The Struggle Over Legacies

Two-hundred years ago this week, in Leipzig, Germany, Wilhelm Richard Wagner was born.  Over his career, he became an unparalleled composer and conductor famous for his operas.  His music is known by aficionados and novices alike.  He died in February of 1883, a complete half a century prior to 1933.  In the small village of Röcken, Germany in October of 1844, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born.  Over his career, he broke new ground as a philosopher as well as a critic and his works are as famous and as likely to be known by the uninitiated as any other philosopher in world history.  He died in August of 1900, three decades prior to 1933.  Even though both men lived and worked decades prior to that year, marked by the rise of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party, the two men are forever and seemingly unbreakably linked to the worst excesses and ideology of the Nazis.  The question is, should they? 

In Israel, Wagner is persona non grata and understandably so.  The music of Wagner has come to epitomize the Nazis through Hitler’s love for the composer.  For Jews, there will never be a separation no matter how benign an individual performance of Tristan und Isolde or Der Ring des Nibelungen can be.  Wagner has been accused of being anti-Semitic and there is certainly evidence enough to prove that accusation.  The 1850 piece On Jewishness in Music was an opening salvo of Wagner’s declaration of disdain for Jews.  As with many people of the day, there was a historic strain of anti-Semitism and Wagner was a product of his day.  To suggest, however, that he would have been a Nazi is more of a stretch.   

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf about a childhood experience of seeing Lohengrin, its transformative powers and many modern observers have made connections and judgments that simply do not hold water.  Still today, the very nature of playing Wagner can cause a row.  In Israel, Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim planned to play a Wagner piece as part of an encore in 2001 – one he would ask the audience about first and allow those who did not want to hear to leave.  It did not matter as the very thought that it could happen forced Mr. Barenboim to back off.  That might sound reasonable given the setting but elsewhere?  In Düsseldorf during a production of Tannhaüser, scenes of the concentration camps accompanied by Wagner in the background led to loud boos.  While the majority of Germans associate Wagner with Hitler, Der Spiegel asked if Germans could enjoy any aspect of its culture anymore.       

For Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most influential modern thinkers, the connection between his writings and the Nazi ideology was first drawn from the actions of his sister, who along with her husband, helped establish a German colony in Paraguay with the intent of creating a perfect society.  During the latter years of her life, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche supported the Nazis until her death in 1935.  She also edited and rewrote many of her brother’s works to reinforce Nazi ideology.  Therein lays the philosopher’s crime – oddball family members.  That is not to say that Nietzsche himself was not anti-Semitic (though there is much evidence to suggest anti-Semitism and not) but to suggest he was a Nazi because of how Hitler and his henchmen used notions like suffering and the übermensch (Superman) is no proof. 

Hitler’s love of Nietzsche stemmed from a love of the philosopher’s concept of Superman – a fully-realized man free from the constraints of a corrupt society (western European) and a corrupt moral code (Christianity).  In Nietzsche’s Man and Superman, the Nazis perverted his ideas, ignoring much of what would rebuke the fascist ideology.  Many modern scholars are working hard to re-introduce the German’s thoughts and ideas, unedited from the re-fashioning of his sister.  This is a hard road, however.  Those not familiar with the man and his work will miss the affirmation of man’s ability to endure, to rise above those things that hold individuals back and reveal true character.  I’ve stood at his grave in Röcken and visited Weimar to visit his archives where his sister hosted and swayed Adolf Hitler.  Still, he has been read by many world leaders and ordinary folks seeking to better understand his ideas and his concept of human nature.  Hitler was just one of them – and he misunderstood what he read.

In history, I teach my students not to judge historical figures based on present moralities and if anything, Wagner and Nietzsche suffer from a lack of adhering to this paradigm.  Should Jews get past Wagner and take him at face value?  Because there is such a connection between the man and the philosophy, perhaps the onus is on others to listen to the music and better understand the musicality.  Should people read Nietzsche for themselves to determine the real meaning and ideas behind the man?  Sure though I’m not sure it will happen.  He needs to be read in his entirety but few have a desire to do so.  As a result, connections, especially historical connections, become a tricky thing.  Most are based on assumptions and that is fraught with danger.      

The People of Aztlan

In 1502, the Mexica or Aztec greeted a new leader, known in history as Moctezuma II.  The population of his new kingdom numbered, by some estimates, as high as ten million people.  This was much larger than what could be found in Europe or Asia.  Between the expanse and wealth of the capital, Tenochtitlán amazed and shocked visitors – including a group of Europeans at the front of an approaching invasion force.  Despite the achievements of the Olmec and the Toltec before them, the Aztec represented the epitome of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilization.  However, a storm was approaching and Moctezuma II would watch the last vestiges of his civilization disappear. 

