>Please explain the logic of this argument. I am very interested in hearing
>the creative rhetoric that one might one might use to justify the claim
>that my expose on the rhetorical function on the testimonial can be boiled
>down to a claim that the victims of the gulags deserved what they got.
>
>Adam, my argument need not be heard by anyone outside this circle for it
>to be "famous." The argument I used is not original. The testimonial is
>widely understood as a basic propaganda technique. The fact that the
>"horror story" works, and a rather sophisticated understanding of the
>psychological reasons behind its working, are basic to social science.
>
>Worked on you, didn't it?
>
>Andy
>
>
Last month 45 Indian peasants were massacred in the Mexican state of Chiapas
with the collusion of local PRI officials and the the state police. How do
we know this? As a result of personal testimonials from survivors!
And Austin believes this and more! Why? Because it fits in with his world
view and bits and pieces of information he has about conditions in Mexico.
So I know of of no general result of "social science" which says
that personal testimonials automatically constitute propaganda and should be
ignored. But if someone were to write that the survivors' personal
testimonials remind him of the complaints of neo-nazis and racists, I would
suspect that he thought the peasants deserved what they got. (Maybe they
were bandits?)
Georgi Derlugian reports that his family was sent to the Gulag because of
some political misdeed. What are we to do? How should we react? Catiously
await further evidence?