No Business Like Shoah Business
If you hadn't noticed, Venezuelan Presidente Hugo Chavez has been taking some heavy hits in the U.S. media over the past several months, particularly on the subject of his alleged anti-Semitism. As less bombastic analysts than the Swill have pointed out, Chavez' comments were edited in the U.S. media to produce a rather different rhetorical effect than the one identified and understood by the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela, who decried efforts by the Wall Street Journal and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others, to dismiss Chavez as a cheap Jew-hating bullyboy. (Catch up on the important bits here.)
We here at the Swill resolutely take no position on Chavez, Venezuela, Semitism, anti-Semitism, oil revenues, Latin American politics, land reform, latifundists, or the subject of language more broadly. But we were intrigued enough by an interchange yesterday that we post it for your delectation and comment. The following took place at a rather low-profile meeting of some rather high-profile people. The Swill had unique access, and you - dearest Reader! - enjoy the benefits. Timely? Not really. Interesting? We'll let you judge. In any case, it's all we've got.
JWF: Stop being such a boob, MGS. How can any world leader not know that "[those who] crucified Christ" will evoke Jews for much of his audience? Not to mention that gold and silver were listed first among the riches (if you've ever listened to any of Farrakhan's comments against the Jewish money-hoarders, this language will ring bells).
Rhetorical stupidity thrives on both sides of the political divide, at the very least. What worries me more about this is growing alliance between fundamentalist Jewish interests and the radical and religious right in this country. This exposes one of the ways in which the neo-cons are playing both sides against the middle in the Middle-East (freedom and democracy my ass). But I'm not saying anything you guys don't know better than I.
MGS: One doesn't know; isn't the point of the article--and of the Venezuelan Jewish Community's letter protesting the Simon Wiesenthal Center's interference--that Chavez's language didn't resonate that way for his audience (at least until his audience became the Wall St. Journal, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc.)? Whether he should be attacked for not knowing that his audience now includes the WSJ -- or whether George Bush should be attacked in national newspapers for describing the Iraq war as a "crusade" -- is perhaps not unrelated to this issue.
JWF: I read Spanish well enough to make sense of it in the original, but what do I know about the tropes of anti-Semitism that circulate in the language or in South America generally? Nothing: that's what! So your point is well taken, though I do think Chavez's audience is more than his local audience(though to less an extent than Bush's is global) and thus he does bear the responsibility for the consequences of his utterances abroad (as we all do).
Certainly Bush should be condemned for using the word "crusade," but he or his cronies should be praised for "infinite justice." There's got to be a way to bring that one back, or something else pruned from the Theodicy of Leibniz.
JST: I agree with JWF, though in a somewhat elliptical way. I don't how much purchase the blood libel myth has across Latin America, but what I'm hearing here first is Oscar Romero here, not Farrakhan. I'd imagine that for a Chavista audience the image of gold- and silver-swiping crucifiers is most likely to evoke not the Jews but
the Spanish Empire -- and hence the caudillos and the contemporary neolib/con EurAmerican Empire -- by way of the Roman Empire, who actually crucified Jesus.
On the other hand, however, Chavez certainly sees himself as an actor on the global stage; he can hardly be unaware, as JWF points out, how his words are likely to be heard to the north and east -- not least because he's on friendly terms with Tehran. Quite a conundrum: what is an interpreter of good conscience to do? Clearly, our theories of rhetoric must be supplemented with a robust theory of schmetoric, but where is such a theory to be found?
O' Schmicero! -- why did you leave no written text behind?!
JWF: I think you've got it right, JST, and I certainly hadn't considered the weird reversal of the identity of the crucifiers you suggest among the Chavez revolutionaries (or whatever they are). But insofar as Chavez is undertaking a truly new democratic experiment against the neoliberalism of the West, he must be, as you say, an actor on the global stage (and I'm not sure what sort of theo/democratic, anti-globalist state he believes he's aligning himself with in Iran).
In any case, this will all be cleared up when I begin the First Schmophistic and institute my schmogymnasmata, through which we shall all learn the true arts of schmrammer, schmetoric, and schmialectic.
MGS: Thus endeth the lesson.
We here at the Swill resolutely take no position on Chavez, Venezuela, Semitism, anti-Semitism, oil revenues, Latin American politics, land reform, latifundists, or the subject of language more broadly. But we were intrigued enough by an interchange yesterday that we post it for your delectation and comment. The following took place at a rather low-profile meeting of some rather high-profile people. The Swill had unique access, and you - dearest Reader! - enjoy the benefits. Timely? Not really. Interesting? We'll let you judge. In any case, it's all we've got.
