SLATE's Dahlia L writes: >The essay is pretty much a sophomoric rant, intended solely to shock, and >indistinguishable in kind and in tone from some of his earlier >"scholarship," including this nonsense on the Jewish plot to claim >"exclusive rights" to the Holocaust, which is, in turn, based on this >drivel, lauded in some circles as groundbreaking political theory.
LP: >I am not surprised that Slate would have this take on "A Little Matter of Genocide".< FWIW, it's not SLATE that had this take; it's Dahlia Litwick (sp?). The e-rag does not have a unified political "line" (like the MILITANT or something) and has such creeps as Christopher Hitchens along with much more liberal people on board. BTW, since I stuck this thread with "liberal" in the subject line, I should explain that "liberal" is not a total negative for me. To me, "liberal" represents the general world view in which the main tension is between the "public interest" (however defined) and "special interests." I see this tension as existing under capitalism -- and other class societies -- but there is also the structural problem of class exploitation/domination/alienation, along with gender and ethnic domination. When/if socialism comes, then the main tension will be of the liberal sort (public vs. special) as the structural problems will be under attack and fading. So liberal thinking is relevant, even if it sometimes seems utopian. Further, liberal concerns with free speech and the like are quite relevant in the here and now. When the government starts to actively restrict free speech, it typically starts doing so for the Left and unpopular ethnic groups (e.g., Arabs). Even when it starts against Nazis and the like (as during WW2), it then turns on the Left. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
