The Lynching of Ward Churchill
March 26, 2005
On February 1st, 2005 Hamilton College cancelled a planned panel discussion including Ward Churchill, a left-wing professor at University of Colorado in Boulder (CU-Boulder), due to a wave of right-wing death threats. That cancellation is one result of the attempt by conservatives to start a witch-hunt against Churchill with the aim of firing (or, for some, executing) him for his criticisms of US foreign policy, especially his 2001 essay “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” CU-Boulder should not fire Churchill because he’s right. There are some minor problems in elements of his writings (especially in “Some People Push Back,” which is poorly written), such as his overly broad conception of complicity and ignoring evidence that 9-11 may have been an inside job, but his main critique of US foreign policy is correct. The uproar over Churchill is premised on the racist assumption that American lives are more valuable than non-American lives because there is no equivalent uproar over professors and others who support the Iraq war and other US atrocities that killed far more than 9-11. The racism and violent threats towards Churchill actually prove him right, since this is exactly how he claims the US really works.
Few of Churchill’s critics even attempt to refute the general thrust of his claims; in most cases because they didn’t bother to read his writings. Instead they distort his views, call him names and recycle the same out-of-context quotes over and over. His central claim, that US imperialism against other countries causes foreign resistance and terrorism against the United States, is basically correct. You cannot go around propping up right-wing dictatorships, invading other countries & bombing them to rubble and not expect retaliation.
Many Churchill-haters distort his position by claiming that Churchill supports 9-11 and/or called for more 9-11s. Several editorials have appeared in mainstream media, including Fox News and the Daily Camera (Boulder’s local corporate newspaper) attacking him as if he held one or both of these positions. That discredits those sources since they were either lying about Churchill or blindly repeating right-wing myths without bothering to check their sources. Churchill never said 9-11 was justified or advocated more 9-11s. He did say if American citizens do not want to be subjected to further terrorist attacks then we must force our government to stop engaging in aggression against other countries but that, unfortunately, it looks like we will not do this until we have suffered many more attacks. In terms of fighting the American empire, 9-11 was counter-productive.
Most who actually attempt to refute some of Churchill’s claims focus on secondary aspects of his essay, such as his “Little Eichmanns” reference, instead of his main thesis. Despite the misrepresentations common in the media, Churchill’s reference applied only to the “technicians” who help run the empire; he excludes janitors, innocent bystanders and the like. He defended his reference to them as “Little Eichmanns” in a recent interview:
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 [Arendt] 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.
Churchill’s claim that some of those killed by 9-11 were not innocent is at least partially correct. The Pentagon is an obvious military target and the CIA admits it had a station in the WTC. Both organizations are guilty of numerous atrocities. The CIA hired many Nazi war criminals after the Second World War, including five of Eichmann’s aids. If CIA personnel aren’t “little Eichmanns” then no one is. The invasion of Iraq killed at least 100,000 people. The American government as committed countless atrocities, from the Trail of Tears to East Timor and beyond (for a more in-depth account of US atrocities see Killing Hope by William Blum or Churchill’s own writings).
In his essay Churchill emphasizes one example of US imperialism, the devastation wrought by the sanctions on Iraq. At the time, the day after 9-11, Iraq was incorrectly near the top of the suspects list for 9-11 but this theory was proven false. Declassified documents prove the US intentionally destroyed Iraq’s water system. Iraq’s water requires materials for purification; drinking unpurified water can lead to diseases and other health problems. Sanctions prevented Iraq from importing these materials, thereby leading to epidemics and mass death. US military intelligence estimated the sanctions would kill hundreds of thousands, or more, and UN figures confirm that the sanctions did in fact kill huge numbers of Iraqis. In 1996 Madeline Albright, who later became Clinton’s Secretary of State, was asked, “we have heard that half a million children have died [from sanctions on Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Her response was, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
The United States has frequently attacked civilian targets when they allegedly contained installations equivalent to the CIA office in the WTC. During the Gulf War the US repeatedly destroyed civilian bomb shelters, alleging the Iraqi government had military or intelligence facilities in or next to them and were using the bomb shelters as “human shields.” During the run up to the second battle of Fallujah last year the US repeatedly bombed Fallujah, claiming it was targeting “terrorist safe houses” but slaughtering many innocent civilians in the process. US officials dismissed innocents killed in the strikes as “collateral damage.” One difference between these two incidents and 9-11 is that no one disputes the CIA had a station in the WTC but the US’s claims of military/intelligence facilities or “terrorist safe houses” at these targets have never been proved.
By the flawed standards the US uses when attacking other countries, the WTC was a legitimate military target because it housed a CIA station. Hitting it was no different than the US hitting bomb shelters and Fallujah in order to strike at command centers or “terrorist safe houses” (assuming they actually existed and the US wasn’t lying). Any innocents killed by 9-11 were “collateral damage” just as the innocents killed by US air strikes in Iraq are “collateral damage.”
The different reactions to atrocities committed by the US and atrocities committed against the US reveal the underlying racist assumption that American lives are more valuable than non-American lives. When we’re “collateral damage” Americans (especially conservative Americans) find it unthinkable that the act could be justified, but when non-Americans are “collateral damage” it’s either justified or at least debatable whether it was justified. It’s just assumed that American lives are more valuable than non-American lives.
The same underlying racism is evident in the furor surrounding Ward Churchill’s comments. There are many professors who support the invasion of Iraq and/or the previous sanctions on it, as well as numerous other atrocities. Yet there is no furor over their positions, even though the invasion of Iraq and other atrocities killed far more than 9-11. There is no investigation into the works of pro-war professors. The board of regents hasn’t apologized for pro-war professors’ “disgraceful comments.” The state legislature hasn’t condemned pro-war professor’s positions as “evil.” The Governor hasn’t called for pro-war professors to be fired. There isn’t media uproar over anyone’s pro-war comments. Nor was there any uproar over Albright’s “the price is worth it” comment. The murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is something reasonable people can debate yet the idea that some of those killed on 9-11 were not innocent is unthinkable. These different reactions reflect the assumption that (mostly White) American lives are more valuable than (mostly brown) non-American lives because the reaction against the killing of Americans is much more negative than the killings of non-Americans even when in similar situations and when Americans are killed in smaller quantities.
That racist assumption is visible in many related attacks on Churchill. For example, the Daily Camera claims Churchill’s arguements are “much more hateful than some speech (namely, Columbus Day parades) that Churchill would happily suppress.” Christopher Columbus himself had well over 3,000 Arawaks (the first native people encountered by Columbus) murdered. He wiped them out and began a hemisphere wide genocide that would kill millions. Celebrating Columbus is celebrating genocide; Columbus Day parades are like having Hitler day parades. Churchill only claimed that a portion of those killed by 9-11 were not innocent, he’s not calling for Bin Laden parades or anything even close to that. Yet the Camera values the lives of the (mostly White) Americans killed on 9-11 so much more than the native inhabitants of this hemisphere that merely claiming some 9-11 dead weren’t innocent is viewed as worse than openly celebrating Columbus, a genocidal monster.
Another racist attack is the complaint that Churchill doesn’t criticize atrocities committed by non-whites enough. One letter to the editor in the Daily Camera complains of Churchill’s alleged “failure to condemn the atrocities of Imperial Japan” and that he doesn’t condemn Saddam Hussein enough. This reaction is a reflection of knee jerk racism. You can only criticize atrocities committed by white people if you also criticize non-white atrocities. If you don’t then someone will complain that you’re “ignoring” or “not condemning” non-white atrocities. In this way the emphasis remains on the atrocities committed by non-whites or non-Americans and away from US or white atrocities. You can talk solely about their atrocities, or both our and their atrocities, all you want but if you talk solely about our atrocities (which are the atrocities we can most easily stop) then you’ll get shit for “not condemning” non-White/non-American atrocities.
