anti-Semitism
mark hardie
Thank you for you guidance and insight regarding Wagner's apparent Judenhass
(Jew-hatred). From your responses I gather that while Wagner had problems with the
Jewish religio-culture, he was not per se racist against the Jews. Also, I gather
that Wagner never suggested the "Final Solution" which was a campaign of murder
carried out by the Nazis.
I shall study Wagner's Die Ring to determine if I detect any anti-Semitism within
the leading motives. I did not at all intend to denigrate Wagner as a great artist.
But I to illuminate this particular aspect of his character.
My feelings are as such: As a Jew, I am repulsed by Wagner's general attitude
towards Jewish culture. As a lover of music, I admire Wagner's artistry and
complexity. As such, I would never blanketly characterize his compositions as
"anti-Semitic," (without evidence) however I do acknowlege the existence of Wagner's
distasteful attitude. (which I consider regrettable)
Mark Hardie
University of California
Hastings College of the Law
Roger L. Lustig
mark hardie wrote:
>
> Thank you for you guidance and insight regarding Wagner's apparent Judenhass
> (Jew-hatred). From your responses I gather that while Wagner had problems with the
> Jewish religio-culture, he was not per se racist against the Jews.
On the contrary! He was one of the leading proponents of racial Jew-hatred,
and supported others (e.g., Foerster) who tried to make it part of German
politics.
>Also, I gather
> that Wagner never suggested the "Final Solution" which was a campaign of murder
> carried out by the Nazis.
No, but he did say that the only way for the Jews to redeem themselves was by
mass suicide!!! ("Erkenne dich selbst", a late essay)
> I shall study Wagner's Die Ring to determine if I detect any anti-Semitism within
> the leading motives.
*That* you're unlikely to find! Better to look in the libretti, stage directions,
and writings about the works; Wagner, after all, did more than just write rhythms
and chords...
>I did not at all intend to denigrate Wagner as a great artist.
> But I to illuminate this particular aspect of his character.
It's a long and difficult story.
> My feelings are as such: As a Jew, I am repulsed by Wagner's general attitude
> towards Jewish culture. As a lover of music, I admire Wagner's artistry and
> complexity. As such, I would never blanketly characterize his compositions as
> "anti-Semitic," (without evidence) however I do acknowlege the existence of Wagner's
> distasteful attitude. (which I consider regrettable)
There *are*, however, anti-semitic aspects to some of his works; Meistersinger and
Parsifal are often singled out, and others have made claims with regard to other
works. Here, too, the matter is difficult.
Do check out Barry Millington's article on _Meistersinger_ in the Cambridge Opera
Journal from 1990 or so.
Roger
Rick Hayward
In message <319738...@ix.netcom.com>
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> mark hardie wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for you guidance and insight regarding Wagner's
apparent Judenhass
> > (Jew-hatred). From your responses I gather that while Wagner had
problems with the
> > Jewish religio-culture, he was not per se racist against the Jews.
> On the contrary! He was one of the leading proponents of racial Jew-hatred,
> and supported others (e.g., Foerster) who tried to make it part of German
> politics.
Interesting question : at what point does a rational and acceptable
distaste for aspects of Jewish religion and dogma become an
unacceptable racism?
RH --
Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
Jeff Bernhard
Rick Hayward (rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
:
: Interesting question : at what point does a rational and acceptable
: unacceptable racism?
:
: RH --
: Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
: rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
"rational and acceptable distaste" sounds like it is begging the question
already. But an answer would be: At the same point rational and acceptable
distaste would be unacceptable for any culture or religion -- probably
never. Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
--
Jeffrey Bernhard Harris Computer Systems Corp.
Jeff.B...@mail.hcsc.com Voice: (954) 973-5496 Fax: (954) 977-5580
*** The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of my employer! ***
Jeff Bernhard
I wrote:
: Rick Hayward (rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
: :
: : Interesting question : at what point does a rational and acceptable
: : distaste for aspects of Jewish religion and dogma become an
: : unacceptable racism?
: :
: : RH --
: : Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
: : rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
: :
: "rational and acceptable distaste" sounds like it is begging the question
: already. But an answer would be: At the same point rational and acceptable
: distaste would be unacceptable for any culture or religion -- probably
: never. Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
Of course, I meant that such distaste is not 'rational', and would always
be unacceptable. Sigh. (Who types my material, anyway?)
Dan Koren
In article <4n81ri$2...@roch.zetnet.co.uk> rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk (Rick Hayward) writes:
>In message <319738...@ix.netcom.com>
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>> mark hardie wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you for you guidance and insight regarding Wagner's
>apparent Judenhass
>> > (Jew-hatred). From your responses I gather that while Wagner had
>problems with the
>> > Jewish religio-culture, he was not per se racist against the Jews.
>
>> On the contrary! He was one of the leading proponents of racial Jew-hatred,
>> and supported others (e.g., Foerster) who tried to make it part of German
>> politics.
>
>distaste for aspects of Jewish religion and dogma become an
>unacceptable racism?
>
>RH --
> Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
> rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
At the point where it is used as justification for discrimination and
for calls to enact legislation or other forms of social engineering
aimed at limiting equal opportunity, access to government resources
and protection under the law for people of Jewish origin.
dk
August Helmbright
jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) wrote:
>Rick Hayward (rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
>:
>: Interesting question : at what point does a rational and acceptable
>: distaste for aspects of Jewish religion and dogma become an
>: unacceptable racism?
>:
>: RH --
>: Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
>: rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
>:
>"rational and acceptable distaste" sounds like it is begging the question
>already. But an answer would be: At the same point rational and acceptable
>distaste would be unacceptable for any culture or religion -- probably
>never. Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
This is going too far in terms of modern political correctness.
Nietzsche had a "rational distaste" for both Judaism and Christianity.
I happen to disagree with him completely, but there's nothing bigoted
in his disagreeing with these religions.
August
redrick
rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk (Rick Hayward) wrote:
>
>Interesting question : at what point does a rational and acceptable
>distaste for aspects of Jewish religion and dogma become an
>unacceptable racism?
>
and racism.
-Rick
--
red...@az.com
/ // /// ///// /////// /////////// ///////////// / // ///
redrick
jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) wrote:
>"rational and acceptable distaste" sounds like it is begging the question
>already. But an answer would be: At the same point rational and acceptable
>distaste would be unacceptable for any culture or religion -- probably
>never. Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
Oh? What about cultures or religions that promote racism or
genocide?
Rick Hayward
In message <4n84l7$d...@ns.hcsc.com>
jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
> Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
This is probably not the newsgroup in which to discuss this issue at
length, but clearly you are wrong: many of us find various aspects of
religious dogma and exclusivity objectionable on very rational and
historically substantiated grounds. This is no different from a
revulsion to particular political dogmas and their manifestation.
RH--
Jeff Bernhard
Rick Hayward (rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
: In message <4n84l7$d...@ns.hcsc.com>
: jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
:
: > Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
:
: This is probably not the newsgroup in which to discuss this issue at
: length, but clearly you are wrong: many of us find various aspects of
: religious dogma and exclusivity objectionable on very rational and
: historically substantiated grounds. This is no different from a
: revulsion to particular political dogmas and their manifestation.
Sorry, but the way your question was framed, it sounded like it was
very specific to Jewish culture and religion. I think it is better
to accept differences rather than to harbor 'distaste', and that
was the jist of my comments. That pathological excesses have existed
by Church, State and by societies wasn't the specific issue of your
post, as I read it.
Whenever tolerance is not given by one group to another, it should be
abhorred. Of course, you can cite pathological cases twisting this
credo as much as you want. But, is anti-Semitism ever proper? In a
word, no.
mark hardie
The fact is that Jewish People have contributed greatly to the
development of classical music. Perhaps Wagner felt threatened by their
contributions. Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
history?
Mark
Michael Haupt
Roger L. Lustig (juli...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >I did not at all intend to denigrate Wagner as a great artist.
: > But I to illuminate this particular aspect of his character.
: It's a long and difficult story.
Yes, and we won't tell it all again, will we?
(Shouldn't this topic be added to the FAQ?)
--
per aspera ad asthma, Michael
E-Mail: gl...@appl2.hrz.uni-siegen.de
or: ha...@wad.org
Rick Hayward
In message <4naie2$e...@ns.hcsc.com>
jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
> Rick Hayward (rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
> : In message <4n84l7$d...@ns.hcsc.com>
> : jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
> :
> : > Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
> :
> : This is probably not the newsgroup in which to discuss this issue at
> : length, but clearly you are wrong: many of us find various aspects of
> : religious dogma and exclusivity objectionable on very rational and
> : historically substantiated grounds. This is no different from a
> : revulsion to particular political dogmas and their manifestation.
> :
> Sorry, but the way your question was framed, it sounded like it was
> very specific to Jewish culture and religion.
Not at all - the point I was exploring was whether an antipathy to
aspects of Jewish culture and religion were necessarily
'anti-semitic' in the wider sense of blanket prejudice.
> I think it is better
> to accept differences rather than to harbor 'distaste'
> Whenever tolerance is not given by one group to another, it should be
> abhorred.
But tolerance is not unbounded: to turn the picture around, I doubt
that you or I would feel compelled to sanguinely tolerate Nazi or
neo-Nazi attitudes simply as an expression of cultural difference.
William J. Karzas
In article <4nchfg$f...@roch.zetnet.co.uk>, rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk (Rick
Hayward) wrote:
Rick:
I think your point is well taken, but I fear such fine distinctions are
not p.c. today. Absolutes seem to be the thing.
Moreover, "to accept differences rather than harbour 'distaste'" is to
apply no standards or exercise no judgement; it is a complete abdication
of morality, by any reasonable definition.
