Pete Seeger’s birthday: Part 2
Today I am printing an e mail I received from one of my oldest friends, Bob Cohen, currently Cantor at a Reform synagogue in Kingston, New York. Cohen, folk music aficionados may know, was a member of the folk era group, “The New World Singers,” with Happy Traum and Gil Turner. The liner notes for their Atlantic Records album was written by a new young singer-songwriter, Bob Dylan. Dylan wrote this about Cohen:
” Bob Cohen’s quiet – I first seen him at a City College folksong hall an’ thought he was some sort of a Spanish gypsy by the way he wore his sideburns an’ moustache an’ eyebrows – but he didn’t talk so I couldn’t tell – I must a sat an hour next to him waitin’ to hear some gypsy language – he never said a word – he laughed a few times but all folks no matter what race laughs in the same tongue – I seen him sing later that night an’ it didn’t bother my thoughts no more as to if he was gypsy or gigolo – he tol’ me more about my new world in that ten minutes time than the pop radio station did all that week. ”
The group was the first to record Dylan’s “Blowin’ In The Wind,” which the great Atlantic impresario Ahmet Ertegun refused to include in their record, unless they change the words to make it into a love song. Eventually it appeared in the Folkways/Smithsonian anthology of songs from Broadside magazine, where those interested can hear it. You can read more about Bob and hear him sing on his website. Now, Cohen on Seeger:
“I was wondering what with all that is being written about Pete from a political perspective, no one has picked up on, at least according to his biographer, David King Dunaway, Pete’s antipathy, or one could say anger, at Israel. If I remember correctly, he once put his fist through a wall in anger over whatever he thought Israel had done to the Palestinians – this is a long time ago. Yes, the Weaver’s sang “Tzena Tzena” and an earlier pioneer song “Artsa Alinu”, but, as you have pointed out, in the beginning (of the founding of Israel) the Nation under Freda Kirchway, was very pro-Israel and now is the exact opposite.
In the broader context, for many Christians, especially clergy in some Protestant churches, and for some Jews, as long as the Jews were or are victims, it is alright to celebrate them. Once they get some power, as in Israel, or for that matter in AIPAC, then they are the “enemy”. I am reminded of reading that Leon Trotsky condemned his people (the Jewish pioneers) in then Palestine because they were “exploiting” the workers – Arabs.
So with these folks we are back in a world of the exploited and the exploiters – the workers and the bosses. The irony and horror that when their brother and sister communists got into power they exploited and mass-murdered every being that had a light in their eyes, it never seems to have struck them, and Seeger is definitely one of them, as strange, pathetic, horrific.
Connected with that is Seeger’s insistence in the last book he wrote that “Zhankoye” the song that boasted of the Jewish collective farmers in Biro-Bidjan, was still authentic as a song when some Russian Jew, one of the few who remained there, asked him to sing it. I was once asked to sing that song at a party in NYC and refused.
The self-righteousness and arrogance of the Left is un-ending and very Manichean – black and white – which side are you on? It will be interesting to see as Obama pursues his be-nice-to-the-dictators project, how the “them” become “us” in the liberal-left press. Will the Left ask Ahmadinejad which side is he on? Or the same for Hugo, Raul, and Kim Il Jr?
There is, I think, a deep seated hatred and self-hatred, stemming from Karl Marx all the way down and up for Jews that cannot be blamed purely on the traditions of Christianity although it certainly has played its role. Some of it comes from a romanticization of the workers, the folk, the people, a messianic vision of them as our saviors, angels in disguise – better than us. If they rise up and kill us, it is our fault.
Has Seeger ever thought of taking his Clearwater project over to China which has been leaping forward in the past three or four decades in its effort to poison the world’s air? Has anyone ever asked him that if he and Robeson had raised their voices to condemn the “harshness” of Stalin and exposed to the Western world what was going on, how many lives it may have saved? And that not only by keeping quiet, but by denying that mass murder was taking place, they, as popular spokespeople in the West, gave their OK to what Uncle Joe was doing. It’s easy to scoff and say that Stalin and his henchmen would have continued no matter what. But they were also concerned about their propaganda and how the world was seeing them. If we pause and think about how the media would have picked up on Pete and Paul making a petition, singing out, speaking out against the inhumanity of the Soviet Union, the very people who had sung it’s glory – it certainly might have saved lives – to save even one life, in Judaic belief, is to save the world.
My last thought would be to paraphrase the old song “16 Tons” – St. Peter doncha call me, cause I can’t go, I owe my soul to the communist lore (or maybe “gore” is more accurate).”
How can you claim to defend free speech and impose a code of political correctness at the same time?
Teachers indulging in propaganda are failing their duty to help young minds develop. If you use your power to push young people into one intellectual groove or another, you are not developing their mind, you are preparing them for servitude.
And you have to pay a tuition for THAT?
These sentences stand out: “Wolfe comes to Robinson’s defense by making the following argument. He does not agree with his beliefs as expressed in the e-mail.”
It amazes me how often leftists say they don’t agree with Joe Anti-Semite’s views, and yet they continually defend the bigot’s right to “free speech.” The trick is growing old. And we know this is a trick, because they never defend my right to free speech as a real Protestant, or my neighbour’s right to free speech as a Mormon, or my neighbour’s neighbour’s right to free speech as a Catholic. Mathematically speaking, it screams selective-free speech politics.
The ability to make distinctions is the beginning of all wisdom. William I. Robinson is too idiotic to be teaching students. They should be getting far more for their money. Also, how are they going to get their own act together if their teacher is such an incompetent fool? What about their rights? Aren’t they trying to earn a legitimate credential to enhance their resume? Robinson has every right to make a fool of himself on his own time—and dime! Nonetheless, the paying customers are not obligated to endure his insane rants.
There is something else that cannot be ignored: this issue involves Jews. The leftist academic community has declared open season on them. Do you think I’m exaggerating? If so, imagine what would occur if Professor Robinson was talking about black people! Does anyone think that Alan Wolfe would be contending that the resulting “arguments and discussion” would be an adequate justification?
Fun, isn’t it? The public universities all hire exclusively liberal academics, and then insist on their right to free speech in defense of dissent (always against conservatives) and academic freedom (as long as they parrot the liberal mantra on any particular subject). Truly silly.
Robinson has a right to be stupid and in poor taste when he speaks (unfortunately, he’d probably want to ban things he just didn’t like in return). It’s, of course, Robinson’s responsibility to put forth an argument supported by evidence– namely, one that addresses and answers any counterarguments ideally– but who’s counting? Unsupported emotional ranting while not allowing (and retaliating against, if possible) any disgareement or counterargument– that’s leftoid “free speech” (i.e., only-for-leftists free speech)… just like it’s “free speech” to say nasty things about Israel because all their leftist buddies and Iran insist upon it.
“Will the Left ask Ahmadinejad which side is he on? Or the same for Hugo, Raul, and Kim Il Jr?”
Not a chance! You only ask which side you are on only to your allies (and slander them if they are not on your side). To your enemies, you need to move toward their side to be on the same side. Never expect them to move to your side.
2. Professor Guvinoff:
“How can you claim to defend free speech and impose a code of political correctness at the same time?”
Yeppers, Prof. Guvinoff! That ‘thar’ mentality is an oxymoron, wrapped in a riddle of Liberal lies, wrapped in a PC-lib-slanted tortilla.
Ya see, you have to get with the program[ming], Sir! No more time to think on your own. Freedom of speech is only relevant if you’re on the ‘other’ side of the PC tortilla.
The nepenthe the 0bots are drinking in must be some good SH*T!
“To sum up: Alan Wolfe should look closely at Stanley Fish’s argument, as well as the AAUP statement.”
Yes to the AAUP Part, NO to Stanley Fish. In the 90s at Duke he was caught with a memo calling for pedagogic (not political) “conservatives” to be blacklisted, including an ex head of amnesty international. Having a fake like Fish talk about academic freedom is like having Jim Baaker preach about fidelity.
It is no problem at all to expose this piece as shameless ideological posturing.
The course in question concerns global issues. Robinson is an historical sociologist whose forte is researching and teaching global issues. Comparative analysis is the method of historical sociology. Cultivating critical comparative thinking in students is its striving. This is why Robinson was hired and tenured and promoted: he’s a brilliant comparative historical sociologist.
