December 19, 2011
Hitched In History To Crimes Against Humanity
by Maniza Naqvi
“Books do make a room.” Or something like that, from a play—can’t recall which one----- a satirical jibe at the mindless tyranny of the self serving anti intellectual in society. This type of thinking is hitched to a fine pitch for the American audience, in the packaging and selling, in my opinion, of a slimy toad: the blow hard, alcoholic—poser, social climber, wannabe—the unoriginal mediocre cheerleader of war and mass murder who made a career of being draped in mounds of other peoples’ books and supposedly having been himself well read and writing well, all the while being a fraud—and an Iago to America’s Othello. As if being surrounded by columns and piles of books, and having an ability to parrot quotes, and insults in a British accent—with a cigarette and a glass of whisky in hand somehow made him an intellectual. It did not. From all that has been written about him and what he wrote himself he was nothing more than a weak, trend following, power worshipping, fraud: third rate at school and third rate in life.
That toad’s words hitch him to being part of the language, literature and actions that define the racist, supremacist and fascist ethos of mass murderers who are obsessed with God all the while denying their real obsession as if to say: I don’t deny —my orientation---because I have a greater obsession than that which I need to hide: I actually do believe in a God---in a God for the right people--a white God.
The toad, an inebriated toxic decay wrapped inside the blubber of mid life crisis, appeared to himself, a legend, from a bar stool's smoky view of the mirror. So he hitched his sense of self to some confusion with Dorian Gray.
The event on September 11, 2001 allowed a gleeful toad such as him to unleash his proclivities of hatred unvarnished down the welcoming throat of an era of bloodletting.
Hitch, apparently to his equally narcissistic friends. Indeed. Hitch, he did, his wagon to power—first to that of the bullies at public school— no doubt to shield his inadequacies and then to that of War and God, for more of the same.
Hitched, his rhetoric, to applaud, the crusading murderous criminal gang, which continues to rule Washington.
Hitch, he did his first of three party tricks—his quaint vocabulary delivered in an English accent aimed to feed the fetish of Americans who buy anything, snake oil or poison, if it is sold to them in a British accent.
Hitch he did, his second trick, the ability to pitch his pedantic arguments, at easy targets of dead victims and God, to the admiration of those in need of freeing their consciences of any sense of moral or ethical responsibility for their actions.
Hitch he did, his third trick, to hold down so much drink and remain hate filled, and be considered admirable and cool to legions of frat boys—and people anesthetizing themselves against any remorse, those nostalgic for the good old days of Empire, refusing to face their complicity in the war crimes committed in the name of Freedom and Liberty.
He must have honed his craft in the shower room of his public school—offering himself up—whilst escaping by being entertaining and witty for those bullies whom he must’ve perceived, in his classist mind, to be his superiors---so that he, would himself, survive and gang up with them, on inflicting maximum harm, on those whom he considered unworthy of kindness—guileless victims, those who were not able to fight back.
Hitched, he is forever in the records of history, to being complicit in the murders of hundreds and thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.
Hitched, he is to a blood soaked history, in which forever indelibly soaked will be his hands for the ink he has spilled for hate and war mongering and distortion of facts.
Also by Maniza Naqvi:
The Kreutzer Sonata in Addis Ababa
Battle Songs: These Children Can’t Be Bought
Hitched In History to Crimes Against Humanity
Imagining Lyari Through Akhtar Soomro
Rimbaud and Insider Information on Disasters Foretold
Expressing Fidelity Through Sorrow's Hope
Losing the Plot: Habits of the Heart (Complete Novel)
The Art of Resistance: Under Siege
The Leftist And The Leader (A Play)
Posted by Maniza Naqvi at 12:55 AM | Permalink
Comments
Hitchens' writings on the "War on Terror" were disgraceful as well as wrong, yes, but I think he deserves more than 650 words that essentially amount to, "The man was a cock."
Posted by: BenSix | Dec 19, 2011 5:46:49 PM
"Hitch, he did his first of three party tricks—his quaint vocabulary delivered in an English accent aimed to feed the fetish of Americans who buy anything, snake oil or poison, if it is sold to them in a British accent."
Hmmm.... and you say Hitchens was a racist and that he was hate-filled ? I mean, those are like .... really bad things, right ?
And this:
"He must have honed his craft in the shower room of his public school—offering himself up"
Homophobic much ?
3Q editors: naughty, naughty.
Posted by: Ajit | Dec 19, 2011 5:55:23 PM
First honest piece of writing about Hitchens since he kicked.
Posted by: Mark Abbott | Dec 19, 2011 6:36:00 PM
Hitchens himself descended to this level of drivel on rare occasions. You've learning his worst lesson well. Feel better?
Posted by: Joseph Hutchison | Dec 19, 2011 6:48:06 PM
Yes I feel much better. In fact my last sentence which I removed out of propriety and respect for the dead was:
"There I feel better. Son of a bitch."
Posted by: maniza | Dec 19, 2011 7:36:49 PM
All you have done is describe him as you saw him, which is all you could have done I suppose. Hitchens though, was a defender of liberty and hated religion because of its Totalitarian bent; look at what Islam done to your mess of a homeland. He was much more than a supporter of the War on Terror, though he was that.
I was hoping to see a Hitchens critique with some nuance. Instead all I got was a hysterical rant. And to say he was racist is a blatant and shameful lie.
Posted by: Jacob | Dec 19, 2011 7:54:59 PM
Don't you think that's a bit overdrawn? Just a bit harsh? And overly-dramatic on your part, as well?
Hitchens had many flaws --personal amd political -- and I agree that he was not an intellectual of an original cast or lasting impression, but your protestations are so strongly worded as to make me like him just a bit better than I did before I read your piece, and I have been writing my own criticisms of him and his acolytes (especially his acolytes) all day.
Have you heard the expression "concerning protesting too much?"
Posted by: David Sucher | Dec 19, 2011 8:52:35 PM
I take it the author didn't like Hitch. He seems to have nothing else to say. Certainly, his is not demonstrated the logic or finesse of Hitch, even if he may be correct on some points.
Posted by: Piso Mojado | Dec 19, 2011 8:54:30 PM
Millions thought as Hitch did about the war, but not for as long as he did.
I didn't agree with Hitch about the war, but still, I am glad he was a writer albeit for other reasons.
He would have appreciated Maniza Naqvi's mastery of not-mincing-words, cause Hitch didn't mince words either.
Mr. Naqvi has such a Hitchiness about him that all I have to do is change some words here and there so that replacement of those words could very well then end up being so like Hitch.
So like Hitch writing about a church or a church pastor, for example.
Posted by: Dredd | Dec 19, 2011 9:46:42 PM
Very interesting. Someday we need a good theory of why people feel upset over some things more than others...what is the criterion? is there a criterion?
Someday...
Posted by: omar | Dec 19, 2011 9:52:48 PM
Nice try. Hitch did it much better though.
Posted by: Evan Tucker | Dec 19, 2011 10:07:26 PM
Piso Mojado,
"I take it the author didn't like Hitch"
LOL. Cracked me up real good!
Posted by: Dredd | Dec 19, 2011 10:38:11 PM
What's all that stuff on Hitchens's face? Is this a smear piece?
