|
typical right revisionist bullshit about vietnam.
plot summary, counter legitimated with reference to a book that operates outside the article--the summary of its contents, totally uncritical, operates on your as a reader if and only if you a priori are inclined to believe this sort of general claim. which means that the article is compelling only if you share a series of prior assumptions about vietnam. in which case, the contents of the book itself are secondary--they are confirmation of predispositions, not evidence in any meaningful sense.
so you have an example of conservative "thought" that operates on a parallel level to
daivd duke's whackjob interpretation of 911--everything sits in the premises, acceptance of which presuppose a prior agreement between the politics of the writer, journal and reader. if you are not in that circuit, the article is totally ineffectual.
notice that when you get down toward the end, the Big Flourishes are, at every point made in the conditional tense.
why would a series of claims distanced through use of the conditional tense "speak for itself"--unless what you mean is that if you read this article carefully you cannot take it seriously, and therefore it does, in a way, speak for itself, insofar as it is a good index of why conservative media itself should not be taken seriously?
in which case, i would agree with you, for once.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|