Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:03:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu> Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Charges of anti-Semitism On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Louis R Godena wrote: > To suggest human groups are not "unique" becomes the moral equivalent of the > Nazi ideology. Human groups have some features, such as ideological and religious beliefs, cultural practices, economic organizations, etc., that are unique. In the main, however, human groups are far more similar than different. Homo sapiens have some climatic and geographical differentiation in their external appearance, but genetically are far more alike than different; the differences are only skin-deep. In fact, the range of genetic variation among populations cannot account for the wider range of cultural variation. The point is that the differences are so slight and the similarities are so close, that in broad strokes no human group is unique. I do not believe therefore that saying a human group is not unique is the "moral equivalent of Nazi ideology." If it were, then my whole argument has been the moral equivalent of Nazi ideology, for the core of my argument is that Jews are not essentially different from any other human population. It is important to deconstruct propaganda, and what Godena has done here affords us an excellent demonstration of rhetorical inversion. It is Godena and others who are asserting that the Jew is unique as a human group. In my view that believing a group to be essentially different verges on moral equivalent of Nazi ideology. Godena has taken my argument, attributed to himself, and said that it is not the moral equivalent of Nazi ideology (which of course it isn't; but it isn't Godena's position, either). In this way, Godena conveniently discards his position, which is, of course, never considered in terms of moral equivalency. In a post I think I cancelled I likened Godena to a con artist. I don't know if I have characterized his rhetoric in this fashion before publically, but now is as good a time as any. This post in particular is a slick attempt at spin, conveniently prompted by an unthinking ideologue in Chatterjee who probably doesn't even understand the underlying premise of his own position. Yet, considering the absolutely outrageous statements previously made by Godena, this spin simply cannot work. And if others aren't going to stress the obvious, then I sure will. > Pointing out that "unpopular" intellectuals are somehow isolated and > ignored by American media assumes the sinister presence of an ethnic > conspiracy. And adding "the" to essentially a political designation > "The" Germans, "The" Irish) is irrefutable evidence of a murderous > intent reminescent of 1939. Unpopular intellectuals need not be the victims of conspiracy to be excluded. As Chomsky himself points out, no institution is going to engage in practices that threaten its continued existence. This is not a conspiracy; it is institutional behavior. The structured nature of ideological hegemony is the basis for my argument that it is absurd to consider Noam Chomsky's relative exclusion from the media a conspiracy. As I pointed out, the entire left is generally excluded from the media. It is a structural feature of capitalism to exclude from ideological construction left perspectives. From a social scientific point of view, I was able to demonstrate the implicit assumption (actually, it wasn't that implicit if you go back and read the post from Chatterjee) that the media is Jew-controlled and Chomsky is labeled an anti-Semite and excluded by the media because he is a Jew who is critical of Israel. Chatterjee squirms at hearing his own words back at him, but it doesn't cloud the matter for me for Chatterjee to whine to the moderators. And when one of the moderators himself consoles Chatterjee that the real target is not Chatterjee but the moderator then we have an unusual situation (although I cannot quite put my finger on what bothers me about this). > I think I am the real target, Sid, not you. There are a number of people on > this list who have never liked the fact that an "unreconstructed" Stalinist > is ensconced as moderator, though I have always ignored, rather than > persecuted, my "enemies". A compliment, of sorts. As Godena knows, because he praised me for my position, I have a much more positive view of the Soviet Union under Stalin than I held previously. Indeed, I publically apologized for my past uncritical assessment of Stalin and posted a whole string of posts defending the Soviet project and bringing evidence to bear on the reality of actually existing socialism. I have credited Stalin with a great many victories for working people, and I have demonstrated that capitalist propaganda surrounding the activities of Stalin are outrageous lies. Thus my target is not Stalinism, nor those who hold a Stalinist position. Godena cannot appeal to his status as an "'unreconstructed' Stalinist" to weasel in reference to me. Me saying this, though, will bring in turn the wrath of the Trotskyites who will say that I, too, am a Stalinist. In truth, neither Godena, Chatterjee, Blaut, etc., are the real targets. The real target is anti-Semitism. People hold certain ideological beliefs, some of which are conscious, others of which are only half-conscious or, better said, only half-understood. Convictions are generally held without examination. When a man is sexist and you attack sexism, this means that if the man gives up his convictions with regards to women he can join the struggle against the patriarchy. It is not to condemn them man eternally for beliefs he learned or adopted without clear reason. It is my view that Godena's penchant for irrational thinking makes him a prime candidate for adopting uncritically racial hatreds. And his professed anti-intellectualism will guarantee that he will continue in his irrationality; rational thought is learned, not innate. My goal was to reveal the underlying logic of the arguments being advanced by Godena and others so that they might become conscious of the reality of their views and possibly shake them. Instead they, Godena in particular, reacted by attacking me personally. This is to be expected in certain contexts. Whenever I stand at the lectern and talk about the patriarchy or racism, the white males in the class feel like I am attacking them personally. They have not learned to grasp the reality that ideas are transpersonal and structural. But one would expect a far different reaction on this channel. But, as has been demonstrated over the past several weeks, Godena is a special case. Godena is all over the map, from day to day, holding this view or that, supporting right wing ideologues, such as Huntington, one day, and attacking viciously those who point out Huntington's ideology and affiliations, and then attacking others the next day for suggesting that something might be judged on its scientific merit. We go from emotional humanizations of spree killers to hysterical outbursts attacking the whole of the working class or every Jew on the planet. Godena is erratic and irrational. And dishonest. Now, in very reasoned and measured tones, he attempts to reconstruct everything he has said in this controversy outside himself. He is inverting and rearranging history to get out from under his very clear proclamations on the essential evil of the Jew. The rest of Godena's post is good intentions fallacy, reconstructions of his real position (since he has not repudiated any of his previous claims), and calls for restricting the parameters of debate. None of these are worth addressing. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005