I was sorting out some books today and came across a small volume, Chavez: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised – A Case Study of Politics and The Media with an accompanying DVD. Published in 2008 (Wallflower), I can’t recall where I picked it up. Flicking through it, quite by chance I fell on this excerpt from a Chavez speech which had been attacked for being anti-semitic:
The world has enough for everybody but it has turned out that a few minorities – the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and those who crucified in him in a certain way in Santa Marta in Columbia – they took possession of the riches of the world, a minority took possession of the planet’s gold, the silver, the minerals, the water, the good lands, the oil and they have concentrated all the riches in the hands of the few; less than 10% of the world’s population owns more than half of the riches of the world. (p.102) The book’s author, Rod Stoneman comments: The full quotation, with its references to Simon Bolivar alongside Jesus Christ clearly indicates that Chavez is referring to the rich rather than Jews; as an American Rabbi put it ‘no-one accuses Jews of fighting Bolivar.’ Fred Pressner, President of the Federation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela, speedily refuted the allegations and reprimanded the Simon Wiesenthal Centre ‘You have interfered in the political status, in the security and in the wellbeing of our community. You have acted on your own, without consulting us, on issues that you don’t know and don’t understand.’ Chavez’s perspective is clear in another speech he made on 5th December, 2006 when quoting extensively from the Sermon on the Mount, he asserts ‘Christ was a radical rebel, a man of justice, that’s why he was crucified by the capitalists of the time, the imperialists.’ Chavez spoke about the allegations in the National Assembly on 13th January, 2007 refuting the charges and accused the Wiesenthal Centre of ‘following the instructions of the empire.’ I am surprised no-one has picked up the possibility of Chavez being anti-semitic – surely Tom Bower’s researchers sought to tie down all the Venezuelan leader’s influences (supposed) on Jeremy Corbyn? (Perhaps it’s in Bower’s book, but no-one seems to have raised it and I have no intention of buying the blessed volume.) From my perspective, the defence cited above of Chavez is pretty thin – there were imperialists at the time of the Crucifixion but Chavez’s language is sloppy. ‘The crucifiers of Christ’ is a longstanding anti-semitic trope – one that was a continual source of Christian Jew-hatred for centuries. I suppose one could consider the Romans in Palestine a minority – albeit a well-armed one. But it’s a weird reference for Chavez to make – the descendants of the Romans included Constantine, after all. Stoneman is also treading on dodgy water when he follows in Chavez’s footsteps and conflates Christ’s crucifiers with ‘capitalists.’ Defenders of privilege maybe, but capitalists? I’ve never heard the word applied to that period of history before. It’s all mixed up. I think we can safely assume that Chavez was prone to making colourful flourishes in his speeches. I think it may be possible he didn’t give too much thought to the possible interpretations put on them. We may yet hear more about this.
0 Comments
Quickly going the rounds today is a review by Peter Oborne of Tom Bower’s book on Jeremy Corbyn. That’s the book that devastatingly revealed that Corbyn has eaten cold baked beans out of a can and didn’t like sightseeing when he was on holiday. Frankly, I’m surprised he ever went on holiday, but there we are. Oborne seems to be one of those rare journalists these days who still writes for the (right-wing) mainstream media but nevertheless has respect for facts. He is himself a self-confessed Conservative-leaning individual, so holds no brief for Corbyn. He just has it appears more time for the truth than does Bower, who on my reading revels in a penchant for character assassination, or as some might say ‘hard-hitting’ take-downs of over inflated egos – a personality trait I don’t think even his enemies could ascribe to Corbyn.
