Oh, come on, that's not disturbing, just irritating! I wish my nephew would stop listening to rap music, doing "gang" hand gestures, and wearing super baggy shorts with his underwear showing.
Oh, come on, that's not disturbing, just irritating! I wish my nephew would stop listening to rap music, doing "gang" hand gestures, and wearing super baggy shorts with his underwear showing....Wagner seemed to view Jewishness as a sort of negative quality which could be abandoned. Wagner thought that Jews can redeem themselves from their Jewishness. That's a disturbing viewpoint as well...
True, racism is actually based on ethnic and social factors.The Independent article you've linked to does not really make the case for anti-semitism being regarded as somehow different from racism. As pianozach says, does it really matter? If prejudice, discrimination, hatred are clearly exhibited against a group of people on account of their ethnic origin or skin colour, it is to be abhorred.
The same could be said for ethnic and social kinds of dress and speech patterns and music. In the workplace, I saw a Hispanic girl turn up her music player and blasting cojunto music so loud it drove her co-worker to distraction, and she did this on purpose.One can point to manifestations of racism (acts, behaviours, speech) that are more subtle or more gross, but all manifestations should be countered accordingly.
Indeed he did. He advocated "eliminating" Jews from Germany. That would be "getting rid of them".^ Wagner didn't ever, as far as I know, propose to kill Jews or get rid of them by force.
Really now. Where did he state he wanted Jews eliminated. And how did he advocate this. Can you please provide sources.Indeed he did. He advocated "eliminating" Jews from Germany. That would be "getting rid of them".
I think to make them equal to each other, then you have diminished the particularly insidious nature of anti-semitism."Is Antisemitism Racism?"
Depends on who you ask, I suppose.
And if you ask me, yes, it is.
That's a quote from the Anne Frank Museum website: it's good to cite your sources if you're going to quote them.Racism is based on the idea that there are different human races: the 'white race', the 'black race', the 'yellow race', the 'red race'. People of the same race are assumed to share certain characteristics. Hitler and the Nazis also believed that people could be divided into races. And they believed that the races were in competition with each other. According to the Nazis, the Jews were a weak, dangerous, and inferior race that did not belong in Germany.
Well, no, not really. Historically, as I said, the hatred has been based on the fact they killed Christ and charged interest when Christians couldn't and went around murdering young children so as to drink their blood. It helps if they have big noses and curlicue hair under big black felt hats, so you can spot them easily enough. But they generally don't have black, yellow or red skin... and by the time we get to 1935 and the passing of the Nuremberg laws, it doesn't matter how white your skin is and whether you were baptised at birth or not: if you had a couple of Jewish grandparents in your family tree, you were to be excluded from society (though not yet to be exterminated).So, yes, Jews are not a "race", but even so, some people still believe in the concept.
If it is the basis for their hatred of Jews, it is undoubtedly racist.
Well, it has degenerated into that, so I agree with you. But the fundamental issue is not one of degree; it's of different causes and the various potential different 'cures'. Racism can be fixed, perhaps, by multiculturalism, intermarriage, school bussing (well, they might tackle some of the symptoms, at least). People generally get embarrassed about being identified as racist. Few antisemites are or were ever embarrassed about being so identified, and the cure for antisemitism is to eliminate the Jew (by expulsion, the occasional pogrom & massacre at a pinch, perhaps). Until we get to about 1941 when "eliminate" takes on a whole different complexion.And splitting hairs over degrees of racism is counterproductive.
I'd have difficulty making that case for Hitler. He thought highly of Indians, for example (for they were the original Aryans); likewise, he had no problem with regarding the Japanese as honarary Aryans. I think he didn't much like blacks. And he certainly came to regard the Slavs as sub-human (maybe the clue was in their collective name?!). So, I guess he might well have been racist, but not in any obvious, coherent or reasoned fashion. As for Wagner: I have no idea: I'm simply not familiar with his views on race.So, yes, both Wagner and Hitler were racists.
Again, I don't agree. He gained power and brought his antisemitism into effect. Different beast entirely.Hitler found himself in a position of power to bring his racism to a horrific conclusion.
