I was looking for a thread regarding Ward Churchill's essay, but I could not find one, so I just want to start this.
[Globalization] "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
written by Ward Churchill 9-11-2001
You can read it on the following link:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739
My question is:
1. Do you agree with his views? Please explain your answer.
Ward Churchill's Essay
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Ward Churchill's Essay
Post #2I think Churchill's essay makes the same mistake our current Administration did, equating the 9/11 attacks with Iraq. It has still never been proven or even mildly supported that Iraq had anything to do with them. Yet we are supposed to believe that the sanctions imposed on Iraq had anything to do with the Al-Qaeda members and Saudi nationals who perpetrated those attacks. Does anyone really think that Al-Qaeda gave a damn about Iraqi children? I seriously doubt that the Islamic world in general and the Arab world in particular is really that cohesive. Churchill seems to be making the case that this is karmic punishment more than anything else, which is absurd. "The little Eichmann's" remark got a lot of press because it is pure hogwash that plays on nuveau riche American guilt masquerading as social commentary. If you want to rant on global Capitalism, please distribute blame globally.
I applaud him for having the guts to express these things, some of which is insightful and some of which is pure left-wing propaganda. It appears to be more the reaction of someone who has been disillusioned with American foreign politics and now finds the excuse to state the obvious; instead of the thoughtful commentary of someone who has taken a hard look on the actual event to interpret it within the context of history. If fact, he takes the apologetic route, making it clear that he might be "wrong" because of the haste with which he published it. That is as much of a scandal as those things he writes about.
The real question is, Can America be well-meaning and still support evil acts? A utilitarian might say that the only party responsible for evil is the evil party. A right-winger might say that if you feed a stray dog he still might bite you.
It's pretty clear that Saddam Hussein was feigning having weapons so that his enemies in the region would not attack him. That the CIA did not have the capability or the guts to realize that (or pass it along) is appalling. I'm with Churchill when he says that both the CIA and the FBA are little more than surgical small-ops forces who have no concept of historical forces on a national scale. This is largely because the Administrations in charge are set up to monitor these forces themselves. Unfortunately, the Administration's reliance on such intelligence information reveals the circular-reasoning that this reliance implies. What is it exactly that official Ambassadors do nowadays?
I think Churchill is expressing frustration at the direction of American society, towards decadence and away from Kennedy's vision of personal responsibility. Ironically, it is Republicans who are removing us from our personal responsibility, making it easier to slip into the roles of gluttonous buffoons and unknowing capitalist pigs by deregulating the media and allowing the sloughing off of corporate responsibility from the marketplace. By invoking 9/11 to state this view, Churchill has taken it upon himself to place it in context with this historical progression rather than the actual historical progression that produced Al-Qaeda. For example, where does he mention Afghanistan and the Mujahadeen? Answer: nowhere. Where does he mention the Soviet occupation of much of Central Asia? Answer: nowhere. Where is the arbitrary post-WWI breakup of the Ottoman Empire and Central Asia by the British and the French? Osama is not in the essay; neither is the Saudi royal family and Wahabbism; neither is the paranoia surrounding Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan regarding the Palestinian problem.
If he wants to rant on the fallout of global Capitalism, more power to him, but he's fallen into the same trap as those on the opposite side of the question, that of personal predisposition.
I applaud him for having the guts to express these things, some of which is insightful and some of which is pure left-wing propaganda. It appears to be more the reaction of someone who has been disillusioned with American foreign politics and now finds the excuse to state the obvious; instead of the thoughtful commentary of someone who has taken a hard look on the actual event to interpret it within the context of history. If fact, he takes the apologetic route, making it clear that he might be "wrong" because of the haste with which he published it. That is as much of a scandal as those things he writes about.
The real question is, Can America be well-meaning and still support evil acts? A utilitarian might say that the only party responsible for evil is the evil party. A right-winger might say that if you feed a stray dog he still might bite you.
It's pretty clear that Saddam Hussein was feigning having weapons so that his enemies in the region would not attack him. That the CIA did not have the capability or the guts to realize that (or pass it along) is appalling. I'm with Churchill when he says that both the CIA and the FBA are little more than surgical small-ops forces who have no concept of historical forces on a national scale. This is largely because the Administrations in charge are set up to monitor these forces themselves. Unfortunately, the Administration's reliance on such intelligence information reveals the circular-reasoning that this reliance implies. What is it exactly that official Ambassadors do nowadays?
I think Churchill is expressing frustration at the direction of American society, towards decadence and away from Kennedy's vision of personal responsibility. Ironically, it is Republicans who are removing us from our personal responsibility, making it easier to slip into the roles of gluttonous buffoons and unknowing capitalist pigs by deregulating the media and allowing the sloughing off of corporate responsibility from the marketplace. By invoking 9/11 to state this view, Churchill has taken it upon himself to place it in context with this historical progression rather than the actual historical progression that produced Al-Qaeda. For example, where does he mention Afghanistan and the Mujahadeen? Answer: nowhere. Where does he mention the Soviet occupation of much of Central Asia? Answer: nowhere. Where is the arbitrary post-WWI breakup of the Ottoman Empire and Central Asia by the British and the French? Osama is not in the essay; neither is the Saudi royal family and Wahabbism; neither is the paranoia surrounding Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan regarding the Palestinian problem.
If he wants to rant on the fallout of global Capitalism, more power to him, but he's fallen into the same trap as those on the opposite side of the question, that of personal predisposition.
-
DanMRaymond
- Student
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:01 am
- Location: Boston / New York
Re: Ward Churchill's Essay
Post #3I don't think that they necesarry gave a damn about Iraqi children specifically, but the main point that Churchill is trying to get across is that we were not attacked because they hate our freedom. They DONT hate our freedom. They hate our government, and they hate the fact that most of our population is too ignorant to understand the hypocrisy of it. The 9/11 attacks were meant to teach us a lesson. The fact that the whole country is ignorant enough to believe that we were attacked because they hate our "Freedom" is such nonsense.ST88 wrote:I think Churchill's essay makes the same mistake our current Administration did, equating the 9/11 attacks with Iraq. It has still never been proven or even mildly supported that Iraq had anything to do with them. Yet we are supposed to believe that the sanctions imposed on Iraq had anything to do with the Al-Qaeda members and Saudi nationals who perpetrated those attacks. Does anyone really think that Al-Qaeda gave a damn about Iraqi children?
Re: Ward Churchill's Essay
Post #4Yes, you're absolutely right. The "hate our freedom" nonsense is ridiculous and shameless in its transparency. But the reason we were attacked was not to teach us, as Americans, a lesson. Well, not exclusively. We were attacked because the terrorists wanted to teach the American government a lesson. The death of so many people who were not the government was rationalized as how they were a part of the problem. But the actual act of destruction was aimed at the American government (or, more accurately maybe, the American zeitgeist) and its promotion of global commerce as it pertains to the Middle East. Truthfully, Americans, as a species, don't matter a whit in terms of foreign policy. The only thing that matters is the government and how it carries out its agenda.DanMRaymond wrote:I don't think that they necesarry gave a damn about Iraqi children specifically, but the main point that Churchill is trying to get across is that we were not attacked because they hate our freedom. They DONT hate our freedom. They hate our government, and they hate the fact that most of our population is too ignorant to understand the hypocrisy of it. The 9/11 attacks were meant to teach us a lesson. The fact that the whole country is ignorant enough to believe that we were attacked because they hate our "Freedom" is such nonsense.
