Touchy-touchy!
During his a match at the US Open yesterday, German player Alexander Zverev complained that he heard a fan sing out, “Deutschland über alles!” Zverev went to umpire James Keothavong and said, “He just said the most famous Hitler phrase there is in this world, it’s unacceptable. This is unbelievable.”
The phrase, which translates to “Germany above all,” has been removed from the German national anthem, which is sung to melody composed by Haydn, (NOT Handel. as was initially posted). The original lyrics were written way back in 1800, but “Deutschland über alles” is associated with Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust, WW II, all sorts of bad things. It’s a casualty of the cognitive dissonance scale.
Following the player’s objection, the fan was ejected from the stadium. told CNN: “A disparaging remark was directed towards Zverev. The fan was identified and escorted from the stadium,” a US Tennis Association confirmed in a statement.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Was that a fair response?
After the match, Zverev said , “I love when fans are loud, I love when fans are emotional, but I think me being German and not really proud of that history, it’s not really a great thing to do. And him sitting in one of the front rows, a lot of people heard it. If I just don’t react, I think it’s bad from my side. “
Oh. So because the Zverev is hyper-sensitive about being German (good!) a paying spectator should be kicked out and humiliated for uttering the equivalent of “Boston Strong!” or “God bless America”? How do we know saying “Germany above all” was meant to be derogatory? How is it more derogatory than “Yankees suck!,” a common refrain at Red Sox games in Fenway Park?
And if Germans are so sensitive to the associations with their national anthem, why haven’t they adopted a new one?
If the fan was asked, “This player is really sensitive about references to his country’s behavior, so please refrain from saying anything he might take as associating him with German nationalism” and continued singing or shouting “Deutschland über alles!”, fine. However, I can’t find any accounts saying that was the case.
Ethics Alarms 
The answer is an emphatic NO. The act of removing the spectator for singing those lyrics is more reminiscent of the Gestapo taking a neighbor away at the behest of a “good” NAZI for statements that were critical of the regime.
Those who don’t understand their history usually repeat it without even knowing they are doing it.
My reaction exactly, Chris.
The Hadyn tune – Austrian Hymn – is also one of the tunes used for the of that wonderful hymn “Glorious things of Thee are spoken”
Here’s a particularly inspiring performance of the hymn using “Austrian Hymn”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQJUrK5vh4g
A different tune, Abbots Leigh, was used when the hymn was sung at Queen Elizabeth’s Platinum Jubilee.
Germany doesn’t have a problem with free speech. It is schizophrenia and very different ideas of free speech, each of which has significant shortcomings and each of which is rooted in its inability to close the chasm that remains between eastern and western Germany, 30 years after reunification.
Simply put, the division pits one part of the country that believes freedom of speech is on the decline against another that believes freedom of speech is going way too far. These aren’t just different concepts, rooted in two different formative national experiences — the Nazi era and the East German Communist regime. They are also at fundamental odds with each other, meaning that the day in, day out debate over what counts as acceptable speech is driving Germans further apart.
The real danger Germany faces today is neither a creeping leftist regime nor a nascent far-right dictatorship. Rather, it is the irrational insinuation that people who hold views different from your own are themselves illegitimate. This suspicion leads to tribalism, and tribalism is what drives societies apart – not unlike the free speech debates dividing America today.
Excellent point but who is inculcating the belief that ideas espoused by another that are in contradiction to one’s own make the speaker illegitimate?
This is a learned behavior.
1. “He just said the most famous Hitler phrase there is in this world, it’s unacceptable.”
Minor point: Maybe that’s the most famous one in Germany? I was under the impression that the most famous “Hitler phrase” was “Sieg heil!”
2. “If I just don’t react, I think it’s bad from my side.”
That’s a bad assumption, that ignoring someone to focus on what you’re doing means you endorse their message. If you want to react, you can give them a withering glare, a quizzical and unamused look (“Really, dude?”), or a baffled gape. Bonus points on any of those for raising one eyebrow. When it comes to distancing yourself from stupid people saying stupid things, understated responses are generally more effective.
3. “…Zverev is hyper-sensitive about being German (good!)…”
I don’t follow this one. Isn’t “hypersensitivity” bad by definition? And why do we want anyone to be hypersensitive about their nationality, rather than destructive ideological principles?
4. “And if Germans are so sensitive to the associations with their national anthem, why haven’t they adopted a new one?”
This question confuses me. We just established “The phrase, which translates to “Germany above all,” has been removed from the German national anthem, which is sung to melody composed by Handel.” So… they did adopt a new one. It’s an updated version of the old one, which is deprecated. They did that to avoid cognitive dissonance from the old one without getting rid of its entire history. Nationalism in a country’s national anthem is usually not worth commenting on, but it’s less comfortable for a lot of people when that country actually tried to take over the world. I’m getting mixed messages about when people are supposed to keep history visible in the present and when they’re supposed to send it away to museums and archives, where people only see it by choice.
Oh, come on, EC.
1. How about “Heil Hitler!”
3. You’re splitting hairs. How do you separate Germany from WWII and the NAZIs? How many people in your family were killed or wounded in WWII?
4. Stop using the same tune! How hard is that? It’s gorgeous and everybody loves Haydn, but come on. Change the tune.
1. I figured from context “Hitler phrase” meant “phrases Hitler said,” not “phrases other people said about Hitler.”
3. “How many people in your family were killed or wounded in WWII?” That has no bearing on my opinions on ethics, because I don’t approach questions of ethics from the perspective of a tribal identity. My grandparents are Boomers; I don’t know what my ancestors were doing in WWII. My great-grandmother was Danish; there’s probably a story there.
