What do you think?
Rate this book
Radical Perspectives
Foreign Front: Third World Politics in Sixties West Germany
It is often asserted that West German New Leftists "discovered the Third World" in the pivotal decade of the 1960s. Quinn Slobodian upsets that storyline by beginning with individuals from the Third World students from Africa, Asia, and Latin America who arrived on West German campuses in large numbers in the early 1960s. They were the first to mobilize German youth in protest against acts of state violence and injustice perpetrated beyond Europe and North America. The activism of the foreign students served as a model for West German students, catalyzing social movements and influencing modes of opposition to the Vietnam War. In turn, the West Germans offered the international students solidarity and safe spaces for their dissident engagements. This collaboration helped the West German students to develop a more nuanced, empathetic understanding of the Third World, not just as a site of suffering, poverty, and violence, but also as the home of politicized individuals with the capacity and will to speak in their own names.
320 pages, Paperback
First published March 15, 2012
2 people are currently reading
207 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 20, 2018
Having previously read Slobodian's masterful Comrades of Colour, I wanted to examine his first book to help fill in the story of the Third World in the other Germany, West Germany. In this work, Slobodian helped to move the field away from US-centric narratives of '68 (Klimke) by noting the influence of 'Third World' (as they described themselves) students who lived and researched in West Germany in the early 1960s. These students brought their radicalism with them, and acted as both inspirations and practical guides for their West German peers. Overall, Slobodian's work should be considered required reading on the West German '68, contributing to the increasing focus on Third World developments in recent years. (See, Zachary Scarlett)
5 Interesting Quotes:
1. “Foreign students pushed West Germans to support their campaigns for political and economic self-determination… foreign students served as models of the politically active student.” (4)
2. “The push by the West German new left for universal theories turned Third World individuals into placeholders, and the drive for ever more shocking images of Third World conflict turned them into icons.” (12)
3. “Pronouncing themselves the “new Jews” allowed New Leftists to feel a sense of righteous victimization; calling themselves “Chinese” was an act of defiance against the mainstream media’s demonization of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.” (15)
4. “West German Third Worldists did not inhabit a realm of fantasy separate from political reality… Insights from Third World socialism presented them with challenges about how to confront the institutions and patterns of behavior that they felt reproduced repressive forms of authority. The reception of Third World socialism played a crucial role in reclaiming democracy from political-party-style representation and refilling it with the historical tradition of direct democracy.” (203)
5. “By stigmatizing personal connections, anti-imperialists threatened to drain Third World individuals of their agency, turning them into placeholders in a theory of international change… The dominant representations of Third World individuals as either injured bodies or heroic icons by 1968 reflected the displacement of the individual connections that had originally catalyzed Third World activism. In the process of abstraction, the object of solidarity became a cipher, unmarked by history, gender, or individuality.” (205)
5 Interesting Quotes:
1. “Foreign students pushed West Germans to support their campaigns for political and economic self-determination… foreign students served as models of the politically active student.” (4)
2. “The push by the West German new left for universal theories turned Third World individuals into placeholders, and the drive for ever more shocking images of Third World conflict turned them into icons.” (12)
3. “Pronouncing themselves the “new Jews” allowed New Leftists to feel a sense of righteous victimization; calling themselves “Chinese” was an act of defiance against the mainstream media’s demonization of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.” (15)
4. “West German Third Worldists did not inhabit a realm of fantasy separate from political reality… Insights from Third World socialism presented them with challenges about how to confront the institutions and patterns of behavior that they felt reproduced repressive forms of authority. The reception of Third World socialism played a crucial role in reclaiming democracy from political-party-style representation and refilling it with the historical tradition of direct democracy.” (203)
5. “By stigmatizing personal connections, anti-imperialists threatened to drain Third World individuals of their agency, turning them into placeholders in a theory of international change… The dominant representations of Third World individuals as either injured bodies or heroic icons by 1968 reflected the displacement of the individual connections that had originally catalyzed Third World activism. In the process of abstraction, the object of solidarity became a cipher, unmarked by history, gender, or individuality.” (205)
August 16, 2019
Funny enough, it seems that in hindsight this book merged with the book “Comrades of Color” in my head. Probably because of some similar topics, similar in topic and level of interest it generated in me.
To give some examples: This was the first time that I came across “Third World” meaning something positive and new for the New left German students of the 1960s. Also according to this book Third World students brought their politics to the German campusses, many demonstrations were organized and since the book mentioned the tearing down of a colonial statue in Hamburg, I wonder whether Germany had already dealt with its colonial past, unlike what I heard recently.
And as for the influence of Third World students, lets take this: 75 participants expected from Iran alone at the 68 Vietnam congress in Berlin and only 3 from the USA. And what the author states about how the origin for the 68 movement is mostly stated to be the USA and not the Third World reminds me of how the topic of Holocaust treatment is treated here, as if everything good comes from the USA only. This fits with the perverse legacy of Said's Orientalism and that modern European historians pay attention to "the East" primarily as a mirror with which to see the West more clearly. When applied to the 1960s, the actual agency of individuals in the Third World, and Third World individuals in West Germny, can vanish as they become shadows of Germans themselves on geographically far-flung cave walls. That is why, well one reason why, I dislike the whole orientalism discourse so much now.
Anyway, the author proposes that the global protest wave following the death of Lumumba in 1961 would be a more appropriate starting point than the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of 1964 for historical narratives of the global 1960s. And since he spoke of Germans becoming “chinese,” I wonder what it is with equating the two, as I remember 19th century texts stating that both have the same skin-tone. Why? I know some other examples of equating the two as well, so why is that? The same with equating Japanese and Germans, why?
Speaking of foreign countries: in some cases the German authorities acted directly as ordered by foreign states, like with Iran.
Looks like not only was the effect of third world students on West German students in general but also on Duschke in particular underestimated. And this "hidden in plane sight" thing is reminiscent of many things in history where I can only assume that they are "hidden" because of a conscious or unconscious agenda. As for Duschke: You know what I don't understand? If Duschke was wishing for a german equivalent of African Americans (as Jews were nowhere close to that), why didn't he consider involving "gypsies"? Were there too few for that?
And again with being reminded of something. What he wrote about how West German students had seen the USA as a progressive leader in the early 1960s and towards the end of the 60s being confronted with the reality of US politics in Vietnam reminds me about what I read elsewhere about how this generation had grown up with the myth of America and so reacted strongly when confronted with the reality.
However, as much as I gushed about this boom, I have to admit that it can be really dry sometimes, and very exhilarating in other places. And is reminiscent of so many things. Like the mentioned almost worship by big parts of the western German public and media of the USA as savior and protector. It has gotten much weaker over the decades but it is still there. In fact, reading about this film, the reaction and the history of National socialism, brings to mind current debates in Germany about the state of Israel, in fact the reactions and causes are remarkably similar to that of how West Germans considered the US back then. Critics from the affected regions brought criticism into Germany and many Germans refuse to believe them. And how is it possible that to this day I read and hear of claims that the movie "Shoah" had brought the Holocaust into wider German conscience, when this here states that the documentary Night and Fog had been standard fixtures in West German classrooms since 1955 and by the late 50s images of the Holocaust had become tools of "political education?" Are people making those claims ignorant or are they just lying?
Then again, all sorts of wild claims are and have been made. Back then they acted as if Mao was a god who controlled international communism. First Stalin and then Mao, what was it with mainstream media and giving communist leaders such power? And what does it say about me, that I was not in the least surprised to see the Monkey King mentioned here? Not that I can still remember when and why he was mentioned. Either way, "Maoism" was really flexible in West Germany, it covered stuff ranging from advocating free condoms to committing arson. Makes me wonder whether it should still be called Maoism then.
This book was really worth its time and everyone interested in the topic of protest and ideology should read it.
PS. The Anti-Shah protests including the mock-Shah couple by the students, the pro-Shah demonstrators who were probably from SAVAK, Kussars shot and Ohnesorg's death including how it vigorated the German student protests and the media coverage of Helga Haas would each make for very entertaining movies. Just like: A man named Harun Farocki, born in 1944 in the Sudetenland, whose father was an Indian militant supporter of Subhas Chandra Bose and was also his doctor during his wartime years in Germany.
To give some examples: This was the first time that I came across “Third World” meaning something positive and new for the New left German students of the 1960s. Also according to this book Third World students brought their politics to the German campusses, many demonstrations were organized and since the book mentioned the tearing down of a colonial statue in Hamburg, I wonder whether Germany had already dealt with its colonial past, unlike what I heard recently.
