On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:29:07 -0800 "Eric V. Kirk" <kirk at humboldt.net>
writes:
>Is there any truth to Horowitz' account of Russell/Shoenman in
>"Radical
>Son?" We all know Horowitz' politics, but some of his accounts of
>other
>individuals resonated with my own experiences sans the political
>critique.
>
>Horowitz made Schoenman out to be something of a psycho actually;
>hiding
>on the coattails of a rapidly becoming senile Russell, who was begging
>Joan Baez for bucks before he shitcanned Schoenman.
>
>Yours,
>
>
>Eric
>
As far as I know, the claim that Russell was becoming senile began to circulate following his involvement in the International War Crimes Tribunal which Russell (largely through Schoenman) had helped to organize along with many other leading European intellectuals including Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone De Beauvoir at Stockholm in 1967. The Tribunal was a kind of mock trial in which charges of war crimes were brought against the US for its actions in Vietnam. The verdict, not too suprisingly, was guilty.
Following that many people including some of Russell's old friends began circulating rumors that Russell was starting to become senile. Russell was at the time very much involved in the struggle against the Vietnam War and I think many of the people who were making this claim were simply trying to discredit his anti-war activism. The strongest piece of evidence against Russell's supposed senility is the fact that he wrote his Autobiography during this time which hardly seems to be the work of a guy who was losing his marbles.
On the other hand the Russell-Schoenman relationship was a very strange one. Schoenman was allowed to take charge of Russell's political activism and he often issued statements and signed petitions in Russell's name. The fact that many of these statments would read like something that had been written by a Trotskyist sectarian as opposed to the usual clear and elegant prose of Russell raised more than a few eyebrows concerning their relationship. Many people including those most sympathetic to Russell and his politics thought that Schoenman was manipulating the old man (Simone De Beauvoir thought so for instance). I think it is more accurate to say that the two men manipulated and used each other. Schoenman was a very good fundraiser with a talent for shaking down celebrities for contributions. The Peace Foundation itself included a number of celebrities among its its directors including perhaps not suprisingly (given her politics) the actress Vanessa Redgrave. Also, acording to Ken Blackwell, the keeper of the Bertrand Russell Archives there is some evidence that Paul McCartney and John Lennon may have had meetings with Russell in the mid-1960s. Presumably such meetings would have been arranged by Shoenman.
Anyway, I would suggest that the manipulativeness went both ways. Russell hired Schoenman because he was useful to him for such unpleasant tasks as fundraising and for his willingness to undertake the more tedious aspects of political activity. When he ceased to be useful to him his services were dispensed with. At any rate Schoenman has in one way or another been cashing in on his relationship with Russell for the past thirty years.
Jim Farmelant
___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]