rigorousintuition.ca

Looks like we've already moved into the cartoons.
Sorry, that what is being posted is conflicting with some people's Joseph Campbell myth.

seemslikeadream wrote:

and I didn't any mention of anti-semitism here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

Yeah, it did. Slow down and just do a page search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ca ... i-Semitism
(Also, the old quoted RI posts address the lack of evidence of Campbell's anit-Semitism in the wiki post.)

Posthumous allegations of anti-Semitism

In 1989, two years after Joseph Campbell's death, cultural critic Brendan Gill aroused considerable controversy when he published an article that contained claims that Joseph Campbell was "anti-Semitic" and jokingly accused Campbell of "Satanism" because he looked so healthy at the age of eighty.[55] The title of Gill's article, "The Faces of Joseph Campbell", references not only Gill's 1987 book Many Masks: A life of Frank Lloyd Wright (1987), but also is a play upon the title of Campbell's four volume work The Masks of God (1959–1968). Gill offered no evidence to support his accusation of anti-Semitism, but did say both he and Joseph Campbell attended monthly meetings at the Century Club in New York City.[55]

Other scholars, students and associates of Campbell disagreed with Gill's general critiques as well as the accusation of antisemitism. A few months after Gill's article appeared, the New York Review of Books published a series of letters: "Brendan Gill vs. Defenders of Joseph Campbell" (cover title), "Joseph Campbell: An Exchange" (article title).[56] A number of the letters from former students and colleagues argued against the accusations. In particular, Professors Roberta and Peter Markman state that "we were dismayed because this piece of character assassination was unsupported by any evidence." Conversely, a number of former students and peers supported Gill's assessment, which led to the cancellation of a videotape presentation at Sarah Lawrence College to honor Campbell, where he had taught for 38 years. [57]

Professor of religion Robert Segal explained Gill's accusation of antisemitism in his own article, "Joseph Campbell on Jews and Judaism."[58] Segal suggests that this view of Campbell stems, at least partly, from his tendency to be blunt at times in critiquing certain aspects of organized religions—which, Campbell stated in his valedictory lecture series Transformations of Myth Through Time, was his job.[59]

Stephen Larsen and Robin Larsen, authors of the biography Joseph Campbell: A Fire in the Mind (1991) and members of the founding board of advisors of the Joseph Campbell Foundation, argued against what they referred to as "the so-called anti-Semitic charge". They state: "For the record, Campbell did not belong to any organization that condoned racial or social bias, nor do we know of any other way in which he endorsed such viewpoints. During his lifetime, there was no record of such accusations of public bigotry".[60]

seemslikeadream wrote:

well that's the mission accomplish I would say

You know you haven't addressed the alleged incidents below. Why would these people detail such incidents?
Because they were jealous or aggrieved colleagues and students of Campbell?
While not the final say on the matter (We haven't discovered a unpublished book by Campbell "Why I am not a anti-semite" or "Why I am a anti-semite")
I have to admit it doesn't look good for him. And again, Campbell's mythic framework could possibly preclude someone to such thinking.

Campbell's darkest side was his antisemitism, forcefully detailed by
Brendan Gill in the New York Review of Books (Sept. 28, 1989). The Larsens
dismiss it with a brief reference to "so-called bigotry." Campbell once
said he moved to Bronxville to escape from Jews, and that the moon would be
a good place to send them. He objected to blacks entering Sarah Lawrence.
He threatened to flunk, and once did, any student who engaged in leftist
political action.

The Markmans state "unequivocally" that my charging Campbell with anti-Semitism is false. They complain that I provide no evidence of his tolerating "'the menace of Hitler and the Nazis' and ...the evils resulting in the holocaust," and that the reason I do not do so is because the evidence does not exist. But the evidence does indeed exist; there are scores of witnesses (for example, Ms. Orr, in the letter printed above) to the anti-Semitic dicta that Campbell was given to uttering. When the astronauts landed on the moon, Joe made the repellent jest to a member of my family, who was a student of his at the time, that the moon would be a good place to put the Jews. The latest addition to this evidence is at hand. A correspondent, Carol Luther of San Anselmo, California, writes to say that she once attended a lecture in which Campbell recounted what he called a popular Indian fable (a favorite of Campbell's in old age), the gist of which was that we are not all mere mild grass-eating goats but, instead, are blood-thirsty, carnivorous tigers, who do well to prey upon whatever lower species of animal makes up our natural diet. When she heard Campbell tell this story, my correspondent was so upset my its ethical implications that, she writes, "I rose shaking from my chair and shouted, 'What about the six million who were gassed during World War II?' In response, Mr. Campbell simply shrugged and said 'That's your problem.'"

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 5&p=154844

Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:28 pm wrote:

seemslikeadream » Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:22 pm wrote:and I didn't any mention of anti-semitism here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

There's a whole section on it, though, are you being serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ca ... i-Semitism

Posthumous allegations of anti-Semitism[edit]

In 1989, two years after Joseph Campbell's death, cultural critic Brendan Gill aroused considerable controversy when he published an article that contained claims that Joseph Campbell was "anti-Semitic" and jokingly accused Campbell of "Satanism" because he looked so healthy at the age of eighty.[55] The title of Gill's article, "The Faces of Joseph Campbell", references not only Gill's 1987 book Many Masks: A life of Frank Lloyd Wright (1987), but also is a play upon the title of Campbell's four volume work The Masks of God (1959–1968). Gill offered no evidence to support his accusation of anti-Semitism, but did say both he and Joseph Campbell attended monthly meetings at the Century Club in New York City.[55]

Other scholars, students and associates of Campbell disagreed with Gill's general critiques as well as the accusation of antisemitism. A few months after Gill's article appeared, the New York Review of Books published a series of letters: "Brendan Gill vs. Defenders of Joseph Campbell" (cover title), "Joseph Campbell: An Exchange" (article title).[56] A number of the letters from former students and colleagues argued against the accusations. In particular, Professors Roberta and Peter Markman state that "we were dismayed because this piece of character assassination was unsupported by any evidence." Conversely, a number of former students and peers supported Gill's assessment, which led to the cancellation of a videotape presentation at Sarah Lawrence College to honor Campbell, where he had taught for 38 years. [57]

Professor of religion Robert Segal explained Gill's accusation of antisemitism in his own article, "Joseph Campbell on Jews and Judaism."[58] Segal suggests that this view of Campbell stems, at least partly, from his tendency to be blunt at times in critiquing certain aspects of organized religions—which, Campbell stated in his valedictory lecture series Transformations of Myth Through Time, was his job.[59]

Stephen Larsen and Robin Larsen, authors of the biography Joseph Campbell: A Fire in the Mind (1991) and members of the founding board of advisors of the Joseph Campbell Foundation, argued against what they referred to as "the so-called anti-Semitic charge". They state: "For the record, Campbell did not belong to any organization that condoned racial or social bias, nor do we know of any other way in which he endorsed such viewpoints. During his lifetime, there was no record of such accusations of public bigotry".[60]

ooppsy left out one very important word .....PROOF or anything remotely resembling it

Joseph Campbell was a satanist? I don't even want to hear any more, true or not, this is the solution to a slew of boring dinner conversations.

[quote="brekin » Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:30 pm"[/quote]


let's just make this easy ok? You make a list of all the anti-semites who's names must not be mentioned here and I'll look at it before I post again....

Joseph Campbell--After Death, a Writer Is Accused of Anti-Semitism - New York Times


After Death

cowards....fuckin cowards


How sad it is that Joe’s posthumous acceptance by the public has caused a friend in life to turn against him in death

Joan Konner
Graduate School of Journalism
Columbia University
New York City

.
TRULY SAD...........UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE

Finally, our anger at Gill gives way to a kind of sadness. It is truly a pity that a man like Gill, a fine writer and a successful and respected person, must stoop to such an attack on a “friend” as this. Along with that pity comes the sadness that an intelligent man could have watched the six hours of stimulating dialogue between two men as different and intelligent as Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell—talk that literally stimulated a nation—and come away with only this pettiness. That is truly sad.

To the Editors:

As long-time subscribers to and appreciators of The New York Review of Books as well as friends—both personally and intellectually—of the late Joseph Campbell, we were dismayed and angered by Brendan Gill’s vicious attack on Campbell’s character and on his work. We were angry because that attack was unfounded. The man Gill describes was not the man whose character and ideas we knew. And we were dismayed because this piece of character assassination was essentially unsupported by any evidence; amazingly, not even anecdotal evidence was offered to support the charges of bigotry.

We came to know Joe quite well over the past twenty years, much better, we suspect, than did Gill. He stayed in our home on numerous occasions when he was lecturing in our end of the world and had several days free between engagements. During those times we had ample time to share our common interests in mythology, art, James Joyce, and Thomas Mann (Roberta wrote her PhD dissertation on Mann, and didn’t always agree with Joe, so the discussions were often vigorous—Joe did speak his mind to defend his positions, but occasionally Roberta convinced him to change his mind). And Joe also shared with us, often in great detail, the problems and fascinations of the book he was currently working on—first The Mythic Image, then the multi-volume Historical Atlas of World Mythology, and finally that gem of a book, The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion. And we talked of our own work in Mesoamerican myth and ritual which fascinated him and which he generously encouraged, finally writing, despite the press of his own work, the Introduction to our Masks of the Spirit: Image and Metaphor in Mesoamerica which will be released by University of California Press in early November.

On the basis of this extensive experience of the man, we can say unequivocally that the charges levelled against Joseph Campbell are utterly false. Strangely, Gill’s article itself seems to bear witness to their falsity since he offers no real support for his accusations, support which one would surely expect to be forthcoming if it existed. The charge of anti-semitism provides an apt example of Gill’s modus operandi. First he makes the accusation:

Campbell’s bigotry had another distressing aspect, which was a seemingly ineradicable anti-Semitism. By the time I came to know him, he had learned to conceal its grosser manifestations, but there can be no doubt that it existed

Then, hard on the heels of this accusation, comes another:

and that it tainted not only the man himself but the quality of his scholarship.

After the double accusation, Gill presents his “evidence.” But note how it is done. That evidence relates only to the second charge—that Joe’s work was “tainted” by his supposed anti-semitism. By this sleight-of-hand Gill evidently hopes to evade the necessity of demonstrating the truth of the primary accusation. But how does he know Joe was anti-semitic? How does he know that that “taint” was manifested more grossly before he even knew him? It is clear that emotionally loaded language substitutes here for evidence in the classic mode of the character assassin, presumably because the charge of anti-semitism is unsupportable.

And Gill’s evidence for the second half of the charge? Simply that Joe preferred Jung to Freud. Even the slightest knowledge of Joe’s work makes obvious two things. First, Joe did not “despise” Freud; he uses his ideas frequently. Second, his reasons for preferring Jung are rooted in the similarity between his own fundamental assumptions about mythology and those of Jung. In fact, had Gill been listening more carefully he would have heard this explained quite simply in the second of the Moyers interviews. Joe was discussing the most fundamental idea underlying his work on mythology—that the same motifs appear over and over again throughout the mythology of the world. “How do you explain these similarities?” Moyers asked.

Campbell: There are two explanations. One explanation is that the human psyche is essentially the same all over the world. The psyche is the inward experience of the human body, which is essentially the same in all human beings, with the same organs, the same instincts, the same impulses, the same conflicts, the same fears. Out of this common ground have come what Jung has called the archetypes, which are the common ideas of myths.

Moyers: What are archetypes?

Campbell: They are elementary ideas, what could be called “ground” ideas. These ideas Jung spoke of as archetypes of the unconscious. “Archetype” is the better term because “elementary idea” suggests headwork. Archetype of the unconscious means it comes from below. The difference between the Jungian archetypes of the unconscious are manifestations of the organs of the body and their powers. Archetypes are biologically grounded, whereas the Freudian unconscious is a collection of repressed traumatic experiences from the individual’s lifetime. The Freudian unconscious is a personal unconscious, it is biographical. The Jungian archetypes of the unconscious are biological. The biographical is secondary to that.

This is obviously not the place to argue the relative merits of Freud and Jung, but that passage makes clear the incontrovertible fact that Joe’s attraction to Jung was based on an attraction to his ideas, not on “bigotry.” That this is true should be obvious to anyone even casually familiar with Joe’s whole body of work; there is no thinker to whom he is indebted more clearly and admittedly than Jung. And this attraction Joe felt is common on the part of artists and those who work with art who often find Jung’s formulations more meaningful than those of Freud. Thus the one shred of “evidence” Gill adduces to support his obviously wild charges is not really evidence for them at all.

But, interestingly, Gill doesn’t stop there. He follows this Freud/Jung “example” with the fact that Campbell opposed generally the involvement of artists in urging American entry into the developing war in Europe and that he sought Thomas Mann’s approval of his ideas, an approval which was not forthcoming. What are we to make of the placement of this anecdote? Is Gill insinuating that these actions were also rooted in Joe’s unproven “bigotry”? Are we to gather that that “bigotry” led him to a tolerance of “the menace of Hitler and the Nazis” and to the evils resulting in the holocaust? These are terribly serious charges; they cry out for evidence, and Gill provides none. Knowing Joe as we did, we know why that evidence is not presented. It does not exist.

Having assailed Joe’s character, Gill turns to his work with the same viciousness and lack of principle. All of Joe’s ideas, lengthily discussed and supported in his lifetime of writing and speaking are to be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Did he prefer Jung to Freud? Anti-semitism! Did he think Mann’s later novels inferior to his earlier ones? Personal pique! Was a substantial part of the nation stimulated intellectually and spiritually by Joe’s insights as they poured forth in the Moyers interviews as the unprecedented popularity of those interviews would seem to indicate? Not really! Gill, and Gill alone presumably, has discovered the “covert message that most of his listeners may have been responding to,” presumably without knowing it. (It is fascinating in this regard that Gill later in the article castigates Frank Lloyd Wright for lacking respect for the masses, saying that he “wrote sneeringly of the common herd.” Perhaps this is where Gill learned his own clear disrespect for the intelligence of the American people, at least that portion of them who watch public television.)

That “covert message” is hidden within Campbell’s admonition to “follow your bliss.” And the “message,” according to Gill, is this: following one’s bliss “as Campbell has defined it” means doing “whatever makes one happy” and Campbell thereby “sanctions selfishness on a colossal scale.” Rubbish. If Gill had listened to the Moyers interviews or read Joe’s works, especially The Hero with a Thousand Faces and Creative Mythology he would know what Campbell meant by that admonition and what, we believe on the basis of numerous conversations with students, colleagues, and acquaintances, his audience by and large knew Campbell meant. Joe explains it clearly the first time it is brought up in the interviews, about midway through the series (just imagine, all of those millions of viewers had to sit restlessly through all of that preliminary stuff of the first three hours waiting for their “message”!):

Campbell: Remember the last line [of Babbitt]? “I have never done the thing that I wanted to in all my life.” That is a man who never followed his bliss. Well, I actually heard that line when I was teaching at Sarah Lawrence. Before I was married, I used to eat out in the restaurants of town for my lunch and dinners. Thursday night was the maid’s night off in Bronxville, so that many of the families were out in restaurants. One fine evening, I was in my favorite restaurant there, and at the next table there was a father, a mother, and a scrawny boy about twelve years old. The father said to the boy, “Drink your tomato juice.”

And the boy said, “I don’t want to.”

Then the father, with a louder voice, said, “Drink your tomato juice.”

And the mother said, “Don’t make him do what he doesn’t want to do.”

The father looked at her and said, “He can’t go through life doing what he wants to do. If he only does what he wants to do, he’ll be dead. Look at me. I’ve never done a thing I wanted to in all my life.”

And I thought, “There’s Babbitt incarnate.”

That’s the man who never followed his bliss. You may have a success in life, but then just think of it—what kind of life was it? What good was it—you’ve never done the thing you wanted to do in all your life. I always tell my students, go where your body and soul want to go. When you have the feeling, then stay with it, and don’t let anyone throw you off.

Moyers: What happens when you follow your bliss?

Campbell: You come to bliss. In the Middle Ages a favorite image that occurs in many, many contexts is the wheel of fortune. There’s the hub of the wheel, and there is the revolving rim of the wheel. For example, if you are attached to the rim of the wheel of fortune, you will be either above going down or at the bottom coming up. But if you are at the hub, you are at the same place all the time. That is the sense of the marriage you—I take you in health or sickness, in wealth or poverty: going up or going down. But I take you as my center, and you are my bliss, not the wealth that you might bring me, not the social prestige, but you. That is following your bliss.

