[WS:] So if I read you correctly, you criticize Berlet because he did not write a different book.
Wojtek
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:05 PM, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/11 10:58 AM, David Green wrote:
> > I've read the transcript of Chip Berlet's interview with Amy Goodman.
> >
> > http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/10/chip_berlet_on_the_becking_of
> >
> > I must say that I do not understand or agree with Berlet's approach to
> > understanding the behavior of the assassin. I think that Alexander
> Cockburn
> has
> > been correct all along about the self-aggrandisement of the SPLC and
> Potok. I
> > also find Berlet's comment on American Renaissance passing strange.
> Berlet
> >seems
> > to be defensive that they might be thought of as anti-Semitic, when in
> fact--as
> > one would predict--they're the kind of racists that are pro-Israel. So
> Berlet
> > seems to give them a pass on this basis.
> >
> > A former University of Illinois (Urbana) political science professor,
> Robert
> > Weissberg, has written some horrible stuff on the AR website. But he's a
> >tenured
> > academic--why not ask how it is that a "respectable" individual like
> this, who
> > taught PS to our children for 25 years, belongs to a hate group? But of
> course,
> > that might lead to those more respectable forms of hatred that Berlet
> wants to
> > sort out from his particular obsessions. Moreover, I find it
> reprehensible
> that
> > Berlet has lumped in Ron Paul with his analysis of hate groups.
> >
> > I believe that we should be fundamentally concerned about the state and
> those
> > who have the power to employ its capabilities for violence. It doesn't
> appear
> >to
> > me that Berlet understands that, or cares.
> >
> >
> > David Green
>
> My initial concerns in response to Berlet's appearance on DN were expressed
> as
> above. While I describe my intellectual responses to Berlet's views,
> nothing I
> said was of a personal nature. But because Berlet is in the business of
> opposing
> "hate," he seems to be in the habit of accusing those who disagree with him
> of
> also hating him. He thus avoided dealing with my substantive concerns.
>
> Max Sawicky's comments have been simply inflammatory, but Doug Henwood
> seems to
> be of the view that Chip is being picked on. Yes, Chip now stands accused
> of
> profiting from "hate." But when it comes to the role of "hate" on this
> particular thread, Chip started it--not surprisingly.
>
> Ultimately, I don't believe that "hate" or "hate groups" tells us much
> about how
> politics works at a fundamental level. Most importantly, hate is provoked
> and
> manipulated by governments. Less importantly, the notion of "hate groups"
> is
> manipulated by those who continue to define politics in terms of
> "moderates" and
> "extremists." We should reject any analysis that is predicated on the
> conventional uses of these terms. A revisionist historical account of the
> McCarthy (Truman) era, a critique of Hofstadter's notion of a "paranoid
> style"
> in relation to our government's prosecution of wars against Cuba and
> Vietnam,
> etc., and understanding the blatant exploitation of "anti-Semitism" in
> relation
> to support for Israel are all efforts toward critiques of the notion of
> "hate"
> in politics. I would submit that these efforts should be taken seriously.
>
> As a Jewish critic of Israel, I admit to having had my own obsessions with
> haters like Daniel Pipes. But I also think it's important to understand
> that
> people like Pipes also feed off the notion of "hate" in the Muslim world,
> and
> use it to justify their own. Their hate has become more complicated, and
> more
> "respectable," and Berlet doesn't seem to want to deal with that. I would
> suggest that it's important to understand why people like Pipes do not seem
> to
> interest people like Berlet, Potok, etc. I think it's pretty obvious that
> Jewish
> "hate groups" don't interest those who conform to the conventional notions
> of
> moderation and extremism that tend to exclude liberal/conservative support
> for
> Israel. But ultimately, I also think that "hate" gets us only so far in
> understanding the relationships among U.S., Israel, and the Middle East.
>
> I also have a personal interest in AR & Robert Weissberg (and his
> relationship
> to the University of Illinois), one of whose hateful columns appeared in
> the
> Champaign-Urbana daily newspaper last spring. My response to Berlet was
> specifically motivated by his apparent willingness to define AR as being in
> a
> different category of "hate groups," and my point is that anti-semitism has
> become a rather archaic form of "hate" in this country anyway. Again, why
> does
> it not interest Berlet that Jews (including liberals) now participate in
> their
> own institutionalized "hatreds"? I feel that it's because these
> issues suggest a
> different narrative that Berlet doesn't want to address.
>
> There's much more to be said, but I'm particularly appalled that Berlet and
> others have turned these serious issues into an issue of my character and
> their
> sensitivities. Again, there was nothing personal in my original statement.
> Berlet needs to develop a thicker skin, and accord some respectful
> seriousness
> to those who are genuinely concerned about the thrust of his efforts
> against
> "hate."
>
> David Green
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>