Robinson would have been failing his students and acting ideologically had he avoided this topic. After all, it was the major global story of the day. It is a common teaching method to illustrate classroom concepts with contemporary public issues. The e-mail, whether you agree with the content or not, is appropriate in the context of a sociology class covering global issues.
Radosh misses the point of a public education, which is troubling given that he has attempted to provide one for so many years. The purpose of a liberal arts education is to promote, along with critical, comparative, and historical thinking, the work of citizenship, an endeavor that demands attention to moral concerns. This isn’t technical or vocational training we’re talking about here, but a liberal arts education. This is the place where these types of discussions are supposed to take place. Why else would the school have a sociology class on global issues if not to enlighten students and encourage them to actively engage the world around them?
For Radosh, it’s as simple as this: he doesn’t like what’s in Robinson’s email. He’s gotten himself all twisted in knots trying to argue for the suppression of speech in a way that allows him to preserve his self-identity as somebody who believes in academic freedom. The effort is an obvious failure.
More broadly, this affair is a transparent attempt to intimidate the critics of Israel into silence and discredit them in the eyes of the public. They are making Robinson an example. I don’t think it’s going to work. For liberty’s sake, I hope it doesn’t.
Academics have been at war with all that is best in America for decades. Now the ADL is complaining? You’re the last under the bus. I’m too tired right now, but this complaint of the ADL begs for a parody of Niemöller’s statement.
First they came for the… now they’re coming for the Jews, and there are damn few left about to take their side.
Po-tee-weet.
6. Delia
Yes, thinking on your own is so inefficient, when all these gurus are volunteering to do it for you.
On how many points of comparison does Robinson have to be wrong until his viewpoint is considered wrong? There are only two logical answers: Either he has to be wrong on only one point, which muddies his argument enough to disqualify it as truthful or he has to be right on only one point to prevent complete rejection of his opinion. And Wolfe is correct – in academia it apparently does not matter who is hurt or how much someone or some institution is hurt, as long as the “point of view” stirs up controversy.
These “academic” values suck in the real world. If the comparison of Israeli actions to that of the Nazis is mostly wrong and Jews die because the “mostly wrong” view becomes the accepted version, then great evil has entered the world and Robinson and the institutions who support him should be brought to justice. The real world needs to impose standards on the academic world. Truth, if you admit to its existence, is exhaustively inclusive, not “a point of view.” Justice is the societal prerogative to impose inclusiveness on “points of view” even if there are consequences for “academic freedom.”
This nonsense would likely never occur in a hard science classroom. A student hoping to get into medical school, for instance, cannot cut slack for a whacked out chemistry professor spending precious class room time on irrelevant matters. They would immediately complain to the academic authorities. Tacitly, people no longer take the liberal arts seriously. A goofy teacher like William I. Robinson really doesn’t matter—because presumably the degrees are phonier than a three-dollar bill. The students are going to get a good grade just for attending the class.
#10: David Thomson
“This nonsense would likely never occur in a hard science classroom.”
I had the pleasure and honor of taking three courses from Linus Pauling in the fifties. This was during the height of his work on the Nuclear Test Ban.
I cannot recall his even mentioning the Test Ban in any of these courses: Introductory Chemistry-1, Quantum Chemistry – intermediate, or The Nature of the Chemical Bond – graduate level. He was willing to discuss and argue with you after class (the man was polite to a fault), but business was business. There was too much to learn and discuss to waste time on things that were irrelevant to the subjects.
This concentration on essentials is the hallmark of a professional and the lack of same is a sure sign of a hack.
As a result we were more likely to listen to and evaluate his Ban arguments…Linus was wise enough to realize this basic fact of human nature.
One would assume that a “historical sociologist” would have some minimum historical sense. The Warsaw ghetto was created by Nazis with one ultimate purpose: the destruction of every person who would be confined there. Under no reasonable view could this be compared with the Gaza incursion which had no such purpose.
Most of the comments on this post thus far have been abstract and theoretical. The concrete reality is quite different, and can be expressed in a few simple axioms:
1. Any advocacy that results in the murder of children is apodictically evil.
2. The Jew-hatred spewed by Professor Robinson will — as such Jew-hatred always has in the past — ultimately lead to the dead and mutilated bodies of Jewish children.
3. Therefore, Professor Robinson’s preachments are apodictically evil, and have no place in the academy or in any civilized community. No amount of talk about academic freedom can change that fact.
Professor Robinson should be booted from the University of California system, and ostracized from any and all teaching jobs.
After that, he can go to hell.
10. Andrew
Methinks thou fire rapidly.
Robinson is a Jew-hater, regardless of what religion his parents were born into. Can anyone imagine the outrage if this sort of bile were directed at any other ethnic group in America? Somehow I think that if this was a “Stormfront” type nutjob sending his propaganda to students, the establishment (read: the Left) would rightly be calling for his head.
What the hell is “sociology”, anyway? Leftoid claptrap, that’s what.
Oh, and “Andrew” (Comment #10) is a complete idiot, who himself probably has a “degree” in “sociology” from the “university” of California at Santa Barbara, or something of similar worth (such as toilet paper).
What about each of us including the media (because we are all only practicing to READ MEDIA, we really are, or need to be,experts in READING OURSELVE)accepting responsibility for allowing distractions to be mistaken as “life” while we all(mostly) go on accepting as “reality” that people are dying in wars, famines, due to capital punishment “laws”, and we continue to have our “fix” of negativity in our “drug” of choice: a “reality” stream of unconsciousness that lulls us with a “limitation high” of: “It has to be this way,” “Thats just the way it is,” “It’s hopeless”. What about the advice to me: “You have to focus on one thing to make a difference”, “You have to eliminate what will prevent you from being taken seriously” (meaning keep skeletons in your closet, remain sick by stuffing your emotions, only allow ego and dram to be vicarious by expressing yourself via images of celebrities).All these limitations ARE what needs to be dealt with. Instead of worshipping the limitations we need to demonize and villify THEM instead of any human being. But we first must become HUMAN by embracing our vulnerability by finding strength in the resilience that dealing with our self hatred brings. Then we can we can begin to admit that our social roles, our various cultures,ie what we get our identity from is just PRACTICE for the really tough job ahead of being uniquely HUMAN because when we emerge from the PRACTICE “game” of pre or virtual life that is when we want to FLOW free in authentic life but instinctively know that unless everyone can do so, my Freedom “flow” is instead a freedom “flaw” due to defensivenss. Well I AM focussing on one thing. It just happens that one thing is that my life is secondary to feeling that I have done my best to make a difference even if it takes making everyone, even myself, uncomfortable. I have succeeded at being kicked out of Kabbalah class, kicked out of a so-called? professional academic association, Justice(!)Studies Association, The ACLU prefers to consider that I am threatening them when I say that I am going to tell the NEW YORk Times that even they are made uncomfortable with my issues involving freedom of speech (being open about being formerly homeless, with PTSD and prostitution in my past 23 years ago)that have resulted in being fired and/or replaced by universities.
Pete Seeger considers himself a link in a chain. The same could be said for Ron Radosh – he’s part of a chain that stretches from Joe McCarthy. Seeger has tried to be meticulously fair on Israeli-Palestinian affairs – if anything, he’s probably been too reluctant to criticize Israel. If he hadn’t privately been appalled by some Israel’s actions, it would have been deeply disappointing. There are plenty of Israeli Jews who are willing to compare the actions of the IDF with those of the Nazis. But hardly anyone in America dares to do it, for the fear of vultures such as Radosh pouncing on them and accusing them of antisemitism. This incredibly stupid attitude is contributing to Israel behaving more and more like the fascists who committed genocide agaisnt European Jews in the 1930s.
Pete Seeger stands tall at 90. Radosh can’t help reinforcing his own stature as a perennial pygmy by his gratuitous criticism of someone of whom all Americans ought to be proud.
lol “Has Seeger ever thought of taking his Clearwater project over to China which has been leaping forward in the past three or four decades in its effort to poison the world’s air?” The answer is: “probably”. One man can only do so much good in the world, and Mr. Seeger has done more for this country in his 90 years than you will ever accomplish in yours.
“How can you claim to defend free speech and impose a code of political correctness at the same time?”
Am I reading the argument that follows correctly to say that when a person who can’t see how free speech can exist in the context of imposed political correctness then advocates political correctness (find some way of stopping Robinson from speaking freely) that he is therefore opposing free speech?
Fascinating post. Many thanks for posting