Posted by: M73 | Dec 19, 2011 11:42:25 PM
gude stuff on the "drink-sotted former Trotskyite popinjay." but one must point out that like Dorian Gray hitchens 'english accent' was oxonian & not the everyday english most of us speak
Posted by: jim sharp | Dec 20, 2011 12:19:13 AM
Needlessly amateurish and histrionic piece trying to "out-Hitchens Hitchens."
Pathetic. The type of thing the author - if she grows in any wit at all - will look back on in a few years and regret.
Unforgivable in that Hitchens expended considerable energy bringing attention to, and opposing, the very forces of totalitarianism which plague her homeland. This is the worst type of selling out... and for what? Internet web hits? Cheap notoriety of the worst kind?
Women are dying and are already living miserable lives in places throughout Pakistan, and one of Hitchen's most enduring legacies is his vociferous opposition to that suffering. You should be ashamed of yourself!
3QD continues it slow circle around the drain, brought down by ignoramuses like this.
You never would have seen such a disgraceful post such as this here even just a few years ago... truly desperate and embarrassing.
Posted by: mrgoodbar | Dec 20, 2011 12:29:19 AM
The right response to Christopher Hitchens' death is criticism. For the breathless hypocrisy, and for all of the easy targets he chose in lieu of real aims. And it will come. Likely from the old British left that recognized his gifts before anyone else. The old guard that he abandoned for the glossy pages of alcoholism and evasion.
But this piece is lame, ad hominem doggrel. Not an ounce of content, and the form motivated by a flaccid pun on the dead man's name. Certainly unworthy of its opponent; even if the writer is, seemingly by chance, on the right side. Really tedious and stupid.
Posted by: MG | Dec 20, 2011 12:43:49 AM
Toad? Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think. Puerile and tendentious.
Posted by: Sam | Dec 20, 2011 1:35:04 AM
This many comments in, and nobody has mentioned that bloody awful first sentence? I can only assume that the semi-literate teenager who scribbled this drivel is trying to refer to Anthony Powell's novel Books Do Furnish a Room, while taking a teenager's pride in neither knowing nor caring if that is the referent or not.
Interesting to see so many cretins crawling out of the woodwork to say things they never said until Htichens was no longer in a position to respond. Interesting, too, to see the combined effects of envy, resentment and grotesque political shallowness on display like this, as well as the resort to the crassest vulgar Marxism there is in the stupid claim that Hitchens did not say what he believed, but what he was paid to say.
But then again, it's not *that* interesting. 3 out of 10 for effort, but needs more research and less self-righteousness.
Posted by: passer-by | Dec 20, 2011 2:01:13 AM
What a load of drivel. Never have i read such a load of old w**k
Posted by: Smithy | Dec 20, 2011 3:33:41 AM
Let me be clear: the piece could have been written better. But, sometimes, what is interesting is not the piece itself but the comments. At least two comments (jacob and mrgoodbar) remind the author of the mess that is her homeland and the (condescending) efforts of Mr. Hitchens in this regard. At least two comments (Piso Mojado and Dredd), even more worryingly, refer to the author as a male. The author is not. I would reject these comments as mere ignorance but I cannot stay quiet. They are more than that. They are the workings of the patriarchal western world that must civilize the religious barbarians who it can only imagine in the male form (since all the woman could only be in burqas and silent). Maybe i exaggerate, but this is how ideology works, at a level of abstraction that the writer herself or himself sometimes cannot identify (This might very well be the case with these commentators). Though I respect some of Mr. Hitchen's polemic, especially his literary analysis of religion, I cannot respect his apologies for a bloody war nor can I look away from the obvious signs of patriarchy and western-centrism in those who apologize for him. A man of letters, no matter how good he is, cannot be excused for his support of an imperialist war. And certainly should not be excused while condescendingly labeling his opponents as misguided males who do not care about their homeland.As for polemic, it was not invented, nor is it the sole property of, Mr. Hitchens, no matter how good he was at it. To say that the author of this piece is aping Hitchens is simply a poor reading, and even worse, an exaggeration of the dead man's capabilities.
Posted by: Haider | Dec 20, 2011 4:26:02 AM
Agree with him or not. He made us think and conciously develop and define our own positions if for no other reason than to do what you just did. He chafed us. You more than most.
Posted by: joe | Dec 20, 2011 4:35:20 AM
Since when has 3QD accepted articles written in crayon?
Unworthy of this site -- both the article and your publication of same.
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com
Posted by: A.C. Douglas | Dec 20, 2011 4:55:37 AM
Haider,
"even more worryingly, refer to the author as a male"
Are you saying the author, Hitch, is not a male?
Shame on you girl for that mirror "mere" ignorance.
Posted by: Dredd | Dec 20, 2011 6:20:58 AM
I disagree with Hitchens' stand on the Iraq war, but the author paints a narrow and distorted picture of the man.
Hitchens was so much more to so many more people. He stood against the tyranny of religious fanatics. His written works are a treasure to freethinkers and will outlive us all.
Posted by: Thomas54 | Dec 20, 2011 6:28:04 AM
Dredd,
I am saying that the author, Maniza Naqvi, is not male. Please read more carefully. Also, please do not assume genders without knowing (We can get in to a larger debate about the instability of gender but this might not be the place). You do the same again when referring to me, and get it wrong again. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.
Posted by: Haider | Dec 20, 2011 6:31:22 AM
Haider, what do you mean by "(condescending) efforts"? The author was born in Pakistan, and takes Hitchens to task for his dismantling and contempt of religion. I'm saying that what good has religion done, precisely, to benefit Pakistan?
What obvious signs of "patriarchy" in his supporters might you be referring to? You accuse them of blind ideology, and yet your assumption of a patriarchal mindset may say more about you, in fact. Western-centrism... what is the matter with this exactly? Are we to pretend we are not from the West, and do not know it best?
Your indignation at his support of an "imperialist war" ignores the fact that the war ended a decades long rule of a tyrannical psychopathic regime. But it is much easier to tut tut at those who tried to do something about it.
"And certainly should not be excused while condescendingly labeling his opponents as misguided males who do not care about their homeland."
What is this paragraph about? You seem to get Hitch mixed up with a couple of commenters on this article.
Posted by: Jacob | Dec 20, 2011 8:11:36 AM
Well, I've got to say, the death of Hitchens has been better covered on 3QD than anywhere else. We got the for and against, passionately, from writers and readers and commenters. I commend you, 3QD -- the vehement outburst from a Pakistani was as necessary as Morgan's balanced piece. Hitchens was an entertaining writer and a great friend to most of his friends, but he also was an intellectual bully and an utter idiot and neocon war-mongering bastard toady about the Iraq War. I think his backing of the war was probably much driven by his fierce and lingering upset about the fatwa on his friend's Salman Rushdie's life. The man took his politics very personally. He had a vendetta going against religion, and especially Islam.
Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 20, 2011 8:58:24 AM
I am afraid that this comment might turn into an article itself. But since I did level some accusations, and you did ask for a clarification, so I will try to respond as well as I can. In order to clarify, my original problem was with two trends in the comments section of this article: 1) comments were putting Naqvi to shame for not caring about the mess in her homeland which Hitchens, according to them, cared about. 2) comments assumed that Maniza Naqvi was a man.
Since you ask for the example of condescending efforts on Hitchens’s behalf, let us look at his July 2011 article in Vanity fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/07/osama-bin-laden-201107). I do not have the time or the space to present a thorough analysis of the condescension at display in this article. To begin with, comparing a whole country to a character in an Alexander Pope poem will suffice.
Secondly, the “obvious” sign of patriarchy that I pointed to was the assumption on the part of some commentators that Maniza Naqvi was a male. This is, to put it simply, an “obvious” sign of patriarchy.
Thirdly, the problem with Western-centrism is not that it acknowledges its origins in the West or that it knows the West. That is, certainly, a good thing as you yourself have said. The problem with Western-centrism is that it shames non-western writers for not understanding the mess that is their own homeland. It then goes on to tell us that western intellectuals like Hitchens who are complicit in the killing of many innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan, for that matter) actually were trying to “liberate” these messes. Before commenting on these issues, it is only polite to understand the nature of "liberation" as it is enforced by the West on other countries. (A word of caution: I use the category "West" to make a simplistic argument about the nature of political and representational relationship that exists in the world. It is, obviously, a problematic category)
I am sorry if my comment confused Hitchens and his supporters. I hope I have clarified some of the issues you raised. For general interest on Hitchens and his critique, I would recommend the following:
For a criticism of Hitchens’s stance on women, read: http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher
For a criticism of Hitchens’s stance on Said and Orientalism, read: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/09/19/hitchens-smears-edward-said/
Posted by: Haider | Dec 20, 2011 9:00:52 AM
One more thing: Hitch's "God Is Not Great" was by far the nadir of the pro-atheism books. Sam Harris did a far better job. The only insight Hitchens contributed was that a belief in God is submission to tyranny, and he could've gotten this excellent point across in a sharp column instead of his boring book.
Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 20, 2011 9:02:48 AM
Jacob, Evert, mrgoodbar,
Your criticism of Pakistan while valid is out of context here and with reference to Ms Maniza's origins is cheap. What are your thoughts on Nazism in Europe and centuries of Genocide of Native Americans and Slavery of Blacks?
Posted by: Raza | Dec 20, 2011 11:40:38 AM
I write and write--carefully crafting each sentence as best as I can and at best that work garners a clutch of comments.
Yet an hour's worth of a barroom brawl piece of writing much like the man's---gets me noticed. Throwing insults and innuendoes with semi clever turns of phrases--is a cheap and lazy way to get easy attention. Lots of it. People respond to salacious polemics. Hitchens made that his talent.
My piece was written as a tribute of appropriateness: measure for measure---written channeling the mean spirit that he so exemplified.
Contrarian it is called--A style to make people jolt out of their lazy thinking of hearing simply the preaching to the choir. That's nonsense. He could have used his writing for good. He did not. He was the master for an era of writing given to pornographic justification of violence and hatred so easily lapped up by most masquerading as caring liberal thinkers.
The huge flurry of responses proves my point.
Posted by: maniza | Dec 20, 2011 12:28:23 PM
Thank heavens for Maniza's courageous, timely and "sacrilegious" article on Hitchens. I was beginning to lose faith in 3QD providing balanced articles. The article's content and tone is appropriate to describe Hitchens.
Hitchens was self obsessed and a zealot about his beliefs on atheism, racism and war that made him more religious, fundamentalist, fascist than any fanatic can be. He lacked the objectivity and analysis of say Bill Maher and was simply a crude, angry and confused ranter, much less a writer.
His mockery of Gandhi, Mandela, Mother Teresa and MLK amongst others (coincidently all dedicated their lives to colored people causes) and admiration for Bush shows his true intellectual level and betrays his racism. His admiration of liberty in America ignores the first 150 years of its history (some would say to this day) of genocide, slavery, apartheid and imperialism. He called the subjugation of Native Americans a good thing "deserving to be celebrated with great vim and gusto".
One could go on and on, but In short, Christopher Hitchens was a RACIST.
Posted by: Raza | Dec 20, 2011 12:39:49 PM
Rasa,
May I suggest you document those assertions about Hirchens' racism as right now it is simply an assertion. Hitchens was "wrong" on a number of issues but I don't see the racism, unless you are suggesting that Hitchens attacking Kissinger was bigoted.
Posted by: David Sucher | Dec 20, 2011 12:48:41 PM
Hey all you Caucasian dumbasses: keep Pakistan out of your silly debates.
Posted by: Tanya | Dec 20, 2011 12:51:23 PM
I agree dumb rich, white guys have gotten us into much of our current predicament, but Pakistan is a case onto itself.
In population overshoot, ecologically devastated, illiterate, dependent on industrial ag, immersed in religious fundamentalism, water and fuel challenged, all run by the military.
While Hitch has been all over the board with his views, I've always enjoyed him as a writer.
He could have evolved into Ayatollah Hitchens given enough time.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 20, 2011 1:39:44 PM
Fine work. Measure for measure.
Posted by: Saunders | Dec 20, 2011 2:01:51 PM
Maniza, I found your article timely, appropriate, clever and fair, all things considered. Thank you for it.
I thank you as a long time fan of Hitch's writing (especially the 80s-90s), sometimes fan of his opinions, and passionate despiser of his pronounced Islamophobia and war-mongering.
I also thank 3Quarks for publishing your article.
Posted by: Tulliver | Dec 20, 2011 2:24:47 PM
For David Sucher:
Below is my documentation of Christopher Hitchens racism by the man himself. I am not sure if this will please you though, but you asked for it.
1. Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate October20, 2003
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
2.The Real Mahatma Gandhi
Questioning the moral heroism of India’s most revered figure
By Christopher Hitchens
The Atlantic Magazine July/August 2011
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-real-mahatma-gandhi/8550/
3. The Lion Who Didn't Roar
Why hasn't Nelson Mandela spoken out against Robert Mugabe?
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate, June 9 2008
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/06/the_lion_who_didnt_roar.html
4. On support for Columbus's extermination of Native Americans ("deserving to be celebrated with great vim and gusto"
Christopher Hitchens on wikiquote
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
Posted by: Raza | Dec 20, 2011 2:52:53 PM
Whoa Raza,
I never said anything about Pakistan and agree with Maniza. Please don't lump me in with Hitchens defenders.
Evert
Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 20, 2011 3:28:20 PM
All I can say is that this piece, and the fact that the writer waited for Hitchens to pass away before publishing it, says a lot more about the writer than about Hitchens.
Posted by: Jeremy | Dec 20, 2011 3:30:07 PM
Ew and fuck you are the only words this article is worth.
Posted by: Landon | Dec 20, 2011 3:47:41 PM
Jeremy,
Ummm would imagine she wrote it because he is dead. Stay with the programme dear man.
What do you imagine would have happened if she had written it while he was alive?
Come to think of it if she had written it while he was alive and if he just happened to be reading 3QD, methinks he would have fallen in love with her. "Finally!" He might have said, "Hello? Someone not entirely a bore and in need of a good bloody fight. Right!" He may have been disappointed that she's female but you can't have everything.
If I were a betting man I would think that given a choice on whom to have a drink with if it were only a choice of the three who've written about him here, I would put my money on her.
D.
Posted by: Dorian | Dec 20, 2011 3:54:12 PM
Raza wrote:
Below is my documentation of Christopher Hitchens racism by the man himself.
Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate October20, 2003
————————————————————————————
Racism(!)? In the piece on Mother Teresa?
I challenge you to specify what about that piece is racist.
(I could make that challenge for any one of your examples, but the piece on Mother Teresa, your first example, will do.)
--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/
Posted by: A.C. Douglas | Dec 20, 2011 4:04:29 PM
Maniza, my darling, you're a cunt of the particularly cunty kind.
Posted by: J W Black | Dec 20, 2011 4:13:18 PM
Raza,
I have now read each of the articles you cite, which may be more than you have done. There is nothing in any of them that “documents” Hitchens’ purported racism. The first article simply repeats Hitchens’ familiar criticism of Mother Teresa for being a religious fanatic and indifferent to the suffering of the sick and the poor whom she claimed to champion. The second, is a review of the recent biography by Joseph Lleyveld on Ghandhi; this basically follows Lleyveld’s own analysis, includes some praise for Gandhi, but emphasizes the vanity and eccentricity of Gandhi’s thinking; in particular, Hitchens acknowledges that Ghandhi “did fight quite tenaciously against the horrors of ‘untouchability’”, but also notes that “for much of his life [he] was less decided about the need to challenge the caste system tout court.”
The third article, on Mandela’s failure to condemn Robert Mugabi, is in fact extremely admiring of Mandela; it is this admiration that gives force to Hitchens dismay over Mandela’s silence. Still, after expressing sorrow over the fact that “the one person in the world who symbolizes internationalist solidarity and the brotherhood of man” should remain silent in the face of Mugabe’s death squads, Hitchens ends by expressing hope “that the old lion will summon one last powerful growl.”
This brings us to the last citation, which you claim documents Hitchens’ “support for Columbus's extermination of Native Americans”. The citation, it turns out, is not to anything that Hitchens himself wrote, but rather to a contention by Norman Finkelstein, picked up by Wikipedia; according to Wikipedia, Finkelstein claims that, in one of his writings, Hitchens’ expressed support for the extermination of Native Americans.
On its face, this claim is wildly improbable and, in fact, a close reading of Finkelstein’s contention leaves one in doubt that he was being serious in leveling the charge. But you, Raza, evidently are convinced the charge is true. So let me offer this small challenge: since you claim to have documented Hitchens’ racism, please identify precisely where Hitchens expressed support for the extermination of Native Americans. If you do, I promise never to read a word by Hitchens again. But if you don’t, I will conclude (as I already suspect) that you consider the truth an irrelevancy, and that reading you is a waste of time.
Posted by: Dave Hammer | Dec 20, 2011 4:37:27 PM
Corey Robin: "Christopher Hitchens: The Most Provincial Spirit of All
16 Dec
On the announcement of his death, I think it’s fair to allow Christopher Hitchens to do the things he loved to do most.
Speak for himself:
[On the use of cluster bombs by the US in Afghanistan] If you’re actually certain that you’re hitting only a concentration of enemy troops…then it’s pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they’re bearing a Koran over their heart, it’ll go straight through that, too. So they won’t be able to say, “Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.” No way, ’cause it’ll go straight through that as well. They’ll be dead, in other words.
Speak about himself:
I should perhaps confess that on September 11 last, once I had experienced all the usual mammalian gamut of emotions, from rage to nausea, I also discovered that another sensation was contending for mastery. On examination, and to my own surprise and pleasure, it turned out be exhilaration. Here was the most frightful enemy–theocratic barbarism–in plain view….I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost.
Hitchens had a reputation for being an internationalist. Yet someone who gets excited by mass murder—and then invokes that excitement, to a waiting audience, as an explanation of his support for mass murder—is not an internationalist. He is a narcissist, the most provincial spirit of all.
Only a writer of Hitchens’s talents could do justice to the culture that now so shamefully mourns him.:
Posted by: Mary-Anne | Dec 20, 2011 4:55:21 PM
"This brings us to the last citation, which you claim documents Hitchens’ “support for Columbus's extermination of Native Americans”. The citation, it turns out, is not to anything that Hitchens himself wrote, but rather to a contention by Norman Finkelstein, picked up by Wikipedia; according to Wikipedia, Finkelstein claims that, in one of his writings, Hitchens’ expressed support for the extermination of Native Americans.
On its face, this claim is wildly improbable.."
I was also taken aback by the claim. I'd never read that disgraceful toady again if he actually said it. A quick search in the internet actually linked back to this very site, in an article from September 27th, 2004 written by Robin Varghese.
Robin, could you please explain where you found that quote?
Posted by: Pepito | Dec 20, 2011 5:53:26 PM
I was also responding to Raza when I saw that Dave Hammer covered pretty much the same points. My lengthy post was swallowed up by the site or removed, so I'll just note the other icon that Raza says Hitchens made racist mockery of: MLK.
From God is Not Great:
"At no point did Dr. King—who was once photographed in a bookstore waiting calmly for a physician while the knife of a maniac was sticking straight out of his chest—even hint that those who injured and reviled him were to be threatened with any revenge or punishment, in this world or the next, save the consequences of their own brute selfishness and stupidity. And he even phrased that appeal more courteously than, in my humble opinion, its targets deserved...This does not in the least diminish his standing as a great preacher, any more than does the fact that he was a mammal like the rest of us, and probably plagiarized his doctoral dissertation, and had a notorious fondness for booze and for women a good deal younger than his wife. He spent the remainder of his last evening in orgiastic dissipation, for which I don’t blame him. (These things, which of course disturb the faithful, are rather encouraging in that they show that a high moral character is not a precondition for great moral accomplishments.)"
In case you missed it, Hitchens here is saying that MLK has acheived "great moral accomplishments." How this can be twisted into evidence of racist mockery, I would like to know.
Posted by: litmus | Dec 20, 2011 6:03:53 PM
Haider,
Knowing what gender you or "the author" professes is so irrelevant that now you have me laughing like Piso Mojado did.
Only, Piso Mojado was funny, not a genderoid believing one has to know the gender of the writer to comment on the literary merits of what the writer penned.
Your lame assertions are preposterous and postposterous as well.
Don't you know that many good works have been done in the name of one gender by an author of another gender putting up a front?
Hitch would want to kick your ass babycakes.
Posted by: Dredd | Dec 20, 2011 6:27:59 PM
Haider,
Thank you for taking the time to further explain your comments.
I did not assume Naqui a man so I need not concern myself with a response to that.
To clarify, I put Naqui "to shame" not because I think she doesn't care about Pakistan, but because of this little morsel:
"(Hitchens) actually do(es) believe in a God---in a God for the right people--a white God."
This point is cheap and has no basis in reality. I assume it's making the link that being anti-Islam is somehow racist (ignoring that Hitchens denounced all religions).
So though my point was inelegant, I think it's still reasonable; you take Hitchens to task for being anti-Islamic, yet Islam has done what for Pakistan?
I'll let your point about condescension simmer because we don't really have the space to debate about one of his articles.
Point taken about patriarchy.
It is true of course, that Hitchens supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and I do find when I think about the civilian blood spilled it makes these wars hard to stomach. Let us be careful to clarify that there is no purposeful killing of civilians by US forces, but this was the kind of behaviour we could have expected from the toppled regimes.
Liberation, it is true, is only tolerable by "The West" if done by the West. But what are the alternatives? Who would, or who is willing, to liberate others on their behalf if not Western powers? And (though I risk provoking outrage here) the West has superiour forms of government over other States. Can we even compare Hussein's brutal, maniacal, terror and blood soaked government in values to say, the government of Australia? Whose values would you rather see imposed on the Iraqi people?
I'll will read those articles you provided sir.
Posted by: Jacob | Dec 20, 2011 6:47:50 PM
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone....most westernized upper class Pakistani liberal-leftists I have ever met seemed more than willing to celebrate some deaths with more gusto than Hitchens imagined the deaths of a group of Jihadis hit by cluster bombs (Dick Cheney comes to mind). I have obviously not met all of them, but its a definite trend.
Racism comes in many forms. The dominant form here seems to be the notion that brown people are helpless innocent children and only White people have ideas, ambitions and plans. History does not seem to bear that out...unless you start reading at 1650 and work very hard to avoid any book not written by an approved propagandist from the correct side of academia....
Posted by: omar | Dec 20, 2011 8:44:40 PM
Thank you, Raza (and I aplogize for misspelling your name) for the cites to your claims of Hitchens' racism.
I have only read the article about Mandela and I don't see the least bit of racism in it. One can argue with Hitchens that Mandela had no responsibility or did enough or whatever. But there is no sense of even the faintest stench of racism. Hitchens may have been unfair, inaccurate etc etc in his criticism but there is no racism there. He simply made a statement about a guy who he otherwise admired greatly.
Others have found the same i.e. that your claim of Hitchens' racism is unfounded.
I urge you to review your accusation and then either substantiate it or withdraw it.
Hitchens had enough flaws to add one that he didn't have.
Posted by: David Sucher | Dec 20, 2011 9:21:54 PM
So, did he really say that about Columbus and the extermination of the indigenous population of the Americas???
ROBIN VARGHESE: would you kindly tell us where you found that quote??
Posted by: Pepito | Dec 20, 2011 9:28:16 PM
Thanks for the reply Jacob.
I think Dredd still didn't really get my point, but I do not have the time, space or patience to explain theories of patriarchy in this space. Neither is it relevant to the spirit of this article. (If anyone is interested, you can start with De Beauvoir and come all the way down to Butler/Spivak. For those really interested, I love Hartmann's studies of marxism and patriarchy).
Jacob, once again, I would love to, but cannot get into a whole debate on neo-colonialism right here (especially after Abbas specifically asked for this inane debate to end which now has very little to do with Hithcens). Please remember I never called Hitchens a racist, only a neo-colonialist. There's a difference.
Posted by: Haider | Dec 21, 2011 5:51:05 AM
I had a problem reading Ms. Naqvi's article because Google Translate doesn't yet have a "Gibberish to English" function.
Posted by: Captain Howdy | Dec 21, 2011 1:39:51 PM
Everything Naqvi says about Hitchens may be true, but it is also true that he was a talented and entertaining writer. I do not judge art by the moral standards of the artist.
Posted by: reader | Dec 21, 2011 1:51:20 PM
The most irrational hateful article I have read in the past 5 years. I hope one day you come to your senses and regret this piece of shameful righting. I feel the pure hatred with no sign of criticism. Hitchens had passionate words but all aimed to fix something. I wonder how much this article will damage this daily's reputation.
Posted by: Mostafa | Dec 21, 2011 1:56:18 PM
Sadly, such extreme hated is characteristic of an extreme wing of feminism and does it no credit.
Posted by: reader | Dec 21, 2011 2:06:04 PM
What gibberish. Christopher Hitchens managed to be coherent even when he was inebriated. He even managed to string together sentences in a way to make a point, even if it was one you could disagree with. It doesn't look as if Manza Naqvi is able to do likewise.
Posted by: what | Dec 21, 2011 2:20:05 PM
Homophobic anger. And poorly written to boot. Nothing new here.
Posted by: Rustywheeler | Dec 21, 2011 2:42:52 PM
Are there any other pieces by this author on Hitchins BEFORE he died?
I'd just like know that the author had the courage to say this to his face, and not just to a corpse.
Hitchins had the balls to say what he was thinking, even when he knew it would be unpopular. That's a quality I admire in anyone, even when I vehemently disagree with what they're saying,
Posted by: Griff | Dec 21, 2011 4:01:57 PM
My own feeling is that Ms. Naqvi has been sufficiently chastised — it appears to nbe just about universal, even those who are not Hitchenites. Just as I disliked seeing Hitchens brutalized, so I now dislike it to Naqvi. We have all made embarrassing errors of judgments.
It is up to Naqvi now to do what she chooses to do.
BUT I am fascinated by these (what I see as intemperate) claims about Hitchens' racism and I hope to hear from Mr. Raza in due course..
Posted by: David Sucher | Dec 21, 2011 4:16:40 PM
It's sad that this horrible writing comes after the man has passed and is unable to defend himself. You should be ashamed.
Posted by: William Buliziuk | Dec 21, 2011 4:32:16 PM
Hi Pepito,
Sorry I didn't see the question until now. The quote is from a Nation article on October 19, 1992, on the 500th anniversary. I read it then. (The Nation website does not have a search that goes that far back into their archive.) But that's the issue. It recall it then because it produced quite an uproar. Hitchens never responded to the criticism and people assumed he was being a provacateur. But he never recanted either.
Look Hitchens is a complicated person. I am sadden by the loss. But the man had his political failings, next to his political, literary and intellectual tour de forces.
I personally don't think someone should not read Hitchens because he said something stupid and offensive once, or because he supported the war, or any such thing. Stop reading him if you think he has nothing to say, but then I'd think you would be seriously wrong.
Posted by: Robin | Dec 21, 2011 5:39:34 PM
I think this is the piece, available for $2.95 from The Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/archive/minority-report-220
Posted by: Robin | Dec 21, 2011 6:07:34 PM
A reproduction of the piece here: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2001/2001-December/027342.html
Posted by: Robin | Dec 21, 2011 6:10:08 PM
A really interesting take on CH. Not very smart, or well written, completely off the trolly and a complete waste of internet space. No, I take back the interesting part--I lied about that to get to read the rest. Absolute stupid drivel from someone who obviously has issues that go much deeper than it would appear. Get help.
Posted by: JHJEFFERY | Dec 21, 2011 7:19:13 PM
For some reason a comment didn't make it on.
The full quote is more ambiguous than my 20 year old memory, though the sentiment of the piece is well, you judge for yourself. In context: "The very dynasty that funded Columbus put an end to Andalusia in the same year, and thus blew up the cultural bridge between the high attainments of Islamic North Africa and Mesopotamia and the relative backwardness of Castilian Christendom. Still, for that synthesis to have occurred in the first place, creating the marvels of Cordoba and Granada, wars of expansion and conversion and displacement had to be won and lost. Reapportioning Andalusia according to "precedent" would be as futile an idea as restoring Sioux rights that are only "ancestral" as far back as 1814. The Sioux should be able to claim the same rights and titles as any other citizen, and should be compensated for past injury. That goes without saying. But the anti-Columbus movement is bored by concepts of this kind, preferring to flagellate about original sin and therefore, inevitably, to brood about the illusory counterpart to that exploded concept-the Garden of Eden.
