Die Aussagen von Clemens Tönnies

First up: This will be my last reply in this matter, cause from what I gather from your posts, you never seem to have any real interest in a meaningful discussion but tend to argue your apologistic point of view at nauseating length. The only reason I do take time to answer is because you bend some of your argumentation to the brink and I will not let that stand:

Yes, Tönnies did not say “die Afrikaner”. He said “die” refering to “Afrika” constituting the meaning auf “die (dort) in Afrika”. That is even less elegant than saying “Die Afrikaner” but it does refer to the same group of people.

What makes the statement racist is not that the people of Africa were named as a group, but that subsequently the group as a whole was attributed with certain negative traits as a whole. Which is clearly stated in the racism definition in the article you claim to have so carefully read.
Your example is invalid, cause it does not do that. A comparable statement would have been:
“We Europeans have to look waringly to Asia, cause the Asians (or: those people there in Asia) are war-mongering people” - that would be a racist statement cause it claims that every member of the group is war mongering because of their shared trait - being Asian.
Saying “the US is increasingly hostile towards foreign trade” is - just by the way - short for saying “the US GOVERMENT is increasingly hostile towards foreign trade” - it refers to something completely different and is by no means a valid argument for your case.

Saying that “die (dort) in Afrika… fällen Bäume und wenn’s dunkel ist … produzieren (sie) Kinder” is a racist statement cause it implies that every member of said group (“die (dort) in Afrika”) is cutting down trees and “produces” children without exception. Both activities being voiced as genuinly negative activities by Tönnies (cause they need to be reduced) defines the very people of Africa, from Marokko to South Africa, by just two negative traits. The term “producing” justifying an outcry of its own.

Read the quoted statement closely. It does not say, that a white person saying something about Africa makes it racist, but that it reminds people of the attitude in the colonial days.

As I eluded earlier in this threat: We don’t have to interpret his statement on a second degree level to read a non racist side into it. I may very well take it at face value and that is: Depicting “die (dort) in Africa as a bunch of wood cutting, children in the dark producing people.” Tönnies could have made a very elaborated statement that would have been less problematic - but he chose not to. He could have used language that is less condescending - but he chose not to. So I think it is fair to judge him by what he said and not elude to what he might have meant!

Well in linking the statement to the larger discussion the article is a bit liberal. But Tönnies implying that “die (dort) in Africa” are producing children and Höcke saying Africans are a “propagation type” are pretty similar. Both raise reproduction to be the central trait of African people. And even though I take Tönnies statement at face value and would not have necessairily linked both statements, the author of the article did. After the immigration debate of recent years - that Tönnies was around for - he should however not be suprised to be put into the Höcke context if he uses similar stereotypes even though he himself made no explicit link.

So all in all I do think that the article does point out pretty clearly why Tönnies statements are racist - and that was the foremost reason for posting it here. You nit-pick at some details yet you miss the article’s point about racism as a whole and some of your arguments really seem to be more supportive of your own world view rather than proving any point on why Tönnies’ statement is not racist. That’s why I am pretty confident that all other arguments you will put forth will argue along the same line and there is no benefit in any further discussion with you.


3 „Gefällt mir“

Und noch mein letzter Beitrag in diesem threat. Noch ein zehnminütiger Hörbeitrag, der das Problem diskutiert, dass die Anti-Rassismusmaßnahmen in den Vereinen stets auf die Fanszene gerichtet sind, aber eben nie die Funktionärs- und selten die Mannschaftsebene ansprechen: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/rassistische-aeusserungen-keine-gute-woche-fuer-den.1346.de.html?dram:article_id=456045


2 „Gefällt mir“

Thank you for your time and your comment. I hope I am not half as apologetic and nauseatingly verbose as you think - I hope.

I am interested in a good discussion and I consider myself open to reason. I am sure that the two of us would find common ground on most aspects of this issue if we discussed it over a good pint of beer.

But this debate here would probably not end well. So in effect, I agree with you. Let’s call it a day.

Trifft die Diskussion hier ganz gut, finde ich.

Ich finde es zum Teil erschreckend (wenn auch hier die Netiquette super funktioniert) wie bereitwillig einige sich verbiegen, um dann doch keinen Rassismus sehen zu müssen, um ihre eigene Haltung nicht hinterfragen zu müssen.

Ich bin Rassist, ich bin eine Okö-Sau und ich bin auch ein Sexist.
Das weiß ich alles von mir, das tut mir nicht weh, wenn man mich entlarvt.

Dann versuche ich halt noch mehr darauf zu achten, weniger Rassist oder Sexist zu sein. Das mit der Öko-Sau habe ich noch nicht so ganz akzeptiert…
Aber das kommt sicher auch noch.

Ich bin „weiß“, männlich, wohlhabend, mit höchsten Bildungsabschlüssen.
Ich bin per Definition ein kleiner Sexist und Rassist und eine Öko-Sau.

Das ist das „Los“ meines Lebens…

Dennoch kann ich aber doch bitte selber versuchen - und von allen erwarten -, dass man sich so gut es nur geht reflektiert und so wenig wie möglich diese Facetten auslebt.

Das hat Tönnies nicht geschafft…
Im Gegenteil und das wird hier zurecht angeprangert.

vgl. @idioteque3 und @Das_Daw (sehr gute Postings Ihr beide! Danke!)

