Is it a shame to ditch any other works (if identifiable) by the authors of Protocols just because they're on the opposite side of the "Jewish question" from most modern readers?
Put it this way. If one of them wrote a good song, let's say with simple romance lyrics, nothing to do with purported Jewish conspiracies, sure I'd listen to it.
Not sure what you mean by that. How is it a straw man to reject Protocols based on the (anonymous) author's public opinions? You claimed that would be objectionable.
On the other hand I'm a bit wary of deliberately refusing to engage with authors and artists because I don't like their personal morals or public opinions.
Given the anonymity of the author of Protocols (and the likelihood it was a collective work) our knowledge of their public opinions (e.g. the world is secretly controlled by a sinister cabal of manipulative Jews) is limited to what's contained in the work itself. If publicly stated opinions are not a valid reason for rejecting a composition, what other grounds does one have for rejecting Protocols?
As you say, these are the opinions stated in the work itself! It is of course possible to hate and reject a work based on what it contains in itself. The question is whether the bad opinions or character of an author corrupt or tarnish work which would otherwise be good in itself.
Is it a shame to ditch any other works (if identifiable) by the authors of Protocols just because they're on the opposite side of the "Jewish question" from most modern readers?
Now that is the question I'm asking. Was Wagner, for example, so anti-Semitic that one shouldn't listen to his music?
Were Wagner alive today I'd certainly avoid buying or streaming his work to avoid sending royalties his way and giving him more of a platform for his views. When someone has been dead for over a century these become non-issues.
@Enoch why tag me half a dozen times rather than just using pronouns? I'm confused.
People are allowed to not want to put money into the pocket of someone who has views they find distasteful. I'm not somehow obliged to buy books, or watch TV shows, or listen to music etc by people who 'only' have objectionable views rather than committing particular acts or crimes for example.
Also, people tend to support their own personal stances financially in various ways through charities or funding legal action - eg, someone who supports the NHS might boycott Virgin products due to Richard Branson suing the NHS. It's rarely 'just opinions' especially when they are publicly-shared opinions rather than just quietly held ones. For example, if a popstar revealed a particular political leaning on social media it's understandable if that would turn people off them - but they also didn't have to say anything at all in the first place.
My apologies @Pomona, but please don't be confused. I didn't mean it as 'tagging' so much as just engaging specifically with what you were saying. It's rather difficult to do this all that clearly and it's difficult to guess what might cause confusion and what might cause offence.
What I would say, though, is that there is a difference between saying, expressly or by one's tone 'this is what I think and do, but it's up to others whether they agree with me' and 'this is what I think and do. Everybody who doesn't agree with me deserves to be shunned by all right thinking people'.
We each have our own priorities, which causes and issues are important to us and which are less so. No one has it in them to burn with passion for everything. Our circumstances, life experience and even generations are different. Many of the things you're passionate about are much lower on my list of priorities. I am sure many of the things I'm passionate about are much lower on yours.
You are as entitled as I am to buy or not to buy books, records, works of art etc by whoever and for whatever reason, whether their talent, their extraneous opinion or what they have got up to in their private or public life. But it still strikes me that there's a huge difference between 'unpersoning' someone or their repute for serious iniquities that they have done, and 'unpersoning' them for holding a different view from one's own, particularly in an area which, however strong one's own view, is still controversial.
It is of course possible to hate and reject a work based on what it contains in itself. The question is whether the bad opinions or character of an author corrupt or tarnish work which would otherwise be good in itself.
Is it a shame to ditch any other works (if identifiable) by the authors of Protocols just because they're on the opposite side of the "Jewish question" from most modern readers?
Now that is the question I'm asking. Was Wagner, for example, so anti-Semitic that one shouldn't listen to his music?
The guy who wrote an opera about a sinister, mis-shapen character exerting dictatorial power from his secret underground lair surrounded by his vast hoard of wealth? Yeah, I'm going to say that Wagner's anti-semitism leaked into his music at least a little bit. That's part of the problem. Pernicious ideas often work their way into things that might seem unrelated.
But it still strikes me that there's a huge difference between 'unpersoning' someone or their repute for serious iniquities that they have done, and 'unpersoning' them for holding a different view from one's own, particularly in an area which, however strong one's own view, is still controversial.
So it's okay to 'unperson' members of the Ku Klux Klan because they're a bunch of terrorists responsible for bombings and murders, but it's not okay to 'unperson' members of the White Citizen Councils whose racist agenda was the same as the Klan's, but pursued by (usually) non-criminal means? One of the things that the Citizens Councils counted on was that they would always be accepted in polite society and, by that token, their racist views would be considered within the bounds of the acceptable.
But it still strikes me that there's a huge difference between 'unpersoning' someone or their repute for serious iniquities that they have done, and 'unpersoning' them for holding a different view from one's own, particularly in an area which, however strong one's own view, is still controversial.
