Author's Beliefs

[Idril]

I asked this question a different forum and I was curious what the general consensus could be here so I'm going to ask it again.

I had just started Journey to the End of the Night by Céline when I found out he was a crazy anti-Semite and I was similarly in the middle of Growth of the Soul by Knut Hamsun when I found out he was a Nazi supporter. Now Growth of the Soil in no way touched on Hamsun's beliefs and from what I've read, neither does the Céline book, there is no way to know their sympathies by what they wrote but still I wonder, at what point do and should an author's political and ideological beliefs influence whether or not to read his/her works? I have to admit I was uncomfortable continuing Growth of the Soil and considered putting it down when I found out about his Nazi past and now I'm in the same quandary with Journey to the End of the Night. I did finish Growth of the Soil and was glad I did but I don't plan on reading any more Knut Hamsun books. Then I think about all the Russian novels I read and all the anti-semitism that is scattered all over those novels and yet while I cringe when I read those passages, it doesn't make me not want to read the authors. I think the difference is that I don't believe that the Russian authors I know and love (not all Russian authors of course, just the ones I'm familiar with and love) would not advocate the extermination of the jews, I think that's why I'm more willing to deal with the discomfort than with an author that did, perhaps not out and out advocate extermination, but did advocate expulsion and racial purity.

Of course you aren't and shouldn't limit yourself to authors who share your politics and ideals because that would be boring and...limiting but does there come a time when you just have to stand your ideological ground and avoid certain authors who's personal beliefs are reprehensible to you? What are your opinions?

[Jozanny]

How often is Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice produced with any degree of empathy? Or discussed with any degree of comfort on a daily basis? Authors are not a species apart from the rest of humanity--it is the end product, language making and becoming art, which makes us a little better than primates who don't trouble themselves over the science of feces removal.

Edith Wharton had her prejudices about the Jewish race and wealth, as did her mentor master Henry James. I am a disabled writer with my own biases who has been as much abused by minorities as by members of my own clan, so to speak. Gunter Grass, who is being discussed in the forum book club, is probably one of the greatest post-war German authors of all time, and yet he recently provided full disclosure about his involvement with the Nazi Party.

You have to be cautious about off-setting writers and nominating them for sainthood. We are as imperfect or as inspired with genius as any others who are a product of their period, culture, and time.

[JBI]

Yes, but it is interesting to note that Grass only revealed his Nazi affiliations after he got his Nobel. He didn't include them on the books' dust jacket.

[Idril]

Well, Gunter Grass's involvement with the Nazi party was as a youth, it wasn't really an ideological choice. He was a German and it was war, not everyone who fought for the Germans agreed with the Nazi policies. I think he has made it clear that he wasn't a supporter of Hitler or of his opinions on the Jews and with his activism and novels since that time, he has shown just how far he is from their ideals.

And I'm not interested in sainting anyone. I love many a tarnished writer, it's just connections to that kind of racial hatred is very hard for me to overcome.

[Jozanny]

And I'm not interested in sainting anyone. I love many a tarnished writer, it's just connections to that kind of racial hatred is very hard for me to overcome.

Very few individuals are the sum of their biases; if they were an X number of Hitlers would have cropped up and ended the species. Celine was a wing nut? Big deal. So was Pound--and if James cringed at the "swarming Jewry" in his American travels, it was arguably a piece of his greatness that Victorians had no tolerance for gay and lesbian lifestyles. To be human is to exploit, to oppress.

How much African literature do we discuss on The Network? How many threads do we have for that as opposed to Euro and American centric threads and authors? Anti-Semitic sentiment is a Caucasian insider's argument which has only recently had its spleen diffused thanks to the Holocaust--but the biases of Western Imperialism are still implicit even if the impetus of empire is dead. One gets tired of these constant guilt trips.

[stlukesguild]

This is one of the reasons I dislike the idea of approaching any artist from some Freudian biographical point of view. It places too much upon the "cult of personality" as opposed to the actual art object. In the visual arts this has resulted in the fact that most museums would rather own a minor or even a poor work by a major artist, than a masterpiece by a minor or generally less-well-known artist. It also leads to the aspect of "value"... monetary and aesthetic... being based upon legitimacy of attribution. If it were suddenly discovered irrefutably that King Lear had been written by another author than Shakespeare, would it lessen the merits of that play?

In literature I often find that correct or incorrect politics... the fact that one is imagined as having been a victim as opposed to a beneficiary of oppression (and living in the grossly wealthy and educated West are we not all such beneficiaries to a certain extent?) is imagined as reason to value of devalue an author. Maya Angelou had a crappy life but still prevailed. So we should admire her art as we admire her? I think not. By the same token I am not about to undervalue Hemingway's or Pound's or Eliot's literary achievements just because they may have been real jerks. It seems that there is too much confusion between the artist and the art... and they are not one and the same. No work of art fully defines an artist. If such were true we would certainly be able to discern which of Shakespeare's world of characters was most likely him. Unfortunately with the Romantics... and their heirs such as the Beats and the Confessional poets we have often forgotten that literature is an Art... as in "artifice" and "artificial"... it is something invented that blurs reality with fiction, invention, fantasy, ideals, etc...

[JBI]

Well, Gunter Grass's involvement with the Nazi party was as a youth, it wasn't really an ideological choice. He was a German and it was war, not everyone who fought for the Germans agreed with the Nazi policies. I think he has made it clear that he wasn't a supporter of Hitler or of his opinions on the Jews and with his activism and novels since that time, he has shown just how far he is from their ideals.

And I'm not interested in sainting anyone. I love many a tarnished writer, it's just connections to that kind of racial hatred is very hard for me to overcome.
The point is, he didn't come out and say it right after the war, and made a career of going against such views. He didn't say, in my youth I was sucked into this, he said, this is all evil yadayadayada. I don't dispute the quality of his work, but he clearly was looking out for the A man.

[Idril]

How much African literature do we discuss on The Network? How many threads do we have for that as opposed to Euro and American centric threads and authors? Anti-Semitic sentiment is a Caucasian insider's argument which has only recently had its spleen diffused thanks to the Holocaust--but the biases of Western Imperialism are still implicit even if the impetus of empire is dead. One gets tired of these constant guilt trips.

I just want to make it clear I'm not just talking about hatred towards Jews. It just happens, because most of the books I read are European, that the two examples I was talking about were connected to that but I'm talking about a general intolerance to other races, whatever they may be. I'm no more comfortable with authors who are allied with the KKK, for example, than authors who have connections with the Nazis or other anti-Semitic groups. Racial intolerance of any shape or form has always made me hugely uncomfortable.

And really, it doesn't have to be limited to racial disparity. I'm not looking to defend a point of view, I'm just looking for discussion and opinions. I know that my my issues with author's racial opinions are just that, my issues. I'm not looking to be justified or attacked for my hesitance to read certain authors. I'm just curious how other people deal with this question and what author prejudices...whatever they may be...give people pause.

And JBI, I think it's highly possible that it was something that caused a certain amount of shame for Grass, and certainly something he wanted hidden, without a doubt. The atmosphere after WWII towards anything that had anything to do with the Nazis was incredibly highly charged. There really didn't seem to be any sense of tolerance there, every German, citizen or soldier was considered suspect. It doesn't seem the least bit strange that he would want to distance himself from that. Cowardly, perhaps but understandable given what the circumstances were at that time, especially for Germans trying to separate themselves from the horror of the Nazis. And I believe he expressed the views he honestly held, as to the timing of his confession, I don't know...I do know that as people age, they feel a need for atonement and honesty. He perhaps felt that he wanted to control that reveal instead of having someone do it for him and being put in a position of defense.

[Drkshadow03]

Anti-Semitic sentiment is a Caucasian insider's argument which has only recently had its spleen diffused thanks to the Holocaust--but the biases of Western Imperialism are still implicit even if the impetus of empire is dead. One gets tired of these constant guilt trips.

What do you mean by this paragraph, Jozanny? You're tired of what constant guilt trip?

[Jozanny]

Maya Angelou had a crappy life but still prevailed. So we should admire her art as we admire her? I think not.

Why do you always single out this august old woman? She capitalizes on the norm of matriarchal dominance within the African American community. More power to her for it; she is probably old enough to remember what happened to Norma Neale Hurston, and so opts more towards being Oprah's oracle than a black poet kowtowing with muted propriety toward the *canon*. There are richer and more concurrent fields to plow luke. Terrance Hayes out of Pittsburgh, or Anjana Appachana, who isn't as famous as Rushdie but offers just as rich a palette on Indian society.

My impatience with Idril's conscience over European nutcases is that the answer is to diversify into multicultural viewpoints, of which this board can only do on a limited basis, partly due to the economics of copyright, partly due to the fact that "classics" naturally lead to calcification. Scheherazade does a great job with the forum book club, but this community could still benefit from more contemporary diversification.

[Drkshadow03]

My impatience with Idril's conscience over European nutcases is that the answer is to diversify into multicultural viewpoints, of which this board can only do on a limited basis, partly due to the economics of copyright, partly due to the fact that "classics" naturally lead to calcification. Scheherazade does a great job with the forum book club, but this community could still benefit from more contemporary diversification.

But what if you still enjoy the material by the European nutcases despite feeling uncomfortable about the fact that they are nutcases and their nutcasery might spill into their work? Saying that one should read more multicultural literature doesn't exactly solve the problem. It just gives you more to read that might be good too. It's true that the community could benefit from more diversity in its reading and discussions, but I fail to see how this addresses Idril's concerns in the slightest or even has any logical connection to them.It is a bit of a red herring. How does one logically have anything to do with the other?

[Virgil]

Yes, but it is interesting to note that Grass only revealed his Nazi affiliations after he got his Nobel. He didn't include them on the books' dust jacket.

Yes, the criticism that Grass got was his hypocrisy:


Günter Grass Under Siege After Revealing SS Past
By ALAN RIDING
Published: August 17, 2006

PARIS, Aug. 16 — In novels, plays, essays and newspaper interviews, Günter Grass has often told Germans what they did not want to hear: about their history, about their politics, even about themselves. For many on the left, since the 1960’s he has come to represent the conscience of a country with much to lament.

After winning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1999, he explained his obsession with Germany’s past. “There were extenuating circumstances,” he told the Swedish Academy, “mountains of rubble and cadavers, fruit of the womb of German history. The more I shoveled, the more it grew. It simply could not be ignored.”

But now, at 78, Mr. Grass has stunned Germany by confessing that he too has a buried past. In an interview with a leading German newspaper, he revealed that in the final months of World War II, when he was 17, he was drafted by the Waffen SS, the military branch of the notorious Nazi corps that played an important role in the Holocaust and other atrocities.

The reaction in Germany to this admission has been one of disbelief and indignation: not that a teenager should have been recruited into the Waffen SS as Hitler struggled to avoid defeat, but that the country’s most prominent writer should have hidden this while hectoring others for their political and social sins from the comfort of the moral high ground. “I do not understand how someone can elevate himself constantly for 60 years as the nation’s bad conscience, precisely in Nazi questions, and only then admit that he himself was deeply involved,” Joachim Fest, a prominent historian and biographer of Hitler, told the newspaper Bild. “I don’t know how he could play this double role for so long.”
[Snip]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/arts/17gras.html

He was wailing against others while he had done the same thing.

[JBI]

Yes, the criticism that Grass got was his hypocrisy:


[Snip]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/arts/17gras.html

He was wailing against others while he had done the same thing.

That being said, he is still a fantastic novelist, and should be read, well, at least the Tin Drum.

On the note of Ms. Angelou, she, I have no doubt, is a great person, especially in the defense of minority rights, and social justice. But as far as her poetry is concerned, I don't see the problem calling it mediocre.

There are plenty of great African American poets, such as Thylias Moss (though her newer stuff is a little too post-modern for me, and I don't quite get it, as she seems to try and fuse different media forms, into something I can't quite understand), Rita Dove, who is a fantastic poet, and Robert Hayden, who needs no introduction.

But even that is within a small fixation - why should I, as a Canadian care about Ms. Angelou's critiques of America? I'm not American. You see the problem? There are great writers of every background, why not celebrate those, as StLukes is trying to hint at. Social commentary as literature needs to go beyond its time if it is to survive. It needs to contain more than just social commentary, but a transcendental aspect that makes its appeal beyond those who are criticized, or involved.

I can't see why someone in China would want to read Ms. Angelou, and I can't see why they should.

To me, multicultural reading means reading what is culturally important, and aesthetically superb from more than one culture. Ms. Angelou fails that, as do others, because she simply is writing for Americans, and not very well.

There are plenty of great African Canadian poets, for instance, who are unpublished in the States, though are of greater merit aesthetically than she is, as a poet (I haven't read her biographies, so I will reserve judgment on them). Someone like George Eliot Clarke for instance, who is a much better poet than Angelou, isn't read, because the market has been flooded by mediocre poets such as Angelou, or Gwendolyn Brooks (though the latter is better in my mind than Angelou, and has occasional good piece, however rarely).

