[Marxism] An interesting contribution to the Ward Churchill thread on Crookedtimber.org

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

William C Carlotti:

In reading the various comments regarding Ward Churchill?s work examining 
the matter of genocide that included that of a particular group of Native 
Americans, I am reminded of some comments made by Kirk Douglas when he was 
made aware of comments by Rabbi David Wolpe, spiritual leader of 
Conservative congregation Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, and the author of 
numerous popular books on Judaism.

According to the Rabbi, ??virtually every modern archaeologist who has 
investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that 
the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it 
happened at all.?

It was an opinion duplicated by Ze?ev Herzog, Professor of Archeology and 
Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University, which created 
considerable controversy amongst many of his colleagues in the 
archeological scientific community. According to Herzog, ?This is what 
archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: 
The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not conquer the land in a military 
campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel.?

Kirk Douglas? response was, ?The story of the Exodus, as an actor, I find 
interesting and dramatic. I am not concerned with the archaeological 
authenticity of the story: I am interested in what the metaphor teaches me 
about my own spiritual journey. And Judaism is the language I speak, the 
path I walk, the origin and the destination of that journey.?

So, to make the matter clear, the genocide of the Native Peoples that were 
the indigenous occupants of the lands of the United States was the 
deliberate and intended consequence of the invasion, occupation, and 
expropriation of the land and its resources and, for me, one detail more or 
less, one footnote more or less, one split hair more or less, is 
inconsequential in the mass of the real and substantive evidence of the 
genocide.

What really interests me is Ward Churchill?s use of the term ?little 
Eichman?s? in his analysis of the consequences of United States operations 
in the Middle East and elsewhere. I don?t know if Professor Churchill came 
to the concept independently of Hannah Arendt, but it is clear to me that 
he has either embraced or independently arrived at her clear exposition of 
the ?banality of evil? in her book ?Eichman In Jerusalem, A Report On The 
Banality Of Evil?. She portrayed Eichmann as a bureaucrat who did his duty, 
followed orders, and was part of the matrix that consummated in the nazi 
atrocities, rather than a raving, vicious, ideologically, and 
philosophically driven, demonic anti-semite.

It is a portrait that is uniquely insightful. Instead of the 
personification of ?evil?, Arendt argued, Eichman was the icon for the 
?banality of evil? and consequently represented a danger that was not only 
applicable to the political confines of the Nazi era but could extend 
beyond its borders.

Professor Churchill makes the assertion that the clandestine operatives, 
technocrats, bureaucrats of the CIA operating in the World Trade Towers 
were of the ilk of the ?banality of evil?, little Eichman?s engaged in a 
multiplicity of tasks in support of the United States involvement in the 
Middle East.

From my point of view, Professor Churchill?s characterization is as viable 
a concept for discussion and evaluation as the notion put forward in some 
quarters that the Bush administration?s invasion and occupation of Iraq has 
increased the volume and intensity of the opposition to the United States. 
It is certainly a concept deserving more than a knee-jerk reaction.


Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org 


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism