As protesters around the world tear down monuments of slave traders and corporations eliminate brands linked to unpleasant stereotypes, Germany is facing a different purging effort.
Advocates and lawmakers are calling to remove the term “race” from the country’s constitution, saying the term is anachronistic at and fosters racist thinking.
There is an underlying uneasiness that Rasse — the term in German — is a holdover from the Nazis, whose obsession with a superior Aryan race laid the pseudo-scientific foundation for the Holocaust.
The country’s Basic Law, the constitution adopted in 1949 as a direct reaction to the horrors of World War II, states in Article 3 that “no person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or religious or political opinions.”
“There are no races, there are only humans,” Green party coleader Robert Habeck and Aminata Toure, vice president of the Schleswig-Holstein state legislature, wrote in a joint article for Germany’s daily Tageszeitung. “It’s time we unlearn racism. A strong sign would be to cut the term ‘race’ from the Basic Law.”
The opposition Green party was quickly joined by other parties and the country’s minister of justice, and even German Chancellor Angela Merkel was “open” to the discussion, her spokesman told reporters in a news conference.
The Basic Law, initially thought to be merely provisional, has since become a central pillar of the identity of country where the atrocities of the Nazis made people avoid anything resembling national pride.
Instead, the term Verfassungspatriotismus — constitutional patriotism — emerged and judges have stressed in landmark rulings that the Basic Law with its list of civil rights was Germany’s U-turn answer to Nazism.
Rasse was a central term of Nazi ideology, built on the idea that “real Germans” belong to a superior “Aryan race,” and that Jews, blacks and others, including Sinti, Roma and people of Slavic origin, could be considered inferior.
Germany’s diversity increased after its government invited workers from southern Europe to help build Europe’s strongest economy in the 1950s and 1960s, and wider migration trends also added to the population. Still, the country does not register its residents’ skin color.
In 2018, about 20.8 million people, about one-quarter of the population, had a “migration background,” meaning either the person or one of their parents did not have German citizenship at birth, according to the country’s statistical office. Half of them are now German citizens.
Calls for changes in terminology are not really new. The German Institute for Human Rights, a Berlin-based think tank funded by the government, 10 years ago proposed to replace the term with language that bans racist action.
Some German states followed suit and changed their constitutions. On the federal level, Bundestag in 2012 debated a proposal by the opposition party Die Linke, but did not back the change.
The Initiative Schwarze Menschen in Deutschland, or ISD, an action group for blacks in Germany, in 2015 published an open letter endorsing the change proposal.
“This is less about cutting or not cutting a term, but more about what happens to people,” ISD spokesman Tahir Della said.
“That’s why we want to have language introduced that clearly shows this is about racism and about banning it, and that allows victims to sue,” he added.
Changing the German constitution requires the support of two-thirds of the members of both houses of the legislature. The Basic Law has been amended many times, so if the political will is there, it is not difficult to do.
The use of the term “race” leads to an unsolvable contradiction, as victims of racism are forced to define themselves as belonging to a race and thus to use racist terminology when invoking their rights, said Hendrik Cremer, author of the German Institute for Human Rights’s position paper on the issue.
“The language suggests that there are different races among humans. But only racist theories argue that. In the end, the term promotes racist thinking,” he said.
However, the term “race” is widely used in national and international anti-discrimination law. The EU in 2000 adopted rules to combat racism and the text of the directive uses “race” throughout.
However, the EU also included language in the document, saying it rejects theories that claim there are separate races.
Not everyone shares the call for changing the language.
Race has become a central term of anti-discrimination law internationally, said Cengiz Barkanmaz, a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle, Germany.
The term makes it easier to address discrimination. Changing the language would undermine the coherence of laws that always refer to commonly used social designations as a basis for discrimination, Barkanmaz said.
“I understand the irritations the term causes, especially in Germany. But the Basic Law doesn’t regulate race, instead it bans discrimination on the basis of race,” he said, adding that purging legal texts is a symbolic move and does not really entail real action against racism.
European courts have shown their ability to judge race cases properly and the black community in the US has used term to challenge legal practices that were discriminatory, Barkanmaz said.
Still, the uneasiness with the idea of race is also felt elsewhere.
France eliminated the term from its laws two years ago, and Austria, Sweden and Finland did so earlier, as a reaction to a EU directive.
The Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland, the association of Jews in Germany, also advocates change.
The authors of the constitution were right to address racism, but their language was shaped by the times and is no longer adequate, Zentralrat president Josef Schuster said in a statement.
“Today, we should avoid the term race when we talk about humans,” Schuster said.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas