From: Patsloane-AT-aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:02:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: PLC: LA Neocolonialism


>From John McWilliams,

> your and Pat's repeated mention of Naziism is
>  thoroughly offensive) 

And I'm pretty offended by English chaps who come on like friends of the Jews
and as if they imagined they still had some moral mandate to instruct the
 world on how to behave.  The English chaps never seem to realize that
England is one of the most egregiously anti-Semitic nations in Europe, and
they never seem to know English history, beyond memorizing the names of kings
and queens.  

Should you wish, at some point, to fill the gaps, start reading about AD
1209, when England became the first country in Europe to expel all Jews.  If
history books are too heavy, read Ivanhoe. Queen Elizabeth wasn't going to
let them back either, except that her personal physician was a  Portugese
Jew, Dr. Lopez.  Caused quite a sensation when she had him desemboweled and
burned at the stake.  Don't miss Charles Lamb's essay on Marlowe's Jew of
Malta, where he's celebrating the end of anti-Semitism in England and going
on about how advanced the English are and how much the Englsihj love the
Jews.  Seems odd he doesn't know there's still a ban on Jews sitting in
parliament. It lasted until Nathan Rothschild won election to parliament four
times, and on the fourth time the damned shameless English finally allowed
him to take him to take his seat.  Think about it.  Those were English voters
who elected Rothschild to Parliament four times. And the first three times,
he still wasn't allowed to take his seat.  You guys really run a democratic
ship.

Didn't find things much better in 1969, when I visited.  I heard tasteless
and anti-Semitic things said about Jews that hadn't been said in this country
for decades.  My theory is that England, for whatever reason, is always 40
years behind the US in its tolerance of Jews.  It was offensive enough to me,
as an American Jew, that I never intend to set foot in England again.

In 1994, the NY Times ran a lengthy interview with R. J. Kitaj, an American
painter living in London.  He thought the anti-Semitism of English art
critics was pretty bad, and maybe this is why you had no chance to read the
interview in the London Times.  Seemed odd to me.  Art critics are not
beloved in New York, but I've not heard them called anti-Semitic.  

Shapiro claims, in <Shakespeare and the Jews>, that the English have a
national neurosis about the Jews. That English identity has always been
defined as "the opposite" of the English sterotype of the Jew.  I don't know.
 Not sure 800 years of craziness can be summarized in such simple terms.  It
does seem odd that James Joyce, when told by Ezra Pound to come up with a
character "different" from himself, manages to come up with Leopold Bloom.
But then, Joyce was Irish.

Anyway, John, English chaps are always well-meaning, and I know you mean well
in coming forward to speak on behalf of the Jews.  But please don't.  I'm
perfectly capable of speaking for myself, and I'd rather not have you
instructing me on when I'm permitted to mention the Nazis and what I'm
permitted to say. I've maybe thought on the subject more than you, because
I've had to.  I don't like totalitarianism, period.  Not in a nation or a
kindegarden or a home.  Secret tribunals and lynch mobs give me the shivers,
and you'll never understand why.  "Get George Trail" is no improvement on
"Get the Jew," and if you  don't understand why, that's a deficiency in your
own moral make-up. Cruelty and having no conscience are not OK in some
circumstances but not OK in others. They're just plain never OK. Not to a
human being, not to an animal.

>  Sorry to get involved in this bullshit (I'd much rather talk about
Geoffrey
>  Hill), but the level of stirring going on has become quite disturbing.
I've
>  corresponded with Denis and I know he's quite unsettled by the whole thing
>  - and certainly not out of any guilt.

John, I really think you should go home.  You're no better as a spokesperson
for Denis than you are as a spokesperson for the Jews.  You don't say Denis
asked you to speak for him, and you say that you never met him. So how did
you get so wise?

One reason I'm wishing you'd shut up is that I like and respect Denis, and
with friends like you he doesn't need enemies.  You're portraying him as a
quivering mass of jelly who's so "unsettled" he can't even speak, and
therefore needs you to speak for him. I don't see Denis as the kind of
weakling who can't manage without your good offices,  and I don't think
you're doing him a favor to promote a ditzy picture of that kind. Can't we
just assume that if he has anything to say, he'll say it? And that he might
just be capable of standing on his own two feet like a man without any need
of your gallant and ever so English "protection?"  The internet is not an
English colony where we need you lads to come forward to adjudicate
disagreements among the natives.

Ditto for putting words in his mouth about whether or not he feels guilt.
 Denis didn't start up this "Get George Trail" stuff. His  mods did, with
little groupies like you baying at their heels.  I think what you're saying
is that you wouldn't feel any guilt, or ever feel you'd contributed in any
way to a difficult situation.  You'd always feel you were 100% right, and the
other person was 100% wrong.  Are you really sure this is how Denis thinks?
I've not found him to be that way, and I don't think he has a reputation for
being that way.

Maybe run home for a debriefing.  If Denis actually wants you to speak for
him, I suppose he has a right to self-destruct. But in the past I've usually
found him capable fo speaking for himself, and mercifully what he had to say
made more sense than the words you want to put in his mouth.

pat sloane, humble native in the colonies







     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---