He was certainly anti-semetic, although his favorite conductor was Jewish.
The Encyclopedia of Nazism refers to him as a precursor of Nazism.
Was being a German during the Revolution of 1848 a valid excuse?
I think the short answer is no. Most of europe at the time, including most jews, were what we would call anti-semetic.
Wagner was also a very strong German nationalist. Heck, the ending scene to his opera Die Meistersinger von Nuernberg was little more than an advertisement for One Big United Germany[TM].
If Naziism had been around in the time of Richard Wagner, it seems likely that he would have been one of its staunchest supporters.
Interestingly, Neitszche was a big fan of Wagner’s, but eventually broke off their friendship because of Wagner’s intense anti-semitism.
The break up with Wagner and Neitszche has been attributed to N’s migranes due to heriditary syphillis which Wagner thought were due to masturbation. N was also angered with Wagner’s relationship with Cosima von Bulow, later, of course, Cosima Wagner.
It would be a little tough as Nazism started after he died.
Hey, maybe Og the caveman was a Nazi! Or the Assyrians, they were nazilike, maybe they had black uniforms & swastikas. :rolleyes:
Much of Europe, likely. Some (former) Jews, perhaps (Karl Marx springs to mind.) But most Jews??
Richard Wagner was not a Nazi. He had several Naziesque ideas though. His ideas along with Nietsche influenced the later Nazi movement though. I believe that most of them were distorted rather strongly.
On a side note, Wagner was not a nice man. I remember reading a byline in his history where he invited another composer and his wife over (Wagner was also married) and kept trying to sleep with the other composers wife. I believe she eventually gave in.
Also, Wagner was once pushing his wife on one of the big outdoor swings at their home (I believe here name was Ada or something like that) and she kept yelling for him to stop. He didn’t and she passed out from fright and fell off the swing luckily with only minor injuries.
The real question to be brought up would be how much real influence did Wagner have over the rise of Nazism and how much of what would have been taken from his ideas was actually Nietsches originally. I believe there was a little but Nietsche really takes most of the credit here. If I remember my history correctly, Nietsche was the prime influence over Wagner. Wagner capitolized (or is that with an a?) on his ideas and basically cross-promoted them in a subversive way by using the ideas as a backbone to his operatic characters development. At the time opera was one of the choice versions of entertainment it wasn’t too expensive and thanks to the rise of the middle class most people would have had a chance to see it particularly since Wagner was one of the operatic superstars of his time (and all time). If we put this in an analogy of today, how many people do you think haven’t heard a song by the Beatles? Not many I am sure. Even younger kids have at least heard something.
I don’t know how much of Wagner’s philosophies were translated into the Nazi movement. I figure there were some but they would be mostly the same as Nietsche’s. It has been a while since I read any Nietsche and he was never up on my favourites so my information isn’t complete on his side. Give me Kant or Schoeppenhaur(sp) anyday.
HUGS!
Sqrl
One, Karl Marx wasn’t anti-semetic. My point was that the pervailing attitudes about jews at the time are what we would consider anti-semetic. At the time they were considered pretty normal. Many prominent Jews held them.
Later on around the 1860’s or so you had racial anti-semitism develop.
Wagner’s feelings on Jews are rather complicated. Everything I know comes from my SO, a masters student in music, who is writing one of her masters essays on this topic.
Wagner is rather ambivalent in his own writings about Jews. He had many Jewish admirers, and sponged off many of his more affluent Jewish friends. However, and the details elude me, one or two of his friendships with rich Jews went extremely sour. Somehow his disaffection with Jews who formerly supported him transformed into a general dislike of the Jewish people. His own nationalism only fueled his anti-semitism. If anyone is more interested, I can get a bibliography of some scholarly treatments of this issue, or even a list of Wagner’s own relevant writings.
MR
The situation reminds me of a novel by C.B. Kelland. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. In an attempt to declare Mr. Deeds of unsound mind, a little old lady is brought from his home town to testify. It’s a well known fact she states that he is pixillated, somewhat off in the head. The evidence against him seems tight. But, the case disolves when she is asked one more question. “Who else in your town is pixillated?” She ansers: “Why, everybody!”
In other words, the question isn’t did Wagner print anti-semetic words. All of Europe was doing so. The question is the degree. In fact you are hard pressed, if it is even possible, to find a single “pro-semetic” intellectual in Europe at the time or in the centuries preceeing Wagner.
I think that is a little off-base. It is one thing for anti-Semitism to be fashionable and part and parcel with the times. I would expect that to some degree in the works and writings of people of importance. However, the question of Wagner’s anti-Semitism in his works is still a valid one. Did he consider the Jews part of his idea of unified Germany or not? Did he hate them because of bad experiences with particular Jews or because everyone else hated them?
Nietzsche, by the way, violently despised anti-Semites. He broke off his entire relationship to his sister, to whom he was extremely close, because she married a vocal anti-Semite. Nietsche loved the Jews, and considered them to be an extremely special people. This is often lost in his writings, and hence they are misunderstood by fuckwits like Hitler.
Regards,
MR
oldscratch
Anything to back that up?
