The Justice of Roosting Chickens: Ward Churchill Speaks

[CHIMO]

AMY GOODMAN: Good to have you with us. Well, can you respond to this firestorm now? But I'd like you to start off by you explaining your comments that have become well known now around the issue of the technocrats at the World Trade Center being like little Eichmanns.

WARD CHURCHILL: Well it goes to Hannah Arendt's notion of Eichmann, the thesis that he embodied the banality of evil. That she had gone to the Eichmann trial to confront the epitome of evil in her mind and expected to encounter something monstrous, and what she encountered instead was this nondescript little man, a bureaucrat, a technocrat, a guy who arranged train schedules, who, as it turned out, ultimately didn't even agree with the policy that he was implementing, but performed the technical functions that made the holocaust possible, at least in the efficient manner that it occurred, in a totally amoral and soulless way, purely on the basis of excelling at the function and getting ahead within the system that he found himself. He was a good family man, in his way. He was loved by his children, participated in civic activities, was in essence the good German. And she said, therein lies the evil. It wasn't that Eichmann was a Nazi or a high official within Nazidom, although he was in fact a Nazi and a relatively highly placed official, but it was exactly the reverse: that given his actual nomenclature, the actuality of Eichmann was that anyone in this sort of mindless, faceless, bureaucratic capacity could be the Nazi. That he was every man, and that was what was truly horrifying to her in the end. That was a controversial thesis because there's always this effort to distinguish anyone and everyone irrespective of what they're doing from this polarity of evil that is signified in Nazidom, and she had breached the wall and brought the lessons of how Nazism actually functioned, the modernity of it, home and visited it upon everyone, calling for, then, personal accountability, responsibility, to the taking of responsibility for the outcome of the performance of one's functions. That's exactly what it is that is shirked here, and makes it possible for people to, from a safe remove, perform technical functions that result in (and at some level, they know this, they understand it) in carnage, emiseration, the death of millions ultimately. That's the Eichmann aspect. But notice I said little Eichmanns, not the big Eichmann. Not the real Eichmann. The real Eichmann ultimately is symbolic, even in his own context. He symbolized the people that worked under him. He symbolized the people who actually were on the trains. They were hauling the Jews. He symbolized the technicians who were making the gas for I.G. Farben. He symbolized all of these people who didn't directly kill anybody, but performed functions and performed those functions with a certain degree of enthusiasm and certainly with a great degree of efficiency, that had the outcome of the mass murder of the people targeted for elimination or accepted as collateral damage. That's the term of the art put forth by the Pentagon.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/157211

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Unfortunately, most knuckledraggers haven't read Arendt

[LinuxInsurgent]

14. doesn't make his argument wrong...

it makes the regular knuckledragger a dummie...who kneejerks into thinking Ward was calling WTC victims a Nazi :)

[DBoon]

2. Ward is damn good!

He's a sharp guy.

[whistle]

9. Will his intellectual brilliance help or hinder getting his message..

...across to all Americans? The first rule of effective communications is that you must have the attention of your listener and then you must encode your message in a way that the listener will decode it in the way you mean them to decode and ultimately understand what you are attempting to communicate. Using inflammatory words and phrases that carry totally different meanings to the listeners is almost always a sure way to create static and even dist oration in communication. Churchill has violated this fundamental principle in my humble opinion.

[LinuxInsurgent]

18. so basically...

deconstruct his very complex rationale...and speaking in moron American English?

Now his intellectual brilliance is to blame?

I get what you're saying...and I agree...talk to your audience in terms they understand...

but he wasn't talking to the regular American public...he was talking in essay, academic terms...to be consumed by other learned individuals of the "learned elite".

His way of expressing himself is not an excuse for the awful and unjustified treatment he has received...it's not a bad mark on him that he writes eloquently and is intellectually brilliant...it's a bad mark on the ever-dumb American public that they can't decode his speech...I understood it (but, then again, I got a Master's in Political Science).

Or...in other words..rhetorically speaking (not aimed at you personally)

"If you're the dumb American...and you can't speak, read, or decode his writing...then kindly shut your mouth and don't add to the lynchmob chorus against Ward". If you're too dumb to understand...you're too dumb to participate in the debate in a meaningful way.

[whistle]

20. Well, not exactly, whatever Ward said to the audience he was...

...speaking to he used an emotionally baited reference (Eichmann, the Nazi butcher). Adolph Eichmann was the German SS Lieutenant-Colonel who was Chief of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo during World War II and his responsibility was the implementation of the 'Final Solution' which was aimed at the total extermination of European Jewry. Whatever claims Ward Churchill made or Adolph Eichmann himself made or other apologists for the role which Eichmann was assigned, the fact remains that Eichmann was found to be the person who ultimately created the conditions for the extermination of 6 million Jews during the holocaust! The name of Eichmann therefore is synonymous with mass murder and evil.