I think you're missing here, Enoch, the harm that moral panics stoked against minority or vulnerable groups in society do - especially when the moral panic is being driven by the powerful whose voices are further amplified by traditional news and broadcast media to drown out the response of the much weaker more marginalised groups being targeted. The marginalised groups are attacked by the powerful in ways that cause actual violence, harm and harm to health which are legitimised by the moral panic and which that group is not well able to defend themselves from because they lack that level of power or those levers.
At the point when you've the entire heft of the Murdoch press and traditional broadcast media piling in behind a celebrity social media account with over a dozen million followers, this really is not about 'holding a different view from one's own' - it's about whether people in the marginalised group are going to be crushed and seriously harmed - including being physically harmed as violence is stirred up against them and maybe medical treatment or means to survive being compromised - because of a massive overpowering unstoppable attack on them by the powerful in society. This really is not at all equivalent to refusing as an individual to buy the books or consume the media of the celebrity who is playing a major part in a brutal attack on a vulnerable community
Another thing to consider is that when people join in attacks on groups which are targetted by the far-right - no matter how centrist or liberal or fragrant they think the currently-attacking celebrity or author is, it's very easy to end up collecting the set and being radicalised into wider attacks.
People jump on board because hateful celebrity is targeting [group they dislike and think is controversial] on Tuesday and then on Wednesday celeb is attacking eg. chronically ill young women as hysterical fakers and by the next Monday you find a chronically ill member of your family has been abused as a faker and denied vital help by someone echoing hateful celeb's views after they were amplified by the media. Attacks like this are never mere 'differences of opinion' - that's a framing which allows the strong to crush the weak using ''freedom of speech' as their banner when they have all the megaphones, amplifiers and the ear of government and the people they are attacking have basically some combs and paper.
Just echoing Louise. Just look at how trans people are demonized in some countries, but this isn't just about opinions. Medical treatment is denied, children scapegoated, parents investigated for abuse, and so on.
It is of course possible to hate and reject a work based on what it contains in itself. The question is whether the bad opinions or character of an author corrupt or tarnish work which would otherwise be good in itself.
Is it a shame to ditch any other works (if identifiable) by the authors of Protocols just because they're on the opposite side of the "Jewish question" from most modern readers?
Now that is the question I'm asking. Was Wagner, for example, so anti-Semitic that one shouldn't listen to his music?
The guy who wrote an opera about a sinister, mis-shapen character exerting dictatorial power from his secret underground lair surrounded by his vast hoard of wealth? Yeah, I'm going to say that Wagner's anti-semitism leaked into his music at least a little bit. That's part of the problem. Pernicious ideas often work their way into things that might seem unrelated.
Oh sure! I can see that there is a strong argument for that. It would be a bit surprising if a creator's ideas did not work their way into their art. So is Wagner "over the line" then - maybe we should not listen to Wagner? Or for @Arethosemyfeet Wagner would have been "over the line" when he was alive, but now it is more or less "OK" to listen to him?
So where is the line? Presumably no artist is absolutely perfect, so it seems like there is a threshold below which we can say "it's still OK to like them" but above which we say "no, that's too much, I can no longer countenance this artist".
And is this threshold something for each individual to decide themselves, or can we say: "You are prepared to countenance this artist but you should not?"
So help me, I still love Woody Allen's films and think Karl Barth's long term immoral relationship does not altogether negate his theology.
The RC church states that an individual priests sinfulness does not make his consecration of the bread and wine void. make of that what you will
I sorta draw the line, or the 'point of balance' for me is Larkin. I can only just bear to read what I think is his good stuff. To the left is, say, Saville and Gary Glitter .... to the right (artistically worthy, if only just) wagner, some films made under Epstein's aegis and .... well all artists with feet of clay, even Beethoven, whose treatment of his nephew was dreadful and financial probity in later life suspect.
Even I occasionally get my ministry right and I know how flawed I am. (a list will be supplied on request).
@Enoch I'm not entirely sure what your very obfuscating response is about, but if you mean that you aren't sure of my pronouns - just ask. It's not offensive to ask. But also, my point was that you seemed quite strangely hyperfocused on my views on [insert offensive opinion here] when for most of the thread I've been talking about Gill and other who have committed specifically heinous acts. I don't think I've called for anyone to be shunned, not least since I've mostly been talking about dead people anyway. I'm not sure why you felt the need to focus so much on me when I haven't said anything that other people haven't also said.
Were Wagner alive today I'd certainly avoid buying or streaming his work to avoid sending royalties his way and giving him more of a platform for his views. When someone has been dead for over a century these become non-issues.
I wonder how this living/dead distinction would hold up in the case of an artist whose work was considered to be of substantial importance within their life-time.
Let's say that a film festival is planning to showcase "Science Fiction Of The 1970s", and then George Lucas starts giving pro-MAGA diatribes in the media. Do they have to remove Star Wars from the line-up to avoid sending royalties to the now-fascist ranter?
Let's say that a film festival is planning to showcase "Science Fiction Of The 1970s", and then George Lucas starts giving pro-MAGA diatribes in the media. Do they have to remove Star Wars from the line-up to avoid sending royalties to the now-fascist ranter?
Given that about half the US votes for MAGA, I don't think "they" "have to" remove anyone who expresses pro-MAGA sentiments.
Let's say that a film festival is planning to showcase "Science Fiction Of The 1970s", and then George Lucas starts giving pro-MAGA diatribes in the media. Do they have to remove Star Wars from the line-up to avoid sending royalties to the now-fascist ranter?
Given that about half the US votes for MAGA, I don't think "they" "have to" remove anyone who expresses pro-MAGA sentiments.
I meant are they morally obligated to do it.
And anyway, where did I say the film festival was being held in the USA?
EDIT: If it makes a difference, assume the festival is being held in Iceland.
Is it partly where you fight your battles? I try my best not to give Nestle any of my money. I will buy from Amazon if have to. Some of my friends won’t buy from Amazon.
I will read or watch stuff created by She Who Must Not Be Named. A work friend won’t.
One of the people I follow on YouTube always has a front piece about a certain incident at the BBC before they review any BBC program. If we pick a platform does it help.
Also wrt 'unpersoning', the whole point of a boycott (and deplatforming is basically just a boycott) is to draw attention to an issue. That's the exact opposite of unpersoning, which is an actual historical phenomenon and not just another term for public criticism. It's like how 'cancel culture' isn't actually a real thing when the so-called victims are still around making a fortune out of being a misogynist or whatever it is they did that people objected to.
I think it is pretty disrespectful to compare being boycotted for distasteful views to being murdered by the government who then denies that you ever existed. It's not like people who boycott eg Woody Allen are acting like he never existed, let alone murdering him! Nobody is being murdered because people have publicly criticised them.
Also wrt 'unpersoning', the whole point of a boycott (and deplatforming is basically just a boycott) is to draw attention to an issue. That's the exact opposite of unpersoning, which is an actual historical phenomenon and not just another term for public criticism. It's like how 'cancel culture' isn't actually a real thing when the so-called victims are still around making a fortune out of being a misogynist or whatever it is they did that people objected to.
I think it is pretty disrespectful to compare being boycotted for distasteful views to being murdered by the government who then denies that you ever existed. It's not like people who boycott eg Woody Allen are acting like he never existed, let alone murdering him! Nobody is being murdered because people have publicly criticised them.
Speaking as someone who continues to watch Woody Allen films, and would defend that decision against people criticizing it, I certainly would not compare the voluntary boycotting of his films to murder.
@Enoch I'm not entirely sure what your very obfuscating response is about, but if you mean that you aren't sure of my pronouns - just ask. It's not offensive to ask. But also, my point was that you seemed quite strangely hyperfocused on my views on [insert offensive opinion here] when for most of the thread I've been talking about Gill and other who have committed specifically heinous acts. I don't think I've called for anyone to be shunned, not least since I've mostly been talking about dead people anyway. I'm not sure why you felt the need to focus so much on me when I haven't said anything that other people haven't also said.
@Pomona I thought I was being clear enough, but is this any help? From my post,
1.
"What I would say, though, is that there is a difference between saying, expressly or by one's tone 'this is what I think and do, but it's up to others whether they agree with me' and 'this is what I think and do. Everybody who doesn't agree with me deserves to be shunned by all right thinking people'."
You're entitled to express your views. You're entitled to try to persuade me or anyone else to agree with you. You're not entitled to take the line that everybody who doesn't agree with you or has the same priorities as you is unfit for human company.
Although I didn't say that, as a persuasion technique it also doesn't work. It may enthuse those who already agree but it isn't likely to change those who are non-committal or against. The way to persuade is to try to win over other peoples' agreement.
2.
"We each have our own priorities, which causes and issues are important to us and which are less so. No one has it in them to burn with passion for everything. Our circumstances, life experience and even generations are different. Many of the things you're passionate about are much lower on my list of priorities. I am sure many of the things I'm passionate about are much lower on yours."
The things you're passionate about are different from the things I am. Accept that.
3.
"You are as entitled as I am to buy or not to buy books, records, works of art etc by whoever and for whatever reason, whether their talent, their extraneous opinion or what they have got up to in their private or public life. But it still strikes me that there's a huge difference between 'unpersoning' someone or their repute for serious iniquities that they have done, and 'unpersoning' them for holding a different view from one's own, particularly in an area which, however strong one's own view, is still controversial."
When it comes to moral outrage, there's a big and important difference between people who merely hold different opinions from yours and people who do wicked deeds such as maltreating and abusing others.
This is particularly so with an issue that is currently still in debate and which look different to those who grew up and formed their world picture before the issue became a matter of controversy.
