[lit-ideas] Simon's peculiar responses
- From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lit-Ideas <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:28:32 -0800
Simon writes:
There are, I've decided, two different Lawrences: one here and one in
'another place'. Here, our Lawrence is unequivocal, the war is
against Islam because the moderates (or traditionalists) are 'semi
mythical'. Over there, their Lawrence appears to be nuanced and the
moderates (or traditionalists) are the ones that should be approached
by western scholars with a view to steering them away from the
fundamentalists.
Now this is interesting to say the least. Perhaps it's because
Lawrence is a hypocrite, or perhaps it's also because he's writing
for a different audience. Is it because in both places he's after an argument?
And what does that make him?
Of course, he might just attempt to reconcile these two different
psyches. And that would be really interesting...
Lawrence reluctantly responds:
It goes without saying that you are once again confused, Simon.
By "another place" I assume you mean Theoria where I discussed the
book The Enemy at Home, The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for
9/11 by Dinesh D'Souza. I might have discussed that book over here
on Lit-Ideas but I didn't because I had been declared SPAM for
awhile. Some of my comments about this book had to do with D'Souza's
thesis that it was better to fight against just the Islamic Radicals
than all of Islam. The Right-Wing reviews I read of this book were
uniformly negative. They objected to D'Souza's putting himself in
the shoes of the "Traditionalist" and looking for points of
agreement. He argues the American Conservatives should seek out
these traditionalists and make common cause with them -- just as the
Left and the Radical Muslims are making common cause. My problem
with the reviews is that none of them I read seemed to think it would
be a good thing if we could avoid fighting all of Islam by making
common cause with the traditionalists. If they exist, and D'Souza
believes they do, then it would be good if we could reach some sort
of common-cause agreement involving opposition to the radicals (and
the Left). My point here, and once again a smidgeon of understanding
of Logic would help you, Simon, is conditional. If the
traditionalists exist then it would be a good thing if they and
American conservatives could reach a rapprochement like D'Souza
suggest. I do not have to believe or disbelieve that they exist to
make that conditional statement.
But in one of my Theoria notes (one that you apparently missed), I
stated that I continued to believe the Traditionalists to be
invisible and that since we couldn't find them to reach out to,
perhaps it would behoove them, if they existed, to reach out to us.
Lest that is too elusive for you, Simon, let me say for the record
that I believe the Traditionalists do exist. I make disparaging
comments about them, calling them invisible and semi-mythical,
because they are not outspoken. They are not a present-day force in
the Middle East. They keep silent. If you called someone like that
to be a witness over here in the U.S.in, say, a drive-by shooting, he
would say, "I don't want to get involved." Some Muslims are
courageous and they seem to have gravitated to the Radicals. They
like to blow things up. The uncourageous, the ones who would go to
Canada if they lived over here, tend to keep their mouths
shut. D'Souza has a different view of them and I suspended
disbelief as I read his book (something his reviewers failed to do),
but I still wait to hear from them. Where are they Dinesh? And
don't point to Iranians living in Los Angeles or Arab Doctors working
at Loma Linda Hospital. Where are they in the Middle East?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Simon's peculiar responses
