Berlin choirs want to perform Udo Lindenberg’s “Special Train to Pankow” without the “I-word”. Reactions range from surprise to total incomprehension. The organizer, the Humboldt Forum in Berlin, and the Minister of Culture Claudia Roth were also criticized.
A choral event at Berlin’s Humboldt Forum is making headlines across the country, as is a debate about language norms, ethnic minorities and alleged experiences of discrimination.
The event is called “Multi-Voiced 2024” and Udo Lindenberg’s hit “Sonderzug nach Pankow” will also be performed there, but without the word “Oberindianer”, which the singer almost used to describe the GDR head of state Erich Honecker in 1983 the title was already lovingly caricatured. Members of a total of eight choirs will instead use the word “Ober-I” (with long intonation on the “I”) during their performance, like this Humboldt Forum WELT confirmed on Wednesday. The decision was made after an internal debate and at the express request of the singers.
The report received many responses across Germany, but was mostly met with a lack of understanding. Now the first politicians have also spoken out, including FDP politician Wolfgang Kubicki. It showed annoyed with “Bild”: “How uncultured is it to arbitrarily censor the lyrics of a song that is more than four decades old and thus place Udo Lindenberg’s art on the same level as the grave crimes of American colonial history?” Especially an “institution like the Humboldt Forum, which is generously funded.” with state resources,” must, Kubicki continues, but they have their own interest in ensuring that the artistic freedom envisaged by the Basic Law “is protected and anything that seeks to undermine this ironclad principle must be fought.”
Kubicki also invokes political consequences. He stressed that the Humboldt Forum receives public money from the federal government and the state of Berlin and is also under the responsibility of Deputy Minister of Culture Claudia Roth. “I expect a clear reaction from Culture Minister Roth that in our country the freedom of art is still defended,” said Wolfgang Kubicki. The green politician initially did not want to comment on the issue to “Bild”.
The Berlin CDU believes the trial is “forgotten by history”
The CDU in Berlin described the trial in the “Bild” as “grotesque” and “forgotten of history”. General Secretary Ottilie Klein said: “A song is now being censored in the former home of the Palace of the Republic, the lyrics of which made fun of the dictatorial regime of the SED. A song that Udo Lindenberg couldn’t sing in the GDR in 1983.”
GDR historian Hubertus Knabe, on the other hand, declared to “Bild” quite fundamentally: “The Humboldt Forum is increasingly turning into a radical left-wing sect. It is time that those who promote and pay for this orientation are removed,” said the long-time director of the Berlin-Hohenschönhausen Memorial.
In 1983 Lindenberg with his “Special Train to Pankow” appealed to the head of state of the GDR Erich Honecker to allow him to perform in the GDR. The rock star sings in his song, among other things: “I have to clear something up with your Indian head. I have a talent for yodeling and want to play with a band.
The organizers also admitted the clear reference to time in their statement. “Although the word in the song ‘Sonderzug nach Pankow’ had a metaphorical connotation when it was written in 1983 – and at the time referred to Erich Honecker in a satirical and critical way – we are also aware that the word reflects the violence resonated by the history of colonization of indigenous peoples,” states the Humboldt Forum Foundation. The word is perceived by many indigenous people and visitors as discriminatory and racist, it said.
Udo Lindenberg himself has not yet commented publicly on the controversy; a WELT question remained unanswered.
For the show series “Vielstimmig 2024” the choirs were asked to collaborate with the Humboldt Forum. The focus is on the special exhibition “Over and over again. The Palace of the Republic is present.” The shows are scheduled for November 16th and 17th, entry is free.
scrap
Interview Title: Navigating Musical Heritage and Cultural Sensitivity
Interviewer (Time.news Editor): Welcome to our special segment on cultural expressions and their reception in contemporary society. Today, we’re joined by Dr. Anna Richter, a cultural historian with expertise in post-war German music and its socio-political implications. Dr. Richter, thank you for being here.
Dr. Anna Richter: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to discuss such a timely topic.
Editor: So, the recent decision by Berlin choirs to perform Udo Lindenberg’s “Sonderzug nach Pankow” without the controversial “I-word” has sparked considerable debate. How do you interpret this move?
Dr. Richter: It’s certainly significant. The choice to modify the lyrics reflects a growing sensitivity toward language and the impact it has on various communities, particularly in light of Germany’s complex history. While Udo Lindenberg’s song was a critique of the GDR regime, times have changed, and so has the cultural climate.
Editor: Some, like politician Wolfgang Kubicki, have framed this as censorship, arguing it undermines artistic freedom. What are your thoughts on that perspective?
Dr. Richter: Censorship is a loaded term. It implies outright suppression, rather than modification for sensitivity. Art and culture evolve, and artists, as well as institutions, are increasingly aware of their social responsibility. However, I understand the concern – Lindenberg’s lyrics were a form of resistance and humor at the time, and altering them can feel like an erasure of that history.
Editor: Critics have called the event “grotesque” and disconnected from history. What might their concerns reveal about our relationship with historical narratives?
Dr. Richter: The backlash often stems from a fear of losing a shared cultural heritage. Many believe that by altering historical works, we are altering historical truth. But our interpretations and presentations of the past must be dynamic. It’s not about forgetting history; it’s about reframing it to be inclusive and reflective of contemporary values.
Editor: The Humboldt Forum, the event’s organizer, has received criticism for this decision as well. What role do public institutions play in how cultural expressions are managed?
Dr. Richter: Public institutions like the Humboldt Forum are tasked with fostering cultural dialogue while being sensitive to the diverse voices within society. They must navigate competing interests: preserving artistic integrity while also being mindful of the diverse experiences of their audience. It’s a complex balance.
Editor: How might this event affect the future of similar artistic expressions?
Dr. Richter: It sets a precedent for how we engage with cultural works that have a problematic past. Future performances may see more interventions like this, which could be either a source of innovation or, conversely, lead to further polarization in cultural debates. It will be crucial for artists and institutions to communicate openly about their choices.
Editor: In light of these discussions, what can be done to ensure that artistic expression remains both free and respectful?
Dr. Richter: Open dialogue is key. Encouraging discussions about the implications of language and representation in art can help reach a consensus that honors both the artistic intent and the cultural sensitivities of today. It’s about creating spaces where conversations can flourish rather than silencing any voices.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Richter, for your insights on this complex topic. It’s evident that the relationship between art and societal values continues to evolve, prompting essential discussions about freedom, responsibility, and historical context.
Dr. Richter: Thank you! It’s essential we keep these conversations going, as they ultimately enrich our understanding of both art and culture.
Editor: And thank you to our readers for tuning in to this engaging conversation. As the debate continues, let us reflect on how we can honor our artistic heritage while fostering an inclusive future.