Governor Owens’s call for Churchill to be fired and his complaint that Churchill helps spawn a “culture of violence” are rife with hypocrisy and racism. If Churchill’s comments spawn a “culture of violence” then what are we to say of those who support the invasion of Iraq, which killed 100,000 Iraqis? The United States spends hundreds of billions a year on the military and frequently uses violence against other countries. Apparently, Owens only has a problem with a “culture of violence” when that violence is directed against (mostly white) Americans, violence against (mostly brown) non-Americans is okay with him. Churchill-haters made countless death threats against him and are using violent threats to force the cancellation of several of his speaking engagements. If conservatives want to see a culture of violence they should look in the mirror.
The Churchill-haters’ complaints that they don’t want to subsidize his views and don’t want their tax dollars going to him are unfounded. Lots of people don’t want our tax dollars being spent on an immoral and illegal war in Iraq, but conservatives don’t consider that a valid objection to the war. If the government only funded things that didn’t offend anyone then it would end up funding nothing, which contradicts conservatives’ support for a strong state.
Churchill-haters’ have no problem with the same university subsidizing conservative views. In November 2003 CU-Boulder paid right-wing pundit Ann Coulter twenty thousand dollars to speak at the university. According to local media reports, during her talk Coulter claimed the war in Iraq would be justified even if it were about oil and that the extermination of the Native Americans was justified in order to build the United States. She previously wrote, “We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” She also said, “my only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.” If the university can pay this racist advocate of genocide to speak then certainly it can pay Churchill’s salary, no matter what he says. The much greater reaction against Churchill than against Coulter and her support for genocide is further proof of the racist nature of the anti-Churchill hysteria.
No one’s tax dollars are actually going to subsidize Churchill’s views. The university pays Churchill to teach; private publishers, not the state, print his “anti-American” writings. Furthermore, less than ten percent of CU Boulder’s funding comes from the state government so taxpayers don’t even pay him to teach, except for a very small portion of his salary. It’s ironic that the same conservatives who denounce “class warfare” attack Churchill over his $90,000 salary while ignoring the far greater amount made by Coulter, O’Reilly, Limbaugh and other right-wing pundits. Apparently, class warfare rhetoric is acceptable only if you’re attacking leftists.
Since tenure and the first amendment mean Churchill’s political views cannot be used to fire him, Churchill-haters are attempting to use various smears as an excuse to dismiss him. Some have accused him of not being a “real” Native American and launched detailed investigations into his ancestry to prove this. These allegations are groundless because race does not exist in any biological sense. Race is a social construct, a modern version of caste, as proven by the fact that race changes considerably between societies and over time. Latin America has several races (Mulattos and Mestizos) that don’t exist in the United States. The Irish in the US used to be considered a separate race but today are considered White. Modern biologists have come to the same conclusions as historians and sociologists: there is no biological basis for race.
To determine whether Churchill is “really” part of any particular race is impossible because races don’t really exist. If Churchill believes he is a member of a particular race and, more importantly, is treated as if he were a member of that race then is part of that race, because that’s all race is. The belief that biologically distinct races exist is a standard assumption of most white supremacist philosophies, including Social Darwinism and Nazism, so it’s not surprising that Churchill-haters make the same assumption. All this nonsense about Churchill’s “real” race smacks of the “racial science” used to justify old-fashioned racism. Ultimately his race doesn’t matter because a person’s race doesn’t determine whether their claims are true or false. This isn’t about native self-determination; it’s about right-wingers trying to suppress a critic of US foreign policy.
Conservatives also accuse Churchill of “academic fraud.” Anyone who’s written as many works as Churchill is going to have some mistakes in their writing, that doesn’t make it “academic fraud.” Even if all the allegations against him were true (which they aren’t) it wouldn’t refute his critique of US foreign policy and it’s therefore irrelevant. All this talk about “academic fraud” and Churchill’s ethnicity is a red herring. They can’t fire him for his political beliefs but, theoretically, they could fire him for academic fraud or for lying about his ethnicity. However, the real reason for the drive to fire Churchill is his political beliefs; these are just excuses conjured up to justify firing him and are therefore illegitimate.
