|
Magazine
IN THE WAKE OF GLOBALISATION
Integration or assimilation?
SARAH JOHN
|
While economic necessities throw immigrants into an alien environment, the resulting cultural tension can only be resolved through dialogue and understanding. A look at the situation in Germany today.
|
Photo: AFP
Spaces for dialogue: Moroccan artist Lalla Essaydi’s “Converging Territories 25” on display in Cologne.
A house-fire in a city like Ludwigshafen in western Germany would not have caused such national, and even international concern, had it not been for the fact that this was a building which housed mainly Turkish working-class families, and the relativ
ely high number of fatalities involved solely Turkish people.
Even before the facts and causes of the fire could be established, the Turkish press painted a dark picture of the incident, pointing accusing fingers at racist and anti-foreigner feelings in Germany. In an unprecedented move, the Turkish Prime Minister himself made a flying visit to Germany, to console and convince the local Turks of his great concern for their well-being.
The German Chancellor, Foreign Minister, Chief Minister of the State and other important politicians joined him and vowed a thorough inquiry and solidarity with the Turkish residents. Investigations on the probable cause of the fire ruled out the presence of explosives or other combustible materials. Sheer negligence or private, unprofessional manipulations of electrical connections could have caused a fire which was not detected in time to prevent the huge blaze which gutted the entire building.
Mr. Erdogan ruffled many a feather in a passionate speech to his countrymen assembled to hear him in Cologne, Germany, in which he said they should integrate in their country of residence but need not assimilate. This came amidst growing scrutiny of the integration problems of immigrant workers not only in Germany, but all over Western Europe. Integration versus assimilation became a new theme for discussions.
The German situation
A well-known German political figure is known to have declared, “We only wanted a WORKFORCE, but what we got is PEOPLE”! This, more or less, explains how it all began in Germany.
In post-World War II Germany, reconstruction and growth had an unprecedented character and speed. The legendary Teutonic pride demanded a fast recovery of the shattered country. A highly motivated population responded with concentrated effort and unrivalled energy. But, they badly needed extra labour force. For this, they approached the southern Mediterranean countries who had been their allies through the war. Thus came the first “Guest workers” from Turkey, Spain and Italy to Germany. Mainly untrained workers, they were chosen for their physical health and willingness to do any kind of work. Major industrial giants recruited and trained them for the simplest work on the factory floor, where they were most needed. Steel, chemical, automobile and other machinery and appliance manufacturing, mining, construction — these were all areas where thousands of “foreign” workers were needed.
In the heat and excitement of the rebuilding and growth, no one seems to have had the time or the inclination to pay attention to the human side of this development phenomenon. Most of this “workforce” comprised men, who went home on vacation and brought back young brides and founded families in their new, more comfortable host country. Most of this first generation of Turks came from a relatively backward region of Turkey, where religious traditions were strictly and conservatively observed. Women were mostly illiterate. The men folk came with the bare minimum schooling or none at all. Almost naturally, they preferred to live next to each other in the alien culture, giving each other support and company. This was the beginning of what later came to be deplored as “ghettos”: Not very different from what happened in the major colonising countries like Britain, France or the Netherlands, where immigrant working-class families from ex-colonies preferred to live clustered together.
In Germany today, at least some political parties openly admit that no attempts were made to teach these “guests” the local language or involve them in the local communities. There was minimum contact with them outside the work environment. This continued for decades, and the second and even third generations remained, for the most part, excluded from the mainstream.
The 9/11 factor
What happened in New York on September 11, 2001 jerked Europeans out of their smug slumber. An awareness dawned on all, that there were issues of anger and frustration which had been spreading like cancer, in certain groups of immigrant communities. The disclosure that several Muslim/Arab immigrants of Europe had been through the madrassas or Al Khaeda training camps of Pakistan and Afghanistan came as a shock. Britain and France believed that the immigrants’ problems were under control, because much work had been undertaken and the new generations of immigrant families were getting schooling and healthcare, and they could practise their religion without any hindrance. However, the bombings in Madrid and London and the unprecedented rioting and violence in Paris in the late summer of 2005 disclosed a simmering cauldron of pent-up frustration and dissatisfaction among the young immigrant population in Europe. Denmark, a country rightly or wrongly famed for its tolerance, also had violent rioting in its cities, exposing unresolved cultural differences there too.
A close look at parts of West Berlin’s Neuekoeln or Kruezberg districts, or inner-city districts of other major cities in the industrial regions of Germany reveal segregation of a kind which is unhealthy. In the homogeneous nature of the German society, this was inevitable, but the contrast is stark. A closer look exposes an unwelcoming host-society as well as an immigrant population which is unwilling (or unable) to integrate into the strange culture of the host country. Each group maintained its stance, but violent clashes were practically non-existent. More often than not, mutual resentment and exclusion have been the practice.
As the country regained its industrial momentum, more trained hands were needed to cope with the growth. Nurses, medical and engineering technicians were brought from countries like India, South Korea, the Philippines to be employed here. They received formal language and job training, and their integration has gone without major problems.
But, there were other, new routes to reach Germany. Until the early 1990s, the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany required that political asylum-seekers be given refuge here. From problem-spots throughout the world came hundreds of thousands of people seeking refuge, and they had to be accommodated.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall came a new wave of immigration from Eastern Europe. The early 1990s saw millions of ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Republics (sometimes fourth or fifth generations of German emigrants) “returning” to the land of their forefathers on the invitation of the German government of the time.
As their numbers increased, so did the indignation among the local Germans. They resented the enormous additional expenditure of resettlement which had to be financed from their tax-money; they resented the strange language and culture which the newcomers brought with them.
However, there are new signs that the situation is beginning to ease up. At last there is open discussion about cultural differences. There is an attempt at openness, which could provide insight into what the two sides are afraid of. Mistrust and disrespect often stem from a lack of knowledge and understanding of each other’s culture and behaviour. Interest and involvement are required from both sides to dismantle this.
Attempts to communicate
The role of the media, of teachers in schools, of religious and community leaders, and of politicians — especially at community levels, is very important in this context. This has, rather belatedly, begun to dawn on political leaders. We are finally seeing an attempt, especially at county and community levels, to make available forums for open discussions and for sharing of knowledge and of ideas. As more and more people take part in these open discussions, chances are that deep-rooted prejudices and mistrust and fear can begin to get cleared, albeit slowly. Patience and perseverance are called for, and the Germans have that in plenty.
Local governments all over Germany have been encouraging interested people to join government-financed training programmes for Guides to Integration. They are supposed to recognise problem-situations in the community and in schools, and involve themselves in helping to solve them. Intercultural-understanding through better exposure is the only way to get rid of prejudices. Recognising this, many local governments have been trying to organise Theatre and Music programmes involving immigrants. Lectures and group-dialogues are being organised involving experts from the University and various religious groups. As the number of people attending increases, it is hoped that prejudices and resentments will slowly melt away, and encounters will become more pleasant and will lead to cultural enrichment.
Anti-racism laws alone cannot achieve what personal contacts and inter-mingling can, and this kind of opening up is beginning to happen in the German society.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
