Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Hitchens Protester Speaks: Joseph Anderson
The selection of Christopher Hitchens was inappropriate to a memorial lecture honoring the spirit, philosophy, and memory of the life-long ANTI-WAR philosopher and activist Mario Savio.
I Was the Hitchens Protester
The point has already been made that the selection of Hitchens was inappropriate to a memorial lecture honoring the spirit, philosophy, and memory of a life-long ANTI-WAR philosopher and activist Mario Savio.
Therefore, this is not a free speech issue. No one is preventing Hitchens from speaking anywhere else, and certainly, no one--not even I--prevented him from speaking at the Savio event. I, though, do have the right to protest his selection. And although Lynn Savio shared the selection of Hitchens, Mario Savio is a man of 1960's history, a champion of the anti-war movement, not the personal property of his wife.
No one is denying Hitchens' right to speak wherever else he wants--even on the UC Berkeley campus. He will have more than enough opportunity as a visiting lecturer this spring--although also quite inappropriately as an "I.F. Stone Lecturer." (Look up I.F. Stone, as both Stone and Mario must be turning over in their graves!)
As for free speech, Mario Savio championed the free speech rights of people to DISSENT against the state voice of power (and its propaganda).
Hitchens is neither anti-war--quite to the contrary, he is supporting the govt's idea of PERMANENT WAR!--nor is is he, therefore, a dissenter: he SUPPORTS the state in its global imperialist ambitions, especially over the non-European world--a goal that will create int'l resentment and hostilities that will have the entire world living--and dying--in a never-ending cycle of literally explosive violence, as in Israel.
Do you want to live in a world with a never-ending cycle of global violence: of U.S. state terrorism and 9-11 reciprocal group terrorism? A world where you can't go to the store, the cafe, the office, the pedestrian mall, on a bus, etc., without being blown up? A world where you dare not go with all your family members, or both parents together, or with all your familial brothers &/or sisters together, to any of these places--or on a plane--without losing either both your parents, or your parents losing all their kids in regular terrorist explosions?
And how many more wedding parties in the non-European world will the U.S. military bomb?--again with whole families, especially the new bride and groom--on "the happiest day of their lives"--destroyed.
Finally, to make it clear: The Annual Mario Savio Memorial Lecutre is to HONOR and CELEBRATE the spirit, philosophy, world goals, ideals and memory of MARIO SAVIO, not antithetical ones of Christopher Hitchens.
The point has already been made that the selection of Hitchens was inappropriate to a memorial lecture honoring the spirit, philosophy, and memory of a life-long ANTI-WAR philosopher and activist Mario Savio.
Therefore, this is not a free speech issue. No one is preventing Hitchens from speaking anywhere else, and certainly, no one--not even I--prevented him from speaking at the Savio event. I, though, do have the right to protest his selection. And although Lynn Savio shared the selection of Hitchens, Mario Savio is a man of 1960's history, a champion of the anti-war movement, not the personal property of his wife.
No one is denying Hitchens' right to speak wherever else he wants--even on the UC Berkeley campus. He will have more than enough opportunity as a visiting lecturer this spring--although also quite inappropriately as an "I.F. Stone Lecturer." (Look up I.F. Stone, as both Stone and Mario must be turning over in their graves!)
As for free speech, Mario Savio championed the free speech rights of people to DISSENT against the state voice of power (and its propaganda).
Hitchens is neither anti-war--quite to the contrary, he is supporting the govt's idea of PERMANENT WAR!--nor is is he, therefore, a dissenter: he SUPPORTS the state in its global imperialist ambitions, especially over the non-European world--a goal that will create int'l resentment and hostilities that will have the entire world living--and dying--in a never-ending cycle of literally explosive violence, as in Israel.
Do you want to live in a world with a never-ending cycle of global violence: of U.S. state terrorism and 9-11 reciprocal group terrorism? A world where you can't go to the store, the cafe, the office, the pedestrian mall, on a bus, etc., without being blown up? A world where you dare not go with all your family members, or both parents together, or with all your familial brothers &/or sisters together, to any of these places--or on a plane--without losing either both your parents, or your parents losing all their kids in regular terrorist explosions?
And how many more wedding parties in the non-European world will the U.S. military bomb?--again with whole families, especially the new bride and groom--on "the happiest day of their lives"--destroyed.
Finally, to make it clear: The Annual Mario Savio Memorial Lecutre is to HONOR and CELEBRATE the spirit, philosophy, world goals, ideals and memory of MARIO SAVIO, not antithetical ones of Christopher Hitchens.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I saw the webcast of the lecture. You're an idiot, and your insult to Lynn Savio was over the top. You have no right to speak for Mario Savio. Does being anti-war mean leaving the people of Bosnia and Iraq to rot? Hitchens made you look like the moral equivocating, posing f*ckwit that you are. You just prove his argument that the left is braindead
Reverie must have been the one calling someone a 'commie,' from the sounds of this post.
Good going reverie, you do all our work for us in exposing yourself.
keep it up!
Good going reverie, you do all our work for us in exposing yourself.
keep it up!
First off, while I myself disagree with Christopher Hitchens, the actions of Joseph Anderson were stupid and made himself just look bad. Instead of putting across a probing question or pointing out areas whree the speaker lacked documentation he instead egomanically put forward in an incoherent babble that he was anti war, anti hitchens, and had a letter published in a paper somewhere, and when hitchens tried to have discourse with him, Mr.Anderson wilted and insulted Lynn Savio(!?!) and stood in front of the crowd with a sign that was more eloquent and lucid athabn his comments. The war opposition doesn't wackos like this guy to make us look bad.
In these times, we need more people like Joseph Anderson to stand up against all those who support the "endless war on terrorism" in military terms rather than in terms of political, diplomatic negotiations whereby all parties involved are respectfully treated as equals regardless of religion, sex, race or ethnicity.
Hitchens was a very poor choice because he just doesn't send out a consistant message, but rather delights in baffling people as to where he really stands on things.
We need more people to stand up, as Joseph did, to call attention to the most pressing issue of the day: justice for ALL people, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, sex. Not to bomb them into submission! Or to oppress them into submission! There is an alternative! That is respectful dialogue and NO DOUBLE STANDARDS!
Hitchens was a very poor choice because he just doesn't send out a consistant message, but rather delights in baffling people as to where he really stands on things.
We need more people to stand up, as Joseph did, to call attention to the most pressing issue of the day: justice for ALL people, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, sex. Not to bomb them into submission! Or to oppress them into submission! There is an alternative! That is respectful dialogue and NO DOUBLE STANDARDS!
I wouldn't compliment Anderson and the rest of his squad by calling them commies. If anything they need to read more Marx. They have no arguments--they are simply emoting the tired rhetoric of the last revolution---when they're able to utter a comprehensible sentence. (Not often if the webcast is any indication. ) Pathetic and absurd.
"They have no arguments"
Funny, then, that you can't seem to figure that part out, the arguments I mean. Don't worry, it'll become more clear to you as time goes on.
Did you go to see Fisk last night? It was a far better talk, night and day.
Funny, then, that you can't seem to figure that part out, the arguments I mean. Don't worry, it'll become more clear to you as time goes on.
Did you go to see Fisk last night? It was a far better talk, night and day.
The answer to terrorism is global justice--not futher militairistic 'solutions' that will make the world more dangerous and *less* secure--and will serve as mass recruiting vehicles for al-Qaeda or whomever. Israel has shown us that there is ultimately no military solution to injustice. Mario Savio understood this.
The event Thursday night was "The *Mario Savio* Memorial Lecture", not "The Free Speech Movement Commemorative Lecture," and not the "Christopher Hitchens: Supreme Oracle Lecture." That means it should be in keeping with Mario's *anti*-war philosophy, not Hitchens' repeatedly *pro-*war views as the solution to every problem that the U.S. govt has created or contributed to in its desire for world domination. That means that you invite people who have made extraordinary/praiseworthy/noteworthy efforts to promote *peace*--not war.
If Lynn Savio had wanted to hold a hypothetical "Free Speech Movement Commemorative Lecture" event--with a *real* debate--and invite Hitchens--although free speech was in precious little amounts for any anti-war dissenters there--it was more like *limited/controlled* speech under the *guise* of "free speech"--then I would not have protested Hitchens invitation.
What amazed me even more than the Hitchens invitation was the fact that Lynn Savio even denied/limited the "free speech" of the Mario Savio Memorial *Award winner* herself to *no* rebuttals and only a *ONE*-minute question!
As for my comparison of Lynn Savio to Coretta Scott King, it is widely perceived among leaders in the national African American community that Coretta has done a number of accumulative disservices to the memory and spirit of Martin Luther King. Based upon a past actions, regarding a letter signed by Lynn Savio et al and to which I responded--a letter that one FSM leader told me that he wished he had never signed, upon considering my response letter--I felt, after Lynn's attempt to cut off my free speech right to protest, that she, likewise, was dishonoring the memory and spirit of Mario Savio.
By the way, my name is Mario too.
(See:
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?storyID=2681
and
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/18/ED182052.DTL )
First, many thanks to Joe Anderson for protesting this outrage of Christopher Hitchens being honored by Lynne Hollander Savio. There should have been hundreds of protesters. I heard about this travesty on Flashpoints on KPFA, so the word was out that this was taking place. People did protest the Israeli Barak, so I know there are people in Berkeley who understand the importance of protest.
Second, as to Free Speech:
Free speech does not mean anyone has a right to FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theater. However, if it is true that there is a fire, the people in the theater should certainly be notified loudly and clearly. ("Fire" can stand for many nouns. This is simply the legal definition.)
Free speech does mean that just as anyone is free to speak, anyone else is free to protest that speech.
Berkeley was not the birthplace of any free speech movement. The concept of freedom of speech was promoted by those who preferred bourgeois democracy of capitalism instead of the divine right of kings of feudalism.
Over the centuries, free speech has become an issue in the course of various struggles. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), at the beginning of the 20th Century, had lots of free speech fights in the course of their labor organizing.
In 1964, the free speech fight for political literature tables on the UC Berkeley campus was part of the civil rights movement of that time, and the leaders of the free speech movement were veterans of that movement, both in the North and more importantly, in the South, where they faced horrendous conditions in their efforts to register black people to vote.
You will note however, that this civil rights movement concentrated on voter registration, not labor organizing and not fighting for socialism. In other words, it was simply a reform movement, and thus the people participating were not necessarily radicals and could easily not be radicalized by the movement. In fact, as the antiwar movement took over in 1964 after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the civil rights movement died down and too many civil rights veterans joined the bankrupt, capitalist, racist, warmongering Democratic Party.
Third, as to the subject incident of the infamous December 12, 2000 letter of former FSMers:
"Bibi" Netanyahu was a substitute speaker for the ailing fascist, pro-Israel Henry Kissinger on 11/28/00. Bibi had the driver of his car turn the car around before he ever got near the Berkeley Theater as he was more interested in furthering his political career in Israel than being an unwanted substitute speaker in Berkeley.
Fourth, the Letter:
I have given the citation below of the capitalist Chronicle's December 12, 2000 letters page so people could see the list of shame of people who are promoting Israel under the guise of defending free speech, for that was the purpose of that letter and that was the purpose of promoting Christopher Hitchens.
This pending invasion of Iraq is not just a blood for oil war; it is also a blood for Israel war. Israel is, of course, a US military base organized as a racist, theocratic, anti-labor capitalist state, which exists to defend US oil profits in the Middle East.
The signers of that pro-Israel letter were:
Reginald Zelnik
Lynne Hollander Savio
Bettina Aptheker
Mal Burnstein
Kate Coleman
Tom Savio
Lee Felsenstein
David L. Goines
The Letter, as printed in the Chronicle, 12/12/00:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/12/ED28649.DTL
Second, as to Free Speech:
Free speech does not mean anyone has a right to FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theater. However, if it is true that there is a fire, the people in the theater should certainly be notified loudly and clearly. ("Fire" can stand for many nouns. This is simply the legal definition.)
Free speech does mean that just as anyone is free to speak, anyone else is free to protest that speech.
Berkeley was not the birthplace of any free speech movement. The concept of freedom of speech was promoted by those who preferred bourgeois democracy of capitalism instead of the divine right of kings of feudalism.
Over the centuries, free speech has become an issue in the course of various struggles. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), at the beginning of the 20th Century, had lots of free speech fights in the course of their labor organizing.
In 1964, the free speech fight for political literature tables on the UC Berkeley campus was part of the civil rights movement of that time, and the leaders of the free speech movement were veterans of that movement, both in the North and more importantly, in the South, where they faced horrendous conditions in their efforts to register black people to vote.
