Magma´s ideology controversy. Read this!

 

Raff wrote:   Having read interviews with some members of those Black Metal bands, I beg to differ. Their ideas, though not 'Nazi' in a strict sense, were definitely racist, xenophobic and rather violent overall. And then, what about the church burnings - some of which destroyed some valuable ancient buildings? Not the work of mild-mannered individuals, that's for sure.

Well, I hate to defend the church burnings, but the point of the church burnings is that the churches were built on top of pagan holy sites. They would view the church burnings as defending pagan beliefs against the Christians, who basically destroyed their religions by force. While I do agree that it is a bit petty to bring up hundred year old wrongs, I wouldn't classify it is racist or xenophobic. 

Sorry guys, I had to hide some posts; claiming that an entire nation is racist defies common sense and is against PA's policy concerning racism, likewise singling out any race as lacking intelligence is likewise against PA policy on racism too.

BaldJean wrote: CCVP wrote: BaldJean wrote: the human ability to hate everyone who looks different is a stone age reflex. everyone who looked different did not belong to the tribe and hence was an enemy. unfortunately we all are more governed by our stone age reflexes than we usually realize. and I mean ALL, without any exception Well, there is a big difference between ethnocentrism and racism. Ethnocentrism (is very few words) is to value everything related to your culture and means of life and try to impose those to the "barbarians", wile racism is (in very few words) the hatred towards any human group specifically for any given reason (different skin collor, different religion, etc) AND the desire to eradicate that human group. Also, ethnocentrism date back to our ancestral times, wile racism is a rather new idea, only possible due to the Age of Enlightenment, when the idea that every human being is equal was crafted, at least in Europe. After the Enlightenment, there were created means (ideas) to justify the exploitation of other human groups, such as Africans and Indians (both from the Americas and from India), and those means (ideas) gave birth to what we call today racism. I tried to make a very brief summary about it, I hope it is good enough! but ethnocentrism is the base for racism. everyone who looks different is not to be trusted

Well, you really got me here, but I don't think that is the case, because many States throughout the history of mankind had many different people living peacefully within its borders, like the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Inca Empire, etc, ethnic differences in general were used, in one way or another, to justify racism.

But the thing is, until the XVIII century, people were naturally not equal. One group of people could be superior to the other by birth inside one nation (nobleman and peasants would be the biggest example of that) and, because of such inequality, people could be so low they became objects (slavery through war, debt, lack of honor, etc). That is why, in the Roman Empire, for example, everyone could become a slave and everyone could become a nobleman: you could become superior or inferior to other people due to your merits/honorable deeds, etc. However, that does not meant they were racist. All the world did this! Africans sold African slaves to Europe since Antiquity and vice versa. Indian castes were also due to that idea: people came from different parts of Ganesha, therefore they are unequal.

On Modern times, when that idea of equality was created, such human hierarchy was abolished and new means to justify that hierarchy were created, most notably the white man's burden, that said that the white man must bring the other races of the world to their level and, until then, they were inferior to the white man.

Actually the idea of race is itself racist. That is because, until the XVIII, most people would be categorized by their nation / culture instead of the color of their skin. This generalization by skin color made it possible to exploit and make countless people inferior without seeing their culture / nation and making such exploitation viable.

People being different will always be used in various ways, but that can be used even inside a big family! Despite the ethnic differences being used as some kind of base to racism, it does not means that, just because you value your sets of beliefs and your culture you are being racist, just like it is not the other way around. Disliking different people is not racism, but it may lead to.


EDIT: just one more thing I forgot: in case you think about African slaves in the Americas, just remember that the Europeans only made big settlements from the late XVII to early XIX century on. Until then, there would mostly be strongholds in the coast were the Europeans (mostly portuguese an dutch) would trade goods (from gold and silver to clothing and alcohol) with local tribes and nations for slaves. The slave commerce was really profitable both for the Africans and for the Europeans until the XIX century, when European nations took a foothold in Africa and forcibly captured people and enslaved them.


Edited by CCVP - January 19 2010 at 16:42

BaldJean wrote: the human ability to hate everyone who looks different is a stone age reflex. everyone who looked different did not belong to the tribe and hence was an enemy. unfortunately we all are more governed by our stone age reflexes than we usually realize. and I mean ALL, without any exception

Well, there is a big difference between ethnocentrism and racism. Ethnocentrism (is very few words) is to value everything related to your culture and means of life and try to impose those to the "barbarians", wile racism is (in very few words) the hatred towards any human group specifically for any given reason (different skin collor, different religion, etc) AND the desire to eradicate that human group.

Also, ethnocentrism date back to our ancestral times, wile racism is a rather new idea, only possible due to the Age of Enlightenment, when the idea that every human being is equal was crafted, at least in Europe. After the Enlightenment, there were created means (ideas) to justify the exploitation of other human groups, such as Africans and Indians (both from the Americas and from India), and those means (ideas) gave birth to what we call today racism.

I tried to make a very brief summary about it, I hope it is good enough!

Interesting statement, BaldJean. The problem is that too many people have fallen for the idea of the Uebermensch AS INTERPRETED BY THE NAZIS, never mind if this is a perversion of Nietzsche's ideas or not.

Others that have used Nazi/WWII German aspects as part of their image or music:

Bryan Ferry - there was a big hoohah about that a few years back
Blue Oyster Cult - well they use a drawing of a Messerschmitt Me 262A on the cover of one of their albums.  Of course, that doesn't mean anything really... but some people could misconstrue it as such
Bowie - as already mentioned

I'm sure there are others.

People like to use imagery whether they agree with it or not.  Prince Harry dressing up in an SS Uniform was just for sh*ts and giggles but he had to apologise for it (and rightly so).


Edited by James - January 19 2010 at 11:01

toroddfuglesteg wrote: Which reminds me about a meeting back in the 1980s in a pub in Austria of Homo-Sexuals with a fetish for Nazi uniforms and high leather boots. They were gathered for their annual get-together when they were rumbled by the local leftist and Anti-Nazi league who got their wires crossed. Maybe because of the Nazi uniforms the gays was parading in. The local SS Wehrmacht brethren also got their wires crossed and wanted to join this meeting of "like minded".  The end result was a heck of a riot ............

Which reminds me of a song by Dire Straits called "Les Boys" (from the Making Movies album), which might have been about the same incident.

Which reminds me about a meeting back in the 1980s in a pub in Austria of Homo-Sexuals with a fetish for Nazi uniforms and high leather boots. They were gathered for their annual get-together when they were rumbled by the local leftist and Anti-Nazi league who got their wires crossed. Maybe because of the Nazi uniforms the gays was parading in. The local SS Wehrmacht brethren also got their wires crossed and wanted to join this meeting of "like minded".  The end result was a heck of a riot ............   

I didn't follow French politics and I now that I moved to France I'm still not planning to , but you're right. All right wing extremist ideologies share most of their targets (immigrants, Jews, minorities, the global conspiracy, the enemy over the border, etc.), regardless of the "denomination". If Nazism is hated in France that doesn't mean right wing extremist don't share many of it's fundamental "ideas". (BTW, Inglorious Basterds is huge in France, even my favourite magazine voted it best film of the year. )

Anyway, I would suppose that if Vander was ever fascinated by Nazism, it was for exteriour aspects (militarism, the usage of myth of the super-human, it's dark visual aspects, show-off, elitism, arrogance, etc.) and not because he believes in it's ideas.

RE Daevid Allen, I don't know. I think I read the same story somewhere else, but I didn't bookmark that page and now I can't remember where it was...

One thing that hasn't been said in the whole debate is that if a Frenchman is going to have extremist views, he/she would not adhere to Nazism. French people still hate Nazis and Hitler because they invaded France. The regular extremist ideologies in France are extreme leftism and nationalism a la BNP.