Rushdie on Hitchens is simply…unbetterable.
I have often been asked if Christopher defended me because he was my close friend. The truth is that he became my close friend because he wanted to defend me.
The spectacle of a despotic cleric with antiquated ideas issuing a death warrant for a writer living in another country, and then sending death squads to carry out the edict, changed something in Christopher. It made him understand that a new danger had been unleashed upon the earth, that a new totalizing ideology had stepped into the down-at-the-heels shoes of Soviet Communism. And when the brute hostility of American and British conservatives (Charles Krauthammer, Hugh Trevor-Roper, and Paul Johnson) joined forces with the appeasement politics of sections of the Western left, and both sides began to offer sympathetic analyses of the assault, his outrage grew. In the eyes of the right, I was a cultural “traitor” and, in Christopher’s words, an “uppity wog,” and in the opinion of the left, the People could never be wrong, and the cause of the Oppressed People, a category into which the Islamist opponents of my novel fell, was doubly justified. Voices as diverse as the Pope, the archbishop of New York, the British chief rabbi, John Berger, Jimmy Carter, and Germaine Greer “understood the insult” and failed to be outraged, and Christopher went to war.
He and I found ourselves describing our ideas, without conferring, in almost identical terms. I began to understand that while I had not chosen the battle it was at least the right battle, because in it everything that I loved and valued (literature, freedom, irreverence, freedom, irreligion, freedom) was ranged against everything I detested (fanaticism, violence, bigotry, humorlessness, philistinism, and the new offense culture of the age). Then I read Christopher using exactly the same everything-he-loved-versus-everything-he-hated trope, and felt … understood.
QFT.
Thanks very much for posting this!
Hitchens couldn’t have asked for a better epitaph.
“It is our duty to condemn the threat of murder, to protect the author’s life and to honor Western rights of publication and distribution.”
It’s a terrific piece.
Indeed – exceptional, inspiring.
The entire piece by Rushdie is exquisite.
Except that Hitchens wrote things like
Those are the words of, to be charitable, a fanatic. And they were carried forward in his actual support for actual violence that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, immense suffering, and untold violations of human rights. He supported, against violent theocratic barbarism, another (semi-theocratic) violent imperialist barbarism acting under the patchwork cloak of freedom. Rushdie claims that “Nobody who detested God as viscerally, intelligently, originally, and comically as C. Hitchens could stay in the pocket of god-bothered American conservatism for long” and that this “saved” Hitchens from the Right, but this would be true only if religion were the only issue for the Right (and a completely unproblematic one at that), which it is not. It sure looks like he stayed in the pocket of American conservatism till the end.
Note the “sections of the Western left” here. (Not sure why only Western, and I’m not even going to comment on “the new offense culture of the age.”) Chomsky, for example, appears to have been actively supportive. I was quite young at the time and would be happy to be corrected, but it seems to me that civil libertarians and human rights groups were his main base of support, and these are generally of the left. I believe that Hitchens genuinely supported Rushdie’s freedom of expression, but I think he also saw this as a battle in an existential war which led him to support violent imperialism.
Well Rushdie talks about that in the piece, SC – especially about one evening when he was staying chez Hitchens and Paul Wolfowitz dropped by, and delivered a rant about how badly the Iraq war was going and blamed it all on Rumsfeld; Rushdie was like “dude”…
Yes, I skipped through that paragraph.
But my point stands: that Hitchens’ irreligion didn’t, as far as I can tell, “save” him from the Right, as Rushdie implies. There was no break that I can see, especially given that these thugs and war criminals were stopping by for drinks at his place.
Salty Current:
“Those are the words of, to be charitable, a fanatic. And they were carried forward in his actual support for actual violence that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, immense suffering, and untold violations of human rights. He supported, against violent theocratic barbarism, another (semi-theocratic) violent imperialist barbarism acting under the patchwork cloak of freedom.”
Here we go again.
The US response to 9/11 was the start of a search-and-destroy mission against Al-Quaeda, which in turn led the US to attack and depose the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that had sheltered the terrorist organisation and its leader. This was not a war in defence of neocolonialism, as Vietnam was.
I for one fail to see how the Afghan or Iraq wars could be classified as ‘imperialist’, since imperialism and colonialism are both antidemocratic by nature. However, the stated and I believe actual aims of both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns was the overthrow of tyranny and the establishment of democracy.
Hitchens characterised himself as a member of the anti-totalitarian left, distinguishing himself thereby from the pro-totalitarian left who were happy to support the likes of Khomeini, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
As Robert Newman’s said, that level of naïveté’s hard to find outside ’70s porn films.
“As Robert Newman’s said, that level of naïveté’s hard to find outside ’70s porn films.”
I wonder what Hitchens’ rejoinder to a bit of second-hand throwaway abuse like that would have been. I certainly know what mine is.
W@nk on.
Ah, substantive.
His response to history would likely have been quite traditional conservative, if nonreligious, rhetoric. He was not likely ignorant of this history, and we saw his response. In his last years, he was animated by conservative values. In no universe are these synonymous or compatible with freedom. Rushdie recognizes this; you’re just a simpleton.
This sentence is just so deliciously dumb.
@ 13: “In his last years, he was animated by conservative values. In no universe are these synonymous or compatible with freedom.”
What on Earth have you been smoking, Salty?
@14: “This sentence is just so deliciously dumb.”
Yeah, right. Sorry, Salty. I thought before you were a bit genuine, as a glance down this comment thread will show. Now it is clear that you are just another troll.
Sorry again. I have a policy of not engaging with youse lot.
The reality pipe. *passes it to Ian*
Oh, no! People who argue that US policy can’t be imperialistic because that would be undemocratic and that’s simply inconceivable in the 21st century are the sharpest. Whatever will I do if they won’t engage me?
OB: I’ll second Ani Sharmin at #1. Thanks for the link to the Rushdie piece.
Excellent stuff.
Everybody knows that no imperial power ever has had any form of democracy. All those British parliamentary elections were just facades! To FOOL you!!! HAHAHAHA!
Likewise the French. Devious little cheese-eating bastards, and anyway they never did anything imperialist because they are surrender-monkeys. And the Greek democracies and the Roman Republic were all fakes – all those elections were just designed to trick you into not noticing their imperialism.
Wut. The question is whether domestically (representative) democratic states can be imperialistic, not the reverse. The former is quite plainly true.
SC, you can criticize Hitchens for siding with an incompetent administration in a grossly bungled war, launched at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, which did as much harm as good, which helped bankrupt America, and which may not, in the long run, have achieved anything of value, mainly because of the way it was conducted. But you may not call it an imperialist venture, because Hussein was a butcher hired to deliver oil regardless of the cost. His installation and support was the imperialist act, not his removal. No one in his right mind can mourn the fall of Saddam Hussein. And Hitchens’ support for this is not even related to his opposition to theocratic barbarism (which I, and I think, most of the people who frequent this site heartily applauded), but to his acquaintance with the Kurds, whom Hussein attempted to exterminate en masse with nerve gas.
Hitchens was a romantic who was more interested in fighting the good fight than in winning it–and in the case of Iraq, he may well have lost it. Time will tell, but in this case, I certainly don’t expect him to come out smelling of roses. But he had a far better estimation of the monstrosity of the Baathist regime than you seem to.
I may not? You’re funny.
And you’re a genius.
I quoted him @ #7. September 11th left him exhilarated, and that gave him pleasure. He would not be bored.
Ian, sadly, democracy is entirely compatible with imperialism. Read some Thucydides. Really – it’s all there. Democracy at home and the worst kind of thuggish bullying abroad – “abroad” in this case meaning basically down the road a piece.
“May not”, if it helps, was a Hitchens phrase.
Overthrowing another country’s regime by military force and then imposing neo-liberal economic arrangements designed to benefit American interests is pretty much textbook imperialism.
Where Hitchens went wrong in my eyes was in cheer-leading for US military intervention. You just don’t do that, particularly when there is no *need* to do it. They were going to do their thing regardless of whether Hitchens supported it or not.
Hitchens could have retained his undoubtedly consistent anti-authoritarianism and welcomed the overthrow of Saddam, while also retaining a measure of anti-imperialist principle by protesting American manipulation of the Iraqi economy post-invasion.
A third position is possible: welcome the overthrow of Saddam, but support and show solidarity with the progressive resistance to US domination in Iraq and the region. I tried to do this, donated a little money to Iraqi trade unions, showed some solidarity in my small way.
Hitchens said, I think actually did write this more or less, that he regarded the US led intervention as better late than never. The US had shamefully supported Saddam for so long, the least they could do was overthrow him.
There’s a point there somewhere. But of course maintain/overthrow are two sides of the same coin. Why play that game at all? The problem isn’t just that the US supported a tyrant, though that was a problem. The problem is that the US uses its power in this way in the first place.
It was possible to critique all of that, and so not cheer-lead for imperialism, while also not falling into the trap of objectively cheer-leading for tyranny – as some on the left certainly did.
Hitchens came to see anti-imperialism as a facile apology for authoritarianism. But anti-imperialism need not be facile.
Dan
Historically democratic states have been very dangerous imperialists, beginning with the Athenians. The obvious reason is that unlike the oligarchies they were driven both by self-interest and ideology, as fellow democrats in other city states appealed for help. The oligarchs were used to fighting their opposite numbers for power and prestige, not upholding a set of values.
Today you see the same thing with the U.S. being drawn into fights on behalf of democrats (or to depose tyrants even if not many democrats are on the other side). The left has a hard time explaining this so it repositions imperialism as right wing (and thereby positions someone like Hitchens as a right winger because he supports what used to be the left wing fight against totalitarians). Hitchens has an out-of-date model of leftism which is antifascist. The modern left prefers anti-imperialism, and in a fight between the American neo-empire and today’s fascists, the fascists are preferred.
I can find many reasons for criticizing the Iraq effort, but imposing neo-liberal economics is a little quaint. What is that code for? I should know, but I don’t. They sent a bunch of 25 year old campaign operatives to Baghdad to teach Iraqis about free markets. Being Republican operatives they were in all likelihood more than usually stupid and culturally insensitive, but mostly the effort was worthless rather than sinister. The real mistake was cutting out the State Dept. from the beginning. Anyone with an actual understanding of pacification and reconstruction was bypassed so Rummy could run a lassez faire war on the super cheap. That was the tragedy, not the apriori badness of the war, but the deliberately neglectful low budget way we went about it.
I prefer my understanding to the conventional view here because it explains why there was such widespread support for the war on the left (not a majority, to be sure, but a solid minority including Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden. The fact that it was Bush rather than Bill Clinton made it easier for the libs to rewrite history with the “I was lied to” meme. Uh, no actually everyone was operating with the same information. You can hate the war as much as you want, but the liberal reasons for it were as legitimate and compelling for those who supported it as the conservative reasons. But then I don’t really think conservative reasons explain the war at all, though they do explain aspects of how badly it was fought. I think Hitchens had the same view. He didn’t think he was thinking conservatively about Iraq, nor do I think he was, nor do I think I am.
Graydon Carter, Vanity Fair’s editor, has an article on Hitchens in the February edition: “A Jigger to Hitchens and a Toast to the Man”: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2012/02/graydon-201201
Ophelia,
what I said originally at #10 was: “I for one fail to see how the Afghan or Iraq wars could be classified as ‘imperialist’, since imperialism and colonialism are both antidemocratic by nature. However, the stated and I believe actual aims of both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns was the overthrow of tyranny and the establishment of democracy.”
I stand by that. No imperialist country has EVER set up democratic government IN ITS FOREIGN POSSESSIONS. We can argue of course as to whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan were colonial wars in the traditional sense, and I will maintain they were not. The purpose of the colonial exercise was always to subjugate the native population, not to empower it. Of course, Britain was nominally and in a limited way democratic, (as was France and some of the other European imperialist states) when at the height of its own imperial power. Even today, feudal hangovers like the House of Lords still have extraordinary power there. And modern democracies such as the US are inclined to try to order the world according to their own tastes (witness Vietnam – which was a war to PREVENT democracy).
Success or failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan however is being judged both internationally and domestically in the US and in coalition partners like Australia, largely by the extent to which those countries are governemd by democratically-based central governments to the exclusion of tribal warlords like Saddam Hussein.
So when Dan says: “Overthrowing another country’s regime by military force and then imposing neo-liberal economic arrangements designed to benefit American interests is pretty much textbook imperialism,” I disagree. Textbook it ain’t.