“How do you separate Germany from WWII and the NAZIs?” Oh, I don’t know, the same way you separate the United States from slavery, I would imagine. Was this tennis player a Nazi? You want him to be mocked for the misdeeds of his ancestors? Is that how America does things now?
4. Oh, so they should “just” change the tune of their national anthem because otherwise you’re going to mock them for using the same one they used when they committed crimes against humanity? I notice the United States didn’t change its national anthem when it abolished slavery. That’s a big opportunity missed… we could have written one where people can remember all the verses and hit the high notes, one that stands for something more than “Hah! We won the War of 1812!” and has an actually catchy tune that doesn’t change pitch and tempo like a half-melted cassette tape.
The problem with humans is that you are quick to say, “Get rid of this problem!” and slow to realize that you need to have some idea of what you want the situation to look like instead, something constructive. People are never going to change if you mock them for who they are but never show them how they could become something you approve of, something that actually makes sense to them.
Is that last paragraph a satire? Tongue in cheek?
The very last paragraph was a serious point about humanity. I assume you mean the one before that, about changing the U.S. national anthem. There were two points to that one: 1. If you’re going to tell countries when they are ethically obligated to either change their national anthems or accept mockery for them, it’s nice to define some standards and apply them across the board, and 2. The Star-Spangled Banner is not a good song and we could do a lot better.
(If the Germans do change their national anthem, do they stop getting mocked? If not, what’s the point?)
1. The phrase was no more said by Hitler than ant German who sang the anthem for the previous 130 years or so. I identify the phrase with Germany. I also identify Germany with Nazi Germany: millions of deaths will do that.
3. Hyper-sensitivity is frequently a good thing. What one does with that hypersensivity is what matters. Germans should be hypersensitive to their nations role in the horror’s of WWII. Maybe then they will be hypersensitive to trends and developments suggesting that history is repeating itself.
Most citizens recognize the melodies of their anthems a lot more the the words. I was at a wedding once in which the string quartet played Haydn’s piece. Everyone was uncomfortable. A law professor freind leaned over to me and said, “Are the bride’s parents Nazis?”
Again: if Germans are going to be embarrassed by a single lyric, they should ditch the whole song. None of the former Confederate states use “Dixie” officially any more—a shame, because it’s a great tune.
1. I was mostly nitpicking how Zverev chose to describe the phrase.
3. Would you say that Americans of pallor should be hypersensitive about the United States’ role in civil rights abuses? Those are more recent than WWII.
“None of the former Confederate states use “Dixie” officially any more—a shame, because it’s a great tune.”
I agree with you there. I hate when good melodies get caught up in bad cultures and tainted by association. I can usually ignore badly written or destructively lyrics, but I’d prefer it if music could just be appreciated for what it is, and not what people use it to mean.
Maybe the evicted fan was rooting for the German player?
Interesting. According to the left the U.S. can never be allowed to escape slavery, but Germany gets a mulligan on the NAZI and Hitler front. Because they’re European and superior to us and we need to be more like Europe? (By the way, anyone who thinks Europe is vastly more enlightened than the U.S. needs to visit Europe asap.) From personal observation of adult/older Germans, their response to WWII is essentially, “We aren’t going to talk about that.” They are essentially shameless.
And does the phrase necessarily translate as “Germany over all other nations?” Might it simply be, “Germany above all [other things]?” That is, “patriotism or nationalism above all other concerns in life?” Kind of like U.S. Marines saying, “The Corps, the Corps, the Corps?”
No.
And I’ll bet that since the US Open was being held in Germany and Germany doesn’t have a Bill of Rights or a 1st Amendment, the indiv…oh, wait…and where was the news reporter who would have clarified the outburst as a fan yelling, “Let’s go, Aufrecht!”
Seriously, these senseless word associations are painful and stupid. “Germany over all” has nothing to do with Adolf Hitler, even though he said it. When Stauffenberg was executed in 1944 for his role in the failed assassination attempt on Hitler, his last words were very similar to “Germany above all.” Maybe the fan had HIM in mind…?…maybe?
I know the words “under God” were added to the Pledge in the 1950s (which is before my time), but were people punished after change for omitting those two words? And if they were removed now, I might still include them – not necessarily because of my religious views – because I’m a traditionalist, and that’s what I’ve said in the Pledge for 50+ years. Should I be punished for that?
Where’s that hammer/nail image? For those continually looking to be offended, an offense (real OR imaginary) can always be found.
Meanwhile, here in the U.S., people get all sorts of flack from “good” left-leaning folks for saying or wearing items of clothing that say “Make America Great Again.” The parallels are astounding.
–Dwayne
A lot depends on the speaker and the context, and not just the words.
“For those who’ve abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again.” Ronald Reagan upon accepting the Republican nomination to run for President, July 1980. That was certainly not the only time he and his campaign used the phrase, and it was a part of campaign buttons and literature.
Don’t think it has quite the same connotation a more recent usage of that phrase now has. Still, I guess if I quote Reagan I am a Trump fan (which I have never been).
“A lot depends on the speaker”
YUP!
And this from the same guy that called it a “Racist Dog Whistle” in 2016.
Must’ve evolved…
They probably should stop calling some dogs “German Shepherds”. Too much connection to their use by Nazis. They’ll have to all be Alsatians, now.
Th current German national anthem, I am told, is only the third stanza of the original anthem, with the “Deutschland über alles!” being in the original opening stanza.
Personally, I grew up singing hymns based on the same tune, so I always like it, and since it predated the Nazis, I never associated the song with them exclusively. I understand it was originally written as an appeal to national unity, not to suggest German domination of the world. Of course, historical context is anathema to the practitioners of woke presentism. The situation at hand was a severe overreaction to unreasonable sensitivity.