This blog was begun as a project to see if somewhat smart recent college graduates could produce coherent work. We planned on doing anything and everything we could on any topic that interested us in order to produce something interesting. Some have asked why we haven’t made any official statement of purpose; frankly, it seemed rather presumptuous. And we didn’t know if our plan would actually be implemented, or if we would change it.
Like now.
This piece won’t be coherent. There isn’t a point to this post. It’s a toy, if you will. I want to posit a phenomenon which may or may not exist, and may or may not be of interest. I call it ideological reading; it refers to people who (unintentionally) mis-read articles or books in away that fits in with their ideological leanings. I imagine we all do this, but I’m going to note some interesting times where this occurs. I’m sure others could do this with how I read - frankly, I hope they do. It’s helpful to know our own biases.
Martin Peretz, the former publisher of the New Republic, wrote an article commenting on Nicholas Kristof’s op-ed piece in the New York Times on the Iraqi refugees that are flooding the rest of the Middle East. Peretz’s comments have some significant flaws, of course - there’s this strange (and frankly vaguely racist) blending of Baathist Sunnis with all Sunnis or even all Iraqi Sunnis or the specific Iraqi Sunni refugees, and an unclear aside at the end against Kristof’s phrase “the new Palistineans.”
But then M.J. Rosenberg comments on it. Rosenberg is a former AIPAC staffer who became an impassioned advocate of the two-state solution in regards to Israel and Palestine in the aftermath of Oslo. Recently, he has started to write frequently for TPMCafe.com about the region and the issue. The entire column is a bit vitriolic, but sufficiently liquid as to be difficult to place and so qualify as being accurate or not. One line, though, is especially strange.
Rosenberg says: “In this column, he pummels columnist Nick Kristof for having called Iraqi refugees “the new Palestinians.” Peretz is troubled by Kristof’s compassion. He even ridicules the Times’ columnist’s role in bringing Darfur to the world’s attention.”
Well, Peretz does talk about Darfur in his piece. This is what he says:
“Actually, [Kristof] was the first to notice Darfur and maybe even the first to move us by it. But he shies away from real solutions, like in Darfur where the only way to stop the killing is the deployment of Western force. Both bombs and bullets.”
That’s called ridicule for bringing Darfur to the world’s attention? Dismantling his line doesn’t seem fair, but one wonders; what would bring somebody to so badly misread a person’s column? Especially one on which one is commenting? Again, I won’t claim to provide any coherent answers or comments; just toys
Posted under Uncategorized | 2 Comments »