The Castaway
Sam FrancisMy essay on the life and thought of Sam Francis is now published in Doublethink. I'm pretty sure the piece will upset people as there are several factions which claim Francis as their own. From the time and place of his birth and until he died, Francis did not share the typical life of a Washington pundit. That goes along way to explaining why there was nothing typical about his analysis of the federal city.
While interviewing the friends of Francis I was struck by the affection so many people had for him. Though some of his friends disliked what he wrote (or at least what he wrote about them), no one that knew him personally disliked him.
Fittingly, there is a long section on Francis' opposition to Martin Luther King Jr. Day - a position which grew naturally out of Francis' anti-communism, and his style of analysis which emphasized the importance of cultural symbols. But even fearing the platform which the holiday gives to radical egalitarians he would come to laugh at how America celebrates it - in an orgy of material consumption.
Update: I forgot to mention the other pieces in Doublethink - read them all, especially Cheryl Miller's jaunt through the new prudery.
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
10 Comments
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (10)
And overall, it would be quite right to argue that whites who are not rich--and especially those who are urban, working-class, or descendants of post-1900 immigrants--have been some of the biggest losers culturally and economically in the relentless games played by stupid judges, more stupid legislators and outright idiotic hippie academians. (I cannot say I blame deracinated businessmen as much as the afforementioned culprits; often they are just trying to avoid the worst of this mess for themselves and their families) I would say whites were the primary losers during the more invasive and unrealistic parts of the Civil Rights movement (i.e., the destruction of many old ethnic neighborhoods, unmet expectations giving way to a cycle of violent felonies), although blacks and whites have both lost out in the vicious immigration and deindustrialization campaigns waged over the last few decades.
But to end on a contrary anecdote, I have to mention an interesting sight in New York City about two weeks back when I got stuck in a subway at midnight. A construction crew was on break from working on the line I needed to take, and what surprised me was the fact that not only were half of them white, but they seemed to have Irish accents. Even more surprisingly, I got home by way of a Jewish cabbie the next evening.
The confusion you speak of is not feminism its insufficient feminism and an excess of confusion. Its consumerism, nonsense about empowerment and a search for male approval that has nothing to do with acquiring any actual social, educational or financial savvy or power.
The article is interesting but there is no slutty mandate in modern feminism. There is one in contemporary culture but just because you use the language of feminism to sell your "product" does not make the "product" itself feminist.
M
Most of the misreading of the impact and ideas of Sam Francis I attribute to MBD's youth and inexperience, but I am dissapointed at some level because I know how intently he read and researched—including tracking down original sources—Sam's life and writings. My hope is his explanation and rationalization will include info on how the piece was heavily edited.
Cordially,
Peter B. Gemma, Editor
SHOTS FIRED: Sam Francis on America's Culture War
Sam Francis would not "laugh" or find anything funny about the m.a. king holiday, commercial or otherwise. In fact, every January, he usually wrote a column denouncing king. In Sam's day, the third Monday in January was either Robert E. Lee Day or Lee-Jackson Day. So, folks here is your choice: a holiday for a plagarist/serial adulterer (king) or for a man (Lee) who graduated second in his class at West Point and went through four years at that academy without earning a single determit.
It's interesting to look into the roots of Burnham's theory. A good case can be made that Burnham appropriated his managerial revolution thesis, without attribution, from Lawrence Dennis.
(This theme is explored by a leftist critic of Burnham http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1947/09/burnham.htm and http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/1943/10/burnham.htm.
As well as from a right wing source http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=11569 (see especially footnote 1).
Dennis was as politically untouchable in his day as Sam Francis was in his. In fact Francis's Burnhamism is actually closer to it's (probable) "Dennisite" roots. Like Francis, Dennis was from the South, but unlike Francis, Dennis (of mixed race heritage) had no racist baggage, although as someone who happily called himself a fascist in the 1930s (even as he rejected the anti-semitism of the nazis) he had another baggage train to drag.