Ward Churchill

[gordonzola]

Ok, Ok. I don't really want to get into the Ward Churchill debate. But it's all over my friendslist and I don't want to comment in 10 different journals just to say the same thing.

I don't support firing him or censoring him. Blah, blah, blah and duh. I do appreciate that he was trying to focus discussion on US foreign policy and answer the question of the times, "Why Do They Hate Us?" The idea that they hate our "freedom" still doesn't quite satisfy.

But writing in his press release:

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack.


Seems disingenuous considering the tone and message in his original essay:

As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
 
 Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

while the "power lunchers" obviously wouldn't have included janitors, food workers, etc., being so cavalier with his words in the aftermath of 9/11 was pretty stupid for an "intellectual" and professor. I mean, I guess it would be more forgiveable if he wrote it in his LiveJournal. I'm surprised it took him this long to lose his administrative position. When I read, actually reviewed, a zine with this article in it a couple of months after the fact, I figured his days were numbered then.

In that essay he actually seems to be completely unaware of the existence on non-"little Eichmans" in the WTC at all. Their deaths didn't exist at all to Churchill. This reads like ass-covering to me. And, ya know, he copped the whole "chickens" line from Malcolm X anyway. and we know what happened to him.

I do wonder about the timing of all of this. I guess it's because it's turning into a book now. Any other theories as to why this essay wasn't popularized/attacked before this? Because it certainly was available.

Comments

[gordonzola.livejournal.com]

[superchones.livejournal.com]

oh damn.
in a snowbank, even!

[dcart.livejournal.com]

I think Churchill was used to swimming in a world where Arendt's characterization of the "banality of evil" underlies a lot of the discourse as a given. If he'd referenced Arendt without specifically calling the people in those buildings "little Eichmanns", he'd have made the exact same point without giving the right wing pundits such an easy target. I do believe that's exactly the point he was making, that the stockbrokers and power lunchers were participating in evil in a very banal way.

That said, I think one could make the case that it's somewhat disingenuous to characterize the power lunchers that way and not characterize the janitors and such in a similar manner. I guess that depends on where you draw the line (if you do) between being complicit in U.S. corporate capitalism and being a victim of it if you're employed by it.

[mark27.livejournal.com]

anyone who uses language so sloppily and expects people not to be pissed of and offended is obviously a horse's ass who doesn't deserve the time and attention of much of anyone

so you're saying that it doesn't matter if you have a point or if your arguments are valid if you happen to use language sloppily? that's pretty weak.

The right wing punditocracy feeds off of this shit.

that's true. one has to be more careful of one's language if you're intending to use it in those battles. was he? I don't know. anyone who has ever seen ward churchill talk knows that he is certainly no politician. he doesn't try to excise his emotional investments from his academic research, but that doesn't change the fact that his research and subsequent arguments are valid.

if it were up to me, Ward Churchill would have to spend the next six months touring the Nazi death camps in Europe, visiting the Holocaust museums in Washington, DC, Berlin, Los Angeles and Israel

conversely, if you spent the next six months touring native american reservations and visiting the sites of the old US concentration camps (on which the nazi camps were modeled), you might have enough insight to realize that comparisons between the Nazi regime and the european occupation of the americas is more accurate than not. Anything the Nazi's did, the United States visited more severely and with more efficacy upon the Native Americans.

[thearagorn.livejournal.com]

on the Justice of Roosting Chickens is already a book (on AK Press as a matter of fact).

[gordonzola.livejournal.com]

well, that's true. But it doesn't obligate me not to point out Churchill's non-lovey doveyness. Much of my Flist debate has lots of "he never said..." and "obviously he didn't mean..." which leads me to believe people read Churchill's press release and not his original article. Which is fine too until they start arguing about the content. There were seriously at least five different people I would have commented the above quotes to so I decided to just do it here.

And honestly for most people this whole thing is more along the lines of "we must protect our lefty friend" rather than "we must protect free speech" even if it's framed that way. I don't know if it was passion or desire for fame that lead Churchill to rush this essay into publication but as soon as I saw it I remember thinking, "well, the Left is going to waste a bunch of time and resources on this debate"

[mercyorbemoaned.livejournal.com]

At least Ward Churchill comes out and says what everyone has fucking thought at least once. Were there little Eichmans in the Trade Center? OF COURSE THERE WERE. Big ones too, maybe, although maybe the bigger ones - the Himmlers etc - got warned and stayed away. I deserve big flamey death for my role in the destruction of the world. So did they. So do you.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Of course he doesn't acknowledge the existence of non-"little Eichmanns" in the Towers. He's essentially a moralist -- thus his silly appeals to the "rule of law" and some vague idea of "us" trying to do what's right. Us who? Us the warmongers in the rulings class? Are these leopards going to change their spots? Of course not. Is "us" the working class? Of course not, he has no interest in class politics -- that's why it's so easy to see the 3000 dead as "little Eichmanns", whether they were temp workers, SEIU members, folks trapped in the PATH or 1 and 9 trains on their way to somewhere else, etc. The only agent for change is apparently those who are impressed with his caterwauling and ready to simply adopt Churchillism.

[rootlesscosmo.livejournal.com]

A couple of terms could use definition. Here are my proposals:

"Freedom of speech" refers to a right protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting laws that govern what may or may not be said (or written, or published.) That's all it says, and even that isn't absolute--see, e.g., the business about falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Firing Churchill from a publicly funded institution might come under the heading of what the First Amendment prohibits. (My hunch is that if there's a justiciable First Amendment claim here, it's one based on the concept of "chilling effect." commandercranky, what do you say?) Cancelling Churchill's invitation to deliver a lecture, in my opinion, probably doesn't. (Calling him a jerk definitely doesn't.)

"Loyalty oaths" were imposed by public and private employers as a condition of employment; if you refused to sign, swearing that you were loyal to the US, or that you had never belonged to a "subversive" organization, you didn't get the job. As far as I know, no one on LiveJournal is in a position to deny anyone else on LiveJournal employment on the basis of how they answer, or don't answer, a question posed by someone's Comment.

The question "why the fuss now?" is interesting. But I have a suspicion the answer is uninteresting--that it's an accident of timing. COINCIDENCE? Well, yeah, quite likely.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't understand idiomatic expressions and metaphorical language either!

As far as your explicit tying of "freedom of speech" to American legal and political traditions instead of tying it to a normative view of human rights, well, perhaps this visual aid may be of some assistance:




Yep, oddly enough, the world doesn't begin and end on US borders.

[gordonzola.livejournal.com]

I had an elaborate theory about "why now?" I was thinking that during the aftermath of 9/11 some people really were more receptive to figuring out "why they hate us?" and perhaps the rest of the essay would plant too many seeds of thought that the right-wing pundits didn't want to sow. Now, a few years and a re-election later, they feel safe going back to get the people on their list.

but that seems too involved so yeah, it's probably more coincidence.

[commandercranky.livejournal.com]

I agree, rootlesscosmo. If - that's a big if - there's a 1st amendment claim here, it's based on the "chilling effect" theory. Calling Churchill a jerk, even denouncing his article and ideas, even cancelling his lecture are probably not violations of the first amendment. Get this, though - neither is firing him. Based on some old-ass case called McAuliffe v. Mayor & City of New Bedford, a public employee has a right to free speech like everybody else, but any employment consequences of the exercise of the 1st amendment right does not count as gov't interference with that right - even though it's the govt that's employing him. Essentially, the case held (it was about a cop who spoke in favor of a local political party and got fired for it) that the cop had "a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” Therefore his firing was no violation of the 1st amendment.

I hasten to point out that "freedom of speech" is not synonymous with the 1st amendment. I just mean to say that we shouldn't limit our discussion of important principles to the narrow basis they are afforded in the US Constitution.


By the way, I keep meaning to reply to your comment over on my journal about sectarians and tailism. I'll get there soon, I promise.

[gordonzola.livejournal.com]

well, I posted this, then lost my internet connection for a few hours. Ordinarily, I would have been in the thick of discussion on my own journal but now I think I'll just go to bed. Play nice kids.

A pimple on the ass of the Left

[walktheplank.livejournal.com]

Ward Churchill: wingnut, or government agent? It's hard to say. The Right Wing media couldn't have created a better "Left Wing" bogeyman if they paid for it.

As for "why now?" instead of four years ago (when the essay was originally published), two words: Bill O'Reilly. The O'Reilly Factor exists for the sole purpose of whipping conservatives into a frenzy in order to generate higher ratings. Usually O'Reilly takes things out-of-context. Or he makes shit up. But Ward Churchill went and handed him a ready-made issue on a silver platter. "The stupidity and moral degeneracy of the left -AND YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR IT!!!" This is the stuff that conservative talk shows are made of.

As for the free speech question. Sure, let the guy speak. Why not? Let him try and do a Q. and A. I've always thought that the best thing to do with morons like the KKK is to let them talk all they want: then people can see what a bunch of jackasses they really are. But part of freedom of speech is that you have to be willing to live with the consequences. Ward Churchill can publish whatever the hell he wants, but he doesn't have a "right" to be paid for it. And he doesn't have "right" to go out on the paid lecture circuit. Ward Churchill is also perfectly free to walk down the street wearing an S.S. uniform, but if someone smashes his face in, well, don't go crying to momma.
_____

I do think that it is interesting that many of the founding members of the American Indian Movement have accused Ward Churchill of being an FBI informant and "a white man, a wannabe." (You'll notice he's always wearing sunglasses.) I have no opinion on the matter, but it's worth checking out.