[Jozanny]

But what if you still enjoy the material by the European nutcases despite feeling uncomfortable about the fact that they are nutcases and their nutcasery might spill into their work? Saying that one should read more multicultural literature doesn't exactly solve the problem. It just gives you more to read that might be good too. It's true that the community could benefit from more diversity in its reading and discussions, but I fail to see how this addresses Idril's concerns in the slightest or even has any logical connection to them.It is a bit of a red herring. How does one logically have anything to do with the other?

The past cannot be erased, so I do not see why contemporary readers have to turn green about the gills because of ancient bigotry. What *one* has to do with the other is education. I love the work of Henry James--that he was a stuffy repressed bigoted fart should not detract from the man's genius. Reading Chefitz and other Jewish authors teaches me just how sad James acceptance of his upper case social mores were, and that is pretty much the best one can do, in my estimation. The gift of what James did for literature outweighs his detractions; we all have biases, besides.

I am not arguing that Maya should or should not be read. I am slightly bothered that luke keeps bringing her up to trivialize her. I am a cripple, and I know how difficult it is to break stigma, and feel she should be respected for where she has gotten to, if nothing else.

[wessexgirl]

I asked this question a different forum and I was curious what the general consensus could be here so I'm going to ask it again.

I had just started Journey to the End of the Night by Céline when I found out he was a crazy anti-Semite and I was similarly in the middle of Growth of the Soul by Knut Hamsun when I found out he was a Nazi supporter. Now Growth of the Soil in no way touched on Hamsun's beliefs and from what I've read, neither does the Céline book, there is no way to know their sympathies by what they wrote but still I wonder, at what point do and should an author's political and ideological beliefs influence whether or not to read his/her works? I have to admit I was uncomfortable continuing Growth of the Soil and considered putting it down when I found out about his Nazi past and now I'm in the same quandary with Journey to the End of the Night. I did finish Growth of the Soil and was glad I did but I don't plan on reading any more Knut Hamsun books. Then I think about all the Russian novels I read and all the anti-semitism that is scattered all over those novels and yet while I cringe when I read those passages, it doesn't make me not want to read the authors. I think the difference is that I don't believe that the Russian authors I know and love (not all Russian authors of course, just the ones I'm familiar with and love) would not advocate the extermination of the jews, I think that's why I'm more willing to deal with the discomfort than with an author that did, perhaps not out and out advocate extermination, but did advocate expulsion and racial purity.

Of course you aren't and shouldn't limit yourself to authors who share your politics and ideals because that would be boring and...limiting but does there come a time when you just have to stand your ideological ground and avoid certain authors who's personal beliefs are reprehensible to you? What are your opinions?

I find this very difficult Idril. My head tells me that I should not let someone's beliefs colour my view of their work, but my heart tells me differently. I used to be quite left-wing, and so consequently had little time for artists who came from a different standpoint to me. However, I love the work of certain writers, like Evelyn Waugh, or Somerset Maugham, who I know to have been Conservative, with a large c. (Just to make it clear in case of confusion, Conservatives would probably relate to Republicans, and Labour would relate to Democrats, generally speaking). As far as I'm aware though, they weren't on a par with Nazis, although they were around at the time of the war. I try to be less judgemental and more tolerant these days, particularly as the lines between the parties become ever more blurred, but I don't know if I could stomach reading writers who I know hold, or have held, obnoxious views. I could not get rid of the fact inside my head, so it's probably a good idea for artists not to let their views become public, as they will always alienate someone. The chipping away of their "bad guy" persona, by buying into their work, would seem to make their views more palatable, and less outrageous. I don't think I could do it.

[papayahed]

I am not arguing that Maya should or should not be read. I am slightly bothered that luke keeps bringing her up to trivialize her. I am a cripple, and I know how difficult it is to break stigma, and feel she should be respected for where she has gotten to, if nothing else.


I don't see anyone trivializing Angelou, I have heard people say she was an average poet. Are we suppossed to pretend she's great because she is a great lady? Isn't that the direct opposite of what Idril is asking about?

As to the original question, I don't know. At a certain point the art is seperate from the artist, If you didn't know who wrote the book it would still be a good book. But, then of course if that was the case in all instances there'd be a lot mor Diego rivera murals in this country.

[JBI]

The text speaks, not the artist. The only time an artist is to be considered is contextualizing and understanding the text. Are you saying that if some lower class uneducated minority wrote Henry James it would be any better - ridiculous? The artist isn't important to the quality of the art. It is the art itself which is important.

That being said, when it comes to paying artists for their work, I would judge the artist. But for anything outside of copyright it is somewhat silly.

[Jozanny]

I don't see anyone trivializing Angelou, I have heard people say she was an average poet. Are we suppossed to pretend she's great because she is a great lady? Isn't that the direct opposite of what Idril is asking about?

There is no pretense in simply offering an African American woman of recognition respect for that recognition. She lived in a time of all but legal segregation in America, which is fast moving on from living memory. I am not defending her work, I am objecting to holding her up as the minority poster child of sentimentality as opposed to finding serious minority authors to talk about. Oprah respects Angelou; they are friends. She doesn't have Maya on the show to run Hallmark's stock up. I suspect luke pulls her name out of his cap because he doesn't want to work a little harder on saying something else about more interesting motifs in modern African American literature.


The text speaks, not the artist. The only time an artist is to be considered is contextualizing and understanding the text.

I do not think it is quite that pat.


Are you saying that if some lower class uneducated minority wrote Henry James it would be any better - ridiculous? The artist isn't important to the quality of the art. It is the art itself which is important.

How do you get the above question from the fact that I posted an apologia for James as best I could? You're losing me, and the writer is certainly important to the quality of his or her work.

[stlukesguild]

I am not arguing that Maya should or should not be read. I am slightly bothered that luke keeps bringing her up to trivialize her. I am a cripple, and I know how difficult it is to break stigma, and feel she should be respected for where she has gotten to, if nothing else.

Jozy... I never questioned Maya as a person nor expressed any disrespect for what she has achieved. Personally, I have somewhat fond memories of her as an arts interviewer/commentator on PBS when I was a child. On the other hand she was the poet of choice for Bill Clinton's inauguration and her inaugural poem was praised as something almost equal to Leaves of Grass. Just the last visit to Borders revealed that there were some 20+ volumes of her poetry on the shelves. I don't think Rilke or Neruda... perpetually popular as they may be... had as much. Now you can interpret my comment as simply being that of the staunch conservative elitist bemoaning the absence of certain canonical figures and to a certain extent you'd be right... but only in the sense that I read primarily for aesthetic pleasure and not to assuage any guilt nor to correct some perceived past wrongs (and I must say I cannot understand how reading some mediocre black woman author as opposed to a greater author who just happens to be white, male, and European is going to change anything). On the other hand, I might also be simply conveying a degree of frustration with the fact that this mediocre author was put forth and promoted over many authors of far greater abilities... a great many of whom are just as much outsiders to the canon of white, male, Western European and American authors. There are a billion, six-hundred-million Chinese... where are the Chinese poets on the same shelves? As there is another thread here on Middle-Eastern poets... where are they? We are certainly all aware of the literal Renaissance of literature in South America. Where are the Latin-American poets after Neruda and Paz? Certainly I... like most of here... tend to focus upon the Western canon because I live in a Western culture... on the other hand, do not assume that my experience of art and literature is in any way homogeneous or xenophobic; you might be just surprised how broad... how multi-cultural my artistic interests and experiences are.

[Drkshadow03]

The past cannot be erased, so I do not see why contemporary readers have to turn green about the gills because of ancient bigotry. What *one* has to do with the other is education. I love the work of Henry James--that he was a stuffy repressed bigoted fart should not detract from the man's genius. Reading Chefitz and other Jewish authors teaches me just how sad James acceptance of his upper case social mores were, and that is pretty much the best one can do, in my estimation. The gift of what James did for literature outweighs his detractions; we all have biases, besides.

Oh, I agree. I don't think one should necessarily dismiss a writer because of personal beliefs. I didn't even know James was anti-Semitic until now; it doesn't change my estimation of his work. However, I also accept that this is an issue that each individual reader has to decide for themselves.

[papayahed]

There is no pretense in simply offering an African American woman of recognition respect for that recognition. She lived in a time of all but legal segregation in America, which is fast moving on from living memory. I am not defending her work, I am objecting to holding her up as the minority poster child of sentimentality as opposed to finding serious minority authors to talk about. Oprah respects Angelou; they are friends. She doesn't have Maya on the show to run Hallmark's stock up. I suspect luke pulls her name out of his cap because he doesn't want to work a little harder on saying something else about more interesting motifs in modern African American literature.