Regards,
--
Bill Karzas wjk...@pacificnet.net
Steve Lee
In article <3198F4...@uchastings.edu>, mark hardie
<har...@uchastings.edu> wrote:
> Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
> history?
David?
mark hardie
It's time to leave the subject of anti-Semitism for now. Let's talk
about Jewish composers. Who has been the most influential Jewish
composer? conductor? musician?
Mark Hardie
Rick Hayward wrote:
>
> In message <4naie2$e...@ns.hcsc.com>
> jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
>
> > Rick Hayward (rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
> > : In message <4n84l7$d...@ns.hcsc.com>
> > : jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
> > :
> > : > Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
> > :
> > : This is probably not the newsgroup in which to discuss this issue at
> > : length, but clearly you are wrong: many of us find various aspects of
> > : religious dogma and exclusivity objectionable on very rational and
> > : historically substantiated grounds. This is no different from a
> > : revulsion to particular political dogmas and their manifestation.
> > :
> > Sorry, but the way your question was framed, it sounded like it was
> > very specific to Jewish culture and religion.
>
> Not at all - the point I was exploring was whether an antipathy to
> aspects of Jewish culture and religion were necessarily
> 'anti-semitic' in the wider sense of blanket prejudice.
>
> > I think it is better
> > to accept differences rather than to harbor 'distaste'
> > Whenever tolerance is not given by one group to another, it should be
> > abhorred.
>
> But tolerance is not unbounded: to turn the picture around, I doubt
> that you or I would feel compelled to sanguinely tolerate Nazi or
> neo-Nazi attitudes simply as an expression of cultural difference.
>
Peter H. Granzeau
On 14 May 1996 18:12:18 GMT, jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) wrote:
>Whenever tolerance is not given by one group to another, it should be
>abhorred. Of course, you can cite pathological cases twisting this
>credo as much as you want. But, is anti-Semitism ever proper? In a
>word, no.
It is, however, all right to be anti-Christian Fundamentalist, is that
not correct?
Peter H. Granzeau
>The fact is that Jewish People have contributed greatly to the
>development of classical music. Perhaps Wagner felt threatened by their
>contributions. Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
>history?
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Pultroon
sl...@ctc.net (Steve Lee) writes:
<har...@uchastings.edu> wrote:
> Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
> history?
:David?
Strong libretto, but a bit soft on the orchestration I think.
Andy
Richard Wang
In article <319a700b...@news.widomaker.com>,
Not just "all right," but practically a requirement for U.S. citizenship.
:-)
--
Richard Wang rw...@fas.harvard.edu
"Well, that was a cleverly crafted piece of non-claptrap which never once
made me want to retch."--Sideshow Bob
Roger L. Lustig
Rick Hayward wrote:
>
> In message <4n84l7$d...@ns.hcsc.com>
> jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
>
> > Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
>
> This is probably not the newsgroup in which to discuss this issue at
> length, but clearly you are wrong: many of us find various aspects of
> religious dogma and exclusivity objectionable on very rational and
> historically substantiated grounds. This is no different from a
> revulsion to particular political dogmas and their manifestation.
>
Is it really no different?
Again, what *is* "Jewish dogma"? Does it involve anything about
how one has to be Jewish? (Hint: no.)
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
Rick Hayward wrote:
>
> In message <319738...@ix.netcom.com>
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> > mark hardie wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for you guidance and insight regarding Wagner's
> apparent Judenhass
> > > (Jew-hatred). From your responses I gather that while Wagner had
> problems with the
> > > Jewish religio-culture, he was not per se racist against the Jews.
>
> > On the contrary! He was one of the leading proponents of racial Jew-hatred,
> > and supported others (e.g., Foerster) who tried to make it part of German
> > politics.
> distaste for aspects of Jewish religion and dogma become an
> unacceptable racism?
It doesn't. Racial anti-semitism and religious Jew-hatred and mere distaste
for a religion not one's own are three different things.
Now, what did Wagner ever do in terms of "rational and acceptable distaste
for aspects of Jewish religion and dogma"? For that matter, where did
Wagner ever discuss Jewish religion and dogma?
For that matter, what *is* Jewish dogma?
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
> > : In message <4n84l7$d...@ns.hcsc.com>
> > : jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
> > : > Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
> > : This is probably not the newsgroup in which to discuss this issue at
> > : length, but clearly you are wrong: many of us find various aspects of
> > : religious dogma and exclusivity objectionable on very rational and
> > : historically substantiated grounds. This is no different from a
> > : revulsion to particular political dogmas and their manifestation.
> > Sorry, but the way your question was framed, it sounded like it was
> > very specific to Jewish culture and religion.
> Not at all - the point I was exploring was whether an antipathy to
> aspects of Jewish culture and religion were necessarily
> 'anti-semitic' in the wider sense of blanket prejudice.
Oh.
What does this have to do with the case of Wagner, though?
> > I think it is better
> > to accept differences rather than to harbor 'distaste'
> > Whenever tolerance is not given by one group to another, it should be
> > abhorred.
> But tolerance is not unbounded: to turn the picture around, I doubt
> that you or I would feel compelled to sanguinely tolerate Nazi or
> neo-Nazi attitudes simply as an expression of cultural difference.
Again, what does this have to do with either Wagner or Jews? Keep in
mind that Nazism calls for intolerance, false notions of ethnicity, and
ultimately, genocide.
Judaism is not that way. Judaism does not claim that one must be Jewish
or be damned (as Christianity often does); nor does it claim that non-Jews
are inherently evil (as Nazism does of Jews).
Distaste for another religion is not the issue here. It's what one does
with it.
Roger
Rick Hayward
In message <319BE6...@ix.netcom.com>
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Again, what *is* "Jewish dogma"? Does it involve anything about
> how one has to be Jewish? (Hint: no.)
> What does this have to do with the case of Wagner, though?
Not a lot, specifically - which is why I won't extend the discussion
much further. Whatever the nature of Wagner as a person/idealogue,
his work remains as a monumental embodiment of genius. I was simply
making a general point that one needs to be aware that the blanket
term 'anti-semitism' can be as inimical to analysis as anti-semitism
itself. In terms of Wagner, I think that it may be misleading to view
his individual utterances (whatever their merits / demerits /
acceptability / unacceptability) through the lens of pathological
Germany of the 1930s and 1940s.
> Judaism is not that way ...
Which, I think, is a discussion outside the bounds of this newsgroup.
Roger L. Lustig
Rick Hayward wrote:
>
> In message <319BE6...@ix.netcom.com>
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> > Again, what *is* "Jewish dogma"? Does it involve anything about
> > how one has to be Jewish? (Hint: no.)
>
> > What does this have to do with the case of Wagner, though?
>
> Not a lot, specifically - which is why I won't extend the discussion
> much further. Whatever the nature of Wagner as a person/idealogue,
> his work remains as a monumental embodiment of genius.
That's beyond doubt. Also beyond doubt--and highly problematic--
is the use of that statement (not by you) to excuse or distract
from other issues.
> I was simply
> making a general point that one needs to be aware that the blanket
> term 'anti-semitism' can be as inimical to analysis as anti-semitism
> itself.
No blanketing intended. Wagner was one of the leaders of the
intellectual movement that was dubbed "anti-Semitism" in his time.
> In terms of Wagner, I think that it may be misleading to view
> his individual utterances (whatever their merits / demerits /
> acceptability / unacceptability) through the lens of pathological
> Germany of the 1930s and 1940s.
I'm not doing that either; the Third Reich is not the focus or the lens.
Anti-semitism isn't associated with that time or place exclusively. I'm
interested in his utterances (both individual and as a whole) in the
context of his time *and* in terms of their considerable later influence.
> > Judaism is not that way ...
> Which, I think, is a discussion outside the bounds of this newsgroup.
Alas, someone raised it--and as a red herring.
Best,
Roger
Raj Dixit
:
Felix Mendelssohn, IMHO.
Raj K. Dixit
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wagner was one of the leaders of the
>intellectual movement that was dubbed "anti-Semitism" in his time.
>
What? What "intellectual" movement was that? Did they wear
brown shirts or something? Who decided who their leaders were?
Who dubbed it "anti-Semitism"?
It would seem far more useful to me to see specifically
anti-semitic quotations that Wagner wrote then to follow this
argument about labels and name-calling.
It is of course impossible to prove a negative, especially where
anything like Wagner's voluminous prose writings are concerned.
But considering how many have expended so much effort over the
years to "prove" him an anti-semite, I think that if he ever said
anything unambiguous to the effect that he considered Jews to be
genetically inferior we would certainly have seen it quoted many
times. Ergo, I find it unlikely that he ever did say any such
thing.
AVIKG
In article <4n84l7$d...@ns.hcsc.com>, jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
>nteresting question : at what point does a rational and acceptable
>: distaste for aspects of Jewish religion and dogma become an
>: unacceptable racism?
>:
>: RH --
>: Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
>: rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
JUST ABOUT THE TIME THAT JEWS START DYING FOR IT.
avik-GMS
AVIKG
Roger L. Lustig
redrick wrote:
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Wagner was one of the leaders of the
> >intellectual movement that was dubbed "anti-Semitism" in his time.
> What? What "intellectual" movement was that? Did they wear
> brown shirts or something? Who decided who their leaders were?
> Who dubbed it "anti-Semitism"?
You know, this is available in any biography of Wagner or any
history of 19thC Germany.
As for your question, consider that, say, the Impressionists
were a movement, didn't wear uniforms, and had generally recognized
leaders without elections.
Now, to answer: the term was invented by a German racist named
Wilhelm Marr. Racial anti-semitism was promoted by Wagner,
Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Treitschke, Foerster,
and many right-wing politicians.
> It would seem far more useful to me to see specifically
> anti-semitic quotations that Wagner wrote then to follow this
> argument about labels and name-calling.
THEN GO AND READ THEM. I've cited Wagner's main anti-Jewish
writings several times in this thread. Once again: Jewry in Music (1851)
and the late "Regeneration" writings such as "Know Thyself".
> It is of course impossible to prove a negative, especially where
> anything like Wagner's voluminous prose writings are concerned.
I have them right here on my shelf. No big deal; the key works are
easily accessed.
> But considering how many have expended so much effort over the
> years to "prove" him an anti-semite,
Nobody's had to expend much effort.
> I think that if he ever said
> anything unambiguous to the effect that he considered Jews to be
> genetically inferior we would certainly have seen it quoted many
> times.
We have. What have you read?
> Ergo, I find it unlikely that he ever did say any such thing.
Go to the library. Loook up the texts I've cited (again). Take
your head out of the sand.
Roger
AVIKG
if you have not heard that one before. three jews wrote the best christian
music. mendelssohn. MAHLER and irving berlin.
avik-gms
JDT
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Rick Hayward wrote:
>>
>> In message <4n84l7$d...@ns.hcsc.com>
>> jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
>>
>> > Such distaste is probably never 'rational'.
>>
>> This is probably not the newsgroup in which to discuss this issue at
>> length, but clearly you are wrong: many of us find various aspects of
>> religious dogma and exclusivity objectionable on very rational and
>> historically substantiated grounds. This is no different from a
>> revulsion to particular political dogmas and their manifestation.
>>
>Is it really no different?
>Again, what *is* "Jewish dogma"? Does it involve anything about
>how one has to be Jewish? (Hint: no.)
>Roger
Wagner, of course, said many things about the Jews which are a major
embarassment, but he was not alone. I am fourth or fifth generation
American of exclusively German descent. I remember my grandfather
saying things about the Jews which had I known better then, I would
have corrected him. My own mother-in-law sometimes used the word
"Yehudi" in a pejorative sense, mimicking her elders, with not a clue
as to what the word even meant until I corrected her. (Although
Protestant, I had close ties to the Jewish community through music,
and even closer ties as a photographer of Bnai Mitzvoth. When I was
seriously ill three years ago, several rabbis visited me and prayers
were offered for me in at least three temples in addition to my own
church.).
The founder of my religion, Martin Luther, said things about the Jews
which I think most modern Lutherans would prefer he had not said. Nor
were the Jews singled out in my family. We lived in an area with a
miniscule Jewish population. My progenitors said far nastier things
about Catholics, Poles, Czechs etc. What they said is an
embarassment, but since it was said more in ignorance than hate, I
tend to overlook it (they are conveniently dead) and move on and not
repeat their behavior.
JDT
AVIKG
In article <319a700b...@news.widomaker.com>, gran...@widomaker.com
(Peter H. Granzeau) writes:
>It is, however, all right to be anti-Christian Fundamentalist, is that
>not correct?
>
>
if you are trying to force everyone to go your way-yes.
avik-gms (an athiest).
Richard L. Kaye
When I was in College, Hugo Leichtentritt (Look him up in GROVE)
gave a lecture on the foundation of Wagner's harmonies in the
music of Chopin. It was fascinating; I only wish we had had
tape then (during WW II).
FWIW, Leichtentritt was a fugitive from Nazi Germany; he also
actually KNEW Brahms, which completely bowled me over.
RLK
Richard L. Kaye
In article <4nj160$o...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
ez06...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Raj Dixit) wrote:
>:
>: <har...@uchastings.edu> wrote:
>:
>: > Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
>: > history?
>
>Felix Mendelssohn, IMHO.
>
>Raj K. Dixit
>
Lutheran, for heaven's sake! You are subscribing to Hitler's
definition of "Jew"!
RLK
Gregory Taylor
Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In terms of Wagner, I think that it may be misleading to view
>his individual utterances (whatever their merits / demerits /
>acceptability / unacceptability) through the lens of pathological
>Germany of the 1930s and 1940s.
Given that most of us live on the other side of the 1930s and 1940s
and live (some of us in a rather direct way) with the historical
facts of that particular period of German history, I hope you'll not be
too offended if some of us don't have the luxury of treating it as an
intriguing abstraction that we can dismiss as easily as you seem to be
able to do. While many of us enjoy and have great respect for Wagner's
music, it is difficult to ignore the legacy of his writings and utterances
in laying the groundwork for German antisemitism as we know it. In my
view, it's not necessary to "read" him as a modern Nazi - the notion that
he was "read" *by* them is difficulty enough. To the extent to which one
deals with music as anything other than an entirely "tympanal" affair
(like Duchamp's formulation of "retinal" painting), Wagner's antisemitism
remains problematic. If nothing else, he himself wanted us to make the
connections you seem to wish to dismiss.
--
I would go to her, lay it all out, unedited. The plot was a simple one,
paraphrasable by the most ingenuous of nets. The life we lead is our only
maybe. The tale we tell is the must that we make by living it. [Richard
Powers, "Galatea 2.2"] Gregory Taylor/Host, RTQE/WORT-FM 89.9/Madison, WI
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>redrick wrote:
>
>> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >Wagner was one of the leaders of the
>> >intellectual movement that was dubbed "anti-Semitism" in his time.
>
>> What? What "intellectual" movement was that? Did they wear
>> brown shirts or something? Who decided who their leaders were?
>> Who dubbed it "anti-Semitism"?
>
>You know, this is available in any biography of Wagner or any
>history of 19thC Germany.
>
Nonsense. I have read many, including Gutman and Newman.
>As for your question, consider that, say, the Impressionists
>were a movement, didn't wear uniforms, and had generally recognized
>leaders without elections.
And if they had a credo including racism we should be much more
selective about who we included in the impressionist movement.
>
>Now, to answer: the term was invented by a German racist named
>Wilhelm Marr. Racial anti-semitism was promoted by Wagner,
>Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Treitschke, Foerster,
>and many right-wing politicians.
>
I have read Wagner, Chamberlain (Grundlagen), and Gobineau and
read of the rest. All were racists *except* Wagner, and Wagner
doesn't become one just because *you* choose to put him in the
same sentence with the rest.
>> It would seem far more useful to me to see specifically
>> anti-semitic quotations that Wagner wrote then to follow this
>> argument about labels and name-calling.
>
>THEN GO AND READ THEM.
They aren't there.
> I've cited Wagner's main anti-Jewish
Like you say, anti-Jewish, not anti-semitic. There was a much
larger distinction between the two in the 19th century, which
you'd know if you were a universally read as you claim.
>writings several times in this thread. Once again: Jewry in Music (1851)
Is about religion and culture, not race.
>and the late "Regeneration" writings such as "Know Thyself".
>
Is pseudo-psycho BS and not race (or much of anything, actually).
These senile ravings and bad jokes are hardly evidence of
anything relevant to an "intellectual movement".
>> It is of course impossible to prove a negative, especially where
>> anything like Wagner's voluminous prose writings are concerned.
>
>I have them right here on my shelf. No big deal; the key works are
>easily accessed.
>
Must be a big shelf. :> If it's so easily accessed, why can't
you come up with one single unambiguously racist quotation?
redrick
In article <319a700b...@news.widomaker.com>,
gran...@widomaker.com
(Peter H. Granzeau) writes:
>
>It is, however, all right to be anti-Christian Fundamentalist, is that
>not correct?
It is perfectly all right. It is all right to be anti-Christian,
or even anti-christian, or atheist (which I am). It is all right
to be anti- any set of beliefs.
It is all right to be anti-Jewish, anti-Moslem, or anti-Hindu as
well *but* you should be very careful to make it clear that your
opposition is to a religion only, not to any ethnic, national, or
"racial" group.
Regards, -Rick
Roger L. Lustig
No, he's subscribing to *Mendelssohn's* definition of a Jew. Although
a Lutheran, Mendelssohn was not only aware of the irony of his background,
but rather more ambiguous about the matter of assimilation than his father
was. (His father wanted to change the family name entirely to Bartholdy;
FMB refused.)
Roger
James Kahn
>Richard L. Kaye wrote:
>>
>> In article <4nj160$o...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
>> ez06...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Raj Dixit) wrote:
>> >:
>> >: <har...@uchastings.edu> wrote:
>> >:
>> >: > Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
>> >: > history?
>> >
>> >Felix Mendelssohn, IMHO.
>> >
>> Oh yes, wasn't he the one who wrote St. Paul? He was a
>> Lutheran, for heaven's sake! You are subscribing to Hitler's
>> definition of "Jew"!
>No, he's subscribing to *Mendelssohn's* definition of a Jew. Although
>a Lutheran, Mendelssohn was not only aware of the irony of his background,
>but rather more ambiguous about the matter of assimilation than his father
>was. (His father wanted to change the family name entirely to Bartholdy;
>FMB refused.)
More important, perhaps, is that he's subscribing (knowingly or not) to
the Jewish definition of a Jew (FM's mother was Jewish, if I'm not mistaken).
--Jim
====================================================================
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu Department of Economics
http://kahn.econ.rochester.edu University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14627
Roger L. Lustig
redrick wrote:
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >redrick wrote:
> >> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >Wagner was one of the leaders of the
> >> >intellectual movement that was dubbed "anti-Semitism" in his time.
> >> What? What "intellectual" movement was that? Did they wear
> >> brown shirts or something? Who decided who their leaders were?
