The campaign to save Bukowski's De Longpre bungalow (1 Viewer)

you're saying that financial incentive has a necessary corrupting influence.
Correct. Well, me and science and a million other people.

i'm saying that preservation and advocacy work necessarily stems from a real desire to effect a positive outcome on the city, the forest, wherever.
I think I said that too, re: the people behind Esotouric.

Where we seem to disagree is that you think one precludes the other, I don't. You can have a heartfelt, passionate interest in something and still be affected by outside influences.

Again, I hope the "save DeLongpre" efforts are successful.
 
Below is one proposal for a future use of the De Longpre property, assuming it receives landmark status and/or is purchased by someone sympathetic to preservation.

Hi Esotouric,

I'm a former regular around here and new to this thread, but the Bukowski landmark project is an interesting one because it goes against the grain of the usual "destroy and replace" mentality of L.A. where I lived for 19 years. I'd like to see it go through and I'm looking farther into the project to see what it'll take to get it passed. Whether the project sustains itself even if approved is something that will only be proven in time. But it interests me that it has a chance to either fail or succeed. I'm surprised the proposal has made it as far as it has. A bit of a miracle.

Best wishes to all.

Poptop
 
LA the palimpsest

Hi Poptop,

Thanks for the support and the interest. If you'd like to be part of the action as the project moves forward, there's room on the team. Just sign up at the website to get email alerts, or drop an email if you'd like to volunteer in any capacity. We welcome anyone who would like to be of help in any way.

I grew up in Hollywood, and the tear down mentality breaks my heart and scars my brain. A personal example: on returning to LA after six years away in the early '90s, I became so disoriented at the corner of La Brea and Sunset, not recognizing the buildings around me, that I thought I was losing my mind. But no, it's just that LA has lost any sense of place and history it ever had.

Not everything old is worth saving. Not everything new is bad. But some things simply cry out for preservation, and when that cry is loud enough, people will do something about it. Last year, quite unexpectedly, I found that the loss of the Union 76 Ball upset me. So I asked my husband to build a website, and we publicized our concerns. Thousands of people agreed, and were glad to have a place where they could make it known that they didn't want the Ball to go. And one year later, ConocoPhillips announced they had made a mistake and would preserve some orange Balls for museums, and manufacture red ones for some of their stations. I'm just glad we had the tools to provide a place where all those voices could be heard, and to amplify them.

Preservation is very different in the internet era. We can now mobilize and publicize threatened buildings almost instantly, gather supporters, communicate, strategize and sometimes, when we're very lucky and the cause is right, even win. It used to be a lot harder. We stand on the shoulders of giants, of martyrs.
 
5124 De Longpre - 2nd Round Hearing

Hi all,
I know not everyone is into this, but if you'd like to attend the 2nd Cultural Heritage Commission meeting for 5124 De Longpre, it will be next Thursday the 15th, in room 1010 of City Hall (200 Spring st.) at 10am.
They have toured the property, and will be evaluating how significant the residence was in relation to his writing career. In my opinion, they seem pretty supportive, but it always helps to have reinforcements. So, if you'd like to come, see you there...
-Lauren
 
East Hollywood is nothing to shout about. Most of the people there would probably swap places with you given a half a chance.
 
Landlord hopes to defame Bukowski by citing a discredited memoir

Okay, I know this has been alluded to in other threads, but I'm wondering if anyone can help me with what comments were actually made, and where they can be found....
 
oh Jesus....

Seriously though. They were made in the Ben Pleasants book "visceral Bukowski" and probably from an internet article before that. I believe that it has also been brought up in some of the biographies. There are two sides on this one. Either he was a Nazi sympathizer (which would not make much sense given what we know about him some and his close friendships in his later years) or that he was just playing it up to be confrontational.