Forget it. As Marx wrote about India, the impact of a more developed society upon a culture (or a series of warring cultures, since there was no such nation as India before the British Empire) can spread aspects of modernity and enlightenment that outlive and transcend the conqueror. This isn't always true; the British probably left Africa worse off than they found it, and they certainly retarded the whole life of Ireland. But it is sometimes unambiguously the case that a certain coincidence of ideas, technologies, population movements and politico-military victories leaves humanity on a slightly higher plane than it knew before. The transformation of part of the northern part of this continent into "America" inaugurated a nearly boundless epoch of opportunity and innovation, and thus deserves to be celebrated with great vim and gusto, with or without the participation of those who wish they had never been born."
My apologies to Hitch for making it seem more clear cut than it is.
Posted by: Robin | Dec 21, 2011 7:31:21 PM
Agree or disagree with his polemic, Hitchens continues to elicit passionate response even in death. That said, this piece is a cheap shot.
With regard to Raza's comments on Hitchens alleged racism, which he has made on a number of threads, I too would like to have the alleged racist content in the articles he linked to pointed out. Hitchens was a lot of things to a lot of people but racist is not one of them.
Posted by: Troy | Dec 21, 2011 7:35:05 PM
Thx, Robin.
A fascinating article (and actually a bit confusingly written -- I wish Hitchens had explored this issue further) but Hitchens does NOT remotely suggest that he was a "racist." He was a political realist along the lines of, say, Henry Kissinger — the "We were here first!" perspective is bunkum. The proper perspective should be "We were here first --- except for the people we displaced x hundreds/thousands of years ago." Hitchens approach is not based on racial superiority. Possession of a place NOW does not mean that the same group has total moral claim. Moreover, when it comes to arguments about who "deserves" it more must be seen in light of cultural evolution and perhaps (?) maximizing social welfare etc etc At least that is what I think Hitchens is saying.
No what surprises me about Hitchens' perspective is his inconsistency when it comes to the Palestinians. If the Sioux only had a tentative claim (subject to the tribe they displaced) then so would the Palestinians who must surely have displaced someone -- maybe the original Israelites!
And that would go for just about everyone else in the world: NO ONE was really anyway "first" anywhere so such territorial claims have little dispositive value. The current "Palestinians" should recognize. per Hitchens, that they took it from someone else, at some prior time — and so their title is flawed (unless you say that a crime ceases to be a crime simply because of the passage of time.) Obviously violence used by a victor is still a matter of guilt -- but it is not based on moral claims based on prior possession but simply because of causing death. I think that's what he is saying.
But Ah! Now! We have a discussion about Hitchens worthy of Hitchens!
Posted by: David Sucher | Dec 21, 2011 7:46:05 PM
Thanks for the clarification Robin, I was struggling to find the article. I think the word ambiguous sums it up rather nicely.
Posted by: Troy | Dec 21, 2011 7:47:26 PM
'In fact my last sentence which I removed out of propriety and respect for the dead was:
"There I feel better. Son of a bitch."'
So much for propriety and respect for the dead, then.
Posted by: Hugh7 | Dec 21, 2011 8:32:14 PM
@ David Sucher: "My own feeling is that Ms. Naqvi has been sufficiently chastised — Just as I disliked seeing Hitchens brutalized, so I now dislike it to Naqvi. We have all made embarrassing errors of judgments. It is up to Naqvi now to do what she chooses to do."
Thank you David. I wrote the piece. Quite content with it. Though perhaps another look at it for a comma here or there would help.
Would I have said all this to his face? Who are we talking about--some random man walking down the street minding his own business? Hitchens was a public figure influencing public sentiment on war, violence and on perceptions of threat. The Bush gang were his pals. Bosom buddies. Would I have said, what I wrote, to his face--yes of course. Of course. Why not? But where would I meet him? Instead I said it like most of you have done here--in the comment lines. As for the courage and "balls" in the front lines of the comment line -my name really is Maniza Naqvi. Not J. W. Black. Or Captain Howdy or Rustywheeler, or so forth.
Have the excerpt which Robin kindly posted upon request met this crowd's criteria for good writing and clarity on what were Hitchen's views? Please be so kind as to not defend me but try defending Htichens.
While, my piece above may have been a one hour's worth of bar room brawl type of writing when I wrote it--mimicking the man's style--the commentary here--shows that it is of much more value. Who'da thunk!
And over there--in that other piece--the writer spent his space which he could have devoted to telling us about the value of Hitchen's work--he spent it writing about his perceptions of me!
I can't thank him enough for doing me so much honor.
But can no one rise to Hithen's defense--what did he actually say of value?
Will you leave that to me as well. God.
And so there is a fourth party trick I would now add-- which has just come to light for me as a result of these comments.....
But please continue... I am reading each comment....
Posted by: Maniza | Dec 21, 2011 10:49:05 PM
By BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley ....
“In the end all his words amounted to nothing more than fighting for the rights of white people to control everyone else in the world"
“Hitchens came out of the closet and presented himself to the world as a full blown neo-con, an unconditional supporter of the Bush administration’s aggressions."
“Once again we see that the endless aggression is not really opposed by most Americans, and they prove it by lionizing the likes of the late Hitchens.”
"There was nothing witty, cute, or endearing about the late Christopher Hitchens, a racist to the core whose association with the Left served only to discredit it. “Beneath his mutterings against ‘Islamofascism’ he was nothing more than an angry white guy who wanted brown people to be conquered or dead.” A man of many prejudices but no real loyalties or principles, he flowed with the money. “Why toil away as a left winger known only within that smaller group, when more money and media attention awaited a cheer leader for pax Americana and white supremacy?"
Source: http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-christopher-hitchens-white-man
Posted by: Raza | Dec 22, 2011 1:04:20 AM
Raza.
What would Edward Said make of Kimberly's post?
(I mention Said because I believe that you admire him as a critical thinker.) Kimberly's post offers only assertion and interpretation. Said would dismiss it.
I'd much prefer to hear YOUR textual analysis of Hitchens' combatitivevand provocative piece from 1992. Do you see it as particularly "racist"? Why? Rather than simply as wrong-headed?
One can dispute Hitchens' analysis without needing to claim that it is based on racism.
Posted by: David Sucher | Dec 22, 2011 3:28:16 AM
"But can no one rise to Hithen's defense--what did he actually say of value?"
More to the point, if you're going to criticise (and, particularly, allege racism and so forth), what did he actually say that this author ever in fact read? It's not a question of disagreeing with the author's right to hold and even express whatever views she sees fit - but some actual reference to anything more than Hitchen's embrace of the Iraq war, which was one contentious view among many (one doubts, for example, that this author is even aware of H's stance on Bush administration torture), would give some basis for those views beyond third-hand anecdote and presumption.
Hitchens had all sorts of flaws and biases and, at least occasionally, did admit them - but he also did the work before mouthing off. How about, when this author next "writes and writes", trying even some elementary research?
Posted by: max | Dec 22, 2011 6:15:03 AM
Oh the shock and horror!
Naqvi’s words 650.
