Newshoggers has a roundup of Hitchens posts. Most of them are generally positive towards Hitchens. For example:
But I guess all that is why I want to put down for the record that in addition to all those things, Hitchens was incredibly kind and giving with his time. Every time I met him over the past seven years he greeted me like an old friend, and as far as I could see, every fan he met got his full attention. Even when he was dying, he had time to sit down with a little girl to figure out what books should be on her reading list.
Sometimes, Christopher Hitchens was a fucking asshole, and said and wrote things that were beneath him. Most of the time, he was brilliant. I’m deeply sorry that I never met him.
Every day of his declining life he demonstrated the falsehood of that most squalid of Christian lies: that there are no atheists in foxholes. Hitch was in a foxhole, and he dealt with it with a courage, an honesty and a dignity that any of us would be, and should be, proud to be able to muster. And in the process, he showed himself to be even more deserving of our admiration, respect, and love.
He helped get over 100K people killed (that’s the very conservative #, it’s probably over 500K). He worked really hard to do that. That is more than being “an asshole”. He could personally be an asshole, and I would not give a damn. He was a public figure, a public intellectual, and I do not judge public figures based on whether they are “nice” in person or died a good death or had beliefs about the supernatural which match mine. Anyone who does so is morally defective. That sort of “I’d like to have a beer with him” reasoning led directly to George Bush, Jr.
You get the pundits and leaders you deserve, example 5,242,176.
I don’t, personally, think Hitchens was brilliant most of the time, but let’s say he was. So what? He helped commit the same war crime Nazis were hung for. In a just world, he would have been hung or locked up for life, alongside Henry Kissinger, whom he hated and George Bush, whose policies he helped push.
Contemptible. If you knew him personally, I can forgive your love of him, I have loved evil people. But an intellectual has the responsibility to separate those personal feelings from judgement. Hitchens was an evil man. Helping kill large numbers of people in an unprovoked war is not just a war crime, it is, as was noted at Nuremburg, the crime from which all war crimes come — every rape, every death, every person who lost their home, every person tortured with power drills in Iraq, every dead child—those are Hitchens legacy.
The refusal to hold people responsible for the entirely forseeable results of policies they work hard to enable is also evil. It is at the root of why you no longer have functioning democracies.
Hitchens was a bad man whose legacy is enabling a war crime. If you do not think so, you are part of the reason why things like Iraq happen.
Bill H.
The one good thing I will say about Hitchens is that he made me think. He did not speak in mindless sound bites which I could easily discard, he spoke in ways that forced me to examine why I disagreed with him, and in so doing solidified my own thinking. I find it better to know specifically why I support causes, rather than doing so in generalities. Hitchens would make me look at the specifics so that I could, in my own thoughts if nothing else, know why he was so wrong about everything.
SilentHill
Ian, you are the master of pointing out the bleeding obvious that escapes 99 percent of the population. Christopher Hitchens was an evil drunk sod. I’m glad he’s dead. One less asshole hogging up resources.
Lisa Simeone
No hagiography in Alexander Cockburn’s piece:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/16/farewell-to-c-h/
I will say, however, Ian, that writing vile, war-mongering opinions is emphatically not the same as committing war crimes. That’s a very dangerous contention, one that’s being made by the s.o.b.s who just passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which will be used to witch-hunt people for the “wrong” opinions and throw this country back to McCarthyism. Hell, it was used to assassinate Al-Awlaki and his son. Speech is not the same as action. Freedom of speech means exactly that.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Neither war was unprovoked.
Lex
Oh really? So Gaius would argue that a terrorist group made up of non-Afghans that happened to have its leadership in Afghanistan is enough provocation to invade and occupy Afghanistan? Afghanistan did not attack the United States, and we knew and know even better now that the Taliban was not so friendly with Al Qaeda as the US government would have us believe. (Anyone who had even passing knowledge of the country going back through the Soviet War knew that the foreign fighters were not well and generally liked.)
And that’s the “provocation” for the “good” war. The case for saying that Iraq provoked our invasion is significantly weaker than the stupidly weak case for Afghanistan.
Bill H.
The idea that the Iraq war was “provoked” just, in one dimension, cracks me up. In a more serious dimension, that anyone would buy into that idea profoundly saddens me.
Morocco Bama
Perfectly said, Ian. My sentiments, exactly.
Ian Welsh
Well said Lisa, and I must agree.
Nonetheless, he pushed hard for war crimes, let that not be forgotten.
Morocco Bama
Neither war was unprovoked.
True….The West provoked both….albeit, a highly fabricated provocation. I mean, afterall, Iraq post 1950 was pretty much the The West’s creation….and more specifically, the creation of U.S. Intelligence Services. Saddam Hussein was their useful dupe for so many years, and then later their useful foil….to which they could direct all manner of false ire….deflecting any true ire, and justice, from themselves.
Morocco Bama
Freedom of speech means exactly that.
I agree that we shouldn’t fall into the trap of soliciting the corruptible and corrupted state to prosecute the likes of Hitchens for his loathsome opinions because it flies in the face of free expression, but it is precisely this abuse of free expression by Hitchens and his ilk that makes any laudatory epitaphs on his behalf all the more noxious and deserved of severe condemnation….yet aside from Ian and a few of us here, we’re not seeing it….under the guise of honoring the dead, I suppose, but if that’s the case, what of all the dead Iraqis….do they not deserve to be honored, as well, or because they weren’t as intellectually witty and engaging as Hitchens, their deaths, which Hitchens implicitly condoned with his writings, are just not as important? A lot of this wreaks of Intellectual Elitism, IMO. It seems to be the only thing that makes sense….and if that’s the case, it’s even more disgusting, if that’s possible.
Morocco Bama
Although, Lisa, some have, even on the “Left,” drawn the line on Freedom of Expression. What about the laws in Germany and some European countries about Holocaust Denial? Isn’t that a limit on Freedom of Speech and Expression? Yes, Holocaust Denial is an extremely obnoxious, insensitive, and insulting topic…but so too is writing propaganda for preemptive war resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths…if not more.
Lisa Simeone
Totally agree, MB. And every time I read a mawkish piece about Our Brave Soldiers or hear some asshole go on and on about 9/11 and use that as an excuse for the hell this country has unleashed on the world, I ask, ‘What about the Iraqis? What about the Afghans? What about the Yemenis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Libyans?’ etc.
But as we know, the stench of American Exceptionalism is strong.
Lisa Simeone
MB, I know, and I don’t agree with them. I’m talking about freedom on expression and the Bill of Rights in this country. I make no claims about other people and their laws in other countries. We don’t have the same history as Germany, so I’m not about to criticize their laws.
But in general, I come down on the side of freedom of speech, always. While acknowledging that speech can be, as I said, vile and odious, and war-mongering, and dangerous, I still believe freedom of expression is vitally important. That’s why I thought the neo-Nazis had a right to march through Skokie. And why I think the whole notion of “hate speech,” so beloved of establishment liberals, is horseshit.
And frankly, wouldn’t you rather have people’s obnoxious, dangerous attitudes out there for all the world to see, rather than lurking in the dark? I would.
Let me bring up as contrast a very specific case — Rwanda, where the radio waves were commandeered by murderers to exhort other people to go out and murder. But this was not mere freedom of speech. There was no one on the air to counter what these people were saying. It was, in fact, the opposite of freedom of speech.
S Brennan
On a brighter note, the death of Vaclav Havel, his flaws noted [Chomsky lovers may kowtow now], will obliterate the Hitchens obits. And that can’t come soon enough.
Let me say one thing about Chomsky’s criticisms of Vaclav Havel…on Chomsky’s best day he could not reach Havel’s shoelaces, it’s one thing to talk…and another to thrust yourself in the way of a killing machine at full throttle with thousands of others and grind it to a halt.
Havel’s overly solicitous attitude to the US was the result of some very harsh years under Soviet rule and can be forgiven if seen in that context and not through some lens that magnifies an abstract expectation of perfection.
Watson
‘There are no atheists in foxholes.’
It’s been said that this isn’t an argument against atheism; it’s an argument against foxholes.
In other words, the stress of war makes us irrational.
Morocco Bama
And frankly, wouldn’t you rather have people’s obnoxious, dangerous attitudes out there for all the world to see, rather than lurking in the dark? I would.
Of course I would, and I thought I implied it with my post. Lisa, you have to start caring about what other people are doing in other countries, because it will require an international movement of effective solidarity to combat the pestilence with which we are confronted. State by State won’t cut it…it has to transcend Nation-State. So what happens in Germany is meaningful to us, since the Plutocratic Oligarchs are joined at the hip and hold no allegiance to The Masses of their so-called respective countries.
Yes, it is important that obnoxious and dangerous attitudes not be expunged and censored from the record, because without it, how does one develop the skill in defending oneself against such perversions? I’m reminded of a little debate currently surrounding children’s playground equipment in Europe. The most recent observation is that playgrounds have now been made so safe, that children no longer can distinguish between safe, or unsafe physical behavior, and hence don’t have the requisite discernment necessary to potentially prevent accidents in adulthood with much higher stakes and a greater chance of fatality. Same holds true for the intellectual space. If we make it too safe, the incidence of intellectual fatality increases in tandem.
Morocco Bama
‘There are no atheists in foxholes.’
Maybe not, but apparently there’s no lack of them in elevators.
jawbone
It is ironic (right term?) that Hitchens saw Kissinger as a war criminal and worked diligently to make that known to the public, but does not see the same crime in what Bush/Cheney et al did to lie the US into an illegal war against Iraq.
jawbone
Well, make that past tense…”did not see the same crime in what Bush/Cheney et al did….”
Badtux
What is interesting, to me, is that Hitch got *far* nicer obituaries from the right side of the ‘Net than from the leftie side of the ‘Net.
About all I’ll say is that the man was a heckuva writer, regardless of how he went astray regarding Iraq.
BJ Bjornson
Hi Ian,
My main response would be mostly the point Lisa made above: Hitchens was not one of those making the decisions, however much he was a cheerleader from the sidelines, so he himself is not guilty of any war crimes worth being hanged over. You’re right that his cheerleading shouldn’t be forgotten, and it remains the reason I was never particularly fond of the guy.
While that may be his sole legacy to you, it is only a part of it to myself and a lot of others. He did write about a lot of other things in his life beyond warmongering for Bush Jr., and fairly or not, that is where a lot of people are looking to now that he’s gone.
For myself, as I put in my post, it’s that he provided a very public counter-example of the “There are no atheists in foxholes” myth, not that it will be enough for the myth to die just yet. For others, it was his writings against theism in its myriad forms. Being wrong about Iraq doesn’t mean he was wrong about everything else, or that some of what he did wasn’t worthwhile or worthy of some respect.
And that responsibility should encompass separating one’s hatred of one of the man’s positions when judging his legacy instead of focusing solely on it to the exclusion of everything else. That you may not put as much weight on those other positions is understandable, as it is that others put far more weight on those other positions where they agreed with him while diminishing the points they disliked.
With public figures, we all take away what we want to, but we should be honest about the whole even as we do so.
Morocco Bama
Well, BJ’s got a point. This is support of that contention.
http://grantjkidney.com/6-good-things-hitler-did/
Ian Welsh
I am not impressed by Hitchens contributions. The case against Kissinger was not hard to make. I have not read all of his atheistic writings, so tell me, did he create a new argument for atheism? A new argument against faith? Did he make a unique intellectual contribution I am unaware of?
Was he an intellectual, or a polemicist? I have nothing against polemicists per se… on many days I am one. But if you are a public intellectual, you must be judged by your calls on the major policy issues of the day. Hitchens failed on that count.
Heidegger was scum. But he did make a unique intellectual contribution. Did Hitchens? I don’t think so. I don’t think anyone but a few historians will read him in 50 years.
