====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
You sure have found some impeachable pieces. I wish I could have the comfort of shoring up confidence in my current convictions by identifying with the best of the past and eschewing the worst--by pretending I would have known just what to think in 1877, 1938, 1955, 1966, and so on. I deny myself this comfort. *The Nation* published dozens upon dozens of articles arguing against American involvement in Vietnam between 1954 and 1966. In 1934 it published Emma Goldman's "The Tragedy of Political Exiles"--not exactly cozying up to Stalin. (It is always amusing when people assume that in the 1930s they--and their favored magazines--would have been neither prematurely nor belatedly anti-Stalinist, but would have got it just on time.) Freda Kirchwey began writing for *The Nation* in 1918; you cite an editorial from 1952 that is not even especially egregious for its time. (This is assuming we're not using knowledge learned later to criticize historical actors, which would require some chutzpah.) But I don't even concede that if you find five or ten more in which Kirchwey doesn't get a question exactly right according to your standards of September 2014 that you would have sealed up an argument about the magazine being "problematic from its inception." I did not argue that after 1918 *The Nation* never again published something with which we all might now disagree. Your argument is premised on a definition of "problematic" that is meaningless and boring. I agree that it is fun to dig into an archive looking only for those pieces that can be identified today as "troublesome"; I just don't think it is very interesting. On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Louis Proyect <l...@panix.com> wrote: > On 9/29/14 9:40 AM, Richard Kreitner via Marxism wrote: > >> To cite only late >> Godkin and Eric Alterman as evidence that*The Nation* has been >> "problematic from its inception" is not a serious reading of history. >> > > But it has been problematic from its inception, although not exclusively > on the racism question. > > Early on, the magazine relied on financing from a railroad baron: > > On July 1, 1881, Villard returned to journalism, his first passion, and > bought two NY publications with capital gained from his growing railroad > empire: The New York Evening Post, a daily, and the Nation Magazine that > had been instrumental in his rise to power. He put Carl Schurz, a former > Radical Republican and Nation Magazine editor E.L. Godkin, in charge of the > Post, while he gave his son Oliver Garrison Villard the job of running the > Nation. By now Schurz, Godkin and the Nation were firmly in the camp of > business as usual. > > Villard's fortunes increased with each passing year. In 1889 he teamed up > with Thomas Edison and German bankers to form Edison General Electric. In > 1892, close to the time of his death, Villard threw himself into politics > once again. He sought the repeal of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which he > viewed as an impediment to his fortune-building goals in railroad and > electricity. He became an enthusiastic supporter of the Democratic Party > candidate Grover Cleveland, who was the very symbol of the Gilded Age. > > Villard died in 1900 of what the doctors called an apoplectic stroke. > Donations and bequests in Villard's name still go to Harvard, Columbia, the > American Museum of History, the Metropolitan Museum and many other august > institutions. > > full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/origins/villard.htm > > --- > > Then, fast-forwarding, I found the Nation Magazine's reporting on "trouble > spots" most troublesome: > > In 1952, shortly after Mossadegh had been voted into power in Iran, the > Nation took it upon itself to persuade the secular nationalist to pay > proper respect to Western powers. In the aptly titled "A New Deal for the > Middle East" (the magazine was an institutional pillar of FDR's 4 term > presidency), long-time editor Freda Kirchwey describes the Godfather like > deal being put forward by London and Washington. The US would grant a $10 > million loan and Britain would withdraw the economic sanctions imposed a > year earlier in exchange for a favorable deal involving Shell and all the > other gangsters. "But," Kirchwey wrote, "reports from Teheran give little > reason for optimism." He might be better advised in fact to cut a deal > where he gets part of the pie rather than the whole thing. Missing entirely > from this equation is the right of the Iranian people to decide to do with > their own resources. Within a year Mossadegh, whom the Nation would > eventually dub a "dictator", would be overthrown by a young leader they > characterized as "well-meaning" and "progressive." His name? Reza Shah > Pahlevi. > > On June 25, 1955, Sam Jaffe, their "roving correspondent" in Southeast > Asia, filed a report on "Dilemma in Saigon: Which Way Democracy" that is > filled with the kinds of self-flattering illusions satirized in Graham > Greene's "The Quiet American" as well as fulsome praise for the dictator > Ngo Dinh Diem: > > "In Saigon there is one man with a solution. But he admits it must be put > into effect quickly or all will be lost. I am not permitted to give his > name, but he is an American official who works around the clock attempting > to whip the Diem government into shape. He has a deep belief in America and > its great past, which, he reminds you, was the result of its success in > throwing off colonial rule. He also has a deep belief in the Asians. He > feels strongly that our Asian foreign policy should not be to support any > one group or government but the will of the Asian peoples. > > "He speaks of concrete plans now under way in Vietnam for the > reconstruction of the country. These include the resettling of over 800,000 > refugees. Land will be granted them and money given them to build new > homes—if needed, more money can be obtained through a low-interest loan. He > speaks with enthusiasm, of the work being done by TRIM, the American > Training Relations and Instructions Mission under the able command of > Lieutenant General John W. O'Daniel, in helping the Vietnamese build and > maintain a strong military force. He hopes for much from the teams of > Americans under USMO, the United States Operations Mission, who go into the > Vietnamese countryside to ascertain the wants of the people. Their reports > are filled with the need for schools, bridges, communications, hospitals, > sanitation, and the many other necessities of life that might stem the tide > of communism." > > Perhaps it would be too much to expect the Nation Magazine to have simply > recognized the USA had no business in Indochina whatsoever in 1955. But one > would think that by 1966, when the antiwar movement had reached massive > proportions, that they would have gotten out of the business of meddling in > the affairs of the Vietnamese people, even under the auspices of that > fabled "world-community" alluded to in the dressing down of the Egyptian > masses above. > > full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/american_left/tainted_ > nation.htm > > > There's much more than that, including the magazine's affinity for Joseph > Stalin in the 1930s but let's leave it at that. > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