While 1044 words condemning Hitchens in their hysterical reaction to hers. I think Ms. Naqvi is on to something.
I have assembled below a choice of sentences within comments---1044 words: from 25 comments many of these were written in DEFENSE of him or in HORROR of what Naqvi has written—these were the nuggets within these comments: "Self obsessed, zealot, racist, personal and political flaws, hypocrite, intellectual bully, utter idiot, neocon, crude, angry, confused ranter, much less a writer. Political realist, along the lines of Henry Kissinger. Along the lines of Henry Kissinger. Ah!!!"
"Hitchens' writings on the "War on Terror" were disgraceful as well as wrong, yes, but I think he deserves more than 650 words that essentially amount to, "The man was a cock.
Look Hitchens is a complicated person. I am sadden by the loss. But the man had his political failings, next to his political, literary and intellectual tour de forces.
Hitchens himself descended to this level of drivel on rare occasions. You've learning his worst lesson well.
He was much more than a supporter of the War on Terror, though he was that. Hitchens had many flaws --personal amd political -- and I agree that he was not an intellectual of an original cast or lasting impression, but your protestations are so strongly worded as to make me like him just a bit better than I did before I read your piece, and I have been writing my own criticisms of him and his acolytes (especially his acolytes) all day. Have you heard the expression "concerning protesting too much.
Millions thought as Hitch did about the war, but not for as long as he did.
I didn't agree with Hitch about the war, but still, I am glad he was a writer albeit for other reasons.
He would have appreciated Maniza Naqvi's mastery of not-mincing-words, cause Hitch didn't mince words either. Mr. Naqvi has such a Hitchiness about him that all I have to do is change some words here and there so that replacement of those words could very well then end up being so like Hitch.So like Hitch writing about a church or a church pastor, for example.
Nice try. Hitch did it much better though.
The right response to Christopher Hitchens' death is criticism. For the breathless hypocrisy, and for all of the easy targets he chose in lieu of real aims. And it will come. Likely from the old British left that recognized his gifts before anyone else. The old guard that he abandoned for the glossy pages of alcoholism and evasion.
I cannot respect his apologies for a bloody war nor can I look away from the obvious signs of patriarchy and western-centrism in those who apologize for him. A man of letters, no matter how good he is, cannot be excused for his support of an imperialist war. And certainly should not be excused while condescendingly labeling his opponents as misguided males who do not care about their homeland. As for polemic, it was not invented, nor is it the sole property of, Mr. Hitchens, no matter how good he was at it.
I disagree with Hitchens' stand on the Iraq war.
..But he also was an intellectual bully and an utter idiot and neocon war-mongering bastard toady about the Iraq War. I think his backing of the war was probably much driven by his fierce and lingering upset about the fatwa on his friend's Salman Rushdie's life. The man took his politics very personally. He had a vendetta going against religion, and especially Islam.
The only insight Hitchens contributed was that a belief in God is submission to tyranny, and he could've gotten this excellent point across in a sharp column instead of his boring book.
Hitchens was self obsessed and a zealot about his beliefs on atheism, racism and war that made him more religious, fundamentalist, fascist than any fanatic can be. He lacked the objectivity and analysis of say Bill Maher and was simply a crude, angry and confused ranter, much less a writer.
His mockery of Gandhi, Mandela, Mother Teresa and MLK amongst others (coincidently all dedicated their lives to colored people causes) and admiration for Bush shows his true intellectual level and betrays his racism. His admiration of liberty in America ignores the first 150 years of its history (some would say to this day) of genocide, slavery, apartheid and imperialism. He called the subjugation of Native Americans a good thing "deserving to be celebrated with great vim and gusto".
One could go on and on, but In short, Christopher Hitchens was a RACIST
While Hitch has been all over the board with his views, I've always enjoyed him as a writer.
He could have evolved into Ayatollah Hitchens given enough time.
Thank you as a long time fan of Hitch's writing (especially the 80s-90s), sometimes fan of his opinions, and passionate despiser of his pronounced Islamophobia and war-mongering.
Disgraceful toady.
Everything Naqvi says about Hitchens may be true, but it is also true that he was a talented and entertaining writer. I do not judge art by the moral standards of the artist.
He was a political realist along the lines of, say, Henry Kissinger — the "We were here first!" perspective is bunkum. The proper perspective should be "We were here first --- except for the people we displaced x hundreds/thousands of years ago." Hitchens approach is not based on racial superiority. Possession of a place NOW does not mean that the same group has total moral claim. Moreover, when it comes to arguments about who "deserves" it more must be seen in light of cultural evolution and perhaps (?) maximizing social welfare etc etc At least that is what I think Hitchens is saying.
No what surprises me about Hitchens' perspective is his inconsistency when it comes to the Palestinians. If the Sioux only had a tentative claim (subject to the tribe they displaced) then so would the Palestinians who must surely have displaced someone -- maybe the original Israelites!
And that would go for just about everyone else in the world: NO ONE was really anyway "first" anywhere so such territorial claims have little dispositive value. The current "Palestinians" should recognize. per Hitchens, that they took it from someone else, at some prior time — and so their title is flawed (unless you say that a crime ceases to be a crime simply because of the passage of time.) Obviously violence used by a victor is still a matter of guilt -- but it is not based on moral claims based on prior possession but simply because of causing death. I think that's what he is saying."
Posted by: Timothy O'Connor | Dec 22, 2011 10:42:53 AM
Dave,
The 1992 article was objective and fair. Hitchens was an internationalist then and my views (greatly influenced by Bertrand Russell and Marx) on religion, politics, economic systems, etc similar to his. But everyone knows and he would admit too that he changed and in my opinion (as a relativist and agnostic) became as religious and fascist about his views as any jihadist can be. I will leave it at that in the interest of time, this thread and the holidays.
Posted by: Raza | Dec 22, 2011 10:47:21 AM
Katha Pollitt in Nation:
"So many people have praised Christopher so effusively, I want to complicate the picture even at the risk of seeming churlish. His drinking was not something to admire, and it was not a charming foible. Maybe sometimes it made him warm and expansive, but I never saw that side of it. What I saw was that drinking made him angry and combative and bullying, often toward people who were way out of his league—elderly guests on the Nation cruise, interns (especially female interns). Drinking didn’t make him a better writer either—that’s another myth. Christopher was such a practiced hand, with a style that was so patented, so integrally an expression of his personality, he was so sure he was right about whatever the subject, he could meet his deadlines even when he was totally sozzled. But those passages of pointless linguistic pirouetting? The arguments that don’t track if you look beneath the bravura phrasing? Forgive the cliché: that was the booze talking. And so, I’m betting, were the cruder manifestations of his famously pugilistic nature: as F Scott Fitzgerald said of his own alcoholism: “When drunk I make them all pay and pay and pay.” It makes me sad to see young writers cherishing their drinking bouts with him, and even his alcohol-fuelled displays of contempt for them (see Dave Zirin’s fond reminiscence of having Christopher spit at him) as if drink is what makes a great writer, and what makes a great writer a real man.