Also Fazit für mich…

Ich bin, wie so oft im Internet, nahezu schockiert, welcher Alltagsrassismus und welche geistige Verrohung in den Köpfen meiner Mitmenschen existiert.

Wie gesagt, hier ist der Diskurs im Rahmen, aber auf FB oder Twitter ist das gruselig.

More Sex doesn’t mean more children.

The problems of HIV, poverty and child mortality are not connected to „more sex“ but to education.

Should I feel addressed? :wink:

Don’t mean to be nitpicking, but more sex is - you are right - not sufficient but it is necessary for more children. :wink: (Yet.)

Isn’t that a bit simplistic? You really want to deprive yourself of any ability to think and reflect? You really want to consider yourself a helpless prisoner of your culture and heritage?

Whatever happened to free will and reason??

Kant would turn in his grave… :pensive:

No, the opposite is what I wanted to express.

I have to do that, because of what I am!

Ich bin mir schon sehr sicher, dass Toennies Aussagen rassistisch sind.
Aber es hat mich doch erstaunt, warum hier niemand wirklich handfeste Argumente bringt.
Wenn man das an einem Stück durchliest, muss man fast annehmen, dass Accounts wie Das_Daw Trolle sind, die eigentlich nur ihren Widersachern Argumente liefern wollen.


Dem möchte ich aber eindeutig widersprechen!

No, you are not!

Of these three, all that you are by default is a polluter of the environment because you (presumably) live the lifestyle common to a rich, first world country.

Racism and sexism are a state of mind. Just because you are (again, presumably) a highly educated, well off white man doesn’t mean you have to be racist, sexist or any other X-ist „by definition“.

That’s what caused me to make the statement about your apparent self-diagnosed inability to reflect and think.

Wrong. We all have been raised in racist, sexist etc. societies and it’s not possible to evade societal influence completely. Prejudices have been imprinted on every single person and to truly work against those prejudices we need to recognise that every single person is carrying them around, even if they are constantly fighting them, trying to overcome the prejudices.

2 „Gefällt mir“

Too simple for me. I agree with you that we are all subjects of our culture and that it influences us in manifold ways, some of which we don’t usually question.

But we are humans. Unlike any other animal species on our planet, we have the capacity to step outside ourselves and reflect our thinking and acting.

Your notion of sexism and racism presupposes involuntariness. We all act and think in sexist and racist ways, we can’t help ourselves.

I say, sexism and racism and any other x-ism require a degree of intent. You need to be aware of the implications of your actions and still carry them out.

My math teacher in school used to say that whenever someone makes a mistake, this is due always either to ignorance or malice.

For me, that about sums it up. And for me, only the letter case would be sufficient grounds for calling someone racist or sexist.

What are you, a bot?

EDIT: Apologies! Could not follow your link at first, but it worked later. I apologise, No offense.

Ich bin überrascht und erschüttert über diesen Thread, der sich darum dreht, ob die Aussagen rassistisch war und ob man das auch so benennen darf…

Dass es darüber überhaupt eine Diskussion gibt, zeigt das ganze Problem leider bereits auf.

Die Intention spielt keine Rolle dafür, ob etwas rassistisch ist oder nicht. Es ist egal, wie es gemeint war. Es ist egal in welchem Kontext die Aussagen getroffen wurden.

Und wenn Rassismus passiert, dann muss das auch angesprochen werden und als genauso solcher bezeichnet werden. Ja, das ist verdammt unangenehm, denn eigentlich halten wir uns und unsere Gesellschaft für komplett unrassistisch und tolerant.

Wie unangenehm das ist, sieht man sehr gut daran, welche reflexartigen Abwehrmechanismen zu Tage treten, wenn alleine das Wort Rassismus völlig korrekterweise genutzt wird.

Es ist einfacher darüber zu diskutieren, wieso etwas vielleicht hat doch kein Rassismus ist, denn dann muss man sich nicht mit dem eigentlich viel schwerwiegenderen Problem beschäftigen und man kann als (weißer) Mensch guten Gewissens weiterleben - gibt ja kein Problem.

Ich empfehle jedem zum Thema Rassismus dieses Buch:
exit RACISM: rassismuskritisch denken lernen https://www.amazon.de/dp/389771230X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_GeIzDbKXV71FQ

1 „Gefällt mir“

Das ist ja auch zu 99% der Tenor dieses Threads.

May I ask a serious and honest question without any self-righteousness or any other overtones?

What is gained by calling Tönnies’s statements racist?

Seriously, what is won by that?

Why is it not enough to call his remarks reprehensible, stupid, factually incorrect, and irrelevant as to the matter in hand (climate change)?

Why the need to label his statement with one of the most severe attributions conceivable in modern society?

Especially considering that „racism“ meant something else, something far worse than what Tönnies has done, originally?

As I have said: this is a serious and honest question because I don’t quite understand.

I would be delighted if you could answer me equally honestly and seriously without leveling any moral outrage at me or treating me like a brain-dead idiot.

Thank you.

Ich glaube es wird soviel diskutiert, weil die Worte von Tönnies nicht einfach plumb gesagt wurden sondern verpackt und dadurch viele nicht die Tragweite und das herablassende erkannt haben.
Und insgesamt hat der Thread hier mehr zur Aufklärung und Verständigung beigetragen als eine Diskussion um der Diskussion ihres Willen.
Besonders @Das_Daw hat mir aus der Seele gesprochen und hat mir richtig gut getan das auch mal von einer anderen Person zu lesen.