<snip> Given the public impact Hitchens had, it may be justified to call attention to his flaws while folks are still pondering that impact. YMMV.
Yep - when someone passes who was so controversial, I think it's a good thing to acknowledge the controversy. It's actually a kind of respect I think, in the larger sense - too look more at the whole of the person. I remember seeing a "docu" on Nixon that, in my opinion, rewrote history in that it extolled his "greatness" and all of his "achievements" and mostly ignored his "dark side", so to speak. Illness/death levels the playing field in that no one is exempt. >________________________________ > From: authfriend <jst...@panix.com> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 9:08 AM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Good bye Christopher > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@...> wrote: >> >> Rather a mean-spirited thing to write so soon after the >> man's death. > >I wasn't an admirer, so I appreciate a little salt being >sprinkled on his memory along with the great fountains of >honey pouring forth from his fans. > >Pareene says in his introduction: > >"The late Christopher Hitchens had the professional contrarian's fixation on >attacking sacred cows, and rather soon after his cancer diagnosis, he became >one himself. I think he would've been disgusted to see too much worshipful >treacle being written about him upon his untimely death, so let's remember >that in addition to being a zingy writer and masterful debater, he was also a >bellicose warmongering misogynist. > >"Upon the death of the unlamented Earl Butz, Hitchens excoriated editors who >published sanitized obituaries of a man remembered solely for a vulgar racist >remark made in public. Hitchens leaves a rather more varied legacy, but it's >just as important not to whitewash his role in recent history." > >How soon after the death of a public figure is it >appropriate to point out that they were a mixed bag >of virtues and flaws? I don't know; I think reasonable >people can disagree on the timing. Only reason I can >think of to put off the negative accounting is the >sensitivities of the person's family and close friends. >But likely they'll be sensitive for quite a while-- >weeks at least--and by the time they're ready to hear >criticism of the dearly departed without acute pain, >public focus on the individual will have waned >significantly. > >Given the public impact Hitchens had, it may be >justified to call attention to his flaws while folks >are still pondering that impact. YMMV. > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: >> > >> > Alex Pareene of Salon does us all a favor by reminding us that >> > "When Hitch was wrong, he was disastrously wrong": >> > >> > http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/when_hitch_was_wrong/singleton/ >> > >> > It wasn't just his support for the Iraq War, either. >> > >> > > > > >