It may well be that nothing Bower has said about Corbyn is libelous, but for politicians (who we are told are held by the public in no registrable esteem whatsoever) it is hard to see how some attacks can ever be defended without bringing even more ordure on their heads. It is assumed that they just have to be thick skinned, so thick skinned in fact that they often appear abnormal. I guess in Corbyn’s case his enemies worry that he may still come across as being too normal, a quality enhanced by what’s left of his ‘outsider’ status. The good news is that if Bower couldn’t find any convincing dirt on Corbyn it’s unlikely anyone else will now come up with some killer fact. The bad news therefore is that between now and the general election evermore nastiness and absurdity will be doled out in equal measure, unfortunately assisted by publicity seeking individuals ‘on our side.’ I can’t recall that since the shocking and abhorrent murder of Jo Cox MP any other Labour MP being physically attacked, not even those who attracted endless media coverage for wanting police protection. But in case you missed it, Jeremy Corbyn was punched over the weekend and his assailant arrested. Yes, you might have missed that, because his name wasn’t, for the sake of argument only, Margaret Hodge or John Mann. That would have been headline news! Anyway, not to worry since ‘Dame’ Margaret rectified her brief absence in the media and threw up another anti-Corbyn accusation, which was to suggest that his office was interfering in alleged cases of anti-semitism. Curious then that she hasn’t also complained about Tom Watson’s well publicised intent to interfere with Labour’s disciplinary cases.
I’ve read that the Jewish Labour Movement (formerly Poale Zion) are considering disaffiliating from the Labour Party. That’s up to them of course, but it could create an opportunity for the excellent Jewish Voice for Labour to seek affiliation. A brilliant take-down of some this anti-semitism hysteria has just been published on their website here. 'If you are an anti-capitalist, the chances are you are an anti-semite'
The words of Siobhain McDonagh MP, at c. 7.40 this morning on the Today programme. ❶ The Voice Of The People, the Bassetlaw barker John Mann MP has spoken. Writing on Labour List he tells the world that Labour must get on with Brexit (he doesn’t say what kind of Brexit, just what The People voted for, whatever that may be). He writes “My voters are fed up with being patronised by a London-dominated, metropolitan elite within the Labour Party.” I have to say I worry that the phrase ‘metropolitan elite’ sounds awfully like an anti-semitic trope in the current poisoned atmosphere. What or who exactly is this ‘metropolitan elite?’ An equivalent term in the U.S. would be ‘liberal elite’ and that phrase has definitely been used as an anti-semitic trope against the left leaning, East Coast Jewish establishment. Might ‘metropolitan elite’ be used that way here? I think John needs to explain himself. On second thoughts, no.
I – let’s be clear – am not accusing Mann of using an anti-semitic term. But I am accusing him of using sloppy language, and worse I am accusing him of being a hypocrite. Check out his Wikipedia page – it’s as London-centric as you could wish for, so far as his career is concerned. From being a Lambeth councillor, a TUC training officer in North London, a Labour Party HQ staffer. He’s been a Labour MP for 18 years, and currently earns £74,000 in his Westminster Village job. According to Wikipedia, he still employs his wife as office manager on parliamentary expenses. Does this experience tend towards the Bassetlaw norm or the London norm? Perhaps what really bothers John is his diminishing majority. At the last election his majority was half of what it was in 2001. So far as Brexit goes, his cris de coeur is with UKIP, so at least he won’t be joining the ‘funny tinge’ group anytime soon. ❷ Soooo. How good is the democracy thing these days? Lots of ink has been spilled on the Brexit referendum – on the lies, deceit, cheating and illegality that took place. But looking around the rest of the world the democratic ideal seems as unrealised as ever. Not forgetting Trump losing the US election in 2016 of course (at least the Democratic controlled House of Representatives is seeking legislation to stem gerrymandering). Now we have a stand-off between India and Pakistan, as each side toughs it out, with one side entering elections with a Prime Minister who wants to look top-dog tough; in Nigeria the integrity of the recent election has been challenged by the opposition (this does seem par for the course, for whoever loses in Nigeria); the last Venezuelan elections are being challenged by the ‘interim president’ (sic) and his fellow coup plotters; in Israel (if we’re allowed to mention it) Netanyahu is teaming up with the extreme terrorist related ‘Jewish Power’ party to bolster his hard right coalition chances in their coming elections (and now he has a corruption charge to add to his woes, the Palestinians will have more to worry about); in the UK a dozen or more constituencies are now represented by MPs who have renounced their membership of the party on whose ticket they were elected; one country in the UK – with its own parliament – voted to stay in the EU and is being ignored (what’s true for Scotland is also true for Northern Ireland). As has been written about so often, to win elections these days it seems you have to be on the populist right, espousing nationalistic and xenophobic values. It is the reaction against neo-liberal globalisation (ironically the solution for which we’re told is more neo-liberalism). Even when the populist right don’t actually win an election, we see the tail wagging the dog. Take back control. End of. It all began with Nietzsche, of course, this is merely part of the current long cycle of history which gloriously began with the statement ‘God is dead.’ What could God be replaced with? Dialectical materialism came in handy and for nearly a century, for some a new faith in human redemptive power was at least paid lip service to whilst taking a form that simply didn’t work (just as religion didn’t work). The loss of that twentieth century attempt to better ourselves through an ideological lens, resulting in what Francis Fukuyama called the end of history, now leaves us wondering what to do. In such circumstances what many people seem willing to do is turn inwards, the great experiments have failed and all that is left is the individual (and families, as some politician once said). With the added threat of an existential crisis (climate change), which will certainly cause catastrophe in the not too distant future, will we see a competitive or a co-operative human spirit triumph? The answer is blowin’ in t’wind. ❸ ‘Sir’ Oliver Letwin told us this morning that if Corbyn became PM, the UK would ‘become like Venezuela.’ Does that mean the U.K. would be hit by U.S. sanctions? Of course, he wasn’t asked to explain himself, he was on the BBC. ❹ Meanwhile, I wonder if Tom Watson (whilst doing all he can to ensure that Corbyn doesn’t become PM), should offer himself for re-election for Labour’s deputy leadership? I suspect he would be crushed. If such a contest doesn’t happen, I suppose he could always be charged with bringing the party into disrepute, because that’s what he seems to have set his mind on. ❶ Questions have been raised in the mainstream media about how the MOMO internet child suicide story spread and was apparently validated, even by the police, leading to fears that children everywhere would be falling prey to a death wish. The answer lies with the media itself, of course, ever gullible for stories which stoke up hysteria. It turns out that the MOMO thing was completely untrue. In terms of how a story can be exaggerated and even turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, I make no apology for comparing that story to the story of ‘endemic’ anti-semitism in the Labour Party. When people have complained of anti-semitism in Labour, journalists have been reluctant to question it. Is this because they don’t want to be excluded from the feeding frenzy, or fear being out-of-line? So claims are made – e.g. Margaret Hodge’s now discredited figures – and they are taken at face value. Unlike MOMO however, we know that behind this story there is a motive. (And to be clear I am NOT saying that a small number of party members have not displayed anti-semitism.)
❷ Another story this week, which I have found slightly discombobulating is that of the case, now leading to a retrial, of Sally Challen who killed her husband Richard after it is alleged she suffered years of mental torment. The merits of the case are now to be determined again. What is slightly unnerving is seeing one’s own name – rarely if ever seen in the press or TV – now so prominent in what was originally a murder case. Challens are fairly rare up north, but the name is commoner down south, especially in Sussex. The deceased husband in the case, Richard also has a first name that was common in the male line of my family tree. Were we distant cousins? One is forced to look at the pictures to see if one can detect physical resemblances. It’s ridiculous. My side of the family left for Canada in 1859. ❸ The U.S. has published its proposals for a US/UK trade deal, and yes, chlorinated chicken is there according to reports this morning. Reading the Grocer online, a bit from an article from 2017 caught my eye: “In a piece from 2014, Monica Goyens of the EU consumer body BEUC wrote: “Essentially, what we are concerned about is not just the chemical itself, but rather the risk that these treatments will be seen as the “easy fix” to clean up dirty meat. Let’s be clear – no chemical rinse will ever remove all bacteria from meat heavily contaminated as a result of poor hygiene.” Other than Dr Fox, does anyone else think this is a good idea? Yes. The Adam Smith Institute says there are good reasons for the UK to scrap EU rules that currently ban chlorine-treated poultry in this country. In a new briefing paper called Chlorinated chicken - Why You Shouldn’t Give A Cluck, it argues British consumers could enjoy much cheaper poultry if the ban on chlorine treatment were lifted. “US methods produce fresh chicken at 79% of the price of equivalent birds on British supermarket shelves,” it says.” (full article here) It’s all so predictable isn’t it? Lower standards in animal welfare means higher usage of chemicals but it’s all cheaper for the consumer. Glad I’m a veggie. |
Archives
March 2024
|