The other side of Christopher Hitchens
by, 17th December 2011 at 11:07 AM (833 Views)
Unlike Fox News, I actually understand and appreciate the concept of fair and balanced. Nothing demands more a fair and balanced review than the life of Christopher Hitchens.
I certainly admired much his writing, his style and prose were captivating even when I disagreed with the content. I respected his no-holds-barred dislike of religions and religious belief. His passionate distaste for all religions led to some of his most controversial comments; his belief we ought to simply bomb Islam out of existence, for example.
So while many of us praise Hitchens for his unapologetic atheism, we ought not ignore the ways in which he failed to live up to our expectations as a humanitarian.
Another writer I respect said today,All of this was triggered for me by the death this week of Christopher Hitchens and the remarkably undiluted, intense praise lavished on him by media discussions. Part of this is explained by the fact that Hitchens — like other long-time media figures, such as Tim Russert — had personal interactions with huge numbers of media figures who are shaping how he is remembered in death. That’s understandable: it’s difficult for any human being to ignore personal feelings, and it’s even more difficult in the face of the tragic death of a vibrant person at a much younger age than is normal.
But for the public at large, at least those who knew of him, Hitchens was an extremely controversial, polarizing figure. And particularly over the last decade, he expressed views — not ancillary to his writing but central to them — that were nothing short of repellent.
Nor should anyone be deterred by the manipulative, somewhat tyrannical use of sympathy: designed to render any post-death criticisms gauche and forbidden. Those hailing Hitchens’ greatness are engaged in a very public, affirmative, politically consequential effort to depict him as someone worthy of homage. That’s fine: Hitchens, like most people, did have admirable traits, impressive accomplishments, genuine talents and a periodic willingness to expose himself to danger to report on issues about which he was writing. But demanding in the name of politeness or civility that none of that be balanced or refuted by other facts is to demand a monopoly on how a consequential figure is remembered, to demand a license to propagandize...
There’s one other aspect to the adulation of Hitchens that’s quite revealing. There seems to be this sense that his excellent facility with prose excuses his sins. Part of that is the by-product of America’s refusal to come to terms with just how heinous and destructive was the attack on Iraq. That act of aggression is still viewed as a mere run-of-the-mill “mistake” — hey, we all make them, so we shouldn’t hold it against Hitch – rather than what it is: the generation’s worst political crime, one for which he remained fully unrepentant and even proud. But what these paeans to Hitchens reflect even more so is the warped values of our political and media culture: once someone is sufficiently embedded within that circle, they are intrinsically worthy of admiration and respect, no matter what it is that they actually do.Click over to Salon and read Glenn Greewald's extensive and brutally honest comments on the life and political attitudes of Christopher Hitchens.
(Originally posted to http://godfreyposts.blogspot.com/201...-hitchens.html)0 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Total Trackbacks 0