Yes but angelou is a great example relating to the original topic.


I'm trying to think of authors I won't read, most have to do with past experience but I just realized that there are certain political figures and pundits that I will never pick up due to idealogical differences.:( It's not so cut and dry as anti-semitism or racism but it's still a valid veiwpoint. On the other hand if so-and-so wrote a book of fiction outside the political arena I may give it a whirl..

[Etienne]

Not only I am entirely in agreement with JBI and StLukes, but I really have difficulties imagining why an author's life might change the appreciation of a work...

[JCamilo]

Well, some degree of help exists. Poe dark image may atract a new reader. But if his text wasnt good (Or if they end reading Eureka instead of Raven), it would be worthless. It is a matter of fashion, won't last much and those guys are probally going to be re-invented in the future anyways.
Anyways, read the book but do not allow your daughter to marry the writer.

[stlukesguild]

read the book but do not allow your daughter to marry the writer.

:thumbs_up:lol:

[bazarov]

Then I think about all the Russian novels I read and all the anti-semitism that is scattered all over those novels and yet while I cringe when I read those passages, it doesn't make me not want to read the authors. I think the difference is that I don't believe that the Russian authors I know and love (not all Russian authors of course, just the ones I'm familiar with and love) would not advocate the extermination of the jews, I think that's why I'm more willing to deal with the discomfort than with an author that did, perhaps not out and out advocate extermination, but did advocate expulsion and racial purity.


That's what you called anti-semitism could also be called patriotism; and then it gets different meaning, especially in Slavs, where nations and cultures are much older then USA, patriotism is more pointed out and high valued.


but I really have difficulties imagining why an author's life might change the appreciation of a work...

:thumbs_up Non quis, sed quid!

[Drkshadow03]

That's what you called anti-semitism could also be called patriotism; and then it gets different meaning, especially in Slavs, where nations and cultures are much older then USA, patriotism is more pointed out and high valued.


What?! So what he called anti-Semitism (a group wanting to expel the Jews from their country on the grounds of "racial purity" which are pretty much the exact words he used) might simply be patriotism?

Do you think there just might be a problem with that statement?

It's true it may also be patriotism, but why do you assume patriotism doesn't in fact lead/correspond to anti-Semitism either as a direct causation or at least a strong correlation.

[Idril]

That's what you called anti-semitism could also be called patriotism; and then it gets different meaning, especially in Slavs, where nations and cultures are much older then USA, patriotism is more pointed out and high valued.

Yes, I do realize that and I suppose that's one of the reasons why I don't let it cloud my view of the authors who do make the remark or two. And it's not just the Jews with the Russians, they don't seem to be too fond of anyone but themselves. :lol: But then I remember that this culture has been threatened over and over again, they have been fighting wars innumerable since the very beginning and they are in a constant struggle for identity so the a little national pride is understandable. It still make me cringe a little bit but if I take everything out of reading contention that has remarks of prejudice, I would have nothing to read. :p As I said earlier, there is a difference between that and someone like Hamsun who supported Hitler and the Nazis.

I have come to the conclusion, at least in my case, the less I know about an author, the better. I would be struggling with Journey at the End of the Night regardless of what I knew about Céline simply because the novel doesn't grap me. I can read paragraphs of it and realize I haven't been paying the least bit of attention. If I do move on to something else, it won't be because of his views, it will be because I don't care for the book. And I guess as far as Hamsun is concerned, when I get right down to it, there are a lot of other Scandinavian authors out there who didn't support the Nazis, it's not so important that I read that one.

[JBI]

What?! So what he called anti-Semitism (a group wanting to expel the Jews from their country on the grounds of "racial purity" which are pretty much the exact words he used) might simply be patriotism?

Do you think there just might be a problem with that statement?

It's true it may also be patriotism, but why do you assume patriotism doesn't in fact lead/correspond to anti-Semitism either as a direct causation or at least a strong correlation.

Yes, they don't want their country falling into the hands of those big nosed hairy goblin men who converse in the sewers plotting the takeover of the world. Lets be honest though, European society for the most part for 1900 odd years has hated Jews. Ironically enough, it was actually the Islamic countries who were the more progressive in welcoming Jewish refugees, and settlers in (Especially Turkey), and up until about 1910 were the greatest European friends of the Jews. But the Colonialism of Britain seems to have destroyed that relationship as well. In historical truth, at the beginning of Jewish settlement in Israel (then Turkey) at the end of the 19th century, the Islamic peoples and nations in and around Israel were nothing but supportive.