<snip>

It was in 1941 that Eichmann first visited Auschwitz and in November of the same year he was promoted to SS Lieutenant-Colonel. He had already begun to organize the mass deportation of Jews from Germany and Bohemia, in accordance with Hitler's order to make the Reich free of Jews as rapidly as possible.

The Wannsee Conference of 20 January 1942 consolidated Eichmann's position as the 'Jewish specialist' of the RSHA and Heydrich now formally entrusted him with implementing the 'Final Solution'. In this task Eichmann proved to be a model of bureaucratic industriousness and icy determination even though he had never been a fanatical anti-semite and always claimed that 'personally' he had nothing against Jews. His zeal expressed itself in his constant complaints about obstacles in the fulfilment of death-camp quotas, his impatience with the existence of loopholes such as the free zone in Vichy France or the unco- operativeness of the Italians and other German allies in expediting their Jews.

When even Himmler became more 'moderate' towards the end of the war, Eichmann ignored his 'no gassing' order, as long as he was covered by immediate superiors like Heinrich Muller and his old friend, Kaltenbrunner. Only in Budapest after March 1944 did the desk-murderer become a public personality, working in the open and playing a leading role in the massacre of Hungarian Jewry. In August 1944 the 'Grand Inquisitor' of European Jewry could report to Himmler that approximately four million Jews had died in the death camps and that another two million had been killed by mobile extermination units. Though arrested at the end of the war, Eichmann's name was not yet widely known and he was able to escape from an American internment camp in 1946 and flee to Argentina. He was eventually tracked down by Israeli secret agents on 2 May 1960, living under an assumed name in a suburb of Buenos Aires. Nine days later he was secretly abducted to Israel, to be publicly tried in Jerusalem. The trial, which aroused enormous international interest and some controversy, took place between 2 April and 14 August 1961. On 2 December 1961 Eichmann was sentenced to death for crimes against the Jewish people and crimes against humanity. On 31 May 1962 he was executed in Ramleh prison.
<more>
<link> http://www.thirdreich.net/Eichmann_Bio.html

Thus, Ward Churchill's choice of reference when he used that name in his "Little Eichmanns" was bound to be inflammatory regardless of who may have made up his particular audience. The reaction was as predictable and dangerous as someone yelling "fire" in a crowed auditorium.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignoramus]

23. that matches

What you site seems to essentially match the portrait Ward Churchill gave of Eichmann. Eichmann appears to have been a businessman or a technocrat. What you site portrays him as not particularly having an anti-jewish agenda, he had a business agenda. Did those snickering Enron brats have an anti-grandmother agenda? No, they just had a hip cremation of care style disregard for consequences that is what being business like is all about.

The analogy (note that analogy isn't equation) between Eichmann and all of us in corporate culture is sound as far as we are willing to divorce ourselves from the consequences of our actions in the process of doing our jobs.

Another aspect of the analogy is that "good" people can do "bad" things. The fact that you are a good person, doesn't make you different from the "bad" people that do bad things. Actions can be bad. People are good in and of themselves, regardless of their actions.

[LinuxInsurgent]

24. for me..

the best part was his treatment of the Hannan Arendt "banality of evil" topic...in essence, he's saying that those that made Nazism possible weren't just the most evil, brutal members of that regime...but the regular "good Germans" which, through their acquiescence, made it possible for the Nazi regime to exist.

The same applies to the "good Americans" in corporate America (or so we wish to regard ourselves...in a self-serving manner).

I think that's where Ward does his best in attacking the ever-prevalent "we can do no wrong" mentality in America.

Oh yes we can...and, like Ward says, "some people push back".

That's what happened on 9/11...someone pushed back.

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

3. In context..

very poignant.

[realFedUp]

4. hard to get all that in a soundbite...

but Republicans try...

I support Ward Churchill's
keeping his job and his right to keep speaking
out about the unthinkable things
America has done to it's people
and to other people's of the world.

[rodeodance]

5. Rupugs demonize him-as well as many Dems/Libs.

[David Dunham]

6. This guy says he's a Native American, but is not.

He comes across to most Americans as a total whack-job.

[rodeodance]

7. I have heard that said about Dean!!

[David Dunham]

10. Dean never lied by claiming, falsely, he was a Native American

[LinuxInsurgent]

17. proof against his claim?

Why does Ward have to prove his Native ancestry...do you prove your ancestry?

The burden of DISPROVING his claims is on everyone else...not on Ward.

Until evidence conclusively, genetically, biologically disproves his claim that he has Indian blood...I will believe Ward.

Why would anyone WANT to fake his lineage to be a Native American, the most oppressed minority in the United States? Why would anyone want to have the mantle of radical Native-American activists...why would anyone fake that...

This man is doing what his heart and ancestry beckon him to do...that's laudable...

[LinuxInsurgent]

15. me too.

:)

[earthside]

8. AIM Condemns Churchill

Before taking up for Ward Churchill, consider this press release from the American Indian Movement:

The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.