You will note however, that this civil rights movement concentrated on voter registration, not labor organizing and not fighting for socialism. In other words, it was simply a reform movement, and thus the people participating were not necessarily radicals and could easily not be radicalized by the movement. In fact, as the antiwar movement took over in 1964 after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the civil rights movement died down and too many civil rights veterans joined the bankrupt, capitalist, racist, warmongering Democratic Party.
Third, as to the subject incident of the infamous December 12, 2000 letter of former FSMers:
"Bibi" Netanyahu was a substitute speaker for the ailing fascist, pro-Israel Henry Kissinger on 11/28/00. Bibi had the driver of his car turn the car around before he ever got near the Berkeley Theater as he was more interested in furthering his political career in Israel than being an unwanted substitute speaker in Berkeley.
Fourth, the Letter:
I have given the citation below of the capitalist Chronicle's December 12, 2000 letters page so people could see the list of shame of people who are promoting Israel under the guise of defending free speech, for that was the purpose of that letter and that was the purpose of promoting Christopher Hitchens.
This pending invasion of Iraq is not just a blood for oil war; it is also a blood for Israel war. Israel is, of course, a US military base organized as a racist, theocratic, anti-labor capitalist state, which exists to defend US oil profits in the Middle East.
The signers of that pro-Israel letter were:
Reginald Zelnik
Lynne Hollander Savio
Bettina Aptheker
Mal Burnstein
Kate Coleman
Tom Savio
Lee Felsenstein
David L. Goines
The Letter, as printed in the Chronicle, 12/12/00:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/12/ED28649.DTL
For more information:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...
You were rude and paternalistic.
You showed lack of consideration for other people who wanted to ask questions by using their allotted time to make your statement and by displaying yourself at the front of the room with your sign obstructing the view of other people. Several People asked you to move because you were obstructing their view. Then you stepped a few feet to your left and obstructed my view. When I asked you to move you did not.
You are paternalistic because you feel that your intervention is necessary to prevent the rest of us from being misled.
It is not for you to decide what is appropriate to this occasion. The memorial lecture and award has a very distinguished Board of directors who are responsible to their sponsors to make this decision.
You of course have the right to express and disseminate your opinions. There were others who arrived early and passed out flyers at the door. But your conduct was sanctimonious and rude.
You showed lack of consideration for other people who wanted to ask questions by using their allotted time to make your statement and by displaying yourself at the front of the room with your sign obstructing the view of other people. Several People asked you to move because you were obstructing their view. Then you stepped a few feet to your left and obstructed my view. When I asked you to move you did not.
You are paternalistic because you feel that your intervention is necessary to prevent the rest of us from being misled.
It is not for you to decide what is appropriate to this occasion. The memorial lecture and award has a very distinguished Board of directors who are responsible to their sponsors to make this decision.
You of course have the right to express and disseminate your opinions. There were others who arrived early and passed out flyers at the door. But your conduct was sanctimonious and rude.
We need to figure out ways to change public opinions about the war.
Maybe the above mentioned protest didnt do that, but that's beside the point since he was the only person protesting a memorial for an antiwar hero used to promote the war in Iraq.
Being polite and letting Bush get away with murder is a worse crime than being rude. As Savio said:
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
Throwing ones bodies upon the gears of the machine may not fit with some highbrow academic event, but most German academics sat by while HItler took power in Germany so one cant expect to much of anyone who tries to be polite and highbrow.
Maybe the above mentioned protest didnt do that, but that's beside the point since he was the only person protesting a memorial for an antiwar hero used to promote the war in Iraq.
Being polite and letting Bush get away with murder is a worse crime than being rude. As Savio said:
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
Throwing ones bodies upon the gears of the machine may not fit with some highbrow academic event, but most German academics sat by while HItler took power in Germany so one cant expect to much of anyone who tries to be polite and highbrow.
The 'Left' showing its famous tolerance of views it doesn't like.
PK
PK
oh, joseph. you weren't a protester. you were just an idiot rambling on, quoting yourself, sounding stupid, and you're continuing to do that here.
"The 'Left' showing its famous tolerance of views it doesn't like. "
Ah, but you dont tolerate the left for not tolerating the right, so isnt that just as bad.
