Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

xFblthpx t1_j3n2ykk wrote

This article is problematic for quite a few reasons. Number one: the false dichotomy being presented that Camus and Sartre are “opposites,” when one limits their primary focus to existentialism (Camus) while the other is WAYYYY more vocal about civil rights and post colonial analysis (Sartre). Camus’ silence shouldn’t be taken as complacency. Number two: The article tries to paint Camus as a racist evil monster just because he is LESS VOCAL about stuff he isn’t really too knowledgeable in. Camus mostly advocated for peace and was simply anti war without much consideration of any nuance beyond that. Ok sure, that’s a bit problematic, but let’s not pretend he was a militant racist colonial Nazi just because he was anti war including colonial revolution. “Opposites” my ass. Not every writer who doesn’t write about The Current War therefore supports the status quo. Grasping at straws. Number three: revolt falling within the purview of Europeans is a quote completely taken out of context. Here Camus isn’t even saying only Europeans can revolt, otherwise it’s bloodshed. HE IS CRITIQUING. The rest of his article in Rebel was about how hypocritical European colonial analysis is. He was against the French treatment of Algerians, and described this repression as a bad thing, yet the OOP insists that since his language wasn’t inflammatory enough, he is therefore a racist? Cmon. Sorry if my comment comes off as rambling, but I’m pissed off at this cherry-picked shitty clickbait journalism that doesn’t even attempt to read these people in context or in good faith. At least it serves as a reminder that Sartre was a badass, but that’s the only redeeming quality of this dogshit article.


Diogenic_Seer t1_j3n9f9v wrote

More or less.

Broadly painting Camus as a colonialist despite his long history in anti-colonial rhetoric was a bit fucked up. Most of the people critiquing him were not active in speaking up for Algerian Arabs until it became a popular movement to support.

I don’t know why pacifism gets called problematic. There is a lot of research indicating pacifistic revolution as more effective:

There is also the fact that Camus might have been killed by the KGB:

Camus risked a lot being vocal against communism. It was not a popular position in left-wing French philosophy circles. He genuinely might have been a straight up martyr for it.


wasbee56 t1_j3npdp7 wrote

agreed, to many the communist philosophy was attractive as an alternative to capitalism, the implementation not so much. Camus had the insight to figure out what might happen to collectivism under authority. and he was right.


NicNicNicHS t1_j3o7sex wrote

The history of the libertarian left is just one big "told you so" to the authoritarians


357Magnum t1_j3na9ft wrote

Yeah I agree with you completely. This seems to strawman Camus, misrepresent the Rebel completely, and at the same time gloss over all the inconsistencies that Sartre had in his career as well. Ridiculous to hold Camus to such standards and then say of Sartre "his fearless public condemnation of state-sponsored violence, be it that of France (and later the U.S) in Vietnam, or that of the French police against immigrants in the streets of Paris and elsewhere" while not mentioning his problematic support of communist regimes that did loads of state-sponsored violence.


darkmoose t1_j3q3n33 wrote

Spot on. This is popular clickbait philosophy.


JeffryRelatedIssue t1_j3qcusb wrote

Camus is, in this case, a victim of the totalitarian view of "everything is political" that is sadly gaining more and more traction


GapingFleshwound t1_j3qsfwg wrote

Thank you. Well said. Though I’d suggest Camus’ position stems from a deeper recognition of power structures. No one ever asks who was in charge and what were they doing before the colonists arrived?


preston t1_j3ptcke wrote

It’s hard to not resent the idea that racism is caused by anything other than white people.