Adriano,
I won’t be surprised if Ian Baruma lands on his feet. Though the editors of
the New York Review of Books deny it, it seems likely that some sort of
pressure was applied to make him resign.
Perhaps if we were to say that Baruma was a victim of the Feminist Movement –
or something like that, we would, to be equivalent say that there was a “Red
Scare” movement and Joseph McCarthy for a while was its spokesman. The
Feminist Movement is still growing strong and no one is discrediting it that
I’m aware of. There were plenty of people discrediting the Red Scare movement
however and eventually McCarthy became a victim of matters he didn’t manage
very well.
Kremlin documents have been examined by Western historians and there were
indeed spies in our Pentagon and elsewhere in our country. The Verona Papers
record communication between the USSR ambassadors office in Washington with the
USSR, and Soviet spies were mentioned. J. Edgar Hoover was privy to this but
was unwilling to do anything with the information overtly. Truman was
president at the time and Dean Acheson was secretary of state. One of the
Soviet spies was a personal friend of Acheson and Truman liked him. Hoover
would send information to McCarthy about these matters without giving him the
evidence behind the information. McCarthy took the information and tried to
make something of it, but he was an alcoholic in poor health who was a
Republican and hated by Truman; so he crashed and burned.
Years ago I read a couple of books about the Verona Papers and the information
historians obtained when the Kremlin files were made public. An important
American News Reporter happened to be a Soviet sleeper agent and the chief
antagonist of McCarthy. McCarthy didn’t have a chance. Interestingly, I first
read about these matters in the NYROB and then subsequently ordered the books
that were mentioned in the NYROB articles. One important antagonist of
McCarthy’s was questioned about the Verona papers and the books publishing the
discoveries from the Kremlin documents. He said “I don’t care. Maybe we were
wrong, but you needed to be there. In those days it was right to be wrong!”
In retrospect he was right – sort of – Yes there were spies in government and
sleeper-agents in various places, but it didn’t matter. The USSR was never
going to overthrow our government or seriously hamper our anti-communist
military activities. At root was the fact that we could outspend them. Our
economy with all our entrepreneurs was better than anything the Soviet Union’s
economy could achieve.
Looking back, I began work at Douglas in 1959 at age 24. I recall some
arguments I had with a member of the John Birch Society, an engineer who had
escaped from the Soviet Union with his family. He had severe ulcers and chewed
some chalky antacid pills as he argued. He would get so mad that white spittle
with dribble down his chin as he raged at me. He later told me that he had
considered turning me into the Douglas Security department. But decided that I
was merely deluded and represented no threat. I don’t think I had bad
arguments back then. I argued that the USSR was not going to be able to
overthrow our government and the John Birch Society was over-reacting. I also
argued that China was not interested in converting the world to Communism.
Historically China was more interested in their internal matters than anything
of a wider nature.
In any case I find it interesting that there really were spies in the American
government, and that McCarthy was really onto something, but even to this day
almost anyone who discusses this matter is more critical of McCarthy than of
the Soviet Government for putting spies in our government and of the Soviet
agents who undermined our government and only incidentally McCarthy as well.
It is called “the Red Scare” when other terms might better describe what was
really happening. There really were red spies. “Scare” makes fun of
McCarthy’s failed attempts to out them.
But as I hiked I also thought about the Troll encampments on the river. Was I
being unfair to them in thinking they were there because of bad choices. I had
friends that I tried to influence. We were all from blue-collar families. I
tried to talk several of them into going into the Marine Corps with me. No one
did. Later after I got out of the Marine Corps, I tried to talk them into
going to college. No one did. They would rather be “idle” in the Defoe sense
of the word. In Edgell Rickword’s article “The Social Setting (1780-1830)” in
From Blake to Byron, (volume 5 from) The New Pelican Guide to Literature.
Rickword writes,
“When Defoe had toured Great Britain it was with the consciousness of a man of
business that he enjoyed the countryside. The gentlemen’s mansions, the near
farmsteads, and stout cottages seemed to him a natural reward for industry and
enterprise. Wealth appeared to be a secretion from the process of exchange,
whether it concerned a luxury from the Far East or a farmer’s crop brought to
the local market. It was a process by which everybody gained (though some
gained much more than others), excepting the idle, the extravagant, and the
afflicted. The idle and extravagant brought their punishment on themselves,
they were bound to ‘break’; the afflicted, since they suffered by decree of
Providence, ought to be relieved by private charity. . . .”
That puts the matter in a better perspective for me. If it is the “idle and
the extravagant” that are in those tents we hike past, then I may be a little
justified in my criticism. They are there because they broke. But if they are
“the afflicted,” and I do wonder about that whenever I talk to one of them,
then they are there through no fault of their own. “Afflicted” would have to
be expanded upon. Maybe someone with an IQ of 60 might be considered
“afflicted,” but would such a man be able to erect the complicated tents and
property defenses I have seen down there? I think a higher IQ is required, and
if the people down there possess these higher IQs perhaps they more rightly
belong in one of the other of Defoe’s categories.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 3:47 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Ian Buruma's retirement
while I am not american, I am struck by the affinities of the times, during
Mcarty (joseph) times.
Minor faults become ways of getting rid of dissenters, and in several cases,
the dissenters are more worthwhile than the accusers
palma, apgs
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:57 PM Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
I don’t read all the articles in the NYROB and didn’t read “Reflections of a
Hashtag” in the October 11 issue until in the following issue, October 25 I
noticed in “letters to the editor” several pages of outrage that Ian Baruma had
allowed this article to be published, after which Baruma seems to have been
fired.
I didn’t know what a “Hashtag” was and had never heard of its author Jian
Ghomeshi and so retrieved my copy of the October 11 and read it. Ghomeshi
seems like an obnoxious fellow, but I’ve encountered obnoxious fellows before
in NYROB articles. I then spent some time on the internet reading about
Ghomeshi’s trial.
One of the letters to the editor in the October 25th issue of the NYROB is an
expression of dismay by 109 signatories which includes several names I
recognize, for example, Anne Appelbaum, Mark Lilla, Joyce Carol Oats, Max
Hastings and Helen Vendler. They write, “We find it very troubling that the
public reaction to a single article, ‘Reflections from a Hashtag” – repellant
though some of us may have found the article – should have been the occasion
for Ian Baruma’s forced resignation. Given the principles of open intellectual
debate on which the NYRB was founded, his dismissal in these circumstances
strikes us as an abandonment of the central mission of the Review, which is the
free exploration of ideas.”
The NYROB Editorial Staff replied to these signatories by saying “We understand
our contributors’ concerns. Rea Hederman, the publisher of the Review, has
said publicly that Ian Baruma’s departure was not a response to the outrage
over ‘Reflections from a Hashtag,’ and we strongly believe in Rea’s commitment
to editorial independence.
“With regard to the necessity of open intellectual debate and the
free exploration of ideas in our pages, we couldn’t agree more.”
J.C. in the October 12th issue of the TLS makes no mention of the NYROB’s claim
that Baruma’s retirement was not forced, and writes, “Art Free from Politics;
our compendium of statements in favor of artistic freedom – and freedom means
freedom (within the law), even if we don’t like it or you don’t like it – is
due to be submitted to Basement Labyrinth Publications on Voltaire’s birthday,
November 21. Some weeks ago we brought you an extract from George Orwell’s
unused introduction to Animal Farm, in which he wrote that ‘At any given moment
there is an orthodoxy . . . which it is assumed that all right-thinking people
will accept without question’. Anyone who challenges it ‘finds himself
silenced with surprising effectiveness’.”
Lawrence