Churchill’s 9-11 article was written three and a half years ago; complaining about it now is like complaining that the movie “Three Kings” criticized the Gulf War. The article is yesterday’s news. The only reason it is being bought up now, and not when it was originally written, is because right-wingers are making a big deal about it – illustrating the power they have over the media and university. When the right ignored Churchill’s essay the media ignored it but when the right started making a big deal out of it the media started paying attention to it (and repeating right-wing distortions about it).
There are three main reasons causing right-wingers to bring it up. One was their recent defeat in the conflict of Columbus Day in Denver, which Churchill played a role in. Many Colorado conservatives had already developed a dislike of Churchill, serving as a motive to target him.
The second factor comes from Hamilton College in New York, where Churchill was scheduled to speak. Conservatives there were already campaigning against the local left and scored a previous victory by preventing leftist Susan Rosenburg from becoming an artist-in-residence. That victory encouraged them to attack more leftists, including Ward Churchill who was originally scheduled to speak at the college.
A third factor is weaknesses in Churchill’s own writings, especially “Some People Push Back.” Compared to many other writers making similar points (such as Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn) Churchill is less persuasive and phrases his argument in such a way that it is easier to portray him negatively. This makes it more likely for conservatives to target him since they are more likely to get upset about him and because he’s an easier target. These three factors converged in late January to cause conservatives to launch a campaign against Churchill, which quickly spilled over into the mainstream due to their influence over society and the media.
Unfortunately, rather than circle the wagons and battle against this conservative attack most liberal commentators have taken it as an opportunity to bash Ward Churchill. This plays into the hands of conservatives as it helps their anti-Churchill propaganda and deprives him of potential allies. This is not to say that Churchill’s works are completely free of error or that he should never be criticized, but taking a right-wing witch-hunt as a cue to attack him helps that witch hunt. His writings have been around for years, if liberals have a problem with it then they should have critiqued them before the current furor. If you treat right wing attacks on a radical leftist as a signal to begin attacking that radical leftist then you are dancing to the right’s tune and will play into their hands. If the university fires Churchill it will embolden the right and encourage them to do the same to other leftists, perhaps resulting in a new McCarthyism. Should that happen the witch-hunt will eventually broaden to include some liberals, and they will have helped bring about their own persecution.
The anti-Churchill hysteria illustrates how thought in American society, especially within the media, is restricted to a narrow spectrum, roughly corresponding to liberalism on one end and conservatism on the other. The media (and other institutions) marginalize views outside that spectrum and generally regard them as unthinkable. The media either ignores those views or, if noticed, demonizes them.
Churchill’s views happen to be outside that spectrum and so are unthinkable to the media and most members of society. His claims were first ignored and now are relentlessly attacked & dogmatically rejected because they go outside the acceptable spectrum of opinion. You can count on one hand the number of editorials or other opinion pieces appearing within mainstream media that argue Churchill is right.
The anti-Churchill witch-hunt refutes the nonsense that the United States is a free society where you can say what you want without fear of persecution. In reality, thought is limited with a certain spectrum of “acceptable” views. Views outside the liberal-conservative spectrum are rarely allowed within mainstream media and if you say things outside that spectrum you take the chance that the same thing will happen to you that is happening to Churchill, especially if you publish those views and become somewhat well known within dissident circles. Jailing dissidents usually isn’t necessary because this system is sufficient to maintain control.
The uproar over Churchill’s writings is based on the racist assumption that American lives are more valuable than non-American lives because there is no similar uproar against people who support US atrocities such as aggression against Iraq. Conservative rants about “academic fraud” and Churchill’s “real” race are illegitimate because they are just a front to fire him for his political writings. Churchill’s real crime is daring to question the myth of American innocence & benevolence. The witch-hunt must be stopped.