381 CHRONICLESnfederally financed compensation to thenformer masters for lost property wouldnhave facilitated such magnanimity. Anrevived paternalism might also havenaccepted the duty of schooling blacksnin the ways of freedom and responsiblencitizenship, recognizing that if the twonraces were to live in harmony, whitesnwere obliged to aid blacks in elevatingnthemselves.nJohn Dennett and the AMA agentsnfound surprisingly little anger or resentmentnamong Southern blacks. Thenurge to avenge themselves upon theirnformer owners did not loom largenamong the freedmen. They insisted onnmaintaining their free status andnsought an economic stake in society,nbut beyond that, most blacks exercisednan admirable restraint and moderation.nThey would probably have respondednLIBERAL ARTSnThe director of the New WORLDnTheater bares her soul in the MassachusettsnCouncil on the Arts andnHumanities Bulletin (December ’87/nJanuary ’88):nThis past year it was mynprivilege to serve on thenMassachusetts state art council’sntheater panel. There I wasndistressed to discover the realnextent to which Massachusetts’ntheaters had failed to achieveneven minimum compliance withnAffirmative Action guidelines.nDespite the fact that this is thenlaw as well as one of threencriteria for Council considerationn(the other two being artisticnexcellence and a commitment tonMassachusetts artists), the vastnnumber of applicants werencharacterized by racialnhomogeneity.nWe still have the necessitynand responsibility to ensure thatnwe do not continue tonimpoverish our art by forcingnthe Gordon Heaths, DexternGordons, Paul Robesons, et alnto higher ground beyond ournborders in search of artisticnopportunity and integrity.nFor Paul Robeson, of course, then”higher ground beyond our borders,”nthe land of “artistic opportunity,” wasnJoseph Stalin’s Soviet Union.nfavorably to overtures of aid and friendshipnfrom whites. Thirty years later,nBooker T. ‘Washington still asked fornno more than a chance for the blacksnto prove themselves in the economicnarena. Because blacks were so remarkablynpatient in the years after the CivilnWar, it is not outlandish to suggestnthat, offered the opportunity to farmntheir own land, they would have foregonenvoting rights and civil equalitynuntil times were more propitious. As itnwas, they got nothing from the whitenSouth and only a paper freedom fromnthe North. Ironically, as independentnlandowners, they would have formednthe bedrock of the yeomanry whosenpassing the Nashville Agrarians lamentednin the 1930’s.nThe Prankster FromnTripolinby Antony T. SullivannQaddaS and the Libyan Revolutionnby David Blundy and AndrewnLycett, Boston: Little, Brown;n$17.95.nOne of the more curious features of ourntime is the inordinate attention given bynthe Reagan administration and thenAmerican media to Libya and its mercurialndictator, Muammar Qaddafi.nSporadic outbursts in Washington, echoednin the press, have served to elevatenthe unstable ruler of a weak. ThirdnWorld police state to almost superhumannproportions. In the process, Americannpolicymakers have contributed tonwhatever influence Qaddafi has gainednamong extremists in the Middle Eastnand deflected attention from the moreneffective practitioners of terror in thatnregion. In recent years, Qaddafi hasncome to symbolize much that Americansnthink they know and dislike aboutnthe Arab and Muslim worlds, and henhas provided Washington a scapegoatnon which to vent frustration for failednpolicies toward Lebanon, Iran, and thenIsraeli-Palestinian conflict. Understandingnall this, British journalists DavidnBlundy and Andrew Lycett, longtimenMiddle East correspondents for thenLondon Sunday Times, try to demythologizenQaddafi in this balanced andnobjective book.nnnQaddafi rules a land that deservesnbetter. His is not the first regime inn20th-century Libya to achieve militaryndomination through terror. In then1920’s, Mussolini’s troops under GeneralnRudolfo Graziani, in an effort toncrush Libyan resistance led by OmarnMukhtar, raped and disembowelednwomen, threw men from airplanes,nand established concentration campsnin which tens of thousands of Libyansndied. The movie Lion of the Desertnprovides a reasonably accurate picturenof these events. It is ironic indeed thatnQaddafi, a third-rate terrorist by Italiannstandards, sees himself as the heir ofnOmar Mukhtar within Libya and ofnGamal Abdul Nasser in the wider Arabnworld.nGoncerning Qaddafi, strange storiesnare told. For example, some reportsnhave it that Qaddafi’s mother was reallyna Libyan Jewess who married anSaharan tribesman during the 1940’s.nIf true, Jewish law would of coursenclaim Qaddafi as a Jew. Another tale isnthat Qaddafi is the son of a Jewishnwoman raped by an Italian soldier. Ifnthe latter is correct, it may explainnQaddafi’s attempts to eliminate alln”foreign” influences and his pathologicalnhatred of Israel and the West.nWhatever the facts of his birth, Qaddafi’snbizarre personal behavior as headnof state is not in doubt. To relax,nQaddafi occasionally lies on the floornof his office and covers his body with ansheet. GIA reports indicate that hensuffers from attacks of depression andntakes sleeping pills and stimulants tonget from one day to the next. Althoughna married man with children, Qaddafinhas three foreign female sexual partnersn(two Yugoslavs, one EastnGerman), and regularly propositionsnvisiting female journalists. Yet nonWestern intelligence service considersnQaddafi insane or a buffoon whosenactions do not merit the closest monitoring.nFor their part, Blundy and Lycettnprovide a sound account of Qaddafi’snformative years, his (inchoate) politicalnphilosophy and his attitudes towardnIslam, the Libyan oil industry and thencountry’s economic development.nThey present data collected by Israelinand American sources demonstratingnthat the principal targets of Qaddafi’snterrorism abroad have not been America,nIsrael, or the West, but his ownn