I fail to see how calling for the suicide of Amiri Baraka because of a disagreement, however profound, with his views is any better than any of Baraka's more loathsome utterances. Why descend to his level?
The article's conclusion--The fact that Baraka was even considered for the post may be evidence of the condescending paternalism of liberal whites who apparently don’t believe that blacks are capable of anything better than this, and who are therefore content to simply nominate anyone with black skin – so as to dutifully demonstrate their own commitment to “diversity.”--is equally ridiculous. One might call it the other side of the idiotological extremist seesaw.
"Amiri Baraka" is a recognizable "brand name" in the poetry world. Perhaps if we weren't all so enamored of celebrity--in all its manisfestations--people would not tolerate the inane utterings of extremism (in all ITS manifestations). I saw this at Rutgers where I was a student in 1990 when Baraka was denied tenure. Rutgers wanted to add a "name" to its academic roster--until "name" degenerated into "notoriety." I suspect the state government of New Jersey was far more taken with Baraka's recognizable "name (brand)" than with any of his poetry--if they had even bothered to read it in the first place.
But I fail to see how John Perazzo's mean-spirited, patronizing and condescending intolerance of those who do not share his own political agenda is an advance over Baraka's own mean-spirited, patronizing and condescending intolerance.
|