[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_of_Rostock-Lichtenhagen
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_of_Hoyerswerda
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_arson_attack_of_1993
Sorry, both sources are in German. Maybe Google translate will help a little?
[1] http://www.mut-gegen-rechte-gewalt.de/news/chronik-der-gewal...
[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todesopfer_rechtsextremer_Gewal...
I'd say that Germany is still pretty safe, but I admit that there are places that even I as a German feel uneasy about - mostly the rural areas in former East German states.
Also the way asylum seekers are treated here seems pretty bad. But that refers to the way the government handles the issue, not to the attitude of the general population.
Yes, although I'm sure there is a good deal of overlap
> Given that about 75% of the Syrian population are muslim [1], it's exactly the sort of thing the EDL would make a fuss about.
The EDL say they are an anti-Muslim organisation, but I imagine most of their supporters are motivated by a more generalised xenophobia, so would dislike Syrians of all religions and none.
Though, as a white man, my experience about behaviour of natives might lack first hand perspective of how it looks for black people.
Southern Germans however, as you say, tend to be quite conservative. I'm glad for you that you like it here. But as I see it, the most important reason keeping the south from being as unfriendly to foreigners as the east, is its relative economic success and therefore less need for scapegoats.
Having an arab/turkish name can disqualify you for most job interviews, regardless of background or skill. There was a bestseller in the past years where someone wanted to rationalize social inequality towards especially turks with the basic idea that turks in Germany are genetically inferior in intelligence and will "dilute" our gene pool because of their high reproductive rates...
The only saving grace in that incidence was that most Germans pushed back heavily, at least at that time.
Sarrazin didn't "raise important issues". He made superficially rational arguments which have in many cases been disproven completely. However these rationalisations were then echoed by racist beliefs buried in society and the discussion became one of racism versus civil rights, ending totally unproductively.
The main "issue" was that "turks are genetically inferior in intelligence so we need not try and give them better chances in education or employment". He didn't even propose to deport two million fellow citizens, but others did that for him in response...
I think the persistent poor performance of certain large immigrant groups certainly is an important issue. It is also true that part of this underperformance may have a genetic cause.
http://m.nber.org//digest/sep03/w9873.html
"It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/11/2...
"Adida found that in at least two sectors, a Muslim candidate is around 2.5 times less likely to get a job interview than a Christian one, with all else being equal. These results were backed up by a large survey, which showed that among second-generation Senegalese immigrants, Muslim households earn far less than Christian equivalents."
http://writers.unconsciousbias.org/2009/09/best-man-for-the-...
"They found that resumes with Arab/Muslim names were 10% less likely to be called in for an interview and that IAT scores indicating bias against Arabs directly correlated with the likelihood of a callback.
Rooth then followed up with many of the employers who had unwittingly taken part in the first half of the study. The employers filled out three different explicit measures of bias against Arabs and Muslims and then took an IAT that paired Swedish and Arab names with work- associated words such as “lazy”, “slow”, “efficient” and “hard-working”. Not surprisingly, “the IAT scores of the 193 recruiters participating in this study show that a very clear majority associate words signaling negative productivity… with belonging to the Arab/Muslim minority”."
Unless you are Arab/Muslim, you are very embedded into the Arab/Muslim community/culture, or you are well-versed in the stats on the subject, it really seems like you're speaking from a place of ignorance.
> It is also true that part of this underperformance may have a genetic cause.
It's highly unlikely that such a general descriptor as "job performance" across all industries would have anything to do with genetic factors. The fact that you even bother to mention it makes me think that you're putting more stock in the idea than it is worth.
If you say a "part of this underperformance has a genetic cause" that can't be falsified. How could it?
But: Can you show that genetics has a practical relevance in HR and social policy decisions? Can it have any? Should it have any?
We can see and show factors of discrimination that are definitely not genetic and definitely not a general genetic disadvantage between Germans and other "races" (I shudder at these words...), and that makes it really hard to believe we shouldn't try and ameliorate those because "Hey, it's all genetics anyway!"
So far no one has been able to show me any practical consequence from the theoretical allegations of intellectual performance being genetic.
As a German citizen I really hate to say this, but recently there has been a hitch in the media where there were protests by neonazi groups in front of asylum homes. Sadly, there are still people who see asylum seekers as potential job-stealers, showing them nothing but hate and would like to throw them all out, regardless of their skills.
This is absolutely not the general opinion in Germany, but at least some people think so.