Thursday, December 3rd
Today our class paid a visit to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. I had seen this memorial in my previous visit to Berlin in 2006, but seeing it a second time in light of all that I have learned about the debate over its creation was very interesting. Also, I had not entered the underground exhibition on my previous visit. The debate over the design and construction of this memorial lasted for a decade, and even after the construction many groups are opposed to its existence; this includes the Jewish community that has not accepted it as their memorial. While we were there, a Bundeswehr van pulled up and several military officials got off and began to tour the site. This is exactly what some feared would happen if the memorial was built, that it would become nothing more than a site on the official pilgrimage of government and military officials who would “pay their dues” and think nothing more of the Holocaust. Personally, I do not find the memorial very effective, though this is in part due to the fact that on my first visit I was unaware of its purpose as a memorial – I had thought it was just modern art executed on a very large scale. In 2006 I didn’t even know that the exhibition existed. I did enjoy the exhibition however, as it effectively focuses on the Jewish victims and families themselves, and not on the SS, the Nazis or their methods. Focusing instead on Jews in the context of their family lives makes the realization of the Holocaust a much more human event.
We also crossed the street towards Tiergarten where a second memorial has been placed to honor homosexuals who were victims of the Nazis. Like the Memorial to the Murdered Jews, this structure has been the topic of heated debate. The memorial features a looped video of two men passionately kissing each other, representing the kiss which would be enough to be arrested or shot by the SS. Some argue that the window from which one views this video is too low, and that children will be able to view the video, without understanding the context or purpose of it. Lesbian groups were also initially opposed to the monument, as the video features only men; thus, the decision has been made to switch the video back and forth between men and women every few years.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Gender Policy in Berlin
Monday, November 30th
Today in class we discussed women’s issues and gender policy in Germany, specifically in the labor market. Women in East Germany were generally left much worse off after unification than other demographics within Germany’s female population. While most women were employed in the GDR, this trend has not carried into post-reunified Germany. While reunification resulted in high levels of unemployment across the board, women’s unemployment rates grew at a must faster rate than men’s rates. This is due in part to the lack of legislation to protect women’s jobs, as women’s issues were neglected by government during reunification. The parliament which administered the reunification phase was male dominated, and women’s rights and issues were not sufficiently represented within the political ranks. Germany’s corporatist style of government is dominated my traditionally male centered institutions such as labor unions. The corporatist consensus thus leaves women almost completely out of the dialogue, as was the case in the early 1990s as Germany’s reunification was taking form. The representation of women’s issues was further neglected by the media, while some publications like the TAZ provided sections focused on women’s issues, most periodicals tended to view women as important consumers but catered to women with lifestyle and family sections and did not provide an adequate forum for the discussion of women’s issues.
Some of the most progressive German policies in women’s issues in the past decade have been imposed from above, by means of the European Union. Though Germany has been amongst the most hesitant nations to comply with EU gender policies, when faced with the threat of an EU lawsuit, Germany has acquiesced and integrated these policies into its own legislation. That the EU must force Germany to comply with gender policies is evidence that Germany is one of the least progressive EU states on women’s issues.
Today in class we discussed women’s issues and gender policy in Germany, specifically in the labor market. Women in East Germany were generally left much worse off after unification than other demographics within Germany’s female population. While most women were employed in the GDR, this trend has not carried into post-reunified Germany. While reunification resulted in high levels of unemployment across the board, women’s unemployment rates grew at a must faster rate than men’s rates. This is due in part to the lack of legislation to protect women’s jobs, as women’s issues were neglected by government during reunification. The parliament which administered the reunification phase was male dominated, and women’s rights and issues were not sufficiently represented within the political ranks. Germany’s corporatist style of government is dominated my traditionally male centered institutions such as labor unions. The corporatist consensus thus leaves women almost completely out of the dialogue, as was the case in the early 1990s as Germany’s reunification was taking form. The representation of women’s issues was further neglected by the media, while some publications like the TAZ provided sections focused on women’s issues, most periodicals tended to view women as important consumers but catered to women with lifestyle and family sections and did not provide an adequate forum for the discussion of women’s issues.