If there is a KKK rally on campus should leftist not be allowed to loudly protest them? Isnt that just as much a freedom of speach issue as allowing the rightwing rally in the first place. Of course others should also be allowed to show up and protest the left (like you are doing), and then the left can show up and protest you...
There is nothing stopping you from locking down in front of a door where leftists are about to meet or picketing a Leftist event with signs etc... But of course you would face the same police harasment that leftist do when they do that ...so...
Savio protested for the right of the left to speak outside on the Berkeley campus. He was also active in the antiwar movement. Im sure if he were still alive and saw Hitchens speaking he would have showed up to protest...
Ah, but you dont tolerate the left for not tolerating the right, so isnt that just as bad.
If there is a KKK rally on campus should leftist not be allowed to loudly protest them? Isnt that just as much a freedom of speach issue as allowing the rightwing rally in the first place. Of course others should also be allowed to show up and protest the left (like you are doing), and then the left can show up and protest you...
There is nothing stopping you from locking down in front of a door where leftists are about to meet or picketing a Leftist event with signs etc... But of course you would face the same police harasment that leftist do when they do that ...so...
Savio protested for the right of the left to speak outside on the Berkeley campus. He was also active in the antiwar movement. Im sure if he were still alive and saw Hitchens speaking he would have showed up to protest...
I'm surprised how few people are mentioning that this guy was almost completely incoherent and looked the fool making his beliefs look foolish. It is one thing to state your opposition to an unjust cause, it is another to actually get that point across. All I disappointingly got from you was some egomanically tripe about you doing alot for the war opposition , a vague insult to the host, and that you oppose the war citing no reason or evidence. Anyone can do better than that. This guy was rude, no only because he took away other individuals rights to make (most likely more intelligent) questions/comments - he rude precisely because his comments were a waste of time, they made little sense. To tell the truth until reading above I had little idea what this crazy even wanted.
No,
Joseph Anderson was KPFA's caller of the month where they invited him on as a guest speaker for an hour to discuss current events, and he is also notable for being the person who had a question that was too much for David Horowitz's fragile brain, causing self implosion a year ago (the question was: does the first amendment require newspapers to print any submitted advertisement, no matter what the content?) Horowitz went into an infinite loop (does not compute, does not compute) and stormed out, after having given a moderate somewhat reasonable performance until that point.
Joseph Anderson was KPFA's caller of the month where they invited him on as a guest speaker for an hour to discuss current events, and he is also notable for being the person who had a question that was too much for David Horowitz's fragile brain, causing self implosion a year ago (the question was: does the first amendment require newspapers to print any submitted advertisement, no matter what the content?) Horowitz went into an infinite loop (does not compute, does not compute) and stormed out, after having given a moderate somewhat reasonable performance until that point.
were we at the same speech ?!! because the Joseph Anderson whom you say was so eloquent on KPFA wasn't at this speech, this one just looked silly and really isn't worthy talking about. Hitchens definetely had some important information in some areas, I also think he was quite wrong in other areas. I just just wish more people there had more constructive, reasoned, and supported responses to the speaker. Not enough people did unfortunately.
were we at the same speech ?!! because the Joseph Anderson whom you say was so eloquent on KPFA wasn't at this speech, this one just looked silly and really isn't worth talking about. Hitchens definetely had some important information in some areas, I also think he was quite wrong in other areas. I just just wish more people there had more constructive, reasoned, and supported responses to the speaker. Not enough people did unfortunately.
no, I wasn't at hitchens. There are lots of people, probably, who are named Joseph Anderson. I guess one can watch the talk, if you had the time, on the webcasts at http://www.berkeley.edu Joseph Anderson is a lawyer, I think, and he has had a number of op-eds and letters in the paper.
It's interesting that the negative commenters above have, predictably, nothing to say about the substance of Anderson's original post, but merely are reduced to attacking him personally. Their namecalling reveals a lack of maturity, probably stemming from frustration at their inability to come up with an articulate response to the points he and others (such as Beagle) made. "Stupid," "idiot," "crazy," "f*ckwit," etc.: this is, in substance, the extent of their vocabulary.
I find it highly amusing to see them engaging in the same behavior that they accuse him of (being rude, inarticulate, etc.), while they, unlike his article and other posts above, offer nothing. "They have no arguments," as bov says, so all they do, like little kids, is throw rocks. People like this always call for civil discourse and reasoned arguments, but make none of their own. Typical.
I've seen the right wing make good arguments. Won't post it here or the trolls will endlessly repeat it for lack of having some of their own. However, in this forum, the trolls seem to represent the absolute bottom of the conservative pile, the dumbest of the dumb and blindest of the blind. They do such poor service to their cause that one has to wonder on occasion, are they really conservatives at all? Are they perhaps people posing as conservatives in an attempt to ridicule the position? I don't know, and I am tempted to think they are merely very very stupid people. What else can explain obsessively focussing on a website you believe to be irrelevant, as the trolls have claimed? Being paid, perhaps. But if they are getting paid for this, I suggest their employer GET A REFUND
Listen now:
Here's Alexander Cockburn on Flashpoints Radio with Dennis Bernstien, criticizing Hitchens broadly and on the issue of his being invited to the Mario Savio Memorial Lecture. He also takes a swipe at David Corn and others.
You can download the attached MP3, or click on the below to fire up a real audio streaming version of the radio segment -- about 12 minutes long.
pnm://centaur.host4u.net/flashpoints/fp20021120.ra?start=17:44.0&end=34:00.0
http://www.flashpoints.net
You can download the attached MP3, or click on the below to fire up a real audio streaming version of the radio segment -- about 12 minutes long.
pnm://centaur.host4u.net/flashpoints/fp20021120.ra?start=17:44.0&end=34:00.0
http://www.flashpoints.net
Wow, I'm really disappointed... how is it "right wing" to critizise one man's mangled and muddled presentatioin of views I mostly agree with - one this websites own editors said as much in a post. To hurl groundless and undocumented terms such as "right wing" is every bit as baiting and immature as someone callingf the protestor crazy. I disagree with this silly war as much anyone but I didn't enough of an intrelligent response, I saw alot of appropriately angry people. As the THE CLASH once sang anger can power, it can be power when wielded intelligentely.
C'mon fallacious attacks get us nonewhere, and we should be above that.
Yeah Joseph Anderson did some some great things to say on this webpage, I wish this comments and questions at the speech were as lucid as that. How is this "right wing"?
C'mon fallacious attacks get us nonewhere, and we should be above that.
Yeah Joseph Anderson did some some great things to say on this webpage, I wish this comments and questions at the speech were as lucid as that. How is this "right wing"?
You still have not offered anything of substance Jim.
Did *you* pony up to the microphone and offer anything Jim? Did you contest Hitchens? Or were you just back in the bull pen growling?
Why don't *you* try asking a *1*-minute question, in response to at least an hour-long interview, while being interrupted the minute someone doesn't like what you say? Take out a stopwatch or chronometer right now and try it. Was Hitchens offering any really serious responses to all the questions or just being glib half the time?
Speaking of rude: Did you even raise any objections when Hitchens, suspiciously, with racist undertones, called Mr. Anderson, an African American man, "a monkey", and said that Anderson, an African American man, "probably doesn't even know how to read."
Protest, especially protest under fire, is not necessarily suppossed to be polite. But what is worse than being so-called "rude" is being implicitly racist. Christopher Hitchens owes Mr. Anderson an apology for this. Why did you not take Mr. Hitchens to task for that?
The FSM shut down an entire university; is that polite? Savio said that protests should be principled, not necessarily nice.
Instead of making hollow excuses for yourself, even now, why don't you finally present an argument, one way or the other, on the issues?
the fact is, Joseph is well-liked by many people and had the immense courage to stand before idiot Hitchens when others simply slipped out the back, failed to even raise their hand when H asked if people thought oil wasn't worth the war, or stood on the sidelines and did nothing (thinking, as I mistakenly did, that someone would surely ask some good questions, so why should I be the one to put myself through that?).
Lots of us support Joseph's actions and continual efforts to inform the many people he knows about activist and speaking events, encourage attendance, make frequent radio comments, and generally disrupt farces such as the one the other night , when others don't have the nerve to.
Please find more important things to discuss than how well you understood what exactly Joseph was saying, or what you thought of his efforts.
For example, if you feel the need to criticize someone who is opposed to war, pause, step back, and think for a moment - how can I be constructive instead of destructive of my own side? Although it's easy to be destructive on here, its good to try to resist.
