What do you think?
Rate this book
Von Tschudemann zu Seemann: zwei Prozesse aus der Geschichte deutscher Sinti
188 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 2000
3 people want to read
About the author
Reimar Gilsenbach
9 booksReimar Gilsenbach (1925 - 2001) was an East German author, human rights activist and environmentalist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 22, 2016
And another book that is clearly a mixed bag.
On the one hand it has very interesting historical information, like Tschudemann (whose court case this book partially is about) being for 44 years in the Prussian army, founding a possible early Sinti civil organization, and later being an inspector. But on the other hand I do sometimes wonder what the author knows or cares to know. You see, as much as it is true how tough the Prussian army was, I would not have referred to the Napoleonic army as one about equality, freedom and fidelity, since they were undoubtedly a conquering army. And I would not agree with the author (who concentrates too much on the laws and not how they were applied) when he says that "Sinti and Roma" as a phrase might only have a legitimate reason in Germany, since e.g. Austria has basically the same but the other way around. Also the author states that the numbers given for some groups were probably exaggerated, because the constant persecution and sharper blood laws decimated the Sinti of Germany. But if those first numbers were exaggerated, how does he know that others weren't also?
And even though the author tries to portray Sinti as normal people he does seem to fall into the "they are so different" trap as well. For instance, he just stated that Sinti worship their dead and talks about their photos of the deceased. My question to this is: Where is the difference to pretty much every other culture that has photographs? They all do that.
Furthermore, no wonder the headline by this guy was not accepted. He seems to doubt that it could be hard to understand, but I think it actually could confuse some people. Also unlike him I don't think the original text was hurting someone. He seems to forget that not everyone, even among Sinti agrees whether they are part of the German people or not. But I think that this man only sees his opinion as valid.
Later on he seems to show his religious ignorance by quoting from the 5th book of Moses, the Egyptian part of course, when referring to the Porajmos. I mean it's not as if the 5th book of Moses is totally ethnocentric and totally endorses genocide right? Oh right. IT DOES!!! I would never quote from that barbaric book in such a context. That is not in memory of the dead, this is basically saying "killing you is not really bad." Sure I doubt that this is how he means it, but still I think this is in very poor taste.
Also according to this author, the people back then against Janko were jealous of the alleged freedom of the "gypsies"? Based on what? Is he making stuff up now?
Also I would not count Victor Hugo as a good example for someone being active for gypsies when his gypsies from his most famous work are such utter stereotypes, heck his Esmeralda is a child stolen by gypsies as a baby.
At 78.0% into the book I was: "Ok, that is it, either this author is so ignorant that he doesn't know any better or he is straight up lying." The term "Randgruppe" was not invented by the Nazis; it was invented in the 19th century. I had my suspicions about this guy for some time now, but now he started pissing me off. I think his passion keeps him from thinking outside his own box."
The end of this book was the worst part for me as the author comes along like a judgmental asshole in many ways that only seems to acknowledge his own view and thinks everyone else just acts out of malice and no other reason. That a "perpetrator" might also be traumatized by the past doesn't seem to occur to him at all. Plus he is really annoying.
On the one hand it has very interesting historical information, like Tschudemann (whose court case this book partially is about) being for 44 years in the Prussian army, founding a possible early Sinti civil organization, and later being an inspector. But on the other hand I do sometimes wonder what the author knows or cares to know. You see, as much as it is true how tough the Prussian army was, I would not have referred to the Napoleonic army as one about equality, freedom and fidelity, since they were undoubtedly a conquering army. And I would not agree with the author (who concentrates too much on the laws and not how they were applied) when he says that "Sinti and Roma" as a phrase might only have a legitimate reason in Germany, since e.g. Austria has basically the same but the other way around. Also the author states that the numbers given for some groups were probably exaggerated, because the constant persecution and sharper blood laws decimated the Sinti of Germany. But if those first numbers were exaggerated, how does he know that others weren't also?
And even though the author tries to portray Sinti as normal people he does seem to fall into the "they are so different" trap as well. For instance, he just stated that Sinti worship their dead and talks about their photos of the deceased. My question to this is: Where is the difference to pretty much every other culture that has photographs? They all do that.
Furthermore, no wonder the headline by this guy was not accepted. He seems to doubt that it could be hard to understand, but I think it actually could confuse some people. Also unlike him I don't think the original text was hurting someone. He seems to forget that not everyone, even among Sinti agrees whether they are part of the German people or not. But I think that this man only sees his opinion as valid.
Later on he seems to show his religious ignorance by quoting from the 5th book of Moses, the Egyptian part of course, when referring to the Porajmos. I mean it's not as if the 5th book of Moses is totally ethnocentric and totally endorses genocide right? Oh right. IT DOES!!! I would never quote from that barbaric book in such a context. That is not in memory of the dead, this is basically saying "killing you is not really bad." Sure I doubt that this is how he means it, but still I think this is in very poor taste.
Also according to this author, the people back then against Janko were jealous of the alleged freedom of the "gypsies"? Based on what? Is he making stuff up now?
Also I would not count Victor Hugo as a good example for someone being active for gypsies when his gypsies from his most famous work are such utter stereotypes, heck his Esmeralda is a child stolen by gypsies as a baby.
At 78.0% into the book I was: "Ok, that is it, either this author is so ignorant that he doesn't know any better or he is straight up lying." The term "Randgruppe" was not invented by the Nazis; it was invented in the 19th century. I had my suspicions about this guy for some time now, but now he started pissing me off. I think his passion keeps him from thinking outside his own box."
The end of this book was the worst part for me as the author comes along like a judgmental asshole in many ways that only seems to acknowledge his own view and thinks everyone else just acts out of malice and no other reason. That a "perpetrator" might also be traumatized by the past doesn't seem to occur to him at all. Plus he is really annoying.
Displaying 1 of 1 review