--- [log in to unmask] wrote: > very well put. to deal with Pound in the context of > his time, and not by > projecting the present time into the past, is to see > him for the human being > he was. this dimension has been sorely missing in > many of the "treatments" > of Pound that have peppered the list lately. > > joe... > > In a message dated 06/28/2000 6:50:47 PM Eastern > Daylight Time, > [log in to unmask] writes: > > << > Tim Romano wrote: > > > > > To demonize Pound by linking him to the harsh > political acts/sins against > > mankind/atrocities/draconian measures (however > one wishes to characterize > > them) of the leaders, ancient and modern, whom > Pound chooses to exalt for > > some quality or qualities they possessed, gives > the false impression that > > Pound was not a product of his times; it suggests > that his views were so > > exterme that he was on the fringes. But these > views were common, almost > > "mainstream." The record of these times has been > distorted and purged. > > This whole post is of extreme interest, but I wish > only to expand on a couple > of points. To put this paragraph another way, in > order to conceal the tracks > of racism and authoritarianism in u.s. imperialism > it is necessary to > demonize > Pound and others and (as Tim notes below) actually > conceal the existence > of some writers. Back in the era of Trumanism > (misnamed McCarthyism) > great fun was had by all in reference to Soviet > rewriting of history. The > process Tim describes in this post is much more > democratic or at least > more sophisticated. Some of that history is being > dug up however, > revealing that eugenics was not only a "scientific" > position but embodied > in the actual proceedings of a number of state > governments -- and even > in social-democratic Sweden. Pound has nothing over > Woodrow Wilson > as a racist. And when someone "accused" Eisenhower > of being Jewish, > his response was not "SoWhat!" but "THAT'S A LIE!" > In the late > 1960s Princess Margaret at a banquet given in her > honor by Mayor > Daley of Chicago was overheard dismissing the Irish > as dirty like > pigs. And the Blackfoot Nation is attempting to sue > Canada for the > genocidal special boading schools into which for > half a century they > kidnapped Indian children. (The schools, many of > them church- > operated, do fit fairly closely the definitions of > genocide in international > treaties.) The U.S. while keeping Pound in the > Pisan DTC was > dismantling the local governments established by > peasants in Korea > after the defeat of Japan and replacing them with > the quislings who had > served the Japanese. Shoot Quisling in Norway -- > make his Korean > equivalent, Synghman Rhee, dictator of Korea. Pound > is right for > the wrong reasons about the various war-crimes > trials. > > > Other artists have been long ignored, their works > allowed to go out of > print > > or rot in basements. I spent 8 years studying > literature, from the late > '70s > > through the mid '80s and did not see the name of > the painter and > > man-of-letters Wyndham Lewis mentioned even once > in any course description, > > or hear his name mentioned by any teacher or > colleague --the man whom T.S. > > Eliot called "the greatest prose writer of my > generation"-- and when I did > > learn about Lewis, it was impossible to find > copies of his many works > > anywhere; in some instances, the works had been > removed from the shelves. > > I find this astounding. The marxist critic > Frederick Jameson wrote a book on > Wyndham Lewis. I haven't read it, but I would agree > with what I understand > was one of its theses, that we have something to > learn from the artists who > celebrated Fascism. Fascism was a strange blend. In > its material existence > it had no ideology but was completely arbitrary. > It *needed*, however, > the appearance of an ideology, and the first-rate > writers (Lewis and Pound > not the only ones) who in a sense provided that > ideology are important. > This is another way of saying that the Mussolini of > the Cantos both is > and (more importantly) is *not* the Mussolini of > history. > > Consider the lines: > > Adolf furious from perception. > But there is a blindness that > comes from inside -- > they try to explain themselves out of > nullity. > (104/761 [1998 > printing]) > > Adolf does not deserve the compliment -- but it is > still a profoundly true > insight into the lives of many in the last century. > I am battling now on > another list with two political friends who are > being drive to a blind fury > by their perception of the facts of global warming. > It is not impossible that > some like them may end up supporters of some new > Fuerher. > > > I > > happen to know that rare scientific works on > eugenics are being removed > from > > the shelves of a major university to be stored > offsite, not in a special > > archive, but in an area devoted to superseded or > discredited volumes which > > are destined eventually for the incinerator, > while the pulp fiction section > > is growing larger. There's a painting by Augustus > John of the South African > > poet Roy Campbell locked away in a basement in an > art museum in Pittsburgh > > PA, where it has been out of sight for maybe 40 > years. e.e. cumming's work > > EIMI is also out of print. Pound's translation > of Moscardino is out of > > print. > > > > If I had the broadcasts to hand, I would cite the > passage where Pound > writes > > that it does not matter what the artist believes > he is making or doing; if > > he sincerely reports what his eyes are observing, > his works will reflect > the > > times. > > "Reflect" is almost too weak here. The future will > not be too wrong if in > looking back on this and the last century, trying > to make sense of the > long fallen U.S. empire, they take the Cantos as > their guide. Nor would > "Furious from perception" be an unfair epitaph for > Pound himself -- > see the earlier lines: > > and the light became so > bright and so blindin' > in this layer of paradise > that the mind of man was > bewildered. > > (38/190) > It seems to me that a poet who sees so much is > forgiveable for being > such a fucking fool in his interpretation of what > he saw. And if one > focuses on it in this way, there is less a conflict > than is often assumed > by both his friends and enemies between the > "aestehtics" of Pound's > poem and its substance -- nor is so necessary to > labor painfully to > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/