Thursday, February 03, 2005
Ward Churchill from the Left
Ward Churchill was the head of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado. He feels that 9-11 was an inevitable & justified assault on American power, after America's legacy of colonial genocide at home & abroad, past & present. He has now been forced to resign:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6893491/
I don't think he should've resigned. There are two-star generals in Iraq right now fighting what they see as a holy war; after 9-11 talk radio was awash with calls to "bomb them [Arabs, foreigners, etc.] until they're Christian". Churchill's own bloodthirstyness pales beside the American Right's.
I also support Churchill's right to free speech - not out of some liberal notion of equality, but because Churchill is trying, in his own way, to fight oppression. He's bringing attention to the American state's history of mass murder. This is an extreme version of Malcolm X's "the chickens are coming home to roost".
However, I fundamentally disagree with his analysis. The attacks weren't good for the oppressed masses. Instead they gave the U.S. government an excuse to further its plans for world domination.
I'm a Marxist (which Ward Churchill is not.) I believe in revolution, which can only come about when the mass of people change society, together. That can't happen with acts of terrorism. Terrorism only scares people, drawing them closer to their rulers. To justify 9-11, you have to believe that the American people are completely bought off, in thrall to their government, and that the only way to jolt them out of their complacency is to shock them. Or, failing that, kill them.
Since I believe Americans are not complicit in their government's crimes, I think you have to show them why their interests are not the same as their rulers'. You do that by building mass movements against war, neo-liberalism, racism. Assuming that they're all hardened imperialists & racists is actually an excuse for not doing the hard work of figuring out how to talk to people you disagree with.
Finally, Churchill considers everyone who died in 9-11 an accessory to the crimes of American capitalism. I disagree. I don't support targetting civilians. While I didn't shed any tears over the stockbrokers, there were 1000s of working people in the twin towers - stockbrokers have cleaners, security guards and secretaries. If they're complicit with capitalism, then so is everyone who works for a living - in other words, everyone. So we might as well just give up on the idea of social change altogether, because there's no one around to make it happen, other than terrorists.
I applaud Churchill for consistently bringing American genocide to the public eye. The Right wing calling for his blood (literally, checking freerepublic.com) are racist hypocrites unwilling to confront their own bloody history in Afghanistan, Iraq and native land at home. However, Churchill does the Left a disservice with his vindication of terrorism. Real social change - i.e. revolution - is going to be far more transformative (and less bloody) than the fundamentalists can imagine.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6893491/
I don't think he should've resigned. There are two-star generals in Iraq right now fighting what they see as a holy war; after 9-11 talk radio was awash with calls to "bomb them [Arabs, foreigners, etc.] until they're Christian". Churchill's own bloodthirstyness pales beside the American Right's.
I also support Churchill's right to free speech - not out of some liberal notion of equality, but because Churchill is trying, in his own way, to fight oppression. He's bringing attention to the American state's history of mass murder. This is an extreme version of Malcolm X's "the chickens are coming home to roost".
However, I fundamentally disagree with his analysis. The attacks weren't good for the oppressed masses. Instead they gave the U.S. government an excuse to further its plans for world domination.
I'm a Marxist (which Ward Churchill is not.) I believe in revolution, which can only come about when the mass of people change society, together. That can't happen with acts of terrorism. Terrorism only scares people, drawing them closer to their rulers. To justify 9-11, you have to believe that the American people are completely bought off, in thrall to their government, and that the only way to jolt them out of their complacency is to shock them. Or, failing that, kill them.
Since I believe Americans are not complicit in their government's crimes, I think you have to show them why their interests are not the same as their rulers'. You do that by building mass movements against war, neo-liberalism, racism. Assuming that they're all hardened imperialists & racists is actually an excuse for not doing the hard work of figuring out how to talk to people you disagree with.
Finally, Churchill considers everyone who died in 9-11 an accessory to the crimes of American capitalism. I disagree. I don't support targetting civilians. While I didn't shed any tears over the stockbrokers, there were 1000s of working people in the twin towers - stockbrokers have cleaners, security guards and secretaries. If they're complicit with capitalism, then so is everyone who works for a living - in other words, everyone. So we might as well just give up on the idea of social change altogether, because there's no one around to make it happen, other than terrorists.
I applaud Churchill for consistently bringing American genocide to the public eye. The Right wing calling for his blood (literally, checking freerepublic.com) are racist hypocrites unwilling to confront their own bloody history in Afghanistan, Iraq and native land at home. However, Churchill does the Left a disservice with his vindication of terrorism. Real social change - i.e. revolution - is going to be far more transformative (and less bloody) than the fundamentalists can imagine.
