Critique of ‘Pfeiffer’ Got It All Wrong About Lincoln

Earl Ofari Hutchinson’s Counterpunch (Oct. 12) is as historically inaccurate and racially offensive as anything in the silly show he attacks, “The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer.” While correctly lambasting the depiction of Pfeiffer, Hutchinson fails to critique another part of that show that should be objectionable to all viewers: the entirely erroneous depiction of Abraham Lincoln as Bill Clinton without brains or ability.

Indeed, Hutchinson goes on to make a comment that is more odious than anything in the television program he attacks. There is nothing wrong with the modern, more balanced view of Lincoln and African Americans, but Hutchinson hypocritically demonstrates reverse racism and unbelievable insensitivity (as well as historical ignorance) when he compares the idea of Lincoln obtaining advice from an African American, or even fraternizing with one, to “Hitler [making] a Jewish prisoner in a concentration camp one of his trusted advisors.”

Aside from the incredibly absurd and downright sickening illogic of this analogy between Lincoln and Hitler (when will lazy writers stop comparing Hitler to anyone except Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other perpetrators of true genocide?), Hutchinson is just plain wrong when he blusters, “There is not a fig of historic truth that Lincoln, during the time of slavery . . . socially fraternized with African Americans, let alone sought their political advice.” There are numerous documented instances of Lincoln fraternizing with African Americans, including a remarkable, long-standing relationship of equals with his black barber, with whom he engaged in extensive political discourse over the years and from whom he willingly took advice and followed it (the closest thing to a basis in truth for the UPN show, though clearly its creators are ignorant of this history).

In particular, it seems incredible that Mr. Hutchinson has never heard of Lincoln’s relationship with the great Frederick Douglass, who wrote, “In all my interviews with Mr. Lincoln I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race. He was the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely, who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color, and I thought that all the more remarkable because he came from a state where there were black laws.” (Quoted in Richard N. Current’s “The Lincoln Nobody Knows,” p. 235, Hill and Wang 1958.)

J. PETER RICH

Los Angeles

*

I look forward to the day when racism is something we only read about in history books, when people are judged by the “content of their character” and not their skin color, when the social, economic and educational achievements of African Americans are equal to those of other racial and ethnic groups, which is why I am so dismayed when I see self-appointed leaders of the black community (such as Earl Ofari Hutchinson) focusing the attention of their fellow blacks on the wrong things.

One of those “wrong things” is “Desmond Pfeiffer.” The fact that he deems the show an “assassination of the black image” makes me wonder if he ever saw the show. I wasted one half-hour watching it, and if anyone’s image is “assassinated,” it is that of whites, not blacks. (In fact, I wonder why the Republican Party is not protesting the show.)

Hutchinson also complains that the show “falsifies history.” Using that standard, I suppose he would also criticize Mark Twain’s “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court” and Monty Python’s “Life of Brian,” not to mention that old canard about George Washington committing environmental genocide against a poor, defenseless cherry tree.

There are real problems in some parts of the black community (such as low educational achievement, a high crime rate and an obscenely high rate of babies born to unwed mothers). But phony problems are much easier to attack (and to solve) than real problems, so it is understandable (but still sad) that demagogues such as

Hutchinson use non-problems for their own ends.

RICHARD SHOWSTACK

Newport Beach

*

I, for one, have been hesitant to voice opposition to the crusade against”Desmond Pfeiffer” because of the sensitivity many have shown regarding the subject matter.

But the subject matter is hardly the subject at all. In no way does this show defame blacks, belittle the tragedy of slavery or desensitize our society.

It is simply an ironic twist on a period of history deserving of a satirical examination. Earl Ofari Hutchinson suggests that the tragedy is in the fact that history is “falsified, not satirized,” but how many people really know the true history of the Civil War? We all think we know enough by saying, “Lincoln freed the slaves, it was the war to preserve the Union, yada, yada, yada . . . ,” but that was hardly the case, as Hutchinson points out. So why not open the books and begin an examination of this relevant period in our history?

And in so doing, how can we not allow for satire?

Far more devastating than a situation comedy set in Lincoln’s White House (to the progress of equality) would be the censorship of anything that takes a controversial, satirical or even a purely comedic view of it. Censorship does far more to stifle progress than to protect it.

GARY KROEGER

Studio City