Die hier archivierte Mail kann, muss sich aber nicht auf den Themenkomplex von Oekonux beziehen.
Insbesondere kann nicht geschlossen werden, dass die hier geäußerten Inhalte etwas mit dem Projekt Oekonux oder irgendeiner TeilnehmerIn zu tun haben.
| Message 00733 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thread: choxT00729 Message: 2/4 L1 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
| [First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
| [Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
On 2 Mar 2004 at 11:39, Casimir Purzelbaum wrote: It wouldn't let me post to chat <at> oekonux last time, so better hope this time. I've not subscribed because most of the posts are in German according to the archives.
Is uncommented spreading of populist lies or half-lies better than making them up one-self?!Well I certainly wouldn't do so with that kind of material, and furthermore he digs his own hole by how he's presented them. He has brought this on himself but that doesn't make him a nazi.Well, firstly, I don't want to decide whether he is a nazi or not; I do, however, care about the "hole" he is "digging". After all, people cannot / will not be judged by their (honest or proclaimed) intentions alone, but also by their real position in the framework of interaction.
I wasn't basing anything on what he himself has claimed. In fact, me, him and three others have been conversing off list since the beginning and despite me deliberately raising points a nazi would feel obliged to challenge, he has not risen to the bait. Of course he may realise I was doing this. I've also conducted an extensive review of everything google returns when searching for his name. In my opinion, he is a right wing nationalist which I think he himself would agree with. But I don't see any evidence of the racial superiority complex typical of the Nazi mindset as I have experienced it.
If I look up Wagner in the Britannica (1993), I see absolutely zero mention of any anti-semitism at all or even Hitler for that matter. This to me says it all - Wagner's political or religious views are unimportant to history.[snip] Wagner had a lot to say *about* music and why it's wrong to treat music as something we would call "l'art pour l'art". He took an active interest in the political life of his time and his musical dramas, his whole concept of aesthetics, were *meant* to play an active role in the transformation of society (including politics). This is why I would agree with you if the article had the title "Richard Wagner's Music from a purely musical perspective" (whatever that might mean ;-). But if it is supposed to be an article about him as a composer, as a person, about the ideas and concepts that drove him and his work, then this would clearly not be adequate. This is not yet an answer to whether Hitler should appear in an article about Wagner. But IMO the reception of a person and his work should not be ignored in an encyclopedia, because a) it is part of general knowledge and b) does hardly fit anywhere else. And, after all, it is the (history of) perception that makes him worth appearing there at all (in comparison with Joe Bloggs, for example).¹
Ok, if the entry for Wagner were twenty pages long, then we should have a paragraph on his anti-semitism. But let's face the truth here - a very substantial minority of Europeans were also anti-semites at that time, so why are we singling out this particular aspect of Wagner? Why the hell is this one single thing so very important when to my knowledge (and the Britannica's), it had near-zero effect on either his world, the world thereafter or anything who had anything to do with him? (I think it safe to say Hitler's anti-semitism would have been unaffected by Wagner's). How *we* view historical figures it often at odds with how their contempories viewed them. And I know it's hard on our egos, but it's how their contempories saw them is what counts.
2. Wikipedia vs. Britanica I don't think that imitating an existing work is the goal of wikipedia.
Not necessarily. But I think it foolish for anyone to ignore such a formerly respected work as the Britannica whose quality was recognised as high. I should add that Wagner's Britannica entry spans a full page which is relatively long comparatively.
[¹ -- as for myself, I would *only* include him for his historic importance, because I find his musical drama mostly stupifying and boring (-- which is why I decided two months ago, not to go to a Wagner-opera again ;-).]
I wouldn't attend the opera. But I do like Wagner's music and it has to be said, flight of the valkires (spelt totally wrong) is the perfect accompanying tune for war scenes in movies! :) Cheers, Niall _______________________ http://www.oekonux.de/
| [English translation] | |||
| Thread: choxT00729 Message: 2/4 L1 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Message 00733 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |