On Page 207 of the American Iconoclast, a biography of Eric Hoffer by Tom Schactman, the author wrote this: "The text of Between the Devil and the Dragon, when published in 1982, confirmed by its omissions and condensations that the publisher felt the need to excise from the canon the most intemperate aspects of Hoffer, those of the 'Reflections' newspaper columns and of the more vitriolic essays and diary entries, the Hoffer who railed against 'Negroes,' student rebels, and specific academics such as Marcuse. Even so, the compilation's 486 pages sparkle with ideas and present a lifetime's worth of the fruits of a mind making interesting inquiries into its own, and mankind's, place in the world.
Schactman, a bright and nuanced Leftist, seems to have admired Hoffer but he did not much like him. Do we want to censor a philosopher when he speaks unpleasant truths to us, dismissing them as intemperate and vitriolic writings? In the eyes of the Left, to accuse someone of racism--as Shactman seems to accuse Hoffer of being racist against blacks--is to describe the offender or putative offender as being guilty of one of the most immoral character flaws, and, that is about as low as one can go. Shactman seems to be part of the Leftist intelligentsia that participated in or approved of the Left stifling college students hearing about Hoffer, after say 1990. Christopher Klim reported this in the introduction to the Syndicated Articles, the Reflection newspaper columns so offensive to Shactman.
Hoffer did not baby blacks, white professors, academics like traitorous, unpatriotic Marcuse. He viewed them as regarding themselves as victims, accusing America of being rotten to the core--which it is not, and Hoffer knew that better than anyone.
Hoffer instinctively and consciously realized 60 years ago what Prager and Levin are shouting from the roof tops right now: America is a wonderful if not perfect, utopian place. Such a lovely country should be morally improved, not politically through social justice and big government solutions, but primarily and mostly through self-improvement.
Hoffer anticipated the rise of Mavellonialism this century, and it takes a good and wise man to desire these culture changes for people. For a people to maverize, it requires radically free speech, limited government, and powerfully real, deep and extensive legal, political and cultural support for personal liberty.
Hoffer loved and spoke and wrote the truth, and that offends the Left. Shactman seems to doubt Hoffer's moral worth-note above when Shactman characterizes some of Hoffer's essays as vitriolic or malicious--and I hope to set the record straight on that. We want thinkers to speak intemperately. We all require the truth, and not to be pampered and babied
. The concept of hate speech is very evil and quite unconstitutional. It needs to be decriminalized. Hate speech likely occurs, but we almost never want the government to control speech, language or public opinions stated.
Shactman seems to devalue Hoffer because he does not understand his greatness, and, at the same time, he resents bitterly Hoffer's legitimate, profoundly conservative objections to Progressive policies, recommendations, and their purveyors.
I need to be fair to Shactman too because the book that he wrote on Hoffer is well-done and thoughtful, a real feat and vital contribution made by a very competent and astute thinker and biographer.
Now, let me contrast Shactman's take of Eric Hoffer with that of Calvin Tomkins as he writes about Hoffer, in his 1968 biography of Hoffer, called Eric Hoffer; this is what Tomkins wrote on Page 37: "The book did not make him rich, and outwardly Hoffer's life remained unchanged. He kept his old room on McCallister Street. The neighborhood was changing rapidly at that time; large numbers of Negroes were moving into it, and most of the whites were moving out as a result, but Hoffer did not want to leave. He worked with Negroes on the waterfront and had no feelings of superiority."
Negro was the word used at that time. Hoffer hated to have anyone change what he thought, said or wrote. He was fiercely independent on that point, and I wish all American thinkers were so willing to buck groupthink and uniformity of opinion and speech.
Racist whites at that time fled neighborhoods where blacks moved in, but Hoffer did not, and that is what he did not what he said, and that action is indicative of who he was. Hoffer did not think he was superior to any human being, but he did expect everyone to feel grateful in America, to boostrap himself upwards to gain in wealth, education and personal edification, to make something of himself, and blame no other, and expect a handout from no other. He believed that all in America should be grateful to be here, and none had the moral high ground to feel resentful and feel aggrieved against anyone.
CRT advocates would demonize Hoffer, dismissing him completely, in much worse, more thorough way than Shactman's milder criticisms achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment