In answer to my question,

"Is there anything in his writings to show that he questioned, rather than
advocated, the notion of a new facist empire ruled by a superior race, as a
solution to humankinds' woes?"

Joe Brennan says,
>
>In answering I would like to draw his attention to Pound's statement in
"Kulchur". He writes (p.242), "Race prejudice is red herring. The tool of
the man defeated intellectually, and of the cheap politician. No one will
deny that the jews have racial characteristics, better and worse ones.
'Every Polish nobleman had his jew.'  . . . .
It is nonsense for the anglo-saxon to revile the
jew for beating him at his own game. . . . [etc.]
>
>

Do others agree that this statement can be used as evidence that Pound
questioned rather than advocated the notion of a fascist empire ruled by a
superior race?  Yes, he SAYS “race prejudice is a red herring . . .” but
then goes on to make statements which are hard not to consider racist.   “No
one will deny the Jew has racial characteristics ...”???  How do you
interpret that?  Pound says elsewhere, in some detail what those
characteristics are.

“Every Polish nobleman had his jew” ?  Can someone explicate this line in a
non-racist fashion?

“It is nonsense for the anglo-saxon to revile the
jew for beating him at his own game  . . .”  Same question.  (Haven’t
previous posts have suggested that Pound’s Anglophobia was almost as strong
as his anti-semitism?

I am i alone in this, or do others see this quote as evidence of Pound’s
tendency to question the notion of an empire ruled by a superior race?

>
>I get the impression that Mr. Wei's argument is
>as much with Confucius as it is with Pound.
>

Yes, it is.  And why not?  The debate over the significance of Confucius
rages on in East Asia.   Those who wish to see democracy flourish in the
East have a high stake in that debate.  Although I make no personal
accusations against anyone on this list, I see too many critics in Pound
studies who accept the worst canard of all from a Chinese point of
view---that Confucius was simply a wise philosopher who taught people the
value of morals, culture, and a good education.

People who ignore the historical significance of Confucian ideology, and of
the versions of the “Four Books” which Pound translated, do so at their own
peril.  Pound’s dedication to Confucianism was extremely strong, and his
translations were another interpretation of Confucian thought which has a
place in the history of culture and ideas.


>
>I have always enjoyed an irony
from Snow's "Red Star Over China" in which the author relates an incident
where Mao quotes Kung to his father to prove the old man incorrect, not,
>however, in the best Chinese tradition of filial piety.
>

This is interesting.  Mao did this occasionally, though he usually
encouraged his minions to criticize Confucius.  I wonder,  what was the
context?  What exactly was Mao trying to prove in this instance, using
Confucius?  Does anyone know? (I haven’t read Snow in years, and I don’t
have a copy)

>
>But it seems that
Pound found something in Kung which  he also found in John Adams - Wisdom.
What better guide to get us through the "halls of hell" iin a "botched
civilization"?
>
>

But what kind of wisdom are we talking about, and is this wisdom only the
province of the social elite ?  More importantly, as it relates to the
question of American letters, is such wisdom at all consistent with the
highest professed values of the most progressive Americans, namely:
Democracy, Respect for Human Rights (the rights of workers in particular),
Tolerance of Different Races, and Freedom for All?

I have always found the Adams Cantos a curious section in the work,
especially as it is juxtaposed to the China Cantos, which celebrate the rule
of the Emperors.

Has anyone on this list read a  book called “American Aurora.”  Like Pound,
the author (Richard Rosenfeld), wants to shed light on the period of Adams’
presidency by juxtaposing documents which compel the reader to make
comparisons and reach conclusions.  Unlike Pound, Rosenfeld points to
several features of Adams rule which are quite disturbing, and forgotten by
most historians, though the record seems very clear.

Adams was probably the most dictatorial President in US history, and if it
were not for the heroic journalists who opposed him (many of whom were
jailed under the authority of the “Alien and Sedition” acts) , and if it
were not for the election of Jefferson in 1800, our democracy in general,
and our first amendment rights in particular would have been lost.  I highly
recommend “American Aurora,” for those who like to read history through the
eyes of those who lived through it, and who like to see history as the clash
of ideas, personalities, and belief systems.

>
>And then Mr. Wei asks  a very good question. "Why is America's greatest
>epic
to date, an authoritarian epic poem (and not a democratic one)?" I find this
question dumbfounding. In the "land of Abraham Lincoln and Lydia E. Pinkham"
what would a "democratic epic" be other than perhaps Whitman's "Leaves of
Grass"? And has this country lived up to the poet's vision? The truth is no
authority now exists in the world greater than democracy even though her
>eyes are bandaged and her mouth is speaking in >tongues and she she gets
>pulled down in China.
>

Do you mean to say that Whitman’s epic is the final word on democracy?  That
nothing else can be said on the subject, so that now our great poets should
be writing authoritarian epics?  Fascist epics?  Imperialist epics?  Racist
epics?

What I find dumbfounding is this:  In Anglo-American academic culture and in
popular culture there seems to be a general celebration of and interest in
Rome, but only in imperial Rome (witness:  Gladiator).  This is true of
Pound, who praises Hadrian and other Roman emperors, and totally neglects
five hundred years of Republican Rome.   It is also true with the public at
large.  In secondary school and in College: US students are bombarded with
the stories of the Caesars (a la “I ,  Claudius), and the traditions of
Republican Rome are virtually ignored.  Who even reads Livy, or knows
anything of his accounts of five hundred years of republican government, and
his desire

“to trace the history in peace and war of a free nation, governed by
annually elected officers of stte, and subject not to the caprice of
individual men, but to the overrriding authority of law.”   (Livy’s The
History of Rome from its Foundation)”   ?

These are among the most admirable words ever recorded.  And Pound, despite
his knowledge of Latin, and of Roman history, never even quotes Livy.

AND THIS IS MY MAIN POINT.  It is not because I “despise Pound”, as some
allege, that  I put forward the arguments I do.  ON THE CONTRARY, it is
because I so greatly admire and respect Pound’s intellect, his breadth of
knowledge, his poetic genius, his gift for commitment, his outspokenness,
his interest in and his role in the literary formation of this century that
I am supremely puzzled!!!  This towering figure, who did not limit himself
to poetry, but more than any other literary giant, dedicated himself to
explicating significant social, political, historical, and economic issues.

So the question remains:  Why did America’s great epic poet dedicate ignore
or distort so much that was great in the tradtion?


>
>Still I agree with Pound, and we share the frustration. " That one's roots
>are not a disease but parts of a vital >organism is worth feeling."
>(Kulchur, p.244)
>

Agreed.  But which roots?  And which traditions?  Livy and Greek democrats
(who Pound despised), or the imperial traditons of post-Caesarian Rome, and
feudalistic Europe (which Pound admired)?

For all those who consider themselves Americans or inheritors of the
European tradition, I request edification on this point:  What values
deserve preserving ?  And if the greatest poet in America abandons and
betrays democracy, what does that say about America?

I do not know the answer.  But, I believe in the words expressed by Livy,
the notion that rule should be by law and by elected officials  (and not by
ONE MAN, “i jen” as Pound believes).

>
>Pound, the great idealist, should
have had to spend some time as a village councilman >then his perspective
might not have been so Olympian.
>

I endorse this sentiment fully.



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com