A01117
Articles : "War on Terror"Ward Churchill's Banality of Evil
Controversial statements by radical University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill have become the latest 9/11 free speech flame-up. In an essay that has since been developed into a book entitled “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” he compared “technocrats” inside the World Trade Center to Adolf Eichmann, Hitler’s Final Solution logistics man. Churchill strongly implied the WTC “technocrat’s” complicity in the machinations of the American empire made them legitimate targets of the 9/11 hijackers. He wrote:
Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they [technocrats] 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. [emphasis added]
Strong stuff. Other public figures have found themselves in hot water for making statements about 9/11. On 9/12, Noam Chomsky noted the attacks were neither unexpected or unprecedented in the scope of recent human suffering. While his timing left something to be desired (the shell-shocked American public might have responded better if he had waited a couple of days before coldly announcing that 9/11 wasn’t that bad), the professor was actually making a fairly mundane observation. Churchill is making a much more radical statement here. He has since issued an explanation in which he backpedals and tries to shift the emphasis onto the Pentagon’s policies (see statement and GNN discussion here). But he fails to disown the thrust of the original argument: those who take part in an evil capitalist system should be held accountable, like Adolf Eichmann was. Eichmann was the mild-mannered German bureaucrat who designed the plans for carrying out the Holocaust. He was famously captured by Israel in 1960, tried for his crimes and hanged. His everyman demeanor prompted Hannah Arendt to coin the term “the banality of evil.”
The storm around Churchill’s statements has many on the far left coming to his defense. As a Native American activist, he has a long record of fighting injustice (see my interview with his frequent co-author Jim Vander Wall here), and I too support his right to free speech. Ruffling feathers is what good professors do. It’s a shame that the controversy has cost him his chairmanship of the Ethnic Studies Department at Colorado (he resigned this week). An appearance at New York’s Hamilton College, which spurred the entire fiasco, was cancelled due to what administrators said were security concerns over a flood of death threats.
But there’s a big difference between the right to speak your mind, and being right. And I think he’s dead wrong.
Maybe it’s because I was blocks away when the towers fell. Maybe it’s because I’m more of a wussy pacifist than my more radical brothers. But I cannot find it in me to find what he wrote anything other than completely reprehensible.
Consider the professor’s twisted logic: People who work in the financial industry are legitimate military targets. Where do you draw the line? What about the secretaries who serve coffee to the little Eichmanns? They keep the evil system caffeinated, should they die? What if you own stock? Does earning dividends on GE mean your apartment building should be leveled with you in it? What if you keep your money at Chase or Citibank? Buy stuff at Wal-Mart? Pay federal taxes? Or better yet, what if you work for the government? Churchill himself works for a state university. He takes a paycheck from an institution that in all likelihood does military research and is probably ten times more complicit in the actual machinery of war than any junior currency trader.
If Churchill’s intent was to merely challenge us – to get us to look in the mirror and ask if maybe we all have a little Eichmann in us, then I applaud him. In some ways, we all do – no matter how hard we try to buy recycled toilet paper or not to buy Air Jordans. As Americans, we are all complicit in varying degrees in an exploitative system. It’s the acknowledgment of my special responsibility as a privileged person on this planet that keeps me doing what I’m doing. But Churchill, no matter how he later tried to spin it, was clearly trying to do something more than “shock the yuppies.” He was pinning a target on the backs of a very specific group of people, the “technocrats,” and saying they deserved what they got that clear September morning. It was a vicious, sloppy polemic which needs to be called what it was. To argue that a commodities trader (which many WTC victims were) deserves to pay with his life for buying pork bellies low and selling them high is simplistic, unprogressive, and I dare say, fascist – even if, as he later tried to argue, he was merely applying America’s standards back on itself.
It’s a shame to see such a great champion of the repressed as Ward Churchill succumb to such wrongheaded logic – the very logic that has led to the belief that certain groups of people could be annihilated for their perceived complicity in the acts of the larger group.