Some of the most progressive German policies in women’s issues in the past decade have been imposed from above, by means of the European Union. Though Germany has been amongst the most hesitant nations to comply with EU gender policies, when faced with the threat of an EU lawsuit, Germany has acquiesced and integrated these policies into its own legislation. That the EU must force Germany to comply with gender policies is evidence that Germany is one of the least progressive EU states on women’s issues.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Willy Brandt House
Wednesday, November 25th
Today our class met for a tour and some discussion at the Willy Brandt House, the headquarters of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, the SPD. We began our visit with a brief tour of the building. The Willy Brant House has a very interesting past; the SPD party resurrected the building plans which had been gathering dust without investors interested in building. When Berlin once again became the capital of Germany, the SPD took the opportunity to build the Willy Brandt House just a few blocks from the location of its previous Berlin headquarters. The Willy Brandt House is now located in the center of reunified Berlin!
After our tour and a lengthy discussion of a bronze-cast portrait of Willy Brandt himself, we met for a discussion of German foreign policy with Markus Engels. We were given a recently printed SPD manifesto, outlining the party’s goals in the wake of poor performance in the recent elections, and much of this document contained commentary on foreign policy issues. Mr. Engels shed some light on the importance of foreign policy in the German political arena, specifically on the German-American relationship. He talked about the war in Iraq and answered questions about whether or not Germany was doing enough in the global security effort. His answer: Germany is doing its fair share, the Iraq war was an unpopular war and the Bush administration was less popular still and Germany’s decision not to become involved was based on the sentiment of the German people, and not on politics, as some have claimed. Engels believes that Germany is fulfilling its responsibilities to the international community, citing German involvement in overseas peacekeeping operations, especially the conflict in Afghanistan, as Germany is the third greatest contributor of troops in that conflict. He was very firm that a new strategy was needed in Afghanistan, but that Germany was committed to the cause and would not simply pull its support; Engels stressed that Germany was waiting eagerly for Obama’s announcements concerning Afghanistan scheduled for this week. He also defended Germany’s relationship with Russia, which has been criticized throughout the West. Engels argued that it was only logical for Germany to develop healthy relations with its biggest neighbor – he mentioned German dependence on Russian oil as well.
Mr. Engels was obviously a politician, never answering any question directly, and refusing to offer any critique of Angela Merkel or her speech o the joint houses of Congress in Washington DC a few weeks ago. The answers he did provide were very helpful, and I left the Willy Brandt House with a much clearer picture of the SPD’s approach to foreign policy.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Free State of Bavaria
Friday, November 20th
Today we met with Andreas Kolitsch, of the Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Unterricht und Kultus. We listened to a lecture about Munich and the Free State of Bavaria. We discussed the structure of the German government and touched on some differences with the US system. What was more interesting to me however, was Andreas’ description of Bavaria’s role in foreign policy. I am conducting my independent study on foreign policy and Germany’s role in the international community and I was interested to hear about Bavaria’s role in formation of foreign policy both within the federal government and independently throughout the world. Bavaria sends representatives to the EU to lobby for its own interests, not only those of Germany. I was surprised to learn that Bavaria also acts unilaterally in foreign policy, going as far as establishing independent offices in foreign countries. Bavaria has developed a coalition with South Africa in order to fight AIDS in Africa, and has representatives employed there in permanent positions. I asked Mr. Kolitsch if he would be willing to answer a few further questions via email as I work on my independent study project, and he was happy to provide me with his contact information. He will surely prove to be a valuable resource, as I plan to discuss the growing importance of the Lander and their role in German foreign
Today we met with Andreas Kolitsch, of the Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Unterricht und Kultus. We listened to a lecture about Munich and the Free State of Bavaria. We discussed the structure of the German government and touched on some differences with the US system. What was more interesting to me however, was Andreas’ description of Bavaria’s role in foreign policy. I am conducting my independent study on foreign policy and Germany’s role in the international community and I was interested to hear about Bavaria’s role in formation of foreign policy both within the federal government and independently throughout the world. Bavaria sends representatives to the EU to lobby for its own interests, not only those of Germany. I was surprised to learn that Bavaria also acts unilaterally in foreign policy, going as far as establishing independent offices in foreign countries. Bavaria has developed a coalition with South Africa in order to fight AIDS in Africa, and has representatives employed there in permanent positions. I asked Mr. Kolitsch if he would be willing to answer a few further questions via email as I work on my independent study project, and he was happy to provide me with his contact information. He will surely prove to be a valuable resource, as I plan to discuss the growing importance of the Lander and their role in German foreign
A Lakeside Villa with a Chilling History
Thursday, November 19th