Colonies planted by the Athens around the Mediterranean were to my knowledge populated largely by Athenian emigres running a transplant state. I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Athenians fought their way in, conquering and enslaving native inhabitants as they went. But in any case, that is an incidental issue.
Ian – ah right. I agree with you there, so my reply to you was point-missing. Beg pardon.
“No imperialist country has EVER set up democratic government IN ITS FOREIGN POSSESSIONS.”
That’s complete, unmitigated bollocks. I suggest you read up on the process of acquisition of Dominion status by Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and while you’re at it you could glance at the Government of India Act (1935). You can go on to various case-studies of how the UK and France, most notably, attempted to have their cake and eat it in relation to maintaining effectively imperial relations with newly-democratic and ‘independent’ African colonies – mostly badly in the British case, with some remarkable successes, at least south of the Sahara, in the French.
Meanwhile, if you’ve failed to notice that the economy of ancient Athens, and its colonies, like everywhere else in the classical Mediterranean, was based on the exploitation of slave-labour, you really need to go back to school.
I also suggest, with reference to what is and isn’t ‘textbook imperialism’ that you read up on early twentieth-century ‘Banana Republics’ in Latin America, how they came about, and who sustained them. When you’re done with that you can explore the relationship of the UK to the Indian Princely States from the mid-1700s to 1947, and to the nominally-independent Kingdom of Egypt between the 1880s and the 1950s.
Perhaps you are giving the appearance of being completely ignorant and talking out of your arse for some other reason that you can elucidate, but from here, it looks as if you are completely ignorant and talking out of your arse.
Dave,
Britain as I recall was a bit reluctant to concede independence to its American colonies, and attempted to overthrow that new democracy in the war of 1812. But the American experience taught it something, and it did not go through the same process again in the other such colonies (Australia, NZ, Canada), even though they had been initially established along the political lines prevalent in Britain at the time, whose parliament was both corrupt and antidemocratic. Britain was still prepared however to fight colonial wars in its European-minority ones.
Generally, the history of the world has been a story of the gradual weakening of minority power, and the extension of power to ever wider sections of the population. But not to everyone all at once. Vide the Magna Carta. But the concession has generally been made reluctantly by the existing establishments.
European colonialism was all about control of vital strategic interests, whether the locals liked it or not. The safest way to do this was to set up a local antidemocratic hierarchy with the colonial governor at its head, with veto power over everything. After WW2 this became increasingly difficult to manage, partly because of the loss of colonialist face involved in the initial defeats at the hands of the Japanese. So independence was conceded to similarly structured ‘native’ hierarchies, who then had to deal with demands for power by widening circles of their own populations.
“You can go on to various case-studies of how the UK and France, most notably, attempted to have their cake and eat it in relation to maintaining effectively imperial relations with newly-democratic and ‘independent’ African colonies – mostly badly in the British case, with some remarkable successes, at least south of the Sahara, in the French.”
Which particular French examples do you have in mind?
“Meanwhile, if you’ve failed to notice that the economy of ancient Athens, and its colonies, like everywhere else in the classical Mediterranean, was based on the exploitation of slave-labour, you really need to go back to school.”
I omitted mention of Attic vases and Doric columns also. Just as relevant. A caste with inner democracy can still lord it over slaves and serfs. It is a common enough occurrence in history. The Americans fought a civil war over the issue. In fact, that is what colonialism for such a long period managed to maintain: dictatorship by increasingly democratising European powers over colonial populations who were given no vote at all.
“I also suggest, with reference to what is and isn’t ‘textbook imperialism’ that you read up on early twentieth-century ‘Banana Republics’ in Latin America, how they came about, and who sustained them.”
Sorry, but the relevance of that completely escapes me. I was talking about colonialism, not neo-colonialism, and similar attempts at rule through proxies. You need to clear up that distinction in your own mind, I think.
“When you’re done with that you can explore the relationship of the UK to the Indian Princely States from the mid-1700s to 1947, and to the nominally-independent Kingdom of Egypt between the 1880s and the 1950s.”
Can I? Thanks a lot for the permission. But likewise to that.
And some anii talk better than do others.