Hatred goes back a long time, the problem however, with Europe, is the Church seems to have created regional attitudes everywhere, and the Latin language to divide everyone linguistically.

[Drkshadow03]

Ironically enough, it was actually the Islamic countries who were the more progressive in welcoming Jewish refugees, and settlers in (Especially Turkey), and up until about 1910 were the greatest European friends of the Jews. But the Colonialism of Britain seems to have destroyed that relationship as well. In historical truth, at the beginning of Jewish settlement in Israel (then Turkey) at the end of the 19th century, the Islamic peoples and nations in and around Israel were nothing but supportive.

Do have a book that supports the claim that at the end of 19th century Islamic peoples and nations were supportive of Jewish settlement in Israel? If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

I'm not questioning you. I just had never heard that before, and I'm curious where you got that information from.

[Jozanny]

I just wanted to add one thing about Grass and his concealment of party membership: I cannot judge it as particularly cavalier. During the brief arc of my career, I learned through some study that the Nazi's were not mutually exclusive in their choices of whom they would exterminate. They made a mockery out of the disabled, and they were so persuasive that eugenics tortured my community in both the US and Europe well into the late 20th century--but state authoritarianism cannot be broken by a handful of decent people--I simply cannot fault Grass either way. Europe has enough guilt on its hands to last far longer than 1,000 years, and only Grass himself knows whether or not silence served him better than declaring himself marked.

Most people of intelligence will acquire unpleasant secrets in the course of a lifetime.

[JBI]

Do have a book that supports the claim that at the end of 19th century Islamic peoples and nations were supportive of Jewish settlement in Israel? If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

I'm not questioning you. I just had never heard that before, and I'm curious where you got that information from.

At the end of the 19th century Jews for the most part weren't supportive of Jewish settlement in Israel. The New Yeshuv was mostly established after the second Aliah. But either way, Jews in Turkey held political, and economic positions of high esteem. The problem is, most didn't even think of themselves as Zionists, as Zionism in that sense didn't exist, that is a Central European construction kicked off by racism in Russia, and the Dreyfus Affair in France. Turkish Jews (I mention them because Palestine (now Israel) was under Turkish authority up until the British moved in) thought of themselves as Turkish citizens, and were active participants in Turkish society, and even members of Parliament, and esteemed authorities (though not quite what they were in 1492 when they brought Moorish+Spanish Jewish influences to Turkey). The conflicts even amongst first Aliah settlers, and Arabs were minimal. It wasn't until Colonial authority started changing the tides, and mismanaging, that conflict arose between the two peoples.

It's interesting to see, for instance, how a writer like Agnon portrays life in Israel before independence, and after. It is almost shocking - it doesn't resemble much, besides place names, what Israel looks like now.

I can't remember where I first started reading about this subject, but if you go to a library and look into, for instance, Turkish Jews, or Sephardi ( supposed to be pronounced sfardic) Jews, you will see almost no problem until really after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, or perhaps the decline of the Ottoman empire, which already began a little earlier, though doesn't seem to have much a bearing. Any book really on Mizrahi Jews will probably conclude that, though there were incidents of hatred, and violence, in comparison with European treatment of Jews, Sfardic Jews - that is, after their expulsion from Spain and Portugal, and mostly around Ottoman-controlled areas, were generally far better treated.

[bazarov]

What?! So what he called anti-Semitism (a group wanting to expel the Jews from their country on the grounds of "racial purity" which are pretty much the exact words he used) might simply be patriotism?

Do you think there just might be a problem with that statement?



There is no problem with my statement. Read Demons, some passages from Idiot, Nose, see why Turgenev and Dostoevsky hadn't talk for almost 15 years and then you'll see what my statement means. Simply, there is a difference between anti-semitism and patriotism.



Hatred goes back a long time, the problem however, with Europe, is the Church seems to have created regional attitudes everywhere, and the Latin language to divide everyone linguistically.

Yes; it's still incredible to me that many people dislike Jews because ''they killed Jesus.'' Church had to deal with that long time ago, but...
I don't think Jews are the problem; they were actually the only strangers with strange religion (and rich, which is important) in Europe and they were everywhere; like Gipsies today so it's not that weird that nobody liked them. That's very sad, but that's the fact.

[Drkshadow03]

There is no problem with my statement. Read Demons, some passages from Idiot, Nose, see why Turgenev and Dostoevsky hadn't talk for almost 15 years and then you'll see what my statement means. Simply, there is a difference between anti-semitism and patriotism.

I'll start by saying I haven't read any Dostoevsky or Turgenev or too many Russian writers for that matter; it's a problem I'll have to rectify eventually. With that said I was taking Idril's word for it that he found passages in it to be anti-Semitic. So this makes it difficult for me to judge whether I agree or not if said passages are anti-Semitic myself.

However, assuming the passages do have disparaging and stereotypical things to say about Jews that would make them anti-Semitic, even if they were written in the context and for the purpose of promoting Russian patriotism.

If you re-read my last post addressing you, I NEVER said anti-Semitism and patriotism are the same thing. I did say such statements are problematic precisely BECAUSE the two are different, but interrelated.

This is the problem with such statements:

A Nazi attacking Jewish shops could just as easily say they were being patriotic. In fact, it would be true, but that wouldn't change the fact that he was ALSO engaging in anti-Semitism. Being one doesn't clear him of the other precisely because they are two different things. Otherwise, almost any anti-Semite could defend himself/herself by claiming they were just being patriotic.

That's precisely the point, one is NOT an excuse for the other. That pretty much covers why your statement is problematic.


Yes; it's still incredible to me that many people dislike Jews because ''they killed Jesus.'' Church had to deal with that long time ago, but...
I don't think Jews are the problem; they were actually the only strangers with strange religion (and rich, which is important) in Europe and they were everywhere; like Gipsies today so it's not that weird that nobody liked them. That's very sad, but that's the fact.

I'm glad to see you don't think Jews are the problem, just that our religion is strange, that we're all rich, and there are too many of us everywhere. I'll notify the other Elders later.

Okay, in all seriousness maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're just trying to word this in a neutral historical language, and you're really referring to those other people's attitudes in a time long ago.

However, let me give you another hint, when you write statements like, "it's not that weird that nobody liked them" you also sound like you're offering an anti-Semitism apologia.

[bazarov]

First, I am not Russian; so I think I am objective. And it's not only about Jews, it's about others also.
Second, if you consider situation in world after Black Friday, then it's normal that someone who is hungry in his own country dislike stranger in his homeland who is not hungry. I don't approve it, but I think it+s not that weird or shocking.

[JBI]

First, I am not Russian; so I think I am objective. And it's not only about Jews, it's about others also.
Second, if you consider situation in world after Black Friday, then it's normal that someone who is hungry in his own country dislike stranger in his homeland who is not hungry. I don't approve it, but I think it+s not that weird or shocking.

Yes, but the "Rich Jewish elitist" myth is actually quite false; there were probably just as many poor Jews as there were poor Russians. the difference is, Jews didn't turn to the church for help, but simply relied on the Jewish communities charity, which is required by Jewish law, whereas the Christians weren't, I would suspect, as generous with their neighbors.

No matter how you look at it though, the myth of the rich manipulative Jew is just a myth. There is no grounding in evidence, merely circumstance, to support the myth.

[JCamilo]

I think he just gave an example. It is about as similar as the USA anti-latin americans feelings. There is a mix between true racism and just nationalism (he is stealing my job, etc,etc). Of course, extreme Nationalism is almost a sure path towards racism.

[JBI]

The he is stealing my job is racism, because it implies that an American deserves to support his family more than a Mexican. In truth, Japanese Canadians were put into internment camps during World War 2 for similar reasons, being that they were hard working, and therefore becoming more successful than the rest of the population on the West Coast.

Nationalism is often destructive tp minorities, who seem to get beaten down because of it, though it often produces great art.

[JCamilo]

It is not racism. You may believe you have more rights to have access to that job because you lived in the country and that your family build it without considering the given mexican inferior as human being or deciptable, which is what would be racism.
I know the japaneses are put in camps, but you do not need to be racist to threat a war enemy badly. War are not exactly where the best of humankind grows.
And yeah, Nationalism when taken to extremes will attack minorities, since they represent what the great main groups are not.

[bazarov]

I think he just gave an example. It is about as similar as the USA anti-latin americans feelings. There is a mix between true racism and just nationalism (he is stealing my job, etc,etc). Of course, extreme Nationalism is almost a sure path towards racism.

Yes, I just gave an example. And agree with your post after this one.:thumbs_up