How about this. You have any evidence that he was. I can’t provide much evidence that you’re not anti-semetic. But then again I can’t provide any eveidence that you are.
oldscratch,
If you are going to contradict something that another poster says, especially if that poster is saying a widely known fact, it does not add anything when you merely assert it, and then say “prove otherwise”. If, as you say, you “can’t provide much evidence that you’re not anti-semetic. But then again I can’t provide any eveidence that you are”, than you would be wise to refrain from commenting on whether I am an anti-semite until you do have such evidence. The same goes for Karl Marx.
As you seem to be acknowledging that you know of no evidence about the matter (of Karl Marx) you may find the following excerpt helpful.
If you don’t consider this anti-semitic, feel free to comment.
This seems like he just takes popular cliches about Jews of the day and recycles it. Doesn’t seem paticularly hateful. Just stupid.
**
The poster was not stating a widely known fact. The poster was making an unfounded assertion. I have every right for asking of evidence. If you are going to make accusations, you better as hell, be prepared to back it up with facts. Of course TheThrill hasn’t done that. You kindly posted a quote that I will comment on.
No problem. Taking a quote out of reference is really stupid. Do you have any idea what that pamphlet was about? Did you read my earlier posts? Evidently, in a word, no.
1.This was common accepted language at the time. Father of Zionism Moses Hess wrote around the same time “The present day society is a jew huckster world” “The jews who in the national history of the social animal-world had the world-historic mission of developing the beast of prey out of humanity have now finally completed their mission’s work” He then condemns priests as the “hyeneas of the social animal-world” who are as bad as the others by virtue of their “common quality as beasts of prey, as bloodsuckers, as Jews”
The founder of Jewish studies in Berlin of 1836 made this comment “[jews] are slaves of mere self-interest… a pap of praying, bank notes, and charity. The only link which unities Jews is fear.”
And of course these are Jewish thinkers. When you move into non-jews, even those who were “pro-jewish” it gets much worse.
As I stated earlier all of Europe was Pixillated. The economic Jew stereotype was well accepted. Nothing was seen as wrong with it. It wasn’t until later when the racial anti-semetism developed that people recoiled from these thoughts.
As for why the pamphlet as written, it was a defense of Jewry against Bruno Bauer and the anti semities in the legislature. At the same time Marx had drafted a petition to institute equal rites for Jews in Prussia.
So before you go making unfounded allegations, try to at least study the facts somewhat. OK? 
oldscratch
I believe the poster was saying a widely known fact. At least in Jewish circles. Non Jews aren’t as intrested in anti-semitism, so the issues of who is or isn’t anti-semitic are not as widely known in general. But in any event, even if not widely known, you add nothing to a discussion by simply asserting something with no evidence. You have “a right” to ask for whatever you want, but if you intend on making a contribution to this discussion you should bring something to the table.
The thought may have been common in Europe, but it does not follow that nothing was seen as wrong with it. Even the Zionist thinkers who had that attitude thought it was very negative as well. Basicaly they used it as a selling point for Zionism, saying “look how the Gentiles hate us; it’s because of these undesirable traits we’ve picked up as a result of exile - let’s make a state and become like every other people, then everyone will love us”.
This is interesting. I did not know this. Thanks for enlightening me to this matter. This ties in with your earlier point that attitudes that were widely held should not be considered anti-semitic even if they were negative ones - a debatable point, but a point nonetheless.
No need to get so excited. I did not make any unfounded allegations. You asked for evidence of anti-semitism - I provided it. You provided some useful backround perspective that shows these writings in something of a different light. Great.
**
Exactly, and that is what the poster and you failed to do. you brought out a quote, taken completely out of context, TheThrill didn’t even bring anything to the table.
**
Here you are making assertation without any evidence to back it up. I’ve provided quote from people who were Jewish, that would be construed as anti-semetic today. At the time they weren’t. It was like calling someone a turk or a wild indian. It wasn’t seen as racist. as someone, I can’t recall who, said “But in any event, even if not widely known, you add nothing to a discussion by simply asserting something with no evidence.”
**
Yes, I agree. Keep in mind that I am not defending what people said. It was just acceptable by all of society to say things. These quotes are from the left wing of Europe, you should read what the Right wing (even those who weren’t anti-semetic) wrote. Also, as I stated arround 1860 or so these attitudes started changing. Around that time you won’t find “left-wing” authors making statements like that, including Karl Marx.
Oldscratch,
As there seems to confusion as to what is or is not a valuable addition to a thread, I will clarify it for you.
When someone says that Karl Marx was an anti-semite, averyone knows that the opposite of that is to say that he was not. When you assert it, it adds nothing other then the fact that Oldscratch does not believe that he was an anti-semite. Now you may believe that your intelligence and education are so far superior to that of TheThill that anyone reading your words will immediately dismiss his words and adopt yours. But this is not the case just yet. As such you add little or nothing.
By contrast, when you provided background information about the Karl Marx quote, you were making a valuable contribution. Note that here too, you did not provide any “evidence to back it up” - you merely asserted it to be so. Despite this I recognized your information as a valuable contribution, because it added something new - a different interpretation for Marx’s words than that which is readily apparent.
So too it is with my interpretation of the Zionist’s words. I provided as much “evidence to back it” up as you did, and my contribution is the same as yours was - to provide background information to help understand the context of the quote you cited.
I hope you will make use of this distinction in your future posts.