> >> Who dubbed it "anti-Semitism"?
> >You know, this is available in any biography of Wagner or any
> >history of 19thC Germany.
> Nonsense. I have read many, including Gutman and Newman.
Read any recent ones? Millington, for instance?
> >As for your question, consider that, say, the Impressionists
> >were a movement, didn't wear uniforms, and had generally recognized
> >leaders without elections.
> And if they had a credo including racism we should be much more
> selective about who we included in the impressionist movement.
They didn't even have a credo, and yet we call them a movement.
> >Now, to answer: the term was invented by a German racist named
> >Wilhelm Marr. Racial anti-semitism was promoted by Wagner,
> >Gobineau, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Treitschke, Foerster,
> >and many right-wing politicians.
> I have read Wagner, Chamberlain (Grundlagen), and Gobineau and
> read of the rest. All were racists *except* Wagner, and Wagner
> doesn't become one just because *you* choose to put him in the
> same sentence with the rest.
Yet a great many biographers, scholars, and even avid Wagnerians
have no trouble identifying the racism in Wagner. Care to refute
all those well-reasoned, well-supported arguments?
> >> It would seem far more useful to me to see specifically
> >> anti-semitic quotations that Wagner wrote then to follow this
> >> argument about labels and name-calling.
> >THEN GO AND READ THEM.
> They aren't there.
Wishing won't make it so. I've told you where to look.
More specifically: the third paragraph of _Jewry in Music_; the
following paragraphs, etc.
> > I've cited Wagner's main anti-Jewish
> Like you say, anti-Jewish, not anti-semitic. There was a much
> larger distinction between the two in the 19th century, which
> you'd know if you were a universally read as you claim.
No. There was a distinction between *religious* Jew-hatred and
the racial form known as anti-Semitism.
> >writings several times in this thread. Once again: Jewry in Music (1851)
> Is about religion and culture, not race.
Bullshit.
If you're so sure of this, explain all the critiques of Jews to
be found therein, which cannot be explained either as religious
or as cultural critiques.
(Note that the specific language of racism had yet to be developed
at that time; but "Volk" is not culture, nor are Wagner's blanket
condemnations of "der Jude"--no matter what his culture or beliefs--
to be whitewashed as you wish.
> >and the late "Regeneration" writings such as "Know Thyself".
> Is pseudo-psycho BS and not race (or much of anything, actually).
Except for its content, which is very much about race. Or does he
use the term "Race" (sic!) to mean something else throughout?
> These senile ravings and bad jokes are hardly evidence of
> anything relevant to an "intellectual movement".
Where are the jokes? And how senile was a man who was busy working
on Parsifal?
You sound ever more desperate to keep up your whitewash.
> >> It is of course impossible to prove a negative, especially where
> >> anything like Wagner's voluminous prose writings are concerned.
> >I have them right here on my shelf. No big deal; the key works are
> >easily accessed.
> Must be a big shelf. :>
Ten volumes. You *don't* know them, evidently.
> If it's so easily accessed, why can't
> you come up with one single unambiguously racist quotation?
Because I don't serve as a typist for sneering twits like you.
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
redrick wrote:
>
> In article <319a700b...@news.widomaker.com>,
> gran...@widomaker.com
> (Peter H. Granzeau) writes:
> >
> >It is, however, all right to be anti-Christian Fundamentalist, is that
> >not correct?
>
> It is perfectly all right. It is all right to be anti-Christian,
> or even anti-christian, or atheist (which I am). It is all right
> to be anti- any set of beliefs.
>
> It is all right to be anti-Jewish, anti-Moslem, or anti-Hindu as
> well *but* you should be very careful to make it clear that your
> opposition is to a religion only, not to any ethnic, national, or
> "racial" group.
It's perfectly all right, indeed--yet why would one want to do so?
After all, why is it any of your business what others believe, so
long as they don't demand that you believe it too?
You need to make it clear that you are objecting to statements
about *you* that emanate from those religions.
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
James Kahn wrote:
>
> In <319E9E...@ix.netcom.com> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >Richard L. Kaye wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <4nj160$o...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
> >> ez06...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Raj Dixit) wrote::
> >> >: <har...@uchastings.edu> wrote:
> >> >: > Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
> >> >: > history?
> >> >Felix Mendelssohn, IMHO.
> >> Oh yes, wasn't he the one who wrote St. Paul? He was a
> >> Lutheran, for heaven's sake! You are subscribing to Hitler's
> >> definition of "Jew"!
> >No, he's subscribing to *Mendelssohn's* definition of a Jew. Although
> >a Lutheran, Mendelssohn was not only aware of the irony of his background,
> >but rather more ambiguous about the matter of assimilation than his father
> >was. (His father wanted to change the family name entirely to Bartholdy;
> >FMB refused.)
> More important, perhaps, is that he's subscribing (knowingly or not) to
> the Jewish definition of a Jew (FM's mother was Jewish, if I'm not mistaken).
Rather. So was his father--whose father was Moses Mendelssohn.
Roger
AVIKG
In article <319F4B...@ix.netcom.com>, "Roger L. Lustig"
<juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>They didn't even have a credo, and yet we call them a movement.
>
>
often movements or "schools" are seen as such in retrospect. they are
given a name as a means of identification. simple, no?
avik-gms
AVIKG
In article <319F64...@ix.netcom.com>, "Roger L. Lustig"
<juli...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Rather. So was his father--whose father was Moses Mendelssohn.
>
>Roger
moses mendelssohn (1729-1786). philosopher, critic, translator of the
bible. father of the jewish "enlightenment" movement. was felix's
grandfather.
avik-gms
Rick Hayward
In message <4njn7s$k...@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>
gta...@msn.fullfeed.com (Gregory Taylor) writes:
> Rick Hayward <rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >In terms of Wagner, I think that it may be misleading to view
> >his individual utterances (whatever their merits / demerits /
> >acceptability / unacceptability) through the lens of pathological
> >Germany of the 1930s and 1940s.
> I hope you'll not be
> too offended if some of us don't have the luxury of treating it as an
> intriguing abstraction that we can dismiss as easily as you seem to be
> able to do.
Not offended, except by the ad hominem implication of 'dismissal'. I
would have thought that the application of intellect is one of the
main hedges against the emotive generalizations so beloved of the
brown-shirts. I am too aware of recent European and Middle-East
history to want to send my brain out for a walk at the mention of
'anti-semitism' or the Holocaust.
> While many of us enjoy and have great respect for Wagner's
> music, it is difficult to ignore the legacy of his writings and utterances
> in laying the groundwork for German antisemitism as we know it.
But there is a major claim for Wagner's influence: all I am doing is
seeking clarification of such claims.
> In my
> view, it's not necessary to "read" him as a modern Nazi - the notion that
> he was "read" *by* them is difficulty enough. To the extent to which one
> deals with music as anything other than an entirely "tympanal" affair
> (like Duchamp's formulation of "retinal" painting), Wagner's antisemitism
> remains problematic. If nothing else, he himself wanted us to make the
> connections you seem to wish to dismiss.
Which brings us back to critical (intellectual) examination of the issues.
RH--
Steve Lee
> > >No, he's subscribing to *Mendelssohn's* definition of a Jew. Although
> > >a Lutheran, Mendelssohn was not only aware of the irony of his background,
> > >but rather more ambiguous about the matter of assimilation than his father
> > >was. (His father wanted to change the family name entirely to Bartholdy;
> > >FMB refused.)
>
> > More important, perhaps, is that he's subscribing (knowingly or not) to
> > the Jewish definition of a Jew (FM's mother was Jewish, if I'm not
mistaken).
>
> Rather. So was his father--whose father was Moses Mendelssohn.
Somewhere years ago I heard or read that "Bartholdy" means "baptized." If
so, in what language? (It doesn't look very German.) Or is it just a
"Christian" name? In either event, I gather that the
Mendelssohn-Bartholdy name would in itself refer to a family whose
ancestor at some point converted to Christianity. Is at least that part
right?
I once bought a German music dictionary at a yard sale. It turned out to
be from the early 1940s (or late 30s). The entry for 'Mendelssohn, Felix'
began "Ein jueden Komponist . . ." and proceeded to quote at length from
Wagner's writings about Jews in music.
Michael L. Siemon
In article <319FAE...@ix.netcom.com>, "Roger L. Lustig"
<juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
+Etymologically, it's a Hebrew-Egyptian-Germanic mess.
...
+(It comes from "Bartholome", a Hebrew name that was derived from the Egyptian
+name Ptolemy. That's right: bar-Ptolemy.)
Make that "Hebrew-Egyptian-Germanic-Macedonian" mess. :-)
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"We honour founders of these starving cities
Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
They built by rivers and at night the water
Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Roger L. Lustig
Steve Lee wrote:
>
> In article <319F64...@ix.netcom.com>, "Roger L. Lustig"
> <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > >No, he's subscribing to *Mendelssohn's* definition of a Jew. Although
> > > >a Lutheran, Mendelssohn was not only aware of the irony of his background,
> > > >but rather more ambiguous about the matter of assimilation than his father
> > > >was. (His father wanted to change the family name entirely to Bartholdy;
> > > >FMB refused.)
> > > More important, perhaps, is that he's subscribing (knowingly or not) to
> > > the Jewish definition of a Jew (FM's mother was Jewish, if I'm not
> mistaken).
> > Rather. So was his father--whose father was Moses Mendelssohn.
> Somewhere years ago I heard or read that "Bartholdy" means "baptized." If
> so, in what language? (It doesn't look very German.) Or is it just a
> "Christian" name?
