I came across this gem in my google feed last night:
https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/its-time-to-let-classical-music-die/
https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/its-time-to-let-classical-music-die/
"Western classical music is not about culture. It's about whiteness. It's a combination of European traditions which serve the specious belief that whiteness has a culture-one that is superior to all others. Its main purpose is to be a cultural anchor for the myth of white supremacy. In that regard, people of color can never truly be pioneers of Western classical music. The best we can be are exotic guests: entertainment for the white audiences and an example of how Western classical music is more elite than the cultures of people of color."
I'm not using "merely" in a sense that would diminish the harmfulness of non-racist prejudice. Prejudices can still be exceedingly harmful and wicked without being racist.What does "merely a prejudice" mean? What's "mere" about prejudice?
Of course, but I would still argue that unless those hatreds be directly or indirectly influenced by pseudo-scientific theories of racial hierarchy they are not, strictly speaking, racist. They would instead be a more generalized form of xenophobia or tribalism. They might be wicked and harmful in either case.Hatred for and mistreatment of people of a different physical characteristics may be based on nothing more than fear, revulsion and custom.
Yes, that's precisely what I've been getting at.The psychology of prejudice is simple human nature and is the basis of racial theory more than the result of it.
I agree. Pseudoscience plays no part in most forms of prejudice. Nevertheless, racism is a pseudoscience, and that is largely what differentiates it from other forms of pre-enlightenment prejudice.All it takes for great numbers of people to justify these is a few Bible verses, and often not even that. No "pseudoscience" needed.
You want to make this simpler than it is. The concept of "race" is not simple; the term can be and has been conceived in different ways, and prejudicial, discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward racial groups have been justified (if at all) by reference to characteristics other than those which theorists of biological race have identified as defining race. There is no evidence I can see for your contention that the work of such theorists underlies the introduction of racism into society, or that it's necessary for racism's perpetuation.I would still argue that unless those hatreds be directly or indirectly influenced by pseudo-scientific theories of racial hierarchy they are not, strictly speaking, racist. They would instead be a more generalized form of xenophobia or tribalism.
So you think the term "racism" should be used in a certain narrow sense. Well, I see no justification for that, either in historical practice or in common usage. Racism in practice is bigger and more complicated than the notions of post-Enlightenment scientific (or pseudoscientific) race theorists. Neither they nor you hold a lexical monopoly on the term. As they say, "haters gonna hate," and they don't need pseudoscientists or lexicographers to help them.Pseudoscience plays no part in most forms of prejudice. Nevertheless, racism is a pseudoscience, and that is largely what differentiates it from other forms of pre-enlightenment prejudice.
Yes, we all know that in popular culture and colloquial speech "racism" has the inexact layman's meaning of "a generalized xenophobic act or impulse," but as the sources I cited demonstrate, this not how scholars who study the history of racism use the term. I'm much more inclined to give priority to their usage rather than that of the man on the street. They preserve this distinction because no one really has any idea what is meant by "racism" in the popular sense, besides being a buzzword for some kind of vague hostility between different human groups. It conveys no distinct idea and gives more smoke than light.The concept of "race" is not simple; the term can be and has been conceived in different ways, and prejudicial, discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward racial groups have been justified (if at all) by reference to characteristics other than those which theorists of biological race have identified as defining race.
I'd concur with that.Unless I am sadly mistaken--very sadly mistaken indeed--I think we are broad agreement on the general principle that tribalism is sufficient to account, by itself, for every sort of horror and atrocity occurring between peoples. I also think we agree on the notion that racism is very largely a phenomenon of fairly recent origin invented to give a (pseudoscientific) sheen of intellectual or biblical respectability to those tribal impulses.
I affirm that I am awash with cultural prejudices, but I also affirm to the best of my knowledge (self-knowledge) that I am free of racial (color) prejudice.It would surprise me if prejudices based on appearance had no evolutionary basis. It's hard for any person in contemporary Western society to legitimately claim to be altogether free of racial prejudice.
