Complicity in _GR_ (is Re: pro/con IBM/Nazi

[jbor]

----------
>From: "davemarc" <davemarc at panix.com>

snip
> So where in the complaint against IBM is the Nazi-ish dishonesty, the
> insidious motives, the "yellow journalism," the propaganda, the incitement
> to hatred and persecution (against whom, of whom?)?  From what I've seen of
> the complaint (it's at http://www.cmht.com/casewatch/cases/ibm.pdf), it
> seems to me that the case of the plaintiffs is reasonable and reasonably
> put forth, and that (ob Pynchon) they might bring to light more evidence of
> the corporate complicity that many members of this mailing list seem to find
> praiseworthy in Pynchon's writings.

Just as many seem to think it important not to forget how those
multinational corporations were entangled with *governments* (and not *just*
the Nazi government), in _GR_ as in history, and how actual people -- actual
*citizens* -- were and are working for those corporations and governments
and government corporations. Any summation of the achievement or message of
_GR_ as merely an instance of exposing corporate complicity with the Nazis
is extremely simplistic imo. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's a
distortion. Surely there is in _GR_ a more thoroughgoing and far-reaching
critique of "The System", and not just those corporations, government
agencies and individuals who Pynchon has researched and selected to
exemplify the ruthless and inhumane workings of "The System".

Regarding your other questions, I'm inclined to think that the only ones to
profit out of all the recent election filibustering and the vicious
anti-Bush smear campaigns which ensued were the lawyers, publicists and p.r.
people, opportunistic (and more venal) journalists, the media and the
corporations who advertise in the media, and so on. The "victims" there were
the mug punters who bothered voting, or cared. But it also exemplified
something which has become more and more common in the U.S., and the
subsequent IBM/Nazi hullabaloo seemed as if it was, or would become, yet
another instance of such hypocrisy and sensationalist or "yellow"
journalism.

As far as the IBM case goes: 1) It seems quite unusual (doesn't it?) that
the book and the lawsuit were seemingly attached to one another, like the
free gift in the cereal pack. This cross-promotion smacks more of product
placement than either legitimate historical research or an honest civil
claim for compensation. 2) The whole notion of providing monetary
retribution for genocide survivors is troubling. What "equation" is implicit
in such a transaction? Will they no longer be victims? Will their suffering
stop? Will it be just a pay-off to keep them quiet? (And I'm sure that if it
begins to look like IBM will lose then the out of court settlement will be
just that.)  And, other than the claimants (who might *not* even get a brass
razoo in the end), who *else* is profiting from such an action, and the
whole marketing strategy which is unravelling around it like a behemoth? Why
it's those lawyers and publicists and journos and media outlets and
advertisers again. Quelle surprise. And do you think the lawyers ("class
action specialists" indeed!) &c actually care one jot about whether the
Jewish people they're representing get anything, let alone "justice", while
they're whipping up all this hue and cry and goading those five people along
with it? I'm afraid I don't. In fact, the question I'd be asking is who was
it who suggested launching the suit to these poor souls in the first place?
3) So far I've seen no evidence that would indicate new contracts or product
support from U.S. IBM suppliers or representatives post-dating the American
declaration of war in Dec '41. Whatever the company and its reps did with
those machines prior to 11.12.41, whatever the disgraceful data processing
activities they knowingly engaged in, whatever they might have "known" about
the uses to which such data was to be put, it was vouchsafed by the terms
and conditions of the U.S. government's treaty with the Nazi government.
Legally, then, or at least so it seems to me, IBM doesn't have, and has
never had, a case to answer on that score in the U.S., whatever the civil
court decides. Such is the U.S. "justice" System! 4) It seems somewhat
ironic that in all the breathless fervour and anti-IBM propaganda which has
been whipped up the presumption has been along the lines of "guilty until
proven innocent" rather than vice versa. 5) Just as the plaintiff's case
seems "reasonable and reasonably put forth", so does IBM's response.

    Here's the conclusion of IBM's statement in response to the lawsuit and
    the publication of the book:  "IBM takes the allegations made by the
    author and the plaintiffs very seriously, and looks forward to and will
    fully cooperate with appropriate scholarly assessments of the historical
    record."

best