[78-L] KKK records

Bertrand CHAUMELLE chaumelle at orange.fr
Thu Mar 4 13:10:44 PST 2010

Le 4 mars 10, à 02:34, Michael Biel a écrit :

>>> Bertrand CHAUMELLE wrote:
>> ***So I can rely on their work; I don't have to enter that world 
>> myself,
>> because I'm afraid of the contagion of ideas. Can you understand that 
>> ?
> Not really, at least not for me.  As a trained researcher I learned
> early on not to rely on other people's interpretation of something like
> a book, an article, a speech, or a recording if I am able to access the
> original work.  I actually DO use footnotes in a book to go find the
> original source.  And I have found many instances of misinterpretation,
> misquoting, or misunderstanding, usually accidental, but sometimes
> purposeful.
+++You're telling me that your brain is well-organized, that you have 
high standards of research and so on; I agree with that and I've 
already noticed those high standards at work in your daily posts.
But the thing that bothers me is: you don't say anything about the 
choice of your realm of research. You chose the recording of sound, but 
could you have been an expert in criminology, could you dissect bodies 
for a living, could you be the lifetime warden of a dangerous criminal 
What  I mean is, before the brain, there is the heart. In my case, at 
least. I'm interested in sound recordings because they aren't directly 
related to human suffering, torture, mass murders, racism, genocide, 
Except in a few cases, such as the Klan. In those cases, since I'm not 
a trained researcher: I just say NO, I'm not interested. Do what you 
want, but without me.
>>>  For example, could you write about how jazz sounded
>>> without ever hearing some of it?  If you did write without hearing 
>>> it,
>>> the writing would be worthless.
>> ***I think that you're showing some kind of unsensitivity by equalling
>> KKK records with jazz records.
> This is a foolish statement.  I could have used any example. I placed 
> no
> value judgment on the content, and you should not have assumed so.
+++That's precisely what I'm blaming you for: you act as a computer, 
not as a human being. The KuKluxKlan isn't the NAACP. Those "innocuous" 
records were issued by an organization who wanted to kill as many 
colored people as possible. Your first concern should be to have 
compassion for their victims: this is more important than academic 
standards, don't you think ? How many black people are on this List and 
enjoy collecting KKK records ? Please raise your hand.

>    I
> don't think someone should write about ANYTHING without proper minimal
> research, and whenever anything is said about the content of ANY
> recording -- no matter what the subject, even the KKK -- if it is
> accessible it has to be heard by the writer or else what is written is
> probably going to be useless.
+++BS. You can write about anything with no particular knowledge, 
providing that you recognize the right of better-informed individuals 
to correct your affirmations. That's why there are discussion Lists, 
isn't it ?

>   That is why I clearly and openly stated
> that I have not hard any of these records except for the normal Gennett
> issue of "Keep Cool With Coolidge" which I can report has absolutely no
> objectionable or racist content.
+++But they were released by a racist organization, right ? I don't to 
want to hear any National-Socialist records either, even if it's just 
"let's have a good beer, brothers".

>   I do  not know what objectionable
> material might be in the others.
>>  At its best, jazz is an art form. The
>> same cannot be said about the former.
> You have no valid proof if you refuse to look at the evidence.  If you
> were on the jury at a murder trial, or a war crimes trial, or a hat
> crime trial you will be required to look at and examine all the
> evidence.  Of course this is not a trial, but you might be surprised by
> what you hear.  I can give you a specific example.  Iva Togouri was
> convicted of treason as "Tokyo Rose" but listening to the actual
> recordings of her Orphan Anne programs proves that her broadcasts were
> not at all what the press made them out to be.
+++Yes, Mike, but don't we all know what the KuKluxKlan stands for ? 
They hide themselves under white sheets and go out at night to kill and 
burn their neighbors. What more is there to investigate ?????? Do you 
intend to rehabilitate those guys !? Do you have a suspicion history 
has been unfair to them ? Are you collecting Charles Manson records, 
too ? Come on...

>> That's the risk of contagion I
>> was talking about. Remember the highly educated guy who said your
>> President was a N.... ? He explained that it was natural to speak like
>> that because it was "in the spirit of the times" (the time of the 
>> music
>> he was studying). He made no apologies, he just thought it was OK.
> All of us realized that this was not the case.  That "the times" had
> changed and this guy was a jerk.
>>  I
>> don't want to become like him, see ?
> Are you THAT weak?
+++Possibly... I don't know, really...It can happen to the best of us, 
I guess. Remember the movie INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS ?
>> I want to draw the line between what's attractive (jazz, and 
>> hence,collectible), and what is repulsive (to be destroyed).
> In our discussion a few months ago I mentioned that I dislike much free
> form jazz like Coltrane.
+++Yeah I remember that you said you disliked Monk !! Coltrane wasn't 
all free-form. So now it's YOUR turn to make a foolish statement. 
Because you deprive yourself of the pleasure of enjoying one of the 
greatest jazzmen ever. And, above all, free jazz wasn't a tool to 
eliminate the Black, quite the contrary
>  I would never, ever, suggest that because I
> find it unattractive it should be destroyed.  And I take great 
> exception
> with your thought because you might think the KKK recording are
> unattractive that they should be destroyed and potentially deny me the
> opportunity to study them.  That is tyranny,  and I will not grant you
> that right over me,
+++But I said wery clearly from the beginning that I didn't impose my 
view upon anyone. YOU ARE FREE to do whatever you want with those 
damned records. You know, in France there is a law: it is forbidden to 
print and sell works such as 'Mein Kampf'. But you can read them at the 
National Library. I think it's a good law. If I rent a house and I find 
a copy of MK left by a previous tenant, I burn it immediately, but 
there are plenty of other copies around, so, don't worry..........

>> ***That's what 'autodafé' means: burning of books, or persons, during
>> the Inquisition, and during the '30's in Germany. See the monument on
>> Bebbelplatz in Berlin.
> It does not seem to have the meaning of book burning in English.  Only
> people burning.  And in the extraordinary rare instances the word is
> used in English, it apparently is hyphenated "auto-da-fe", or written 
> as
> three words "auto da fe".  I've never seen the word .
> In the English language pages and dictionary pages, there is no
> reference to anything but people burning.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/auto-da-fe
> http://www.answers.com/topic/auto-de-fe
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-da-F%C3%A9
> A lengthy article in the Jewish Encyclopedia makes no mention of book
> burning.
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2155&letter=A
> The only reference to the Nazis and to book burning is when I translate
> the French language Wikipedia page.
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodaf%C3%A9
+++I used that word because it's what I've always heard (long before 
Internet) in connection with the Nazis. Forgive me if it's not the 
right word for an Anglophone.
>>>> I see those stupid records as dead things, dead leaves that you can
>>>> burn in your backyard when winter comes, nothing more.
>>> You only wish they were dead things.  The Nazis hoped the things they
>>> burned were dead things -- fortunately they weren't.  And there ARE
>>> those that still believe in these things also -- and pretending they
>>> aren't there won't cause them to disappear.
>> ***Please don't call me a 'negationist'. I'm not asking you to pretend
>> anything, you can write volumes about those records if you want. I 
>> just
>> don't want listen to them, to deal with them in any 'real' manner
>> whatsoever. This isn't a denial of their existence, it's an 
>> affirmation
>> of their repulsiveness.
> Fine.  Stick your head in the sand.  But destroying what you think you
> might not like IS potentially denying me the right to hear and study
> them. I won't give you that right.
+++As I said before, that's not what I meant, so your remark is 

>> ***I'm sure you know that Hitler, in one of his speeches, before
>> extermination camps were operating, told the German people about the
>> Armenian genocide. He said that Turkey had gotten away with it, so it
>> would be a cinch to do the same in Germany with the 'parasites'. Or
>> something to that effect...
>> So, he knew about the past, and the people also knew....but they 
>> didn't
>> want to understand, and against that, there's nothing you can do.
>> BC
> But the German people knew and eventually agreed with him.
+++That's exactly what I wrote...
>   If the
> people in power outside of Germany had read his book and combined that
> info with what he said in the speeches,  they might have had a better
> idea of what they were up against.  They needed to have the same
> knowledge of Hitler as Hitler had about Hitler.
+++But they had some knowledge ! Problem is: sometimes they agreed with 
him ! Guys like Hearst, Prince Edward, Lindy, Disney and so on.
> BC
> Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l

More information about the 78-L mailing list