Etymologically, it's a Hebrew-Egyptian-Germanic mess. "Bartholdy" was
the name of an estate that Abraham Mendelssohn bought for his family;
he changed the family name to that, and tried to get FMB to use it exclusively,
which FMB refused to do.
(It comes from "Bartholome", a Hebrew name that was derived from the Egyptian
name Ptolemy. That's right: bar-Ptolemy.)
> In either event, I gather that the
> Mendelssohn-Bartholdy name would in itself refer to a family whose
> ancestor at some point converted to Christianity. Is at least that part
> right?
That was Abraham's idea. He wanted the family to "look" Christian.
> I once bought a German music dictionary at a yard sale. It turned out to
> be from the early 1940s (or late 30s). The entry for 'Mendelssohn, Felix'
> began "Ein jueden Komponist . . ." and proceeded to quote at length from
> Wagner's writings about Jews in music.
Yep, that sort of thing happened a lot.
Roger
Rick Hayward
In message <319ec8e5...@news2.az.com>
red...@az.com (redrick) writes:
> In article <319a700b...@news.widomaker.com>,
> gran...@widomaker.com
> (Peter H. Granzeau) writes:
> >
> >It is, however, all right to be anti-Christian Fundamentalist, is that
> >not correct?
> It is perfectly all right. It is all right to be anti-Christian,
> or even anti-christian, or atheist (which I am). It is all right
> to be anti- any set of beliefs.
I'm even suspicious of atheism - it's too dogmatic ;-)
> It is all right to be anti-Jewish, anti-Moslem, or anti-Hindu as
> well *but* you should be very careful to make it clear that your
> opposition is to a religion only, not to any ethnic, national, or
> "racial" group.
Thankyou, Rick - which brings us back to the fact that there is a
distinction, (and a context) which needs to be considered before
imagining all of Wagner's nasties as anti-semitic stereotypes as the
ultimate in blinkered interpretation would hold.
Regards, the other
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yet a great many biographers, scholars, and even avid Wagnerians
>have no trouble identifying the racism in Wagner. Care to refute
>all those well-reasoned, well-supported arguments?
>
Mr. Lustig appears to rely completely on these bandwagon fallacy,
completely unsupported, unreasoned arguments. The fact is he has
not one ounce of proof that Wagner was anti-semitic and tries to
foist the opinion on us with pure bluster.
>There was a distinction between *religious* Jew-hatred and
>the racial form known as anti-Semitism.
>
Wagner had neither. He opposed the Jewish religion. He did not
hate Jews for any reason.
> but "Volk" is not culture
That is absolutely what it is. Read Jakob Grimm.
Again, Mr. Lustig has been unable to produce a single
unambiguously racist quotation.
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>After all, why is it any of your business what others believe, so
>long as they don't demand that you believe it too?
>
It becomes my business when they attempt to force my behavior to
conform to their superstitions. It is my business when they
attempt to promote their ignorance and superstition in the public
schools.
It is my business when they distort history, which is the
heritage of all humans, by twisting the (foolish as it was)
religious wrangling of a more than a century ago into a witchhunt
that seeks to smear one of the greatest artists of that century
with unsupported claims of racism, and to blame him for crimes
committed generations after his death.
>You need to make it clear that you are objecting to statements
>about *you* that emanate from those religions.
>
No. I object to religions for being foolish and superstitious
*as well* as being intolerant.
Roger L. Lustig
> >have no trouble identifying the racism in Wagner. Care to refute
> >all those well-reasoned, well-supported arguments?
> >
> Mr. Lustig appears to rely completely on these bandwagon fallacy,
> completely unsupported, unreasoned arguments.
Cite one such.
> The fact is he has
> not one ounce of proof that Wagner was anti-semitic and tries to
> foist the opinion on us with pure bluster.
I've posted all manner of support for my argument in the past.
You refuse to research my citations, refuse to consider anything
that I don't type in for you, and generally take your attitude from
the position of your head in the sand.
> >There was a distinction between *religious* Jew-hatred and
> >the racial form known as anti-Semitism.
> Wagner had neither. He opposed the Jewish religion. He did not
> hate Jews for any reason.
A complete lie. The articles I have cited are generally unconcerned
with Jewish religion, which -- if you've read them as you say --
you know.
Now, what did Wagner even *know* of Jewish religion?
> > but "Volk" is not culture
> That is absolutely what it is. Read Jakob Grimm.
I was reading Wagner and other theorists of Volk, Grimm among
them. One may assimilate oneself to a culture--but not to a Volk.
> Again, Mr. Lustig has been unable to produce a single
> unambiguously racist quotation.
Again, you've given me no reason to. Why should I serve as your
typist, when you reject the sources of evidence I've provided for you?
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
> >long as they don't demand that you believe it too?
> It becomes my business when they attempt to force my behavior to
> conform to their superstitions. It is my business when they
> attempt to promote their ignorance and superstition in the public
> schools.
Fine. What does this have to do with the topic?
> It is my business when they distort history, which is the
> heritage of all humans, by twisting the (foolish as it was)
> religious wrangling of a more than a century ago into a witchhunt
> that seeks to smear one of the greatest artists of that century
> with unsupported claims of racism, and to blame him for crimes
> committed generations after his death.
The claims are amply supported. Your failure to read the supporting
evidence is not a critique of that evidence, or proof that it does
not exist.
Wagner is not blamed for crimes committed after his death, but for
the ideology he explicitly founded.
Wagner did not engage in "religious wrangling", but in a sustained
effort to *remove* his critique of the Jews from religious grounds.
Almost any single paragraph of _Jewry in Music_ contains ample evidence
of this.
The smears are all Wagner's. Nobody is accusing him of things that
he did not do.
> >You need to make it clear that you are objecting to statements
> >about *you* that emanate from those religions.
> No. I object to religions for being foolish and superstitious
> *as well* as being intolerant.
You seem to be making your own religion here. Without knowing the
texts you criticize, you feel you're qualified to tell us everything
about them.
After claiming that you'd read Wagner's works, you sneered that my
shelf must be very long if I have all his prose on it.
My complete edition takes up 23 cm. of shelf space. Ten volumes.
I don't think you know very much about Wagner's writings.
Go and study.
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
But that's been done, and at length. Which "blinkered interpretation"
are you referring to? Seems to me that a good many historians of German
culture and ideology have dealt with Wagner at length, not to mention
his biographers. It's not as though these accusations are coming from
nowhere.
Check out Paul Lawrence Rose, John Deathridge, Barry Millington, and
others.
Roger
August Helmbright
chac...@idsonline.com (JDT) wrote (in part):
>Wagner, of course, said many things about the Jews which are a major
>embarassment, but he was not alone. I am fourth or fifth generation
>American of exclusively German descent. I remember my grandfather
>saying things about the Jews which had I known better then, I would
>have corrected him.
>The founder of my religion, Martin Luther, said things about the Jews
>which I think most modern Lutherans would prefer he had not said. Nor
>were the Jews singled out in my family. We lived in an area with a
>miniscule Jewish population. My progenitors said far nastier things
>about Catholics, Poles, Czechs etc. What they said is an
>embarassment, but since it was said more in ignorance than hate, I
>tend to overlook it (they are conveniently dead) and move on and not
>repeat their behavior.
I've been avoiding this thread, because it tends to get contentious
and off the point of rec.music.classical, but this post got me
thinking.
My great-grandfather and great-grandmother emigrated from northern
Germany around 1880. On my mother's side of the family, most of my
ancestors are southern German, but emigrated over 100 years earlier.
All were protestant. My grandfather was born in Wheeling, WV, but his
first language was low German (Plattdeutsch). I don't remember him,
since he died in Nov. 1954, while I was born in Jan. 1954. (As an
interesting and irrelevant aside, he was born and died within a few
days -- same years -- as Wilhelm Furtwängler, which was a point of
early fascination with Furtwängler for me years ago.) My dad (and my
mother) reminisced about his father many times, and the picture is
mostly very positive but not without contradictions: He lived in
eastern Oklahoma at a time when the Ku Klux Klan was very popular. He
hated everything the Klan stood for and did. His life was threatened
because he refused to join, and so he carried a gun for a while,
keeping it handy whenever he answered his door! He served all races in
the 2 grocery stores he owned, and extended credit to poor white and
black people, even when he knew their chances to repay were not good.
He spoke Yiddish with his many Jewish friends. He was a major
supporter of Oklahoma's Governor Walker, a Catholic who campaigned on
an anti-Klan platform and got the Legislature to pass a law making it
a crime to march in public with a mask over your face (still on the
books). On the flip side, he repeated several anti-Catholic,
anti-Jewish and anti-Polish remarks and attitudes that he had heard
growing up.
I do remember my father quite well (he died in 1990). He hated racism
and bigotry in about every form, and yet I can recall occassional
remarks from him that were clearly influenced by the occassional
anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish remarks he had heard growing up. More
often, however, I recall him pointing out the many good works for
which Catholics are responsible around the world today, and speaking
well of Jews. He was extremely proud of his German heritage, and he
always told me that German culture was enriched greatly by the
prominence of Jews in Germany for much of its history. I would add
from my own experience that my father's personality was extremely
"German" as I understand the term, and that I have felt a strong
affinity with most of the Jews I have known, recognizing in them many
of the same character traits that I had identified as German in my
father (and myself).
What's the point to all of this? Sometimes there's an ambivalence in
attitude even among the best and most tolerant of people. It's easy in
today's politically correct climate to look for the worst in people
and brand them as racists, religious bigots, etc., etc. The positive
examples of what such a person has done are conveniently passed of as
just "some of my best friends..." arguments. However, the truth about
a person's character is a usually lot more complex and won't fit
within convenient labels. The truth is that none of us is perfect. If
a person's attitudes about race pass the PC test, then maybe he or she
is guilty of being jealous of the neighbors and their bigger house or
car, or guilty of telling white lies on a tax return, etc. As the
founder of my religion, a Jewish carpenter, said, maybe we should
remove the planks from our own eyes before we try to remove the specks
from others' eyes.
Hope that wasn't too rambling.
August
Steve Lee
> >> ez06...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Raj Dixit) wrote:
> >> >:
> >> >: <har...@uchastings.edu> wrote:
> >> >:
> >> >: > Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
> >> >: > history?
> >> >
> >> >Felix Mendelssohn, IMHO.
> >> >
> >> Oh yes, wasn't he the one who wrote St. Paul?
Yeah, but did St. Paul write back?
Laurent Planchon - Anacad
Raj Dixit (ez06...@boris.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: :
: : <har...@uchastings.edu> wrote:
: :
: : > Question: Who is the greatest Jewish composer in
: : > history?
: Felix Mendelssohn, IMHO.
He was Lutheran, wasn't he ?
Laurent Planchon
<laur...@mentorg.com>
Bert Horowitz
Probably Ludwig Van Beethoven, since Christianity is, in effect,
a sect of Judiasm and the revered spirit at the core of
Christianity was Jewish!
--
Bert
Steve Lee
In article <31A06C...@ix.netcom.com>, "Roger L. Lustig"
<juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The smears are all Wagner's. Nobody is accusing him of things that
> he did not do.
Wasn't the parrot analogy found in Wagner's writings? Whether it was
original with him, or more likely he was parroting [sorry] the views of
some other anti-semites, that one statement would be adquate to consider
him anti-semitic, unless it was followed by "How could I have said that?
What a dreadful thing to say!"
For those unfamiliar with the analogy, the idea is that a Jew can write
music, for example, that ressembles the music of a particular culture, but
that culture is still alien to him, just as a parrot can mimic human
speech without understanding it.
Rick Hayward
In message <4nta06$bl1$1...@mhade.production.compuserve.com>
Bert Horowitz <7634...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
Or vice-versa, of course. :-)
RH
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I have read the same books as Mr. Lustig (claims to) have read.
Either Lustig a liar or has an extremely overworked imagination
pushed along by prosecutorial zeal. There simply is no "smoking
gun" that would prove, or even strongly indicate, that Wagner was
a racist anti-semite.
>redrick wrote:
>>
>> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Yet a great many biographers, scholars, and even avid Wagnerians...
>> Mr. Lustig appears to rely completely on these bandwagon fallacy,
>> completely unsupported, unreasoned arguments.
>Cite one such.
Sure. The above "a great many biographers, scholars, etc..."
>> The fact is he has
>> not one ounce of proof that Wagner was anti-semitic and tries to
>> foist the opinion on us with pure bluster.
>
>I've posted all manner of support for my argument in the past.
Nonsense. You've tried to pass yourself off as An Authority and
expect us all to swallow your extreme and unsupported judgements.
>
>Now, what did Wagner even *know* of Jewish religion?
>
Little. There is no question but that Wagner talked through his
hat often and voluminously.
>> > but "Volk" is not culture
>> That is absolutely what it is. Read Jakob Grimm.
>
>I was reading Wagner and other theorists of Volk, Grimm among
>them. One may assimilate oneself to a culture--but not to a Volk.
>
Wrong. One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
or a Volk. At least not in a few generations. I believe
Leviticus says seven, and that involves intermarriage. And even
then, to fully assimilate one would have to have long abandoned a
religion that was still felt (in 19th century Germany) to be
alien. This is one of the things Wagner was talking about. And
while it is indeed a great load of crap (even by 19th century
standards) it still does not add up to racism.
Again, Mr. Lustig has been unable to produce a single
unambiguously racist quotation.
Regards, -Rick
--
______
_/DARWIN\/
\______/\ red...@az.com
_| _|
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Again, no facts and no logic.
Wagner's writings, which Mr. Lustig cites, do not come close to
supporting his extreme fantasies.
Do not believe all the pompous pronouncements you hear on the
'net from self-proclaimed "Experts".
E. Kammin
August Helmbright wrote:
> I do remember my father quite well (he died in 1990). He hated racism
> and bigotry in about every form, and yet I can recall occassional
> remarks from him that were clearly influenced by the occassional
> anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish remarks he had heard growing up. my
(Text omitted)
> What's the point to all of this? Sometimes there's an ambivalence in
> attitude even among the best and most tolerant of people.
I think that August has a good point here. I rather suspect that in most
folk traditions (including the Jewish) there are expressions, stories, etc.,
which disparage other groups.
In Yiddish, for instance, there are expressions disparaging of Gentiles and
Blacks; one such is "Shikker is a Goy" ("A Gentile is a Drunk", i. e.
Gentiles drink too much). The expression no doubt got its start in European
ghettos whose inhabitants were, from time to time, the victims of violence
from non-Jews who had been drinking too much, and, of course, ignores the
fact that many non-Jews don't. I have heard such expressions from Jews who
were actually very thoughtful and humane people, and who would have been
horrified at the suggestion that they were bigots.
I suppose the question of whether one is a bigot depends on the extent to
which one just repeats such expressions, or to which one really believes
them.
Ed Kammin
August Helmbright
E. Kammin wrote:
>
> August Helmbright wrote:
>
> > I do remember my father quite well (he died in 1990). He hated racism
> > and bigotry in about every form, and yet I can recall occassional
> > remarks from him that were clearly influenced by the occassional
>
> (Text omitted)
>
> > What's the point to all of this? Sometimes there's an ambivalence in
> > attitude even among the best and most tolerant of people.
>
> folk traditions (including the Jewish) there are expressions, stories, etc.,
> which disparage other groups.
>
> In Yiddish, for instance, there are expressions disparaging of Gentiles and
> Blacks; one such is "Shikker is a Goy" ("A Gentile is a Drunk", i. e.
> Gentiles drink too much). The expression no doubt got its start in European
> ghettos whose inhabitants were, from time to time, the victims of violence
> from non-Jews who had been drinking too much, and, of course, ignores the
> fact that many non-Jews don't. I have heard such expressions from Jews who
> were actually very thoughtful and humane people, and who would have been
> horrified at the suggestion that they were bigots.
>
> I suppose the question of whether one is a bigot depends on the extent to
> which one just repeats such expressions, or to which one really believes
> them.
>
> Ed Kammin
To respond to your response to my post, I am reminded that my boss
(a Jew), once remarked while working late, "I'm working like a
Schwarze!" Taken literally and out of context, someone might jump to the
conclusion that he is a bigot. (In fact, I told him that someday, F.
Lee Bailey would ask, "Did you, at any time in the last 10 years, use
the word 'Schwarze'?") I, knowing him well, and knowing the context in
which he was speaking (mocking recollection of a term from his youth),
could never imagine him and bigotry in the same thought.
August
August Helmbright
Yes, he was a Lutheran by faith, but his Jewish heritage was well known
and freely acknowledged by him as well as others. (He remarked that it
was ironic that he, a Jew, should have done more than anyone else to
bring the neglected St. Matthew Passion to light.) He was also a great
composer, so his name was a perfectly appropriate response to the
question.
Steve Lee
> Wrong. One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
> or a Volk.
This is the sort of racist remark that Wagner made, as I recall.
AVIKG
In article <31A34A...@frontiernet.net>, "E. Kammin"
<eka...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>"Shikker is a Goy" ("A Gentile is a Drunk"
it is shikker vee a goy (a drunk like a gentile).
avik-gms
AVIKG
In article <31A37D...@icnet.net>, August Helmbright
<alhe...@icnet.net> writes:
>He remarked that it
>was ironic that he, a Jew, should have done more than anyone else to
>bring the neglected St. Matthew Passion to light.) He was also a great
again, the best christian music was written by three jews. mendelssohn,
MAHLER and irving berlin.
avik
GUSTAV MAHLER SOCIETY-USA (1963)
AVIKG
In article <slee-22059...@dial-6.r1.nccncr.infoave.net>,
sl...@ctc.net (Steve Lee) writes:
>One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
>> or a Volk.
>
>This is the sort of racist remark that Wagner made, as I recall.
COMMENT MADE BY COSIMA.
AVIK-GMS
lanza
Almost certainly Mr. Gustav Mahler. Offhand, I can't imagine anybody
coming close. Among the Alley composers, why Mr. Irving Berlin and
George Gershwin in a tie.
*******************************************************************
"Better it should happen to him than to me. I'm different from
other people: pain hurts me!"--DAFFY DUCK
*******************************************************************
Rick Hayward
In message <slee-22059...@dial-6.r1.nccncr.infoave.net>
sl...@ctc.net (Steve Lee) writes:
> In article <31a2b963...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
> > Wrong. One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
> > or a Volk.
> This is the sort of racist remark that Wagner made, as I recall.
What a ridiculous assertion!!
redrick
sl...@ctc.net (Steve Lee) wrote:
>In article <31a2b963...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>
>> Wrong. One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
>> or a Volk.
>
>This is the sort of racist remark that Wagner made, as I recall.
How is that? In any event, you grossly quote out of context,
which is a common tactic of those who slander not only Wagner,
but, as is now demonstrated, anyone who disagrees. This is what
I actually said:
One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
or a Volk. At least not in a few generations. I believe
Leviticus says seven, and that involves intermarriage. And even
then, to fully assimilate one would have to have long abandoned a
religion that was still felt (in 19th century Germany) to be
alien. This is one of the things Wagner was talking about. And
while it is indeed a great load of crap (even by 19th century
standards) it still does not add up to racism.
