MaxSpeak, You Listen!
English translation of the relevant bit of the speech and a small amount of comment here.
This was posted by "King Elvis" in response to TPM Cafe's analysis of this (see http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/200...4/18461/81161):
Re: Hugo Chavez' Alleged Anti-Semitism (3.00 / 0) (#7)
by KingElvis on Jan 05, 2006 -- 10:58:25 AM EST
1. Those who crucified Christ were Romans, not Jews. Jews didn't invent crucifixition, Rome did. Jews were victims of it including Jesus, who was Jewish.
2. The Chavez critique is of Imperial power. Judea was a victim of Rome, not a beneficiary.
3. The word "Jew" is never mentioned.
Chavez is rough around the edges to be sure - this gives his many detractors grist for their mills. Yet, as the saying goes, imagined sleights are often much worse than actual ones.
I offer this free advice: spend time worrying about unambiguous anti Semitism rather than "interpretive" anti Semitism.
Chavez does think he has been thrust into history by destiny. In that way, isn't he like Abraham? Moses maybe? Oh but wait, now am I being anti semitic? After all, I'm implying that the pillars of Jewish history were Chavez-like megalomaniacs.
Last night on Chicago's FOX news, there was a report on Chavez's offer to give diesel fuel to the transit authority for buses. Chicago uses the low sulfur variety, and Frank Crusi, head of the CTA had a press gaggle where he stated that CITGO oil was "dirty" and couldn't be accepted.
FOX also gave Chicago viewers a simple label to describe Chavez:
"Communist."
That was apparently all we needed to know, as no other back story was provided. At other times, they also like to use the word "Dictator" to describe him.
They have a funny way of never mentioning that he was democratically elected by pretty wide margins, or that the right forced a Schwarznegger like do over election which Chavez won handily.
And yet here we are kvetching about how Venezuela's press lacks "nuance."
Hey Max makes a good point. Tip o' the hat to Max.
D
Re: "Judea was a victim of Rome, not a beneficiary."
As was noted in "Life of Brian": "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Which just goes to show, they don't build imperiums like they used to. All the Iraqis have gotten from the US is a parade of purple fingers.
The TPM translation makes it pretty clear that Chavez is talking first and foremost about the rich and powerful and not about jews as such. But certainly a little "Cosmopolitan European Banker" code language is creeping in here.
But then again I was reading Novak yesterday and he passed off Lott's comment on Strom as "harmless jocularity". Apparently only Leftists have to watch what say, watch what they do.
I made a comment in TPM. Chavez mentions "those who crucified, in a way, Bolivar in Santa Marta", and these guys were colonial oligarchs who at the time were scions of Spanish nobility. Ditto about "those who appropriated gold, silver and other minerals". We are talking about class warfare here.
I wonder if radical (in Socialist sense) Catholics pay attention to the fact that Christ was in conflict primarily with the rich and powerful among the Jews (merchants in the Temple, chief priests), so they can make the case that the rich and powerful crucified Christ.
A little out of my field but an examination of the relation between the Catholic Church and France after the Revolution, the Spanish Republic prior to Franco and the Mexican Church post their Revolution pretty much compels you to that position. The Church was clearly identified with the rich in powerful in all three countries and as such held at arms length (in some cases worse than that, not every event in the Spanish Civil War was always admirable on the Republican side). And there is a strong strain of anti-capitalism in the Liberation Theology that animated the Central and South American churches before JP II reined it in.
Carl Remick wrote, "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
LOL! I loved that scene. Especially the way it starts out:
"Reg: Yeah, all right, Stan. Don't label the point. And what have they ever given us in return?"
"Rebel2: The aquaduct?"
"Reg: What?"
Rebel2: The aquaduct."
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah. They did give us that. That's true, yeah."
It reminds me the fabulous welfare system that Roman Empire had in "The Life of Brian".
from memory
"What is your occupation?"
"Bullshitting"
"Did you try to bulshit yesterday?"
"Yes"
"Did you try to bulshit last week?"
"Yes"
Clerk gives the unemployed bullshiter a modest sack of silver.
>FOX also gave Chicago viewers a simple label to describe Chavez:
Yeah, that's brilliant: "Here's a guy willing to give Chicagoans a break on fuel costs!! He's a Commie!!!"
They wanted to paint Chavez in a bleak light but instead what they did was make people think "hey, Commies may not be so bad after all".
To steal from SNL, I can't believe we're losing to these guys.
The Romans. Right. So Chavez was talking about the Italians, secret masters of the Universe.
There is simply no doubt about it. There is a well-documented history of anti-semitism, and blame for crucifixon is deployed solely against the Jews. "His blood be on our children . . . " Anybody who thinks this connotes anything else is kidding him(her)self.
None of this is cause for invading Venezuela. I say the sooner it is slapped down and HC cleans it up, the better off he and his revolution --to which I am sympathetic -- will be.
I agree with Max. There is a very strong need to understand that the language of prejudice is important to correct.
Doyle Saylor
The New Testament is anti-semitic. I think it's hard to extrapolate that Chavez is. If he pops up one day and tells everyone how Bolivar's enemies were crypto-Jews I'll regret saying that. Otherwise it's obvious that "decendents" didn't refer literally to Jews. What he said was clumsy and bound to offend and he should say "Sorry, I didn't mean for that to come out the way he did"
There are other points to consider in attempting to translate this speech: the spanish used to translate Venezuelan spanish (socio-cultural issues) and theology. Spanish speaking nations use language as broadly as the geographical enclaves of the U.S. I find the theology perspective more interesting since few Americans have an interest in that academic discipline even though it is relevant and material to our existence. From what I recollect of the historical story about the crucifixion of Jesus (not the Hollywood version), there was class conflict among the Jews as a people along with sects of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, and quite often he lectured against the ruling class of Jews such as the Pharisees. Barabus was a terrorist to Rome and a Jewish zealot who often combated with the hierarchy of the ruling Jewish sects. The class conflict, in a simplistic sense, parallels that found in the movie "Braveheart" where the Scots split between those who sided with England (the ruling Scots) and those who sided for liberty from England (the underclass). In Rome, where Judea was a province allowed by Rome to be under local Jewish control in reference to custom and practice, you had Barabus against Rome and the ruling Jews taking the side of Rome when their province status became threatened. As to the crucifixion, the Jews who chose Jesus over Barabus were a ruling hierarchy more threatened by Jesus' reformation tendencies of Judaism than Barabus's acts against the Empire.
Its better to have cool heads in these matters and not get hoodwinked by the pull of an emotional trigger (which is the purpose of this speech being an issue now). On the other hand, bold assertions made by the ruling cleric of Iran to wipe out Israel, and admitting to saying same, gives us actual evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, of a speech that is anti-Semitic, and hence, worthy of direct and immediate response forthwith.
The story of the historical Jesus and anti-semitic doctrine are two entirely different things. Even if every living Jew in the time of Christ voted to execute him and participated actively, it would still be anti-semitic (and false) to say "The Jews" killed Jesus. (Or that "the Palestinians" are terrorists.)
Anti-semitism is founded on a well-developed and constantly repeated mythology, the central tenet of which is that "The Jews" killed Christ. In this tale the Romans are just the instrument and bear no responsibility. Any serious reference to this slander is anti-semitic. The same goes for the notion that the descendants of the Christ killers have all the gold, which compounds the crime of malice with abject stupidity.
Now uttering anti-semitic canards is not -- should not be -- a hanging offense. I know people who think the Jews killed Jesus, but they bear no ill will toward Jews. But antecedents of this type should be recognized for what they are.
You're right about the antecedents, Max, but Chavez here:
"The world has enough for everyone, but now a few minorities, the descendants of the people who crucified Jesus, the descendants of the people who threw Bolivar out of here and crucified him in his turn, in Santa Marta over in Colombia... a minority has taken charge of the riches of the world, a minority has taken charge of the world's gold, silver, minerals, water, good land, oil, all its wealth, and it has concentrated that wealth in a few hands."
clearly doesn't think he's talking about the Jews -- the minorities are the rich, Bolivar is the tipoff, and gold silver minerals water good land oil etc. is not meant to be specifically jewish, though I bet he lumps Israel in to the minority. the Jew-capitalist thing is a historical legacy he should avoid and he's clearly fallen into, and he's often a shit and so on and forth, but this is not the sort of anti-semitic statement you made it out to be.
Hey Max, did you ever think to ask any Jews from Venezuela ( I'm sure there must be some) if they felt it was anti-Semetic? With all your contacts I'm sure you could find someone that may know someone that is a Venezuelan of Jewish ancestry. Give it a try, I'd like to know what you find.
"I wonder if radical (in Socialist sense) Catholics pay attention to the fact that Christ was in conflict primarily with the rich and powerful among the Jews (merchants in the Temple, chief priests), so they can make the case that the rich and powerful crucified Christ."
This is indeed exactly what South American liberation theology claims (as is helpfully pointed out by some commenter at TPM Cafe). By the way, liberation theology as a doctrinal movement was crushed by Ratzinger. Given the context, I don't think it's fair to presume that Chavez must be talking about Jews as Christ killers. Googling a bit, I found this on a website hostile to liberation theology:
"Fourth, it is a theological movement specifically and uniquely situated in the Latin American context. Liberation theologians contend that their continent has been victimized by colonialism, imperialism, and multinational corporations. Economic "developmentalism" has placed socalled underdeveloped Third World nations in a situation of dependence, resulting in the local economies of Latin America being controlled by decisions made in New York, Houston, or London. In order to perpetuate this economic exploitation, liberationists argue, the powerful capitalist countries, especially the United States, give military and economic support to secure certain political regimes supportive of the economic status quo."
This seems to be quite a good fit with Chavez's rhetoric. The picture of Christ he invokes is standard fare in this tradition fo thought. But it's certainly not necessarily anti-semitic, or is it? The author of the quoted passage helpfully points out what's wrong with liberation theology:
"Liberation theology threatens to politicize the gospel to the point that the poor are offered a solution that could be provided with or without Jesus Christ."
Translation: The problem of the poor is not that they're poor, which means that it's not a problem that they're poor. They only have to accept Jesus Christ (or the market or the catholic hierarchy) as their personal or institutional savior and all will be fine.
I wonder whether anyone who challenges this interpretation of the Gospel in the way liberation theologists do could escape the charge of being anti-semitic, given the standard set of assumptions that seems to be operative here. According to the logic of the accusation, if I say that Jesus was killed by some rich metropolitan imperial elite or its proxies I must be talking code about jews and hence be an anti-semite. The consequences of adopting this interpretive standard strike me as awfully convenient for the powers that be. Remember that South America is an intensely Christian culture and that framing issues of social justice in terms of the gospel is perhaps the most effective language for an advocate of justice in such a culture.
Hey Max, did you ever think to ask any Jews from Venezuela ( I'm sure there must be some) if they felt it was anti-Semetic?
Indeed, there was historically a significant Jewish population in Venezuela, though I'm not sure how much remains. Their reaction to Chavez's remarks would be worth knowing. I'm generally sympathetic to Chavez's revolution, while a little wary of his undeniable demogogic tendencies (and always wary of any cult of personality). So I'd hate to see him even inadvertently playing into anti-Semitism.
``such as the Pharisees'':
Modest historical point: the ruling class among the jews of Jesus' time were the Sadducces, e.g. Joseph Caiaphas, not the Pharisees.
I've been impressed with the level of clarity that most people here have analyzed Chavez's statement. As I pointed out at TPMcafe, Hugo Chavez often refers to Jesus Christ as the first socialist. When Chavez speaks of "minorities" that "crucified" Christ and Bolivar, he's referring to minorities in a socio-economic sense, not in an ethnic or religious sense. He's not directing his comments at Romans or Jews. He's referring to exactly what he says he's referring to: "minorities" (i.e. oligarchies, aristocracies, ruling classes, etc.) that have "appropriated the riches of the world" and "concentrated wealth in a small number of hands."
Now, for some folks, Chavez's populist discourse may sound a bit wacky, or it may smack of class warfare, but there's nothing anti-semitic in what he's saying.
The term "minoria" in Spanish and "minority" in English often have different connotations. In English, we use the term largely to refer to ethnic "minorities," whereas in Spanish the term is much more commonly used to refer to political or socio-economic minorities.
There is simply no doubt about it. There is a well-documented history of anti-semitism, and blame for crucifixon is deployed solely against the Jews. "His blood be on our children . . . " Anybody who thinks this connotes anything else is kidding him(her)self.
That' s riduculous, Max. Obviously, words have different meanings in different cultures.. As other commenters have pointed out, Chavez is a supporter of liberation theology, which portrays Christ as a revolutionary hero who fights for the poor against the powerful and wealthy interests who try to suppress his message. In that context, "Christ-killer" takes on a very different meaning than what it traditionally signifies in Western culture. Unless someone can establish that the anti-Chavez Venezuelan oligarchs are predominatly or even disproportionately Jewish (in which case there would be valid concern) then I must dismiss this "Chavez-as-anti-Semite" meme as a cheap political stunt.
And, by the way, I should make clear that I not a fan of Chavez - I think he's a demagogue,, although I find his opponents even more tasteful.
As far as anti-Semitism goes, I'd be much more concerned about actions and statements of bastards like Abramoff or Netanyahu or Pipes etc, than any stupid thing Chavez or, say, Mahathir Mohamad might say. Abramoff has probably done a 1000 times more to increase anti-Semitism than Chavez's one phrase out of his daily 3-hour-long speech.
Max: The first Christians were Jews, so maybe you are attempting to contemporize history which any historian will teach that doing so distorts the present perspective; for, as you claim, these two issues (historical story and anti-Semitism) are two separate issues when actually you are merging them into one. To completely bypass the fact that the historical story of the cruxificion is based in class conflict, much less numerous other stories of the Christian Holy Bible, is the consequence of contemporizing history.
Further, Chavez follows liberation-theology doctrine which American Christian Fundamentalist Evangelicals have fought against (i.e., Nicaragua, El Salvador) on the allegation that the former is communist and against capitalism. Liberation-theology historically has threatened, and continues to threaten, the ruling classes because the doctrine focuses on liberating the poor or masses. Thus, I can see Chavez using liberation-theology in this speech, and he uses it in every speech, since that same theology gets its doctrine from the historical story of class conflict.
Paul: The Pharisees were the wealthy elite, and he who has the gold rules.
David writes,
the descendants of the people who crucified Jesus,
Ed writes,
Hey Max, did you ever think to ask any Jews from Venezuela
gr writes,
According to the logic of the accusation, if I say that Jesus was killed by some rich metropolitan imperial elite or its proxies I must be talking code about jews and hence be an anti-semite. The consequences of adopting this interpretive standard strike me as awfully convenient for the powers that be. Remember that South America is an intensely Christian culture and that framing issues of social justice in terms of the gospel is perhaps the most effective language for an advocate of justice in such a culture.
Peter H writes,
then I must dismiss this "Chavez-as-anti-Semite" meme as a cheap political stunt.
And, by the way, I should make clear that I not a fan of Chavez - I think he's a demagogue,, although I find his opponents even more tasteful.
Doyle,
This is typical of bringing up prejudicial comments. It is forever hard to change the course of such thinking. People link themselves to meanings they feel are valid and then cannot see how a formulaic phrase is what it is. Mainly this whole business of trying to link up the thought 'they killed Jesus' to liberation theology and the rich elites (descendants means what?) elides what most people would think. Jews did it. They would think that because Christian theology makes the thought clear to those schooled in the Catholic Church.
Perhaps if Chavez clarified himself it would dispel the obvious conclusion as to meaning. Further, for the left, whatever sort of advantage the powers that be might take from bringing this up, racism and the prejudice it creates have to be constantly flagged in order to dispel it. Simply said, once Chavez brings this up this way he now must do what it takes to correct the impression of being anti-semitic.
Lastly it is not a cheap stunt in a blog to bring this up where many people can have their say. A blog actually more clearly reveals the social dynamics than a pronouncement in a magazine. Denial of the obvious Catholic view of Jews that pervades Western Culture as not being valid in South America because it is not part of the West is simply denial. Does anyone remember the nazis fleeing to South America to hide out in friendly regimes?
thanks,
Doyle
"elides what most people would think"
Doyle are you sure that is what most people in Venezuela would think? Which I think was pretty much the point of the commentators. The notion that Chavez in talking to a Venezuelan audience has the obligation to keep the sensitivities of Americans in mind, that he constantly has to keep in the back of his mind "how will this play in Peoria" is the same nonsense the Right is always pulling on the Left.
And those Nazis mostly fled to Argentina, Chile and Brazil all of which had substantial numbers of German and Italian immigrants and were ruled by the same elites that Chavez is now combatting in Venezuela.
You are projecting here.
I don't get the Bolivar part.
Bruce Webb writes,
You are projecting here.
Doyle,
That's hard to say from my position. Looks like a Christian culture to me which I can say something about from a distance.
Bruce writes,
And those Nazis mostly fled to Argentina, Chile and Brazil...
Doyle,
I was making the point that South American culture is essentially 'western' culture. Especially the Catholic part has a significant meaning in SA.
Bruce writes,
The notion that Chavez in talking to a Venezuelan audience has the obligation to keep the sensitivities of Americans in mind, that he constantly has to keep in the back of his mind "how will this play in Peoria" is the same nonsense the Right is always pulling on the Left.
Doyle,
I think it appropriate for Chavez to clarify himself. Like Max I don't see this as hugely significant (not likely that Chavez would respond), but if you remember the inquisition in Spain, and how they treated Jews to the extent of forced conversions it seems to me that if Chavez did not mean what others would definitely hear then it is no big deal to clarify. But it also represents an insensitivity upon Chavez's part. Or anyone else who makes lite of this comment's history. There are many linkages here, Spain's history, Catholic history, Nazi history that one must take into account in Latin America before one can say definitely they just were culturally so different from norte america.
thanks,
Doyle
The history of populism is full of outright anti-Semitism in reference to Eastern Bankers. Yes latin catholicism has a Jesus Christ as social revolutionary that is completely alien to American Christianity. Still it weakens Chavez's attack when he can be accused of demagogic populism. It wouldn't kill him to steer around it.
