The intrigue and irony of Spain's Moorish history

Spain’s Moorish past is as intriguing as it is controversial. Historically, this stems from its exceptionality from a European perspective. While Northern Africa and the Middle East are seen as – by now – core areas of Islam, only after Saudi Arabia itself, - not really correctly, but okay. Spain is known as a Catholic European country – even as core Catholic Christian country, only after Italy, in history. This thus bears the ironic intrigue of the contradiction and conflict.

FANATICISM

The fact that most of Spain was under Islamic rule between 711 and centuries thereafter (up to 1492 in Southeastern parts around Granada, but the whole Southern half up to in the 13th c.) contrasts with the fanatic Catholic Christian image Spain obtained by the 16th c., even battling against wayward Christian sects like Protestantism.

This fight against rising Protestantism - starting in Germany in 1517, with Martin Luther -, then expanding, in turn influenced national formations, such as of the Netherlands, over which a Spanish Catholic monarch ruled for a period. The Netherlands maintained a large Catholic minority in its South and parts of the East and West, but was – for who don’t know - founded as an independent Protestant nation by William of Orange (born as a German Protestant). Catholic Spain had to be kicked out, for that reason.The Netherlands declared itself independent in 1581, Spain recognized it only in 1648.

COLONIALISM

Spain’s wicked colonial adventures outside of Europe, notably the Americas, when Christopher Columbus convinced Spanish monarchs since 1492, to become one of the first colonizing countries, “discovering” (read: conquering) lands in the Americas on natives, and claiming them for Spain, also had a distinctly Catholic Christianizing “vibe” to it, at least formally: Christianizing the natives.

Predictably, historical sources point out that the Christianizing zeal of Spanish colonialism was in hindsight not so dominant as motive, as it was presented to the world. The two reigning Spanish monarchs in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella, that Columbus got to back him, along with some rough Spanish “rough hands” and Portuguese examples, mixed Catholic and monetary, mercenary aims. Ferdinand was by historians known as “less Catholic or pious” in his faith than his wife Isabella, discussing mainly a lot of financial, exploitative, and economic advantages with Columbus, never minding harsh methods (slavery, force). Isabella on the hand at first actually opposed Amerindian enslavement.

Moreover, the documented behaviour and utterances of Columbus himself pointed more at power and monetary gain as his goals than at a pious Catholic stance. The latter was nonetheless maintained for what we now would call “propaganda” reasons: Christianizing the indigenous in the Americas for the Holy Church, via Catholic Spain.

The relationship between this fanatic Catholic image that Spain thus obtained internationally, and the Islamic rule by Moors in Spain not long before, can be seen as intriguing. Did one “religious fanaticism” trigger the other?, one might be tempted to ask. Or was the Genoese Christopher Columbus such a “smooth talker” that he might have convinced other countries if they had the funds? I guess we’ll never know.

The Moorish, Islamic rule in large parts of Spain between the 8th c. and 1492 – also for centuries in areas where many early colonizers of the Americas came from – remains relevant, though. Many of the (in)famous “conquistadores” of American and indigenous (Aztec, Inca, a.o.) lands came from Western Andalusia and Extremadura, once over five centuries under Islamic rule, shaping the regions partly.

FRANCO DICTATORSHIP

The dictatorship under Francisco Franco that held Spain hostage between 1939 and 1975 was known as “Fascist”, but in an own Spanish way, that Spanish way being the Catholic Church, and Catholicism became the state religion. Over time, especially after the fall of the “axis” (Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) in 1945, the openly ideological “Fascist” aspects were downplayed in favour of a generalized Catholic, totalitarian ideology.

Franco was (unlike Hitler or Mussolini) a practicing Catholic, but had in fact cordial relations with some Islamic leaders, so this totalitarian ideology stimulating “Catholic Spanishness” was more to chain and repress people within Spain (no, not just Catalans or Basques), and fooling the masses with religion, so that they could be easily exploited by elites. This recurs throughout history. There was no “de facto” Islam (only as historical memory) in Spain to fight (unlike e.g. in Bosnia), so there was no ideological fight against Islam or even Protestantism, beyond some rhetorical nonsense in propaganda. It nonetheless confirmed for the outside world Spain’s “fanatical” Catholic image.

Some Spanish historians in fact pointed at the similarities with how the ayatollah regime in Iran used Islam against the people, how the Franco regime used Catholicism. Women also had less rights than men in Spain then, and public restraint (tongue kissing in public was forbidden) stimulated as well. This became more moderate and less strictly upheld over time (since around the mid-1960s) than in Iran, but was still in formal legislation under that dictatorship.

CÓRDOBA

It is, even when putting aside Spain’s colonial endeavors or dictatorial past, an interesting part of Spain’s national history itself, as a South European nation. I noticed this all the more in Córdoba, in South West Spain, Andalusia, - which I recently visited - which was for some centuries the largest city of the Islamic Moors in what they called Al Andalus (Islamic Iberia): with over 300.000 inhabitants (!) around the year 900: only after 1100 it started to decline. It was then a period the largest city of Europe!

Islamic rulers ruled over large parts of Spain, whereby those from the Almoravid dynasty or Umayyad caliphate (Arab elite, Berber middle class) made of Córdoba their main city for some centuries (10-12 c.): a then quite advanced center of power, science, development, and administration. In some senses relatively advanced compared to the rest of Europe, notably in exact and practical sciences like maths, engineering, and agriculture, albeit not very culturally tolerant toward non-Muslims, neither very enlightened regarding what we now call “human rights”: it still knew slavery (also of sub-Saharan Africans), lower classe, and female subjugation. People who did not want to convert (Christians, Jews) were tolerated, but as second-class citizens, required to pay extra taxes.

Photo above: entrance to the Mezquita-Catedral in Córdoba city.

Visiting it recently, including museums and historical sites, I found that this history still is present in Córdoba, and not just for tourists, as cynics might balk. The big Mezquita (Mosque) from those Umayyad Islamic times is quite central in the old part of the city of Córdoba (now, 2026, with about 250.000 inhabitants), presently not much more than a provincial capital, smaller than other Andalusian cities like Seville or Málaga (with over 600.000 and around 500.000 inhabitants respectively). The Mezquita area is close to the erstwhile Judería (Jewish quarter), with narrow streets, where known philosophers and rabbinic scholar scholars like Maimonides lived.

The Mezquita was so big, that later a cathedral was built in it after Christian reconquest. This Cathedral still functions as such, so the many tourists visiting the Mezquita-Cathedral are told to respect it as a "house of worship", but now only for Catholics. The remaining parts of the former important Mosque (with Visigoth-borrowed "horse-shoe motif", and some Arabic and North African motifs and decorations in its architecture.
(Underneath a short impression film I made within the Mezquita-Catedral of Córdoba.)

Córdoba is, I found, a very monumental, picturesque, and actually pretty city (also qua architecture), with much maintained history in most of the city. It is not one of those cities with mainly semi-modern monotonous apartment blocks or flats. These were only found on the outskirts.

There was an equally big Cathedral built in that large Mezquita, but also other smaller Catholic churches throughout Córdoba were built on sites of former mosques from that time, bearing often visible vestiges/remnants of them (see photo under). So does much of the architecture and city planning (and place names) in older Córdoba. The Moorish, Islamic history is also still present in some maintained, somewhat adapted, cultural, daily customs (culinary and otherwise) of present inhabitants.

Yet, Córdoba now is at the same time clearly a Catholic city, as e.g. other South European towns, like say Naples, Palermo, or Toulouse. Sure, modernized and secularized more and more, as elsewhere, but less so than in once Catholic cities in Northern Europe, like e.g. Brussels, Eindhoven, Munich, or Cologne, that “secularized” much stronger in the present time. In Andalusia relatively more people still marry in churches, visit churches, or consider themselves Catholic. Of course, the older people more than the young, as elsewhere. That’s the intriguing irony of Córdoba, and perhaps wider Spain: it maintained its Catholic culture and beliefs relatively more than other places in Europe that never were under Islamic rule.

IDEALIZED?

While not only interesting for the commercial tourist industry - but certainly also for “history buffs” like me -, I noticed that Córdoba’s Mosque-Cathedral area was indeed a site of mass tourism in this day and age. I even got a Benidorm or Torremolinos vibe at its worst moments: from many kitschy souvenir shops, to bothersome street hustlers (stereotypical gypsy fortune tellers, or otherwise) seeking prey at some point, even harder to avoid than those shops.

RAYMOND IBRAHIM

Is this the result of an idealization, a hype? Raymond Ibrahim is a podcaster and US historian of Egyptian (Coptic Christian) descent, who is very critical of Islam’s “violent” intolerant history. He argues that Islam’s image of mostly “peaceful” is unjust.

Ibrahim, as of Coptic descent, might be a biased Christian, but he nonetheless is an actual historian, basing himself on historical sources, also in Arabic, which he can read. I find it hard to ascertain whether he is selective in his sources or examples, but he paints overall a negative picture of violence, oppression, and intolerance of Islamic conquests since the 7th c. from the Arabian peninsula, this way even conquering and converting once main areas of Christianity (North Africa, Turkey, Middle East). In Europe Iberia (most of Spain and Portugal) was conquered, as the Moors were held back in France.

Accordingly, he also sheds a different light on the Almoravid or Umayyad caliphate period of Córdoba around 900 and 1000 AD, considered in common parlance - and even by scholars - as relatively advanced and tolerant, pointing instead at sadistic punishments under Moorish rule of Christians at times, a repressive regime, and inequality in society. In the same vein, he stated how heralded scholars in that time like Averroes. only “did what they always did”, and were just Córdobese Jews finding some free spaces under Islamic rule, not because of it, but despite it.

I do not know if this Raymond Ibrahim is totally right – or exaggerated because of bias or his background - , but I consider him as one of several knowledgeable sources.

Tourism stereotypes, and the bias of religious people (both Christians and Muslims), also make it difficult to assess neutrally the veracity, the real situation about Moorish Spain, from written sources.

DHIMMI

What is documented, and sheds another light on Islam's supposed relative tolerance in Spain, was the mentioned tribute/tax - for protection - Christians and Jews (as people of the book) had to pay: tolerated for being also Abrahamic religions, but as second-class citizens: if they did not convert to Islam. This is called "dhimmi" in Islamic tradition.

This was under the Almoravid dynasty. The even more fanatic Almohad dynasty took however over rule in the Maghreb and remaining Spanish/Al Andalus territory (more and more of Spain was by then reconquered by Christians) from 1130 to 1265. They found the preceding Almoravids "too lax" and stopped the Dhimmi/tribute for protection for Christians and Jews, instead forcing conversion. Basically: convert to Islam, die, or flee. Many left. Seville - elsewhere in Andalusia - became Moorish Spain's main town under the Almohads, as Córdoba was in decline at that point. The Christian reconquest progressed by then however, and Córdoba was reconquered in 1236, and Seville (then a main Almohad center) in 1248.

Spain was fully “reconquered” finally by Christians by 1492 (when the last kindom around Granada fell), and afterward knew intolerant epochs against remaining Muslims and Jews, even if formally converted. The same fanaticism and intolerance, however, was thus shown by several Moorish rulers in Spain, as explained before.

If Columbus did not point at and pave the way for the colonial adventure, maybe Spain would have remained just an inward-looking Catholic Christian country with some intolerant epochs, but hopefully diminishing and improving over time, just like – say – Poland, Russia, Ethiopia, or Greece.. to name some other proud nations and countries with longer histories of Christian rulers and cultures.

Information in museums and educational centers in Córdoba I visited were quite neutral and unbiased in tone about the Moorish, Islamic period. I appreciated this: quite realistic, and hardly any “idealizing”, though some simplifying. The interesting Archaeology museum of Córdoba pointed out that Islamic rulers did not like public music or parties, that were therefore kept private, also among wealthy Muslims. This somehow contradicts the “paradise” image in some circles about Moorish Spain. Common secretive parties are usually not a sign of democracy or “free societies”, then and now.

BATHING

Bathing was historically important for Muslims – partly due to Islam’s beginning in the dry and hot Arabian desert - then, and many public baths did arise in Córdoba during that time, relatively many to cater to the 300.000 inhabitants. Men and women had different bathing times, and were separated in other areas as well.

I visited the largest remnants of such a Moorish bathing complex in another Andalusian city and provincial capital (Jaén) in NE Andalusia, which interestingly related how several baths had different temperatures of water. It was meant as repose and “entertainment”, for lack of a better word, but unfortunate slaves did the hard work (e.g. oven work) for it..

Jaén as town and provincial capital had some nice parts (like the narrow streeted-old Jewish neighbourhood, some pinturesque streets around the nice-looking renaissance-style cathedral), but was smaller and overall less monumental and historical than Córdoba. The Moorish bath house – part of a wider museum complex now, including modern art – was either way interesting.

There was thus – even with repose or “fun” - an emphasis on sobriety, chastity, and cleanliness. Under the Moors, many fountains and water works were added to patio’s and such throughout Spain, which are of course not a bad thing, seeing the hot climate.

Sometimes the Moors in Spain built forth on Roman examples, took something from other cultures (e.g. the Visigoths or Byzantines) in shaping architecture forms, practices, or lifestyles, a “borrowing” which is in itself neither good or bad. Also the architecture had nice decorations, mostly geometric, so there was undoubtedly some sense of art and beauty in Moorish buildings, besides technical advancement.

CIVILIZATION?

It can be called by itself an interesting “civilization”, just like other preceding and following ones: Roman, Visigoth, Byzantine, Christian. Yet, like those other “civilizations”: also with inherent inequalities, favouring an elite and in-group, warfare, and violence. The term “civilization” can be applied, if not taken too literally. For some reason, though, the term “Moorish civilization” is seldom used by historians, unlike “Roman” or “ Greek civilization”.

By the same token, after all, Roman “civilization” had harsh slavery, hierarchies, and female subjugation too, while the Visigoths – while later heralded as precursors to Catholic Spain – were initially a community that closed itself off from the locals, while fighting internally. Only when the Visigoths replaced the Arianism variety of Christianity with Catholicism, they came closer to local Spaniards, albeit hesitantly, from around the 7th c.

And then (711 AD) the Islamic Moors invaded.

History is often complicated and contradictory. Certainly multifaceted.

POLITICALLY CORRECT

Another aspect which make assessing the reality of Moorish Spain difficult, is what Raymond Ibrahim also lambasts as “woke”, politically correct historians from the political, multicultural Left. These then would paint through their ideology/wishful thinking everything non-European as better, more peaceful and humane, than European Christians. Again, Ibrahim might exaggerate, or listen too much to Right-wing podcasters or commentators, who also have an ideology or religion, namely blaming the Left (however they define it) for all the wrongs in this world, or making an uncontrollable monster from “woke” influence. That is also simplistic nonsense, in my opinion: whatever power “woke” has (often ignorable), pales in comparison to the ultra-capitalist “neoliberalism” which by now has a larger hold on Western societies and economies.

What I do agree with, however, is that there is an equally simplistic “political correct” school of history on the Left, specifically about the Islam. Sometimes these are led by Muslims or Islam-sympathizers themselves, but either way these tend to obscure factual (negative) aspects of Islam’s history, also regarding Moorish Spain.

Also, in some strayed “Black Power” circles – which contains much sensible insights too – there is however also said by some that “Africans taught Europeans civilization" and even have introduced regular “bathing”, during that Moorish time in Spain. This fits yet another ideological stance. Some claim that the Moors were “Black”, while most were North Africans, so not sub-Saharan African (these were more often slaves), and even besides this: over time many Islamic people in Moorish Iberia were converted locals (indigenous Spaniards and Portuguese, even several remaining “blonde, blue-eyed” Visigoths converted to Islam). The Moors – who first indeed came from North Africa (albeit led by Arabs) brought some scholarship and advanced methods in their enlightened stages, somewhat disregarded in Iberia by then, that much is true.

The belief in Islam was so strong and overwhelming, though, that the Moors considered themselves more as Muslims than as Africans, even if indigenous Berbers or Imazigh (or sub-Saharan African). This type of thinking still remains nowadays in parts of North Africa, by the way: Islam identity-wise outweighs Africanness.

Moreoever, Islamic further conquests stimulated slavery of non-Muslims, including also many Africans (not just, and not even mainly, “White Christians” as Right-wing commentators falsely claim), Most were in many cases African slaves, but in some areas Muslims indeed also had European slaves.

The information on panels about the Moorish bath house in Jaén (NE Andalusia, Spain), also pointed out that the “hard work” for the multi-temperature baths (which involved in pre-electric times, ovens, and more) was done by slaves. Especially, élite Moors and Muslims in Islamic Spain tended to have slaves and servants.

ARCHITECTURE

In Moorish Spain, now, there were quite some African slaves owned by Muslims, as well as European ones. These also built – for instance – the Alhambra palace in last Moorish stronghold Granada in Spain, and some other “iconic” buildings in Moorish Spain and Portugal, giving “nice-looking” and artistic buildings a cynical touch.

Photo above: the Alhambra palace in Granada (SE Andalucia, Spain), the last Moorish stronghold up to 1492.

The White House in the US was also built by (African American) slaves, but I do not consider that sober, Protestant building as “pretty” to look at. Catholics and Muslims seem better at pretty buildings, haha

The Moors, in fact, did leave behind many visually pleasing, decorative buildings or architecture throughout Spain, even mixed as an enriching architecture legacy. These are often maintained or even restored regularly, as historical legacy. The Alcazaba (fortification) buildings of the Moors, for military purposes, were less artistic or interesting, though from a distance standing out somewhat dramatically in mountainous landscapes surrounding e.g. Málaga or Jaén, also when lit at night as in Málaga.

Moorish architecture was a difference with a later occasion when Islam conquered parts of Europe, namely the Turkish Ottomans conquering a large part of the Southeast, from Hungary and the Balkan to Greece. These left little material cultural legacies (no “beautiful buildings”), - some cultural influence -, though it did leave behind still practicing local Muslims in parts of Europe (Bosnia, Albania..): ethnically Slavs or Albanian, but Muslims..

CHRISTIANIZATION

The intrigue is also there with the Christianization after the Christian reconquest. In the case of Córdoba this was in the later 13th c. Developed local, neighbourhood churches with social work, according to historians, helped spread Catholic Christianity among the populace of areas once under Islamic rule. This gave Spanish Catholicism an “informal” nature, and space for “popular Catholicism”, with own festivities devoted to local saints or shrines.

Christian art after this Islamic time changed in that human portrayal – forbidden in Islam as idolatry – became very common: of Jesus, Mary, and other Biblical figures, or local patron saints. This was already part of Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christianity elsewhere, but represented a remarkable shift toward “human relations”, seeming more social/socializing than abstract, if artistic, notions in Moorish art and decoration before. Human portrayal thus appeared in Cathedrals, and other Catholic places, while “the divine” became more human as well: Jesus was unlike Muhammad not just the “messenger” of the higher God, but was God itself.

With religions changed artistic notions, shown well in Spain’s history. Unlike Protestantism, Islam did allow beautifying buildings (albeit more in the interior) leaving many artistic decorations in monuments. Of course, also did Catholicism, leaving also many excellent Cathedrals and other buildings, sometimes with partly Moorish architecture influences.

Again, this points at irony, but also at how art influences other art, even across cultures.

Besides both being Abrahamistic, monotheistic religions, Islam and Christendom shared an idea of “magic” in daily life, worked out in Spain, but also serving as power tool for rulers. Marx’s “opium for the people”, one might say. At the same time, though, culturally, and artistically fascinating, with room for creativity.

This Christian, monotheistic “drive” in Spain seems an historic continuity beyond Christianity or Islam.

Even the infamous bullfighting is in fact connected by historians to early Christianizing/conversion. The ancient Iberian, Celtic and other “tribes” in Spain were known to worship “bulls” as god-like. The bullfighting symbolically represents the victory of Catholicism over such local “pagan” notions or practices in Spain.

INTERACTION

Maybe the crux of the Islamic legacy in Spain is in that it was not just a conflict, but an “interaction”. Islamic aspects - architecture, food, some customs - became absorbed within dominant Catholic Christianity. That interaction focused more on material culture and less on actual belief, though neither the latter was absent, e.g. Moorish period musical/vocal influences on Christian praise songs later in Spain’s history, or some daily customs.

That “interaction”, cultural mixture, and “absorption” aspects have been overlooked, I think, in Spain’s history, by both “Right-wing”/conservative, or “Left-wing” historical scholars, emphasizing simplistic conflict or “lost paradise” ideas, related to religious conquests.

Both –lets’ face it – power- and conquest-focussed religions like Islam and Christianity had intolerant, repressive periods, and recurring attacks on certain ”heathen”, Jews, or free thinkers, showing at times abuse of power in - male led! - hierarchical (religious) societies.

Yet, despite and within all that, art and culture interacted beyond religion, showing today in much of Spain’s culture, still under the Catholic Christian “umbrella”. It however also disputes in a pleasant way, that religious zealotry or fanaticism, does not need to have the last say. Culture can have that too.

Spain – and most Spaniards – see practicing Islam as historically but no longer the essence of Spain: that station is passed. Unlike in Bosnia on the Balkans, or in Albania, no nation or groups of still practicing Muslims remained in Spain. The legacy is more subtle and beyond religion, organically developed during a rich history. It is absorbed within a wider Catholic-based culture, especially in Central and Southern Spain, despite intolerant epochs of that Catholic Church.

Further, the Castilian language ("Spanish") has due to the Reconquista and that interaction incorporated many Arabic loanwords from Moors in Al Andalus, for even daily things, including many words for household, food, and agriculture. About 8% of Spanish/Castilian's vocabulary is even of Arabic origin, to a lesser degree also Catalan and Portuguese. More than other Romance languages, due to Spain and Portugal's Moorish Islamic past. Arabic loanwords include words of common usage like the words for bed, cup, carrot, carpet, plug, neighbourhood, mayor, renting, as well as more "mental" words like "spirited", while also the stereotypical praise term "olé" in Spanish culture is originally a Moorish loanword for the religious saying "by God's will".

CURRENT VIEWS

Finally, it is interesting to study how the average present-day Spaniards (young and old) view their country’s Moorish past. Not much scholarly research has been done on this theme, though there are some known serious studies. I say “serious”, because much what is said about this is based on not much more than anecdote or only some sources. I know and heard those too, being a half-Spaniard (Spanish mother) with roots in the Southern part of Spain (with Moorish vestiges). In fact, my roots are not far from Córdoba.

“They (the Moors) left us some palaces”, some common Spanish folk I heard state, going not much deeper than that, perhaps adding patio’s and some foodstuffs (cold soup, rice with milk desserts). Common knowledge about historical epochs should – as everywhere and always –not be exaggerated. Only intellectuals, historians, or “history buffs” tend to study it more, also in Spain.

My personal impression is, talking with Spaniards, family and others, and listening to scholars, politicians, and fools (haha!) appearing in the media, that Spain's Moorish past is accepted and taken for granted, as one of those historical epochs of their country, with some remnants, especially in the South, and in sometimes appreciated material or culinary culture. Celebration as a "paradise lost" I heard or read less, maybe due to the conflictive past, and the Christian culture that became more shaping, even if (like elsewhere in Europe) now less influential in these modern, secular times.

Then there is the Internet and social media. I am not one of those who “blames” social media for misinformation. I blame certain ideologies and people who use it, perhaps. Stupid mindsets like you have in daily life too, mixing with sensible, positive people, also find their way to social media.

DNA

Regarding the theme of Spain’s Moorish part, and with the rise of DNA studies (developed since the 1950s, since expanded) a lot of strange, selective “revelations” are presented, on social media. Revelations which are often untrue, or, at most, nothing new.

The fact that present-day Spaniards might have some DNA from Moorish times – actual scholarly studies point in different directions – which seems logical, seems to offend some people, due to racial and cultural preferences. They present or distort facts from studies, showing that the promise of “genetics don’t lie” neither holds true. Especially in scholarly, scientific methods, DNA data can just as well be selective or manipulated, to fit wanted outcomes, even if we’re dealing in name with an exact science. I have worked in the academic world (with information), so I learned this.

Most studies – the more impartial ones – concluded that the genetic mixture of local Iberian people with Arabs or Berbers from that time was not as extreme as people think, but was neither absent (some 7% admixture overall), and furthermore affected by later (post-Moorish period) migrations, or even between Moorish and Christian kingdoms during the Reconquista period. It is hard to distinguish from earlier Semitic or Hamitic migrations (even in pre-Roman times) as Phoenicians and Carthiginians (partly mixed with Berbers/Imazigh) affected parts of Spain too (also the South) since 2000 BC. The African continent lies very close by, after all.

Yet, even stating that Spaniards have a bit more North African or Semitic (Phoenicians and Carthiginians spoke a proto-Semitic language, w. origins in what is now Lebanon) DNA – at most between 7% and 10%, with regional differences within Iberia, than other Europeans, ticked certain people off, wanting to downplay it. At the same time, these same people often exaggerate the Germanic influence in Spanish DNA, which is even smaller (only above 8% in parts of Galicia and Catalonia). Central-European DNA in Spaniards come mostly from Celts, neither being majoritarian, not even in NW Spain (about 30%). Older peoples, probably related to what would become Basques, left a higher imprint, along with various Mediterranean peoples, in the course of time. The population DNA-base was thus largely formed when the Moors came, adding further some genetic admixture. That’s simply how history goes.

This shows several things. Most non-intellectuals (or fake intellectuals) do not like actual, serious, impartial studies, and it shows that many still think that “race” (or genetics) and “culture” are necessarily the same, as a kind of biological determinism around “pure races”, that also shaped European racism in colonial times, as well as in Nazi Germany.

In the case of Spanish history it is even more absurd, as it conflates “race” and religion (something of the mind), which stems from Spanish history, and some intolerant epochs up to the 17th c., when remaining, converted Jews or Moors were still mistrusted by Christian rulers for having no “limpieza de sangre” (“clean blood”). This sounds kind of “Nazi-ish”, but did lead to the ousting of some, not to their mass murder, but still: the same absurd thinking. Especially from densely populated Valencia and the East Coast (parts of Catalonia), many converted Moriscos (Moorish descent) and converted Jews (“conversos”) were ousted (Castile less strict), which therefore (as densely populated and wanted land) might relate to economic and territorial interests as well. Much of this – like all these religious conflicts and wars – seemed of course as much about power and interests, as about faith.

POWER

Religion is after all about “power”. That’s why I myself – not member of a powerful elite, nor wishing to have power over people - am more into “spirituality” and humanity, as I hope more people are.

The fact that both Islam and Christianity tend to emphasize a "better life" or "paradise" after death, while stimulating a fear for punishment during life, betrays in my opinion that they want to keep the masses subdued and controlled, not rebelling against the "powers that be". That is just my opinion, but I respect other people choosing to worship God/the divine in such structured religious settings - offering also a sense of community, I imagine. Power abuse aside, Christianity further has as base a well-written book and engaging story - and a sympethetic, kind-hearted protagonist in Jesus -, while Islam is a bit more "military" and tribal in focus, but in turn offers clear rituals and guidelines for one's life. To each his or her own.

As always in history – also during Moorish Spain – most common people had little say in power politics and went on to live their life, as much as they could, despite obstacles, or repressive laws. Many fake conversions took place, pleasing of authorities, bribes, in-between stances, etcetera.

This was also the case in the so much praised earlier Roman era, also shaping Spain in part, also linguistically: the elite made the laws, the populace had to adapt, and were partly discriminated. The Moors were no better, especially as Christians and Jews who did not wish to convert to Islam were “tolerated”, but as said only as second-class citizens, having to pay the rulers taxation/tribute (in their own country). Dhimmi: a kind of "protection money", so to speak. This is the historically common oppression and behaviour of occupying forces, or conquering, powerful “empires”, as we would later see with European colonialism, when European colonizers exploited and taxed Africans in their own countries, for economic gain (while so-called “civilizing” them).

NEUTRALITY

Still, also that Moorish history in Spain had own, intriguing characteristics, which are interesting for those interested in history, especially without taking any racial, cultural, or religious sides. This seems difficult, when dealing with a proud, emotional religion, or with politicized, ideological pro-Western (Right-wing) or anti-Western (Left-wing) stances.

I was therefore pleased that the information given in museums and at monumental sites in the South Spanish, Andalusian cities I recently visited (like Córdoba) seemed very neutral und “un-ideological” to me: just what historical sources showed and told. Not even own Christian Spanish intolerance in certain periods (since the 16th c.) was ignored, but objectively told. This is not even the case in some English or Dutch cases, by the way, known as more advanced nations, where own faults – colonial exploitation - in some museums or sources are still downplayed.

With such neutral information at historical sites, no ideology is imposed, but one truly learns about history and even human behavior. That shows progress, and represents in my view true civilization..

AI, music, and I

A recent (August, 2026) discussion arose between US “West Coast” hip-hop artists – and producers - of some renown, namely DJ Quick, and the better known Dr Dré (of NWA fame). Quick and Dré expressed different – quite opposed – opinions about the use of AI – Artificial Intelligence - in music.

In summary: Dr Dré used AI/Artificial Intelligence as a new tool, and appreciated it as such, claiming people opposed to it are just afraid of the “new”, like before people feared drum machines or synthesizers, and dismissed them as people who “have trouble creating”. He more or less implies that creative artists can still use it well, without loss of artistic integrity.

Dr Dré did not use the term “artistic integrity” (I do), and maybe the term “integrity” is not so liked by someone like Dr Dré from the “Gangsta Rap” scene, not so long ago lyrically still celebrating a life of crime, rather than of Black consciousness, even though that last “conscious” aspect was (opportunistically and insincerely?) imitated/adopted.

DJ Quick, by contrast, recently stated that he’d rather have bad human material than good AI material, calling AI – besides not ready for missing nuances as not human - further a violation of culture, and as appropriating from artists still active. A “violation of culture” is here strongly yet eloquently put.

To be honest, I did not know very well who DJ Quick was. This is not meant as subtle “diss”, but he just escaped my attention. DJ Quick was born in Compton (Los Angeles), where Dr Dré also grew up, and was (again like Dr Dré) influenced by Funk from young, ending up also in the “West Coast” G-Funk scene, with also connections to gang life. Like Dr Dré, he was influenced by George Clinton-led bands like Parliament and Funkadelic (which also influenced what became known as “G-Funk”), and appreciated live instrumentation over (solely) sample use in this brand of composed and produced hip-hop, characterized by slow, Funkadelic-like grooves.

And yes, Dr Dré and Dj Quick actually knew each other and worked together musically on occasion in the West Coast Rap scene, though some present them as rivals. That rivalry was assumed because of a supposed “diss” of Dré’s NWA in an early mixtape by DJ Quick.

Similarities and both active in the same scene (West Coast Rap, G-Funk..), yet an opposed stance on AI in music: that makes the different opinion all the more interesting. Both rap vocally (Quick a bit better, in my opinion), but are also are “beatmakers” and producers, so are more in the realm of AI than, say, a seasoned acoustic musician, not so in that “technology” and “digital world”. Many creative musicians I know are against too much AI in music, especially when as persons not so involved in technology.

Interesting to take this discussion broader to all kinds of music, though AI comes of course most in play when “digital production” is concerned. However, to degrees this applies in this digital and Internet age to many music genres.

TECHNICAL GUYS

I compose and record myself, but play instruments a lot with other musicians (different genres: soul, pop, funk, blues, jazz..) as well, such as on jamsessions in the Amsterdam (Netherlands) area. I play mainly percussion then.

My experience is that there are a lot of “technical guys” in the music scene, also among instrument players. Usually indeed “guys” (or: males) who tended to excel in exact sciences since high school (maths, electronics, etc.), so they might have less that reserve against non-human AI in music creation. Many might thus fall for it, I fear, and not just “non-musicians” or money sharks smelling an opportunity. The risk of AI is even bigger than that, also internal.

Those “technical guys” in the music scene might be reasonably more susceptible to “digital tricks” like AI, being less focused on the cultural/artistic/humanities side of making music that that AI downplays, but it probably differs per person.

Both Quick and Dré are active as “beatmakers” and song makers in the same music/hip hop subgenre, using modern technology like synthesizers, and in more or less the same time period (same “generation”), and geographical area (LA, USA). However: they have different/opposed stances on Artificial Intelligence in music.

Why? The differences between the two must neither be disregarded. DJ Quick is much more a musician and instrumentalist as such than Dr Dré: Quick plays from young several musical instruments, specialized in drum, but also guitar, keys, etc. He played such instruments himself for his “beats” too, and used his musician’s skills and experience for his production too, besides programming or synthesizers, with which Quick also worked. He stops short of AI, though, apparently. In an interview, he stated he in fact uses AI too, but for “educational” purposes, not creative ones: that comes after.

Dr Dré has many fans – and probably some musical talent – but is known to have less musical knowledge instrument-wise, certainly on a less deep musical level, than Quick. Case in point: Dr Dré called on DJ Quick sometimes for production “improvement” on some songs and albums.

Though interesting for me to learn something about DJ Quick – and he has some nice songs and productions - , this post will further not be about that West Coast Rap/Hip Hop scene. I am open to all kinds of genres, but I was never really a big fan of that subgenre of Rap – save some songs -, being personally more a Reggae fan myself. The Hip Hop I was once more into (around 1990 a bit more) in periods was more East Coast (Public Enemy, PRT, Slick Rick, Busta Rhymes, LL Cool J.)..

This post is however about AI in relation to music composition, playing, and production. A useful and timely debate, I find.

Many in the music industry have chipped in on this debate – in the US and elsewhere -, of course, and now it’s my turn.

SYNTH AND AI

Is the rise of AI really comparable to that of Synthesizers (or: e.g. drum machines) in Pop music since especially the 1980s, some back in the day also deplored as “artificial” or “fake” somehow? Not really.

A Google search using AI (oh, irony) on this got as response:

“The primary difference between a synthesizer and AI music is who makes the creative decisions. A synthesizer is a manual tool that generates audio signals a human must actively sculpt and play, while AI music relies on machine-learning algorithms that can autonomously write melodies, generate lyrics, or compose entire songs from scratch.”

Those “creative decisions” are crucial in my regard in this discussion. It also contradicts Dr Dré’s dismissal by equaling AI-critics to those in earlier epochs also fearing “the new” like synthesizers or drum machines/programming. That is in my analysis a “false contradiction”.

Not everyone likes synthesizers or “digital-sounding music” - preferring e.g. real musical instruments - but at least such technology or programming has degrees of quality and creativity which are ultimately “human-made”. AI – with those machine-learned algorithms – is artificial (but not intelligent, ha!). The same applies to drum or other music programming: ultimately it is human-made, albeit by looping recorded bits. Sure, easier and not the same as actually drumming with sticks on an actual drum kit for the length of whole songs – or even concerts -, including handling breaks and such – as skilled trap drummers can - , but still: you get out of it what a human being puts it. Humanity is simplified, but not lost or absent.

In AI – I would argue – humanity is often actually “lost” or ignored, which is maybe a sign of the times. It contradicts – moreover – the meaning of “culture” and “art” as essentially human. Worse still, it might detach music - as “organized sound” as some called it – from other “art” and “culture”, not so easily “digitized”. Also a trend I deplore.

TECHNOCRACY

A worrying trend which I am even willing to relate to broader, troubling philosophical dimensions. I am talking about further steps of taking away agency from people toward an economic elite-friendly system (for the 0,001% wealthiest in this world), triggered by technology, thus with dehumanizing results, toward some kind of “technocracy”. Each human being has a value by itself, and even in international human rights legislation, this is acknowledged. Technology overtaking human creative expression is a step too far. AI should be limited to the quantitative and educational: in dealing with a lot of data. Then it aids us as humans.

In my opinion, humanity stands above that, if we want to keep the world livable for all people, rich and poor. Folk culture is what you get when people are left alone (by economic or political forces, at least temporarily) and to their own devices. It’s through own creations that man withstands dehumanizing or unnatural “robotizing” amid omnipresent and dominant external forces making you a “wage slave”.

The hypocrisy among world elites is stunning. The “climate” hype is presented as environmentally concerned, yet is held up by the same people (that 0,001% wealthiest elites) detaching humans more and more from naturalness.

Precisely because that “climate” hype is just that: a hype, to distract from – not solve - actual environmental, and polluted nature, problems. These are caused by big multinationals and powerful economic parties, or governments, and not by common citizens wishing to take hot showers daily without minding the clock, as the propaganda criminalizes. Human activities (on a larger scale) can influence the natural environment, but hardly the “climate” (or global warming).

That’s another issue, but somehow related, as AI in creation strays away from “natural” behavior.

AI in creating music (or other art forms) encroaches on that naturally human base of individual expression. The right to be unique, to be different, is the same as the right to live and breathe. And: to be free on your own terms.

