Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.nordic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.interpath.net!sas!newshost.unx.sas.com!sdcmvs.mvs.sas.com!EURMXK
From: EURMXK@sdcmvs.mvs.sas.com
Subject: Re: The confusion about countries, states, nations and people (was: Trevlig nationaldag nskas!>
Sender: MVS NNTP News Reader <NNMVS@sdcmvs.mvs.sas.com>
Message-ID: <19960710045048EURMXK@sdcmvs.mvs.sas.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 08:50:00 GMT
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sdcmvs.mvs.sas.com
References: <DuA5MA.65q@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 107

In article <DuA5MA.65q@midway.uchicago.edu>,
deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff) writes:
 
>In article <19960708110527EURMXK@sdcmvs.mvs.sas.com>,
> <EURMXK@sdcmvs.mvs.sas.com> wrote:
>>In article <Du7FrE.CM8@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>>deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff) writes:
>>
>>>In article <4rg41v$b0e@nef.ens.fr>, Henrik Ernoe  <erno@wotan.ens.fr> wrote:
>>>>jmo@lysator.liu.se (Johan Olofsson) wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>>Germany consist of One nation, One people but in several states.
>>>>
>>>>ups: you are forgetting the danes, frisians and sorbs. None of these
>>>>would like to be included in the german nation.
>>>
>>>        More importantly, IMNSHO, *everyone* is forgetting Pakistanis,
>>>Turks, Algerians, Filipinos, Rumanians, and so on and so on.  At least
>>>one poster *did* include gypsies#.  They've only been living in Europe
>>>for about 25 generations or so.  Even as Europe is getting closer to
>>>being "one state", it is growing more "multinational."
>>>
>>Talking about Germany only, the question was about citizenship vs.
>>nationality. Danes, Frisians, Sorbs (and many "gypsies") are
>>German citizens, though they would perhaps not consider themselves
>>as Germans - or, well, I am not sure about Sorbs and Frisians, or
>>gypsies, many would perhaps simply consider themselves as Germans.
>
>        The question was more complicated than citizenship vs. nationality,
>as there is the additional distinction of nation vs. ethnicity.
I am well aware of the complexity of the question.
 
We do have ethnic minorities in Germany that have been living here
for hundreds of years (now you might want to argue how to define
an ethnic minority), many of whom are not only German citizens (almost
all of them are with the possible exception of the "gypsies" - some
of them might be "without nationality" - "staatenlos") but would
also consider themselves as Germans (as I would assume most Sorbs,
for instance would do so). The German constitution (Basic Law -
Grundgesetz) does not recognize any ethic minority, but the
constitutions of some states (Schleswig-Holstein, Brandenburg,
Saxony) do. All in all, we are talking about 100,000 - 200,000
people here.
 
It's a totally different story with people that came to Germany
as immigrant workers. The Polish, by the way, came from the
former Prussian provinces mostly - so they were German (Prussian)
citizens, but - of course - of Polish nationality.
 
Since the early sixties of this century many especially Turkish
"migrant workers" (Gastarbeiter) came to Germany. The idea probably
was that they would go back to their countries after some time,
but the reality was that they did not (since they were needed),
so many of them are living here as second- or even third-generation
"immigrants". Most of them are not German citizens since - as you
correctly pointed out - Germany recognises the "ius sanguinis" and
not the "ius solis".  This has led to the paradox situation that
we have many 'expatriates' (people with German ancestry) coming
from Russia or Poland who do not speak a word of German (if you
consider speaking a language as identification with a culture),
but are reconised as Germans immediately, and Turkish "immigrants"
that were born and raised (identify themselves with German
culture - whatever that is), but have to go through a longish
process of naturalisation to become German citizens.
In this case we are talking about a couple of million people.
 
And then, of course, there is the more general question of the
meaning of "nation" in different languages.  In German it has
always had the notion of "Volk", people that belong together
because of their ancestry, their "blood" etc. (if you think
of Herder), whereas in French belonging to a nation is more like
an act of will.
 
>
>>As for Turks, Italians, Greeks and others - many of whom have been born
>>in Germany, they are not German citizens. Whether you like this or
>>not - this is just the way it is.
>
>        They are not *all* German citizens, but thousands are and these
>should not be forgotten.  Although Germany recognises jus sanguinis, it
>also allows naturalisation.  And just as thousands of Poles, Czechs, and
>other immigrant workers became German citizens in the first half of this
>century, thousands of Turks, Vietnamese, Russians, and others will be-
>come citizens in the second half.
>
>        And where do foreign residents fit in this scheme anyway?  Even
>though a woman in Germany may be Turkish by nationality and citizenship
>and Kurdish by ethnicity, she is definitely part of the German economy
>and the German society.  Therefore, is she not a part of the German "state"
>even if this is not officially recognised?
>
She is part of the German state since she's paying taxes, social
security and so on - she just hasn't got the right to vote.
 
There's anyother distinction here: EC citizens now have the right
to vote in local elections in many states.
 
>        (I'm not trying to make a moral point here, just a practical one.)
Me too.
 
Regards, 
Manfred Kiefer
 
>--
>         Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
>        (deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
>                                   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
