Wei,
Would it be fairer to say that Pound saw Mussolini's colonial policies for
what they were, but was nonetheless a willing participant in the big lie
because it suited his ends, whatever they were? Or rather that Pound
idealized Mussolini's colonial policies? In other words, was Pound deluded
idealist or Machiavel? The quote from the broadcasts you have cited below
suggests to me (as does Canto 40) that Pound sincerely believed Italian
colonialism would be different from british colonialism-- that it would
advance the colonies not merely exploit their natural resources. Certain
contemporaries, such as Wyndham Lewis, considered Pound a naive fanatic.
Isn't the greater horror here the machine that tried Pound for treason
because he continued to speak out against the war? Where on earth is it a
crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, to express (deluded) political
opinions? Why are free men expected to give up their constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms when the nation prepares for war?
Tim Romano
P.S. You seem to be leaning towards the first view; indeed, a casual reader
might infer from your remarks below that Pound knew about the poison gas all
along.
En Lin Wei wrote:
> Pound does not simply condemn "colonization," or "imperialism", as such,
as
> one might conclude by looking at a single quote. He only opposed
> colonization by the members of the Western alliance. Speaking to British
> listeners, Pound the broadcaster says,
>
> Your allies in India are the bunyah. You do nothing
> in your colonies to compare with the COLONIZATION,
> real colonization as Italians understand it. Well, I
> won't say you do nothing, but your main line is squeeze,
> squeeze, ruin the natives, exploit 'em"
> (Doob, 52).
>
> I can provide dozens of quotes to demontrate Pound's support for the
Italian
> empire. And to understand the horrors of Italian colonization of
Ethiopia,
> you should read Sbacchi, who documents Mussolini's use of poison gas.
>
|