Indeed. And for that reason, I don't think it helpful to speculate on that really. The known fact is he was a declared antisemite who composed music for a living. The other known fact is that Hitler was a declared antisemite who ran a government for a living. Unless we are to assume that there are different degrees of antisemitism, I think it's enough to say 'Wagner was a declared antisemite'. Time and a change of circumstance would have meant the same psycopathy would therefore probably have had broadly the same outcome.The hypothetical here is whether Wagner, had he been in a position of power as Hitler was, would have committed a similar genocide. And, of course, we cannot know if that is true.
I didn't find any reference to the word 'race' in his essay on Jewishness in Music, I've got to say. I've done a search through the PDF multiple times for it: it's not there. I may have missed it, which is fine if so and I'd be happy to have it pointed out to me.What we do know is that Wagner hated Jews because they were Jews, sounded jewish, acted jewish, and even "thought jewishly", and looked down on them as being a racially inferior group of people.
The splitting of hairs on degrees of racism is pointless, like comparing Olympic divers that dive from different heights as being a relevant point. One isn't MORE of a "diver" because men jump from a 27-metre-high (89 ft) platform while women jump from a 20-metre-high (66 ft) platform.
Yes, though only in translation (I read my Wagner like I read my Mein Kampf, in English, because the German is way to dense for me to deal with!)Really now. Where did he state he wanted Jews eliminated. And how did he advocate this. Can you please provide sources.
I'm going to be very interested in your explanation of how Jews can redeem themselves in Wagner's eyes (and no, you're absolutely right that he never advocated killing them). Because this passage:^ Wagner didn't ever, as far as I know, propose to kill Jews or get rid of them by force. He also had religious and philosophical views which talk against such theory. What I can say is that Wagner seemed to view Jewishness as a sort of negative quality which could be abandoned. Wagner thought that Jews can redeem themselves from their Jewishness. That's a disturbing viewpoint as well but it's less extreme than viewing Jews as inherently inferior. Wagner's solution was that all Jews should abandon their Jewishness (not be killed as someone during the 20th century thought).
(I'll add a more thorough explanation in near future because I'm currently using my phone which is somewhat ineffective.)
It's true, the Independent article wasn't exactly the best I could find in a hurry. I've written at length about it in a reply to pianozach slightly above this reply to you: maybe that will encapsulate the point better.The Independent article you've linked to does not really make the case for anti-semitism being regarded as somehow different from racism. As pianozach says, does it really matter? If prejudice, discrimination, hatred are clearly exhibited against a group of people on account of their ethnic origin or skin colour, it is to be abhorred. One can point to manifestations of racism (acts, behaviours, speech) that are more subtle or more gross, but all manifestations should be countered accordingly.
I agree with you. He indeed didn't want them to be killed but, yes, he was a fundamental antisemite.Yes, though only in translation (I read my Wagner like I read my Mein Kampf, in English, because the German is way to dense for me to deal with!)
Page 2 of his Jewishness in Music essay: seeing that it is much rather we who are shifted into the necessity of fighting for emancipation from the Jews.
Now, there's a certain ellipsis to turn 'emancipate from' into 'eliminate', but it's not much of a one. He wanted Germany to be free from the Jew.
He went on: But if emancipation from the yoke of Judaism appears to us the greatest of necessities, we must hold it weighty above all to prove our forces for this war of liberation
I'm not suggesting that he wanted to exterminate Jews. I'm saying, he wanted them out of German Art, and preferably out of Germany -and he was using fairly stiff language to say it. And I think if you start talking about a 'war of liberation', the idea of doing things a little bit forcefully is clearly on the cards.
But, unlike pianozach, to whom your question was originally addressed, I don't think Wagner was calling for Jews to be killed. Just a little bit of encouragement to make them go elsewhere.
You make a good point, but I fear you need to quote the entire paragraph!I agree with you. He indeed didn't want them to be killed but, yes, he was a fundamental antisemite.
When I was referring to his religious and philosophical views which would argue against him propagating killing Jews, I primarily meant his somewhat Buddhistic and Schopenhauerian sympathies. A good proof of that is his growing vegetarianism. It's thought that Wagner's vegetarianism sprang from ideas put forth by Schopenhauer, Georg Friedrich Daumer, and Gleïzès. Wagner contrasted Gleïzès' views about vegetarianism with those of Gobineau. In fact, the relationship between Gobineau and Wagner is often viewed as a perfectly warm and agreeable (imo Robert Gutman for example argues that Gobineau influenced Wagner significantly). Those two were on very different opinions - when Gobineau accused the Irish (a Celtic race) for opposing their English masters (as a Germanic race), Wagner took the side of the Irish. When Gobineau argued for slavery (of inferior races), Wagner argued for its abolition. In Hero-dom and Christendom Wagner gives an overview of Gobineau's ideas (which have been misinterpreted as his own) but rejects them in the second part of the essay. Wagner agreed with Gobineau in at least one matter - that there has occurred a degeneration of the human race but Wagner seems to reject the existence of a racially more heroic race because Christ (whom Wagner admired) was of mixed blood. Wagner saw that the heroism of Christ came from suffering and compassion, rather than the race ("Now what part can "Blood," the quality of Race, have played in fitting for the exercise of so holy a heroism?"). He for example says that Brahminic religion became lost because it's racial inequality was artificial and absurd. While Wagner seemed to admit that there exist higher and lower races (though some argue that he didn't support that), Wagner was much more focused on morals as such and the Schopenhauerian understanding of compassion:
The blood of suffering Mankind, as sublimated in that wondrous birth, could never flow in the interest of howsoever favoured a single race; no, it shed itself on all the human family, for noblest cleansing of Man's blood from every stain.
Cosima writes that Wagner was "downright explosive in favor of Christian theories in contrast to racial ones" (Cosima Wagner's Diaries, 3 June 1881) during Gobineau's 1881 visit. Wagner supported universal redemption of everyone (also Jews) while Gobineau's views seemed to be significantly more dependent on race, also when it comes to morals. Gobineau and Wagner show mutual admiration toward the other but this doesn't mean that they necessarily agreed about all matters, Wagner opposed racism to a rather heavy degree and probably didn't saw his own antisemitic views as racist. It's also supported by the fact that for Wagner Jewish ethnicity seemed to be a somewhat separate thing from Jewishness. In the ending of his infamous essay he brings Börne as an example of a Jew who was redeemed from his Jewishness:
To become Man at once with us, however, means firstly for the Jew as much as ceasing to be Jew. And this had Börne done. ... Without once looking back, take ye your part in this regenerative work of deliverance through self-annulment; then are we one and un-dissevered!
He literally says here that Jewishness can be abandoned and thus it's not something that is inherent of one race.
And PS.I agree with you. He indeed didn't want them to be killed but, yes, he was a fundamental antisemite.
When I was referring to his religious and philosophical views which would argue against him propagating killing Jews, I primarily meant his somewhat Buddhistic and Schopenhauerian sympathies. A good proof of that is his growing vegetarianism. It's thought that Wagner's vegetarianism sprang from ideas put forth by Schopenhauer, Georg Friedrich Daumer, and Gleïzès. Wagner contrasted Gleïzès' views about vegetarianism with those of Gobineau. In fact, the relationship between Gobineau and Wagner is often viewed as a perfectly warm and agreeable (imo Robert Gutman for example argues that Gobineau influenced Wagner significantly). Those two were on very different opinions - when Gobineau accused the Irish (a Celtic race) for opposing their English masters (as a Germanic race), Wagner took the side of the Irish. When Gobineau argued for slavery (of inferior races), Wagner argued for its abolition. In Hero-dom and Christendom Wagner gives an overview of Gobineau's ideas (which have been misinterpreted as his own) but rejects them in the second part of the essay. Wagner agreed with Gobineau in at least one matter - that there has occurred a degeneration of the human race but Wagner seems to reject the existence of a racially more heroic race because Christ (whom Wagner admired) was of mixed blood. Wagner saw that the heroism of Christ came from suffering and compassion, rather than the race ("Now what part can "Blood," the quality of Race, have played in fitting for the exercise of so holy a heroism?"). He for example says that Brahminic religion became lost because it's racial inequality was artificial and absurd. While Wagner seemed to admit that there exist higher and lower races (though some argue that he didn't support that), Wagner was much more focused on morals as such and the Schopenhauerian understanding of compassion:
The blood of suffering Mankind, as sublimated in that wondrous birth, could never flow in the interest of howsoever favoured a single race; no, it shed itself on all the human family, for noblest cleansing of Man's blood from every stain.
