Ward Churchill
Feb. 2nd, 2005 07:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gordonzolaOk, 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: A pimple on the ass of the Left
Date: 2005-02-03 07:59 pm (UTC)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.
Re: A pimple on the ass of the Left
Date: 2005-02-03 10:08 pm (UTC)I wasn't. I was making an extreme case for freedom of speech. Even speech by people whose opinions you find completely abhorent. The test of free speech has always been the right to express an unpopular opinion (for example: "The people in the Twin Towers deserved to die.") So I used an extreme example. I was not saying that Ward Churchill "hates white people", nor am I ingorant of the power dynamics. Duh.
The reason why people are trying to prevent Ward Churchill from appearing is that what he wrote is so outrageous that he shouldn't even be allowed to speak in public -at all. Ward Churchill an obnoxious asshole who made light of the murder of thousands of poor and working class people who happened to be trapped in the Twin Towers. That's a pretty extreme position, and one that was poorly articulated. Nevertheless, I say let the guy speak, but he should be prepared for some sharp questioning.
All I'm saying is that if the Illinois Nazis can march in Skokie without the world coming to an end, then Ward Churchill can probably deliver a speech. But don't expect a lot of people to pay to hear him deliver it.