@Folktruther

Is that all you got: specious ad hominem diatribes?

Do us all a favor, please: switch to decaf.  Your angry denunciations are stinking up the place.

Please refrain from personal attacks, or I shall taunt you a third time.

Note that I direct my comments to your comments, not your person; we all are sharing being aware of this right here, our shared becoming; please show some respect for us, your interlocutors.

I notice that your quotes of Vidal end with the quote in question.  What follow ups did you ask?  What was said immediately afterward?

I suspect you thought, wow, that line is going to get a lot of notoriety.  “Mr. Vidal, that blows my mind, please explain,” is only one of many follow ups that could’ve been asked.

Your egregious omission of anything that follows—what, did you then just get up and walk out, neither of you saying even a word more?—only adds to my suspicions.  Why are you depriving us of the full context?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; your rejoinder is insufficient.

If attacking Gore Vidal makes you jolly, well have at it. If Mr. Vidal shows disdain for parts of American (or the lack thereof) culture, that is his choice. If you read Vidal’s novel Kalki you will notice a character who has contempt for Bob Dylan. Does Gore Vidal like Bob Dylan’s work, I have never heard him speak of it?
As far as Gumbel is concerned, he seems to be a bit of a deliberate dumb bell. Had he never watched the extensive interview with Amy Goodman, where Vidal talked about Obama and many other things. As far as the MacArthur praise, does he really believe that Gore Vidal is a militarist? Vidal is speaking of the quality of the prose. Probably like the late Vladimir Nabakov, Vidal finds some aspects of modern culture offensive. But so what?
One more thing about Gumbel, he states: “He has been kind to me in the past, crediting my work on the corruptions of the American electoral system and hosting me several times at parties at his beautiful Hollywood Hills home.”
This whole thing is starting to sound like some hissyfit bitch slap.

>> “Slaves have a hard time making poetry, unless it’s got a beat.”

Sorry, I don’t see that as racist ... think chain gangs, think galley slaves at the oars ... and at the end of their working day, they eat and sleep ... race has nothing to do with it, imho.

Dear Gore: ALL poetry has a beat. Each line, called a meter, is an arrangement of syllables consisting of words with long and short vowels. Collectively, these produce an auditory rhthym, patterns of sound and can be classified accordingly as, ie, iambic pentamenter, dactyl, trochee, prosody et al.

Dear Gore: When your hero, Gen MacArthur, spoke of DUTY HONOR COUNTRY in his farewell address he failed to mentioned this: he fled the Phillipines in March 1942 leaving behind fractured, underequipped divisions of unprepared soldiers. These defenders, lacked adequate food and weapons; battle orders and plans were left to company commanders wile the chain of command dithered in Corregidor. The Gen and select staff escaped to and remained in Australia until October of 1944 when it was was safe to return with another invasion force. The farewell speech contains this passage, Gore,“Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they (DUTY HONOR COUNTRY) mean.” DUH! So much for his “poetry.”

Dear Andrew: It seems this contretemps has devolved into quid pro quo ad hominems. The term “slaves” aka “helots” used by Gore and applied to Truman precludes ethnicity and indicates, according to Gore, lack of class. However, when “slaves” is attached by Gore to his remark about poetry and beat you inferred it to be racist because of your word associations(Obama = slaves = black; beat = black poetry = political poetry). Though, I, too, am taken aback by Gore’s insensitivity, the rejoiner, to be considered even marginally racist, would have to be more overt in pronouncing racial prejudice: “Obama, being black, has a hard time making poetry, unless it’s got a beat.” Gore has forgotten that ALL poetry has a beat! No matter how offensive one might take this to be it would be protected under the first amendment. Compare this to William F Buckeley,Jr’s article in the magazine National Review when he lined up squarely behind Southern segregationists saying that Southern whites had the “right to impose” their ideas on blacks who were as yet “culturally and politically inferior” to them.

Post Script: The term “elitist” needs to be redefined. Elitism exists within her social, cultural, political, literary, philosphical hierarchy. Pig farmers believe they’re superior to chicken farmers; fundamental religionists to all other co-religionists; liberals to neocons; Libertarians to Everyman/person. Elitism, as seen in the recent campaign, was a fluid term. Anti-elitist according to Palin were the REAL elite in America because their “traditional” mainstream “values” were better than those of the East Coast media elite. Assign Gore to whatever elite niche he might occupy though I believe it’s more than just ONE.

All old cultures communicate among themselves by song and rhythm. The people of the country of my origin (European) do too. But with the written word came another way of thinking, a potential for more complex thought. The written word is a huge step forward, but it also creates new problems. For example, some children feel the pressure of parents to perform and start stuttering. This is when the therapist reintroduces song as a way to overcome the stress. Stuttering also may affect an entire society/culture when it makes the transition from communication by song to communication by speech and written word. The economic elites, those who wish to keep their economic priviledges to themselves, have no objections to hiring scribes and make same more or less elites too, if the two together can keep the greater number of people dumbed down to song and rythm. Many East European country folk are thus not taking part in the economic “leap forward” as their city cousins, but remain tied to older patterns of thought.

Apparently he believes blacks can write prose.  He cited Dawn Powell as one of our best novelists.  Would a racist do that?  He was also a friend of James Baldwin.  There’s nothing in his long public life that would support a charge of racism.

It’s hard to see even in Gumbel’s explanation above how Vidal was being a racist given that Vidal called Truman a slave too.  Is Gumbel arguing that Clinton wasn’t the first “black President,” but rather Truman? 

One could look at this and draw the conclusion that Gumbel must clearly be very stupid, given that in the same piece (and just a few sentences prior) he explains how Truman is a slave and then re-states the alleged remark that Obama is a slave.  The connection between the meaning of the two is abundantly clear.  Truman and Obama both do not come from the ruling class (in the Elitist Theory sense of Poli Sci), instead coming from the surf class (i.e. slave).  Given that Vidal’s statement was color blind (Truman is white after all), and given that Vidal’s past body of work does not indicate that he’s a racist, makes it easy to conclude that Gumbel is more Gump.   

But, we’re all adults here and Gumbel is hardly stupid (he taught communications at UCLA); it’s more likely that he’s just looking for his 15-minutes of fame.  Put yourself in his shoes:  After years of writing, your body of work mainly consists of articles for The Huffington Post and the LA City Beat. Would you be tempted to bend the truth just a little so you can finally jump start your career choice and get that big acclaim to fame (maybe win a Pulitzer too)?

Sure, that sounds sinister, but Gumbel did state in this TD article that Vidal called both Truman and Obama a slave, and then concluded that Vidal was being racist when he referenced Obama.  His huge assumption (and the glaring hole in his argument) is that Vidal meant Obama to be a different kind of slave than Truman - a slave in the actual sense of working on a plantation, whereas Truman was just a slave in the philosophical sense.  Gumbel then goes on to say that Vidal clearly meant the Obama statement as racist, but offers us not proof other than two premises (i.e. Truman = Slave and Obama = Slave) that contradict his conclusion. 

His third premise, that Vidal likes McCarthur, is irrelevant to the argument’s conclusion and likely mentioned (and fixated on through much of the article) because McCarthur is not a popular historical figure nowadays.  Sort of how the Clinton camp focused on Obama saying that he admired some traits of Reagan.  It merely served as a red herring to distract from the glaring weakness in Gumbel’s argument.  As in, “hmmm… Truman is a slave… Obama is a slave… Oh I get the connection… Wait, he likes McCarthur… Mother F’r…  There’s the statement about the slavery thing again…  That jerk likes McCarthur…  Gumbel’s right, Vidal is no good…”

Tick… Tock… Gumbel… You’re 15-Minutes of fame are fading…

Eso, November 15 at 5:56 am #

I am surprised how many of the commenters do not wish to consider their thought patterns a slave to what is known as addiction to “right think”. Lot of “stuck thinking” going on here, including Gumbel’s. Once more: Gore Vidal is not speaking of Obama in terms of race. He is speaking of Obama and all of us, perhaps himself including, at least in so far this age is not yet definitively behind us.
***********************************

Had Vidal not added “unless it’s got a beat” I would have tended to agree with you.

But he DID say “unless it’s got a beat” and then, in his attack on Gumbel, left that part out, deliberately because he KNOWS it’s racist, but racism doesn’t fit “The Gore Vidal Image”.

“unless it’s got a beat.”  I think Vidal will live to regret those 5 words.

I am surprised how many of the commenters do not wish to consider their thought patterns a slave to what is known as addiction to “right think”. Lot of “stuck thinking” going on here, including Gumbel’s. Once more: Gore Vidal is not speaking of Obama in terms of race. He is speaking of Obama and all of us, perhaps himself including, at least in so far this age is not yet definitively behind us.

“Slaves have a hard time making poetry, unless it’s got a beat.”

I’ve changed my mind. This is clearly a virulently racist statement.  I have no more doubts.

It’s amazing how many Truthdiggers are apologists for Gore Vidal even after making such a remark.

But Vidal’s feculant vituperation against the interviewer is just a cheap attempt to cover a pile of you-know-what with air freshener.

You said it, Gore.  Be man enough to admit it, and apologize for it, unless you really are a racist.

Notice that everyone ignores the fact that Vidal WORSHIPS MacArthur, who dared challenge the civilian authority over the military—and was rightly and properly fired by Truman for it.

Vidal is an elitist, sneering down his nose at anyone who isn’t as well-educated as he is, viewing them of not worthy of ruling themselves. 

Calling Obama a helot and slave in the context of calling Truman the same thing isn’t necessarily racist—Vidal knows Obama isn’t descended from Americans who were in bondage.  No, it’s clear he means that Obama’s WHITE heritage were the slaves.

However, Gore Vidal makes one statement that condemns him: He says:

“Slaves have a hard time making poetry, unless it’s got a beat.”

UNLESS IT’S GOT A BEAT

This is the most disgusting thing that’s ever come out of that twisted man’s mouth.  He might as well have save “How come they all got rhythm?”

Elitist, racist and too cowardly to admit it, instead launching a HUGE attack on the man who DARED to quote and make him look like a bigot instead of a “brilliant critic”.

Dear, dear me; why didn’t Andrew Gumbel just go back and ask?  Surely this thread is a waste of cyberspace.  TD chumming yet again.  Oh well, the election is over and subjects to natter over are hard to come by.

“Slaves have a hard time making poetry, unless it’s got a beat.”
................

Gore is absolutely right. The West is a slave to this day to the neo-Christian murders of the sacred arch-Christian Johns (the remnant of which is to be seen in the sadhus of India and wondering Budhist monks and of which caste Jesus was a member.) These murders dumbed down the population and elevated to an elite status robber barons and princes. We are still slaves to the latter.

Our discssions (not exactly poetry) still rhyme to mind patterns frozen by the murders. John-Jesus has been driven into heaven, where he is effectively ineffective. Down here on Earth, no one knows of self-sacrifice any longer, self-sacrifice creating the only charisma that may effectively order society to order in a non-violent manner. Yes, we have a beat to beat, but there is no poetry in it but “dooh, dooh, dooh.”

This he said she said crap is a waste of time.  Why the hell is Truthdig even worried about this?  Are they gonna report on a spat between Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears next week?  There’s real problems to report on in the world right now.

(Thanks to Paolo for reminding of when Vidal went one-on-one with Buckley, and for his comment otherwise.)

Here’s the thing: right here in words penned by Gumbel, who’s still missing the point; e.g., this time, what Vidal meant when he noted McArthur was far and away more brilliant than Truman. Certainly McArthur got exactly what he had coming. Gumbel seems to imply that Vidal thinks otherwise.

I’m thinking of Gumbel now as seriously less than artless dodger. This latest piece is of no use. What Gumbel does not or simply cannot understand is that Vidal is first an artist, with an appreciation for the artful, most especially for the artful word. (Was he supposed to pretend to the artless Gumbel that he’s idiot?) A few of us remember the artful. Thanks not least to post-modernist’s inclination to celebration of the folksy democracy, “artful” has just about disappeared. You-Tube having taken its place. While Obama’s rhetoric is regarded as high oratory. C’mon! Jesse Jackson is far better orator. Never mind Obama next to King. Not even close. (People thought Reagan an orator too.)

Reactionary you are, Mr. Gumbel. Insofar as reverse snobbism that’s part and parcel of artless ignorance. With anti-intellectualism so typical of paranoid Americans. I doubt there’s ever been a nationality so suspicious of brains. (I was born Midwestern, Mr. Gumbel, unlike yourself. You think you know Americans? You don’t.)

Mr. Gumbel is even more confused regarding culture than regarding what passes for politics. Does he seriously think that Obama (centrist) represents some kind of bloodless revolution? Seriously? Just today the man asked Hillary to be State. (With no thought to 2012, I’m sure.)

So much for any kinda revolution. But identity politics has finally prevailed. But we’re still busted. I’m not surprised to hear Vidal talked of class, which WOULD BE the point!

Repeating myself, Mr. Gumbel wrote of how, “Across the country, young people are being energized into political activism in ways unseen (sic) since the Vietnam War and—in contrast to the counter-cultural (sic) movement of 40 years ago—given real reason to suppose the future belongs to them.”

Claptrap pretending to profundity.

This thing—Gumbel accusing Gore Vidal of being both racist and reactionary—is one of a relatively ignorant individual reducing far wiser and more knowing personage to the former’s level. The thing about ignorance is how corrosive it is—of intellect, of reason, and of wit. Igorance is more than anything else parasitic. More that than bliss. Or blissful because also that.

Now Gumbel professing his heretofore admiration for Vidal’s style (if not substance?), along with confession of feeling stunned and flabbergasted. Then, “I almost sheepishly asked…”

THAT was follow-up? Huh? “No” is what Vidal should have retorted. Simply, “NO.”

I wish Vidal had not answered as he did, since he should have known better than to think likes of Gumbel would get it. But Vidal is of a different time, when people got it. Before U.S. of Amnesia. Before total artlessness. Before people ceased to read.

I personally have no doubt as to where Vidal comes from. Does Mr. Gumbel really think Truman was McArthur’s equal oratirically? Indeed, Mr. Gumbel, Vidal is—as he has long been—a cutting wit, as you note but really don’t get. Vidal is every bit Mencken’s equal with regard to due disdain for ignorance—on the part of any member of ANY class. Or is it simply beyond any of, say, working class to grasp reality? That’s not Vidal’s position, though the cutlural-political position seems to be Gumbel’s.

By now—in a society so damn dumbed down—Gumbels appear everywhere, lurking around every corner, eyes and ears atuned to opporunity for opporunity. Atuned are more insidious than the Patriot Act, product of aforementioned paranoia.

That’s all for now.

PT—I guess , then, that it depends on what you mean by “ruling class”. Maybe I should have said “elite class”.

“Vidal is very much a part of the ruling class.”

Actually, they don’t like him.  For one thing, he is anti-imperialist.

PT—Vidal is very much a part of the “ruling class”.

Gore Vidal likes to provoke.

But Barack Obama is not even descended from slaves.  On his mother’s side, he actually is descended from slave owners.  I am sure Vidal knows that.

And Vidal is a fan of former presidential candidate George McGovern, hardly from the aristocracy.

What Vidal means by slaves is those who follow along with the ruling class consensus.  And Obama does give cause for concern, but he still is better than McCain.

If Andrew Gumbel wants clarification of what an interviewee means, he should just ask.

I’d like to meet the person, who is free of racism, free of sexism, free of prejudice of any kind?

It’s so much easier to label somone, than to deal with what they say, what they represent, who they are.

It’s really the same process as racism, sexism, the same prejudice only intellectualized.

It’s a game the mind plays with itself when it doesn’t want to be caught behaving in a way detestable to the self.

I trust Mr. Vidal, because of the courage he’s displayed, when he could have remained silent, and because he said things at the height of the Bush lunacy, that no one else had the guts to say.

The right in this country would love to set him up, to destroy him, and have everything to gain by questioning his integrity.

It wasn’t racist and the reason you sir don’t get that, is related to in this most wonderful article

Read it several times if you must so you can absorb every paragraph, and the meaning behind it.

Those who scream “racists!” are in fact the racists themselves.

To deny the differences between a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)”>the five major races; Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Ethiopian (later termed Negroid), American Indian, and Malayan</a> is an issue that restrains mankind from moving forward and truly figuring out, without bias, what makes us all tick.  To ignore there are differences, is ignorant imo. We dare not speak up and say blacks have more pit bulls and chows than they do poodles, they like certain foods (as Asians like fish), more than others, they are more muscular and large which makes them great for sports (than say Asians), we can keep not saying it because it’s not politically correct, but that doesn’t take away from the fact… it’s a fact.

We dare not open our mouths as we live in the endless chains of being called racists.  No problem calling a beautiful blonde a bimbo.. no problem calling a fat person lazy.. but we dare not, NOT I SAY!!!  confront the differences among our races.

For you sir to imply he was being racist when he used the term “slave”, makes you a racist for assuming all slaves were/are black! 

Gore Vidal is a character and a dying breed that sadly this world won’t be able to replace with the intellectual structure of all mankind and the direction it is taking. (Down instead of up-refer back to 1st link I posted above).

Have you any idea, any idea what it’s like to be called racist just because some of us didn’t support the new messiah Obama?  To stand by and see people in the pubic eye who we’ve greatly admired for so many years, to see them accused of racism when they dared to stand up to this new walk on water wonder that nobody questions.. that nobody has vetted?

You cannot, will not get rid of racism until the defenders who play victim, stop screaming “racist!” at ever turn. 

As for his comment “... unless it’s got a beat”, assuming he said that, are we to deny that rap was born from the black community? ... that Chubby Checker came before Elvis?  ..that Disco wouldn’t have been the endless wonder it was (and is to this day) without Sly and The Family Stone?

Those who scream racism when others point out differences in people don’t seem to get the fact it’s ok to have differences… and to notice them and not ignore them.. as long as we/they are not judged by them.

This is all nuts, and I am sooo sick of hearing the whining about “this guy’s racist!” or “this politician is racist!” or “she’s a racist because she didn’t agree with Obama”.

More-

Where is the screaming and anger and outing of the vile misogynist and sexist behavior that was displayed by all the media, all the bloggers, and Washington insiders when Hillary ran for nomination? ... of which I and many know was stolen from her but that’s another topic.

Where is the outrage of bias and prejudice against women of any color?  The treatment of women and girls in other countries that rob them of their freedom, rights, sexuality and often their lives? Where’s that outrage?  Do you know what they do to preteen females in many African communities and around the world?  Have you ever written to an article showing your outrage at this topic?  Or how about the topic of Dowry Burning also known as “Wife Burning” which is a quite common reality.  Have you felt outrage about this and shown it in any of your writings?

You need something to be outraged about?  Then go here, here, here, here or here, here, or here

(and) for the love of god don’t start a sentence with the word “And”.  You’re a journalist, I am not, therefore I don’t need to be infallible.

The whining about this non-issue needs to stop. Anyone in this country and most other country’s can be successful if they have the drive and intelligence.

You say in your article that Gore Vidal denies saying it. Well, maybe as a professional habit you should record your interviews with their permission (for accuracy and proof), and then you wouldn’t run into that kind of problem, now would you?

By the way, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, give Mr Vidal the right to say and feel whatever he wants on any topic.  In actuality, isn’t that true of all of us?  Republicans think the word “liberal” relates to some demonic sub human.  Salon months ago had an article during the primaries asking viewers to come up with creative ways to call Senator Hillary Clinton the “C” word.  Where is the outrage over this? (and yes I have proof of the article because I blogged about it, screen capped it for proof, and saved it).

The media such as yourself have selective outrage over specific human rights, treatment, and minuscule comments such as this made by Mr. Vidal, and you idly sit by and do nothing, say nothing, write nothing, about the truly important issues we face in this post millennium world.

No one is denied the front of the bus in 2008, nor the presidency so it appears.

Move on to something actually important and stop this endless whining people.

ITW—Whom is your last post addressing?

I wrote that I thought Vidal was an elitist P**** and TD deleted the post.  I wasn’t criticizing a fellow TDer, but the SUBJECT of a thread.

Is Gore Vidal SO sacred to Truthdig that he cannot be criticize?  At least you let Ralph Nader (your other pseudo-hero) get blasted.

sfmike—Because if TD does NOT give him a chance to reply—it will be FluffPo.

Where can we see the original? HuffPo?

I’m going to look for it.

I’ve read a lot of Vidal over the years and Gumbel’s origninal article.

Bumbel is full of shit.  Vidal IS Elitist as I’ve said before, having been born into the American political class.  However, there isn’t a vetige of a racist hint in his voluminous writings that I’ve read and he’s said, at least once, that racism is lot of nonsense.

Vidal has taken a contrarian position in the American political consensus (when there isn’t much of risk) and has enriched it with many innovative and witty proposals.  And insights into American history, and Western history, that academic historians avoid.  Pssibly because he is gay, he has an outsider’s view of political and social reality that is not only amusing, but leads to qauite serious political possiblities.

Such as his sppech to the National Press club in the early 90’s to invoke article 5 of the constitution and call a convention that would reform an obollete, oppressive and corrupt power system.  His enemity to Truman was primarily due to Truman having intiated the National Security State that Vidal has opposed consisstently through the half century plus of his adulthood.

Gumbel’s piece for Huffpo is a hatchet job pure and simple.  It is on the par with calling Nader a total asshole on its front pages.  It is a fake progressive newsletter and Gumbel is a fake progrressive writing for it.

However Truthdig does deserve credit for letting him reply.  Huffpo, if Truthdig commenters are typical in their treatment, wouldn’t have.

I don’t see the comment as racist at all. The use of the word slave is consistent with observations the man has made about white leaders. The author of the article was “stunned” because he truly believes that Obama is a great orator. In fact, Obama is nothing of the kind. Vidal’s slap was directed at the young author who could have, and should have learned a lesson. Don’t shoot the messenger, pal. Obama is not a great speaker, a great intellect, or a great leader. I voted for him and I’m glad he won this election, but he’s a shallow political hack, a narcissist and an airhead.

Given Vidal’s advanced age, and the fact he has done heroic battle against truly execrable characters (like William F. Buckley) in the past, I am inclined to cut him a break.

Yes, the quotation, if accurate, is racist. I still say, give the guy a break. I hope I am one tenth as sharp and witty when I am his age (I’m 54).

I wil be honest: I am so confused! Does truth dig have an original transcript, or is there a video?

It just does not sound like something he would say. But, if you say he did, who am I to say he didnt? If it is not being taken out of context, it was indeed racist.

As it is stated here, I see no other interpretation.

Did you confront him? Did you ask him what he meant?

I am just confused..