[lbo-talk] O'Reilly vs Churchill: treason? sedition?

jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Thu Feb 17 13:25:56 PST 2005



> Thomas Brown :
>
> I think the two phenomena are related. Were the left more "nitpicky about
> factchecking individual claims", it would be less vulnerable to such
> attacks. Reading Churchill reveals that he is not of the mainstream left. He
> is an irredentist ethnic nationalist, closer to Milosevic than anyone else I
> can name off the top of my head.
>
> The left should have taken the lead in criticizing Churchill and his ilk.
>
> Instead, the left gave him kneejerk support, and is now paying the price in
> taking the blame for him.
>
> I published in the midst of the right-wing firestorm only because my
> findings would not have been taken seriously before. I'm getting support I
> don't want from the right, and I'm getting uninformed ad hominem criticism
> from the left. Sometimes the world is upside down.
>
> The left should never have fallen for the post-revolutionary chic that led
> to people like Churchill and Dohrn obtaining tenured positions. Now the left
> is getting beat up for owning these folks whose values would be abhorrent to
> most.

Irredentist ethnic nationalist? How do Churchills works fit into the category of irrendenta claims? When I think of irrendentist claims Cuban exiles in FL come to mind but not Native American claims. In Rogers Brubakers book "Nationalism Reframed" he gives a good definition of irredenta conflict as follows:

"Irredenta conflict is a conflict between three parties: a nationalizing state, a national movement representing an ethnic minority within that state, and an external national homeland, to which that minority is construed as ethnically belonging. Brubaker's triadic nexus is a visual representation of this, granting each party a corner of the triangle. The implication is that the national minority is caught between the nationalizing state within whose borders it exists, and the external homeland to which it is seen as belonging."

Your characterization of Churchill as "closer to Milosevic than anyone else I can name off the top of my head" demonstrates a paucity of names at your disposal rather than identifying any commonality between the two.

If you are getting support from the right and criticism from the left perhaps it is not the world that is turned around but you? Choosing this time to criticize Churchill demonstrates that you care far more about garnering attention for yourself than in furthering the cause of progressives. Many of us have specific issues with other progressives but we do not wait until reactionary and racist forces begin to assault that person to unleash them.

I wish this thread would die already.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list