Just a sample:
AIM Council on Security and Intelligence - Press Release


For his part, Ward Churchill seems to think that the original A.I.M. group is morally bankrupt because they have accepted government grants and acted as a "social service agency." (Heaven forbid!) It's worth asking which has had more of a lasting impact on the lives of native peoples -"social services"? or the half-baked screeds of a professor who gets paid lots of money to compare office workers to Adolph Eichmann from the safety of the Ivory Tower?

Has anything tangible ever come about as a result of Ward Churchill's militant posturing?

Re: A pimple on the ass of the Left

[mark27.livejournal.com]

I do think that it is interesting that many of the founding members of the American Indian Movement have accused Ward Churchill of being...

There is no "original" AIM group. All those leaders from the early days have been fighting amongst themselves for many many years now. AIM is so splintered and factionalized that it doesn't really mean much to refer to the opinions of any one group, *especially* in regard to the other factions. Colorado AIM, for instance, completely supports Ward:

http://www.coloradoaim.org/blog/2005/02/colorado-aim-press-release.html

Has anything tangible ever come about as a result of Ward Churchill's militant posturing?

absolutely. While you can find fault all you want with his angry public ranting, his research (his books specifically) is deliberately clinical and matter-of-fact. His research is one of the most important resources for Native American activists. You can call Ward a dick all you want (and that may well be true), but his research is beyond reproach. Condemning his logic and research because of emotional language is fallacious.

I've always thought that the best thing to do with morons like the KKK is to let them talk all they want

Comparing Ward Churchill, or any Native American activist person or group to the KKK is absurd. You are completely ignoring the power dynamics intrinsic to these perspectives on race. Not to mention the obvious fact that Ward has never said that he hates all white people or that they should all be repatriated to Europe. And even if he did, it would be a very different statement than a white supremacist group presenting a similar statement.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this, 'cuz it's more or less how I feel, too.

This is basically what I just said to bklyndispatch:

[felicks.livejournal.com]

I agree with you overall, but I do think we (lefties) are oddly more critical of folks on 'our side' than we are of people who we don't expect to share our ideology.

My experience with seeing Ward talk in person (though not knowing him) is he's a really inflamatory, agressive, frankly assholish person - so I expect that from his more off-the-cuff less polished writing. But I still think he's smart and makes excellent points. It's hard to defend mass murder - or defend someone who is essentially defending mass murder - but I'm overall for him. And I overall agreed with his analysis of September 11th except that I think the focus of any annalyisis of terrorism or any other means of attaining change should be - "is this tactic effective?" and clearly the acts of September 11th were not an effective means for creating change.

On a side note - I think he overuses holocaust comparisons in general which is obviously disrespectful and particularly annoying because I disagree with a lot of his holocaust analysis.

Ward Churchill

[torgo-x.livejournal.com]

The people I really feel sorry for are this Ward Churchill guy's students -- I mean, they have to actually go to class all the time and listen to this guy!

I love Native American cultures (hell, I live in the middle of one), but their present responses to their societies' past mistreatment are as tedious as every other historical precedesors', namely: freaking out, being an asshole, and flirting with ethnically-rebranded fascism and other explorations of lifetime male menopause. It's the American way!

Re: Ward Churchill

[mark27.livejournal.com]

The people I really feel sorry for are this Ward Churchill guy's students

believe me, we feel sorry for you, too.

I love Native American cultures

that you even have the nuts to refer to all of us in the same breath, as if we were all one homogenous group highlights your obnoxious eurocentric attitude.

hell, I live in the middle of one

and that certainly makes you an expert on our politics and cultures as a whole, right? Must you advertise your white supremacist attitudes?

their present responses to their societies' past mistreatment are as tedious as every other historical precedesors'

that's mighty white of you: As soon as the course of human events finds you in a position of grotesque privilege, you impugn those who dare speak out from positions of oppression. I'm sorry as hell that our complaints of your unfairness annoy you. Perhaps if you presented yourself more compassionately to those less privileged you would hear fewer diatribes on the subject.

the people whom we should pity are those native peoples that have to endure *your* tired, privileged and arrogant drivel.

Re: Ward Churchill

[gordonzola.livejournal.com]

I'm not making the assumptions that Mark made, but the word "tedious" seems questionable to me and I can see why it would set someone off. To me it comes off as belittling and denying of real economic disparity and the toll of institutional racism felt by many people who are still alive. To make the point that the typical reactions to these things are not serving the people who hold those beliefs, which is what I believe your thesis is, would seem more "tragic", "sad and fruitless", or "unfortunately too historically typical". "Tedious" seems to minimize historically oppressed people's suffering to just your reaction to it.

Substitute obviously has some context for you, and everyone is easier to understand with context, but to most of us you're a little icon in an electronic box.