I'm not sure I can say anything more that will clarify what I was trying to get across. Are you any less obfuscated?
You're not entitled to take the line that everybody who doesn't agree with you or has the same priorities as you is unfit for human company.
I'm not so sure I agree with this claim that there's no opinion so odious that it puts its advocates outside of polite society. There's no right for you to inflict your company on people who find your beliefs hateful.
When it comes to moral outrage, there's a big and important difference between people who merely hold different opinions from yours and people who do wicked deeds such as maltreating and abusing others.
I'm not so sure the difference is all that big between advocating for atrocities and committing them. Yes there's a difference but I'm not convinced that it's as big and important as you claim. I'm suspicious of a rubric where RTLM broadcasters are considered socially innocuous while those who followed them are anathema.
This is particularly so with an issue that is currently still in debate and which look different to those who grew up and formed their world picture before the issue became a matter of controversy.
I'm not sure there ever was a "before" in such cases, just a time when the boundaries of 'people who matter' were drawn in such a way as to exclude dissent and manufacture an artificial consensus. To take an historical example, racial segregation in the American south didn't suddenly become controversial in the 1950s. The affected population always objected but their opinions were considered unimportant and therefore racial segregation was "uncontroversial" (to white Americans) until the Civil Rights Movement.
@Enoch the issue is that you're making points about my argument that aren't related to anything I've actually said. Nowhere have I said that some people are unfit for human company - someone being uninvited from public events is different to their family and friends abandoning them, which is not something I would advocate. Even for really heinous beliefs, it generally only makes them more entrenched (but directly affected family and friends - eg Black relatives of a racist person - often need to for their own safety, which is different).
You still haven't addressed the fact that nobody has been 'unpersoned' for having objectionable beliefs, since unpersoning is a historical practice with an actual definition. Nobody has in fact been murdered by the state and having their existence erased for being racist (as an example).
You also haven't addressed the fact that you have somewhat creepily focused entirely on me, even though nothing I've said hasn't also been said by others on here. I'm not sure how me talking about Gill, for example, constitutes 'a thing I'm passionate about', nor are things like opposing racism just personal interests and different beliefs. Pretending that someone can be eg racist in belief but not in action is just silly.
You're not entitled to take the line that everybody who doesn't agree with you or has the same priorities as you is unfit for human company.
I'm not so sure I agree with this claim that there's no opinion so odious that it puts its advocates outside of polite society. There's no right for you to inflict your company on people who find your beliefs hateful.
When it comes to moral outrage, there's a big and important difference between people who merely hold different opinions from yours and people who do wicked deeds such as maltreating and abusing others.
I'm not so sure the difference is all that big between advocating for atrocities and committing them. Yes there's a difference but I'm not convinced that it's as big and important as you claim. I'm suspicious of a rubric where RTLM broadcasters are considered socially innocuous while those who followed them are anathema.
This is particularly so with an issue that is currently still in debate and which look different to those who grew up and formed their world picture before the issue became a matter of controversy.
I'm not sure there ever was a "before" in such cases, just a time when the boundaries of 'people who matter' were drawn in such a way as to exclude dissent and manufacture an artificial consensus. To take an historical example, racial segregation in the American south didn't suddenly become controversial in the 1950s. The affected population always objected but their opinions were considered unimportant and therefore racial segregation was "uncontroversial" (to white Americans) until the Civil Rights Movement.
And even then, plenty of white Americans did care before the 1950s - just not white Americans who held political power. For example, Disney's Song of the South was considered highly racist by both Black and white film critics when it was released in the 1940s, and there were protests at its premiere (people claiming it was uncontroversial are actually referring to its theatrical re-release in the 1960s, which did not get media attention for the reason that it was just a re-release).
And even then, plenty of white Americans did care before the 1950s - just not white Americans who held political power. For example, Disney's Song of the South was considered highly racist by both Black and white film critics when it was released in the 1940s, and there were protests at its premiere (people claiming it was uncontroversial are actually referring to its theatrical re-release in the 1960s, which did not get media attention for the reason that it was just a re-release).
That's interesting, because you would think that if there had originally been substantial opinion among the public that the film was racist, it would simply not be re-released.
My guess would be that some or even many critics thought the film was racist, but that most laypeople didn't care, and that when the re-release took place, the public still didn't care, and the critics, whatever their view, didn't make a huge issue of it because it wasn't a first-run.
I can remember SOTS being shown in Canadian theatres, late 70s or early 80s. I wasn't really following racial debates at the time, but I don't recall much controversy about it. Certainly, the distributors didn't think it would be a problem.
@stetson the 40s were much closer to the Reconstruction era than the 70s and 80s were. It's easier to get away with misrepresenting it when it's no longer in living memory or within a couple of generations of living memory.
