Print

Print


I don't think there is anything especially morally pure about Pound 
admirers.  Even Olga Rudge became furious at a conference once because 
Pound's fascism was mentioned.  Many Eliot readers and scholars deplore 
many of his views.  And many Eliot scholars have discussed and 
dissociated themselves from his anti-Semitic language.  This list is not 
defined by any one or few members.

An added note to Raphael:  I think it would be nice if you were right about 
the efficacy of ignoring offfensive views, but I do not think you are.  As this 
post shows, enough of that sort of thing has an impact.  I believe one must 
explicitly counter it because ignoring it is a kind of normalizing or even 
validation.

Nancy 



Date sent:      	Thu, 09 May 2002 19:43:28 -0500
Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
From:           	Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
To:             	[log in to unmask]
Subject:        	Re: OT: Dutch politician killed

It is difficult to think of anything more moreally disgusting and
intellectually bankrupt than to associate a whole people by the actions of
a few. This is racism of the most contemptible sort, not fit for
expression in adult conversation.

I know from reading some of the correspondence between Eliot and Pound 
in the 1930s that Eliot fully shared Pound's anti-semitism, but subscribers 
on the Pound list have the intelligence and decency to dissociate 
themselves sharply from that anti-semitism.  

The creepy anti-arab feeling being expressed by some woman on this list
suggests that Eliot's poetry is rather less healthy than Pound's. By the
same logic that this creature makes general conclusions about Arabs from
the activities of a few, one would be justified in concluding that all
Eliot-admirers are contemptible racists, would one not?

The feeling she gives me is nicely mimed in Canto 14:

 The slough of unamiable liars,
  bog of stupidities,
 malevolent stupidities, and stupidities,
 the soil living pus, full of vermin,
 dead maggots begetting live maggots . . .
-
Carrol