The “naturality” of humans making music is also that the same hypocritical “powers that be” keep attacking, despite the vague “climate” rhetoric, lacking (non-manipulated) scientifical evidence. Food production in the West has many artificial, non-organic elements, standard in most products in regular supermarkets.

The artificiality of “food” has become so common that you don’t even know what you eat, with negative health effects.

Artificiality in music creation destroys this purity or “organic nature” likewise. Here the health effects might be more mental.

OTHER WRONGS

For better or worse, as this does not mean that there are no other types of wrongs or corruption within the music industry, even without or before the advent of AI: selfish, slick money sharks - studio owners or producers (or REducers as Peter Tosh called them) - exploiting naïve artists and their songs (occurred e.g. in Jamaican Reggae since the 1960s), commercialization in general, stereotype (gender, race, national) confirmation, racial prejudice, swollen ego’s, jealousy, money greed, hard drug use and addiction.. etcetera etcetera.

Plus I have not even mentioned nepotism, favouritism, partly through gatekeepers. You need to know people, especially those influential ones lacking jealousy enough to want to give you a chance. This nepotism tends to mix with other problems, such as racial preference and greed.

All things - good and bad – of people interacting in company or as different individuals, character-wise compatible or not. Working out or not. Pleasant or not. These relate to morality and social interactions and its dynamics, and present inequalities.

Quality-wise, - the end-products - , there always have been problems too: some self-declared artists’ songs are of course not everyone’s cup of tea. A matter of taste, and tastes are personally shaped, which is also psychologically interesting.

Some clearly lack original talent: their main talent seems to imitate a “success formula”. Some are not as good as they think, at least in the style of music they want to make, but even this lack of quality – or imperfections - can be inspiring to do better. They themselves, or others hearing it. Again: social dynamics, or in cases healthy competition, as you also have in sports.

Some artists have nonsensical or even negative (violence promoting, women degrading) lyrics, yes that too.

Others with actually good songs or talent often are ignored. That’s also part of social dynamics, like I said: for better or worse.

At least - despite all these possible flaws and inequalities - we are dealing with real humans, creating freely, making individual choices with their own agency. That is simply real life, among real people. Real freedom.

Real (non-artificial) “intelligence” shows in you maintaining your “soul”, own personality, and morality within all that, while - as an artist of the creative type - making original art as an individual.

I recently read an interview in a Dutch Psychology magazine ('De Psycholoog', of April 2010) with a Dutch psychiatrist (called Esther van Fenema) specializing in treating musicians, as she herself was one too (strings/violin): she knew their issues. These issues go well beyond “stage freight” – which some have and some don’t -, but also toward stress, psychological trauma, and various neuroses among musicians. Composing and performing musicians deal moreover with the highs and lows of human emotion, so tend to be more often neurotic, this lady interestingly said.

AI is a cold and “sanitized” way to escape this, as you keep your own emotions or psyche out of it. But it’s not “creative art” anymore then. Art is, after all, the result of pain. Like “soul” is “can’t”, as James Brown once said.

AI is also certainly also less individualistic, as you draw on what others did..

INDIVIDUALISM

That “individualism” is seen as typically Western by many, also when applied to artists. Devoted or professional artists in e.g. Africa – like the specialized “griots”: travelling musicians and storytellers/singers – in parts of Africa (Guinee, Mande-speaking areas and around) clearly still have a “community” role, sharing a people’s cultural stories and historical accounts. Walking repositories of culture of a people, you can say.

Artists in the West have the image of sole, detached individualists, apart from “common” people or society, with idiosyncratic, self-involved personalities, and not seldom problematic addictions or vices. That is a simplified image, however.

GRIOT MODEL

In reality, or in essence, the difference with the African cultural “griot” model is not that big, functionally. As another psychological article on music (in that same Dutch Psychology magazine) pointed out: music – and a shared music taste – has various human functions, also for “fans” of some styles or genres in the Western world, a “social” bonding function, albeit now often in self-made or “looser” modern communities than historically shaped, traditional ethnic ones.

This links it in the end more to humanity than to “cold” and lifeless technology, however “collectivist” a society might be (compared to Western ones). Griots, like many singers/artists, even in “pop”, keep traditions alive though their personal creativity.

Another “soulless” and “lifeless” element before AI already damaged the music industry, encroaching on human creativity: being: money. Commercial considerations often mix(ed) up with racist or stereotypical considerations, under the guise of adaptation to markets. To differing degrees.

Again, maybe objectionable, but also done by humans with their own agency.

INSECURE MEN

A healthy individualism of course requires self-confidence.

I heard several experienced people in music conclude that there are many “insecure men” (and less women) among musicians, which might relate to neurotic behavior as the mentioned psychiatrist found commonly among them.

I assumed this too, although I did not immediately notice that this insecurity could hide behind “over-confident” or authoritarian outward behaviour. I just thought those fools had bad, selfish manners that had never been properly contradicted or corrected. In time I learned authoritarian manners also stem from their insecurity.

In recent times, the “Freudian” psychological term “neurosis” came more into disuse – especially by non-Freudian psychoanalysts -, but was used more in Sigmund Freund’s own times. Neurotic traits maintain a touch with reality, while the term “psychosis” relates to worse conditions, when even that touch with reality is lost. The recent Covid “p(l)andemic” was a good example of an (irrational) “fear psychosis” of a mass nature.

Insecurity can do many things among men, even make them wicked, authoritarian, and immoral, just like they always say that the biggest “bullies” of other children in school classes tend to be insecure themselves. In my experience and memories of school days, bullies tended to be overly extrovert, like the proverbial empty barrels mainly insulting and criticizing. These might end up in music too.

Some stay like that until old to some degrees, also because –very Freudian! – the “bully years” usually includes adolescence as peak period, including often first sexual discoveries and first personality formations that were (in one’s own psyche) “rewarded” thus continued. The “bully” mindset is perhaps too superficial for the “highs” and “lows” of musical creation, but in facilitating or organizing (with nepotism) – or gatekeeping – functions in the music industry, they tend to thrive.

More introvert insecure guys – also among the technical guys in the music industry, but also found among skilled, driven instrumentalists – may be in another way too insecure to trust their own inner voice and creativity, preferring playing instead just what’s told or required.

These “insecure” personality types might fall perhaps more easily in the trap of AI, since not creating themselves extensively and having a disdain for all-too-human frailties, and as Google/AI responded to my search: saying that AI takes over human creative decisions.

“Nuff said” to me as a songwriter and artist to dismiss it, and I’m curious how Dr Dré thinks he’s using it creatively, if that can at all be done..

At most, I imagine, AI uses can be combined with creativity (adding other music or vocals), and even that tends to have mediocre results, in my opinion.

WHERE I COME FROM

This is thus my stance on Artificial Intelligence (AI), but who am I?

Since I delved (broadly) into Dr Dré’s and DJ Quick’s musical background in this post, saying something about mine seems reasonable.

I sometimes think I was born to be a songwriter, but at least it is a fact that I made and released many songs publicly (on Internet) by now, often singing on instrumental music also created by me.

I always liked writing songs, and since young idea’s for “tunes” came into my head. People more openly spiritual than me called this a “divine sign” of sorts: musical and lyrical ideas popping up in your head, in response to things around.

Anyway, I tried to record own songs often. I started with MIDI, keys, and some percussion, only in a later stage I really studied playing percussion, preferring hand drums also as counterpoint to increased digitalization. I liked that Folk and World music vibe, being besides in Reggae since my teens, also in African music, Afro-Latin music (e.g. Cuba), as more traditional African music with hand drums soon appealed to me.

I never used synthesizers or drum machines, but was neither a “technophobe”: I used MIDI and what are called Digital Audio Workstations (DAW), like Cubase, Reason, Logic, and other such programmes. Ironically also to record multiple acoustic instruments sometimes, and for the Internet (like YouTube). Double irony there.

MIDI sounds of instruments I did not own - or knew well enough - to play (but note-wise enough) I also used, being samples of the “real thing” (e.g. a saxophone, trumpet, accordion, organ, jazz guitar, name it..). As these were samples, sounds came often quite close.

My song making bears a strong Reggae influence due to my love for it, but I try different genres out, being further influenced by funk, jazz, Flamenco, Latin, African, and other genres I liked.

Is this (MIDI samples instead of real instruments) as fake and artificial as AI? Not in my opinion. Like I said, I invent and create the notes on a keyboard, just like you can do on the instrument itself.

Yes, actually playing a saxophone is a totally different story and requires more skills than playing sax notes on a MIDI keyboard, I know. Yet, there is my creativity involved and with that open humanity behind such compositions – of whatever quality -, that is at most “simplified”, but not “denied” as in AI.

As songs came to my head, I wanted to do something with those recurring melodies/rhythms, liking also the “building up” of songs with layers of instruments, chord-wise, rhythmically, etcetera. DAW Midi sets have percussion and drum sets, but in time I played for my compositions more often the drum part on a real drum kit (with sticks in my hand, so to speak), most percussions (of course!) – as I live in a virtual “percussion museum” -, and sometimes a “real” guitar, harmonica, or flutes, I have.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) replacing all that, would for me kill all the joy, for me as someone of the “creative type”. Both of making music and expressing myself through it. My personality and worldview are in all this, without a question. Fame is dangerous, but some ego or pride is in all this inevitable. A sense of humour, and not taking myself so seriously - which I don’t – makes this bearable, I hope, and perhaps even interesting. At least it is how I musically express myself, after receiving several influences.

Personalities can be interesting, if you’re at least a bit a “people’s person”, as they say, and are interested in human variety. This need not be equaled with caressing some fool’s fake ego.

That is however to the listeners, the people “out deh”, to judge or evaluate if they like a self-declared musician’s “style”..

REAL KNOWS REAL

Regarding AI in individual music creation I’m therefore more on “DJ Quick’s” team in being skeptical of AI’s creative use in it, more than on Dr Dré’s. Like DJ Quick also said in an interview: he was almost never tricked with AI-generated songs, he always heard it was AI, and I have experienced the same.

I immediately sensed it with AI-generated Reggae, I heard sometimes. There’s no humanity, no “soul”. With this came fake/nonexistent “fictional” artists with AI songs online, - Sienna Rose a known example - and other such nonsense or scams, sometimes able to trick listeners. Some recognize the AI, some don’t, it seems.

Real knows real, I guess.

DEHUMANIZING

An important point I want to make - but hinted already on - is also that AI creative use in music goes too far because it continues a globalizing “dehumanizing” historical trend in human history, triggered by technology and economic globalism, such as capitalism: mechanization, robotization, and in a general sense: the fear of elites that common folk start "thinking for themselves".

Of course, slavery and warfare – groups dominating others – is all historically as old as organized man, including structural inequalities. Now it’s however more sneaky, hidden, and at the same time generalized, taken for granted, like the clock.

The own agency of individual people must remain not only free, but even expanded toward in today’s world oppressed peoples: modern slaves/exploited labourers, the poor, often hungry lower classes, women and girls who in some cultures and states are second-class citizens, other discriminated groups in some societies (racially, socially, culturally). They need to express themselves, or at least be spoken for.

Great musical artists, like Bob Marley, Fela Kuti, James Brown, PE, Stevie Wonder, and others, have always spoken for them and to them. Others – with less “political” lyrics – still expressed an own culture or artistic need. Paul Simon’s album Graceland gave Zulu music more exposure, for instance. This is still necessary. The confusion of AI with “the real” in musical expressions disturbs that, might weaken that “improving the world” spirit.

There is a parallel with other current (political) trends among the (0,001 % wealthiest) élite or “powers that be” now incorporating/appropriating “Left-wing” rebellion, to pacify and weaken their impact. The “climate” policies and “woke” nonsense are examples of that, at the same time serving as distraction and scapegoats for equally foolish “right-wing” commentators, neither very interested in social justice or cultural variety.

This unequal world in which we live, and the funds required, makes AI being pushed from the top-down by wealthy entrepreneurs, often aided by politics, as common in modern neoliberal capitalism.

The masses of the people should “pick sense from nonsense” and develop wisdom and caution to use AI in their own benefit as free persons. It is handy for retrieving information (like a Google Plus), put order in a bulk of data and information, and helps in that sense in an educational sense. It assists “information-wise”.

Then, but after this and without AI, comes “knowledge” in individual minds, followed (hopefully) by “wisdom”, and then “creativity”, possibly artistic. That is the naturally human way of “finding your way” in this world, since the stone age, aided by inspiration from all around.

Fantan Mojah : reflections

Jamaican Reggae artist Fantan Mojah’s recent passing (14th of July, 2026) is one that I relatively strongly “felt”. It was moreover premature because he was only 49 years old, in fact a few years younger than me. Recently he was dealing with heart condition problems, that was known. Still, relatively young, and a pity.

REGGAE CLUB HITS

I know several of his songs, well-known in Reggae scenes all over the world, including some “Reggae club hits” such as Hungry, Only Jah Love, Stronger, Murderer, and especially Rasta Got Soul, and further some collaboration tunes, such as Dem Nuh Build Great Man (with Jah Cure). I heard them in Amsterdam (Netherlands), where I live.

With such hits at dances or in clubs, Fantan Mojah made quite a name of himself as artist among Reggae fans internationally, as a representative of the “New Roots” current, often with Bobo Ashanti affiliations, like Capleton, Sizzla, Anthony B. and others..

The ‘Bobo Ashanti’ are one of the “mansions” (branches/subgroups) within the Rastafari movement, known as relatively strict and disciplined. Prince Emmanuel Charles Edwards played a founding role in it in 1958. Other Rastafari adherents in Jamaica belonged to the oldest Nyabinghi order (since the 1930s), or the more liberal Twelve Tribes (founded in 1968, by Vernon Gad). Members of these separate “mansions” – as they are called biblically – all have influenced Reggae music and its lyrics, especially since the 1970s.

NEW ROOTS

The new “conscious Reggae current” (“New Roots”) since the 1990s was for some reason relatively strongly influenced by members of the Bobo Ashanti mansion within the Rastafari movement, including thus Fantan Mojah whose debut single Hungry was released in 2004.

As Rastafari sympathizer – and lover of conscious Reggae music – I appreciated this new Roots Reggae current by the likes of Sizzla, Capleton, Anthony B, and others, and enjoyed their music, and could agree with the lyrics (mostly).

I still wondered, though, why specifically this Bobo Ashanti branch/mansion within Rastafari became so influential in this later stage. I heard suddenly references to Prince Emmanuel I in newer Reggae, more than in older Reggae, wondering who that was.

Soon I found out, of course, that Prince Emmanuel was the influential founder of the Bobo Ashanti mansion in 1958, a mansion I little by little got to learn more about, due to a curiosity triggered by these newer Reggae artists. A bit older than the Twelve Tribes of Israel mansion (founded in 1968), but newer than the “organic” or “original” Rastafari movement represented by the Nyabinghi order.

RASTAFARI MANSIONS

Even if in some sense divisive within the movement, the history and time-frame behind these Rastafari mansions is interesting. Nyabinghi – known for the heart-beat drumming – arose more or less organically with Rastafari as movement itself in Jamaica (since the 1930s), the Bobo Ashanti was as said founded by Prince Emmanuel in 1958, and 10 years later, in 1968, the Twelve Tribes of Israel mansion was founded by Vernon Carrington (Gad). The latter was thus founded in the “hippy”, “flower power” time in the Western world, but I am not sure whether this reached Jamaica.

There have been travel between Jamaica and the US (migration, tourism, touring, seasonal work) at that time too, of course, as well as mass international media, but either way: there are for some reason similarities in Twelve Tribes views with what people consider “flower power”: progressive, “left-wing”, open- and free-minded, equality across races and gender, but also differences. The Twelve Tribes associated itself also with Biblical Christianity, albeit in a very free way. The “hippies” in the West (Europe, US, etc.) – on the other hand – tended to follow such Flower Power movement precisely because they left behind that Christian, small-minded doctrine of their parents or teachers (be it Protestant and Catholic). There are still some parallels, as also among Protestants and Catholics there arose people who maintained that faith but in a looser, hippy-like way, such as in the Netherlands where I grew up. Some left more conservative, religious (protestant, catholic) political parties for one with more progressive, left-wing views, mixing it somehow. Also the concert venue Paradiso in Amsterdam was – as still visible inside it - once a Church (of a relatively liberal protestant order), but changed in that Flower Power era since the late 1960s, even selling marijuana/weed inside. Sign of the times.

I myself adhere to Rastafari tenets in my own personal way, so do not get stuck in tribal, or divisive thinking: the organic history and the drumming and natural living focus of the old Nyabinghi order appealed to me most, also because it mostly lacked a strict hierarchy. Twelve Tribes had appealing aspects (open-minded progressive, socialist thinking) – at least to me, because of my background - , but also some side-paths I was less interested in (astrology etc.). But to each his own.

BOBO ASHANTI

What ticked me off at first when I learned about the Bobo Ashanti/Shanty mansion, now, was its strict nature, including separation of the sexes, hierarchy (with priests), and taking the Bible too literally, to the point where it loses its deeper sense (in my humble opinion). This translates into sometimes irrational life rules, some limiting/degrading females, we already know too well from other world “religions” (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.). Conservatism with no sense, to put it in some way. The uneasy relationship between men and women - wanting to separate them, or keeping women subservient - also seemed not really intelligent or mature to me, giving evidence of either male insecurity, or sexual frustration, which maybe some good psychological counseling can help resolve.

The (scholarly) article ‘Rastawoman as rebel: case studies in Jamaica’, written by Imani M. Tafari-Ama, part of the collective volume ‘Chanting down Babylon : the Rastafari reader’ , published in 1998, says specifically about Bobo Ashanti (quoting Tafari-Ama):

“The House of Rastafari is divided into many mansions {……] Patriarchal dogmas all encountered in all realms, and one exists with them – or in spite of – them. One mansion that most clearly organizes around differentiation of roles is the Bobo Shanti […] where gender differentiations, especially as they relate to sexuality, are pronounced”..

BIBLE

Some Rastafari adherents I know found the Twelve Tribes “too Christian”, but the Bobo Shanty are no less Biblically based, even taking more literal its texts. This can even be seen as a unwitting Eurocentric aspect as when Protestantism arose, with the founder Martin Luther in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517, and after spread throughout especially Northwestern Europe, the focus on the “literal” Biblical text was emphasized by Luther, with book printing available, now to be read by each believer. This was Luther’s response to the (in his view) “corruption” by Catholicism’s “intermediaries” (priests, cardinals, the pope, etc.) interpreting it for the masses (often illiterate), but the Bible texts were by the early Protestants often taken very literal and authoritarian, in line with vested interests. This ruined Protestantism’s “free-thinking”, individualistic potential from the start; individualism seemed only valued for material well-being (making money, allowing interest on loans, etc.).

According to Max Weber, Protestant values historically enabled eventually what we call “capitalism”, but unfortunately (religious-wise) not really “free thinking”, but more a moral sense of superiority just for knowing what is said in the Bible.

When Britain colonized Jamaica (capturing it on the Spaniards in 1655), Britain was already a proud Protestant nation, and this (unwittingly) influenced also the Afro-Jamaicans, up to the Rastafari movement, as it – as Mutabaruka pointed out – had to be based (first in the 1930s) on something they knew: e.g. British Christianity as colonial legacy in Jamaica. This is thus even noticeable within such “literal” Biblical influence in Bobo Shanty, who otherwise are Africa-focussed, and call for Black separatism, and living apart from Western Babylon. Ironic, but historically explainable, as so many contradictory issues.

My personal opinion is that the Bible is mostly not to be taken literally, but metaphorically – alongside other perhaps useful writings, world wide -, that all individuals (whatever gender, race, class, o.o.) are equal despite Babylon system's interests, and that Jah lives within each individual, that we should live healthy lives in balance with nature, and that Marcus Garvey and Haile Selassie are pivotal figures in the Rastafari movement, and Africa – and its history - as continent important.

Mostly these aspects seemed shared among all the mentioned “mansions”/branches within Rastafari, so I did not really bother aligning myself with one in particular.

Still, some chose to, including recent and earlier Reggae artists. Bob Marley was associated by some with Twelve Tribes, but neither he seemed to pick consequently any preferred mansion. Dennis Brown the artist also was associated with the Twelve Tribes (in a concrete manner too, community work, etcetera), but seemed to be quite loose too.

TRUE ARTISTS

Maybe the psychological conundrum is that interesting (musical) artists have to have strong, unique personalities – and Reggae luckily knew many of those – which is hard to combine with tribal “group” thinking, with set rules and hierarchies for belonging. Or living as too "disciplined" for that matter. True artists think free.

Rastafari tends after all to value “thinking for oneself” too, as also sung by Burning Spear (on e.g. It Is Good). Burning Spear is also one of those artists who mentions the Twelve Tribes in his lyrics here and there (his “hit” Columbus, for example), but further seems loose and “above” such divisions.

Fantan Mojah thus came to prominence in the Reggae world a bit after Bobo Shanty-adherents Sizzla and Capleton, who came with conscious Reggae since the 1990s, and like them, Fantan certainly had good songs, and a distinctive, intriguing voice, capable of transmitting both militant and more “soulful” messages. He (like Sizzla and others) surrounded himself with Jamaican Reggae musicians who knew how to play it, or sang on extant, but good and timeless “riddims” (instrumentals).

An interesting difference is that Fantan Mojah did not engage much in (digital) Dancehall, as his precursors Sizzla and Capleton partly did more, remaining mostly in the Reggae realm, only in some later songs.

I did not really notice much of the Bobo Shanty vibe I spoke about in his songs, in the sense of making his songs different from e.g. artists without that alliance, apart from mentioning Prince Emmanuel I, as Fantan Mojah does in some songs. Several songs of Fantan Mojah are truly spiritual in a broader Rastafari sense, for instance, others broader militant.

MARCUS GARVEY

AI (advanced Google as I see it) claims that the Bobo Ashanti place Marcus Garvey at a higher level than the other mansions, just praising Selassie. Bobo Ashanti claim to uphold a trinity of Haile Selassie, Marcus Garvey, and Prince Emmanuel . This has doubtful aspects.

I heard Marcus Garvey being mentioned and respected in several Rastafari-inspired Reggae artists (Burning Spear!), also by non-Bobo Ashanti. That Prince Emmanuel takes the liberty to place himself in the company of two great, revered figures by Rastas - and to be equally revered - seemed a bit an ego trip to me, and not very modest. This puts me a bit off, as it reeks of a “cult” around a self-aggrandizing person.

This, combined with a hierarchy, (male-led!) separation of sexes, and some women-unfriendly practices – considering menstruating women as “impure” and therefore to be separated from men – further made me take some distance to it, sticking to the old Nyabinghi order of Rastafari, developed as organically as nature itself, combining it perhaps with selected “progressive/hippy-like” ideas (as also in Twelve Tribes) fitting my personal (family) background, or with aspects from the devoted energy of the Bobo.

Still, I did not get an unpleasant “strict” or “zealot” vibe from most songs of Sizzla, or Fantan Mojah for that matter, I liked. After all, they had many fun-loving and party songs lyrically, also about marijuana, and positive lyrics about peacefully living together.

It is said that even stricter than the other mansions, Bobo Ashanti maintain that smoking weed is strictly meditational and “never” for fun or recreation. A strange contradiction – good fun is in my opinion also in a sense “meditational” . This “pure for meditation” use is formally upheld, yet conflicting with some “ganja (marijuana) as fun” lyrics by Sizzla, Anthony B, Capleton, and other Bobo artists.

As individual artists they don’t take it all so strict or literal, apparently, which I appreciate. Else lyrics become “pushy” and “preaching” in a wrong way. I seldom have that with the “new Roots” with Bobo Ashanti dominance.

They, including Fantan Mojah, tend to express their Rastafari faith in a pleasant, accessible manner lyrically, with good musicianship and songs. So, not as conservative “tight-asses” bothering us with their authoritarian, rigid world view. Only here and there (regarding homosexuality, sexuality) some strict or intolerant views came to the fore, as became known of Sizzla.

Funny, how Capleton – in response to critics – said that “fire” or “bu(r)n” references in lyrics, even “burn battyman/gays” – are meant metaphorically, not literally.

Some of the stricter views of Bobo Ashanti, however, derive from taking the Bible, with ancient Hebrew prescriptions taken more literal than in other branches of Rastafari.

SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Bobo Ashanti also live more separate from society than the Twelve Tribes, known to just participate in (Western) society, when inevitable (“normal”, Babylonian jobs), while the Bobo Ashanti strive to self-sufficiency, in own communities. The best known is that at Bull Bay (about 16 km east of Jamaica’s capital Kingston), known as “Bobo Hill”.

This aspect of self-sufficiency appeals to me more, as both “big business” and “big state” in the Western (Babylon) world, have proven to be oppressive, and continu to be today, with new “scams”, like covid, war/military industry, digital ID, control, etcetera, added to their continuing neoliberalism and neocolonialism.

My mother told me that “if people know that you are dependent on them, they will abuse you..”. So for Black, African people in a White-led Western society and economy, self-sufficiency is certainly a good idea. It also is in line with Marcus Garvey’s views, even if outside of ancestral Africa, to which repatriation remained an aim.

The mental strength of trusting in one’s own capabilities might explain the energetic ambitiousness, and work ethic, of some Bobo Ashanti artists, making them dominate the “New Roots” of conscious Reggae music: less diluted by “society” or commercial demands.

RESPONSE TO GANG CRIME?

My personal hypothesis is that I relate it to the risen gang-related and gun-crime in Jamaica since the 1980s. The risen popularity of the “strict”, disciplined mansion of Bobo Ashanti within Rastafari, might well be a response to the inner-city “chaos” of crime, violence, and slackness – especially since the 1980s in Jamaica -, demanding a fierce response, separating from a society enabling this, by way of own communities, such as the one at Bull Bay by the Bobo Ashanti: less temptations of crime there. Thus, Bobo artists like Sizzla came to the fore by the 1990s.

In the end it is – on the other hand – an individual process, guided by individual wisdom. Malcolm X had a chaotic, opportunistic life of crime before he went to jail and joined the (also strict and separatist) Nation of Islam (NOI), but became influential not because he belonged to the NOI, but due to his strength of character, “charisma”, and shown and uttered wisdom. NOI members eventually turned against him, as is known, so “collectivistic group thinking” is not the way. Many criminals in recent times converted to Islam in prison – known in current times in England, for instance - possibly influenced by Malcolm X’s story, often even from non-Muslim backgrounds (e.g. Caribbean), but many of them lacked the personality to be anything more than “wannabe’s”, or even worse, continued with crime thereafter.

VERSATILE

Also an artist like Fantan Mojah clearly seemed to have an own free mind and strong personality, showing in his versatile songs and lyrics, including militant, socially critical, spiritual, emotional, and joyful – in other words broadly “human” - vibes, that resounded well with his and Reggae fans. For that reason, he had many “hit songs” in the Reggae scene, internationally..

LYRICS

Having mostly "conscious" lyrics, attacking injustice, poverty, "Babylon" or spiritual tunes (praising Jah), for good measure Fantan Mojah also made some nice, catchy love songs, often also making it "to the clubs and dances" as well (e.g. She Makes Me Feel So Nice).

Capleton was the one who more or less guided Fantan Mojah in the Reggae music industry, also giving him the name Fantan Mojah, after he embraced Rastafari. Before that Fantan (born Owen Moncrieffe) named himself Mad Killa, after artist Bounty Killer.

His "slave name" Moncrieffe sounds a bit "French", but is originally Scottish (region Perth) and Gaelic, pointing at the specific origins of the European family who once owned his family during slavery days, of course. In the British Caribbean about 70% of the slave owners originally came from England, and about 30% from either Scotland or Wales.

Fantan Mojah has a bit more love songs than his "mentor" (in part) Capleton, who has few. I thought once none, but in time I found out that also Capleton made some love songs. Of course their own choice, but perhaps no extreme is good: only lovey dovey songs? are there no social problems in this world?, or: no personal feelings or love songs? are you not a person of flesh and blood? The balance seemed in this regard okay with Fantan Mojah..

VOCAL STYLE

I personally like several songs of him, noting good musicianship (good Jamaican instrumentalists, including the drumming for a nice, danceable groove) – albeit often on known riddims - and catchy melodies, as well as intriguing, “wailing”, round and thunderous vocals with a unique energy, both for conscious tunes or occasional love songs. Songs with varying themes, from “Babylon a Murderer” to “When Will I See You Again”, therefore equally convinced.

Difficult to compare Fantan Mojah’s singing voice, though it has some similarities with Pressure Busspipe, or with new artists like Stranjah Miller. A slight “tunnel” feel, one might say.

His vocals can be seen as part of the “sing-jay” realm, increasing its popularity within Reggae since the 1990s: chorus melodic/sung, while the verses are dee-jayed/chatted/toasted more rhythmically. Fantan tended to vary melodically, though, even within such verses, also in “tempo” or pace. This added variation and intensity..

LEGACY

Songs that – due to good musicianship – never seemed to grow old, such as his most famous song Reggae Got Soul, which I heard many times in Reggae clubs (Café the Zen in Amsterdam, when it still existed, up to 2020), perhaps hundreds of times, but still I repeatedly enjoyed it. That is a sign of enduring quality.

I met Fantan Mojah in Café the Zen, Amsterdam (Netherlands) in 2017, when he gave there a small-scale “club concert, a kind of intimate one among fans, which was nice as change from the big venues (e.g. Melkweg or Paradiso in Amsterdam) where thousands of people fit, or on festivals. The intimacy gave a “community sense” to the songs we knew – I would even say: more meaning - , differing from the anonymity or (in part) commercial artifice of big venue-concerts. Money talks too loud, there.

After this Café the Zen “club” show in Amsterdam, he stuck around in Café the Zen and partied along with us to Reggae from a selecta/deejay played, and took photos with audience members. Nice vibes. (photo underneath: I-man with Fantan Mojah in 2017)

I saw shows by him in bigger venues too, such as the Melkweg, Amsterdam. The last time being in January 2025, with a good show, with some of his classic songs and club hits coming across well, with not too much interruptions or “flow breaks”. Little did we know this would be his last concert there, though it was known he had health issues.

Fantan Mojah leaves behind several good and catchy Reggae songs with good, positive messages. The dee-jay/selecta “tributes” and mixes made of his songs recently appearing online (e.g. on YouTube) testify to that. Also an older one, at https://youtu.be/fj77YLxJ5rM?si=aGyFTY1wopGqd4cf , by DjEasy mixmaster, I can recommend.

I have no specific favourite songs of Fantan Mojah as such, though among them would probably be Tell Lie Pon Rasta and Murderer, both engaging in their Rasta militancy and tune-wise, or the vocally varied Jah Time. More songs I like, though.
Rest In Eternal Power.

Marcuse, de Eendimensionale Mens, en deze tijd : een perspectief

Het boek 'De Eendimensionale Mens' is een filosofisch werk uit 1964 door Herbert Marcuse, lid van de (blijkbaar) roemruchte Frankfurter Schule, binnen de filosofie. Marcuse was Joods-Duits (vandaar Frankfurt), die later in de VS ging wonen. Diens boek was historisch invloedrijk en had zelfs een “cult status” bij onder meer Flower Power adepten/aanhangers – die later in de 1960s opgang maakten -, begreep ik, waardoor ik het ook wilde lezen.

Het boek had ook een “linkse”, anti-kapitalische teneur vernam ik her en der, wat mij ook niet afstootte. Ik had geen vooringenomen ideologie die dat niet toe liet, zeg maar.

Ik trof een debat op YouTube, ooit gehouden in de Balie – debatcentrum te Amsterdam -, in 2023, dat ging over dat werk, met interpretaties van andere Nederlandse filosofen van Marcuse’s werk, met name het boek de Eendimensionale Mens, dat ik enkele jaren terug al las, en inmiddels deels “herlees”. Dat debat was naar aanleiding van een “nieuwe vertaling” – volgens panelleden een toegankelijker vertaling (naar het Nederlands) – dan die veel eerdere Nederlandse vertaling welke ik nog lees (uit 1968). Het gaat echter uiteindelijk om de inhoud.

Terwijl ik dit schrijf, vindt het WK voetbal van 2026 in VS-Mexico-Canada plaats, dat ik eigenlijk ook wil volgen. Ik heb toch iets met voetbal – als sport - , wat ik nog steeds kan combineren met mijn intellectueel zelfbeeld, ondanks de loze commercie en het primaire tribalisme wat er ook bij voetbal op dat niveau is. In mijn leven volgde het historisch op elkaar. Ik was als kind best een fanatiek voetballertje, volgde competities, las de Voetbal International (deels), en verdiepte me zelfs in speltactieken.

Trainen vond ik wat saaier, en toen ik brildragend werd (rond mijn 12e) werd het voetballen zelf lastiger, en ging ik eigenlijk heel organisch en terloops meer lezen, en werd lid van de openbare bibliotheek. Vreemd genoeg legde ik sindsdien een vergelijkbaare mate van passie voor lezen, over met name landen en culturen, voor de dag, als daarvoor met voetbal. Zo fascineerde mij rond mijn 11e al het land Tsjaad in Afrika: deels in de Sahara, culturele en etnische verschillen tussen noord en zuid. Ik werd hoe dan ook een boekenwurm, direct nadat ik een tijd een “voetballer” was.

Met technische – of “beta” - onderwerpen had ik minder, dus vrijwillig ging ik vooral menselijke geschiedenis, samenleving, en cultuur, bestuderen, en dat wereldwijd, soms gespecialiseerd.

Bij dit alles bleef ik voetbal als sport een leuk vermaak vinden, en mogelijk meer dan dat. Mogelijk dient het psychologisch als “tegenwicht” voor lezen, denken, studie en diepzinnig, abstract doen, naar het echt tastbare, fysieke, en concrete – directe actie en reactie – van het voetbal. Van theorie naar praktijk.., zoiets.. Als een rare, soms ongemakkelijke variant van “yin en yang” uit het Chinese Taoïsme.

TAAIE KOST

Op dit moment loopt dat voor mij wat ongemakkelijk door elkaar heen, tijdens dit WK voetbal van 2026. Herbert Marcuse’s boek de Eendimensionale Mens is interessant en – vind ik – treffend over de Westerse samenleving (al in 1964!), maar is qua schrijfstijl – taalkundig ook – “taaie kost”. Lange zinnen, met veel bijzinnen en verwijzingen. Het vocabulaire vond ik niet ingewikkeld, met mijn woordenschat (laten we zeggen HBO en hoger). Herlezen voor goed begrip bleek echter wel vaak nodig, vooral door de lange zinsbouw. Ik herlees het boek nu na jaren, en moet nog steeds zinnen soms herlezen bij het herlezen.

Ook tijdens dat debat in de Balie in 2023, welke ik noemde, erkende men dat het boek “taaie kost” was. Het is diep filosofisch en vol met lange, gecondenseerde, betekenisrijke zinnen.

Wel wat diepgaander en veeleisender, dus, dan voetbal kijken op het scherm, in essentie naar 20 mannen die achter een bal aan rennen, en een land vertegenwoordigen.

“Taai” of ingewikkeld om te lezen, Marcuse’s boek, maar uiteindelijk vervullend en leerzaam, ervoer ik. Marcuse’s punten worden uiteindelijk duidelijk, nadat hij eigenlijk – via aanvullende voorbeelden – in herhaling valt over een aantal thema’s.. met heel wat complexe zinnen. Het punt is op een gegeven moment wel duidelijk, al blijft het interessant omdat hij verschillende maatschappelijke aspecten en ontwikkelingen van toen (1964) bespreekt, die zeker vandaag de dag nog relevant zijn: zowel economische als culturele aspecten.

De ondertitel “Studies over de ideologie van de hoog-industriële samenleving” geeft helder de focus en context aan van Marcuse’s essay, namelijk van een steeds meer geïndustrialiseerde samenleving, inclusief automatisering, en een belangrijke rol voor technologie.

Zijn boek/essay De Eendimensionale Mens bekritiseert eigenlijk het toen (door technologie) moderne kapitalisme, vooral waar het zich totalitair uitbreidt naar “cultuur” en de “vrije tijd”, terwijl Karl Marx het nog vooral over arbeiders en productieverhoudingen had.

INKAPSELING

Marcuse heeft het er eigenlijk over hoe gewone burgers, en die arbeiders, betrokken worden bij dat exploiterende kapitalisme via consumentisme: dingen kunnen kopen, en de schijn-vrijheid van in je behoeften voorzien door te kopen producten, of diensten. Je zo ook als individu zogenaamd te laten gelden, een identiteit te vormen. Met technologische vooruitgang, en via taal, wordt dat consumentisme zo vanzelfsprekend gemaakt, totdat mensen het systeem niet meer bevragen omdat ze “ingekapseld” zijn, ook in hun vrije tijd. Aldus het betoog van Marcuse.

Inderdaad valt het woord “ingekapseld” veel tijdens het genoemde debat in De Balie over Marcuse’s boek. Ontwapening door inkapseling via consumentisme.

Me dunkt nog steeds actueel, in 2026, stel ik. Die voetbalwedstrijden van het WK (nu van 2026) worden onderbroken en omgeven door reclames, waardoor het voetbal een bijzaak lijkt. Hetzelfde is gebeurd met ander “vermaak”, namelijk het Internet en YouTube, als je gewoon even zonder speciaal (te betalen!) abonnement wat liedjes wil luisteren, of clips wil bekijken.

Denkelijk is “top” voetbal nog veel commerciëler dan “pop” muziek: ergens kun je nog wel op YouTube bijvoorbeeld fijne historische muziekconcerten vinden van, bijvoorbeeld, Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, of Nirvana. Historische voetbalwedstrijden die voetballiefhebbers begrijpelijkerwijs nog wel zouden willen zien (finale WK 1970: Brazilië – met Pelé! – tegen Italië) kun je daarentegen wel vergeten: afgeschermd vanwege commerciële belangen.

Al deze steeds hinderlijkere commerciële afbakeningen en reclame’s bij bij de massa relatief populaire (passieve) cultuurbeleving anno 2026, illustreren goed dat Marcuse’s De Eendimensionale Mens uit 1964 nog steeds actueel is, en waarachtige tendensen aanwees, die zelfs toenamen. De inkapseling door het systeem, “the powers that be”, van het gewone volk, inclusief de arbeiders, van het hele leven, en niet alleen “werk”.

Panelleden in het voornoemde De Balie debat uit 2023 – Marian Donner en (min of meer) “Marcuse kenner” filosoof Thijs Lijster – vonden het inderdaad ook nog in deze tijd actueel.

Zo las ik dat boek ook. Vanuit mijn persoonlijke levenservaring, en mijn perspectief. Ideologische vooringenomenheid verstart – en beperkt – het vrije denken. Zo schijnt Marcuse – evenals anderen van de Frankfurter Schule – zowel door Karl Marx als Sigmund Freud beïnvloed te zijn, en inderdaad noemt Marcuse ze ook in De Een-dimensionale mens, evenwel zeker niet als dogmatische richtlijn: hij blijft als individu zelf redeneren, wat het ook leesbaarder maakt voor mij als individu.

SEKSUALITEIT

Behalve over arbeidsverhoudingen, technologische vooruitgang, taal als manipulatiemiddel, en vrije tijd, bespreekt Marcuse ook een specifiek onderwerp als seksualiteit. Voorspelbaar komt daar Freud om de hoek kijken, maar ook wat dat betreft denkt Marcuse echt zelf, en praat niemand na. De passages over seksualiteit vond ik tot de interessantste behoren, want “raak”, maar ook zelfs mijn “ogen openend”, of in ieder geval helder beschrijvend wat ik ergens al vermoedde.

Zijn beschrijving van hoe het “libido” door laten we zeggen “de elite” ingekapseld is in het systeem van technologische, economische vooruitgang vond ik interessant en herkenbaar. Taboes vielen weg in de 1960s, men mocht vrijer de seksualiteit beleven, maar dat bracht volgens Marcuse ook een “desublimatie”, een “onttovering” ervan teweeg. Via onder meer de porno-industrie werd seks derhalve genormaliseerd als deel van het systeem, en elke “vlucht” of geestelijke rebellie via “eros” of seks, tegen de bestaande verhoudingen of machten, zo handig door machthebbers onschadelijk gemaakt.

Om uit het boek te citeren (vertaling 1968):

“De technische vooruitgang en het comfortabeler leven maken het mogelijk, dat er in het geheel van produktie en ruil systematische libidineuse componenten worden opgenomen. Hoezeer het opwekken van de instinct-energie ook onder controle gebeurt (soms zelfs in die mate dat het een wetenschappelijk management van de libido wordt); hoezeer het ook dienst doet als stut voor de status quo – het blijft bevredigend voor de gemanipuleerde individuen, net zoals het leuk is met een buitenboordmotor te spelen, de gemotoriseerde grasmaaier te besturen en hard te rijden in een auto”..

Ware woorden, lijkt mij, al heb ik zelf met de laatste activiteiten te weinig ervaring om die met seks te kunnen vergelijken, haha.

Ook een voorbeeld van de vaak wat complexe, gelaagde zinsbouw in het boek, maar zeker een zinnige analyse.

TAAL

Veel van het boek gaat over hoe “taal” ook manipulerend gebruikt wordt, bij die “inkapseling” van het volk (of: de arbeiders): voormalige tegenstellingen worden opgeheven en verwarrend gemengd, ook voor militaire, politieke, of bedrijfsdoelen, waardoor alternatieve denkwijzen als het ware door de taal onzichtbaar worden, en de ware aard verduisterd. Dit dient het “operationalisme”, zoals Marcuse het noemt, van die machthebbers. Nog een citaat uit het boek, wellicht nog wat ingewikkelder dan die eerdere die ik gaf:

“..Hier brengt het functionaliseren van de taal een verkorting van betekenis tot uiting, die ook politiek gezien van belang is. De namen van dingen zijn niet alleen ‘een aanwijzing voor hun wijze van functioneren’, maar hun (feitelijke) wijze van functioneren bepaalt en ‘omsluit’ ook de betekenis van het ding, door andere wijzen van functioneren uit te sluiten. Het zelfstandig naamwoord beheerst op een autoritaire en totalitaire manier de zin, en de zin wordt een verklaring die aanvaard moet worden; het verzet zich tegen een bewijs, voorbehoud, ontkenning van zijn gecodificeerde en uitdrukkelijke betekenis..”

Een hele mond vol, inderdaad. Met flink wat even complexe zinnen herhaalt Marcuse ditzelfde punt in dit boek – mogelijk wat te vaak - , maar dat maakt het nog niet onwaar.

Marcuse heeft daarmee naar mijn mening zeker een punt, en een die vandaag de dag nog zeker actueel is. Manipulatie via taal is zo oud als de mensheid, en manipulatie via het geschreven woord zo oud als het schrift en de boekdrukkunst.

Ik betoog zelfs (zong ik zo in songteksten van mij) dat taal vooral gereedschap om te liegen biedt, voor een groot deel althans.

Dit slaat los van meer pragmatische, direct-praktische woorden of termen in de taal die geen ontplooiing van hun betekenis nodig hebben, zoals Marcuse zelf ook erkent, maar daarbuiten biedt “gangbare taal” genoeg manipulatie en “propaganda” mogelijkheden, voor de commercie, politiek, macht, voor verhulling van onrecht, voor verhulling van machtsverschil, etcetera.

Deze inkapseling via taal en consumentisme – inspelend op menselijke behoeften – leidt dan tot een “gelukkig” maar “vals" bewustzijn, volgens Marcuse, bij burgers, als enig overblijvende dimensie van de moderne technologische rationaliteit. Die ene dimensie.

TRANSCENDENTIE EN SUBLIMATIE

In die technologische rationaliteit is dan zogenaamd het “obscurantisme” overwonnen, maar ook de “transcendentie” uit de werkelijkheid gehaald, waardoor de eendimensionale samenleving is bereikt.

Impliciet stelt Marcuse dus dat de wereld – of de mensheid – daarentegen die transcendentie nodig heeft, alsmede “sublimatie”.

Sigmund Freud zag in “kunst” een sublimatie van meer primaire driften (seks willen, met name), maar als die primaire driften dus (economisch, commercieel) ingekapseld zijn, zoals Marcuse stelt, wordt die kunst ook minder rebels en transcenderend.

Ook dat is anno 2026 nog relevant, en naar mijn inschatting bewaarheid in de steeds commerciëlere pop-cultuur en populaire muziek, met steeds minder en gemarginaliseerde maatschappijkritiek of “inhoud”, behalve in sommige genres die erom bekend staan (Reggae, “conscious” hip hop), maar die meestal ook niet commercieel succesvol zijn, en in niches blijven. Hetzelfde geldt voor literatuur, waarbij voorspelbaarheid, bevestiging, en goedkope en veelal verkeerd gerichte “identiteitspolitiek” beter verkoopt dan wezenlijke systeem- of maatschappijkritiek. Hetzelfde geldt voor andere kunstvormen.

Transcendentie is te vertalen als “overstijging”. Behalve maatschappij- of systeemkritiek kan dat ook een “bird’s view” of “uitzoomen” betekenen in een meer spirituele zin: buiten de dingen staan om ze te beschouwen, echt erbuiten staan. Ook dat is er steeds minder in de kunsten, maar ook in zogenaamd “linkse” kringen, of andere naar eigen zeggen kritische bewegingen.

De Balie had als debatcentrum ooit een “links”, vrijdenkend imago, totdat bleek dat bepaalde thema’s die vanuit de gevestigde politiek aangezwengeld en gepromoot werden – veelal op dubieuze, gebrekkige gronden – niet betwijfeld werden, en men “meelulde” om het op zijn Hollands te zeggen: het coronabeleid, het klimaatbeleid, LGBTI problematiek, en zelfs de NAVO (en het militair-industrieel complex) – toch ooit een populaire kop van jut voor “Links” – werden en worden gespaard, mogelijk vanwege financiering door die NAVO van De Balie, zoals een gedurfd interviewende Linkse podcaster (Left Laser) aantoonde. Corruptie, eigenlijk dus, en wat men eerder “Rechts” zou noemen..

Illustratief had men het bij het debat over Marcuse’s boek dat plaats vond in 2023 (na al die corona onzin dus) en diens huidige relevantie, alleen over het “klimaat” als probleem, en een vage maar lekker links-lijkende actiegroep als Extinction Rebellion.

Er was niet alleen onzin: ook het neoliberalisme werd meer terecht ook bekritiseerd tijdens dat debat, dat ik al met al wel okee vond. Marian Donner heeft leuke denkbeelden, en zij en Thijs Lijster vatten de kern van het boek grotendeels goed samen.

Het is daarnaast aan iedereen om Marcuse’s bevindingen toe te passen hoe men wil. Als je echt in klimaatopwarming wilt blijven geloven, dan pas je Marcuse’s stellingen daarop toe, bijvoorbeeld; nogmaals het verstarde en beperkte van ideologie. Mensen kunnen helaas maar al te makkelijk alles naar hun ideologie en vooroordelen toe redeneren.

Ik geloof wel in het bestaan van milieuvervuiling, maar niet zozeer in klimaatopwarming, omdat er eenvoudigweg geen wetenschappelijk bewijs voor is (hoeveel ik ook zocht), en het klimaatbeleid “the powers that be” wel heel goed uit komen: zo hoeven ze niet echt iets aan milieuproblemen door grote bedrijven te doen, en die machten kunnen ze zo ontzien. Mogelijk is dat ook de reden waarom de multinational Shell al vanaf het begin dus bij die klimaatdiscussie betrokken is.. Dubieus..

Dat idee van “inkapseling” is dus een centraal thema van het boek, waarvoor Marcuse ook andere, min of meer synonieme begrippen als “assimilerend” gebruikt.

ONONTGONNEN TERREINEN

Volgens Karl Marx zou het kapitalisme ten onder gaan aan zijn eigen contradicties, Rosa Luxemburg vulde echter aan dat het kapitalisme iets onontgonnens buiten zichzelf nodig heeft om toch (parasitair) te overleven, zijnde bijvoorbeeld koloniën in de tropen en hun grondstoffen, terwijl Marcuse dat “onontgonnen terrein” in de privé-sfeer, de “vrije tijd” van de arbeiders (“het volk”), ook in het Westen, zag. Dat hele leven van arbeiders en burgers zou dus ook geassimileerd worden in het kapitalistisch systeem, middels consumptie, ideologie, en taal/propaganda.

We kunnen echter nog verder gaan, en die “inkapseling” gaat in mijn analyse historisch – thans (sinds de 1980s) - door naar andere onontgonnen terreinen. De Trias Politica werd ontheiligd, met name sinds de opkomst van het neoliberalisme, sinds ongeveer 1980: staatsgesteund kapitalisme door grote bedrijven. Dit was na Marcuse’s tijd, maar zette de lijn van “inkapseling” voort richting politiek (door economische machtsverhoudingen). Politiek werd steeds meer ingekapseld door “big business” en multinationals.

In lijn daarmee is een nieuwere inkapseling gaande, die met name tijdens de Covid periode pijnlijk zichtbaar werd. Wederom na Marcuse’s tijd, maar dezelfde tendens. Zelfs zogenaamd anti-systeem “links”, en activistische in naam anti-overheids en anti-big business organisaties bleken opvallend trouwe volgers van overheidsbeleid, zelfs als met zoveel losse eindjes en ongerijmdheden als dat wereldwijde Covid-beleid vanaf 2020, of als het verhaal – hoe onbewezen ook – dramatisch en “links-activistisch” klinkt, zoals de grotendeels verzonnen klimaatalarmisme hype.

Het etnische, gender, queer, en andere “identiteit” denken werd volgens meerdere auteurs (waaronder Ewald Engelen) gestimuleerd door het neoliberalisme sinds 1980, om af te leiden van klasse en machtsverschil. Ook duidelijk een voorbeeld van inkapseling binnen het systeem waarbij een identiteit nog steeds binnen de bestaande machtsverhoudingen van het moderne kapitalisme operereert, vaak met dezelfde terminologie, en dus onschadelijk, ongevaarlijk blijft.

Subsidiestromen van de overheid spelen hierbij een rol, maar net zo goed meer onbewust een totalitaire ideologie, waarbuiten het leven moeilijk wordt gemaakt. Dezelfde “ideologie” waar Marcuse over sprak, maar dat als monster ook steeds meer opslokte, inclusief dus nu zelfs kapitalisme-kritische organisaties.

Debatcentrum De Balie zelf illustreert die inkapseling, onder meer met dwaze afdwalingen richting “klimaat” en “extinction rebellion” zoals tijdens dat 2023 debat, gecombineerd met de bevinding dat de NAVO De Balie financierde, ter pacificatie van eventuele kritiek. Debatten – hoe wellicht divers qua standpunten ook - blijven dan binnen het systeem en de bestaande machtsverhoudingen. Het is feitelijk een subtiele censuur.

Het komt mij voor dat Marcuse zeker nog relevant is in deze tijd, maar dan met name gezien de inkapseling van politiek en activistische tegenspraak in de laatste decennia, chronologisch volgend op eerst het inpassen van de arbeiders – en hun privé-leven – binnen de ideologie van de op consumptie gerichte hoog-industriële kapitalistiche samenleving.

Daarop - met name sinds het neoliberalisme - volgde dus die inkapseling van “tegen-geluiden” en anti-systeem activisten, waardoor het nog totalitairder werd dan het al was. Daarbij kwam ook censuur, in verschillende vormen. Bij propaganda hoort immers ook censuur.

Het Covid en “klimaat” beleid zoals dat in Nederland gevoerd werd liet een geslaagde “ inkapseling” van activistische organisaties, zelfs de wat radicaal-linksere milieu-organisaties, of wat linksere politieke partijen die eerder kritisch waren op het systeem (SP, GroenLinks, Dierenpartij).

Met geld kun je veel kopen en “inkapselen”, een toenemende tendens waar Marcuse dus terecht op wees.

UITWEG?

Hoe komen we hier uit, uit die totalitaire “inkapseling”?, zoals Marcuse die beschreef, was een interessante vraag aan het einde van het debat in De Balie. Ook een moeilijke vraag.

Een pasklaar antwoord anders dan als een radicalinski “dit systeem moet vallen” zeggen (wel een nieuw begin, maar mogelijk ook onrust en chaos met oorlog), heb ik uiteraard ook niet. Groeiend bewustzijn is in ieder geval een goed begin.

Een bezwaar wat ik nog wel maken kan tegen Marcuse’s redenering is dat hij wat te simplistisch veronderstelt dat ieder mens als 'n passieve robot mee gaat in die “inkapseling” door machthebbers in het systeem via taal trucjes, onderwijs, (politieke) manipulatie, consumentisme, inspelen op je behoeften, propaganda en censuur, en dergelijke.

Veel mensen, ook laagopgeleide mensen, hebben toch nog een bepaald gezond verstand, een oer-intuïtie, of bewustzijn, dat er iets niet klopt: dat bedrijven producten aan je willen verkopen, je geld willen, dat politici liegen, machthebbers die macht willen houden. Dat wordt soms als “populisme” weg gezet, maar als het zich niet richt op verkeerde zondebokken (migranten, bijvoorbeeld) – of verblind is door ideologie – zit daar wel degelijk een volkse wijsheid in, die men ook wel “wisdom of the crowds” noemt. Mensen aan de onderkant staan toch iets losser in het systeem dan hoger opgeleide ambtenaren, of goed verdienende “account managers” in commerciële bedrijven, met voorspoedige carrières.

Zeker, velen van “het gewone volk” doen mee met die “passieve consumptie”, of laten zich ook in de maling nemen door politici of het hele systeem, maar hun belangen zijn minder verbonden aan dat systeem. Dat geeft hoop voor een groeiend bewustzijn en een “grotere weigering” waar men het ook in ’t debat van De Balie over had, en ook de naam van een werk van panellid Marian Donner ( ‘De Grote Weigering’).

Mensen proberen in zo’n totalitair systeem altijd hun eigen, semi-vrije draai te vinden, iets van vrije wil te behouden, als het moet verhuld. Dat kent men ook van totalitaire samenlevingen/dictaturen, waarin men zich weinig aantrekt van een alomtegenwoordige en opdringerige overheid, hoe dwingend aanwezig ook.

Ik merkte dat bij mijn Spaanse familie onder de Franco dictatuur in Spanje (1939-1975), waarvan de meesten geen “politieke dieren” waren, maar zichzelf veelal wel links of democratisch vonden.. en die Franco en zijn regime maar probeerden te negeren.

Hetzelfde is bekend van andere dictaturen of totalitaire samenlevingen, soms zelfs met een sterk gepropageerde ideologie. Als de ideologie een grote groep aanspreekt, veelal omdat het ”slim” appeleert aan basale, aanwezige driften (tribaal, competitie, overleving, oorlog, raciaal), zal het meer draagvlak onder een volk vinden, maar toch ook niet helemaal.

Via inspelen op behoeften en dat “prettig verdovende” “gelukkig” of “vals” bewustijn via welvaart en consumptie – zoals Marcuse betoogt - is dat passieve draagvlak er ook, net zo als “raciale superioriteit” aansprak bij een deel van de Duitsers onder de Nazi’s (en eerder bij Britten en andere Europeanen in de koloniale tijd), of Italiaanse trots bij Italianen onder Mussolini, goed georganisserde staatsverzorging in communistische landen (ook verdovend, wellicht), of religieuze superioriteitswaan en tribalisme bij radicaal-Islamitische regimes.

Toenemend bewustzijn is de manier om een dergelijk pervers draagvlak – gebaseerd op illusies en propaganda – te ondermijnen of af te laten kalven, vooral als duidelijk wordt hoeveel slachtoffers dat totalitarianisme heeft, hoeveel mensenrechten het schendt, hoezeer het vrijheid en geluk – en gelijkwaardigheid – voor de meeste mensen als individu beperkt, als men maar voorbij particuliere deelbelangetjes kijkt: als man heb je het wat makkelijker onder de Taliban of in Soedan, Saoedi Arabië, of Iran, als rijke kapitalist in dit systeem, als partijlid in dictaturen, etcetera. Degenen die de klappen opvangen, die lijden, zijn “de anderen”, de zwakkeren. Jammerlijk ontbreekt solidariteit daarmee nog teveel.

Een ander kritiekpunt(je) op Marcuse’s stelling is dat hij de “passiviteit” van die inkapseling ook overdrijft in de zin dat hij lijkt te vergeten dat er ook “welbegrepen eigenbelang” bestaat, met gevestigde belangen.

Mensen uit welvarende families in big business, of met politieke macht – de “elite” -, weten heel goed dat de taal manipulerend werkt en van die gelaagde inkapseling van arbeiders door economie en technologie in het moderne kapitalisme (nu: neoliberalisme), en steunen dat omdat ze weten dat zij er goed uit komen, uit die ongelijkheid. Heel wat mensen steunen daarom bewust die “ideologie” , waar Marcuse het over heeft. Ze doen er eerder bewust dan passief aan mee. De passief-meedoende massa is voor dat systeem echter nog steeds nodig, en daar zit mogelijk een kiem van verandering, verzet, weigering.. met andere woorden: een uitweg uit die totalitaire “inkapseling” in die eendimensionale samenleving.

Een systeem gebaseerd op exploitatie van een meerderheid kan immers niet voor eeuwig stand houden, en die andere “dimensies” zullen er toch bij komen. De mens is immers – betoog ik - van nature ook niet “een-dimensionaal”.

Marcuse wees op het belang van transcendentie, ofwel “overstijging”, dus het herwinnen van echt vrij levensgeluk, eigen genot, via vrijheid, van individuele mensen. Ook betreurde hij – in zekere zin – de desublimatie (“onttovering”) van kunst, en andere menselijke gedragingen, door die technologische vooruitgang. Mogelijk biedt de “kunst” - of breder: cultuur - die nog niet ingekapseld is, via maatschappijkritiek of meer “spiritueel”, een uitlaatklep, maar ook wie weet een vehikel voor dat toenemende bewustzijn en geestelijke en daarna fysieke bevrijding van de onderdrukte mensen in deze wereld. Een internationale, en multiculturele dimensie lijken mij daarbij onontbeerlijk.

SAMENVATTEND

Mijn perspectief op en mening over Herbert Marcuse’s boek/essay De Eendimensionale Mens staat geenszins diametraal tegenover wat panelleden in dat filosofisch De Balie debat erover zeiden, zijnde Marian Donner en Thijs Lijster. Met hen was ik het regelmatig eens. Wel kon ik het meende ik aanvullen vanuit mijn perspectief en ervaring. Dat in De Balie, gecorrumpeerd door NAVO inmenging als we Left Laser mogen geloven, de door mij geconstateerde nieuwste “inkapselingen” van de politieke en linkse activistische tegenkrachten slechts mondjesmaat genoemd worden, maar grotendeels vermeden als thema, was te verwachten vanuit schuld- en/of schaamtegevoelens. Dan moet ik er maar mee komen.

Het blijft echter mijn persoonlijke mening, maar wel een “gedocumenteerde” mening gebaseerd op degelijke informatiebronnen en historische kennis, zeg ik er ter mijn verdediging bij.

Anderen, in Nederland en daarbuiten, filosofen of niet, zelfverklaard “links” of zelfverklaard “rechts”, hebben weer een ander perspectief op Marcuse’s werk en de huidige relevantie ervan. Dat betekent dat het wel invloed had, volgens sommigen goed, volgens anderen slecht, maar aantoonbaar in niet alleen het publieke debat, maar ook op universiteiten (zegt men), en op Flower Power en andere sociale bewegingen sinds de 1960s en 1970s, in meerdere Westerse landen. Rechtse (zelfverklaard “rechts” bedoel ik daarmee) ideologen bekritiseren het “cultuur marxisme” waar Marcuse en de Frankfurter Schule voor zouden staan, en dat universiteiten “links” gemaakt zou hebben, maar waarom dat zo slecht is wordt voor mij niet altijd duidelijk. Het lijkt mij ook onwaar of minstens overdreven.

Bovendien.. waarom zou de klassenstrijd geen invloed kunnen hebben op de cultuur? Dat lijkt mij zelfs realistisch als analyse. Het is geenszins een oproep tot “marxistisch geplande cultuur”, wat Marcuse nergens doet of betoogt: hij geeft slechts zijn analyse. “Denkrichtingen”, zo je wilt.

Deze, bovenstaande, post was weer mijn analyse van Marcuse’s analyse, waarbij ik “sturende” ideologie en vooringenomenheden er buiten probeerde te houden, maar wat meeging met Marcuse’s “denkrichting”. Ik observeer hierbij naar mijn idee slechts wat machthebbers in deze tijd doen ten opzichte van arbeiders/het volk, in nominale democratische landen als Nederland, en hoe totalitair dat eigenlijk is, en steeds meer wordt.

Marcuse's boek bood mij daarvoor een handvat, een "denkrichting" inderdaad, die ik wel zelf verder doordacht.