The translation offered by Rick Heller of the Dec. 24, 2005 speech by Hugo Chávez is accurate. As is easily noted, the reference to the descendants of those that killed Jesus and Bolívar is to the wealthy and powerful who murederously defend their priviliges at the expense of the oppressed and those that try and defend them. Mr. Chávez's reference is to the Roman Empire in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, a connection he has made more explicit several times, and in the second case to the Spanish empire and then the South American oligarchs that opposed Simón Bolívar. Mr. Hugo Chávez Frías is firm follower of Liberation Theology, the Vatican II-related political current that advocates a "preferential option for the poor." For example, several days ago, during the Christmas season, I heard President Chávez finish (yet) another of his many televised appearances with several calls of "Viva Cristo, el rebelde!," "Viva Cristo, el socialista!" This latest attempt to portray the most upfront and actively anti-racist President in Venezuela's history as his opposite is slander all too typical of our (U.S.) right wing, and with an almost photocopy precedent. In the mid 1980s someone in the Reagan administration's disinformation department decided to invent out of thin air the idea that the FSLN, the Sandinistas, were persecuting the Jewish community in Managua, Nicaragua. Needless to say, the charge was a complete and total lie from beginning to end: there were no more than a few dozen Jews in the nation, zero anything by the government towards them, and basically the whole fake affair led to the Managua newspapers somewhat desparately trying to find anyone of Jewish descent to talk to, seeing as how the one synagogue had fallen into disuse for many years. I lived in Nicaragua in the 1980s and this stupid little episode made the local right wing look (even more) ridiculous by association with such a transparent ploy. But the ploy was not designed for Nicaraguan audiences, it was concocted for the rest of the world, especially Jewish North Americans. It's guilt by association with a baseless suggestion. Like the Swiftboat lies against Kerry, no matter how baseless this false accusation against the current Venezuelan President is now something that can be dredged back up by Bill O'Reilly et al. with a quick oblique mention to taint any discussion on reality here in Venezuela. I can assure readers that Venezuelans here, whatever their political leanings, know perfectly well that Mr. Chávez's Liberation Theology-informed message of Jesus and enemies of that message refers to defenders of oppression and empire, just as the word "yanqui" in Latin America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean refers only to the system of political domination eminating from the United States and has nothing prejudicial against individuals who happen to be norteamericanos, gringos, estadosunidenses, etc. Maybe the next false rumor will be if Bolivia's President-elect Evo Morales uses the term "yanqui" somewhere sometime, and reactionary blogs broadcast that he's called for the eradication of the New York Yankees. Sheesh.
T.M. Scruggs
Fulbright Scholar and Visiting Professor 2005-2006
Mérida, Venezuela
Re: "The history of populism is full of outright anti-Semitism in reference to Eastern Bankers."
Not to mention sacralized imagery -- notably William Jenning Bryan's address to the Democratic National Convention on July 9, 1896: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
Hello T.M. Scruggs,
That's good. Is it possible for others to take it to mean 'Jews'?
Doyle
'Semites' OWN the United States and Europe.
What the fuck are you talking about? There are a million reasons to be anti-semitic without resorting to Christianity. Their bogus holocaust guilt trip, which is illegal to reveal as a lie, for one.
Doyle:
Sure, you can take it (Chavez's speech) to mean "Jews," but doing so discloses that your view of world arises from the American-Euro centric, cultural box. Many of the above comments are making a point by stepping out of that box because then, one can see that the world truly is three-dimensional. For example, Chavez is indigenous of part Native Indian and African, so maybe others think you're a typical racist for joining the put-down Chavez crowd; yet, no one here brought up that dimension though the subtext exists because of class conflict.
Union writes,
Chavez is indigenous of part Native Indian and African, so maybe others think you're a typical racist for joining the put-down Chavez crowd;
Doyle,
I find it interesting to hear from T.M.Scruggs because (s)he is there. And there is an element in Scruggs that shows how solidarity is building in Venezuela. On the other hand I think you are expanding the debate here to the larger context of racism in society. Or how to deal with that.
Union writes,
Sure, you can take it (Chavez's speech) to mean "Jews," but doing so discloses that your view of world arises from the American-Euro centric, cultural box.
Doyle,
South America likewise is European culture. That's the problem for Indian culture in SA. I'm part Cherokee, but I don't have a clue what that ethnicity would mean in practice. I have a sense that my ancestors were mostly hill billies from Appalachia, but I have lived in the big city urban world for a long time.
Your point to me above is similar to my point to Chavez's remark, can what I say be taken in as a racist slur upon Chavez? If so then my own insensity to that is also under challenge. And that is to the good. In any case to remove racism from society is what Chavez seems to stand for in a strong way. For good reason in a Venezuela context.
Like Chavez and since this is a more direct forum, I must confront what my own remarks can mean. But racism is a much larger question than just sensitivity to language. And I'm sure this is going to be a part of the debate that is in front of us to change the U.S. from aggressor and monster to a member of the human family.
As to North America, it must first confront it's military reliance. Reflect upon the murders and do justice for the vile acts it has done. From that flows a confrontation with racism. Both internally about African Americans, Indians, etc. But more importantly externally with the many wars we have inflicted upon other peoples.
But racism is also a disease of nation states. And to that we must be creative and willing to go well beyond what progress has been made to this point.
thanks,
Doyle
I don't care if Chavez is a demagogue or a yule log. Or even if he's an anti-Semite.
He's defying Octupus Inc and that's alright with me.
Doyle:
Amen brother, but move beyond even the "I spied anti-Semitism, but didn't spy my racism." For, that is not the point in the end either. Maybe you won't get this post, but Max will since its his job as a blogger, and he can than relate to you the actual message if any collaboration exists.
The actual message is that Jewish stories have influenced the world over for centuries, and the Jews don't understand that because they are caught in a narrow time warp of Middle Ages Holy Catholic purging, which started before the reformation of Christianity that later created the present Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism. The present problem is, Jews do not appreciate the influence and extent of their well articulated stories of long ago dealing with the central issue of oppressor v. oppressed; yet, whether its Exodus or the Crucifixion, the point remains the same whether its Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr..
Now, in the present, the Jews have the issue of "chosen people" which means entitlement to a piece of land or the centuries old classic of setting by example via the historical stories of oppressor v. oppressed. Now, maybe you don't like the status of the latter, but nevertheless, to have a spiritual force that strong and transcends several different religions is quite powerful. That is the crossroads for Jews today; for, the rest of the world will move on with or without your appreciation of your own history upon the world.
You and Max are progressives, which means you are enlightened to all the issues ever known to you. And, I thank you for making the forum necessary for all of the world to connect to Jewish historical stories that help the rest of us understand our own history.
There is in this country an ongoing, intensifying campaign of fear-mongering about Chavez. His speeches and actions are being combed for items that can be used to pump up outrage. More interventions lie ahead, since the coup, 'strike', and referendum failed to push him from power.
It's an environment that makes it hard to maintain intellectual honesty, or to expect it in others.
In all honesty, I do not read the speech as about anything but the rich and the poor. But Max sincerely and emphatically takes it as anti-Semitic. My respect for Max causes me to keep my mind open, and treat it as an un-settled question, subject to reevaluation should stronger evidence appear.
However, in the meantime, just on the basis of the posts here and at TPMCafe, I expect that in a few months "Chavez is anti-Semitic" will have become one of those truths that anyone who wants to be thought respectable must acknowledge.
We're not there yet, because the blog-to-blog game of telephone hasn't yet run its course, along with the call for ritual denunciations.
I'll be delighted to turn out to be wrong about this.
The real problem is that Chavez' ideas are bad. He identifies wealth with evil even though his people desperately need wealth. The only reason he survives is that his opponents are even more destructive than he is.
The way out of this and the way around the bankers=Jews=rich problem is for him to correct his erroneous ideas about wealth and poverty. I admire him for standing up to the pressure put on him but he's not going to succeed like this.
"he identifies wealth with evil"
which is anti-Semitic if WE identify wealth with Jews.
The other issue is that identification of wealth with evil may be closer or further from the truth in different societies. Just the other week several union organizers in Colombia were gunned down. When the wealth is extremally concentrated and the rich do not hesitate to hire death squads when they see a need for them, the face of wealth is less congenial than in a society without such a gulf between the haves and have nots and with the same rule of law for all.
Another issue is that both Chavez and his opposition are given to grandiose words and gestures, and it can be a cultural idiom. From what I heard, Chavez is much less of a Communists then it could be inferred from his speaches and from the denunciations he receives.
