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.
Das_Daw
