Search results

Your search found 18 items
copy result link
You ran an advanced options search
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year
Home  /  Search Results
Author(s): Körber, Karen
Date: 2011
Abstract: Das Konzept der Diaspora hat in den vergangenen Jahren in der akademischen Diskussion eine hohe Konjunktur erfahren. War der Bedeutungsgehalt des Begriffs historisch auf die klassischen Fälle von teils gewaltsamer Vertreibung, teils freiwilliger Neusiedlung der jüdischen und griechischen, sowie schließlich der armenischen Gemeinden beschränkt, so bezieht er sich inzwischen auf quasi alle außerhalb ihres ursprünglichen Territoriums lebenden ethnischen Gruppen (Tölölyan 1991). Dieser Schritt markiert einen sowohl theoretischen wie auch politischen Einschnitt, der in einem engen Zusammenhang mit den Debatten über die kulturellen Effekte der Globalisierung steht. Die Wiederkehr der Diaspora kann gewissermaßen als exemplarische Repräsentation einer Vergesellschaftungsform verstanden werden, die mit unseren nach wie vor territorial verorteten Kategorien bricht und in ihren transnationalen Bezügen die Grenzen eines „methodologischen Nationalismus“ (Beck 2004) aufzeigt. Das begriffliche Gegenüber der Diaspora bildet demzufolge der Nationalstaat. Anschließend an den postkolonialen Diskurs scheinen diasporische Gemeinschaften als alternative Entwürfe deterritorialisierter kultureller Identitäten auf, die im strikten Gegensatz zu nationalstaatlich organisierten Gesellschaften konstruiert sind (vgl. Appadurai 1994; Clifford 1997; kritisch dazu Anthias 1998). Wie ich im Folgenden zeigen möchte, übersieht diese behauptete Fundamentalopposition, dass und in welcher Weise Migrationspopulationen nach wie vor durch nationalstaatliche Regimes und deren institutionelle Zwänge gekennzeichnet sind. Im Unterschied zu einer Position, die insbesondere das kosmopolitische und grenzüberschreitende Potenzial von Diaspora-Gemeinschaften unterstreicht, will ich insofern gerade auf deren Einbettung in jeweils nationalstaatliche Rahmen verweisen, in und gegenüber denen die lokalen Diasporas ihre kulturelle Eigenständigkeit zu behaupten versuchen. Ein solches Vorgehen ist mit der migrationssoziologischen Annahme verknüpft, dass Einwanderung als Prozess aufzufassen ist, den sowohl die aufnehmende Gesellschaft als auch die Immigranten selbst strukturieren. Es handelt sich dabei nicht um einen symmetrischen Prozess, sondern um einen zu Lasten der Einwanderer ungleich gewichteten, denn diese müssen auf die politischen und symbolischen Ordnungsmuster Bezug nehmen, die in den verschiedenen Aufnahmegesellschaften maßgeblich sind (Bauböck 1992). Diesem Spannungsverhältnis soll am Beispiel der Migration russischsprachiger Juden nach Deutschland nachgegangen werden.
Date: 2009
Abstract: The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights presents its 5th brief
update of its 2004 report “Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the EU”. The
overview contains the latest governmental and non-governmental
statistical data covering 2001 to 2008 for those EU Member States that
have official or unofficial data and statistics on anti-Semitic incidents. The
Agency collects regularly publicly available official and unofficial data and
information on racism and xenophobia in the EU Member States through
its Racism and Xenophobia Network (RAXEN) with a special focus on
anti-Semitism.

The Agency’s data collection work shows that most Member States do not
have official or even unofficial data and statistics on anti-Semitic incidents.
Even where data exist they are not comparable, since they are collected
following different methodologies. For some countries, RAXEN National
Focal Points provide the Agency with lists of cases collected either ad hoc
by civil society organisations or through the media with varying degrees of
validity and reliability. Detailed data and incidents lists are presented in the
FRA electronic database, Info_Portal at http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu.
The Agency’s regular review of data collection systems indicates that most
Member States have a serious problem of underreporting, particularly in
reference to official systems of data collection that are based on police
records and on crime and law statistics, because not all anti-Semitic
incidents registered officially are categorised under the label “antiSemitism”
and/or because not all anti-Semitic incidents are reported to the
official body by the victims or witnesses of an incident.

A complementary problem to underreporting is misreporting and overreporting:
This could be the case in unofficial data collection carried out by
organisations that do not provide information concerning their
methodologies.
Date: 2004
Abstract: Following concerns from many quarters over what seemed to be a serious
increase in acts of antisemitism in some parts of Europe especially in March and
April 2002, the EUMC asked the 15 National Focal Points of its Racism and
Xenophobia Network (RAXEN) to direct a special focus on antisemitism in its
data collection activities.

One of the outcomes of that initiative is the comprehensive report
“Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003.” The information from
the RAXEN network enabled the EUMC to present, for the first time in the EU,
data on antisemitism that has been collected systematically, using common
guidelines for each Member State. The main report provides an overview of
incidents of antisemitism and examples of good practice to combat antisemitism
from information available in the years 2002 – 2003, and a thorough analysis of
the data, as well as proposals for action to combat antisemitism.

As part of the same initiative the EUMC also commissioned this present report.
It consists of material from in-depth interviews with 35 persons from Jewish
communities in eight European countries, covering their own perceptions of
antisemitism. It is not meant to supply an objective, academic analysis. Instead
its aim is to present a snapshot of views of people from Jewish communities in
Europe, their experiences, concerns and expectations. In this way, the
qualitative material from the interviews adds personal insights to the statistical
and descriptive material in the main report. This report is complementary to the
main report and should be read in conjunction with it.
Date: 2004
Abstract: Following concerns from many quarters over what seemed to be a serious
increase in acts of antisemitism in some parts of Europe, especially in
March/April 2002, the EUMC asked the 15 National Focal Points of its Racism
and Xenophobia Network (RAXEN) to direct a special focus on antisemitism in
its data collection activities. This comprehensive report is one of the outcomes
of that initiative. It represents the first time in the EU that data on antisemitism
has been collected systematically, using common guidelines for each Member
State.

The national reports delivered by the RAXEN network provide an overview of
incidents of antisemitism, the political, academic and media reactions to it,
information from public opinion polls and attitude surveys, and examples of
good practice to combat antisemitism, from information available in the years
2002 – 2003.

On receipt of these national reports, the EUMC then asked an independent
scholar, Dr Alexander Pollak, to make an evaluation of the quality and
availability of this data on antisemitism in each country, and identify problem
areas and gaps. The country-by-country information provided by the 15
National Focal Points, and the analysis by Dr Pollak, form Chapter 1 and
Chapter 2 of this report respectively.

Finally, in the light of the information and analysis provided by this exercise,
the report concludes with a number of proposals for action to the EU and its
Member States on concrete measures to combat antisemitism, including legal
and educational measures, and recommendations for improving the monitoring
and recording of antisemitic incidents.

Search results

Your search found 18 items
copy result link
You ran an advanced options search
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year