In an attempt to lighten the burden on Murdoch and company this week, TPR has benevolently got caught up in a controversy of his own. Loyal readers will remember my short biography of Peter Hitchens in attempt to create some greater interest for the review of his book, ‘The Abolition of Britain’, this Sunday. The even more attentative reader will have read Peter Hitchen’s displeasure at this in the comments section. TPR then received a detailed email from Peter raising his issues with the piece. Always one to encourage debate and never one to be a spoil-sport, TPR initially planned to publish Peter's email so he could defend himself against what he views to be my appalling biography (which I stand by - I don't think any reader comes to a review site expecting no opinion). However, Peter requested I do not publish his email. Therefore, where Peter will not step in I will and raise objections on his behalf - along with my rebuttals. So, Peter, below is my open letter in response to your email.
"Dear Peter,
Your email was a detailed one, which I appreciate. However, for fear that my readers may not be too interested in the minutiae of your exhaustive list of complaints, below I challenge your allegations made at me about the substantive matters of the brief biography I published. If you permit me to publish your initial email and my commentary, readers can consider in more detail all of the matters you raised.
In my brief biography (which has since taken to a whole new level my wish to spark debate), I assert that "One could be forgiven for thinking that Peter Hitchens' career has simply been spent causing controversy and attracting attention through near-extremist opinions." Of course, near-extremist is my opinion, and I feel it is substantiated by my next sentence which referenced your former Trotskyist beliefs and your current very conservative beliefs (which were, on your latest appearance, booed on BBC1's Question Time). Almost by definition you will not feel your own views extremist, however they are to me at the more extreme end of the British political spectrum. You further complain that I say you were a Trotskyist and a member of the Labour Party at the same time - I do not. I say in your early years you were a Trotskyist and a member of the Labour Party. This does not imply that you were both at the same time. In my youth, I used to play football in the park and study for my A Levels. However, the activities of an eight year old are distinct from those of a 17 year old. I'm sure you agree.
Next, Peter, you ask what does "ultra-traditionalist" mean. I would refer you to the Chambers Dictionary on my shelf. Email me if you wish to lend it - I understand you have my email address...
Turning to the crux of our disagreement, I assert that, from my analysis, you hold "a belief in an idealised past (circa 1950s) in which Britain was a near-perfect nation." You, with full entitlement, ask me to substantiate this argument as you seem to feel that simply denying you hold such beliefs makes it so. As you request, here are some extracts from Chapter 1 of The Abolition of Britain in which you speak of a 1990s girl attending Churchill's funeral. In this, you apply emotions to her on seeing the Britain of old e.g. “She would be pleased to find…” (Page 19 of my copy) and speak of how she would be left wondering “what had happened to taste and education in the lost years between [1965 and 1997]” (ibid). Here, I have purposefully taken extracts from the same page to show how full your work is of ameliorated views of the past and more pejorative ones of today (centring around your well-articulated belief than Britain underwent a revolution in the 1960s). If you wish, I could happily continue with your comments on how she would feel “entirely safe as she travelled late at night” in Britain of old (Page 20), and many more besides…
Twice you pedantically attempt to embarrass me over my descriptions of your opinions on WWII. In your own words, you object to the "timing of our entry into the war, and the pretext for it" and state that we "should not have deliberately bombed German civilians in their homes." These are views that TPR happens to share. However, when I assert that you disagree with the "manner" and the "detail" or the war, although I never suggest you regret the principle of it, you use embarrassingly infantile words to accuse me of misrepresenting you. If you believe that the bombing of civilians is not part of the manner of Britain's undertakings in WWII or that the timing is not a detail of the war, please state so. Otherwise, please withdraw your accusations. I was tiring of them by this point.
Twice you pedantically attempt to embarrass me over my descriptions of your opinions on WWII. In your own words, you object to the "timing of our entry into the war, and the pretext for it" and state that we "should not have deliberately bombed German civilians in their homes." These are views that TPR happens to share. However, when I assert that you disagree with the "manner" and the "detail" or the war, although I never suggest you regret the principle of it, you use embarrassingly infantile words to accuse me of misrepresenting you. If you believe that the bombing of civilians is not part of the manner of Britain's undertakings in WWII or that the timing is not a detail of the war, please state so. Otherwise, please withdraw your accusations. I was tiring of them by this point.
Here, I make a concession. At one point I suggest that you are happily married. This was a presumption rather than thoroughly substantiated opinion and TPR happily apologises for it. However, as I said in my email to you, since you have been married since 1983 I would have hoped, for both party's sake, it was a happy matrimony. Your high praise of marriage throughout The Abolition of Britain certainly wouldn't suggest a negative experience. But you are right - I am not in a position to speak with authority. Apologies to you, Peter.
To close, Peter, I make my offer once again that if you can find a single factual error in my brief biography of you, please identify it and I will withdraw it immediately. TPR is a man of his word - you ask, for example, that I do not publish your email, so I did not. However, I want your criticisms to have the full air-time they deserve and want this blog to be a forum for healthy debate. Perhaps you can match my generosity of spirit towards you and withdraw your ludicrous suggestions that TPR's biography is "sloppy", that it "misrepresents your views" or that I ought to be embarrassed for being "found out." If not, I will treasure this letter as evidence of my finding out that your criticisms were a sloppy attempt to misrepresent TPR.
An expectant friend,
TPR
ThePoliticalReader.com"
--
Readers - if you feel TPR is way wide of the mark here, do say so. Drop me an email or let me know in the comments section. No pride to be lost through healthy debate on this blog...
To close, Peter, I make my offer once again that if you can find a single factual error in my brief biography of you, please identify it and I will withdraw it immediately. TPR is a man of his word - you ask, for example, that I do not publish your email, so I did not. However, I want your criticisms to have the full air-time they deserve and want this blog to be a forum for healthy debate. Perhaps you can match my generosity of spirit towards you and withdraw your ludicrous suggestions that TPR's biography is "sloppy", that it "misrepresents your views" or that I ought to be embarrassed for being "found out." If not, I will treasure this letter as evidence of my finding out that your criticisms were a sloppy attempt to misrepresent TPR.
An expectant friend,
TPR
ThePoliticalReader.com"
--
Readers - if you feel TPR is way wide of the mark here, do say so. Drop me an email or let me know in the comments section. No pride to be lost through healthy debate on this blog...
No comments:
Post a Comment