Re: [Marxism] Ward Churchill Redux

["Ian Pace" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: <Waistline2@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:32 PM
> Actually, my opinion is that we would be better off without "such
> standards" as we have known and lived these standards for the past 200 
> years or
> more.
>
> Historical narrative is 100% partisan.

So the difference between a historical narrative that attempts to detail the 
facts, causes, processes of the Holocaust and one which denies it happened 
is simply a partisan difference? No way.
>
> The personal passion of the historian rivets their personal ideology and
> quest for truth.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that truth is nothing more than a product of 
ideology.

> There is no such thing as a non class bias science. In is
> not  simply a question of how science is deployed. The pathways through 
> which
> science  is pursued, are opened and become pathways precisely as a 
> function
> of ideology,  class and property. The science behind the atomic bomb "did
> not just happen" as  the result of some individual being interested in the
> atom and its structures  and then "accidentally" discovering how to lay 
> waste
> to humanity. The result  proves the intent and motivation, rather than
> judging one on the basis of self  profession. Science has its history as 
> the
> "discovery of the law systems  governing processes."

You are conflating the use, motivations and sponsorship of science with its 
claims to accuracy - the two things are very different. Not all science can 
make the same claims to objectivity (some are highly speculative), but that 
doesn't mean that an informed scientific decision is purely a partisan one.
>
> What the individual "see" and their  method of scientific inquiry is
> saddled with class ideology, class interest and  cultural inheritance. One 
> always
> have to be told what they are looking at when  peering into a microscope,
> and then taught how to understand what they are  viewing.
>
> The standards that Mr. Churchillâs employer  holds him to contain an
> inherent political bias or there would have been no  charges leveled 
> against him
> or cause for public inquiry. Universities have no  abstract set of
> non-political, non-bias quality control standards and criteria  that seek 
> to unravel
> facts of history outside the realm of ideology and  politics. History as
> historical narrative is assembled and reconstituted based  on facts 
> preserved by
> the ruling classes and its institutions and how the  actions of 
> individuals
> are shaped during a given era or time frame.

That's pure dogma. Certainly there is much wrong with the reality of how 
quality control standards and criteria are enforced, in particular whether 
the express principles are being followed, but that doesn't invalidate the 
criteria.

There are more than a few historians (to say the least, and not just coming 
from a Marxist perspective) who are acutely aware of the ways in which 
surviving data presents a fragmented picture based upon what the ruling 
classes sought to preserve. That's one reason for devising historical 
methods using other sources than those which have earlier been officially 
'approved'.
>
> Facts are partisan and partial truths.

They're better than outright lies.

> Water only runs downstream  under
> specific conditions. General laws of processes are general and always 
> subject
> to further discovery and knowing.

Do you think there's a scientist in the world who would disagree with that?
>
> A discussion over whether or not the American military  deliberately
> infested an Indian community with blankets carrying small pox, - in  any
> historical period, strikes me as so much insanity. The insanity is the 
> demand for
> one to prove intent on the part of the individual as the means to  prove
> result.
>
> Yes, the spreading of disease as part of genocide  was deliberate and
> conscious and the outbreak of smallpox - a previously unknown  disease 
> amongst
> the Indian, is the overriding evidence to be weighted rather  than 
> testimony
> by the very people responsible for the outbreak.

All you are disputing here are particular questions of method (in the sense 
of comparative evaluation of data) and interpretation, both ongoing issues 
for any serious scholars.
>
> Is is not obvious the written evidence was destroyed and or omitted?  This
> in itself is proof of genocidal intent and conscious effort to shape 
> method
> of inquiry for hundreds of years to  come.
>
You're starting from an a priori conclusion, and then making whichever 
assumptions are necessary to support it. I haven't studied this particular 
case in detail, as I say, but do know that the possibility that written 
evidence may have been destroyed or omitted is in no sense 'in itself . . . 
proof of genocidal intent'.

Solidarity,
Ian 


________________________________________________
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