It would be hard to imagine a more direct answer to Gill’s accusations than this. No, Joe does not mean material success or selfishness by “bliss,” and we find it impossible to believe that any significant number of his viewers or readers think he did. Nor did he mean to endorse the right-wing individualism of Reagan and Rand as Gill charges. Rather, he was speaking to the widespread malaise in this country and in the other developed nations. Many today surely feel that beneath our undoubted prosperity, unequally divided as it certainly is, lies a vast gulf of despair, anguish, and meaningless in the lives of even the most successful. While the solution to the unequal division of prosperity may be political, the solution to this other problem, if there is to be a solution, cannot be found in either left or right wing programs. Thus the malaise; thus the recurrent disillusionment with politics; thus the fascination with Joe’s ideas. We do not write here to argue the workability of those ideas or the solubility of that complex problem, but rather to suggest that no “covert meaning” is needed to explain the fascination with Joe’s ideas.

We could, if there were time and space, answer all of the other charges Gill makes, and we are sorely tempted to take on the cheap “guilt by association” accusation linking Joe to Ayn Rand, of all people. It would be easy to demonstrate how foolish an association that is. But there is no time, and our point is already clear. Finally, our anger at Gill gives way to a kind of sadness. It is truly a pity that a man like Gill, a fine writer and a successful and respected person, must stoop to such an attack on a “friend” as this. Along with that pity comes the sadness that an intelligent man could have watched the six hours of stimulating dialogue between two men as different and intelligent as Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell—talk that literally stimulated a nation—and come away with only this pettiness. That is truly sad.

Roberta H. Markman
California State University
Long Beach, California
Peter T. Markman
Fullerton College
Fullerton, California

I think this is a good post from a somewhat fangirl, apologist, viewpoint.
I'll have to read the entire series if I have time. Seems like there are some funny
mental acrobatics going on (in this article of course). Campell's first reactions to
Nazism was enthusiasm, but hey, hey, that doesn't mean he was anti-semitic.

P.S. everyone calm down, our great white father Campbell may not actually turn out to be perfect but
we can still minimize the all caps to each other.

Joseph Campbell & Anti-Semitism
The Politics of the Matter
by Maggie Macary, PhD.

http://jmr.dk/mccary01.htm
December 28, 2004

I came across a rather famous anthropologist last night, and in our brief conversation, when he found out I was a mythologist, he mentioned Joseph Campbell and then added, "He was anti-Semitic you know." I was very taken aback by this pronouncement, not because I hadn't heard it before, but because it came from someone who was obviously very intelligent, well educated, and used to a certain level of academic discourse. I briefly responded. But the discourse bothered me.

Joe Campbell has been dead for over 20 years, and yet the idea of his anti-Semitism still seems to have some level of vitality. When I woke up this morning I began to think of this again. The first thing I wondered was, What is the definition of anti-Semitic? The OED defines this in very specific terms: hostility to or prejudice against Jews. For Campbell to have been anti-Semitic means that he would have exhibited personal hostility toward Jews (not toward the Jewish religion per se).

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with religion, or even politics for that matter—it is a racist position, hatred against another because of race. So, I went to the AntiDefamation League's Website, whose history states "For 90 years, ADL has been combating anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds". I figured if Joseph Campbell and his work were anti-Semitic, then surely the ADL would know about it. I did a search on Joseph Campbell. Nope, nothing, no mention of his name, no mention of his works.

So, where did this idea of Campbell's anti-Semitism come from? Its source is an article published in the New York Review of Books by famed critic and columnist for The New Yorker Magazine, Brendan Gill. Written two years after Campbell's death and a year after the airing of the Bill Moyer’s' Power of Myth series on PBS, Gill complained about Campbell's reactionary attitude, an attitude that was anti-Semitic, anti-Black, anti-feminist. In the liberal environment of Sarah Lawrence college (a very liberal woman's college with a heavy Jewish enrollment), Campbell was considered very far right. Gill writes, "So far was Campbell from applying the wisdom of the ages to the social, political, and sexual turbulence that he found himself increasingly surrounded by that he might have been a member of the Republican party, somewhere to the right of William F. Buckley. He embodied a paradox that I was never able to resolve in his lifetime and that I have been striving to resolve ever since: the savant as reactionary. "

The evidence of Gill's opinion of Campbell was anecdotal and contained a lot of hearsay, as did the firestorm that followed.
There is always some truth hidden in such controversies—truths that seem to surface from time to time even twenty years later. So, over the next few days (because I'm already finding this topic is too large for one blog) I'm going to explore the roots of the allegations against Campbell. I'm using as a primary reference, a very well done book by Robert Ellswood, The Politics of Myth. Listen, I know this isn't scholarly to do, but this blog isn't meant to present scholarly papers and I like Ellswood's book and have had the opportunity to hear him lecture and to ask him questions. I think it's a fair and balanced presentation.

Campbell belonged to a privileged class, there is no doubt about it. He grew up Roman Catholic in a very upper-middle-class family, where access to art and music were pretty much taken for granted. He was handsome and athletic and moved easily in social circles. In 1924, on a boat trip to Europe, he met Krishnamurti and became engrossed in Eastern religions, eventually discarding Catholicism and all religious attachments, and especially rejecting any idea of dependence on external authorities. Individualism was, for Campbell, the essential basis of the Hero's myth.

Campbell spent two years in Europe, studying Grail legends in preparation for his PhD. At that time, he grew to love German culture and became deeply involved with the work of such German scholars as Oswald Spengler, Adolf Bastian, Leo Frobenius, and of course Schopenhauer, Kant, and Nietzsche. His first reactions to Nazism, like those of Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade, who were also tainted with accusations of anti-Semitism, was enthusiastic. Nazism had also adopted many of the philosophical notions of the German romantic scholars, and for one who was interested in myths, this apparent revival of the mythological heroes of Germanic lore seemed revelatory.

After giving a lecture on "Permanent Human Values" at Sarah Lawrence in 1940, in which Campbell equated the democracies and their totalitarian adversaries and advocated that the United States stay out of WWII, he was repudiated by Thomas Mann. Ultimately, Campbell came to see that Fascism, like the dreaded Communism, was no friend of the individual, but not after he had established himself as a rather obstinate pacifist during World War II. Ellswood writes, "It would be unjust to say Campbell was then or ever pro-Nazi or pro-fascist; he several times expresses his distaste for the crudeness, brutality, and anti-Semitism of Germany's present masters. But against all that, he put his freely admitted love for Germany as a country and a culture, and also the passion of hatreds closer to home. Unfortunately, it was perhaps his yearning for transcendent, mythical purity of thought, together with a lack of such actual experience as Mann had had, that kept him from willingness to admit a degree of proportionality in the poltical evils of the world, or any absolute moral obligation to oppose as well as transcend the worst of them."

Throughout the '50's and 60's, Campbell found himself fervently anti-political, so much so that he ran afoul of his more left-oriented colleagues (he was in favor of the Vietnam War and continued to be staunchly anti-communist). He even supported Richard Nixon. In the 80's, his Republicanism began to waver because of the Republican party's attachment to Christian fundamentalism, to its anti-choice position, and to its stand on the environment. In other words, Campbell's political views were complex and seemingly contradictory, as most complex thought tends to be.

One of the reasons I'm bringing all this up right now is not to denigrate Joe Campbell. His work influenced me as it has influenced many people and frankly, I wouldn't have begun a study of mythology if it weren't for him. But he was a complex man, and his ideas can't simply be reduced to a pop-phrase or a simplistic accusation. Nor can he be elevated to heroic status.
Tomorrow, I'm going to take a brief look at Campbell's true aversion—it wasn't to Jews, but rather to Yahweh and the Yahwehist religions that elevated a tribal god to a universal deity.

I really need that list brekin....look under every stone and get back to me


I wanted to post something about Bugs Bunny but will wait for your approval

[quote="brekin » Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:22 pm"
Spinrad was intent on demonstrating just how close Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces — and much science fiction and fantasy literature — can be to the racist fantasies of Nazi Germany.[1] The nested narrative is followed by a faux scholarly analysis by a fictional literary critic, Homer Whipple, of New York University, which it is said to have been written in 1959.[/quote][/quote]


Isn't it more that the racist fantasies of Nazi Germany drew their inspiration from much earlier idea which Campbell is also exploring in HWTF?

seemslikeadream wrote:

TRULY SAD...........UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE

Why don't you link to the reply you quoted?
There are other viewpoints of people with differing views and Gill himself speaks to the no evidence charge.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false

Including,

To the Editors

My reaction to Brendan Gill’s “The Faces of Joseph Campbell” was: So, I’m not the only one who saw the chinks in the hero’s armor.
In the early 1970s, I worked with Joe Campbell on his Mythic Image at Princeton University Press. It was amazing to me that this man of cosmic vision could harbor such meanspirited and seemingly unexamined biases against much of humankind. In addition to anti-Semitism, I remember in particular his vexation over blacks’ being admitted to Sarah Lawrence.
That Joe Campbell has become a public hero is astonishing. His glibness and his charisma were a mask that concealed a narrow mind.

Carol Wallace Orr
Director
The University of Tennessee Press Knoxville, Tennessee

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false

And Gill specifically replies to the long critique there as well, especially the "no evidence" charge right under
the response you quoted. Why not give both sides? I know you like Campbell, but I think his views and character need to be examined closer
in light of accusations. Don't you?

Brendan Gill replies:

...
The Markmans state “unequivocally” that my charging Campbell with anti-Semitism is false. They complain that I provide no evidence of his tolerating “‘the menace of Hitler and the Nazis’ and …the evils resulting in the holocaust,” and that the reason I do not do so is because the evidence does not exist. But the evidence does indeed exist; there are scores of witnesses (for example, Ms. Orr, in the letter printed above) to the anti-Semitic dicta that Campbell was given to uttering. When the astronauts landed on the moon, Joe made the repellent jest to a member of my family, who was a student of his at the time, that the moon would be a good place to put the Jews. The latest addition to this evidence is at hand. A correspondent, Carol Luther of San Anselmo, California, writes to say that she once attended a lecture in which Campbell recounted what he called a popular Indian fable (a favorite of Campbell’s in old age), the gist of which was that we are not all mere mild grass-eating goats but, instead, are blood-thirsty, carnivorous tigers, who do well to prey upon whatever lower species of animal makes up our natural diet. When she heard Campbell tell this story, my correspondent was so upset my its ethical implications that, she writes, “I rose shaking from my chair and shouted, ‘What about the six million who were gassed during World War II?’ In response, Mr. Campbell simply shrugged and said ‘That’s your problem.’”
...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false

because I fuckin forgot to ......but then again you needed something to do ....didn't ya


I am still waiting for that list



but do go on with your ANTI-SEMITISM CRAP ...SICKENING JUST PLAIN SICKENING

Joseph Campbell at Pacifica Graduate Institute

One of the supporters of Pacifica's vision in its early years was the late mythologist, Joseph Campbell. He offered guidance to the school's founders and appeared many times as a guest speaker in the Institute's public conference series. After his death, his widow, Jean Erdman Campbell, donated his library and archive to the Joseph Campbell Foundation. The Joseph Campbell Foundation, feeling that Pacifica would be able to carry Campbell's work into the future, in turn donated his 3,000-book library and archival collection to The Center for the Study of Depth Psychology, an independent non-profit organization housed at the Pacifica campus. That center has now evolved into the OPUS Archives and Research Center on the campuses of Pacifica Graduate Institute. Still, an independent, non-profit organization, OPUS houses the Joseph Campbell Collection along with the collections of many other scholars who are prominent in the development of Depth Psychology. The presence of the Campbell collection on the Pacifica campuses and the scholars who were drawn to the continuation of Campbell's work led the Institute to develop an M.A./Ph.D. program in Mythological Studies in 1994. In keeping with the vision of the school, and of Joseph Campbell himself, the curriculum of the Mythological Studies program is framed in the traditions of depth psychology.

Some more scholarly considerations of Campbell's alleged antisemitism and mythic worldview.

seemslikeadream what list are you talking about? Also, you are positively shrieking now.
Why not step away for a moment and chill a bit?

Why Joseph Campbell's Psychologizing of Myth Precludes the Holocaust as Touchstone of Reality
Maurice Friedman
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465679?seq=4

If we sense an elitist note in what Campbell has written about the hero journey, we shall not be mistaken. Once at an alumnae meeting at Sarah Lawrence College I asked Joseph Campbell about persons like Franz Kafka who do not have the personal resources to make the hero journey."The bones of those who do not make it lie on either side as we climb to the top," Campbell responded. My own feeling was that I did not want to make it to the top if Kafka had to be dismissed as just another failed hero journeyer!

Joseph Campbell as Antisemite and as Theorist of Myth: A Response to Maurice Friedman
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465746?seq=1

Do not tell me what to do....ms hunter

I need your list of anti-semites....so I don't make this mistake again