Anthony Lappé is GNN’s Executive Editor. He is the co-author with Stephen Marshall of GNN’s first book, True Lies, and the producer of GNN’s award-winning Iraq documentary, BattleGround: 21 Days on the Empire’s Edge.
Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...
“He was pinning a target on the backs of a very specific group of people, the “technocrats,” and saying they deserved what they got that clear September morning”.
Balderdash.
Blah, anthony. blah. The nation’s military, a surplus of its mortified pacifists and vegetarians scream for the blood of the presumed perpetrator class. The people were vicious and calling for fascismo. Ward Churchill pinned no targets upon backs. Whether you follow his gist and reject it for rhetorical emphasis or distort it as a device, individuals who supply and sustain a machine are morally culpable for its apocalyptic activity, though the supportive infrastructure of people may not necessarily agree. It is certainly neither good for anyone nor fair, and I think Churchill has made that crystalline.
yeah! let’s git dat Churchill feller – damn Winjuns
he’s isn’t an Indian.
he’s isn’t an Indian
cite plz
“cite plz”
Here ya go
I started reading that article then I remembered that I don’t give a fuck.
Ernestine Berry, who was on the tribe’s enrollment committee (Keetoowah) and served on the tribal council for four years, told the The Denver Post: “He (Churchill) was trying to get recognized as an Indian. He could not prove he was an Indian (Cherokee) at all.” Moreover, the United Keetoowah Band responded to Churchill’s claim by clarifying that he was not an enrolled member, but an honorary associate member (just as former President Bill Clinton was) for few months in 1994. According to tribal chief George Wickliffe, Churchill’s claims to Keetowah membership “are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band,” and that Churchill “could not prove any Cherokee ancestry.”
Looks like he lied about his military service too
Churchill told the Denver Post that he had worked with the Students for a Democratic Society and Weather Underground in the late 1960’s. According to the Denver Post article, Churchill said that he had been politically radicalized as a result of his experiences in Vietnam, Churchill claimed that he taught members of the Weather Underground how to make bombs and fire weapons. However, Weather Underground leaders Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers do not recall Churchill ever participating in that movement, nor do FBI files indicate Churchill’s presence on the scene.
It seems he’s a bit of a pathological liar. He lied about his ethnicity, military service, radical background, and even penis size.
That’s funny, the American Indian Movement of Colorado thinks Churchill is Indian enough to be on the Leadership Council (though he is now listed as on a “leave of absence” – for reasons related to the publicity due to the witchhunt no doubt). It’s also pretty fucked that the only people in the u.s. so pressed to prove their heritage through genealogy and shit like blood quantum are Indians. The facts are: Churchill was told he had Indian ancestors on his mother’s side as a child, later in his life his absentee father told him he also had Indian blood on that side, he was accepted as an Indian throughout his life by many Indian groups (except AIM Inc. folks like the Bellencourts who snipe at the autonomous AIM groups), and no one made a big deal about his ancestry until he was made a pariah because he spoke ill of the 9/11 sacred cow.
Also, the Keetoowah Band’s current discrediting of Churchill’s membership is politically motivated. They have changed their tune on this considerably over the past five years.
I don’t know why I even bother with this shit anymore. I stayed out of the other thread (for the most part) because few if any here have enough background (or willingness to investigate it) on any of these topics to discuss them.
Keep in lockstep gorillas.
Der Stechschritt!
legitimate targets of the 9/11 hijackers
There were hijackers?
Yeah, I’m sure that Bill Ayers has no idea what he’s talking about when he says Churchill wasn’t part of the WU.
From APRs Mens News Daily link
An exhaustive investigation by Bob Newman of Newsradio 850 KOA (Denver), who is also a frequent guest military & terrorism analyst on the FOX News Channel and a Men’s News Daily columnist, into the genuine Vietnam service record of radical University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill, has revealed that Churchill’s claimed combat experience is in direct contradiction to his official military records.