I'm not sure why Black laypeople thinking a film is racist would mean it's not re-released, especially when it's a children's movie that is going to be viewed less critically than a movie aimed at adults - and especially since by the 60s television was king anyway. It was a bigger deal in the 40s since all cinema was, and Disney were still winning Oscars at this point before the Disney Dark Ages between the late 60s and late 80s.
@stetson the 40s were much closer to the Reconstruction era than the 70s and 80s were. It's easier to get away with misrepresenting it when it's no longer in living memory or within a couple of generations of living memory.
I'm not sure why Black laypeople thinking a film is racist would mean it's not re-released, especially when it's a children's movie that is going to be viewed less critically than a movie aimed at adults - and especially since by the 60s television was king anyway. It was a bigger deal in the 40s since all cinema was, and Disney were still winning Oscars at this point before the Disney Dark Ages between the late 60s and late 80s.
Song of the South won the actor playing Uncle Remus an Oscar. He wasn’t allowed to attend to pick it up. There are sections of the film that we are not happy with now but, the Black characters were not slaves. They were not treated well but they were not slaves. Many people make that mistake. The other film that Disney are uncomfortable with now is One Of Our Dinosaurs is Missing. In many ways all the characters are exaggerated including the British. But whites playing Chinese is not for today.
@Hugal I am well aware that the Black characters are not slaves in SotS - I referred to the Reconstruction Era (when the film is set) which is the time period after Emancipation (legal end of enslavement in the US). Part of the problem with the film is that this is actually not made very clear. It's also a mistake to say that there 'are sections of the film that we are not happy with now', as if at the time it was all fine - as I have said, Black people and their allies were NOT happy about the film upon release and its racism was talked about then. Talking about racism wasn't invented in the 1960s.
As you are a Disney person, I would highly recommend listening to the SotS series of the film history podcast You Must Remember This. It is a very meticulously researched and nuanced podcast.
Yes am a Disney person. I did follow your argument. Song of the South was re released into cinemas when I was young so it must have had some acceptance. There has been a change since then. Disney has changed its opinion of the film. I was saying they are not slaves because certainly in the UK that has been a view held for a long time.
Yes am a Disney person. I did follow your argument. Song of the South was re released into cinemas when I was young so it must have had some acceptance. There has been a change since then. Disney has changed its opinion of the film. I was saying they are not slaves because certainly in the UK that has been a view held for a long time.
Yes, as I said earlier the 60s re-release had a much smaller impact - that's not because it was seen as less racist by Black people. There was just less attention on a re-release of a Disney film in the 60s than there was on the initial 40s release, both due to differences in cultural dominance (Disney being at a low ebb culturally in the 60s, and also television in its ascendancy vs cinema dominating the 40s) and also the fact that there were more pressing issues.
For the UK specifically, Reconstruction is just not much taught as a period of history - British people don't generally know about things like sharecropping, redlining etc in US history, that doesn't change the film's problems. There is also the issue in Britain and much of Europe that we often assume that we are inherently less racist than the US, or that the US is a uniquely racist country. US racism may differ to UK racism, and people in the UK may be eg less aware of some particular terms that are offensive in the US but not here, but much of that is due to the UK frankly refusing to teach about racism's history honestly.
Yes am a Disney person. I did follow your argument. Song of the South was re released into cinemas when I was young so it must have had some acceptance. There has been a change since then. Disney has changed its opinion of the film. I was saying they are not slaves because certainly in the UK that has been a view held for a long time.
Yes, as I said earlier the 60s re-release had a much smaller impact - that's not because it was seen as less racist by Black people. There was just less attention on a re-release of a Disney film in the 60s than there was on the initial 40s release, both due to differences in cultural dominance (Disney being at a low ebb culturally in the 60s, and also television in its ascendancy vs cinema dominating the 40s) and also the fact that there were more pressing issues.
For the UK specifically, Reconstruction is just not much taught as a period of history - British people don't generally know about things like sharecropping, redlining etc in US history, that doesn't change the film's problems. There is also the issue in Britain and much of Europe that we often assume that we are inherently less racist than the US, or that the US is a uniquely racist country. US racism may differ to UK racism, and people in the UK may be eg less aware of some particular terms that are offensive in the US but not here, but much of that is due to the UK frankly refusing to teach about racism's history honestly.
I saw the film in the 70s. It got a re release then. I was only born in 67. I am not denying that things were a problem then. They were. My story about the actor playing Uncle Remus shows I understand. You seem to ignore that.
A films reception history is important. Peoples attitudes changes. We cannot be responsible for previous generations. We can only make changes were we can.
Splash Mountain, the ride based on the Brair Rabbit stories from the film (Both in Orlando and Anaheim) are closing to be replaced by a new version based on The Princess and the Frog.
Just a wee reminder that we look for 'own voice' stuff in Epiphanies. A discussion of race (in this case over Song of the South) needs Black perspectives to be centred/foregrounded.
US racism may differ to UK racism, and people in the UK may be eg less aware of some particular terms that are offensive in the US but not here, but much of that is due to the UK frankly refusing to teach about racism's history honestly.
I'm not sure why UK schools should particularly teach about the history of racism in the US particularly. To the extent that US history impacts world affairs, it's relevant, but beyond that, the history of racism in the US is of no more relevance than the history of racism in France, or anywhere else.
And I'm not sure I'd expect a detailed country-by-country study of racism in anyone's school curriculum.
US racism may differ to UK racism, and people in the UK may be eg less aware of some particular terms that are offensive in the US but not here, but much of that is due to the UK frankly refusing to teach about racism's history honestly.
I'm not sure why UK schools should particularly teach about the history of racism in the US particularly. To the extent that US history impacts world affairs, it's relevant, but beyond that, the history of racism in the US is of no more relevance than the history of racism in France, or anywhere else.
Notice how easily "racism's history" changes itself into "the history of racism in the US". By implication the assumption seems to be that racism only exists in the U.S., or if it exists elsewhere (e.g. in places like France) it certainly doesn't exist (and never existed) within the U.K. or the wider British Empire.
US racism may differ to UK racism, and people in the UK may be eg less aware of some particular terms that are offensive in the US but not here, but much of that is due to the UK frankly refusing to teach about racism's history honestly.
I'm not sure why UK schools should particularly teach about the history of racism in the US particularly. To the extent that US history impacts world affairs, it's relevant, but beyond that, the history of racism in the US is of no more relevance than the history of racism in France, or anywhere else.
Notice how easily "racism's history" changes itself into "the history of racism in the US". By implication the assumption seems to be that racism only exists in the U.S., or if it exists elsewhere (e.g. in places like France) it certainly doesn't exist (and never existed) within the U.K. or the wider British Empire.
Not at all - Pomona's comment (at least, the part I was responding to) was about people in the UK not being aware of specific words and uses that are deemed racist in the US, but not in the UK.
The unspoken centre of my comment was that the history of racism in the UK would belong firmly on a UK school syllabus, in the way that the details of racism in some other country wouldn't.
Or in other words, if UK schoolchildren aren't generally aware of the details of racist expression in the US, in France, or anywhere else that isn't the UK, I don't see that as a problem.
Comments
Put it this way. If one of them wrote a good song, let's say with simple romance lyrics, nothing to do with purported Jewish conspiracies, sure I'd listen to it.
As you say, these are the opinions stated in the work itself! It is of course possible to hate and reject a work based on what it contains in itself. The question is whether the bad opinions or character of an author corrupt or tarnish work which would otherwise be good in itself.
Now that is the question I'm asking. Was Wagner, for example, so anti-Semitic that one shouldn't listen to his music?
What I would say, though, is that there is a difference between saying, expressly or by one's tone 'this is what I think and do, but it's up to others whether they agree with me' and 'this is what I think and do. Everybody who doesn't agree with me deserves to be shunned by all right thinking people'.
We each have our own priorities, which causes and issues are important to us and which are less so. No one has it in them to burn with passion for everything. Our circumstances, life experience and even generations are different. Many of the things you're passionate about are much lower on my list of priorities. I am sure many of the things I'm passionate about are much lower on yours.
You are as entitled as I am to buy or not to buy books, records, works of art etc by whoever and for whatever reason, whether their talent, their extraneous opinion or what they have got up to in their private or public life. But it still strikes me that there's a huge difference between 'unpersoning' someone or their repute for serious iniquities that they have done, and 'unpersoning' them for holding a different view from one's own, particularly in an area which, however strong one's own view, is still controversial.
The guy who wrote an opera about a sinister, mis-shapen character exerting dictatorial power from his secret underground lair surrounded by his vast hoard of wealth? Yeah, I'm going to say that Wagner's anti-semitism leaked into his music at least a little bit. That's part of the problem. Pernicious ideas often work their way into things that might seem unrelated.
So it's okay to 'unperson' members of the Ku Klux Klan because they're a bunch of terrorists responsible for bombings and murders, but it's not okay to 'unperson' members of the White Citizen Councils whose racist agenda was the same as the Klan's, but pursued by (usually) non-criminal means? One of the things that the Citizens Councils counted on was that they would always be accepted in polite society and, by that token, their racist views would be considered within the bounds of the acceptable.
I think you're missing here, Enoch, the harm that moral panics stoked against minority or vulnerable groups in society do - especially when the moral panic is being driven by the powerful whose voices are further amplified by traditional news and broadcast media to drown out the response of the much weaker more marginalised groups being targeted. The marginalised groups are attacked by the powerful in ways that cause actual violence, harm and harm to health which are legitimised by the moral panic and which that group is not well able to defend themselves from because they lack that level of power or those levers.
At the point when you've the entire heft of the Murdoch press and traditional broadcast media piling in behind a celebrity social media account with over a dozen million followers, this really is not about 'holding a different view from one's own' - it's about whether people in the marginalised group are going to be crushed and seriously harmed - including being physically harmed as violence is stirred up against them and maybe medical treatment or means to survive being compromised - because of a massive overpowering unstoppable attack on them by the powerful in society. This really is not at all equivalent to refusing as an individual to buy the books or consume the media of the celebrity who is playing a major part in a brutal attack on a vulnerable community
Another thing to consider is that when people join in attacks on groups which are targetted by the far-right - no matter how centrist or liberal or fragrant they think the currently-attacking celebrity or author is, it's very easy to end up collecting the set and being radicalised into wider attacks.
People jump on board because hateful celebrity is targeting [group they dislike and think is controversial] on Tuesday and then on Wednesday celeb is attacking eg. chronically ill young women as hysterical fakers and by the next Monday you find a chronically ill member of your family has been abused as a faker and denied vital help by someone echoing hateful celeb's views after they were amplified by the media. Attacks like this are never mere 'differences of opinion' - that's a framing which allows the strong to crush the weak using ''freedom of speech' as their banner when they have all the megaphones, amplifiers and the ear of government and the people they are attacking have basically some combs and paper.
So where is the line? Presumably no artist is absolutely perfect, so it seems like there is a threshold below which we can say "it's still OK to like them" but above which we say "no, that's too much, I can no longer countenance this artist".
And is this threshold something for each individual to decide themselves, or can we say: "You are prepared to countenance this artist but you should not?"
The RC church states that an individual priests sinfulness does not make his consecration of the bread and wine void. make of that what you will
I sorta draw the line, or the 'point of balance' for me is Larkin. I can only just bear to read what I think is his good stuff. To the left is, say, Saville and Gary Glitter .... to the right (artistically worthy, if only just) wagner, some films made under Epstein's aegis and .... well all artists with feet of clay, even Beethoven, whose treatment of his nephew was dreadful and financial probity in later life suspect.
Even I occasionally get my ministry right and I know how flawed I am. (a list will be supplied on request).
I wonder how this living/dead distinction would hold up in the case of an artist whose work was considered to be of substantial importance within their life-time.
Let's say that a film festival is planning to showcase "Science Fiction Of The 1970s", and then George Lucas starts giving pro-MAGA diatribes in the media. Do they have to remove Star Wars from the line-up to avoid sending royalties to the now-fascist ranter?
Given that about half the US votes for MAGA, I don't think "they" "have to" remove anyone who expresses pro-MAGA sentiments.
I meant are they morally obligated to do it.
And anyway, where did I say the film festival was being held in the USA?
EDIT: If it makes a difference, assume the festival is being held in Iceland.
I will read or watch stuff created by She Who Must Not Be Named. A work friend won’t.
One of the people I follow on YouTube always has a front piece about a certain incident at the BBC before they review any BBC program. If we pick a platform does it help.
I think it is pretty disrespectful to compare being boycotted for distasteful views to being murdered by the government who then denies that you ever existed. It's not like people who boycott eg Woody Allen are acting like he never existed, let alone murdering him! Nobody is being murdered because people have publicly criticised them.
Speaking as someone who continues to watch Woody Allen films, and would defend that decision against people criticizing it, I certainly would not compare the voluntary boycotting of his films to murder.
1. You're entitled to express your views. You're entitled to try to persuade me or anyone else to agree with you. You're not entitled to take the line that everybody who doesn't agree with you or has the same priorities as you is unfit for human company.
Although I didn't say that, as a persuasion technique it also doesn't work. It may enthuse those who already agree but it isn't likely to change those who are non-committal or against. The way to persuade is to try to win over other peoples' agreement.
2. The things you're passionate about are different from the things I am. Accept that.
3. When it comes to moral outrage, there's a big and important difference between people who merely hold different opinions from yours and people who do wicked deeds such as maltreating and abusing others.
This is particularly so with an issue that is currently still in debate and which look different to those who grew up and formed their world picture before the issue became a matter of controversy.
I'm not sure I can say anything more that will clarify what I was trying to get across. Are you any less obfuscated?
I'm not so sure I agree with this claim that there's no opinion so odious that it puts its advocates outside of polite society. There's no right for you to inflict your company on people who find your beliefs hateful.
I'm not so sure the difference is all that big between advocating for atrocities and committing them. Yes there's a difference but I'm not convinced that it's as big and important as you claim. I'm suspicious of a rubric where RTLM broadcasters are considered socially innocuous while those who followed them are anathema.
I'm not sure there ever was a "before" in such cases, just a time when the boundaries of 'people who matter' were drawn in such a way as to exclude dissent and manufacture an artificial consensus. To take an historical example, racial segregation in the American south didn't suddenly become controversial in the 1950s. The affected population always objected but their opinions were considered unimportant and therefore racial segregation was "uncontroversial" (to white Americans) until the Civil Rights Movement.
