Re: [Marxism] John Brown, abolitionist

[Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxx>]

I have to agree with kersplebedeb here.  While Lou's
antipathy towards Ehrenreich is understandable
and justified in other contexts, she did not write
the sort of review that he accuses her of having written.
She clearly endorses Reynolds' view that Brown's
violence, was under the circumstances, quite justified,
and that it carried out in a selective and measured
manner.

I don't see how Lou could disagree with the concluding
paragraph where Ehrenreich writes:

"How do we judge a man of such different times -- and temperament -- from

our own? If the rule is that there must be some proportion between a
violent act and its provocation, surely there could be no more monstrous
provocation than slavery. In our own time, some may discern equivalent
evils in continuing racial oppression, economic exploitation,
environmental
predation or widespread torture. To them, ''John Brown, Abolitionist,''
for
all its wealth of detail and scrupulous attempts at balance, has a
shockingly simple message: Far better to have future generations complain

about your methods than condemn you for doing nothing."

Jim F.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:32:19 -0400 kersplebedeb <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> This strikes me as unfair - within the entire review there are a
> total
> of two paragraphs critical of Brown - and even then they are clearly
>
> sympathetically critical. I read no charge of Brown being
> excessively
> violent, rather i read Ehrenreich agreeing with Reynolds argument
> that
> Brown's violence was emasures, selective, and justified.
> Were you reading the same review i was?
> Indeed, I find Brown being put in the same company as Nader by
> yourself
> to be more demeaning than anything Ehrenreich had to say about him!
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism