Magma´s ideology controversy. Read this!

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!

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

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.

 

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. 

Who cares what they believe?

I really don't care, and that's coming from someone who's Jewish himself.

If Magma turn out to be Nazis, then f**k the members of Magma, but I'll continue to love their music and hope that they produce more.

As a metal fan, I've had to learn to put up with arrogant and racist ideology. I listen to plenty of bands who, albeit amazing musicians, spread a lot of negative beliefs.

But yeah, I really don't care... I try to keep the music separate from their ideas, which isn't too hard with a band that I can't even begin to understand what they're saying like Magma.

These views have been dpoing the rounds for decades. Vander loves Coltrane's jazz - who wouldn't. They even did A Love Supreme.

The press originated (or lat least the idea was originated within the press) since the first concerts performed with the members wearing black and only the logo showing. There's no real substance and I think it's just a publicity  - not stunt - but event Vander has allowed to perpetuate.

let's face it Magma are not exactly an easy sell to the mainstream. or even out here in prog rock land.

Still there's plenty of rock for Nazi gossip. Clapton's chat about Enoch Poell being right for Jamaican citizens not finding the UK a good home for non Caucasian folks. He even used to call a black man a spade. Very odd considering his influences and associates.

The aforementioned Bowie doing his Nazi salute in London's another.

It's good to talk about this though. The facism of political correction usually has people scared to say a word that could be misinterpreted.

But as for Magma, part of the Magma Kobaia story involves annihalation and the Nazi's were pretty good at this. Mind you so was Stalin who did in more than 4 x what the Nazis amanged. But communism never had such a poular image as the Nazis....

... the above observatrion hopefully should illustrate why I think Vander has pretty much allowed these ideas to continue. It's image and associated perception.

Lucky this does not effect the music of Jannick Top! Not even producing Celine Dion can do that!

As to the use of Nazi-like imagery, as I said in an earlier post, it could be a purely aesthetic matter - Pink Floyd did much the same on The Wall, and no one thought they were Nazis.

***

Not quite Raf. First, the skin heads used in the movie took it a little too seriously. This is mentioned in interviews with makers of the Wall. Some critics also took it a little too literally. Y'know, portray something therefore you belive it. The use of derogatory terms was also taken seriously and literally.

I think some people forget things are art and get taken in by them. The skinheads are one thing but critics are supposed to have at least a modicum of education.

I once saw a woman in a bookstore holding a book that was a history of the Nazi SS. She said it was disgusting. I thought the book was as far as I could tell an accurate history of the Nazi organisation. But she took it to mean it was a glorification. (Presumably because it looked nice...)

With things like facism and National Socialism one has to be very careful. There is a very powerful element and when it's out in public there is little control over outcome.

uduwudu wrote: First, the skin heads used in the movie took it a little too seriously. This is mentioned in interviews with makers of the Wall. Some critics also took it a little too literally. Y'know, portray something therefore you belive it. The use of derogatory terms was also taken seriously and literally. I think some people forget things are art and get taken in by them. The skinheads are one thing but critics are supposed to have at least a modicum of education. I once saw a woman in a bookstore holding a book that was a history of the Nazi SS. She said it was disgusting. I thought the book was as far as I could tell an accurate history of the Nazi organisation. But she took it to mean it was a glorification. (Presumably because it looked nice...)

interesting--  clearly the Nazi-like imagery in The Wall is not in support of it (in fact it holds it up to mockery), but I'm sure there are people who both don't understand that and object, or don't understand that and like it. 

Either way, they don't get it.

Rocktopus wrote: moebius wrote: Response from a german Magma fan (worth reading) http://kohntarkosz.blogspot.com/2009/11/response-from-olvator-of-hamburg.html I disagree. This fan is hurt  because Magma/Vander uses nazirelated quotes and images. Well, I assume  they do this to create their complex art concerning war, destruction, good, evil and so on. He demands an apology because he's been exposed to an image of an Albert Speer building, and what might be an extract from a Goebbles speech! He doesn't seem to take into consideration about how or why its used, or that its presented within a context. This is nothing to come out and apologize for.

In my first post, I was quoting this text, but it didn't come along.