Linda Bukowski has ferociously denied that he was a Nazi sympathiser. Of course, she has a vested interest, but that does not make what she says untrue. Also, people of that generation were not as politically correct as we are today. It was a different time and people that were a little anti-semetic may be seen as Nazi Sympathisers today, but that the time (pre WWII) most of the country had some degree of anti-Semitism in them.

I guess that no one knows 100% if he was or not, but I seriously doubt that he was. this is not because I think that he was a saint and certainly had his other faults, which is the subjejt of other threads...

Bill
 
are the building commission people worried that it will come out that they preserved the house of a famed nazi sympathizer?
 
Not that much of a stretch to find folks of that generation that weren't too upset over the Nazi program. All lot of those left alive would never admit it nowadays though. When we were kids I had a friend who was Italian, and lived in one of those tenement houses.

His grandfather and mother lived downstairs and the old man hung out in the cellar, making wine and taking radios apart. In one corner he had a picture of Mussolini on the wall, and refused to take it down despite the protestations of his daughters and sons. He'd curse 'em in Italian. We'd go down there and smoke dope and laugh at Il Duce every chance we got.
 
are the building commission people worried that it will come out that they preserved the house of a famed nazi sympathizer?

The lawyer for the owners is grasping at straws, and has decided to appeal that the owners (who are Jewish) can not possibly allow the home of a nazi sympathizer to be honored. Sigh.

However, The Department of Historic Preservation wants to landmark the property regardless, and sees this for what it is, which is essentially playing the "race card". They have told us to be prepared for that arguement though, which may sway the Commission, as their recommendations ultimately must come before City Council. Blah blah blah, anyway, I just wanted to be prepared for anything they might have up their sleeve.

That Hollywood Insider (or whatever it's called) article seems pretty poorly researched and sensationalized to me, so I'm not too concerned about that.
 
Check the story Politics, found in South Of No North.

At L.A. City College just before World War II, I posed as a Nazi. I hardly knew Hitler from Hercules and cared less. It was just that sitting in class and hearing all the patriots preach how we should go over and do the beast in, I grew bored. I decided to become the opposition. I didn't even bother to read up on Adolf, I simply spouted anything that I felt was evil or maniacal. However, I really didn't have any political beliefs.

To me, it was wonderful, pretending to be a Nazi, and then turning around and proclaiming that my constitutional rights were being violated.

I didn't care about the Communist menace or the Nazi menace.

I played Nazi for some time longer, while caring for neither the Nazis nor the Communists nor the Americans. But I was losing interest. In fact, just before Pearl Harbor I gave it up.
 
Some famous americans that maybe should not have their historic homes preserved:

Prominent "Owners" of other human beings:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson

Prominent Nazi Supporters

Henry Ford
Charles Lindburgh

These two above, especially Lindburgh were hard core. Lucky Lindy even had the German Cross pinned on his by none other than Goering.

I think that if we can preserve historc places of people that although considered heroes today, were really fucked up by today's morals (not that morality changes, just what is considered moral & immoral) then I think that Bukowski should not be condemned for what was possibly a strange stance to make when he was a teenager. His life and writing do not support that he was a Nazi Supporter or a follower of any political party or movement...

Bill

p.s. I talked with a British accent when I was a teenager. Why American boys do that, I don't know. By today's standards, I am a world-class douche. Hell, I was a douche back then too...
 
I'm going to talk in a British accent for the rest of the day!
Let's see how my wife likes that. :D
 
Carol and I went to an art show on Saturday night and spoke in British accents. It's really fun, everyone should try it.

If those lawyers pull out some isolated quote, ask them if that's all they could find in Bukowski's 50 or 60 books. That should shut them up.
 
Strayns speekn pomy like?
I dunthinkso!


But Nazi, yeah, we love em.

Oh'n'what the fuck is a new zealanda?!
Isn't that where hobits's come from?
 
The dude in Magnum PI that walked around all day dressed in a bathrobe spoke with a pretty good English accent. I believe he was Canadian

As for Bukowski and nazis.......nah, he didn't gibe a shit about them. And he was wiling to go to war so??
 