After a confidential source provided Mr. Newman with documents pertaining to Professor Churchill’s military service and his employment at the University of Colorado, Mr. Newman began an investigation into the documents’ authenticity.
Using his own sources and calling upon the investigative skills of FOX News Channel’s Rita Cosby, Mr. Newman was able to verify that Professor Churchill, despite his public claim (in a 1987 Denver Post interview) of having been a paratrooper (Airborne qualified) who conducted long-range reconnaissance patrols (LRRPs; extremely dangerous missions conducted by some of the most elite soldiers in the US Army) hunting North Vietnamese in Vietnam during and after the Tet Offensive of 1968, and despite his claim that he was a point man in an infantry combat unit, was in fact trained only as a jeep driver and projectionist (he was trained to operate film-strip machines and movie projectors), according to official documentation from the National Personnel Records Center, the US repository for military records.
snip
Great. A Fox news terror expert with a confidential source. I love those.
So they found records showing he was trained to do non-combat duties.
Did they find anything that ruled out the possibility he was transfered to combat duty?
Did they get a complete record of his career or a patchy cherry-picked version?
When they are that vague its usually for a reason.
WU?
since you bought Ayers into it, APR...
Defend Wars Churchill
Dear Colleagues,
In Brecht’s play Galileo the great astronomer sets forth into a world dominated by a mighty church and an authoritarian power: “The cities are narrow and so are the brains,” he declares recklessly.
“Superstition and plague. But now the word is: since it is so, it does not remain so. For everything moves my friend.” Intoxicated with his own radical discoveries, Galileo feels the earth shifting and finds himself propelled surprisingly toward revolution.
” It was always said that the stars were fastened to a crystal vault so they could not fall,” he says. “Now we have taken heart and let them float in the air, without support… they are embarked on a great voyage—like us who are also without support and embarked on a great voyage.”
Here Galileo raises the stakes and risks taking on the establishment in the realm of its own authority, and it strikes back fiercely. Forced to renounce his life’s work under the exquisite pressure of the Inquisition he denounces what he knows to be true, and is welcomed back into the church and the ranks of the faithful, but exiled from humanity—by his own word. A former student confronts him in the street: “Many on all sides followed you with their ears and their eyes believing that you stood, not only for a particular view of the movement of the stars, but even more for the liberty of teaching— in all fields. Not then for any particular thoughts, but for the right to think at all. Which is in dispute.”
The right to think at all, which is in dispute—-this is what the Ward Churchill affair finally comes to: The right to a mind of one’s own, the right to pursue an argument into uncharted spaces, the right to challenge the church and its orthodoxy in the public square. The right to think at all.
It’s no surprise that this outrage against Professor Churchill occurs at this particular moment— a time of empire resurrected and unapologetic, militarism proudly expanding and triumphant, war without justice and without end, white supremacy retrenched, basic rights and protections shredded, growing disparities between the haves and the have-nots, fear and superstition and the mobilization of scapegoating social formations based on bigotry and violence or the threats of violence, and on and on.
There’s more of course, and this isn’t the only story, but this is a recognizable part of where we’re living, and a familiar place to anyone with even a casual understanding of history. Here the competing impulses and ideals that have always animated our country’s story are on full display: rights and liberty and the pursuit of human freedom on one side, domination and war and repression on the other. The trauma of contradictions that is America.
Ward Churchill is under a sustained, orchestrated, and determined attack because of his political beliefs and statements and activities, and nothing more. No one doubts his productivity or his accomplishments. But the attack on Churchill is neither isolated nor innocent— the high school history teacher on the west side of Chicago gets the message, and so does the English literature teacher in Detroit and the math teacher in an Oakland middle school: be careful what you say; stay close to the official story; stick to the authorized text.