JWF: Stop being such a boob, MGS. How can any world leader not know that "[those who] crucified Christ" will evoke Jews for much of his audience? Not to mention that gold and silver were listed first among the riches (if you've ever listened to any of Farrakhan's comments against the Jewish money-hoarders, this language will ring bells).
Rhetorical stupidity thrives on both sides of the political divide, at the very least. What worries me more about this is growing alliance between fundamentalist Jewish interests and the radical and religious right in this country. This exposes one of the ways in which the neo-cons are playing both sides against the middle in the Middle-East (freedom and democracy my ass). But I'm not saying anything you guys don't know better than I.
MGS: One doesn't know; isn't the point of the article--and of the Venezuelan Jewish Community's letter protesting the Simon Wiesenthal Center's interference--that Chavez's language didn't resonate that way for his audience (at least until his audience became the Wall St. Journal, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc.)? Whether he should be attacked for not knowing that his audience now includes the WSJ -- or whether George Bush should be attacked in national newspapers for describing the Iraq war as a "crusade" -- is perhaps not unrelated to this issue.
JWF: I read Spanish well enough to make sense of it in the original, but what do I know about the tropes of anti-Semitism that circulate in the language or in South America generally? Nothing: that's what! So your point is well taken, though I do think Chavez's audience is more than his local audience(though to less an extent than Bush's is global) and thus he does bear the responsibility for the consequences of his utterances abroad (as we all do).
Certainly Bush should be condemned for using the word "crusade," but he or his cronies should be praised for "infinite justice." There's got to be a way to bring that one back, or something else pruned from the Theodicy of Leibniz.
JST: I agree with JWF, though in a somewhat elliptical way. I don't how much purchase the blood libel myth has across Latin America, but what I'm hearing here first is Oscar Romero here, not Farrakhan. I'd imagine that for a Chavista audience the image of gold- and silver-swiping crucifiers is most likely to evoke not the Jews but
the Spanish Empire -- and hence the caudillos and the contemporary neolib/con EurAmerican Empire -- by way of the Roman Empire, who actually crucified Jesus.
On the other hand, however, Chavez certainly sees himself as an actor on the global stage; he can hardly be unaware, as JWF points out, how his words are likely to be heard to the north and east -- not least because he's on friendly terms with Tehran. Quite a conundrum: what is an interpreter of good conscience to do? Clearly, our theories of rhetoric must be supplemented with a robust theory of schmetoric, but where is such a theory to be found?
O' Schmicero! -- why did you leave no written text behind?!
JWF: I think you've got it right, JST, and I certainly hadn't considered the weird reversal of the identity of the crucifiers you suggest among the Chavez revolutionaries (or whatever they are). But insofar as Chavez is undertaking a truly new democratic experiment against the neoliberalism of the West, he must be, as you say, an actor on the global stage (and I'm not sure what sort of theo/democratic, anti-globalist state he believes he's aligning himself with in Iran).
In any case, this will all be cleared up when I begin the First Schmophistic and institute my schmogymnasmata, through which we shall all learn the true arts of schmrammer, schmetoric, and schmialectic.
MGS: Thus endeth the lesson.
posted by Swill to Power at 9:18 AM
4 Comments:
Mickey, Baby! I absolutely agree with you that the Protocols are anti-Semitic, so no argument there. And of course I bow to your superior erudition on all of these matters, like an altar boy to the altar...
But the whole point of the discussion seems to be that the Jewish community in Venezuela *didn't* read "descendents" as a reference to Jews.
Are you suggesting that the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela and Rabbi Arthur Waskow are fronts, offshore shell organizations for the Aryan Brotherhood, that they're just dupes with no historical memory, or something else? As I recall, you have a great storehouse of adjectives to describe Hannah Arendt that might be useful here, if that's what you're aiming at.
Perhaps we need a can get somebody whose Spanish and critical faculty is better than ours to weigh in, ahem, Phredward?
Mickey, Baby, we never stopped loving you.
Note our humility, broadmindedness, and willingness to give ground in our concession regarding the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Next week: the Swill takes a brave and controversial stand against child slavery.
In face of authority, we hereby concede the point.
Does this mean we have to change our position re: Jackie Mason?
As a historical note re: the triumph of liberal universalism, membership in the Aryan Brotherhood (the prison gang) is apparently no longer restricted by race. Interesting in case you're ever in the big house.
Also, does this affect the status of our support for Feingold?
Post a Comment
<< Home