Feeling the Henderson Lash
written by Kevin Summers, April 2003
Gerard Henderson (The Age, Opinion, April 1) argues that many of the severest critics of Western society have been recipients of its largesse. The implication of his thesis is that they should shut up and be grateful; if only these wealthy, educated film makers, writers and actors knew their place. He suggests that they are privileged to enjoy the freedom of our society but berates them for choosing to exercise that freedom.
He tackles Michael Moore for his documentary Bowling for Columbine, contending that it's a put-down of ordinary Americans - those of "modest means and scant education" - when in fact the film is an attack on corporate and government greed and deceit. Pointedly, Moore's opposition to the Iraq war - courageously put as he accepted his Oscar - is based on a repetition of Vietnam: that a small group of rich plutocrats are sending poor, mainly uneducated troops to do their bidding in a war of aggression.
Next to feel the Henderson lash is Heath Ledger for having the temerity to suggest that America's Gulf thrust was a grab for oil. While that's not an uncommon assertion in the debate on American intentions, it's not good enough for Henderson. Ledger's "extraordinarily inarticulate performance" failed to mention weapons of mass destruction. Ledger failed not only to be sufficiently eloquent but, more to the point, he failed to recite the Henderson pro-war script.
Performers like Ledger and Barry Humphries (too negative) should realise that they mustn't rock the boat. They would do better to follow the advice of Robert Bolt's Common Man in A Man for All Seasons: " … just don't make trouble, or if you must make trouble, make the sort of trouble that's expected."
Entertainers, being ignorant types, should entertain. They should leave the political discourse to those who know these things - like directors of think tanks. Perhaps Henderson hasn't heard of local football icon Kevin Sheedy. The Essendon coach recently waded into the war debate, offering his support for our troops in the Gulf. Sheedy is a citizen, a reflective and articulate one, and he has every right to put his case, as does Ledger and others to speak out against the war, such as Kerry Armstrong or John Wood. It's called political discourse and it's a very healthy state of affairs.
Henderson's wide range of censure also includes Noam Chomsky. We are told he actually criticises his own society wherein he resides in some comfort. How dare he. The man should leave for North Korea or Iraq immediately. Chomsky, however, has explained on many occasions that he is a fortunate member of the American middle class, living in a peaceful estate outside Boston. He loves America - that's why he is so passionate about its international behaviour. This counts little with Henderson.
It does Henderson little credit to unearth the old chestnut that Chomsky was in some way soft on Pol Pot and his regime. Chomsky attempted to put the genocide figures into some perspective and this meant addressing the massive (and illegal) American bombing of Cambodia over four years. For that he was portrayed in the conservative press as a Pol Pot sympathiser. Of course Henderson neglects to mention that successive U.S. administrations supported the Khmer Rouge's claim to a United Nations seat but that doesn't fit into his neat world view.
Australia entered this Gulf war without sufficient community deliberation. Too often Prime Minister Howard dismissed important questions as mere speculation. Sadly, we appear to be having the proper debate some months too late. It is a pity that Gerard Henderson can do no more than belittle those endeavouring to rightly engage in this debate. It is not the politics of alienation, as he contends; it is the politics of inclusion.
Home