It's a learning process for everyone, and we've all been there - I sure have. Let's try to work together in a constructive way.
Lots of us support Joseph's actions and continual efforts to inform the many people he knows about activist and speaking events, encourage attendance, make frequent radio comments, and generally disrupt farces such as the one the other night , when others don't have the nerve to.
Please find more important things to discuss than how well you understood what exactly Joseph was saying, or what you thought of his efforts.
For example, if you feel the need to criticize someone who is opposed to war, pause, step back, and think for a moment - how can I be constructive instead of destructive of my own side? Although it's easy to be destructive on here, its good to try to resist.
It's a learning process for everyone, and we've all been there - I sure have. Let's try to work together in a constructive way.
Watch the webcast. Hitchens did not refer to Anderson as a "monkey." That was directed to someone far to his right, to the babbling rabble who applauded Anderson's insults. He quickly followed with the finger. Elsewhere he called someone "big boy" and another "sweetie." It is refreshing that Hitchens took no pains to ingratiate himself to his Berkeley audience.
And I guess that Htichens was not referring to Mr. Anderson, an African-American, when Hitchens blurted that, "He probably doesn't even know how to read"?
Again, it's always amusing to see these (usually) right-wing hypocrites call for civil dialogue, but practice or applaud the opposite when it comes to their turn or those they support.
Posted by JA
http://nypress.com/15/47/news&columns/wildjustice.cfm
The New York Press, NYC
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
"Savio’s Memory "
Mario Savio goes down in history as the great orator of the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley in the late 1960s, a galvanizing figure in the antiwar campaigns of that time. Savio died a few years ago, and last February I happened to meet Lynn Hollander, his wife. The widow Savio told me she was organizing an annual event in his memory, tied in with some award for journalistic enterprise. This all seemed fine. Then she imparted the information that the guest lecturer was to be Christopher Hitchens. Startled, I asked her whether the best way to commemorate Mario the Antiwar Organizer was to whistle up the deliriously pro-war Hitchens.
Hollander seemed surprised at my surprise. The months passed. Hitchens redoubled his war cries and then, yes, earlier this month in came a news release proclaiming that on Thurs., Nov. 21, Hitchens is scheduled by Hollander and the Free Speech Movement Cafe to lecture in Savio’s memory on the UC campus in Berkeley. Also present on the podium will be Adam Hochschild. I wrote a note to Hollander, once again deploring her choice, and she responded with a note defending the decision to water Savio’s memory with Hitchens’ "controversial views." To me it’s like getting an impenitent FBI veteran of the Hoover era to keynote an evening honoring Martin Luther King. Poor Mario.
Volume 15, Issue 47
Having watched the webcast, I am struck by the difficulties in expression displayed by the questioners following the main presentation. One would have thought that with a good hour or more in which to prepare a single question, people would have managed to be a little more articulate. One of the award recipients established the tone by ending almost every sentence with 'right?' (just check out the webcast), no doubt in the wooly minded belief that this would assisting our understanding of her. 'Questioners' flopped and squirmed when not reading from notes prepared beforehand, and, like, really stretched to, um, make concrete points, you know? What a contrast with Hitchens - fluent, coherent and to the point, responding easily with dry wit off the cuff. This is Berkeley? It's all such a perfect reflection of the actual poverty of thought and language of the anti-war-in-Iraq movement. The whole of the "counter" argument presented that night can thus be summed up as, "ok, yeah, well, like...what about the oil?"
Chris Hitchens is the most intelligent Leftist alive, one who's integrity is beyond reproach. I find it amusing that all of you on the Left don't get the point that Hitchens is trying to pull you out of the morass of hypocrisy and stupidity the Left has mired itself in during the past few decades.
He's doing it for your benefit and you don't get it. While you all fall for the nonsense of Chomsky, Fisk, and other blowhards, Hitchens is yelling at you to wake up, pay attention, and get your act together.
Not that I really care.
He's doing it for your benefit and you don't get it. While you all fall for the nonsense of Chomsky, Fisk, and other blowhards, Hitchens is yelling at you to wake up, pay attention, and get your act together.
Not that I really care.
SH: "What a contrast with Hitchens - fluent, coherent and to the point, responding easily with dry wit off the cuff."
JA: Dear Mother Hitchens, I'm sure that *you're* very proud of your son. He's OBVIOUSLY perfect!!