Churchill’s statement that these people deserved what happened to them, and calling them little Eichmanns, comparing them to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who implemented Adolf Hitler’s plan to exterminate European Jews and others, should be condemned by all.

The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns.

Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement.

New York’s Hamilton College Kirklands Project should be aware that in their search for truth and justice, the idea that they have hired a fraud to speak on Indian activism is in itself a betrayal of their goals.

Dennis J. Banks, Ojibwa Nation
Chairman of the Board
American Indian Movement

Nee Gon Nway Wee Dung, aka, Clyde H. Bellecourt, Ojibwa Nation
National Executive Director
American Indian Movement

[Ignoramus]

12. interesting, yes

while that is interesting. and there are other things that seem flakey about ward churchill, character assassination doesn't amount to arguing a point. And again, it strenghtens the right wing, weakens the resistance and allows the message that is trying to be diverted to be diverted.

[LinuxInsurgent]

16. i think ward had mentioned something about that...

that the Indian nation was the only one group of people that had to PROVE their blood lineage...I find it offensive that he even has to publicly fight to claim his lineage...would a black, white, latino, or Asian be put through this?

Also...remember...the Nation of Islam censured Malcolm X when he, coincidentally enough, uttered "chickens coming home to roost". One may think the AIM is removing itself from contact with Ward Churchill...but perhaps it's a temporary to get the public heat off them...and if I'm correct, AIM militants were providing bodyguard duty at Ward's CU's speech, right after the controversy. I'd take their statement with a grain of salt.

[dbeach]

26. AIM is specific..MR. Churchill is not Native American..

I sited this last wk here and was slammed and /or ignored..
There are many wanna be's out there and that does not mean..that they have nothing to say..it does mean to take their wards carefully..
I would put more confidence in AIM than Mr. Churchill

[Ignoramus]

11. good doggie dems

It was depressing reading the comments from a week ago on du about ward churchill (but then I tend to get depressed when I read people's comments on du). I think they tended to miss the point of what could have been read from that 2001 article by Ward Churchill.

There is this typical kind of exchange that I see that occurs between right wingers and non-right wingers, where the right-wingers fail to get the point, e.g. on treatment of prisoners. The advocate for prisoner's rights is essentially saying: "yes we feel for the victims, but what about the criminals? They are people too.". To which the typical right wing response is "but what about the victims?".

I think this same type of disconnect was apparent in the posts I read about Ward Churchill. The topic of the article was essentially, "yes it's horrible that people died in 9/11, but what about the role of all of is an american corporate culture?". To which of course, the response, failing to get the point is "but what about the victims?".

There is a difference between the way that the right responds to scandal and the way the prison-bitch democrats respond to scandal. If there is a scandal about a republican, the republicans typically do not concede.

On the other hand, the democrats, always eager to please the republicans, reinforce any attack that comes from the right, thus empowering the right, weakening the resistance to the right and allowing any message that might have been gleaned from events like this ward churchill thing to be obscured and lost.

[LinuxInsurgent]

13. listened to the ENTIRE interview...

agreed with him 100%...he's very rational and clear.

Noam Chomsky says pretty much the same thing...

It always comes down to "Do Onto Others as You Would wAnt them to do unto you".

[CHIMO]

19. Agree

With your findings.

However, if people are put off with the sound bites from Ward, then they don't even want to hear what Noam Chomsky was relaying in the presentation on DN earlier.

Noam Chomsky: U.S. Might Face "Ultimate Nightmare" in Middle East Where Shiites Control Most of World's Oil

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/09/1458256&mode=thread&tid=25

[LinuxInsurgent]

22. I spoke with Chomsky...

I've met Chomsky...and spoke to him about this...and his stance hasn't changed at all...if you read Hegemony and Survival, or watch any post-911 video tape of him...he gives the same argument again and again..

Which is that the U.S. should apply the standards it imposes on everyone else to themselves...if not...others will impose the standards that the U.S. imposes on them, on the U.S.

Which is a complex way of saying "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you".

[Selatius]

25. Ward Churchill spoke the truth

He just happened to cast judgment where he had no authority to cast judgment in addition to speaking the truth. Who gives anyone the right to justify the death of another? No one.

The US government is not the bright shining light people make it out to be. It is no better than any other hegemonic power throughout history. Corporatism is infecting this country like a plague. Who allowed it to get this far? Who allowed the rot to grow so deep? Are we collectively responsible for failing to prevent corporatism from overtaking the government? Are we at fault?

I don't believe anyone deserves death. I don't condone the death penalty precisely because I am not so proud to judge another man being worthy of death. That might be God's job, but that's not my job. I would be guilty of arrogance if I did judge.

If we are at fault and someone points that out, is that the same as someone calling the victims in those two towers "little Eichmanns"? No. A person can identify the problems in our world, but that's different from casting judgment on another because of those problems.

That is what separates people on the left like him from people on the left like me.