Cosima writes that Wagner was "downright explosive in favor of Christian theories in contrast to racial ones" (Cosima Wagner's Diaries, 3 June 1881) during Gobineau's 1881 visit. Wagner supported universal redemption of everyone (also Jews) while Gobineau's views seemed to be significantly more dependent on race, also when it comes to morals. Gobineau and Wagner show mutual admiration toward the other but this doesn't mean that they necessarily agreed about all matters, Wagner opposed racism to a rather heavy degree and probably didn't saw his own antisemitic views as racist. It's also supported by the fact that for Wagner Jewish ethnicity seemed to be a somewhat separate thing from Jewishness. In the ending of his infamous essay he brings Börne as an example of a Jew who was redeemed from his Jewishness:
To become Man at once with us, however, means firstly for the Jew as much as ceasing to be Jew. And this had Börne done. ... Without once looking back, take ye your part in this regenerative work of deliverance through self-annulment; then are we one and un-dissevered!
He literally says here that Jewishness can be abandoned and thus it's not something that is inherent of one race.
I'm not sure whether Wagner was simply not able to reject the temptation to talk about redemption more generally. Thus, a way it could be seen is that any kind of redemption requires "sweat, anguish, want, and all the dregs of suffering and sorrow" which he rather well proves in all his operas. He saw universal suffering as a source of redemption of the whole humankind and thus I think this maybe should (at least could) be freed from its restrictions to redemption from Jewishness. Any sort of redemption of any of his characters requires all the listed thing and thus this sentence might not be limited to Jews only (I'm speculating againYou make a good point, but I fear you need to quote the entire paragraph!
Yet another Jew have we to name, who appeared among us as a writer. From out his isolation as a Jew, he came among us seeking for redemption: he found it not, and had to learn that only with our redemption, too, into genuine Manhood, would he ever find it. To become Man at once with us, however, means firstly for the Jew as much as ceasing to be Jew. And this had BÖRNE done. Yet Börne, of all others, teaches us that this redemption can not be reached in ease and cold, indifferent complacence, but costs - as cost it must for us - sweat, anguish, want, and all the dregs of suffering and sorrow. Without once looking back, take ye your part in this regenerative work of deliverance through self-annulment [37]; then are we one and un-dissevered! But bethink ye, that one only thing can redeem you from the burden of your curse: the redemption of Ahasuerus - Going under!
So you have to cease to be a Jew... but even that is not enough, for it cannot be done in ease and cold, but at a cost in sweat, anquish, suffering and sorrow.
That footnote at the mention of "self-annulment" points out that the original text was "an diesem selbstvernichtenden, blutigen Kampfe", which I would translate as "in this self-destructive and bloody fight".
So, even if I concede that Wagner thought a Jew could become non-Jewish, it was not going to be something done trivially or lightly, but would involve suffering, destruction and blood. Not exactly what I'd call a recipe for widespread implementation in the genteel middle-class households of mid-nineteenth century German Jewish homes!
I hesitate, though, because the very final sentence is problematic: "But bethink ye, only one thing can redeem you from the burden of your curse: the redemption of Ahasuerus - Going under!"
"Ahasureus" is the name Kant gave to the 'The Wandering Jew', who in a different context was the Jew who laughed at Christ on the cross and thus was cursed to wander the Earth in eternity thereafter. That's a kind of parallel to The Dutchman who once invoked Satan and is cursed to sail the seas for ever in consequence -and his salvation turned out to be Senta drowing herself ('Going under'). So what does that last sentence really say: only one thing can redeem you really, and that's to kill yourself?
So, I don't know whether to concede the point or not. At the very least, Wagner has said that negation of Jewishness is not going to be 'easy', but require suffering and sorrow, want and anguish. A cheapshot would be to say, 'pretty much as 6 million were to end up not being Jewish by 1945', but I'll try and restrain myself!!
At worst, he's saying that it's so difficult to do, that only death is the reliable way to stop being Jewish. (Though it's quite possible I've garbled the reference to Ahasureus, in which case I hope enlightenment will be coming along from some direction or other soon enough!)
So, it's good you pointed us there, but I'm not convinced.
I think I just wasn't able to resist making that post because I found all that Gobineau stuff too interesting :lol:.And PS.
There are two issues you're addressing here. 1) Would Wagner have advocated killing Jews and 2) Did he think Jewishness was an inbuilt trait that could never be expunged.
I've explained at length above my response to (2) -post #271.
Here, and in respect of (1), I'm simply going to dismiss all the good stuff you cite about Schopenhauer and so on as indicating that Wagner would never have advocated for killing Jews... because I think we're all agreed that he never advocated killing Jews!
Whatever the philosophical blocks to his doing so may have been or not been, the socio-economic and technical circumstances just weren't there to make mass killing even feasible, let alone desirable. You would need the First World War to bring those conditions into existence. Without that, Wagner, nasty piece of work though he might have been, and undoubted anti-semite though he was, didn't need any philosophy to restrain him from doing that which he would simply never have conceived possible in the first place.
Well, this is your thread. You can take it anywhere you like I guess. But I don't need to follow.True, racism is actually based on ethnic and social factors.
In business and civics, buying houses, etc, we cannot have discrimination, but do we have to like whatever cultural manifestations that people adopt or reinforce to the point of exaggeration or distraction? There must be regulation of some sort.
[etc]
I think we'll have to agree to differ and leave it at that.Anyway, does it really matter? Yes, I'm afraid so, because racism led to slavery, and people being paid less, and not getting the same access to University, or to jobs... it tends not to lead to forced expulsion at best and gas chambers at worst. [etc]
I won't go that far. It is clear that RW was an antisemite -but he wasn't the first, and he definitely wasn't the last. But it isn't apparent to me that this means Wagner "paved a platform for the nazis".To me, it is crystal clear. R.Wagner has paved a platform for the rude unpolished nazi's and their extremist leader to be accepted by the German establishment, which led to the systemic holocaust.
I won't engage with that part of your argument. What Cosima or her children and grandchildren did or didn't do isn't pertinent to what Richard got up to.The clear connection of Wagner's heritage with anti-semitism was made or enforced by Wagner's widow...
Again, racism doesn't lead to those sorts of extremes. Only antisemitism does.Of course, there were (and still are) many racists all over the world. In the 1930's, you would find them in Germany, Russia, UK, USA and virtually each country. But Germany of course has taken it to the utmost extreme as racism was never so broadly and systemic established and executed.
We agree!It is of course absurd to discuss the 'fact' if Wagner has actively participated in the holocaust or not. He was long dead before it actually started.
That's where I part company with you. Richard gave expression to something lots of people thought. It brought him quite some notoriety, not approval or applause (such that he had to tone-down the final paragraph of the essay when it was republished in the 1869 period, lest re-publishing in its original form damaged his, by now, considerable reputation). I don't think he helped antisemitism grow or flourish particularly: he merely gave "intellectual" expression to something which was already quite common.But the holocaust was the ultimate result of something that the Wagners absolutely have helped grow and florish and get accepted.
Again, I agree. The apparently seriously-stated expression of the idea that Schönberg's bald head is a 'Jewish trait' was quite appalling, really. Or the idea that RW was only complaining about Eastern European Jews who looked "different", so that makes it OK... Jeez, Louise!The frequent ridiculisations throughout this entire thread are truly appalling and utterly stupid.
And I don't disagree with the idea that the Nazis needed 'cultural approval' to cement their hold over society. But that's irrelevant to a discussion about Richard Wagner, since he was 50 years dead by then. I get much more antsy about the likes of Carl Orff and Herbie Karajan in this context than I do about Wagner.There was a crystal clear connection between the Wagner family and the nazi's, based on anti-semitism. The nazi's could never have executed their systemic genocide without the broad acceptance of the German establishment and Bayreuth was an essential platform for the meeting of minds and acceptance of the executioners.