SH: "One would have thought that with a good hour or more in which to prepare a single question...[but] 'Questioners' flopped and squirmed..."
JA: Mother Hitchens, some of us less 'gifted' folks just had such a *very* difficult time following the brilliant *twists* in Hitch's 'genius' remarks. You know, he's had a *long* time--and *repeated* occasions--to hone his 'off the cuff'--very--dry wit.
I only wish that, after all that, we could have seen *YOU*, his lovingly doting mother, get up there, set an example, and ask any serious, incisive questions in the 'free speech' Lynn Savio stipulated *60 seconds*! But, I'm sure you were sitting comfortably at home--in your easy *armchair*.
All that said, what really surprises me is the sheer *un*sophistication and low level of your son's pro-war articulations. In contrasts to his other good--and witty--works on such things as Henry K or Mother Theresa, he seems to parrot all the simple-minded propaganda of Little Bush: "They hate our freedom! ...It's *Islam* versus *civilization*! ...[Indeed,] it's the clash of civilization! ...'Bin Laden's gonna get'cha mama'!!!"
And finally--YES!--as Hitch puts it--a *quote*: "WHAT'S *WRONG* WITH BLOOD FOR OIL!!!?"
What an interesting creature!--a liberal imperialist!--a liberal WARMONGER!!
--And is that *also* a liberal white cultural bigot?!
Now..., was that *SH*?--or SH*T?
JA: Dear Mother Hitchens, I'm sure that *you're* very proud of your son. He's OBVIOUSLY perfect!!
SH: "One would have thought that with a good hour or more in which to prepare a single question...[but] 'Questioners' flopped and squirmed..."
JA: Mother Hitchens, some of us less 'gifted' folks just had such a *very* difficult time following the brilliant *twists* in Hitch's 'genius' remarks. You know, he's had a *long* time--and *repeated* occasions--to hone his 'off the cuff'--very--dry wit.
I only wish that, after all that, we could have seen *YOU*, his lovingly doting mother, get up there, set an example, and ask any serious, incisive questions in the 'free speech' Lynn Savio stipulated *60 seconds*! But, I'm sure you were sitting comfortably at home--in your easy *armchair*.
All that said, what really surprises me is the sheer *un*sophistication and low level of your son's pro-war articulations. In contrasts to his other good--and witty--works on such things as Henry K or Mother Theresa, he seems to parrot all the simple-minded propaganda of Little Bush: "They hate our freedom! ...It's *Islam* versus *civilization*! ...[Indeed,] it's the clash of civilization! ...'Bin Laden's gonna get'cha mama'!!!"
And finally--YES!--as Hitch puts it--a *quote*: "WHAT'S *WRONG* WITH BLOOD FOR OIL!!!?"
What an interesting creature!--a liberal imperialist!--a liberal WARMONGER!!
--And is that *also* a liberal white cultural bigot?!
Now..., was that *SH*?--or SH*T?
'Sam B.': "Chris Hitchens is the most intelligent Leftist alive, one who's integrity is beyond reproach."
JA: Dear Father Hitchens, I'm sure that *you're* very proud of your son. He's OBVIOUSLY perfect!!
However...,
Hitchens is yelling at the left to support Bush's, Cheney's, and Rumsfeld's--THE ASSES OF EVIL--PERMANENT WAR!!
'Sam B.': "He's doing it for your benefit and you don't get it."
JA: I don’t think that qualifies as 'getting the left’s act together' (thank *you* very much); it means surrendering to the right--AND LUNACY!!
JA: Dear Father Hitchens, I'm sure that *you're* very proud of your son. He's OBVIOUSLY perfect!!
However...,
Hitchens is yelling at the left to support Bush's, Cheney's, and Rumsfeld's--THE ASSES OF EVIL--PERMANENT WAR!!
'Sam B.': "He's doing it for your benefit and you don't get it."
JA: I don’t think that qualifies as 'getting the left’s act together' (thank *you* very much); it means surrendering to the right--AND LUNACY!!
The fact is you wanted to shut him down because you disagreed with his views and he is far more eloquent than you will ever be. That simple.
If I wanted to shut him down, I wouldn't have waited until the END of the interview--IDIOT!
you're qb aren't you? self-indulgent twat.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network