It is certainly “understandable” that people pick out what matters to him. I will say again, that being for the TORTURE and the death of 100K people in a clear war crime outweighs those things, and I will say that anyone who thinks otherwise has issues. Even on pragmatic terms, if you are willing to say “well, all wars are bad” (this is true, but not relevant imo, but let’s grant it) the Iraq war was the grave of the Pax Americana. It was a HUGE mistake. Put aside the morality, it was the wrong thing to do for cold, clear, realpolitik reasons.
Allowing people like Hitchens to be for monstrous activities and keep their reputation is why the punditocracy keeps pushing monstrosity.
You get the punditocracy you deserve.
Bruce Wilder
I felt I gained some insight into what Chistopher Hitchens was about, from his contrarian take on “The Strange Case of David Irving“:
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/20/books/bk-144
David Irving is the British author of several histories of the Nazis and WWII, who sued an American author for libel, for labeling him a Holocaust denier and liar. The distinguished British historian of Germany, Richard J Evans, asked to testify by the defense as an expert, undertook a considerable research effort to support the truth of the libel. The burden of proof rests on the defendant in a British libel trial, and it would be technically incorrect to say that truth is an absolute defense, as it is in the U.S., but the publisher spent considerable funds in this case to establish the truth, against holocaust denial. Hitchens was reviewing two books about the case, one by Evans.
And, Hitchens defends Irving! Or more, precisely, he defends the dubious value of having people with a strong point of view make tendentitious arguements supported by errors of fact, polluting the public discourse. He never quite acknowledges that the Strange Case is one, where Irving was suing, imposing enormous costs onto the truthteller and her publisher, even though he had supposedly read the two books on the case, which he was supposed to be reviewing. (I had read the Evans book, before I read the review.) He supports his argument with references to his college days, and his interactions with British scholarly historians known for their dubious ideological attachments (Stalinists and Tories — ain’t Oxbridge grand!).
Hitchens was a rare piece of work, as my dear mother might have said.
jcapan
“You get the pundits and leaders you deserve, example 5,242,176”
And no matter how many times you make that claim, Ian, you’re wrong. The people deserve Hitchens or Friedman or Dowd or Joe Klein? Because, of course, vast, evil corporations are only giving the stupid, jingoistic proles what they want? As opposed to the practice of hiring establishment shills who’d never question their lords.
Do you think if independent polling were released that said readers would prefer to see Greenwald in the op-ed over David Brooks, that such a change would be made? What the people want plays no fucking part in the selection of a nation’s courtiers (or our “representatives”).
SilentHill
@Gaius LOL, like you really care about killing Al Qaeda and other terrorists. If you supported two unprovoked wars, than I am guessing you supported NATO actions in Libya, therefore you do not care about eliminating Al Qaeda at all. You see, the rebels have a large contingent of radical Islamists tied to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups. So why is the US supporting rebels tied to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups? It’s because scum pieces of shit like you and the US government don’t give a fuck about Al Qaeda. You care about being an authoritarian shit bag, but you don’t give a fuck about Al Qaeda.
SilentHill
The only people who support Hitchens are those who already believed in everything he wrote. Hitchens got famous for shooting fish in a barrel. He kind of reminds me of Tbogg @ Firedoglake, except Hitchens at least was articulate. No one outside of the fake intellectual class knew who Hitchens was, and he will be utterly forgotten within the end of next year. LOL, nice legacy worm meat!
Jeff Wegerson
No atheists in the foxholes
Oh, doesn’t that prove that religion causes war?
Bill H.
“Let me bring up as contrast a very specific case — Rwanda, where the radio waves were commandeered by murderers to exhort other people to go out and murder. But this was not mere freedom of speech. There was no one on the air to counter what these people were saying. It was, in fact, the opposite of freedom of speech.”
I think that the germane point would be not so much the lack of an opposing viewpoint, as the difference between expression of opinion and specific incitement to commit illegal acts. I would certainly support the right to express opinion, including opinion which I would consider vile and hateful, but not exhortation to commit murder. I’m not certain, but I believe the US has laws against that.
Ian Welsh
Incitement to illegal war is different from incitement to murder, how? In terms of scale, incitement to war seems much more significant.
Sory JCapan, the constant attempt to escape responsibility is just pathetic.
Tallifer
Bill H. said above, “The one good thing I will say about Hitchens is that he made me think. He did not speak in mindless sound bites which I could easily discard, he spoke in ways that forced me to examine why I disagreed with him, and in so doing solidified my own thinking. I find it better to know specifically why I support causes, rather than doing so in generalities. Hitchens would make me look at the specifics so that I could, in my own thoughts if nothing else, know why he was so wrong about everything.”
This is one good reason for me to read this web log and occasionally its attendant comments. Although I am deeply conservative in many ways (and outrageously radical in a few others), I do appreciate being provoked to think on issues and the way the world is.
jcapan
Shit, Ian, if you made any attempt to qualify your nearly universal generalizations, I’d STFU. You know, like limiting it to college-educated people who know who the fuck Hitchens is or neoliberals who’ve consciously sold out.
But hardworking folks who’ve been screwed over since birth, who don’t have the coin for weekends in Vegas or international travel, lacking the leisure-class opportunities that professionals like you and I have? Blaming them for their condition is lazy, insulting and ignorant. Better yet, it alienates the folks you should (if you honestly gave a fuck) be trying to reach. But far be it from me or anyone else to suggest you rethink your own polemic. I should just “clap louder” right? Nothing to come between you and your longed-for moment of collapse.
Ian Welsh
Yes yes. Believe what you need to believe to sleep at night.
Morocco Bama
Here’s something that will make you laugh and vomit simultaneously. You know you’re special when you get a positive eulogy from Paul Wolfowitz. Purely circumstantial, but I believe Wolfowitz is also an Atheist. The things that bind us.
http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2011/12/16/paul-wolfowitz-on-christopher-hitchens/
dcblogger
I think that Tbogg is hilarious. He got Obama wrong, but most of the time he is very funny.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
This is one good reason for me to read this web log and occasionally its attendant comments. Although I am deeply conservative in many ways (and outrageously radical in a few others), I do appreciate being provoked to think on issues and the way the world is.
Then you are not an American, or should not call yourself a “conservative” by American standards. One of the defining characteristics of those calling themselves “conservatives” in the USA is their habit of censoring out dissenting opinions, rejecting sources that supply inconvenient facts through circular definitions of them as “liberal”, and a complete inability to critically assess evidence.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Silent Hill.
You’re not paying attention.
I didn’t support either war at the beginning or any time since.
I don’t know.
But they were not unprovoked.
And you really should resume your meds.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Silent Hill.
You’re not paying attention.
I didn’t support either war at the beginning or any time since.
I don’t now.
But they were not unprovoked.
And you really should resume your meds.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Sorry about that. I was trying to correct and got a second (corrected) post on top of the first one.
dandelion
Hitchens was also an obnoxious misogynist.
Though that’s something a great majority of the punditocracy and so=called progressives think is just A-ok, or natural, excusable, or … or simply doesn’t exist.
I don’t see how anyone qualifies as progressive who holds a deep-seated contempt for 51% of the population.
apostropher
I’m neither here nor there on Hitchens, and everybody’s free to denounce him as an alcoholic asshole, but this: “He helped get over 100K people killed (that’s the very conservative #, it’s probably over 500K). He worked really hard to do that.” That’s just silly. Here’s the appropriate test: if only Christopher Hitchens had opposed the war, we’d have stayed out of Iraq. Or better yet: if Christopher Hitchens had grown up to be a busdriver instead of a writer, we might have avoided the Iraq War.
Hitchens was wrong about Iraq–and very obnoxiously so, long past the point that his arguments had been utterly discredited–but his influence over American foreign policy (or even public opinion about foreign policy) was less than marginal. It was non-existent. Had he directed all his rhetorical powers toward denouncing our invasion of Iraq, it wouldn’t have mattered in the slightest.