61 CHRONICLESnintegration. Blacks, Biko noted, havenbeen made to feel inferior in SouthnAfrica for so long that for them thenslightest gesture of humane treatmentnis misinterpreted. Such treatment allowsnsome blacks to consider themselvesnsuperior to their fellowmen whondo not receive similar gestures fromnwhites. In this instance is to be foundnthe degradation of blacks and the paternalismnof white liberals.nThese reflections, of course, do notnsuggest that Biko was only mildly criticalnof the government in South Africa,nwhich constructed the legal edifice ofnapartheid, reserving his animus fornwhite liberals. He fought vigorouslynagainst apartheid, sometimes aimlesslynand sometimes foolishly, but he realizednthat white liberals were morenculpable of racial stereotyping thannAfrikaner leaders. He also realized thatnthose whites who represented themselvesnas friends to black leadersncouldn’t bring about a fundamentalnalteration of the political system.nWhether Biko was right remains tonbe seen. But on one matter there isn’tnany dispute among black colleaguesnwho knew him well: the Attenboroughnfilm. Cry Freedom, is a complete distortionnof the South African politicalnsituation. The film quite obviouslynseeks to restructure the meaning ofnBiko’s work to justify a particularnview — and I might add naive view —nBOOKS IN BRIEFnof South Africa’s future.nThis isn’t the first time Sir RichardnAttenborough has used his politicalnbeliefs as the lens for his films. Certainlynhe has every right to do so. He is alsonconsistently honored for his personalninterpretation of history. He is thenrecipient of the Jear^ Renoir HumanitariannAward, had a day named for himnin Los Angeles, and Cry Freedom hasnbeen nominated for a Golden GlobenAward. But it is important to appreciatenthat this man who claims to believendeeply in freedom would allow officialsnof the African National Congress tonreview and censor this film before itnwas released. One might justifiably asknwhy the ANC was given this privilegenand why, with recommendations dulynaccepted, this organization gave itsnstamp of approval for its distribution.nOne might also ask why a film thatnpurports to be a slice of history routinelynignores actual conditions innSouth Africa in order to paint a portraitnthat is compatible with the director’snimpressions and political goals.n— Herbert LondonnThe Closing of the American Mindnwas last year’s liberal cliche of the year.nThis year, the left’s answer may well benI.F. Stone’s The Trial of Socrates.nBilled as an exercise in investigativenThe Armenian Genocide in Perspective, edited by Richard G. Hovannisian, NewnBrunswick: Transaction Books; 350 pages; $14.95. “Who still talks today of thenextermination of the Armenians?” said Hitler before the genocide of the Jews. The Turksncertainly do not. A collection of papers delivered at the International Conference on thenHolocaust and Genocide in Tel Aviv in 1982, this book serves as a reminder thatnunrecognized truth festers.nThe Last Empire, edited by Robert Conquest, Stanford: The Hoover InstitutionnPress; 406 pages; $27.95. A country without ethnic problems, the USSR continues tonexpand, to the greater glory of the Great Russian People.nTito, Mihailovic and the Allies by Walter R. Roberts, Durham: Duke UniversitynPress; 406 pages; $15.95. A reprint of a classic work on wartime Yugoslavia, this bookncannot escape the spiritual legacy of George F. Kennan and other U.S. State Departmentnexperts.nBloodsong, and Other Stories of South Africa by Ernst Havemann, Boston:nHoughton Mifflin Company; 134 pages; $13.95. A volume of excellent short storiesnabout South Africa, by a gifted writer.nOpen Borders, Nonalignment, and the Political Evolution of Yugoslavia bynWilliam Zimmerman, Princeton: Princeton University Press; 158 pages; $22.00.nThis book could have been written in Belgrade, for all its meticulous attention to a systemnof formalized deception that Yugoslav “self-management” and “nonalignment” havenbecome.nnnreporting. Stone’s book does to Athensnwhat I.F. Stone’s Weekly used to do tonthe United States. Stone’s “original”nthesis is that Socrates’ antidemocraticnsentiments got him in trouble,nbut — he argues — the Athenians werenstill not justified in silencing the gadfly.n(One wonders what the Geripansnshould have done with Hitler.)nStone seems to be everywhere thesendays talking about Socrates — on NationalnPublic Radio, in the New Yori^nReview of Books, in Harper’s. Thenonly trouble is, he simply does notnknow anything about the subject — notnGreek, not ancient history, notnphilosophy — nothing (or, as they saynin a language Stone cannot read,nouden). What’s worse, his brilliantnoriginal thesis was a commonplace innthe late 18th century and was madenfamous by Hegel. Even Stone mightnhave read Hegel. It is a permanentnblack mark against Little, Brown tonhave published this thing — you can’tncall it a book — and what’s worse, nobodynthere has enough scruples (or is itneducation?) even to be ashamed ofnwhat they’ve done.nIt is not worth the space it wouldntake to detail all of Stone’s howlers, butnthis has not silenced the chorus ofnapplause. Writing in The Atlantic,nBernard Knox praises Stone’s “eye fornsignificant detail and the latent connection.”nComing from the usual Atlanticncrowd, such a review would benunderstandable, but—politics aside—nBernard Knox has had a distinguishednacademic career and has done as muchnas anyone in the U.S. to further thenadvancement of classics. That henshould soil his hands by petting thenlikes of Stone is simply a mystery.nEqually hard to understand is GlennBowersock’s velvet-glove treatment innThe New Republic: a cautious correctionnor two interrupt the paean. OnlynSidney Hook—not a classicist at all—nhas actually told the truth in his WallnStreet Journal review. What goes on?nOne likes to think that for the importantnthings, politics doesn’t matter.nThere are a great many leftist writersnthat one can admire — ChristophernLasch, for example; liberals are somethingnelse. Real honest-to-goodness liberalnscholars apparently know that theynhave to give up all their standards ifnthey wish to write regularly for ThenNew Republic. (TF)n