Identity politics is constantly reaching new heights. There’s nothing wrong with the left and the right; with Ernst Jandl, you’d almost think that you could switch between the right and the right.
Large theatre. After the gender asterisk, the Christmas tree now comes onto the stage. Friedrich Merz sees the purchase of a Christmas tree as a central element of German dominant culture:
“When we talk about dominant culture, about our way of life, for me that includes buying a Christmas tree before Christmas”
Humane care, affordable housing or the protection of the natural foundations of life perhaps cannot honestly be described as “our way of life”. So far so good. But did it have to be the Christmas tree? Why not Bayern Munich, the sauerkraut, the currywurst, a big BMW or the Kastelruther Spatzen?
Merz was probably thinking about the most brutal possible challenge for migrants in terms of integration policy. I also read it as a generic masculine for migrants. In many of their countries of origin, softwood has no tradition as a Christmas tree; in some African countries there are probably no Nordmann firs at all. But was he also thinking about Senegal? Where the famous football-playing altar boy comes from that you can’t get rid of? There, if the Evangelical Press Service is to be believed, the Christmas tree seems to be part of the dominant culture of the Muslims living there: “After eating, everyone gathers around the Christmas tree and everyone gets their present.”
However, New Zealanders and their women will certainly have to adapt. They can’t get through here with the ironwood tree that is supposedly decorated there at Christmas. Merz is there. Relentless. However, hardly any ironwood trees are sold at German Christmas tree markets. This makes it easier to adapt to the dominant German culture. The Australians, who are said to have a preference for plastic trees, could be integrated more easily. Merz did not exclude the plastic tree, which has also become widespread in Germany, as a symbol of our dominant culture.
By the way, the Christmas tree is actually considered a German invention. Unfortunately, it didn’t remain exclusively German. Wikipedia writes: “This Christmas custom spread from German-speaking countries throughout the world in the 19th century.” Did you know that, Friedrich?
Friedrich Merz may not have carefully researched the suitability of the Christmas tree as a touchstone of German culture. He writes:
“It is the kind of Christian-Western cultural identity that is transmitted through generations, which our children are influenced by, and which they then carry on themselves in one way or another.”
“Something like that” certainly means the plastic tree, or as climate change progresses, the Christmas palm. But is it a Christian tradition? Some see the historical roots of the Christmas tree with the ancient Germanic peoples; the church used to condemn the custom as “pagan”. A not uncontroversial thesis. However, it would be even worse if the NDR were right: “When looking for the origins of the Christmas tree tradition, you will (…) find it less in the Bible and more in the Koran.” In terms of dominant culture deterrence, that would of course be a total loss.
Perhaps the escalation of identity politics in the Christmas tree tradition could help: Shouldn’t it be called “Christmas tree”? Did Friedrich Merz fall victim to a woke impulse here?