"his people desperatedly need wealth"
It seems that Chavez is not the only one who could express himself with more precision.
wellbasically wrote, The way out of this and the way around the bankers=Jews=rich problem is for him to correct his erroneous ideas about wealth and poverty.
Problem there is that very few people have correct ideas about wealth and poverty.
The correct idea is that a distinction should be made between capital and land. The former is indeed wealth created in the furtherance of more productive activity. The latter is naturally endowed and created by no one, hence is fit for heavy taxation.
Very few people seem to understand this, neither folks on the left, nor folks on the right, or anyone in between.
Thus, in Venezuela, Chavez is right that the gift of Venezuela's oil belongs to all its people. In most of Venezuela's recent history, the value of this gift has been stolen by elites. Chavez claims to be correcting this. (Not sure whether he actually is.)
OTOH, it's not clear to me that Chavez has focused energy on increasing taxes on land, which is a just and efficient means of raising revenue, and would allow the state to decrease reliance on inefficient and less just taxes on labor and capital.
A pity, of course, but it wouldn't be surprising, given the general level of ignorance about economics (which appears to be the case with economists themselves).
Re: "Problem there is that very few people have correct ideas about wealth and poverty."
Allow me to clarify then: Private wealth, bad; public wealth, good. The distinction between "capital" and "land" is meaningless.
Maybe now the Left will finally realize that Hugo Chavez is a loser(!) and will stop bestowing praise on him. Just because someone spouts what seem to be progressive ideas does not mean that he or she is a good person or worthwhile leader.
My tiny bit of contact with Venezuelans says that Chavez has gained the trust and loyalty of the local business over the hate of the import/export people (of more European descent) who ran everything before, and benefitted from IMF program: inflationm, high taxation, and foreign capital, which effectively enslaved the rest of Venezuela. But I think everybody can guess that his program of exploiting the land with decreasing rate of return isn't going to work in the end,.
so for this to work, Chavez would have to allow the local capital to be invested with less taxation, so the small locals on his side couldget big and compete with the import/export class. If wealth is evil however he will strangle even the people on his side.
As with the rest of the world, the big capitalists on the commanding heights are so blinded by arrogance that they are worse than he is.
chavez is the best thing to happen to venezuelans probably ever. the very small, very rich and very white ruling class inevitably collapsed under the weight of their own corruption, greed, etc.
in that light, what to make of his paranoid 'the jews are destroying the world' routine? nothing much, unless you're jewish and you live down there. why? because chavez is mostly bluster. he's a very weak president without the ruling class on his side. so he talks bolivar but hasn't done much more to the wealthy than use them as rhetorical props. he hasn't frozen their bank accounts or stolen their land, not much of it at least. and after what the elite did to that country over the last, oh, few hundred years or so, they probably had way more coming to them than what they got, which is undoubtedly why they were scared.
on the whole, chavez' program is mostly social-democratic and very popular (national health care, running water, free schools)
if this country had more moral credibility we could castigate chavez for his mindless anti-semitic remarks and move on, as we could also do with iran. in lieu of that, though, we're going to have to put up with him.
There still is a fairly significant Jewish population in Caracas. They are some of the wealthiest people in Venezuela, mainly concentrated in one of the very wealthiest neighborhoods of Caracas (Altamira). Chavez speaks to the injustices of the over-accumulation of wealth. The Jewish population is only a part of that equation in Venezuela and not the most significant part. I think that's basically it. Anti-semitism just doesn't have a real presence in Venezuela. Better to focus elsewhere, such as the US which has had more anti-Semitic attacks than Europe in the past year.
I kind of dig Chavez. So I feel bound to point out that American corporations and consumers and politicians and radical evangelicals and militarists crucify Christ in their own way every day. Chavez doesn't like them either.
So, as I said, I kind of dig Chavez. He can be an arrogant ass now and then but so are most of us. At worst the Jews stood by and watched while the imperial Romans actually did the job. Every generation has its passive watchers -- isn't that what we are?
PW- HUH?
Commenting by HaloScan