And as for the influence of Third World students, lets take this: 75 participants expected from Iran alone at the 68 Vietnam congress in Berlin and only 3 from the USA. And what the author states about how the origin for the 68 movement is mostly stated to be the USA and not the Third World reminds me of how the topic of Holocaust treatment is treated here, as if everything good comes from the USA only. This fits with the perverse legacy of Said's Orientalism and that modern European historians pay attention to "the East" primarily as a mirror with which to see the West more clearly. When applied to the 1960s, the actual agency of individuals in the Third World, and Third World individuals in West Germny, can vanish as they become shadows of Germans themselves on geographically far-flung cave walls. That is why, well one reason why, I dislike the whole orientalism discourse so much now.
Anyway, the author proposes that the global protest wave following the death of Lumumba in 1961 would be a more appropriate starting point than the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of 1964 for historical narratives of the global 1960s. And since he spoke of Germans becoming “chinese,” I wonder what it is with equating the two, as I remember 19th century texts stating that both have the same skin-tone. Why? I know some other examples of equating the two as well, so why is that? The same with equating Japanese and Germans, why?
Speaking of foreign countries: in some cases the German authorities acted directly as ordered by foreign states, like with Iran.
Looks like not only was the effect of third world students on West German students in general but also on Duschke in particular underestimated. And this "hidden in plane sight" thing is reminiscent of many things in history where I can only assume that they are "hidden" because of a conscious or unconscious agenda. As for Duschke: You know what I don't understand? If Duschke was wishing for a german equivalent of African Americans (as Jews were nowhere close to that), why didn't he consider involving "gypsies"? Were there too few for that?
And again with being reminded of something. What he wrote about how West German students had seen the USA as a progressive leader in the early 1960s and towards the end of the 60s being confronted with the reality of US politics in Vietnam reminds me about what I read elsewhere about how this generation had grown up with the myth of America and so reacted strongly when confronted with the reality.
However, as much as I gushed about this boom, I have to admit that it can be really dry sometimes, and very exhilarating in other places. And is reminiscent of so many things. Like the mentioned almost worship by big parts of the western German public and media of the USA as savior and protector. It has gotten much weaker over the decades but it is still there. In fact, reading about this film, the reaction and the history of National socialism, brings to mind current debates in Germany about the state of Israel, in fact the reactions and causes are remarkably similar to that of how West Germans considered the US back then. Critics from the affected regions brought criticism into Germany and many Germans refuse to believe them. And how is it possible that to this day I read and hear of claims that the movie "Shoah" had brought the Holocaust into wider German conscience, when this here states that the documentary Night and Fog had been standard fixtures in West German classrooms since 1955 and by the late 50s images of the Holocaust had become tools of "political education?" Are people making those claims ignorant or are they just lying?
Then again, all sorts of wild claims are and have been made. Back then they acted as if Mao was a god who controlled international communism. First Stalin and then Mao, what was it with mainstream media and giving communist leaders such power? And what does it say about me, that I was not in the least surprised to see the Monkey King mentioned here? Not that I can still remember when and why he was mentioned. Either way, "Maoism" was really flexible in West Germany, it covered stuff ranging from advocating free condoms to committing arson. Makes me wonder whether it should still be called Maoism then.
This book was really worth its time and everyone interested in the topic of protest and ideology should read it.
PS. The Anti-Shah protests including the mock-Shah couple by the students, the pro-Shah demonstrators who were probably from SAVAK, Kussars shot and Ohnesorg's death including how it vigorated the German student protests and the media coverage of Helga Haas would each make for very entertaining movies. Just like: A man named Harun Farocki, born in 1944 in the Sudetenland, whose father was an Indian militant supporter of Subhas Chandra Bose and was also his doctor during his wartime years in Germany.
January 16, 2020
I started reading it with something like a sense of obligation and was very pleasantly surprised to find myself learning things about Sixties radicalism that I hadn't thought through: the importance of personal connections between "Third World" students and their European contacts; the shift from rhetorics of human rights to anti-authoritarianism in the mid-60s; and the contours of (mostly mythical) Maoism. Well written and very well researched.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews