Comments on: You Pre-Enlightened Post-Anti-Semite! http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:36:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Mild Colonial Boy http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4721 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:17:32 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4721 I must say that I also appreciated his book "Who killed Homer" ; a polemic about the decline in the study of the Classics ; so that its something of a disappointment to see how little his studies seemed to have affected his thoughts on the current situation. I must say that I also appreciated his book “Who killed Homer” ; a polemic about the decline in the study of the Classics ; so that its something of a disappointment to see how little his studies seemed to have affected his thoughts on the current situation.

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4719 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:38:03 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4719 Thanks, those are good points. He talks about immigration so rarely that I sometimes forget that he actually does understand many of the problems of mass immigration. Thanks, those are good points. He talks about immigration so rarely that I sometimes forget that he actually does understand many of the problems of mass immigration.

]]> by: tedschan http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4718 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:21:02 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4718 I think Mr. Hanson does say some things about the decline of classics and the "study of Western civilization" that would not be wrong, along with his position on illegal immigration (I have not read his <i>Mexifornia</i>, but I suspect it has some good observations about agribusiness in CA)... I think Mr. Hanson does say some things about the decline of classics and the “study of Western civilization” that would not be wrong, along with his position on illegal immigration (I have not read his Mexifornia, but I suspect it has some good observations about agribusiness in CA)…

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4716 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:57:37 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4716 Thanks for the comment. Maybe Hanson does know something worth listening to--it just never shows up in his columns. I suppose part of this is a function of what he expects his audience to want from him, so he offers them a steady dose of "it's 1938; fascism, fascism, fascism; I read Thucydides, so when I support the wanton bombing of a country it must be good; in the good old days, we nuked our enemies, so what are a few dead civilians today?; Europeans are stupid!; I don't like Mel Gibson!" It is unclear whether this is the limit of the man's understanding of the world around him or if he is intentionally playing up to the worst aspects of what he thinks his audience believes. I almost have to think that he could not be so lacking in understanding, yet I have not seen much evidence to the contrary in a long time. Incidentally, has anyone noticed that Hanson has pulled poor Mel into at least two of his "anti-Semitism is on the loose/it's 1938" articles in the last month or so? To hear Hanson tell it, not only is Mel an anti-Semite, but he is just the tip of the iceberg. The piece that appeared in the Tribune has to be the only time that anyone has ever mentioned Farrakhan and Gibson in the same sentence as examples of the same thing, which probably says something about the value of the comparison. I'm not sure I have an answer to your question, but I think one reason why people read him is that he is a Classics scholar, which means for some people that he must not only know his particular area of expertise but must also be terribly wise about the great questions. I don't know where anyone got this idea that professional academics have insights into life's big questions (we have just spent a lot more time reading, which gives us lots of information but not necessarily good judgement), but I think this must have something to do with why so many endure Hanson's ramblings. Maybe that's not it at all. I am really just guessing here. Perhaps his writing is widely circulated on the right, I suppose, because I think conservative readers want to have someone with official academic credentials taking their side (since there aren't that many available) and making seemingly learned references to antiquity while cheering on jingoistic policies. Then again, if the ridiculous Golden Boy Ben Shapiro can be a regularly syndicated columnist, why not Hanson with all his flaws? Thanks for the comment. Maybe Hanson does know something worth listening to–it just never shows up in his columns. I suppose part of this is a function of what he expects his audience to want from him, so he offers them a steady dose of “it’s 1938; fascism, fascism, fascism; I read Thucydides, so when I support the wanton bombing of a country it must be good; in the good old days, we nuked our enemies, so what are a few dead civilians today?; Europeans are stupid!; I don’t like Mel Gibson!” It is unclear whether this is the limit of the man’s understanding of the world around him or if he is intentionally playing up to the worst aspects of what he thinks his audience believes. I almost have to think that he could not be so lacking in understanding, yet I have not seen much evidence to the contrary in a long time.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed that Hanson has pulled poor Mel into at least two of his “anti-Semitism is on the loose/it’s 1938″ articles in the last month or so? To hear Hanson tell it, not only is Mel an anti-Semite, but he is just the tip of the iceberg. The piece that appeared in the Tribune has to be the only time that anyone has ever mentioned Farrakhan and Gibson in the same sentence as examples of the same thing, which probably says something about the value of the comparison.

I’m not sure I have an answer to your question, but I think one reason why people read him is that he is a Classics scholar, which means for some people that he must not only know his particular area of expertise but must also be terribly wise about the great questions. I don’t know where anyone got this idea that professional academics have insights into life’s big questions (we have just spent a lot more time reading, which gives us lots of information but not necessarily good judgement), but I think this must have something to do with why so many endure Hanson’s ramblings. Maybe that’s not it at all. I am really just guessing here. Perhaps his writing is widely circulated on the right, I suppose, because I think conservative readers want to have someone with official academic credentials taking their side (since there aren’t that many available) and making seemingly learned references to antiquity while cheering on jingoistic policies. Then again, if the ridiculous Golden Boy Ben Shapiro can be a regularly syndicated columnist, why not Hanson with all his flaws?

]]> by: Kitty http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4714 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:21:07 +0000 http://larison.org/2006/10/02/you-pre-enlightened-post-anti-semite/#comment-4714 Would you explain to me why people think VDH knows something worth listening to? I was primed not to like his opinions because I always opposed the war, but I'd like to think I am capable of recognizing thoughtful opinions even when I disagree with them. In his case, however, all I see are incoherent rants by someone with a big vocabulary. I can do that, and if I can do it, it's not erudition. Would you explain to me why people think VDH knows something worth listening to? I was primed not to like his opinions because I always opposed the war, but I’d like to think I am capable of recognizing thoughtful opinions even when I disagree with them. In his case, however, all I see are incoherent rants by someone with a big vocabulary. I can do that, and if I can do it, it’s not erudition.

]]>