends to break down when one or more participating entities loses their minds.) Regardless, the recent trend of peace between member nations of the EU cannot, in my opinion, be attributed to "nuclear weapons" or to the existence of the EU. The EU owes its existence to the recently developed ability of those European nations to get along with one another.
Those are my two cents, and they might be defective. I'm not entitled to toss in the other ninety-eight, because I cannot offer an informed opinion on whatever else Walton has to say about the EU, and I haven't read the entire thread.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 15, 2009 3:59 PM
I might not have explained the "residence" thing well. What I meant is a sort of temporary, conditional citizenship granted in the way U.S. states for example grant residency in a state: you live there for a pre-determined period of time (3-12 months, depending on the state), can prove that you aren't there just for a specific, time-limited reason (short-term job contract, stationed on a base temporarily, finishing a degree, etc), and you get full residency (i.e. a form of state citizenship, with all the voting rights etc.).
I think citizenship should work similarly: you move to a new country, live there for a while and are planning on staying, you should get citizenship. And if, 10 years down the road, you resettle to a different country, you drop that old citizenship and get the new one.
I like the idea of double citizenship (one permanent, one transitional, as I just explained), but at that point ancestry/heritage ancestry would serve better than birthplace-citizenship, for various reasons; for example, birth citizenship would result in certain families (military, diplomats, businesspeople in multinationals) having children of random, varying citizenships, often ones that have no cultural signifier or practical use to them. An inherited citizenship seems more practical at this point: children would have the citizenship(s) of their parents anyway, and then when they reach adulthood they'd declare one of them as their permanent citizenship, and the other as their transitional one, to be changed whenever they change residence.
I'll use myself as an example: if we had birthplace-citizenship and residence-citizenship, I'd be Polish and American; but "home" is in Germany, because that's where all my family lives and where I grew up. On the other hand, if I had been given a choice at 18 to pick one of my mom's citizenships, I'd have picked German, and now I'd have gotten an American one too.
I think that system would be a nice balance of pragmatism on the one hand, and preserving one's cultural heritage on the other. and, yes, I find being able to consider oneself as part of a particular cultural/social group NO MATTER WHAT is important, as can be seen by the massive social problems in groups that have lost their cultural heritage, as well as the mental problems in individuals who have lost their "grounding" in and connection to their culture (especially easily noticeable in native cultures "integrated" into oblivion)
you'll get no argument on that from me :-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 15, 2009 4:05 PM
I was actually talking about the EEC and the EU; for me they're continuous. I apologize for not clarifyikng.
Anyway, the point I was making is that nuclear weapons prevented another world war. They do not prevent local wars. the EU and EEC are what kept arch-enemies France and Germany from going at each others throats for 60 years as they have done constantly in the past. The same goes for all other possible local wars that have been prevented by including other European countries in a large in-group of shared interests, rather than the more typical way in which European nations have always dealt with each other: war, conquest, and destruction.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 15, 2009 6:02 PM
I'm not convinced there's a single reason for there being no big war in Europe since 1945, and no world war. Part of the reason, of course, is sheer luck: in 1962, twice in 1983, and in 1995, we came very close - and of course, that is entirely down to nuclear missiles. Another is that most Europeans had finally got it into their heads that war is not glorious, but horrible - and the EEC was in large part an outcome of this, but also did make wars in western Europe still more unlikely. Another is that it was never in any political leader's interest: even without nuclear weapons, the risks would have been far too high for any half-way rational leader to start a full-scale war. Note that this was also the case before WWII: it was highly irrational for Hitler to get involved in a war that he had practically no hope of winning if all his intended victims banded together. Luckily, no-one half as batty as Hitler has gained control of a major power since 1945, although idiots including Khruschev, Kennedy and Reagan have had a pop at getting us all killed, and Castro apparently urged Khruschev to launch missiles from Cuba if the US invaded.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 16, 2009 4:56 AM
Re the last lines of my #94,
Walton, I don't really want you dead. I do want you to stop that sort of self-important wankery. Talk is cheap.