The Aztec won control of the region as a wandering band of mercenaries hailing from a place called Aztlan, somewhere to the north that others have speculated is the modern-day American Southwest.  The Mexica spoke Nahuatl, the language of the preceding Toltecs which could have been their ticket into the region.  The warlike, ferocious warriors set up their capital in the middle of Lake Texcoco, called Tenochtitlán.  From this aquatic base of operations, the Aztec created a powerful kingdom that rivaled anything else in the world.  Prior to Cortés, the city covered some five square miles and had a population 150,000, larger than Seville and Paris at the time.

Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, the Aztec government and society had grown increasingly stratified, the ruler had grown more powerful and the usage of human sacrifice had been greatly expanded.  The Aztec religion was made up of many gods, each having a Hindu-like dual persona of both a masculine and feminine variety.  Gods such as Quetzalcoatl, the ancient god of civilization, and Huitzilopochtli, the sun god, are some of the more recognizable deities.  While it was a polytheistic faith, the Aztec had their own Akhenaten, the Egyptian pharaoh who sought to promote a single god, by the name of Nezhualcoyotl. 

The Aztec had an amazing agricultural set up.  The largest amount of food stemmed from conquered territories but they had also a string of artificial islands called chinampas.  These were man-made, floating islands, seventeen feet long and between one hundred and three hundred feet wide, upon which food was grown to feed the civilization.  Dikes were used to separate the freshwater of the chinampas and the brackish waters beyond.  The fading traces of these practices can be found in the Mexico City suburb of Xochimilco.  Beyond agriculture, a special merchant class called the pochteca operated daily markets that were highly regulated by inspectors. 

In 1519, Hernán Cortés led some six hundred men to Mexico, made allies with the many native tribes the Aztec managed to tick off over the years and descended upon Tenochtitlán.  Legend has it that the conquistador burned his ships so that his men should be well motivated.  While Moctezuma II originally thought he could handle the new arrivals, Cortés proved more aggressive than the emperor foresaw.  While the Aztec put up a monumental struggle for survival, the Spaniards proved too much.  Cortés had Moctezuma arrested and later killed while a combination of war, starvation and disease brought the capital city to its knees by 1521.   An Aztec poet wrote, upon the fall of Tenochtitlán, “We are crushed to the ground, we lie in ruins.  There is nothing but grief and suffering in Mexico and Tlatelolco, where once we saw beauty and valor.” 

There is so much to learn about our neighbors to the south but sadly, many of our students lack a basic understanding of the Aztec culture, history and impact.  All around us we see civilizations struggling and clinging to relevance.  Some stand at the precipice, such as Syria, while others grow stronger and more powerful every day, like India and China.  The one thing that history teaches us is that what is now is only temporary, transient.  It is difficult to say whether the rough economic waters of the developed world are a prelude to anything or whether this too shall pass.  Either way, it would not be a bad idea to learn from history.  I’ve heard it’s worked before. 

When a Red Line Isn’t

Il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace (We must have audacity, and again audacity, and every day audacity).
            Georges Danton, French revolutionary

Earlier this year, President Obama spoke with uncharacteristic frankness and unequivocally laid out the nature of possible American involvement in Syria.  Meanwhile, the world watched.  Would the Syrians be so daring as to unleash chemical weapons with such an explicit threat laid down by the president of the United States?  Meanwhile, Israel laid out its own red line, along the same criterion as the president.  Should the Syrian government use chemical weapons on its own people, it would respond.  Both the U.S. and Israel declared a “red line” drawn and should it be crossed, it promised military action.  The response has been telling. 

By April of this year, stories leaked that the besieged Syrian government had possibly done just that.  Once there was sufficient evidence of the chemical attack, President Obama equivocated by suggesting that his “red line” was not analogous to military action.  Israel, upon its “red line” being crossed, sent jets into Syria and bombed some of its research facilities for chemical weapons.  As Geddy Lee of the band Rush once said, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”  Both say something revealing.  From an international perspective, which lies beyond the partisan posturing within which American politicians often wallow, the message is that Israel is decisive and to be taken seriously and the U.S. is not. 

Throughout U.S. history, there have been warnings that stem from dithering presidents – Franklin Roosevelt in Spain, John F. Kennedy in Cuba, Jimmy Carter in Iran, to name a few.  Therefore, President Obama finds himself at a crossroads that demand action.  The rhetorical gymnastics the Obama administration has done in explaining its inaction to the American press and public is not perceived the same way to international brutes and savages.  Bashar al-Assad and his government, while beleaguered on many levels by rebels, fundamentalists and now Israel, is not concerned with the United States. 

What does this mean for the United States?  If we proclaim to hold some sort of international mandate and authority to act in defense of the defenseless around the world, we must first put ourselves in a position to be taken seriously.  The more we fail to act on our principles, the more decayed we become.  The more we concern ourselves with the perception of our country and our goals, the more we will miss opportunities to do something right. 

Some might perceive an action by the Americans as threatening a widening of the conflict but I believe that to be entirely in the hands of the Assad regime.  Take the Israeli action for example.  What can Syria do?  They have suggested, as reported by al-Jazeera, that the Israeli military is in cahoots with Islamic fundamentalists but I can’t imagine there will be much traction from such an accusation.  They cannot fire upon the Israeli military or into Israel for fear of widening the conflict.  They cannot handle the rebels in their own country, much less the most sophisticated military force in the Middle East.   

It is quite possible that there is intelligence that is preventing the president from acting as he said he would months ago.  Unfortunately, either the Obama administration erred when they set the red line or they erred in deciding not to uphold such an ultimatum.  Either way, the administration is in a dangerous spot.  The war-weary people of Syria needed help a long time ago but inaction then does not justify inaction now.  We must do the good work to help the ordinary Syrians before the Assad military regime completely obliterates them.  One might think we are hated now – how is the situation served better by refusing to help those in need?

The Road Less Taken

In the aftermath of September 11, I heard stories of people who, once they realized they were assumed dead, set out to live a different life – one free from the obligations and responsibilities of the present life.  When I first heard those stories, I considered the motivations and emotions behind that kind of decision.  I considered a person who felt trapped – by a wife, by kids, by a job that never appealed to them, by bills that piled high and by the friends, family and expectations that are part of a life with 30 or 40 years of experience.  As I considered the motivations of such a drastic, draconian behavior, I must admit that there is something alluring, enticing about dropping “off the grid” as it were. 

My next thought was if something like would even be possible nowadays.  Do you think it is really possible for a person to disappear but still exist?  Could one avoid cameras?  Could one avoid the police and various other agencies, as well as pictures on milk cartons and the like?  One would have to live by cash and would have to earn cash in a way that would not require identification.  We have an entire underclass in the United States who does this out of necessity but the subterfuge is more concentrated with work.  Imagine ducking the ubiquitous cameras and other technological trappings that surround us and remain anonymous, hidden.  It would seem to be a near Herculean task – so much so, it forces one to wonder if it is even possible.  It is just the U.S. or could someone drop off the map easier in England, Japan, Germany or Greece?  Does our technology and all-encompassing society create the desire to leave it all behind?

In the 1800s, Americans could escape easy enough because of our existence along the wilderness frontier.  Indeed, one theorist suggested that the frontier served as our cultural and societal outlet.  The people who went west were not just running towards fortune but also running away from the law, a wife with kids or from oneself.  As our frontiers have closed, we have turned upon ourselves in some ways and in doing so, we have made our lives more challenging and potentially more suffocating.  Most other countries might not understand stand this but our cultural wanderlust has characterized us and our inability to do it now without creating a true fresh start can be frustrating. 

Last week, a woman who left her family in Pennsylvania and disappeared in 2002 re-emerged in Florida.  For all those years, she had managed what many think is impossible and a few consider desirable.  She initially left her family upon feeling a sense of dread and helplessness at a pending divorce and losing her home by joining up with some caring didicots who were hitchhiking to Florida and asked her to join them.  She did and was spending the last seven years of her life with a man who, together, did odd jobs and worked only in cash.  She now has to face her family after giving up a life that she had clearly not envisioned.   

I’ve grown frustrated with technology and the seemingly comprehensive nature of the world around us.  I escape it by going camping and trying to remove myself from the phone my boss forced me into a few years ago.  Reading over this, it sounds like, in a few years, I’m going to be in a cabin in Montana, writing my manifesto and I’m very cognizant that it is something that needs to be avoided.  I’m not seeking to remove myself from people but from our inventions – like laptops, the internet, etc.  I have a beautiful wife and a wonderful life and have little to want or need.  Still, from time to time, I wonder about the liberating sense of leaving everything behind, hitting the open road and, as Bob Dylan said, “go out and see what others need.”