-Rick
redrick
sl...@ctc.net (Steve Lee) wrote:
>Wasn't the parrot analogy found in Wagner's writings?
Nope. Not as you state it anyway. Wagner agreed that some music
by some Jewish composers was not particularly original. (This of
course could be said of *some* music by any composer, including
Wagner.) He said that this could be by someone trying to use a
cultural idiom that has not yet been fully assimilated, or, by
the insecurity of not being confident that one has fully
assimilated the culture.
>Whether it was
>original with him, or more likely he was parroting [sorry] the views of
>some other anti-semites, that one statement would be adquate to consider
>him anti-semitic, unless it was followed by "How could I have said that?
>What a dreadful thing to say!"
It was followed by a far more verbose explanation than the one I
gave above. BTW, just what tribunal is this that sits in
judgement and determines who is to be denounced for having said
what out of context more than a century ago?
redrick
August Helmbright <alhe...@icnet.net> wrote:
>E. Kammin wrote:
>>I have heard such expressions from Jews who
>> were actually very thoughtful and humane people, and who would have been
>> horrified at the suggestion that they were bigots.
>>
>> I suppose the question of whether one is a bigot depends on the extent to
>> which one just repeats such expressions, or to which one really believes
>> them.
>>
>To respond to your response to my post, I am reminded that my boss
>(a Jew), once remarked while working late, "I'm working like a
>Schwarze!" Taken literally and out of context, someone might jump to the
>conclusion that he is a bigot. (In fact, I told him that someday, F.
>Lee Bailey would ask, "Did you, at any time in the last 10 years, use
>the word 'Schwarze'?") I, knowing him well, and knowing the context in
>which he was speaking (mocking recollection of a term from his youth),
>could never imagine him and bigotry in the same thought.
>
Mr. Helmbright and Mr. Kammin,
You guys are both absolutely right, but as there a couple of
folks around here *very* anxious to throw the first stone, you'd
better be ready to duck.
That we all could benefit from being a bit more careful to avoid
offensive speech is certainly true. But witchhunts on those a
century dead are a bit silly.
-Unless the real intent is to broaden the definition of
anti-semitism to the point where it includes just about
everybody- including most Jews!
Cheers, -Rick
Dan Koren
Hhmmm.... Where does that leave Bach ?!?
dk
E. Kammin
lanza wrote:
>
> Almost certainly Mr. Gustav Mahler. Offhand, I can't imagine anybody
> coming close. Among the Alley composers, why Mr. Irving Berlin and
> George Gershwin in a tie.
I read that somebody once asked Maurice Ravel if he was Jewish. He replied
"No, I'm not, but I wouldn't mind if I were".
Ed Kammin
Jim_...@transarc.com
av...@aol.com (AVIKG) writes:
> In article <31A37D...@icnet.net>, August Helmbright
> <alhe...@icnet.net> writes:
>
> >He remarked that it
> >was ironic that he, a Jew, should have done more than anyone else to
> >bring the neglected St. Matthew Passion to light.) He was also a great
>
> again, the best christian music was written by three jews. mendelssohn,
> MAHLER and irving berlin.
>
Nope. The best Christian music was written by Bach. As much as I like
the works of the three composers you name, Bach's greatest works
surpass any of their religious works. I'd also rank Handel above them,
but not by as wide a margin.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Yet who reads to bring about an end however desirable? Are there not
some pursuits that we practise because they are good in themselves,
and some pleasures that are final? And is not this among them?
-- Virginia Woolf
AVIKG
In article <31A48D...@frontiernet.net>, "E. Kammin"
<eka...@frontiernet.net> writes:
>I read that somebody once asked Maurice Ravel if he was Jewish. He
replied
>"No, I'm not, but I wouldn't mind if I were".
>
>Ed Kammin
he also composed his famous and jewishly expressed "Deux Melodies
Hebraiques".
her was just a fan.
avik-gms
AVIKG
In article <cld9fNSSMUF=07F...@transarc.com>, Jim_...@transarc.com
writes:
>The best Christian music was written by Bach.
sorry jim, bach was only an "also ran".
avik-gms
AVIKG
Frank Eggleston
> d...@netcom.com (Dan Koren) writes:
> In article <4o0v6k$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> av...@aol.com (AVIKG) writes:
> >In article <31A37D...@icnet.net>, August Helmbright
> ><alhe...@icnet.net> writes:
> >
> >>He remarked that it
> >>was ironic that he, a Jew, should have done more than anyone else to
> >>bring the neglected St. Matthew Passion to light.) He was also a great
> >
> >again, the best christian music was written by three jews. mendelssohn,
> >MAHLER and irving berlin.
>
>
>
> dk
>
>>>>
day.
Frank Eggleston
eggl...@ncr.disa.mil
AVIKG
In article <4o2hij$p...@lal.interserv.net>, eggl...@ncr.disa.mil (Frank
Eggleston) writes:
>Safe in the hands of God, who plays his music every moment of every
waking
>day.
I SPOKE TO HER THE OTHER DAY AND SHE SAID: "BACH WHO??"
AVIK-GMS
Jim_...@transarc.com
So perhaps you should explain which Christian music by your big three
is better than Bach's St. Matthew's Passion. Or his Saint John's
Passion. Or his Magnificat. Or the Mass in D Minor. I certainly can't
think of any (and I like Mahler quite a bit).
AVIKG
In article <4o3jee$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, av...@aol.com (AVIKG)
writes:
>>Safe in the hands of God, who plays his music every moment of every
>waking
>>day.
>
>I SPOKE TO HER THE OTHER DAY AND SHE SAID: "BACH WHO??"
>
>AVIK-GMS
here is the latest. her real favorite is the RAVI SHENKAR sitar version of
the BHAGAVAD GITA.
avik-gms
AVIKG
In article <gldQX9mSM...@transarc.com>, Jim_...@transarc.com
writes:
>So perhaps you should explain which Christian music by your big three
>is better than Bach's St. Matthew's Passion. Or his Saint John's
>Passion. Or his Magnificat. Or the Mass in D Minor. I certainly can't
>think of any (and I like Mahler quite a bit).
please keep in mind that i hear my music in a concert hall, not in a
church.
avik-GMS
Steve Lee
In article <4o1d27$g...@roch.zetnet.co.uk>, rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk (Rick
Hayward) wrote:
> > In article <31a2b963...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick) wrote:
>
> > > Wrong. One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
> > > or a Volk.
>
> > This is the sort of racist remark that Wagner made, as I recall.
>
> What a ridiculous assertion!!
Why? Do you deny that Wagner expressed similar sentiments? Or do you
deny that the idea is blatantly racist?
Steve Lee
> How is that? In any event, you grossly quote out of context,
Sorry. It occurred to me later that I should have included at least the
next sentence to be fair to your thought ("At least not in a few
generations." which would imply that it was NOT from a genetic flaw per
se.). I did not mean to imply that you were espousing a racist position
yourself, only that the position stated in that sentence was the kind of
racist drivel that one can read in Wagner.
I have not read even a substatial portion of what Wagner wrote. Some of
what I have read was in a music dictionary I have from the Third-Reich
era. Perhaps the Nazis quoted Wagner out of context or embellished his
remarks for their propagand purposes.
I stand by what meant to say, but I apologize for the way in which I said it.
Steve Lee
> BTW, just what tribunal is this that sits in
> judgement and determines who is to be denounced for having said
> what out of context more than a century ago?
The experience of this century makes it extremely difficult to view such
things from the previous century with any pretense of objectivity. I
certainly do not expect people from the past to fit our standards of
political correctnes. I don't even expect that of myself.
But the drift of messages here seemed to deny either that Wagner actually
made the kind of statments attributed to him or that the statements are
essentially racist. I don't think Wagner needs that level of
revisionism. Certainly his music doesn't.
Rick Hayward
In message <slee-24059...@dial-11.r2.nccncr.infoave.net>
sl...@ctc.net (Steve Lee) writes:
The latter. Sorry - can't do with knee-jerk reactions. Racism stems
from what you do with perceived cultural differences, not the
perception per se.
RH
Roger L. Lustig
redrick wrote:
>
> sl...@ctc.net (Steve Lee) wrote:
> >Wasn't the parrot analogy found in Wagner's writings?
> Nope. Not as you state it anyway. Wagner agreed that some music
> by some Jewish composers was not particularly original.
What were his exceptions?
> (This of
> course could be said of *some* music by any composer, including
> Wagner.)
More to the point, whom did he consider sufficiently original
since Beethoven?
> He said that this could be by someone trying to use a
> cultural idiom that has not yet been fully assimilated, or, by
> the insecurity of not being confident that one has fully
> assimilated the culture.
He also said that Jews could redeem themselves only by ceasing to
be Jews--and that this could only happen via self-annihilation.
"But remember that only one thing can be your [ed.: the Jews']
redemption from the curse that burdens you: the redemption of
Ahasuerus: *destruction*." (Emphasis original)
--Wagner, _Das Judenthum in der Musik_, final paragraph, my transl.
> >Whether it was
> >original with him, or more likely he was parroting [sorry] the views of
> >some other anti-semites, that one statement would be adquate to consider
> >him anti-semitic, unless it was followed by "How could I have said that?
> >What a dreadful thing to say!"
> It was followed by a far more verbose explanation than the one I
> gave above. BTW, just what tribunal is this that sits in
> judgement and determines who is to be denounced for having said
> what out of context more than a century ago?
Where's the context that refutes this? Wagner was denounced then,
and is denounced now, for having fueled irrational hatreds.
