It has long
been a principle that I prefer to stick to, that you should not speak ill of
the dead. Probably, it is an ancient
instinct relating to a pre Christian era.
Or it might me John Donne’s view that no man is an island, each mans
death diminishes me, and for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
If we are
all flawed, all fools in some way or another or in religious terms all sinners
great and small we should be careful of using the death of another to protest
against them.
But seeing
all the unqualified praise in certain quarters being given to the memory of
Eric Hobsbawm it is very difficult to avoid asking whether this man was the
acme of intellectual perfection that is suggested.
It was only
on Sunday 23 September that I posted an item on Brunel which was contemporary
with his death linking to a warts and all 1877 obituary in “The Engineer” of
all things which you might have expected to be laudatory
In the
narrow high intellectual circles of the London Oxbridge Left in the mid and
later 20th Centuries, the sort of academic bandit territory
inhabited by the Miliband Gang and others he was certainly a formidable
networker and brain picker.
Like a
composer of the 18th Century employed by members of the Courts and
High aristocracy he knew exactly which compositions to write and how and where
to play them to satisfy their demands for both elevation and amusement. Like them, you did not find him doing the
rounds for more popular acclaim.
The trouble
is that he had little or no understanding of the Atlantic Isles and notably its
many peoples outside this narrow quasi elite circle and the reading he did from
which he drew his work bore little or no relation to the realities of either
the past or his present. It was all a
lot more complicated.
He could
write clearly and incisively and was certainly persuasive but to elevate him to
the status of supreme thinker of politics, like any others of that ilk was
dangerous.
He was a
man of his time and of a particular breed of historical commentator, albeit of
the Left, no more, no less. That so many
of our media and left wing follow his ideas explains much of the mess we are
all in.
There is wrong
use of the word “traitor”. He was never
British nor ever wanted to be, our political left and London simply was the platform he preferred,
just as much as anyone in the theatre of affairs prefers to perform to a
sympathetic audience. He was useful to
the Soviets and this was always clear.
It was
always my joke in the past that the Soviets did not need to pay any of our
leading Left much other than incidental expenses. Indeed, had the Kremlin founded groups like
Friends of the Lubyanka or Friends of the Gulags, they would have all rushed to
subscribe.
It was
probably down to Hobsbawm that the Left believed that capitalism could always
be made to pay for their fantasies. We
know what that has led to and is leading to, the deliverance of the people to
the financial oligarchies of whom our Left and others are now the servants and
we the slaves.
"our political left and London simply was the platform he preferred, just as much as anyone in the theatre of affairs prefers to perform to a sympathetic audience."
ReplyDeleteA neat way of putting it, and of course it still goes on today with a different cast.