Proto-racism is a term I've been personally using for years, nor is it by any means unique to the author I cited. It's been used in historical and sociological literature since at least the mid-70s.You, Logos, certainly find it easy to breeze past every objection to your insistence that you have the sole valid definition of racism! Here, having put yourself into a little academic box, you find some professor who gives you a possible out by introducing the fine-sounding notion of "proto-racism." It looks like you might get to have your cake and eat it too!
For purposes of discussion, I'd accept this wiktionary definition: proto-racism: attitudes and actions displaying prejudices and stereotypes analogous to those of racism which predate the modern biologically-based concept of race. Analogy is not identity however.So - what is this proto-racism, the existence of which you'll accept as long as it isn't confused with actual racism, which of course can only be the "correct" form of racism formulated in the 18th and 19th centuries?
If the oceans of ink already spilled on the subject be any indication, it's safe to say that those interested in the history of race prejudice will continue their absurd quibbling for a few centuries to come.At what point does it become absurd to quibble about the use of the word "racism"?
Analogies are often a poor basis for analysis. Let's see about this one...For purposes of discussion, I'd accept this wiktionary definition: proto-racism: attitudes and actions displaying prejudices and stereotypes analogous to those of racism which predate the modern biologically-based concept of race.
"Proto-racism" is a very poor term for an assortment of prejudices which fall pretty comfortably under the category "tribalism." Where such variously justified prejudice differs so fundamentally from "modern racism" (which is "organized around commonality between phenotypes in human morphology"), then it's hardly clarifying to posit something called proto-racism to describe it. As I said before, this looks like eating one's cake and having it too.Proto-racism would have been primarily based on identification with much narrower groups (a specific gens or tribe, family, or city state, a group devoted to a particular deity)... modern racism is ...organized around commonality between phenotypes in human morphology that might include millions up millions spanning whole continents.
Racism can be, and is, justified by reference to all the things you call justifications for "proto-racism." It's simply a question of whether the justifying is done by ordinary people or by ivory-tower professors, of which you appear to be one. Racists may know and care little about about phenotypes; e. g., whites don't justify discrimination against blacks merely because they're the wrong color and have broad noses - people come in many shapes and colors, and attitudes toward different races differ - but because they're "lazy" or "they're sexually promiscuous" or "they'll bring down the neighborhood" or "they want to tax me so they can make babies and collect welfare and drive Cadillacs," etc. Or there may be very little "conscious rationalization" of racist sentiments and behavior. The "degree of rationalization" cannot be a defining feature of racism.Another difference is the degree of systematization, and the types of psychological and moral justifications offered for proto-racism and racism.
Proto-racism could be justified by myths, oral traditions, blood feuds, travelers' tales, prophecies, disputed possession of sacred lands, and genealogical legends in addition to the observation of superficial morphological differences.
On the other hand, post-Enlightenment racism was justified by scientific observations and tests that not only systematized human morphology but sought to associate different phenotypes with varying levels of moral and intellectual sophistication.
The degree of conscious rationalization is vastly greater in the later period.
Antisemitism was widespread and large-scale in ancient times, and the persecutions could be quite sytematic. Was ancient antisemitism racism? "Proto-racism"? Where is the dividing line?modern racism propagated allegiances on the broadest possible grounds (race groups numbering in the millions)...the scale of the oppression it encouraged was larger than all but the most catastrophic instances of proto-racial and non-racial persecution. The unsystematic nature of [proto-racism's] ...persecutions were...less systematic than those of racism proper.
Your academic view has been clear all along. But I say that it doesn't fully explain or describe racism, now or in earlier times. The notion of "proto-racism" appears unnecessary and unhelpful.I hope the preceding gives at least a hasty outline of some of the ways that academics apply proto-racism to compare and contrast the forms that prejudices took in modern and premodern times.
Well put, indeed!Logos: "If the oceans of ink already spilled on the subject be any indication, it's safe to say that those interested in the history of race prejudice will continue their absurd quibbling for a few centuries to come."
Exactly. Fascinating as all this is, it doesn't seem to me to shed much light on the OPNone of this has anything to do with classical music.