You still haven't addressed the fact that nobody has been 'unpersoned' for having objectionable beliefs, since unpersoning is a historical practice with an actual definition. Nobody has in fact been murdered by the state and having their existence erased for being racist (as an example).
You also haven't addressed the fact that you have somewhat creepily focused entirely on me, even though nothing I've said hasn't also been said by others on here. I'm not sure how me talking about Gill, for example, constitutes 'a thing I'm passionate about', nor are things like opposing racism just personal interests and different beliefs. Pretending that someone can be eg racist in belief but not in action is just silly.
And even then, plenty of white Americans did care before the 1950s - just not white Americans who held political power. For example, Disney's Song of the South was considered highly racist by both Black and white film critics when it was released in the 1940s, and there were protests at its premiere (people claiming it was uncontroversial are actually referring to its theatrical re-release in the 1960s, which did not get media attention for the reason that it was just a re-release).
That's interesting, because you would think that if there had originally been substantial opinion among the public that the film was racist, it would simply not be re-released.
My guess would be that some or even many critics thought the film was racist, but that most laypeople didn't care, and that when the re-release took place, the public still didn't care, and the critics, whatever their view, didn't make a huge issue of it because it wasn't a first-run.
I can remember SOTS being shown in Canadian theatres, late 70s or early 80s. I wasn't really following racial debates at the time, but I don't recall much controversy about it. Certainly, the distributors didn't think it would be a problem.
I'm not sure why Black laypeople thinking a film is racist would mean it's not re-released, especially when it's a children's movie that is going to be viewed less critically than a movie aimed at adults - and especially since by the 60s television was king anyway. It was a bigger deal in the 40s since all cinema was, and Disney were still winning Oscars at this point before the Disney Dark Ages between the late 60s and late 80s.
Thanks,
Doublethink, Admin
Song of the South won the actor playing Uncle Remus an Oscar. He wasn’t allowed to attend to pick it up. There are sections of the film that we are not happy with now but, the Black characters were not slaves. They were not treated well but they were not slaves. Many people make that mistake. The other film that Disney are uncomfortable with now is One Of Our Dinosaurs is Missing. In many ways all the characters are exaggerated including the British. But whites playing Chinese is not for today.
As you are a Disney person, I would highly recommend listening to the SotS series of the film history podcast You Must Remember This. It is a very meticulously researched and nuanced podcast.
Yes, as I said earlier the 60s re-release had a much smaller impact - that's not because it was seen as less racist by Black people. There was just less attention on a re-release of a Disney film in the 60s than there was on the initial 40s release, both due to differences in cultural dominance (Disney being at a low ebb culturally in the 60s, and also television in its ascendancy vs cinema dominating the 40s) and also the fact that there were more pressing issues.
For the UK specifically, Reconstruction is just not much taught as a period of history - British people don't generally know about things like sharecropping, redlining etc in US history, that doesn't change the film's problems. There is also the issue in Britain and much of Europe that we often assume that we are inherently less racist than the US, or that the US is a uniquely racist country. US racism may differ to UK racism, and people in the UK may be eg less aware of some particular terms that are offensive in the US but not here, but much of that is due to the UK frankly refusing to teach about racism's history honestly.
I saw the film in the 70s. It got a re release then. I was only born in 67. I am not denying that things were a problem then. They were. My story about the actor playing Uncle Remus shows I understand. You seem to ignore that.
A films reception history is important. Peoples attitudes changes. We cannot be responsible for previous generations. We can only make changes were we can.
Splash Mountain, the ride based on the Brair Rabbit stories from the film (Both in Orlando and Anaheim) are closing to be replaced by a new version based on The Princess and the Frog.
Just a wee reminder that we look for 'own voice' stuff in Epiphanies. A discussion of race (in this case over Song of the South) needs Black perspectives to be centred/foregrounded.
Thanks,
Louise
Epiphanies host
I'm not sure why UK schools should particularly teach about the history of racism in the US particularly. To the extent that US history impacts world affairs, it's relevant, but beyond that, the history of racism in the US is of no more relevance than the history of racism in France, or anywhere else.
And I'm not sure I'd expect a detailed country-by-country study of racism in anyone's school curriculum.
Notice how easily "racism's history" changes itself into "the history of racism in the US". By implication the assumption seems to be that racism only exists in the U.S., or if it exists elsewhere (e.g. in places like France) it certainly doesn't exist (and never existed) within the U.K. or the wider British Empire.
Not at all - Pomona's comment (at least, the part I was responding to) was about people in the UK not being aware of specific words and uses that are deemed racist in the US, but not in the UK.
The unspoken centre of my comment was that the history of racism in the UK would belong firmly on a UK school syllabus, in the way that the details of racism in some other country wouldn't.
Or in other words, if UK schoolchildren aren't generally aware of the details of racist expression in the US, in France, or anywhere else that isn't the UK, I don't see that as a problem.
Or whether, in fact, those benefiting are actually victims of Gill's monstrosity?