Today our class made an excursion out to the site of the Wannsee Conference. The villa where the conference took place is still intact, and though most of the original furniture was stolen in the wake of WWII, the majority of the interior remained as it was in the 1930s. The exhibition was split into separate rooms, each one with a different theme, all relating to the holocaust and the development and execution of the “final solution.” Professor Wagner stressed the significance of the specific men who attended the Wannsee Conference, and the representative from the exhibition touched on this as well. Almost all of the attendees were Staatsekretariatat, positions which might be compared to the cabinet in American government, the bulk of the policy forming government officials consisted of roughly 50 state secretaries. The majority of the men were relatively young, half were under 40 and only two were older than 50, meaning that the majority of these men built their political careers under National Socialism and were probably truly indoctrinated believers in Hitler’s system. This is further supported by the fact that the majority of the men were well educated, two thirds had degrees and half were doctors, mostly in law. Several groups were represented amongst the attendees. The first group was comprised of ministry officials concerned with the “Jewish Question” including a few specifically involved in policy towards Mischlinge, or mixed race Jews. Another group represented Heydrich’s office, including Gestapo Chief Muller, as well as Eichmann and several other security officers. Officials from the SS and a few Party Members especially concerned with the Jewish Question were also present. A fourth group of men had been invited at the last minute; these were men from agencies responsible for the civilian administration of occupied territories in the East. This specific list of attendees is important because it supports the argument that this conference was set up to inform these men about Hitler’s decision to eradicate the Jewish race throughout Europe. Years later during their trials, most of these men claimed the meeting was only concerned with the “evacuation” and “deportation” of Jews. However, this was obviously not the case, as the list of attendees did not include representatives from the military or any transportation specialists, who certainly would have been in attendance had the transport of hundreds of thousands of Jews been the focus of the Wannsee Conference. The exhibition included photos and biographical information about each of the attendees, as well as his position in Hitler’s regime. Presented in this way, it was much easier to make connections between the men in attendance, and the true purpose of the Wannsee Conference – this exhibition was extremely effective in this way.
Today our class made an excursion out to the site of the Wannsee Conference. The villa where the conference took place is still intact, and though most of the original furniture was stolen in the wake of WWII, the majority of the interior remained as it was in the 1930s. The exhibition was split into separate rooms, each one with a different theme, all relating to the holocaust and the development and execution of the “final solution.” Professor Wagner stressed the significance of the specific men who attended the Wannsee Conference, and the representative from the exhibition touched on this as well. Almost all of the attendees were Staatsekretariatat, positions which might be compared to the cabinet in American government, the bulk of the policy forming government officials consisted of roughly 50 state secretaries. The majority of the men were relatively young, half were under 40 and only two were older than 50, meaning that the majority of these men built their political careers under National Socialism and were probably truly indoctrinated believers in Hitler’s system. This is further supported by the fact that the majority of the men were well educated, two thirds had degrees and half were doctors, mostly in law. Several groups were represented amongst the attendees. The first group was comprised of ministry officials concerned with the “Jewish Question” including a few specifically involved in policy towards Mischlinge, or mixed race Jews. Another group represented Heydrich’s office, including Gestapo Chief Muller, as well as Eichmann and several other security officers. Officials from the SS and a few Party Members especially concerned with the Jewish Question were also present. A fourth group of men had been invited at the last minute; these were men from agencies responsible for the civilian administration of occupied territories in the East. This specific list of attendees is important because it supports the argument that this conference was set up to inform these men about Hitler’s decision to eradicate the Jewish race throughout Europe. Years later during their trials, most of these men claimed the meeting was only concerned with the “evacuation” and “deportation” of Jews. However, this was obviously not the case, as the list of attendees did not include representatives from the military or any transportation specialists, who certainly would have been in attendance had the transport of hundreds of thousands of Jews been the focus of the Wannsee Conference. The exhibition included photos and biographical information about each of the attendees, as well as his position in Hitler’s regime. Presented in this way, it was much easier to make connections between the men in attendance, and the true purpose of the Wannsee Conference – this exhibition was extremely effective in this way.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Neukoelln: Issues of Outreach to Berlin's Immigrant Poulation
Wednesday, November 11th