For that very reason, I introduced it with the caveat that only some historians and sociologists use the term and that it remains controversial. I don't endorse it unequivocally and as I said, it sometimes causes confusion. My purpose in introducing was to concede that while racism proper is a comparatively recent phenomenon there were analogous phenomena in past times, although different in scale, motivation, justification, propagation, etc."Proto-racism" is a very poor term for an assortment of prejudices which fall pretty comfortably under the category "tribalism."
Certainly it can be, but unlike proto-racism, racism is also justified by systematized pseudoscience. That was the means that allowed it to spread so rapidly and dangerously throughout the educated classes of Europe.Racism can be, and is, justified by reference to all the things you call justifications for "proto-racism."
The dividing line is the invention of the modern concept of race which did not come into existence till the 18th century. From "The Concept of Race in Natural and Social Science" published by Routledge:Was ancient antisemitism racism? "Proto-racism"? Where is the dividing line?
I understand your view and sympathize with the desire to have precise definitions of terms. Whether or not we want to restrict the term "racism" in the way you suggest, it's certainly true that the precise content of human prejudice evolved. A little while back I had a conversation here about Wagner's antisemitism (and that of his time and place in general) in which I argued that his views, as expressed in his tract "Jewishness in Music," were not in the narrowest sense racist but cultural, having to do with religion and the position of Jews in society and in the arts. Wagner seems not to have considered the notion of biological race until late in life, when he had conversations with Count Gobineau about the latter's "Essay on the Inequality of Human Races." He found the idea of innate racial differences interesting but not really agreeable; he rejected the idea that the Germans were a "race," much less a "master race," and appealed to his brand of Christianity (which did include a vehement rejection of Judaism) to insist that salvation was available to all, regardless of "race." Wagner has been called a "proto-Nazi," and his operas have been parsed in search of premonitions of master-race ideology. But given that his last opera, Parsifal, was finished before the conversations with Gobineau took place, and that he was at least skeptical of the idea of innate racial characteristics, such interpretations of his thinking and work seem poorly grounded.For that very reason, I introduced it with the caveat that only some historians and sociologists use the term and that it remains controversial. I don't endorse it unequivocally and as I said, it sometimes causes confusion. My purpose in introducing was to concede that while racism proper is a comparatively recent phenomenon there were analogous phenomena in past times, although different in scale, motivation, justification, propagation, etc.
Certainly it can be, but unlike proto-racism, racism is also justified by systematized pseudoscience. That was the means that allowed it to spread so rapidly and dangerously throughout the educated classes of Europe.
The dividing line is the invention of the modern concept of race which did not come into existence till the 18th century. From "The Concept of Race in Natural and Social Science" published by Routledge:
Beginning in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the first evidence began to emerge that the term "race" had come to be firmly associated with morphological traits and biological inheritance.
For example, historians distinguish between the anti-Semitism of Luther and that of the Nazis, the former being based on Jews' failure to accept Christ. In Nazism, religion per se was of secondary if not tertiary importance in comparison to race and cultural theories that interacted with it.
That's because Nazi anti-semitism served a specific political purpose. Exactly what might be used to validate it, or create the pretense of validity, was less important. I've read that Goebbels strongly disagreed with Hitler on a number of these propaganda issues, but my guess is he had to be careful about how openly he disagreed with him. I see very little in all of that that has anything to do with Wagner.Hitler, Goering, Himmler, Heydrich, and Goebbels all had differing notions as to anti-Semitism's exact relation to Christianity, paganism, biological science, German idealism, and to past manifestations of hostility towards Jews in German history.
It's nebulous because it's used to describe nebulous analogical resemblances rather than exact ones. I'm not sure what you chronologically consider Wagner's later thinking to be (The last 5, 15, 20 years of his life?), but as for militarism, I find in Ernest Newman's biography the following:Have you found any sympathy for militarism in Wagner's later thinking? I haven't, and without it "proto-fascist" wouldn't be an apt description (there's that nebulous "proto" prefix again).
I don't find those efforts conclusive either, and the "Wandering Jew" figure is perhaps the most common character archetype in all of romantic literature (Manfred, Faust, Childe Harold, Melmoth, St. Leon, etc.) so it doesn't really testify to any particular obsession on Wagner's part.I haven't found anything clearly antisemitic in the operas, and elsewhere on the forum have pointed out flaws in nearly all the efforts to do so. There are a few possible Jewish references - the Flying Dutchman as Wandering Jew, Kundry as having laughed at Christ - but both of these characters are portrayed sympathetically, and there's no suggestion of racism, despite the bizarre theories of commentators such as Robert Gutman.
The Franco-Prussian War was in 1870, and Wagner lived until 1882. I was thinking of Wagner's late years, and of fascism in relation to racism and the militarism that came to express it.It's nebulous because it's used to described nebulous analogical resemblances rather than exact ones. I'm not sure what you chronologically consider Wagner's later thinking to be (The last 5, 15, 20 years of his life?), but as for militarism, I find in Ernest Newman's biography the following:
"From Cosima's diary we learn that he (Wagner) 'felt the war (The Franco-Prussian War) to be something holy and great'--for the Germans of course..."
"[Wagner] said that the French capital, the femme entretenue of the world, would be destroyed. As a young man he had not been able to understand how Bluecher could have desired this, and he had disapproved of him. Now he understood him. Wagner is then described as rejoicing in this prospective destruction of Paris as "the freeing of the world from everything that was bad."
"Richard wanted to write Bismarck and beg him to bombard Paris."
From Alan Walker's exhaustive biography of Liszt:
"For this he blamed Richard Wagner, whose public gloatings over each Prussian victory had become nauseating." Walker is describing how Liszt believed that Wagner's influence on Cosima had caused her to turn against France.
Newman likewise describes Wagner's offensive, triumphalist rejoicings and cruel jibes aimed at his French acquaintances in their humiliating defeat. He even wrote a farce about the Parisian surrender.
I don't find those efforts conclusive either, and the "Wandering Jew" figure is perhaps the most common character archetype in all of romantic literature (Manfred, Faust, Childe Harold, Melmoth, St. Leon, etc.) so it doesn't really testify to any particular obsession on Wagner's part.
Certainly it's difficult to know what Hitler's philosophy was since, in addition to being cruel tyrant, he was an inveterate liar. He lied in politics, he lied about his past, and he lied about his beliefs. From Becoming Hitler published by Oxford:But there is nothing even pseudo-intellectual about Hitler's "philosophy". He was purely a manipulative propagandist, seizing on whatever past writers may have said to help his propaganda campaigns, without worrying too much about whether he was characterizing or using their ideas correctly, which he generally wasn't. In fact, he relished his anti-intellectual stances, knowing the ordinary German wouldn't understand or care about most intellectual theories anyway.
Yes, it's a rough one, but he has a good chance of recovering from it. It's called youth. The author is a 2017 college graduate. He has some discovering to do in the years ahead, of himself as well as the world at large. I, for one, wish him well.^^^^We may be dealing with a pathology in the case of the article's author.
You didn't ask one. Observe the lack of a question mark in either of your posts on the previous page.You didn't answer my question. Never mind.
What is a "proper consideration" of discrimination arising from prejudice? What would an improper consideration be? I have discussed the formation of racism (the form of prejudice at issue in this thread), its defining characteristics, its motivations, its history, etc. Is any of this improper? On the contrary, I should think it necessary.What still eludes me is how any of this analysis sheds light on whether classical music can be racist (as claimed in the article posted by the OP) and whether this analysis is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to avoid any proper consideration of discrimination arising from prejudice against others of different ethnic backgrounds.
That isn't quite the same thing as Koreans accusing each other of being racist for not having enough non-Korean music. Longing for greater cultural variety is not identical with ascribing moral turpitude to those who don't see the necessity of variety. It's also true that, due to its political history, South Korea has been much more profoundly influenced by the West than China. It's hard to argue that this kind of longing for diversity that you're describing is anything other than an American importation. It certainly isn't native to Korea, unless one is willing to believe that Korea spontaneously and coincidentally adopted Enlightenment values while being occupied and supervised by a post-Enlightenment nation. The overall American influence in Korea's modernization and democratization is hard to overstate.The same things go on here in Korea that go on in the west. There is more Korean music than you'd find in the west, but there is plenty of African, Southeast Asian, South American and so on music as well. The limitations in the curriculum are always criticized by people who want more inclusivity.