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
redrick wrote:
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I have read the same books as Mr. Lustig (claims to) have read.
> Either Lustig a liar or has an extremely overworked imagination
> pushed along by prosecutorial zeal.
No, I've simply read the scholarship and checked the sources.
> There simply is no "smoking
> gun" that would prove, or even strongly indicate, that Wagner was
> a racist anti-semite.
"Dagegen ist allerdings der Jude das erstaunlichste Beispiel von
Racen-Konsistenz, welches die Weltgeschichte noch je geliefert hat.
Ohne Vaterland, ohne Muttersprache, wird er, durch aller Voelker
Laender und Sprachen hindurch, vermoege des sicheren Instinktes
seiner absoluten und unverwischbaren Eigenartigkeit sum unfehlbaren
Sich-immer-wiederfinden hingefuehrt: selbst die Vermischung schadet
ihm nicht; er vermische sich maennlich oder weiblich mit den ihm
fremdartigsten Racen, immer kommt ein Jude wieder zu Tage."
The rest of this paragraph, the sixth from the end of "Erkenne dich
selbst!", makes it quite clear that religion and culture and even
intellectual training are not the essence of the Jew that Wagner
despises: it is a particular *instinct* that makes the Jew a
"daemon of decay".
There's your quotation. You knew it was there--or hadn't you
really read the essay, as you'd claimed?
> >redrick wrote:
> >> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >Yet a great many biographers, scholars, and even avid Wagnerians...
> >> Mr. Lustig appears to rely completely on these bandwagon fallacy,
> >> completely unsupported, unreasoned arguments.
> >Cite one such.
> Sure. The above "a great many biographers, scholars, etc..."
Who do not present unsupported and unreasoned arguments. Haven't
you read them? Deathridge? Rose?
> >> The fact is he has
> >> not one ounce of proof that Wagner was anti-semitic and tries to
> >> foist the opinion on us with pure bluster.
> >I've posted all manner of support for my argument in the past.
> Nonsense. You've tried to pass yourself off as An Authority and
> expect us all to swallow your extreme and unsupported judgements.
What's extreme? You're extreme in insisting that we not read
the words on the page. You're extreme in rejecting a huge
body of well-supported historical consensus.
> >Now, what did Wagner even *know* of Jewish religion?
> Little. There is no question but that Wagner talked through his
> hat often and voluminously.
Indeed. Some of that talk was racial.
> >> > but "Volk" is not culture
>>> That is absolutely what it is. Read Jakob Grimm.
> >I was reading Wagner and other theorists of Volk, Grimm among
> >them. One may assimilate oneself to a culture--but not to a Volk.
> Wrong. One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
> or a Volk.
And you know this because...?
> At least not in a few generations. I believe
> Leviticus says seven, and that involves intermarriage. And even
Ah, well, *there*'s a scientific source.
> then, to fully assimilate one would have to have long abandoned a
> religion that was still felt (in 19th century Germany) to be
> alien. This is one of the things Wagner was talking about. And
Another was race. See above.
> while it is indeed a great load of crap (even by 19th century
> standards) it still does not add up to racism.
But the racist part does.
> Again, Mr. Lustig has been unable to produce a single
> unambiguously racist quotation.
You have your racist quotation now. Choke on it, and on
the rest of the paragraph, and on the rest of the essay,
and don't expect me to serve as your research assistant
and typist if you're going to call me names and simply
pretend that the evidence isn't there.
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
Gee, how can we tell that? You deleted everything.
> Wagner's writings, which Mr. Lustig cites, do not come close to
> supporting his extreme fantasies.
Some evidence of what they *do* say would be nice.
> Do not believe all the pompous pronouncements you hear on the
> 'net from self-proclaimed "Experts".
So, what makes *you* an expert? Certainly not reading the
sources I cited. You obviously haven't ever *seen* a complete
set of Wagner's writings; how else to explain your crack about
the "pretty long shelf"?
All we have from you is your self-proclamations and your denials
that essays contain what they contain, and that the myriad readers
of Wagner who found mountains of evidence of his racism were
actually anything but dupes.
Viel Feind, viel Ehr'!
Roger Lustig
William J. Karzas
In article <slee-24059...@dial-11.r2.nccncr.infoave.net>,
sl...@ctc.net (Steve Lee) wrote:
> In article <4o1d27$g...@roch.zetnet.co.uk>, rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk (Rick
> Hayward) wrote:
>
> > > In article <31a2b963...@news2.az.com>, red...@az.com (redrick)
wrote:
> >
> > > > Wrong. One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
> > > > or a Volk.
> >
> > > This is the sort of racist remark that Wagner made, as I recall.
> >
> > What a ridiculous assertion!!
>
>
> Why? Do you deny that Wagner expressed similar sentiments? Or do you
> deny that the idea is blatantly racist?
I have followed this thread on and off for more time than I wish I had
devoted to it; I have not contributed till now but I am truly disturbed by
this latest example of word-play.
I don't know what Rick Hayward denies, but I find it utterly ridiculous to
see the sentence " One cannot *completely* assimilate oneself to a culture
or a Volk." as expressing a "blatantly racist" idea.
If you [Steve Lee] believe that that is what that sentence conveys I fear
you are unable to understand the English language. Please note the
emphasis on the word "completely" and consider that the statement is
almost a truism.*
[*Truism = a statement the truth of which is obvious or well-known; commonplace]
--
Bill Karzas wjk...@pacificnet.net
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>redrick wrote:
>> There simply is no "smoking
>> gun" that would prove, or even strongly indicate, that Wagner was
>> a racist anti-semite.
>
>"Dagegen ist allerdings der Jude das erstaunlichste Beispiel von
>Racen-Konsistenz, welches die Weltgeschichte noch je geliefert hat.
>Ohne Vaterland, ohne Muttersprache, wird er, durch aller Voelker
>Laender und Sprachen hindurch, vermoege des sicheren Instinktes
Either Lustig's German is non-existent, or he deliberately
misleads. The above makes it clear that the "instinct" is a
*result* not of race, but of culture (being without homeland or
national speech, according to Wagner).
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>More to the point, whom did he consider sufficiently original
>since Beethoven?
>
Actually, Wagner didn't consider any composers to be his equals
in any way (except when he needed someone's help) except Mozart
and Beethoven. What possibly most irritates Mr. Lustig is that
Wagner's conceit is arguably correct.
>He also said that Jews could redeem themselves only by ceasing to
>be Jews
This is Roman Catholicism.
>--and that this could only happen via self-annihilation.
And this is Schopenhauer.
And neither is racism.
redrick
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>redrick wrote:
>>
>> Wagner's writings, which Mr. Lustig cites, do not come close to
>> supporting his extreme fantasies.
>
>Some evidence of what they *do* say would be nice.
>
What? Ever hear of Occam's Razor?
Roger L. Lustig
> >> gun" that would prove, or even strongly indicate, that Wagner was
> >> a racist anti-semite.
> >
> >"Dagegen ist allerdings der Jude das erstaunlichste Beispiel von
> >Racen-Konsistenz, welches die Weltgeschichte noch je geliefert hat.
> >Ohne Vaterland, ohne Muttersprache, wird er, durch aller Voelker
> >Laender und Sprachen hindurch, vermoege des sicheren Instinktes
>
> Either Lustig's German is non-existent, or he deliberately
> misleads. The above makes it clear that the "instinct" is a
> *result* not of race, but of culture (being without homeland or
> national speech, according to Wagner).
You must be desperate. My German is fine, as my published translations
should attest to, and the only misleading going on here is *your*
truncation of the text. First you complain that I won't type in
the evidence to which I've referred you; then you delete most of
what I offer.
"In contrast, however, the Jew is the most astonishing example
of racial consistency ever provided by world history. Lacking fatherland
and mother tongue, across all peoples' countries and languages,
he is led, by dint of the secure instinct [trunc. here] of his absolute
and indelible uniqueness, to find himself again; whether as male or female he
mix himself with the races most foreign to his nature, a Jew is always
revealed again."
Sorry, but that's not about culture. That's about race-mixing and
the supposed power of Jewishness to resist racial dilution.
Now, perhaps *your* German is lacking; I'll grant you that the
passage is tricky. Note the use of "aller Voelker" (not "alle
Voelker"). That's the genitive: the countries and languages of
all peoples. Then there's the "durch...hindurch" usage, which
means "across"--that is, *without* being affected by those languages.
Instead, the Jew possesses a unique instinct that is *not* culturally
conditioned, says Wagner.
Of course, if you read the entire sentence, including the part you
deleted, it becomes obvious what Wagner is saying even if you missed
the idioms.
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
> >since Beethoven?
> Actually, Wagner didn't consider any composers to be his equals
> in any way (except when he needed someone's help) except Mozart
> and Beethoven. What possibly most irritates Mr. Lustig is that
> Wagner's conceit is arguably correct.
Who says that that irritates me? The point is that, if hardly anyone
is a great composer, there's no reason to blame Jewishness for the
fact that the one percent of Europeans who were Jews had not produced
a great composer.
> >He also said that Jews could redeem themselves only by ceasing to
> >be Jews
> This is Roman Catholicism.
Which has nothing to do with Wagner's philosophy, or his reasons
for writing his essay.
> >--and that this could only happen via self-annihilation.
> And this is Schopenhauer.
Unlikely, as Wagner didn't read Schopenhauer until three or four
years after writing _Jewry in Music_.
> And neither is racism.
Together, however, they are *exactly* that. And we are considering
the whole essay, not isolated sentences--or sentence fragments!--
snatched out of context.
Roger Lustig