I'm not at home now, so can't look up the chapter in HAM ON RYE, where he goes about the Nazu-story (like in 'Politics', which hanksolo quoted). Can anyone look up the # of that chapter and post here for Hindinwood to find the reference?

It's these two sources that say it all.

On the Pleasants-claims:
When Linda King was in Germany she was asked about those accusations. (she knew Hank and Pleasants at the times before they split up.) She clearly stated: "I would not believe anything, that either of them says about the other."

One of his best friends, Neeli Cherkovski, was a Jew. (and also a homosexual.) - this doesn't sound very Nazi-like to me.

At the time when Buk was acting nazi at college, he just wanted to show opposition.
Had he lived in Germany at the same time he would've played the comunist.
He was simply demonstrating what he always did: the way of the individual - against authorities, against the masses.

in short: Bukowski had Nazis for breakfast if he wanted.
 
Ham On Rye Chapter 52

"It was intellectually popular and proper to be for going to war with Germany, to stop the spread of fascism. As for me, I had no desire to go to war to protect the life I had or what future I might have. I had no Freedom. I had nothing. With Hitler around, maybe I'd even get a piece of ass now and then and more than a dollar a week allowance. As far as I could rationalize, I had nothing to protect. Also, having been born in Germany, there was a natural loyalty and I didn't like to see the whole German nation, the people, depicted everywhere as monsters and idiots."

"Thus, I wasn't a Nazi by temperament or choice; the teachers more or less forced it on me by being so much alike and thinking so much alike and with their anti-German prejudice."

Anyway, that's the chapter you're looking for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After reading that chapter in Ham on Rye, and examining references to Jews in Bukowski's notes, it is my belief that he was a bundist. He never joined the nazi party, but he took pride in being born in Germany, and I believe he was conflicted about it. The world owes him a debt for his honesty about what he saw in relation to the nazis, ie, the part in ham on rye where he talks about the ridiculous nazi party meeting that he walked out on.
 
It looks like Bukowski was just trying to stir things up in school, just for sport. I guess we all try to stir it up every once in a while, just for sport.
 
Bukowski clearly stated that he was upset about the way Germans were being portrayed in the media and he had to try to defend his image. Isn't that how all polocks feel. IE Bukowski was a polock.
 
After reading that chapter in Ham on Rye, and examining references to Jews in Bukowski's notes, it is my belief that he was a bundist. He never joined the nazi party, but he took pride in being born in Germany, and I believe he was conflicted about it. The world owes him a debt for his honesty about what he saw in relation to the nazis, ie, the part in ham on rye where he talks about the ridiculous nazi party meeting that he walked out on.

----------------------

And what a meeting it was! " I'm a man, I'm a man!"

Bukowski clearly stated that he was upset about the way Germans were being portrayed in the media and he had to try to defend his image. Isn't that how all polocks feel. IE Bukowski was a polock.

-----------

The Bukowskis were assimilated Slavs, originally from the eastern parts of Germany. The Drang Nach Osten and Kulturkampf predated the Lebensraum movement. See Skorzeny and Waldetsky (Waldheim).
 
Bukowski clearly stated that he was upset about the way Germans were being portrayed in the media and he had to try to defend his image. Isn't that how all polocks feel. IE Bukowski was a polock.

Bukowski was not polish, he was German, but probably had Polish ancestors.

Also, Polack (spelled Polack) is an ethnic slur with very negative connotations for Polish people in the US. I'm not sure that the Polish members of this forum are going to be happy with your last post, uness I'm wrong and the term is only used in the US and England.

Bill

MULLINAX said:
-----------

The Bukowskis were assimilated Slavs, originally from the eastern parts of Germany. The Drang Nach Osten and Kulturkampf predated the Lebensraum movement. See Skorzeny and Waldetsky (Waldheim).

Thanks for the info. It makes sense. Man-Made political borders are arbitrary in regards to ethnicity and language.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top