Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 12:02:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu> Subject: Re: M-I: Dissent in Nazi Germany Comrades, James was doing so well and then this personal attack. James has evidently not been following the arguments of my opponents. If he had he would had noted that Godena and others, but principally Godena, have said that any defense of Goldhagen automatically translates to pro-Zionist sympathies and a defense of Israeli and the genocide of Palestinians. If James would use his reasoning ability, which he slipped up and revealed to us in one of his posts recently (I want that James back), he would see that the logic of Godena's argument rests on an unstated teleology, namely, that the Holocaust was perpetrated so that the Jews would have the moral authority to establish a state in Palestine; and the argument is therefore given life by what is about as near to an anti-Semitic motive as one can come without being called an anti-Semite. This particular (il)logic underpinning Godena's argument is the only possible (il)logic which can get him to his ridiculous position. (By the way, the point offered by a comrade about Godena's fondness of Huntington has amused me to no end. Not only does Godena quote this reactionary with fondness, but in series of posts from Godena, attacking me for criticizing Huntington, Godena advanced the argument that Huntington should be critiqued on social scientific grounds, not on the grounds of his affiliations to global capitalist organizations. Of course, Godena failed to note that that is precisely what I had done, in addition to noting that Huntington's work is purchased by the transnational capitalist class, which is perfectly appropriate even though, as this comrade pointed out, this does not necessarily invalidate Huntington's work. These points are going to the credibility of the expert witness. But in any event, the irony is incredibly thick here. You gotta love it.) My argument that a defense of Goldhagen on social scientific grounds is possible, James, does not make my argument automatically a charge of anti-Semitism. But what this debate has revealed, at least among some of the participants, is that an implicit anti-Semitism underpins the attack against Goldhagen, because the anti-Zionist motive has been expanded to swallow up the victims of the Holocaust on the basis of their Jewishness. Moreover, Finkelstein does apologize for racism in his essay and he has been held up as the definitive source on these matters. Some of those who are bashing Goldhagen on this channel reflect a microcosm of a larger project to diminish the significance of the Holocaust. To deny this is tantamount to lying, as I would not presume that we would deceive ourselves over such an obvious reality. And to fail to point this out would be irresponsible (and rather stupid, when you consider what's at stake). My other polemic, and this supports my overall argument concerning the irrational element, concerns my astonishment that while racism is quite easy to see in other instances (and those who are presently attacking Goldhagen are among the most outspoken critics of racism on this channel), suddenly my comrades lose all capacity of reason when the discussion turns to Jews, the obvious reason being their ideological position against Zionism and Israel, a matter completely unrelated to the question at hand. The attack on Goldhagen has been outrageous. It has been irrational. The attempt to introduce a "scholarly" critique against Goldhagen by bringing Finkelstein into the discussion has been an unmitigated disaster for my opponents. Neither you, James, nor Finkelstein, nor anybody else on, or presented to, this channel have gone anywhere in this debate. The only basis for arguments since the beginning still remains that defending Goldhagen is reprehensible because it allegedly gives Zionists ammunition against Palestinians, and this argument and its basis have only been rendered more clearly with time. I have watched over the course of these several days the motivation for this irrational position emerge and I have now openly called some of my comrades on it. Frankly, Kuhls and I have made a rational go at this debate. We have very reasonable, measured, and at least tried, in so far as it is possible, to be objective in our presentations. The other side, including you, have personalized the debate, used ideology instead than science, and have introduced a profound irrationality into the discussion. If this were a boxing match they would have stopped it long ago, declared a "no contest," and probably fined the promoter. Andy Austin --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005