So far, most of the eulogies of Christopher have come from men, and there’s a reason for that. He moved in a masculine world, and for someone who prided himself on his wide-ranging interests, he had virtually no interest in women’s writing or women’s lives or perspectives. I never got the impression from anything he wrote about women that he had bothered to do the most basic kinds of reading and thinking, let alone interviewing or reporting—the sort of workup he would do before writing about, say, G.K. Chesterton, or Scientology or Kurdistan. It all came off the top of his head, or the depths of his id. Women aren’t funny. Women shouldn’t need to/want to/get to have a job. The Dixie Chicks were “fucking fat slags” (not “sluts,” as he misremembered later). And then of course there was his 1989 column in which he attacked legal abortion and his cartoon version of feminism as “possessive individualism.” I don’t suppose I ever really forgave Christopher for that.
It wasn’t just the position itself, it was his lordly condescending assumption that he could sort this whole thing out for the ladies in 1,000 words that probably took him twenty minutes to write. “Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows” that pro-life women are on to something when they recoil at the idea of the “disposable fetus.” Hmmmm… that must be why most OB-GYNs are pro-choice and why most women who have abortions are mothers. Those doctors just need to spend an hour with a medical textbook; those mothers must never have seen a sonogram. Interestingly, although he promised to address the counterarguments made by the many women who wrote in to the magazine, including those on the staff, he never did. For a man with a reputation for courage, it certainly failed him then. (Years later, when he took up the question of abortion again in Vanity Fair, he said basically the exact same things, using the same straw-women arguments. Time taught him nothing, because he didn’t want to learn.)
That was the bad side of Christopher—the moral bully and black-and-white thinker posing as daring truth-teller. It was the side that reveled in 9/11, because now everyone would see how evil the jihadis were, and that rejoiced in the thought that the Korans of Muslim fighters would not protect them from American bullets. Some eulogists have praised him for moral consistency, but I don’t see that: he wrote tens of thousands of words attacking Clinton for executing Ricky Ray Rector, but seemed untroubled about George W Bush’s execution of 152 people—at the time a historical record—as governor of Texas. He was so fuelled by his own certainty he claimed that the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq only proved they were there."
Posted by: Dorian | Dec 22, 2011 11:55:56 AM
Another county heard from.
Posted by: Carlos | Dec 22, 2011 12:21:52 PM
Oh, it's a parody, is it? May I recommend a sharpshooter's aim in place of the spastic scattergun, less hyperventilated repetition, surely some pretense, at least, to an appreciation of wit, a lighter hand with the em dash, and more literary allusions, accurately attributed. And a point more palpable than "How nasty can I be to someone who died who I didn't like very much?"
Or, if there was something more to it -- some unfocused disagreement with the post-2001 Hitchens does come through -- name names and policies. Be specific. Wherever Hitchens found a target, his criticisms were pointed, often acidic, even vicious, but rarely solely so. Unlike one of his targets, his legacy won't be fit into a matchbox.
Posted by: Daniel Murphy | Dec 22, 2011 12:28:19 PM
Haider,
Happy birthday George Eliot, a.k.a. Mary Anne Cross, a.k.a. well never mind.
Posted by: Dredd | Dec 22, 2011 7:37:20 PM
Raza,
,
Did I read correctly that you write:
"But everyone knows and he would admit too that he changed and in my opinion (as a relativist and agnostic) became as religious and fascist about his views as any jihadist can be."
That is almost as absurd as what Naqvi wrote. Maybe more so as you have usually appeared to me to be rational.
It is absolutely crazy to claim that "But everyone knows and he (Hitchens) would admit too that he changed and...became as religious and fascist about his views as any jihadist can be."
That's just kooky. Surely you had too much to drink.
"...as religious and fascist about his views as any jihadist can be."
Nuts.
Posted by: David Sucher | Dec 23, 2011 1:01:10 AM
Hitchens polarised everyone, every one and periodically, himself. A rare polemicist, who moved across the ideological spectrum from ingesting Orwellian ecstasy to smoking Orwellian crack. Polemics generally tend to invoke a passionate response from half of the crowd, but in Hitchens case, he always seemed to elucidate an idea in an articulate way that was theoretically sound. This article fails to do that and some of the comments that suggest racism (cut and paste quotes and links from the cyber-realm) in his polemic continue to be way off the mark. Merry Xmas.
Posted by: Troy | Dec 23, 2011 4:03:30 AM
Troy, David,
And yet here you are. Fascinated by this piece. Drawn to it. No Christmas shopping for you? No holiday parties? Turning up your nose. Lips and cheeks pursed. For the free booze and bating. Did you ever bother to read him? I wonder. I doubt it.
We can add your Orwellian crack to the list of phrases said for Hitchens while protesting this article. Which brings up the count to 1068 words to Naqvi's 650. Keep it up.
Thanks to you, I have read her piece about six times. The more I read it the better I like it. Others have said the same things, in a milktoast sort of a way and some had said it more firmly. She has done him justice without fear. And it appears that she has possibly perhaps read everything he ever published and heard most of what he belched forth these last so many tedious years of a media orgy of pogram mounting in which he was a bandmaster.
By all accounts whether it be the right wing Telegraph, where his brother is or used to be the Editor or The Nation, his former employer,or everything in between, including this accurate, precise salvo that has found its mark, there is one agreement, the subject matter was a drunk opportunist, pretending to be a revolutionist. Though never on the line for a revolution. The only frontline he ever placed himself on was a barstool at the counter of any type of establishment as long as there was booze, from where he held forth lost in a junk pile of sentences.
And please note as I said earlier, that in these comment lines he has been called:
"Self obsessed, on Orwellian crack, zealot, racist, personal and political flaws, hypocrite, intellectual bully, utter idiot, neocon, crude, angry, confused ranter, much less a writer. Political realist, along the lines of Henry Kissinger. Along the lines of Henry Kissinger. Ah!!!"
Ms. Naqvi, please do tell us what you would consider as his fourth trick.
You mentioned it in your comment to David but didn't say more.
Posted by: Timothy O'Connor | Dec 23, 2011 11:45:00 AM
Merry Xmas Tim.
Posted by: Troy | Dec 23, 2011 5:59:37 PM
THE FACT IS:THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS HAS BECOME ONE OF THE WORST VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND A COMMITTER OF CRIMES AGINST HUMANITY ON ITS OWN SOIL THROUGH REMOTE ELECTRONIC HARASSMENT AND MIND CONTROL CRIMES AGINST HUMANITY
RHE AMERICAN PEOPLE BEFORE ANYONE ELSE ARE PAYING THE HEAVY PRICE FOR THE CRIMES OF BIG BROTHER MAFIA
BIG BROTHER MAFIA HAVE TRANSFORMED AMERICA INTO A POLICE STATE ,WITH TOUCH LESS TORTURE,TORTURE CHAMBERS AT YOUR HOME,SLEEP DEPRIVATION AS A WAY OF TORTURE
REMOTE ELECTRONIC HARASSMENT IN THE DETROIT AREA IN MICHIGAN IS VERY DESTRUCTIVE TO PEOPLE LIFE, INCAPACITATE PEOPLE ,CREATE A TORTURE CHAMBERS AT THEIR HOMES AND SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.....THE DETROIT AREA IN MCHIHAN HAS BEEN A MAJOR HUB FOR REMOTE ELECTRONIC HARASSEMENT
Posted by: W H | Jan 13, 2012 8:07:42 AM
Post a comment