The Whittaker Chambers Family doubts she made it through Witness at all: http://wcinbooks.whittakerchambers.org/2011/03/gh...

This member of the Whittaker Chambers Family panned Palin's book, including the comment "read[s] like a cut-and-paste job: comments stuffed between quotes from famous people — often dead, thus unable to protest Palin’s (mis)treatment."

Full review is online here: http://wcinbooks.whittakerchambers.org/2011/03/gh...

In fact, if you read his works carefully, you will find that although Chambers considered himself a conservative in the 1950s, he remained acutely uncomfortable with Capitalism. Thus, any idea in his writings on “East-West” conflict (if you insist on such a term) would have been called “North-South” economic imbalances in mid-20th-Century terminology – or latter-day High Imperialism, to use the Marxist-Leninist terminology that Chambers and his generation knew.

I’m not trying to curtail your free speech – just asking, on behalf of the Whittaker Chambers Family, that you leave the name of Whittaker Chambers out, because he would have disagreed completely with your own anti-Islamist views.

Respectfully – David Chambers | http://www.whittakerchambers.org/

Further, Chambers would never have conflated Communism with Islamism, as you do. He would never have conflated a minority of militant Muslims dotted around the world with an entire Western, Communist ideology and its global adherents in the 1920, 1930s, and 1940s. Perhaps you confuse the “East” in Whittaker Chambers’ writings -- clearly about Communism as a modern, irreligious, and very Western political ideology -- and today’s “East” when referring to nations with Muslim majorities. If you do, don’t. It is exactly such over-simplification that multiplies animosities between that tiny group of militant Muslims and practitioners of various Western (primarily American) foreign policies today.

[continued]

As for Dr. Evan’s comment of “literally hundreds of communists and Soviet agents in the U.S. government,” just how many did he conservatively estimate? Otherwise, such comments begin to sound like Senator McCarthy’s “I have here in my hand a list of 205” – who of course turned out to be a handful of clearly identified communist members, fellow travelers, or sympathizers. If Dr. Evans stated a safe minimum number in his new book, then you should carefully quote such a number. Keep in mind, too, that although Chambers was willing to ally himself broadly to fight Communism, his last published words on the man were “I deplore the whole McCarthy ruckus” (Letter dated July 17, 1959, Odyssey of a Friend, p. 259).

[continued]

For instance, about the "Pumpkin Papers" you wrote: “Evans reminded his audience of the fact that Hiss would have escaped prosecution had it not been for Chambers hiding and then producing the ‘pumpkin papers.’ This evidence was used to indict Hiss for perjury for denying he was a Soviet spy.” In fact, the Pumpkin Papers (really canisters of microfilm) contained nothing of value either to the Soviets or to the U.S. Department of Justice during Alger Hiss’s trials – regardless of how cleverly then-Representative Richard Nixon paraded them to the public as a bluff (aimed at Justice). The “Baltimore Documents” (submitted by Whittaker Chambers to Hiss and his defense team in a related but separate case) held the important, incriminating evidence: typewritten and handwritten notes from Hiss and Harry Dexter White and containing sensitive information. As you wrote it, you are wrong: the “Pumpkin Papers” produced no evidence that ever convicted Hiss.

[continued]

Mr. Kincaid,

I have some issues with your essay vis-a-vis my grandfather, Whittaker Chambers.

First, your presentation of the Hiss Case glosses over many salient facts that you could have presented within the same amount of space. Some of yours were in error and/or misleading.

[continued]

Ron,

People are talking about a movie, but no one seems to have come up with a compelling approach, much less anything insightful. Certainly, no one has approached our family with such.

David Chambers | http://www.whittakerchambers.org/

For comments from the family of Whittaker Chambers on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his death, please see http://whittakerchambers.org/2011/07/09/whittaker...

2011.07.09

First, thank you for allowing comments.

That said, it is disheartening on this, the anniversary of Whittaker Chambers' death, to see your blog follow suit with many others in reprinting this article by Andrew Bostom.

On behalf of our family, I have already contacted this author, asking him not to use the name of Whittaker Chambers when talking about Islam or other subject with which Whittaker Chambers was so entirely unacquainted -- a wish he has vehemently chosen not to respect.

In fact, earlier this week I asked him to post a comment on that article on his own website. (The request, including comment plus replies, follow below.)

Apparently, the author's respect for Whittaker Chambers runs just as short as his actual understanding of Chambers himself. Do not be fooled by long, impressive-looking quotes.

Instead, please note that, first, Chambers simply did not and would not today comment on Islam. Second, that is in part because comparing Western and non-Western systems of thought works about as well as comparing apples and oranges. Terms in Christian- or Greek-derived Western philosophy simple do not equate or sometimes even approximate those in Islam or in the Middle East. Distance, time, and historical experience preclude this -- as does the author's obvious antipathy toward Islam. It is hard to imagine that anyone who has read and understood Whittaker Chambers' writings could produce a piece like this article.

David Chambers | http://www.whittakerchambers.org/

QUOTE:

While we welcome your warm and well read appreciation of the man, the Whittaker Chambers Family asks you to desist from using his name with respect to Islam or any other issue with which he was unfamiliar.

Whittaker Chambers had at best a cursory knowledge of Islamic affairs (e.g., history, theology). Like most people of his time, his viewpoint was highly euro-centric. He would not condone use of his name in this manner.

If you respect the man and his ideas, then please desist henceforward from using his name like this.

UNQUOTE

At first, Mr. Bostom replied, "It does not seem you have read the piece at all."

When I demonstrated to him that I had read the piece thoroughly, he insisted that "you do not appear to have gotten beyond the introduction."

When I again assured him that I had done so, he shut down, saying: "I am a busy physician in academic Medicine" and refusing to publish the comment.