To be honest, I don't move in racist or antisemitic circles so I'm not sure if your first statement is true. The antisemites I see on TV news reports are usually young, skin-headed, mind-numbingly prone to violence, surprisingly pot-bellied for their age... and universally appear to have an intellect the size of a peanut, so I'd be quite honestly surprised if they had the wherewithal to even being to appreciate the first 30 seconds of anything written by Wagner!To this day, Wagner's music undoubtedly still is a code and symbol for racists, neo nazi's and secret anti semites all over the world. This of course does not mean that anyone who appreciates Wagner's music, automatically has similar sympathies. But Wagner's music will never be completely free from these associations. Well-deserved, I would add.
We also simply cannot say that Wagner had extremely objectionable social ideas (which he clearly did), and that it means his music is somehow inherently tainted. (Obviously things are slow if this ridiculous thread is still going.)^ You simply cannot say that Richard Wagner is to be held accountable for whatever stuff Wagner's family has done and supported. As I have written extensively in this thread - there's no reason to think that Wagner would have supported holocaust because his semi-religious, semi-philosophical thoughts condemned even killing and eating animals. You also cannot say that Wagner is responsible for how his works has been misinterpreted and misused by Nazis. Wagner saw his works as representation of the highest Art not as some political propaganda. Give me one quote from Wagner's works or writings where he says explicitly that the works are representative of German superiority and are meant to convey anti-semitic stereotypes. . . .
I think you have a good point there. As a Christian, too, of course... well, the whole point of it is that Christ redeems the sinner, isn't it!I'm not sure whether Wagner was simply not able to reject the temptation to talk about redemption more generally. Thus, a way it could be seen is that any kind of redemption requires "sweat, anguish, want, and all the dregs of suffering and sorrow" which he rather well proves in all his operas. He saw universal suffering as a source of redemption of the whole humankind and thus I think this maybe should (at least could) be freed from its restrictions to redemption from Jewishness. Any sort of redemption of any of his characters requires all the listed thing and thus this sentence might not be limited to Jews only (I'm speculating again). The gods, particularly Wotan, gain their redemption through Brünnhilde's death - it's a more general concept Wagner uses, I think.
I think this is a point well-made, too. The only thing I'd say by way of push-back is that Börne's conversion to Protestantism is said to be a necessary precondition for 'regeneration' and 'un-disseverance', but whilst it's a requirement, it is clearly not sufficient. But yes... it gets murky at this point!I thought about the last sentence as well but I decided to leave it out from the quotation because Wagner says that Börne did manage to gain his "redemption" (without having to kill himself) and therefore I prefer to view it as a literary technique to convey the need for the death of one (in Wagner's opinion) negative quality. If being redeemed from Jewishness required physical death of the quilty, Börne wouldn't have gained his "redemption".
Again, a good point made in your first paragraph, and an excellent one made in your second: I can't make head nor tail of it either!So, inner "Jewishness" (not Jew) must be killed. I think it meant accepting and joining the German culture, thus abandoning (i.e killing) the Jewish culture. Had it required physical death, I have no idea how Börne would have become a Man if he had just died. Such conversion into "genuine Manhood" wouldn't take place if the person just had to die.
Btw, how do you understand this line "From out his isolation as a Jew, he came among us seeking for redemption: he found it not, and had to learn that only with our redemption, too, into genuine Manhood, would he ever find it"? I can't make head or tail of what on earth Wagner exactly wanted to say. That living among Germans isn't enough if one isn't converted into its culture?
I will immediately agree with you that the Dutchman is a distraction, and I shouldn't have gone there. It's just that the parallels seemed to work and I couldn't really make sense of the 'Going Under' comment at the end of the paragraph without it. So let me retract all notions of the Dutchman, and instead, tackle that last word and sentence of the essay afresh, just as I would with one of my Bach translations.I also found the reference to the Wandering Jew from the last sentence and thought about that as well. I don't think that equating Dutchman to Ahasureus (or Wandering Jew) only, is correct because in A Communication to my Friends Wagner writes that Dutchman is a combination of the Wandering Jew (in the sense that he similarly yearns for his sufferings to be ended by death) and Ulysses. Wagner says that, differently from Ahasureus, the Dutchman is able to gain his redemption through a Woman (not death itself). Interestingly, Wagner also says that the figure of the Dutchman is a representation of a universal human trait. Namely, "the longing after rest from amid the storms of life" and thus I don't think Holländer should be seen as a guidebook about gaining redemption which Wagner wrote for Jews.