Hacker News Reader

Comment by trgv | Hacker News Reader

> That is to say, he writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean-soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.

This is vintage Mencken. My favorite is his obituary for William Jennings Bryan: http://history.msu.edu/hst203/files/2011/02/Mencken-In-Memor...

In my opinion, Hunter S. Thompson's obituary for Nixon is a direct descendant of that work: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-...

I suppose, with Mencken, you should make reference to his racism (not to mention his strange views on Mathematics). I see him as a memorable writer. You can be a good writer and hold ignorant, offensive views.

View on HN

>I suppose, with Mencken, you should make reference to his racism

I think that the things worth making a reference for, in regards to a historical figure, is things that weren't shared by 60% or more of the population of his time.

His private writings are kinda racist even for the 1920s and 30s.

some of his public writings as well. His anti-semitism was known in his day, if I remember correctly.

...meh? Unless it was relevant to his impacts on society or the topic at hand, it isn't relevant. Save it for the Wikipedia page or biography, or when talking about those specific views of his

If I remember correctly, he was writing in US newspapers in favour of the US accepting Jewish refuguees from Nazi Germany before anyone. That initially wasn't popular.

Initially?

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=100...

> The sudden flood of emigrants created a major refugee crisis. President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened a conference in Evian, France, in July 1938. Despite the participation of delegates from 32 countries, including the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, and Australia, only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept additional refugees. The plight of German-Jewish refugees, persecuted at home and unwanted abroad, is also illustrated by the voyage of the "St. Louis."

During 1938–1939, in an program known as the Kindertransport, the United Kingdom admitted 10,000 unaccompanied Jewish children on an emergency basis. 1939 also marked the first time the United States filled its combined German-Austrian quota (which now included annexed Czechoslovakia). However, this limit did not come close to meeting the demand; by the end of June 1939, 309,000 German, Austrian, and Czech Jews had applied for the 27,000 places available under the quota.

Thanks for the info, it's a topic I know very little about. I'm totally in the dark what your one-word response is meant to mean though; I can think of several possible meanings, but no idea which you intended, if any.

I found this online in a couple of googlings:

As Gore Vidal noted, “Mencken was one of the first journalists to denounce the persecution of Jews in Germany at a time when the New York Times, say, was notoriously reticent.” While the Nazis were taking over vast portions of Europe, Mencken took FDR to task for his refusal to accept Jewish refugees into the U.S. It seems odd, to me, that a hardened anti-Semite would say “There is only one way to help the fugitives, and that is to find places for them in a country in which they can really live. Why shouldn’t the United States take in a couple hundred thousand of them, or even all of them?”

In 1938, he blasted the hypocrisy of the countries attending the international Evian conference for their failure to open their doors to refugee Jews.

My intended meaning was that the US was not welcoming to Jewish refugees at any point prior to the end of the war, so calling it initially unwelcoming was misleading.

Mencken seems to have been an excellent writer and to have had many Sterling moral qualities to go with his general misanthropy.

Compared to the public discourse, or to the equally private writings and discussions of the majority in the 20s and 30s?

Give me access to their private discussions and writings, and I can get you quotes that point as 100% sexist, racist etc, any number of "liberal", "progressive" icons of today.

These days it is often assumed that if you don't mention this kind of thing then you are tacitly endorsing it. I don't buy into that, but I don't mind playing along.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com