Re: [Marxism] Ward Churchill Redux

[Jeff <meisner@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 16:45 05/05/09 +0000, you wrote:
>[below is an article in the NYT
(Actually this article had been posted once before. But never mind, it's
worth repeating...)

> that skillfully deconstructs the phony 
>academic case against Ward Churchill that too many folks on the Left bought 
>into.
Like Mark, I am not aware of anyone on the anti-capitalist left who "bought
into" the firing of Ward Churchill (though I am open to being surprised).

>On at least one list of former 60s activists, .....
>regurgitate the charges of academic dishonesty against him while generally 
>dissin' the guy as a phony and a clown;
I guess I'd be interested in knowing which list that is! But of course you
say you are talking about "former activists" which isn't what I mean by
"the left" (= current activists).

Mark:
> Because I
>most emphatically do NOT think the people killed on 9-11 bear any
>comparison to participants in the Nazi machine.
That isn't exactly what he wrote. We just see references to what he wrote
about "little Eichmanns" which is somewhat out of context. Ward Churchill's
entire piece can be read on the link below, but when you look at what he
wrote, you can see that 1) He isn't talking about ALL of the people in the
WTC when it was hit (but unfortunately he doesn't bother to point out that
a large portion of the people there were menial workers or just visiting);
and 2) He doesn't exactly compare the stock traders to the Nazi's, but his
point is that they are complicit with the war machine through their
economic role, but like Eichmann didn't need to actually get their hands
dirty in the process.

Ward Churchill:

>They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."
>
>There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on 
>September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised 
>military targets, pure and simple. 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.

I wouldn't have written it that way, but what he writes is not so
unreasonable.

You can view his entire essay here:
    http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

- Jeff




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu