Ward Churchill's response

My colleague Nicholas Johnson sends along a link to Ward Churchill's response to the controversy over his reprehensible statement about 9/11, with the following questions:

I just now read this statement of Churchill's. (His explanation of the one that hit the fan.) It's short. I'd be very interested in your take on it. (Not: Do you think he adequately explains the prior statement? But rather: What do you think of it, standing alone?)

Here are some highlights of Churchill's response:

I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* * *

Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* * *

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. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

These statements are obviously less reprehensible than stating "[i]f there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty [other than the fiery death of 9/11] befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."  And I suppose they make it easier to grasp Churchill's policy point: namely, that we should rethink our foreign policy.

Nevertheless, I still think Churchill doesn't get it.  He says he doesn't defend the 9/11 attacks, but unless he repudiates the statement that there was no more fitting "penalty" (which usually implies that someone "deserved" punishment), I can't help but think that he DOES think that the victims deserved to die.

Similarly, I doubt that Churchill really thinks that German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.  But let's conduct a thought experiment: does Churchill think that Hiroshima was a legitimate military target to be nuked near the end of World War II because it was an industrial city?  I have a hard time believing that he would.  Churchill misses the point of mens rea -- Eichmann may not have had a direct role in the killing of Jews (in the sense that he didn't push the button flooding them with lethal gas), but he clearly acted with the intent to cause such an outcome.  The "technocrats" that Churchill accuses of being "little Eichmanns" did not intend, hope for, or otherwise aim for the deaths of Iraqis and others that Churchill rants about.  They may have been ignorant about the effect of American foreign policy, maybe even deliberately ignorant, but is there any reason to think that those World Trade workers actively cheered the deaths of people elsewhere in the world?

Finally, Churchill's efforts to limit his vituperative comments to the "technocrats," as oppposed to the firemen, policemen, etc. is plain obnoxious.  Why would a bond trader who deals in U.S. treasuries be as equally a "little Eichmann" as someone who deals in oil and gas securities?  And why is the latter culpable?  This isn't a question of someone who, let's say, builds bombs for a living.  Churchill seems to suggest that as part of the "financial empire," they are responsible for helping spread American hegemony.  But let's face it, the financial empire is something we are all part of.  It's what makes our economy run, the same economy that allows parents to send their kids to colleges like the University of Colorado.  If Churchill wants to say that all Americans are responsible in part for the horrors of our foreign policy, that's one thing.  But I don't think he successfully distinguishes his innocent victims from the ones that he believes deserved it.

And now I really do hope this is the last thing I write about Churchill.  Though there has been a general decrease in civility across the blogosphere, there are still lots of smart and polite people who argue the points that Churchill is pushing, without his overbearing mean-spiritedness.  There's no reason for me to waste any more of my time reading or thinking about his thoughts about American foreign policy.

Comments

[jc]

DISCLAIMER: I do not condone Churchill's views or statements.

That said, if his views which many have characterized as extreme encouraged others to talk about the issues involved, then academic freedom has served its purpose and shown its value.

even if Churchill "doesn't get it" as you say, he is entitled to speak his mind and perhaps that will help the rest of us "get" to the right answer.

[Tung Yin]

if his views which many have characterized as extreme encouraged others to talk about the issues involved, then academic freedom has served its purpose and shown its value.

Sure. But I'm not sure he's actually succeeded in getting people to talk about the issues (i.e., our foreign policy) so much as getting people to talk about the nature of academic freedom itself. Even Churchill's supporters, such as my co-blogger, have quickly distanced themselves from his statement. And as I argued earlier, I have a hard time seeing how Churchill's statement would actually do anything other than lead most to reject his thesis out of hand.

[Mike]

Without responding to the "merits" of his response... Churchill's latest statements fit confortably within "academic freedom." Most of us might not agree with his comments, but they do not warrant his being fired. And I suspect that had Mr. Churchill made those points instead of his "little Eichmanns" comment, few would have been after his head.

To that is a testament to academic freedom. Most of us tolerate debate on ver controversial topics, but when you utter fighting words, don't cry when people fight back.

An example I thought of is this: A professor might argue that obesity is bad for society. That comment should be protected under academic freedom, even if fat people get offended by it. If, however, that professor said, "Mike, your mom is a fat pig who should die of a heart attack," then he should not be protected under academic freedom.

There is a pretty clear difference between rational discussion and personal attacks. In this latest example, Mr. Churchill engages in rational discourse.

[Jim]

Churchill Admits He's Not Native American and attacks essay’s critics

http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/23/news/story2.html

[Buster]

Can you say "copyright infringement"?

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

I knew you could. Maybe Kevin can represent ol' Forked Tongue in the sure-to-be-filed infringement suit...