Talk:Frank Anstey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
How interesting that Herschelkrustofsky should write an article on Anstey without mentioning his anti-Semitism. He gives himself away every time. I will add some more material later. Adam 05:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If Anstey was an anti-Semite, it's news to me. --Herschelkrustofsky 07:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Then you should do some research before writing articles. I suggest you read Peter Love's Labor and the Money Power (MUP 1984), which examines the anti-Semitic origins of this whole tradition of anti-capitalist nationalist populism which the CEC is trying to dredge up from somewhere in the 1920s. Anstey's book The Kingdom of Shylock (Labor Call Print, 1917) was a fine example of this, and on looking at it again I can see why it appeals to the Larouchite mind. Basing an Australian political party on Anstey's ideas is roughly equivalent to basing an American one on William Jennings Bryan's. This no doubt explains the very poor return in terms of votes that La Rouche gets for the evidently very large amounts of money he puts into the CEC. Adam 08:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You might also consider this passage:
- The Australian labour historian Peter Love writes: "The anti-Semitism in The Kingdon of Shylock was no aberration. It arose from the logic of his [Anstey's] analysis combined with the cultural tradition of which he was a part. The vulgarities of Christian mythology had built up an accretion of hatred and suspicion towards Jews over many centuries. The resulting stereotype of the greedy and cunning Jewish financier was a commonplace convention in the writings of British radicals and American populists. It was also a persistent theme among Australian labour radicals."
This tradition of nationalist anti-finance-capital populism is, fortunately, almost dead, but LaRouche and his followers are doing their best to revive it, as their conscious evocation of all these long-dead radicals attests. In doing this they inevitably associate themselves with the anti-Semitism with which pre-World War II anti-finance populism was deeply imbued. That's why it's instructive that of all the Australian radicals you could have written about, you picked Anstey, the most obviously anti-Semitic of them all. You may not have known about The Kingdom of Shylock, but obviously Anstey's rhetoric, with its thinly-veiled anti-Semitism, appealed to you in the same way that LaRouche's does. Adam 13:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adam, your personal attacks and the insinuation that I am an anti-Semite are inappropriate, as well as being a violation of Wikipedia policy. Note that of "all the Australian radicals I could have written about," I also picked King O'Malley, William Guthrie Spence, and John Dunmore Lang. I invite you to edit those articles, also. I am not an expert on Australian history, but I thought there was a need for those articles, and I am surprised that these individuals are so conspicuously missing from the article on the Australian Labor Party. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unless there are statements on the record from Anstey in which he generically condemns Judaism or Jewry, the charge of anti-Semitism is an opinion which must be attributed. I have edited it in a way which I hope will be acceptable to all parties. The fact that a person attacks a specific person of Jewish origin does not make him an anti-Semite; this sort of imputation is reminiscent of those delirious persons from the ADL/ADC who want to paint Shakespeare as an anti-Semite because he wrote The Merchant of Venice. By the same token, those persons who argue that anyone who attacks bankers must be anti-Semitic because there are Jewish bankers, arouse the suspicion that they may have a greater interest in defending bankers than in defending Jews. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adam, you have repeatedly deleted the following information from this article:
- "In The Kingdom of Shylock, Anstey identified the leaders of the "money power" in London as a group of private financiers associated with the circles of the infamous Morgan family in the United States."
Are you disputing the accuracy of this item? And are you arguing that Peter Love's theory, that Anstey was an anti-Semite, is universally accepted? Or, are you making an ostentatious display of contempt for the Wikipedia NPOV policy?
--Herschelkrustofsky 21:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Another source
Here is a source which describes the contents of The Kingdom of Shylock in very harsh terms.
- http://aaargh.vho.org/fran/actu/actu02/doc2002/adelcens2.html
- "Manning Clark And Anti-Semitism
- Hal G. P. Colebatch, The Adelaide Review, February 1997"
- The source of this stereotyping of "Shylocks" appears to be Labor politician Frank Anstey's pamphlet, The Kingdom of Shylock, first published in 1915, probably the most anti-Semitic tract ever published in Australia.
The writer goes onto describe why he applies that label. -Willmcw 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that The Kingdom of Shylock is "the most anti-Semitic tract ever published in Australia." The League of Rights and various Nazi groups have published much worse. It may the worst ever published by a member of Parliament. You have to remember Colebatch is a Liberal Party member and conservative activist. He is trying to discredit Manning Clark by linking him to Anstey. (I agree that Clark's use of "Shylock" as a term of abuse is stupid, by the way.) Adam 11:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