If someone of Ward Churchill’s stature and standing for so many years at the University of Colorado can suffer this kind of campaign, what chance do I have?
Every committee, every investigation, every report plays out under a shadow of the star chamber; everyone must choose who to be and how to act in response. For this reason I support Ward Churchill unequivocally, unapologetically, whole-heartedly. I urge my colleagues and my students and everyone who values education as a grand enterprise geared toward enlightenment and liberation to speak out forcefully and fearlessly now on behalf of the liberty of teaching and learning, on behalf of the right to think at all.
Sincerely,
William Ayers
Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar
University of Illinois at Chicago
billayers.org
He was given an honorary membership, so far as I understand. Calling yourself Cherokee after that would be like insisting people call you “doctor” after you get an honorary doctorate.
Is Indian ethnicity a prereq for that job?
this suggests so
GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT OF COLORADO
Colorado AIM has rooted its political, social, cultural and economic program in four basic and essential principles:
1. Spirituality 2. Sovereignty 3. Support 4. Sobriety
Any American Indian person who embraces and actively supports these principles is welcome to join with Colorado AIM in the liberation and advancement of our peoples and nations.
That’s suggestive, for sure.
Did they find anything that ruled it in?
Ok, point taken. But we have no indication they have a complete record.
And they only mention what he was “trained” as.
Was that the training he received before he left for Vietnam?
Like I said, its really vague and in my experience thats usually not an accident.
APR: he isn’t an Indian.
you thought Winjun was a spelling error?
who really cares if he’s Indian or not? in my book, being told by both your parents that you’ve got Indian ancestry is enough to indicate that you’re not maliciously lying about your heritage, and being accepted as an Indian by other Indians is enough that the concerns of crackers shouldn’t really enter into your mind.
regardless of his actual ancestry, he was a voice for the oppressed and ignored, which is exactly what pissed off so many people.
i still haven’t read enough of the material regarding the accusations of academic malfeasance to have a real opinion. if the charges are accurate, then i have no real sympathy for the loss of his job. it’s not like it’s necessarily the end of his career as an activist anyway.
Totally… as credentials for a career as an activist goes, being able to say that you were fired for your beliefs is pretty hardcore…
True, tcs, and judging from Churchill’s history I am sure he’ll have no problem lying about that either.
Heh…
Exactly. Toad may be the most reasonable person on this whole website.
The Rocky Mountain News and these other fucking assholes took it upon themselves to do a full investigation into his genealogy in an attempt to find some way to smear him because of his political beliefs.
Snark – Regardless of his type of membership in an official government-sanctioned tribe, his mother identified her heritage as Keetoowah and apparently told him that as a child. Also, the officially recognized Keetoowah Band never had a problem with Churchill identifying with them until the uproar surrounding the “Roosting Chickens” essay. At that point their leadership was quick to distance themselves from him and point out his “honorary” status despite the fact they had allowed him status and identification that went far beyond honorary membership in fact though not in paperwork – for their own benefit in having a publicly identifiable “member” I believe.
I certainly don’t know what conversations went on between Churchill and the Keetoowah back when he was interacting with that tribe, but it seems that he was utilized by them as a member only so long as it was politically beneficial. Further, tribal and inter-tribal politics are a huge part in deciding who can be a member if they weren’t born on a reservation. Tribes aren’t as open to new “recruits” as they were during the heyday of the Seminole. This is usually born out of u.s. government policies (BIA) and economic bullshit (tax law) that restricts easily increasing the size of a band/nation (read into this what you will). I would be willing to bet that most who have Indian ancestry but were not born and raised on a reservation have no more than honorary member status. I know none of my friends and acquaintances who identify as Indian but were not born on a reservation or of parents who lived on the rez would not be accepted as full members in a band (and I know some have tried).
The point is, as toad so succinctly put it, that Churchill’s upbringing, self-identification, and actions should be the determining factors in his “Indianness” – not politics and government paperwork.