there has been a minor flap recently about Mr. Edward Said having lied about his childhood, and using these fabrications to support his political stance. I personally agree that he ought to be censured, since he lied about obviously an important matter. However it's interesting to note that some people seem to be able to lie about equally important matters and emerge scot-free. Example: In the late 1970s, Governor of California Ronald Reagan made a series of speeches on the southern African issue, in which he condemned all the Communist / Socialist insurgency groups of southern Africa - the ANC in South africa, FRELIMO in Mozambique, the South West African People's Organization, and Robert Mugabe's rebels in Zimbabwe- as "terrorists" who did not have the support of the people in the country where they operated. He used this as one of many justifications for hsi Cold War stance, including his support of the brutal Apartheid regime in South Africa (reversing President Carter's moralistic stance). If any of you doesn't believ that he said this, let me know and I can supply the date and direct quotation.
Unforetunately for this man, all the Marxist insuregncies he condemned not only eventually came to power, but did so by overwhelming majorities. they have remained suficiently popular to be maintained in power by numerous elections, and in two states have mmore than 75% approval. With teh exception of FRELIMO, none has ahd to backtrack ideologically. Mugabe retains his commitment to nationalizing land; one-third of teh ANC is Communist, and they rule in an ANC/Communist/Labor coalition; Nujoma in Namiboia has declared it his goal to fight against world capitalism. namibia and South africa today are regarded among the world's most liberal democracies.
If Reagan lied about such a crucuial matter, affecting tens of millions of lives, what the hell else did he lie about? doesn't thsi throw a pall over hsi character, his presidency, and his foreign policy?
