I didn't get a chance yesterday to make a new posting. Had too much to do....soccer game, barbeque, birthday party, oh, and work. Sorry to keep you all waiting (ya right).
So, let's see what is new. I have posted yet more pics for you. They are a combination of the last two weeks. The first couple pics are of a handball game that I went to. This is a fairly major sport in Germany, and the guys in white are professionals. That is they get paid enough so that playing handball is their only job. In case you have no idea what handball is, maybe you remember playing it a couple of times in gym class as a kid. If still no memories come up, then basically it is a fairly rough game where the object is to throw a small soccer ball into a net. What is cool is that you can pick people up and toss them (I didn't get any pics of that).
There's one pic of the door to the Lindt shop connected to the chocolate factory. I bought 16 bars of chocolate....good stuff. Next are some pics at a bar that had a salsa class. I am with Steffi (blond), Guillermo (spanish guy), his girlfriend, and Darwin (Asian guy). Steffi, Guillermo and Darwin work at the same lab as me. Finally, I've put up some pics of my apt, the lab, stuff in my area, so you can get a feel for what my daily life looks like.
Other than that, I haven't been doing too much lately. It rained all last weekend so I read a lot. Got a couple more very interesting history lessons for you! First big point: A unified Germany (as it exists today) is a very, very, very new thing. In fact, no one in my lab, including my prof, knows why germany is called deutschland (I will try and find that out later). Basically, "Germania" (Latin) including all of the warring tribes that lived on the outskirts of the Roman empire in Western Europe. This includes the Franks, Goths, Lombards, etc. If you have any interest, looking at a map of Europe, these Germanic tribes held the Romans to the west of the Rhine river and south of the Danube. As Rome began to fall (civil wars started around 235 AD), the tribes took over more and more land. The Romans were forced to accept them into the empire and use them as soldiers to fight off more inportant enemies (like the Huns). However, the tribes people were never really considered of equal status to the true Romans. Because of this, paralleling many political socio-economic situations today, the barbarians always disliked the Romans but also wanted to become them, and many adopted Roman cultural habits. Over time, the barabarians dismantled the Roman empire and many became emperor through force.
By the late 5th century, the Roman empire was gone. However, the last cultural relics of Rome remained and ended up forming the culture of Western Europe: 1) the language, Latin, and 2) the Catholic Church. Because the newly powerful germanic kings were attracted to Roman culture, and because having the support of God meant having increased power and influence, Latin and the Church were heavily adopted by the barbarian tribes. At this point, all of Europe was split amongst these fractitious familial groups (Franks, Germani, Bavari, Saxons, Angles,...). The Franks ended up gaining the most power, through the Merovingian and Carolingian families. However, it was Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse), a Carolingian, that brought the Franks the most power. He was a very modern ruler, who enforced his plans through brutal force, but also through locally established civil courts and rule of law. He also spoke mutiple languages, including the language of his courts, a post-classical version of Latin (ie French) and his mother language, Deutsch (ie German). After saving Pope Leo III's ass, he was coronated as the Holy Roman Emperor in 800. Basically, this meant that he ruled all his land (which extended from the French-Spanish border east almost to the eastern border of Germany, including most of Italy), plus he was now considered the final authority of the Catholic faith (popes hadn't gotten that powerful yet).
Now all of this sets up my second big point: Germany and France are siblings, the children of Charlemagne. Because the Frankish tradition was to split a father's wealth with all of his sons (primogeniture was not "invented" yet) and because Charlemagne's son, Louis, had three sons, Charlemagne's empire got split three ways. In 843, Charles the Bald got basically modern day France, Louis of Bavaria (later Louis the German) got modern day Germany, and Lothar got the lands in the middle (incl. modern day Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy). This date, the Treaty of Verdun, a simple parcelling of a father's kingdom to each of his heirs, is considered the "birth-certificate" of modern Western Europe and has defined the political boundaries of Europe ever since. Or think of it this way, everyone in continental Western Europe, except the Spanish, are German. that is they come from the germanic, barbarian tribes that toppled Rome and ruled by the same Frankish kings. This includes the French, the "Germans", the Italian, the Dutch, etc. I thought that is interesting.
Last tidbits of info: The Eastern Frankish Empire (modern Germany) ultimately conquered, through Otto I in 961, all the middle regions of the Frankish empire including Italy. From then on, the combined Eastern and Middle regions were called the Holy Roman Empire (and later the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation). About 50 German kings were crowned Holy Roman Emperor, most in Aachen.
How the Pope got so powerful: Ever since Charlemagne, the German kings ruled their land through tenous power sharing with local royal families and by investiture, the practice of appointing bishops to handle administrative affairs of local provinces. This was ultimately forbidden by Pope Gregory VII, which essentially stripped the current kings's, Henry IV, ability to rule. Henry told his bishops to denouce Gregory, Gregory responded by excommunicated Henry, and in the age of Belief, when it came down to it, the people and the clergy sided with the Pope. To be able to retrieve power back from the now extremely strong Church (it had just spiritually "defeated" the Holy Roman Emperor), in the early 12th century, Henry V made a deal with the various princes of Germany and shared power with them. In 1257, the princes had stripped the king's right to hereditary succession and elected each subsequent ruler through a council. And Germany remained a land ruled by a handful of powerful dukes, each with their own independent province (Bavaria, Saxony, etc.) for the next 600 years, until the 19th century. So like I said, a unified Germany is a very ancient thing.
Sorry if you were looking for some exciting stories about life in germany. But like I said, it rained all weekend, so that was my life, reading. Otherwise, things are good. I have made some good friends now (hence the barbeques and parties) and life passes one week at a time. I also interestingly met a German who very articulately stated that he doesn't agree with Bush's arguments, but supports what he is doing. I say this, not because I have been inundated with anti-American hostility, but simply because the general feeling in America is that all Europeans (esp Germans) think America is the bad guy. I still think most people here think that, and this guy agrees, but it is always interesting to actually meet the exception (this guy) to the rule (European steretype) that logic and probability states must exist. Of course, he is more worldly experienced than the average German (his father is French, he has some family in America). And I think that this supports my recent thesis on world perception and common politics.
One, generally, people are ignorant of the conceptions and attitudes of other nations (ie, Europeans all think America is such and such, and Americans all think Europe is such and such). Everyone, including me, takes what life experience they have about the world and naturally extrapolates that to explain its workings, forming generalizations and stereotypes. That's normal. And I think that these generalizations are typically not altogether wrong, which leads to my second point. Democracy is a terrible way to run a country, but it is the only way to garuntee that something awful doesn't happen. Unfortunately, democracy demands that majority rules, which really means that only those things that are simple enough for everyone to agree on are put into policy, which are typically those generalizations people have understandably developed.
Here's an example: Germans have become (here comes a huge generalization) a very war adverse people. I can only support this from 1) talks given by germans my age in NYC, 2) a German student here who asked, "How is it possible that Americans are not horrified that other Americans are dying in Iraq" and 3) the guy I met last night, who unsollicitedly said that Germans are a very war adverse people. Plus, this seems to be supported by German foreign policy (of course within the last 20 years or so).
Couple that with the fact that Germans, like all other people not from America, have very little idea about American culture, politics, etc. Plus, since Bush is our elected leader, who is admitedly not a good diplomat, and since we seem to turn up our nose at enviornmental issues (Kyoto Treaty, SUVs, oil dependence), and since we have a serious obesity problem, the generalization made about Americans is that we are all fat, obnoxious, egotisical, wasteful, short-sighted people who are quite happy imposing our will on the rest of the world. So, not surprisingly, since most Germans are not like my new friend here, and are not culturally informed, believe this generalization, base their political decisions on this belief, and elect a chancellor who will support their politics. Fucking democracy.
If this is not that interesting, try looking at it from the flip-side. Why, according to Americans (that probably being you) did the French vote against the EU constitution? Because they simply don't like Chirac, for economic reasons, because they didn't want EU immigrants to take French jobs, because of the political influence of the right-wing, anti-immigrant, Neo-nazi political party led by Le Penn, because the French don't want to give the EU the power to tell them how to run their country, because the French have dellusions of granduer on the world scene? Actually, probably all of the above did play a significant role in the vote. As you may have noted above, the german (or European) stereotype made about America is not exactly wrong, it's just not universally right. So niether are out stereotypes about France (or Europe) exactly wrong either.
However, if you talk to the few articualte, educated, traveled French friends that I have, they will state that France, dissappointedly, voted "Non" for the EU constitution because most of the people who voted, which is maybe 70% of the population, have no good idea why they voted no. According to them, the majority of French people voted no because they simply don't like Chirac, because of ill-judged conceptions that voting yes would allow EU immigrants to take French jobs, because.....
And that is my point! Our generalizations are not exactly wrong. That is the reason the French voted no! But, there are many French people who do not fit the generalization, and see the errors of their own people. Democracy, by its very nature, reinforces and strengthens generalizations. But we can't get rid of it, otherwise we get Nazis.
So, last thing (I promise), do I think that we are simply fucked? No. I do think that there are possibly good ways to overcome the supremacy of generalizations. And they are not original, not at all. Just hard to really learn. One, try not to beleive them so fully that you end up convincing yourself that all Arabs are terrorists, that all French are fuckers, all Americans are pigs, etc. Two, try to meet people from other backgrounds, countries, etc. Three, when you do meet them, don't assume they will fit the generalization, AND don't expect them to shatter it either. Because, like I said, (sorry but repetition is good,) generalizations are not entirely wrong. So actually listen to their ideas, but don't grill them for an explanation about the horrible ways of their country. Recognize that they, like all of us, have faults and have extraplotated their own personal experience to form generalizations, which are not altogether true, but not altogether wrong.
With that, I will stop. Didn't mean to rant. And I'm probably not really convincing anyone of anything, since those with different experiences than I, probably see the world in a different way, and won't be convinced by my agruments. And those with similar experiences as I, probably already agree with me. So what's the point anyway?
Just remember to look at the stupid pics.
