# Was Tchaikovsky an anti-Semite?



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

One saying is that on a train station he noticed what he referred to as “a mass of dirty Yids, with that poisoning of the atmosphere which accompanies them everywhere"; how true is that? Didn't he support Mendelssohn from Wagner's anti-Jewish comments?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I have no idea if that is true, and I really hope it isn't. The only Russian composer I know of who was virulently anti-Semitic was Tchaikovsky's near contemporary and early friend Mily Balakirev, but he was a bit of a crackpot anyway.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

"Tchaikovsky was a man of the 19th century, when the intelligentsia in Russia and other European countries was anti-Semitic almost by reflex," said Felder, whose father survived Auschwitz.

Link.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I have collections of Tchaikovsky's letters. Alas, the author of this little review thought "1878" was a good enough citation — not the only journalistic problem for this crank. I'm not reading through every letter from that year looking for it. Couldn't find "yid" in the index.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> I have collections of Tchaikovsky's letters. Alas, the author of this little review thought "1878" was a good enough citation - not the only journalistic problem for this crank. I'm not reading through every letter from that year looking for it. Couldn't find "yid" in the index.


What about the Classical scene among Russian Jews? Embarrassingly enough, many Israeli people of Russian decent are quite ignorant on this issue, especially younger people; one 19yo Russian girl from Beer Sheva told me most Russian people there listen to what she referred to as "Russian Rap"; and I was like "really!?"; is that really the case?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> "Tchaikovsky was a man of the 19th century, when the intelligentsia in Russia and other European countries was anti-Semitic almost by reflex," said Felder, whose father survived Auschwitz.


Yep. That's the way it was back then. Don't judge people from the long past using modern standards - it get you nowhere.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

The Jews had long been the preferred scapegoat for most of Europe for centuries. Pogroms against them had occurred off and on through virtually their entire existence in Europe. The fake anti-semitic screed, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was produced in tsarist Russia at the turn of the 20th century. That Tchaikovsky might have been generally anti-semitic in this saturated environment wouldn't surprise me anymore than learning that a non-slaveholder in Tennessee in the 19th century was racist.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Don't judge people from the long past using modern standards - it get you nowhere.


Well, it gets you somewhere. It enables you to see whether modern standards are better or worse than past standards. Besides, if anti-semitism is unacceptable now, why wouldn't it always have been unacceptable?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Gay marriage, abortion, pornography are acceptable now. Why wouldn't it always be acceptable? Judging other societies against modern laws, mores, rules and societal norms can help put those people in perspective, but that's all. It doesn't make them worse or better than we are today, just different. 150 years ago women couldn't vote - something that may seem silly to us now. But back then, allowing the "weaker sex" to vote seemed silly.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It seems hard for me to believe that the homosexual Tchaikovsky, who had to fight enough fights over his own sexual orientation, would take public actions to become known outwardly to be an anti-Semite. 

It could be true, of course, since European anti-Semitism goes back as far as history shows and was much of the reason Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union became what they did in the 20th century -- itotalitarian states that preyed on Jews, conducted pogroms on Jewish communities, and did so with little regard for what other nations thought about it. This only went on in Europe until the Nuremberg trials.

It still goes on in some parts of Europe for homosexuals now. Russia, which officially "legalized" homosexuality less than 30 years ago, is one such place -- full of gangs that go out and hunt queers the way brown shirts hunted non-believers and others in the 1930s.

So, with Tchaikovsky living in such a society in the 19th century, it seems odd to me he'd be a flaming anti-anything. 

It wouldn't be a surprise if he made a comment a time or two about an ethnic group, however. That's true for most of us.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

larold said:


> It seems hard for me to believe that the homosexual Tchaikovsky, who had to fight enough fights over his own sexual orientation, would take public actions to become known outwardly to be an anti-Semite.
> 
> It could be true, of course, since European anti-Semitism goes back as far as history shows and was most of the reason Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union became what they did in the 20th century -- important European nations that preyed on Jews, conducted pogroms on Jewish communities, and did so with little regard for what anyone thought about it. This only went on in Europe until the Nuremberg trials.
> 
> ...


In an endemically anti-semitic atmosphere, any person throwing out an anti-semitic slur would not have drawn out specific attention by anybody thinking, "wow, that guy is anti-semitic" any more than any person in the late 19th century American South throwing around the "n" word would have drawn attention to themselves by someone thinking, specifically, "wow, that guy sure is racist!"


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> Gay marriage, abortion, pornography are acceptable now.


I'm not sure that these three things can be bracketed together, though perhaps it depends what we mean by "acceptable".

There is a lamentable habit of looking back into the past and thinking that because "that was how people thought back then", all kinds of unacceptable attitudes and behaviours are excused. If PIT was anti-semitic, that was as wrong then as it is now, even it was more widespread (or more widely acknowlegdged) in the late 1800s.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I’ve seen this Tchaikovsky quote before and believe it’s authentic. In any event, I refuse to moralize about such things. Every age and culture believes its views and values are correct and superior to all others. Our own age and culture is no exception.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

I would not be surprised to learn that Tchaikovsky was an anti-semite. In the days of Kings and Tsars rule was by divine right and the government and the church were inseparable. Jews were, by definition, foreigners in the lands where they lived.

I think there is a distinction between accepting the biases that were intrinsic to the culture and being a champion of them. There is a difference between thinking, "oh, Mendelssohn seems a decent enough fellow even though he is a jew" and writing anti-semitic pamphlets, as Wagner did.

However, I hold Tchaikovsky's outrageous comments about Brahms against him.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

KenOC said:


> I've seen this Tchaikovsky quote before and believe it's authentic. In any event, I refuse to moralize about such things. Every age and culture believes its views and values are correct and superior to all others. Our own age and culture is no exception.


No-one is asking you to "moralise about such things", so you're safe in your moral vacuum Ken. The question asked was, was he, not should he have been?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure that these three things can be bracketed together, though perhaps it depends what we mean by "acceptable".
> 
> There is a lamentable habit of looking back into the past and thinking that because "that was how people thought back then", all kinds of unacceptable attitudes and behaviours are excused. If PIT was anti-semitic, that was as wrong then as it is now, even it was more widespread (or more widely acknowlegdged) in the late 1800s.


I don't think anybody is arguing that it was right then, but then at some point became wrong. But what is acceptable and what is right are not always synonymous. Human beings are funny that way. We do all kinds of contradictory things. The point is that how we typically judge people is whether they are norm and more breakers. Being anti-semitic was wrong in the late 19th century, but it was certainly not outside the norm. In many areas, norms shift over time to more closely reflect what we see as moral - but then we go ahead and start the cycle all over again with some new area, normalizing behavior that is probably not moral. Taking the issue of pornography specifically - morally, it is very suspect, and tends to be extremely exploitative of women, reducing them to objects of male masturbatory fantasy. And yet the current efforts are to normalize it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

Look, I just wished to respond to mbhaub's post about judging moral standards. Let's stick with PIT.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> No-one is asking you to "moralise about such things", so you're safe in your moral vacuum Ken. The question asked was, was he, not should he have been?


I understand your taking offense, since I was reacting to your own moralizing, _e.g_., 'There is a lamentable habit of looking back into the past and thinking that because "that was how people thought back then", all kinds of unacceptable attitudes and behaviours are excused.'​


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

KenOC said:


> I understand your taking offense, since I was reacting to your own moralizing, _e.g_., 'There is a lamentable habit of looking back into the past and thinking that because "that was how people thought back then", all kinds of unacceptable attitudes and behaviours are excused.'​


I don't see "moralising" as the same problem that you seem to. But then, I didn't think I was moralising, which is why I've taken offence.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Unless we've come as far as we can as a civilization, there will probably be things we do and think today that future generations will find immoral. Because they will do and think differently.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

Some activities are wrong absolutely regardless of the society in which they occurred. Things like murder, robbery, unwarranted assault upon the person etc are as wrong today as they were in late 19th C Russia. With various other "offences", however, there must surely be scope for some adjustment in the degree to which an event that is generally frowned upon today but which occurred over 100 years and was treated more leniently then should be judged by today's audience.

I have no idea how far, in the higher circles of Russian society in the late 19th C, it was common for anti-semitic statements of various kinds to be made. Nor does it seem that anyone else has any real idea, based on what I've read earlier in this thread. If, as I rather suspect based on nothing but pure hunch, it was not a completely uncommon occurrence then, if Tchaikovsky's comment is all that we know about his involvement in this kind of situation, I would be inclined to let him off the hook and not worry about it any further.

To label him as an "anti-semite" I'd want far greater proof than exists based solely on the evidence referred to earlier in the thread. I'd be looking for a deliberate course of conduct of anti-Jewish statements, repeated several times and quite openly. I would also want some evidence of a "_mens rea_" indicating that Tchaikovsky was aware that what he was saying/writing on this topic was likely to amount to a crime of some kind in the context of the laws and customs of the day. As far as I know, there is no such evidence.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Partita said:


> Some activities are wrong absolutely regardless of the society in which they occurred. Things like murder, robbery, unwarranted assault upon the person etc...


Simply examples of socially suboptimal behavior. 

"Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." --Hamlet


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Certainly not in the way Wagner was



> At this concert, whose programme was remarkably well selected, we also heard Mendelssohn's delightful Third Symphony in A minor. When discussing this brilliant composer's string quartet [7], I already had occasion to talk about his splendid qualities and shortcomings. The symphony which we are dealing with now combines both the former and the latter in their starkest manifestation. The same lack of depth, the same sugariness of melodic invention tending towards the minor keys, and yet also that very same plastic beauty in its form, that same inexhaustible charm in the details of the harmony and instrumentation. Just remember, for example, what an enchanting effect is produced by the cello phrase which repeats the first Allegro theme in the symphony's first movement, or the stormy chromatic scales played by the strings during the coda of this movement! How fluid, clear, and beautiful this all is!
> 
> And it is against this graceful composer, who is always so appealing for audiences, that Wagner aims his poisoned arrows in his critical writings, reproaching him with particular doggedness for belonging to the Jewish race! Indeed, this highly gifted Jew should have felt so ashamed of himself for having, with such insidious malice, delighted mankind with his instrumental works instead of lulling it to sleep with German conscientiousness, as Wagner has managed to do with his long, difficult, loud and frequently unbearably boring operas!


http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/...he_Russian_Musical_Society._The_Italian_Opera


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think it is pretty stupid to condemn a man for an apocryphal saying which may or may not be true. At least with Wagner we have a whole load of written bile to make up our minds with.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I think it is pretty stupid to condemn a man for an apocryphal saying which may or may not be true. At least with Wagner we have a whole load of written bile to make up our minds with.


Hardly apocryphal. The quote, from a letter by Tchaikovsky, can be found in the second volume of David Brown's massive biography of the composer, _Tchaikovsky: The Crisis Years, 1874-1878_. PIT was writing about the railway station he passes on his way from Clarens to Kamenka (1878).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Innumerable antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, religiously biased, etc. remarks by innumerable composers have no doubt gone unrecorded and are therefore forgotten. Ugly words matter greatly when uttered by people who act on them, but may be of little consequence otherwise. Did Tchaikovsky ever mistreat a Jew, or urge anyone to do so? If not, I have little interest in what he said about them. More interesting is his calling Brahms a "talentless b*****d."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ...More interesting is his calling Brahms a "talentless b*****d."


Tchaikovsky met Brahms in 1888. He wrote, "Going to Brodsky's for the one o'clock dinner, I heard sounds of the piano, violin and cello. They were rehearsing for the next day's performance of Brahms' new Pianoforte Trio [op. 100], and the composer himself was at the piano. Thus it chanced that I saw the famous German musician for the first time. Brahms is a rather short man, suggests a sort of amplitude, and possesses a very sympathetic appearance. His fine head, almost that of an old man, recalls the type of a handsome, benign elderly Russian priest… A certain softness of outlines, pleasing curves, rather long and slightly grizzled hair, kind gray eyes, and thick beard freely sprinkled with white - all this recalled at once the type of pure-bred Great Russian, so frequently met with among our clergy… Brahms' manner is very simple, free from vanity, his humor jovial, and the few hours spent in his society left me with a very agreeable recollection."

He had much more to say, all of it interesting, *here*.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2019)

I am by no means an expert of all the composers through the ages. The only one I have ever heard say was "good" was Haydn - I'm prepared now for someone to dash that image in my head! Still - we all need to decide to what extent we can separate their behavior from their works. In the case of PIT, we have what, one quote here? Is that the extent? I'm curious how many of us are that pure that we would look that good held up to a microscope. To my knowledge, there is no other obvious examples, in his conduct or art, that reveals him to be an anti-Semite. Did he seek to oppress others because of his views? Did his level of anti-Semitism lead to anything other than an ignorant statement in a letter?


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

First, I want to make sure you understand that one's talent in anything is not hindered by being against Jews-I grew up in a Jewish family myself, and my lack of a foreskin will never stop me from getting excited from Swan Lake every time again, and the same is true for Wagner's operas.
I got the impression Tchaikovsky was "average" in his stance on Jews, he wasn't a great fan of Jews, but he certainly wasn't as like Wagner on the issue, and in fact, he supported Mendelssohn and criticised Wagner for that; maybe he could "tolerate" Mendelssohn more for him converting to Protestantism? What was Tchaikovsky's bigger image of Mendelssohn? They were both important Romantic composers after all.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Tchaikovsky was not an anti-semite, he was Russian.

:tiphat:


----------



## Fredrikalansson (Jan 29, 2019)

I wonder if anyone will ever look back at our politically correct culture and wonder what was wrong with us that someone couldn't make an offhand, off-colour, insensitive comment without being hauled out and branded for it?

Sigh. I guess now we have to ban Tchaikovsky's music now, at least in Israel.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Do you think we have a politically correct culture at the moment? I see common decency to "the other" as crumbling everywhere I look. The term "politically correct" was initially used to educate people that some words and behaviour could be experienced as hurtful to others. It might have gone too far in some quarters - there are lots of stories, many apocryphal, of "PC gone mad" - but the tide has well and truly turned in the real world now. People labeling being civilised and decent to people who are different to them as "politically correctness" are these days very often only doing so to point to what they believe is "left wing flakiness". And, of course, there are numerous crimes (that's what they would have been called 20 years ago) perpetrated against the other (homosexuals, foreigners etc) that seem to go without effective challenge these days. This is happening across the Western world. 

I used to dream that I had lived through decades of social progress but now know that these things are terribly fragile and have reversed with appalling consequences many times in the past. The Nazis' extreme antisemitism followed a period in Germany of small but unprecedented gains in opportunity for Jews in the country and even Fascism welcomed Jews in Mussolini's Italy (there were many Jewish Fascists there) until Mussolini needed to align himself with Hitler's ideology. 

Tchaikovsky probably shared the views of his time and place and I don't think there is any evidence that he acted against Jews in any substantial way. Just because he was gay, we should not expect him to be a campaigner for social justice. He is neither hero or villain in this.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Hardly apocryphal. The quote, from a letter by Tchaikovsky, can be found in the second volume of David Brown's massive biography of the composer, _Tchaikovsky: The Crisis Years, 1874-1878_. PIT was writing about the railway station he passes on his way from Clarens to Kamenka (1878).


Thank you Ken.

Tchaikovsky seems to have had a near phobic hatred of crowds. I believe the comment about Yids should be read in that context. I'd guess the intensity of expression is due in part to this phobia, the "dirty Yids" being just one more unpleasant trial among many.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Hardly apocryphal. The quote, from a letter by Tchaikovsky, can be found in the second volume of David Brown's massive biography of the composer, _Tchaikovsky: The Crisis Years, 1874-1878_. PIT was writing about the railway station he passes on his way from Clarens to Kamenka (1878).


Yes but he was just using the type of language used by people of the day. I can remember it being used by my contemporaries together with other language we would consider racist today. That is not being anti-semitic. Just expressing the prejudices of your society.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Political correctness can be a subtle smokescreen. Beneath it there can be just as much prejudice as before, like in other periods of history, but some may just be more silent about it — as if the world will ever be free of prejudice as long as its cultures secretly fear and distrust each other. In the modern world, it’s just hidden a little bit better on the surface... As far as the composers are concerned, they’re imperfect just like the rest of us. You-know-who, Chopin, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, and others made anti-Semitic remarks and perhaps it’s worth seeing their shortcomings as we perceive our own because no one is free of them and the best that some of us can do is to hope that we can manage them so we’re not arrested and sent to the gallows.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2019)

DavidA said:


> That is not being anti-semitic. Just expressing the prejudices of your society.


I can see a difference between making a one-off comment that may be deemed derogatory, reflecting a prejudice towards the Jewish race, and "being anti-semitic" (that is, in the totality of attitudes and behaviours).

There's not much to go on here to confirm whether PIT was anti-semitic, but "expressing the prejudices of society" might indicate that he was. I don;t see how you can separate them.



Larkenfield said:


> Political correctness can be a subtle smokescreen. Beneath it there can be just as much prejudice as before, like in other periods of history, but some may just be more silent about it - as if the world will ever be free of prejudice as long as its cultures secretly fear and distrust each other. In the modern world, it's just hidden a little bit better on the surface... As far as the composers are concerned, they're imperfect just like the rest of us. You-know-who, Chopin, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, and others made anti-Semitic remarks and perhaps it's worth seeing their shortcomings as we perceive our own because no one is free of them and the best that some of us can do is to hope that we can manage them so we're not arrested and sent to the gallows.


How does "political correctness" manage to creep into a discussion about this simple question?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

DrMike said:


> In an endemically anti-semitic atmosphere, any person throwing out an anti-semitic slur would not have drawn out specific attention by anybody thinking, "wow, that guy is anti-semitic" any more than any person in the late 19th century American South throwing around the "n" word would have drawn attention to themselves by someone thinking, specifically, "wow, that guy sure is racist!"


As has mentioned in this thread, the Romanovs were stirring up pogroms against Jewsm attempting to shift attention from their despotism to blame the Jews for all their problems. To be Anti Semitic in nineteenth century Russia was the norm. The persecution led to the active emigration of Jews elsewhere, such as my grandparents, and was the desired outcome of Tsarist Anti Semitic policy.
For a good discussion of this policy, read Niall Ferguson War of the World: Europe 1900-1950


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

The traditional Russian Orthodoxy (and Church) was slightly anti Semitic. The reason was religious: The Jews had crucified our Lord Jesus Christus. In such environment it isn't strange, Russlands greatest composer to be also "suspect" for anti Semitism. To tell you the truth, I don't believe such things for Piotr, who was homosexual and many times he was passing whole days in brothels


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Dimace said:


> The traditional Russian Orthodoxy (and Church) was slightly anti Semitic. The reason was religious: The Jews had crucified our Lord Jesus Christus. In such environment it isn't strange, Russlands greatest composer to be also "suspect" for anti Semitism. To tell you the truth, I don't believe such things for Piotr, who was homosexual and many times he was passing whole days in brothels


Fix me if I'm wrong, but if a Jew converted to Russian Orthodoxy he/she could leave the "area of settlement" Jews in the Russian empire were confined to, right? How would a Jewish convert to Orthodoxy fit in the Russian society back then?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Triplets said:


> As has mentioned in this thread, *the Romanovs were stirring up pogroms against Jewsm attempting to shift attention from their despotism* to blame the Jews for all their problems. To be Anti Semitic in nineteenth century Russia was the norm. The persecution led to the active emigration of Jews elsewhere, such as my grandparents, and was the desired outcome of Tsarist Anti Semitic policy.
> For a good discussion of this policy, read Niall Ferguson War of the World: Europe 1900-1950


Putin is doing the same thing with homosexuals.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Putin is doing the same thing with homosexuals.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchist_Party
Are there still any legitimate descendants of the house of Romanov?


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> Fix me if I'm wrong, but if a Jew converted to Russian Orthodoxy he could leave the "area of settlement" Jews in the Russian empire were confined to, right? How would a Jewish convert to Orthodoxy fit in the Russian society back then?


I could tell you that the Jews are seldom would converted to Orthodoxy. The core of Orthodox religion (as of the whole Christianity) is JC, with whom the Jews they don't have any relation, because they don't recognize him as the Son of God. What can I say is that religiously Christs and Jews can live peacefully together. This happened, before the War in Warsaw, in Thessaloniki and in many German cities. Anti Semitism in Russia is something, generally speaking, unknown as a FACT to me. In the circles of the very conservative Russian Orthodox Church maybe we had such phenomena, but not many or in great scale.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Triplets said:


> As has mentioned in this thread, the Romanovs were stirring up pogroms against Jewsm attempting to shift attention from their despotism to blame the Jews for all their problems. To be Anti Semitic in nineteenth century Russia was the norm. The persecution led to the active emigration of Jews elsewhere, such as my grandparents, and was the desired outcome of Tsarist Anti Semitic policy.
> For a good discussion of this policy, read Niall Ferguson War of the World: Europe 1900-1950


Romanov is a very old dynasty. Since 16o0 were in Russia. I didn't know for such problems in 19th century, where the Jews we very successfully integrated in the Russian society in every aspect. (arts, financial, music etc.)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Dimace said:


> I could tell you that the Jews are seldom would converted to Orthodoxy. *The core of Orthodox religion (as of the whole Christianity) is JC, with whom the Jews they don't have any relation,* because they don't recognize him as the Son of God. What can I say is that religiously Christs and Jews can live peacefully together. This happened, before the War in Warsaw, in Thessaloniki and in many German cities. Anti Semitism in Russia is something, generally speaking, unknown as a FACT to me. In the circles of the very conservative Russian Orthodox Church maybe we had such phenomena, but not many or in great scale.


JC was a Jew, which kind of makes them related.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Dimace said:


> I could tell you that the Jews are seldom would converted to Orthodoxy. The core of Orthodox religion (as of the whole Christianity) is JC, with whom the Jews they don't have any relation, because they don't recognize him as the Son of God. What can I say is that religiously Christs and Jews can live peacefully together. This happened, before the War in Warsaw, in Thessaloniki and in many German cities. Anti Semitism in Russia is something, generally speaking, unknown as a FACT to me. In the circles of the very conservative Russian Orthodox Church maybe we had such phenomena, but not many or in great scale.


The Catholic Church has a long history of converted Jews, is it different in Russia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Converts_to_Roman_Catholicism_from_Judaism


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> The Catholic Church has a long history of converted Jews, is it different in Russia?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Converts_to_Roman_Catholicism_from_Judaism


The orthodoxy had and has a proselytize program to bring over new believers but this is very restricted in comparison with the Catholic Church. Main reason the funds...

(let us return to Tschaikowsky. What I'm writing is irrelevant to the post)


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

There were not any Jews in Russia to speak of before the partitions of Poland in the late 18th century. The Pale, where Jews were confined to live is now mostly located in Ukraine.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_However, I hold Tchaikovsky's outrageous comments about Brahms against him._

I recently heard an interview with conductor Simone Young, who was about the conduct the Brahms Symphony 4, who said things I'd never heard about Brahms. She said he was an unpleasant person who went out of his way to not make friends. He once went to a party and left, she said, only to return and apologize for not offending anyone. Everyone knows the Brahms camp feuded with Bruckner but, until her interview, I never knew he did same with Tchaikovsky. She said he "warred" with Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

larold said:


> _However, I hold Tchaikovsky's outrageous comments about Brahms against him._
> 
> I recently heard an interview with conductor Simone Young, who was about the conduct the Brahms Symphony 4, who said things I'd never heard about Brahms. She said he was an unpleasant person who went out of his way to not make friends. He once went to a party and left, she said, only to return and apologize for not offending anyone. Everyone knows the Brahms camp feuded with Bruckner but, until her interview, I never knew he did same with Tchaikovsky. She said he "warred" with Tchaikovsky.


Brahms and Tchaikovsky disliked each other as composers but not as people.

http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johannes_Brahms


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

larold said:


> _However, I hold Tchaikovsky's outrageous comments about Brahms against him._
> 
> I recently heard an interview with conductor Simone Young, who was about the conduct the Brahms Symphony 4, who said things I'd never heard about *Brahms*. She said he was an unpleasant person who went out of his way to not make friends. He once went to a party and left, she said, only to return and apologize for not offending anyone. Everyone knows the Brahms camp feuded with Bruckner but, until her interview, I never knew he did same with Tchaikovsky. She said he "warred" with Tchaikovsky.


He was famed for falling asleep when Liszt was playing the piano


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Innumerable antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, religiously biased, etc. remarks by innumerable composers have no doubt gone unrecorded and are therefore forgotten. Ugly words matter greatly when uttered by people who act on them, but may be of little consequence otherwise. Did Tchaikovsky ever mistreat a Jew, or urge anyone to do so? If not, I have little interest in what he said about them. More interesting is his calling Brahms a "talentless b*****d."


So is Tchaikovsky, or anyone else, allowed to think prejudiced thoughts as long as he doesn't act on them?

As for the Brahms remark, indications are that great composers weren't very good judges of their contemporaries' abilities.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Open Book said:


> So is Tchaikovsky, or anyone else, allowed to think prejudiced thoughts as long as he doesn't act on them?


Who's going to disallow it?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Open Book said:


> So is Tchaikovsky, or anyone else, allowed to think prejudiced thoughts as long as he doesn't act on them?


In my country, absolutely yes. In most circumstances, it is also allowed to speak those thoughts, publish them, etc.

Customs may vary in other countries, of course.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

DavidA said:


> He was famed for falling asleep when Liszt was playing the piano


Brahms was crusty, but he did have a lot of friends.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> In my country, absolutely yes. In most circumstances, it is also allowed to speak those thoughts, publish them, etc.
> 
> Customs may vary in other countries, of course.


We have it on the highest authority that the Press is the Enemy of the People:

"The press is doing everything within their power to fight the magnificence of the phrase, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump tweeted.

"They can't stand the fact that this Administration has done more than virtually any other Administration in its first 2yrs," he continued. "They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!"

Quote from The Hill


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Who's going to disallow it?


But you're OK with it? I'm a bit surprised, is all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Open Book said:


> But you're OK with it? I'm a bit surprised, is all.


I haven't said that I'm OK with anything, if that means approval.

I think what I said is that I have little interest in Tchaikovsky's thoughts or stray utterances, whether or not I approve of the ideas expressed. People say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Tchaikovsky is a dead composer and I can't read his mind; he's not someone I live with or who is affecting my country's policies. Now if Trump were to say what he said...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> We have it on the highest authority that the Press is the Enemy of the People:
> 
> "The press is doing everything within their power to fight the magnificence of the phrase, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump tweeted.
> 
> ...


As always, the press can write what it wants and Trump can tweet what he wants.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> As always, the press can write what it wants and Trump can tweet what he wants.


Enjoy it while we have it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Enjoy it while we have it.


Very difficult to limit free speech and still have free speech. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Very difficult to limit free speech and still have free speech. :lol:


That depends on who is free to speak.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I haven't said that I'm OK with anything, if that means approval.
> 
> I think what I said is that I have little interest in Tchaikovsky's thoughts or stray utterances, whether or not I approve of the ideas expressed. People say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Tchaikovsky is a dead composer and I can't read his mind; he's not someone I live with or who is affecting my country's policies. Now if Trump were to say what he said...


Maybe Tchaikovsky was just having a bad day when he uttered that statement? Even though his wording implies that he was habitually annoyed with Jews. People have made the argument that it's excusable to use racial epithets in anger, that that isn't the real person talking, but I don't buy it.

However, I have little interest in things like this, too. Because T. was a reflection of his world. That's the way the world was then and it will take more than that to get me to stop listening to a composer. They don't have to be my hero.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Deleted for unknown reasons.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> In my country, absolutely yes. In most circumstances, it is also allowed to speak those thoughts, publish them, etc.
> 
> Customs may vary in other countries, of course.


Not these days. The thought police are out in force.


----------



## Dima (Oct 3, 2016)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> The Catholic Church has a long history of converted Jews, is it different in Russia?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Converts_to_Roman_Catholicism_from_Judaism


The same was in Russia. Many jews were forced to change religion and after that often also change the names.
As you may know one of the driving force of the Great Russian revolution in 1917 were jews because their rights in Tsarist Russia were infringed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The obvious answer? Judaism has always considered homosexuality to be verboten, and grounds for excluding their fellows from the "family." Christianity has always had similar tenets, and remember, it sprang from Judaism. This is not just true of "orthodox" judaism. American poet Allen Ginsberg was excluded in the 1950-1960s.

The question should be, "Was Judaism anti-Tchaikovsky?"


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> The obvious answer? Judaism has always considered homosexuality to be verboten, and grounds for excluding their fellows from the "family." Christianity has always had similar tenets, and remember, it sprang from Judaism. This is not just true of "orthodox" judaism. American poet Allen Ginsberg was excluded in the 1950-1960s.
> 
> The question should be, "Was Judaism anti-Tchaikovsky?"


As homosexuality was illegal in the Russia of the day you could also ask was Russia anti-Tchaikovsky by the same set of 'reasoning'


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

DavidA said:


> As homosexuality was illegal in the Russia of the day you could also ask was Russia anti-Tchaikovsky by the same set of 'reasoning'


It is still illegal.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> It is still illegal.


It is not illegal in Russia.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Open Book said:


> So is Tchaikovsky, or anyone else, allowed to think prejudiced thoughts as long as he doesn't act on them?


I think that was a good question. Religiously and racially motivated hate speech (whether against Jews, "Kafirs" or foreigners in general) is widely deplored and is often illegal (there are plenty of systems for analysing the presence of hate speech and a general understanding that freedom of speech does not apply in such circumstances. Still, it is often difficult to assess who has and has not crossed a legal line in this and some cowards are very skilled in invoking hatred without crossing any legal line.

I think it is also regrettable and is often repugnant when, at a more personal level, someone addresses others in a racially demeaning way whether it be to their faces or merely in public. Most people of colour in Britain have regularly experienced such behaviour at school, in the street and even at work and many Jews still experience the same when their Jewish identity is apparent. I'm sure the same is true in other countries of the West.

It can be misleading, though, to apply such standards to earlier times when the sorts of prejudices involved were widely believed to be normal and totally acceptable. That doesn't make the views any less repugnant but it does explain how a good person may have held and expressed them. I think it matters a lot when someone's racism goes to the extent of denying the other race's humanity. I don't think that was ever acceptable. An example may be found in Elizabethan theatre where Jews were often portrayed as monsters. Unlike most of these plays, Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice - although it can make people uncomfortable these days - does present Shylock as a human being with human thoughts and feelings like the rest of us. It also allows him to promote that fact when he says _If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? _. But he does go on to add _And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?_, thereby playing the the Jew as monster trope.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2019)

Open Book said:


> So is Tchaikovsky, or anyone else, allowed to think prejudiced thoughts as long as he doesn't act on them?


"Allowed" is an interesting word. If no-one makes their thoughts "visible" (by word or deed), who's going to be in a position to give permission?

I don't suppose I'm the only one here to have what might be called, generically, "inappropriate" thoughts - ranging from the ill-advised ("If she says that one more time, I think I'll give her a mouthful") to the potentially criminal ("I could kill him!") as well as the lustful and the prejudiced.

I think that if I keep my thoughts to myself and don't act on them, I am allowed.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> *"Allowed" is an interesting word. If no-one makes their thoughts "visible" (by word or deed), who's going to be in a position to give permission?*
> 
> *I don't suppose I'm the only one here to have what might be called, generically, "inappropriate" thoughts *- ranging from the ill-advised ("If she says that one more time, I think I'll give her a mouthful") to the potentially criminal ("I could kill him!") as well as the lustful and the prejudiced.
> 
> *I think that if I keep my thoughts to myself and don't act on them, I am allowed.*


I appreciate the fine-grained attention to words. As a part-time (but increasingly full-time) misanthrope, I am grateful to live in a country where I'm _allowed_ to entertain the thought of exterminating the out-of-control human species and giving the planet back to the bears, the birds and the beetles. The party in power is bent on giving the planet entirely to corporations that would happily control everything for profit and see the earth made uninhabitable by bears, birds, beetles _and_ humans, but as yet they have no technology for controlling my thoughts. If I ever figure out how to realize my fantasy of liberating the planet from human oppression, the corporate fascists will be the first to go, and the religious zealots willing to sacrifice this world for an imaginary world to come will be next.

It's nice to be _allowed_ such thoughts. Apologies to any corporate fascists and religious zealots on the forum.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> It is not illegal in Russia.


It's as good as......

When moral edicts come from the Kremlin, from the Patriarchs, and from hired thugs on the street, I don't expect a court of law will protect you from having your life threatened day-to-day just for "batting for the other side".


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

CnC Bartok said:


> It's as good as......
> 
> When moral edicts come from the Kremlin, from the Patriarchs, and from hired thugs on the street, I don't expect a court of law will protect you from having your life threatened day-to-day just for "batting for the other side".


Famous news reporter announces on air he is gay fired on the spot and no way to get his job back.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Famous news reporter announces on air he is gay fired on the spot and no way to get his job back.


Well, I am sure he did nothing illegal. Just like it was perfectly legal to be Jewish in 1930s Berlin.....

Get a link in on that, before someone accuses you of "fake news"!


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2019)

CnC Bartok said:


> It's as good as......
> 
> When moral edicts come from the Kremlin, from the Patriarchs, and from hired thugs on the street, I don't expect a court of law will protect you from having your life threatened day-to-day just for "batting for the other side".


A quick google search confirms that although no longer illegal in Russia, the people concerned do not benefit from the fuil benefit of the law in various ways. Full details are set out in the relevant Wiki link which is very easy to find.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> "Allowed" is an interesting word. If no-one makes their thoughts "visible" (by word or deed), who's going to be in a position to give permission?
> 
> I don't suppose I'm the only one here to have what might be called, generically, "inappropriate" thoughts - ranging from the ill-advised ("If she says that one more time, I think I'll give her a mouthful") to the potentially criminal ("I could kill him!") as well as the lustful and the prejudiced.
> 
> I think that if I keep my thoughts to myself and don't act on them, I am allowed.


Till either we have telapths or mind reading devices and then you will have to conform you thoughts to what is politically correct.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Now then, how active were Jews in 19th century Russian Classical music? I assume only converted Jews would be, which raises the question if this anti-Semitism was religious or racist?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> Now then, how active were Jews in 19th century Russian Classical music? I assume only converted Jews would be, which raises the question if this anti-Semitism was religious or racist?


We have the Rubinstein brothers: Anton, who founded the St. Petersburg conservatory, and Nikolai, who founded the Moscow conservatory. Both were converted to Russian orthodoxy on command of their grandfather, probably to avoid the social stigma of being a Jew in Tsarist Russia, whether "racial" or religious. Two very influential people in the unfolding of Russian musical history.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> It is not illegal in Russia.


That's right, Putin proved that when he rode that horse without a shirt on.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> That's right, Putin proved that when he rode that horse without a shirt on.


No that only proves Putin does what he wants to do. There is a video of Putin playing Ice Hockey none of the other players hit him.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

CnC Bartok said:


> (....)
> 
> Get a link in on that, before someone accuses you of "fake news"!


( easy: https://variety.com/2013/tv/news/ru...-out-as-gay-on-the-air-gets-fired-1200578421/ )


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> That's right, Putin proved that when he rode that horse without a shirt on.


Indeed. I found that rather arousing as well......:angel:


----------