Today we visited Neukoelln, an area of Berlin generally known for its dense immigrant population. We met at the offices of the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation, an organization which provides programs and services to immigrant families in the Neukoelln area. One of these programs was similar to the Big Brothers Big Sisters organization in the U.S. This program provided mentors to local immigrant children, helping them to integrate into the German culture and educational system. This mentor program focused on the use of extracurricular activities to improve performance in school. The current German education system disadvantages immigrant children for whom German is not a first language, resulting in a relatively low graduation rate for immigrant children. Mentor programs like those provided by the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation are important in providing assistance to this demographic that immigrant families are unable to themselves. The second program was the Neukoelln Mother’s program, which educates local mothers about local programs and institutions which can provide aid for immigrant families, and in turn these women to educate other mothers and families about these resources. This is an extremely important outreach service because many immigrant families are either afraid (due to their illegal status) or unable (due to language barriers) to access these programs and institutions themselves. Neukoelln Mothers are able to gain access to families too afraid to come directly to the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation, or other organizations for help. Several issues cause major problems for the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation in implementing these programs. The first and most important issue is funding. Berlin is a very poor city, and while authorities recognize the importance of such programs, convincing them to provide funding is a challenge. The women involved in the Neukoelln Mothers program are paid for their important work, but local government places requirements upon the program in order to justify funding; i.e. the requirement that Mothers must visit 2 families a month, which many are unable to do. Secondly, as mentioned above, illegal immigrant families are fearful of government aided institutions such as the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation because they believe involvement in their programs put their immigration status at risk. This requires the Neukoelln Mothers program to make only indirect contact with immigrant families, and the program must rely entirely on the honor system, hoping that Mothers are being effective and truly doing their job in the community. Overall, the work of the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation is very important, but a lack of funding and the reluctance of fearful immigrant families to seek help create major obstacles for the well-meaning organization.
Today we visited Neukoelln, an area of Berlin generally known for its dense immigrant population. We met at the offices of the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation, an organization which provides programs and services to immigrant families in the Neukoelln area. One of these programs was similar to the Big Brothers Big Sisters organization in the U.S. This program provided mentors to local immigrant children, helping them to integrate into the German culture and educational system. This mentor program focused on the use of extracurricular activities to improve performance in school. The current German education system disadvantages immigrant children for whom German is not a first language, resulting in a relatively low graduation rate for immigrant children. Mentor programs like those provided by the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation are important in providing assistance to this demographic that immigrant families are unable to themselves. The second program was the Neukoelln Mother’s program, which educates local mothers about local programs and institutions which can provide aid for immigrant families, and in turn these women to educate other mothers and families about these resources. This is an extremely important outreach service because many immigrant families are either afraid (due to their illegal status) or unable (due to language barriers) to access these programs and institutions themselves. Neukoelln Mothers are able to gain access to families too afraid to come directly to the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation, or other organizations for help. Several issues cause major problems for the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation in implementing these programs. The first and most important issue is funding. Berlin is a very poor city, and while authorities recognize the importance of such programs, convincing them to provide funding is a challenge. The women involved in the Neukoelln Mothers program are paid for their important work, but local government places requirements upon the program in order to justify funding; i.e. the requirement that Mothers must visit 2 families a month, which many are unable to do. Secondly, as mentioned above, illegal immigrant families are fearful of government aided institutions such as the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation because they believe involvement in their programs put their immigration status at risk. This requires the Neukoelln Mothers program to make only indirect contact with immigrant families, and the program must rely entirely on the honor system, hoping that Mothers are being effective and truly doing their job in the community. Overall, the work of the Neukoelln Citizen Foundation is very important, but a lack of funding and the reluctance of fearful immigrant families to seek help create major obstacles for the well-meaning organization.
Mauerfall 2009!
Monday, November 9th
The celebrations marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall were extremely exciting. Immediately after class on Monday, several classmates and I made our way to the Brandenburg gate where over 1000 styrofoam dominoes had been erected. An enormous turnout for the event resulted in much jostling for position around the line of dominoes which extended from just north of the Reichstag to Potsdammerplatz. I was able to climb on top of a bus stop, which allowed me an excellent view of dominoes as well as the large screens providing coverage of the political speeches at the Brandenburg gate. Overall, the general feeling of the very international crowd was positive, and each of the politicians was cheered before and after their speeches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)