“The Aesthetics of Violence and Ideology” delves into the intricate world of violence by using films as a lens to explore its multifaceted nature. Through analysis of popular movies like “John Wick,” “Kill Bill,” “Singham,” and “Karnan,” the essay reveals how violence is portrayed, justified, and ritualised in storytelling. It underscores the significance of understanding violence’s underlying meanings and complexities to address its implications in society.

The Justice League is a superhero team published by DC Comics. It was created in 1960 by writer Gardner Fox and artist Mike Sekowsky. The Avengers, on the other hand, is a superhero team published by Marvel Comics. They were created in 1963 by writer Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby. The team in DC and Marvel are superheroes.

One seeks to deliver justice while the other team avenges the villains. The comic strip portrays violence but gives it a moral overlay. The fans clamour for their victory, and the audience is the spectator, and violence becomes a sport. Yet the same society may feel ashamed of public execution.

Unsurprisingly, the aesthetics of violence makes it acceptable and often hides or conceals its ideology.

In The John Wick series, the protagonist demonstrates the consequences of a violent past; John’s killing spree is a certainty in his films; all attempts of John to escape the labyrinth of violence turn futile; the message, violence is infinite, and perhaps the only way to escape the immorality of violence is to ritualise it and celebrate it. Jason Bourne and the Batman films also delve into the inevitable nature of violence.

Kill Bill takes violence to a nearly symbolic level (even though it is bloody). The Bride represents female empowerment, justice, and the cyclical nature of violence and revenge. The violent actions in the film are choreographed like a ballet, creating a spectacle for the audience to witness.

In the era of hyper-violence, the violence of Singham, where police kill perpetrators to serve justice. In Tehzab, the Police inspector allows the hero to fight the villain to quench his anger and rage — a format for street justice. In Karnan, violence is portrayed as social justice.

I must clarify that I do not endorse any form of violence.

Nevertheless, these movies depict violence as an inevitable occurrence. They tell us that there is no other way to solve our problems.

Art of Violence is to convince us that “it is justified” for “this was needed” (as in Singham, Justice League) to “what else could we have done?” (as in John Wick, Avengers)

Violence — Myths associated with it

To understand the complexities of violence, it is essential to explore the myths and narratives surrounding it. In the tale of Parashurama, he kills his mother out of obedience to his father, showcasing the concept of duty. The slaying of Kshatriyas is driven by retribution and the idea that Brahmins can resort to weapons if the Kshatriyas fail in their dharma. The killing of Ravana symbolises vengeance for his ego, while the slaying of Valli from behind is seen as an act of duty towards a loyal friend. In the Mahabharata, killing is inevitable in pursuing duty, as Krishna explains to the consequentialist Arjuna who hesitates to fight a battle requiring him to kill his family and friends. Fulfilling one’s duty (dharma) is of paramount importance. He reminds Arjuna that he is a warrior who must uphold justice. The crucifixion of Jesus, the tragic death of Imam Hussain, and the killing of Abhimanyu illustrate the complexity of dharma and violence. These instances emphasise that violence should not be perceived singularly, as it often intertwines with duty, retribution, ego, and loyalty, contributing to its intricate nature.

Violence is akin to a theatrical performance;

Its oversimplified depictions should not mislead us; instead, it could possess profound underlying structures. Acts like the murders by Mexican drug cartels, brutal killings of landlords by the Naxalities’ with the use of blunt weapons in their class struggle war, and the lynching of alleged cattle smugglers by Hindu Rightwing are symbolic rituals that do “titillate” an audience. These violent manifestations are more profound, reflecting complex social, political, and ideological dimensions extending beyond surface-level portrayals.

Violence — Myths associated with it

Ram Navami is frequently marred by riots and communal clashes, which are believed to be orchestrated by the Hindu Right Wing. Young men are ready to dance, carry arms, and possibly engage in intoxication while DJ music blares, and they parade towards an isolated mosque, provoking the Muslim community. We must recognise that this display of violence is a carefully rehearsed spectacle.

Police violence in Singham may be reflective of the Indian middle class, which seems to seek instant justice (post-Nirbhaya), and Karnan may be seeking to expose the already existing violent caste structures; Karnan’s director Mari Selvaraj wants us to see the trajectory of violence through a caste lens.

Violence — in current India

India is amid violence; some were implicit, and now they are becoming explicit, and many are being orchestrated, yes there are no thumb rules to identify them; However, we must not forget the history of RSS and BJP, who adore Savarkar, who, in his a book, justifies violence and even rape, a BJP minister instigated ‘shooting’, (Goli Maro Sallo ko), there have been genocidal calls which have not been acted upon, Modi and Shah have a history, they presided over Godhra, and the recent Delhi Riots, their ministers have often shown impunity when it comes to violence, the idea of delivering bulldozer justice is despicable but it an “act” to intimidate the minorities ( how can we punish a family for an alleged crime of its family member).

Most Right Wing and BJP supporters would argue about violence as historical justice and compare it to violence against Hindus in history, Kashmir, or in Pakistan. The constant vilification and sidling of Muslims is part of propaganda; it is through fake stories, films, and repeated attempts by influencers to convince us that Muslims are outsiders, they are not citizens, and they deserve violence for they have done it to “us” (which is Justice League ) or violence is an act of protection/ (Avengers).

So to take Manipur violence as a stand-alone incident will be a grave mistake; we must see the trajectory of this violence and how it is precipitating. The demographic separation of Valley and Hill people, burning of churches (200+ churches), court decision, inaction of the central government, and dog-whistling by the chief minister to vilify the Kuki community by calling them outsiders.

The RW tends to normalise violence through whataboutery; it will draw comparisons with other regions. Still, it is crucial to recognise that the violence in Manipur is interconnected with a more significant historical trajectory akin to the approach seen in RSS ideology. To consider Manipur an aberration and not see the role of RSS would be naive.

We must also remind ourselves that the riots in Manipur are violence at our doorstep. If we do not act now, it will be too late.

The algebra of violence is perversely exponential and is spreading like wildfire. If we do not act, we are doomed as a nation.

(The author is a financial professional with a master’s degree in economics. I am intensely interested in the arts, academia, and social issues related to development and human rights)

Related:

To Lord Ram, a letter of remorse and resolve

To Lord Ram, I write again for Hope

The post The Aesthetics of Violence and Ideology appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The history of its English version is relatively well-known, thanks to historians James and Patience Barnes. Its history in French is not. While French journalist Antoine Vitkine wrote a 2009 global history of “Mein Kampf” and two French lawyers and a historian recently shed light on the French-language editions of “Mein Kampf,” neither book has been translated into English.

Beginning in 1934 – and into the 21st century – a tug-of-war over the French version of the text took place among an eccentric, right-wing publisher named Fernand Sorlot, Hitler’s lawyers, German censors, and the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism.

With a much-anticipated critical edition of Hitler’s hateful screed in the pipeline, it’s worth revisiting how the French translation endured decades of dubious sales, editing and censorship.

From ‘My Struggle’ to ‘My Doctrine’

When Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in 1933, people around the world were fascinated with the Nazi leader known for his fiery rhetoric. Many were curious to learn more about the man’s life and his true beliefs.

An obvious entry point into Hitler’s mind and political agenda was “Mein Kampf,” first published in Germany in two editions, the first in 1925 and the second in 1926. Referred to as the “Nazi bible,” international publishing houses started translating it into different languages.

The Nouvelles Éditions Latines edition of ‘Mon Combat.’ Amazon.com

The first French edition of “Mein Kampf” – entitled “Mein Kampf: Mon Combat” (Mon Combat simply means “My Struggle” in French) – was published in 1934 by the Nouvelles Éditions Latines (New Latin Editions), a publishing house founded a few years earlier by Sorlot. Though Sorlot was sympathetic to anti-Semitism and fascism, he seemed motivated more by turning a profit than advancing any political agenda. Sorlot was also publishing the book illegally: He hadn’t even secured the rights to publish a French edition of Hitler’s tome.

When Adolf Hitler caught wind of the French version, he and his publisher brought Sorlot to court, demanding that he cease publication. Hitler knew that Germany was not ready for war, and, on the international stage, he was doing his best to conceal his plans. In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler had called for the destruction of France, a country referred to, at various points, as the “irreconcilable mortal enemy,” “the most terrible enemy,” and “the mortal enemy of our nation.” The last thing he wanted was to tip his hand by having a translated copy circulating among the French.

During his trial, Sorlot claimed that he was acting out of patriotism, that he wanted to warn the French public of the looming German threat. Even before the rise of Nazism, France was highly suspicious of its Eastern neighbor. In the late-19th century, following the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, Germany had annexed the French Alsace and Moselle, two border regions disputed by the two countries for centuries. World War I, of course, did nothing to ease the tensions between France and Germany.

But, in 1934, Hitler had the law on his side, and Sorlot lost the trial, forcing him to withdraw the unauthorized French translation from the market. Whether it was out of patriotism or to earn a quick buck, Sorlot continued to covertly sell the translated version.

The Fayard edition of ‘Ma Doctrine.’

In 1938, Adolf Hitler authorized Fayard, a leading French publishing house, to print a French translation of “Mein Kampf.”

When the first translation into English was published in the United States by Houghton Mifflin in 1933, it softened Hitler’s rhetoric and visions of expansion. Similarly, Hitler ensured that the French version was also significantly edited. The numerous anti-French passages that the original edition contained were toned down or cut altogether.

Sorlot’s 1934 unabridged translation was 687 pages. Fayard’s 1938 edition, published under the much gentler title “Ma Doctrine” (“My Doctrine”), would only be 347 pages.

Blacklisted

In 1940, Hitler invaded Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France.

In the wake of the invasion, the German authorities wanted to exploit the countries' natural and industrial resources while also being able to devote as many troops to the front lines. The best way to do both was a mollified public, so they sought to blacklist any texts – “Mein Kampf” included – that could fuel existing anti-German feelings. In all occupied countries, the German authorities created “indexes” of prohibited books or authors.

In France, since Sorlot’s original translation, two additional unauthorized translations of “Mein Kampf” had been published, as well as a few other book-length commentaries that quoted extensive excerpts from Hitler’s book. All were placed on the list of “books withdrawn from sale by the publishers or forbidden by the Germans,” often referred to as “Otto’s List” after Otto Abetz, the German ambassador to France during the war.

The portion of ‘Otto’s List’ featuring ‘Mon Combat.’ Bibliothèque Nationale de France

Postwar angst over racism and anti-Semitism

After the war, Sorlot resumed publishing, which included printing and selling “Mein Kampf.” He initially did so discreetly, but with time, encouraged by the absence of backlash from the French authorities and the public, he started selling Hitler’s book more openly.

This ended in 1978. The 1970s had seen a sharp rise in racism and anti-Semitism in France, and Holocaust deniers were becoming increasingly vocal. An 1881 French law against defamation and insults was reinforced in 1972 by an anti-racism law (known as “Pleven Law”), which criminalized racist insults and the incitement of racial hatred.

For obvious reasons, “Mein Kampf” didn’t comply. The fact that Hitler’s book was still being sold by Sorlot’s Nouvelles Éditions Latines – by then considered a right-wing publishing house – garnered the attention of the Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism). By the late 1970s, Sorlot could hardly argue that he was selling a translation of “Mein Kampf” out of patriotism. This time, he played the “historical document” card. It didn’t work, and Sorlot was given a hefty fine of 80,000 francs (the equivalent of approximately US$250,000 today).

Surprisingly, he was allowed to continue publishing “Mein Kampf” as long as it contained a reminder of the 1972 French anti-racism law, as well as a summary of Nazi atrocities and the Nuremberg trials. After much legal wrangling between the two sides, an eight-page text was finally written by a historian and included in all subsequent editions of “Mein Kampf: Mon Combat.”

Today, in France – as in most democratic countries – there’s a general consensus that “Mein Kampf” should be republished because it’s an important historical document and to demystify it. It’s also already widely available on the web, often on dubious sites that don’t offer context.

A critical edition in French is in the works and will almost certainly be published by the end of the year by Fayard, the original publisher of the radically edited “My Doctrine.” This time, the publishing house will set the record straight: rather than massage the language and condense the text, it will take pains to explain and contextualize much of the “Nazi Bible’s” racist, anti-Semitic ideology – and its devastating consequences.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Ways of Seeing: The History of ‘Mein Kampf’ in France appeared first on SabrangIndia.