Monday, February 07, 2005

The Distortions of Acumen Continued: More Liberal Trashing of Ward Churchill

By Josh Frank

Read full article...

Posted 02/07 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Churchill’s stance may be"unsavory"to many,but I posit it’s less about that and more about American Exceptionalism,the challenge to really want to know the truth,AND to challenge government foreign policy.I have never thought the WTC was attacked just because it was so nice and tall and accessable.It’s called a"Trade Center” for a reason.When the effects of large corporations are felt by people far away,when a superpower seems hellbent on destroying other lands and peoples to further the accumulation of power,it’s very smug to think that at some point people are not going to"push back”.And that’s NOT condoning loss of life by any means,it’s common sense.Individuals fight back all the time when they are bullied and threatened,it’s not unreasonable to think a group of people would do the same.

    The sad thing to me here is that no one talking loudly on the subject of Churchill is delving into the book where this essay appears.It lists literally hundreds of military actions the US has taken along with direct violations of human rights and acts of genocide around the world.Things the US public should be working towards stopping.We are not outraged(only a very few are and have the guts to say so),and that basically tells the world we just don’t care as long as we,the US people are comfortable,no matter what that costs anyone else.The PNAC crowd openly states what their objectives are,and they are running the country,if another country had such far reaching objectives we’d be bombing the crap out of them too.

    And frankly,if I had lost a loved one on 9/11,I’d be pissed that once again that death is being used as an excuse for an agenda.How many Presidents,Cabinet Members,Politicians and CEOs have to be caught lying REPEATEDLY before “we the people"DO something?Instead,we flip on the TV,numb ourselves in one form or fashion and feel helpless so nothing ever changes.

    Posted by Quietly Contemplating from GA,USA  on  02/07  at  10:30 AM

  2. You’re relentless, Josh. Peeling away the facade and giving everyone a peek.

    As for Ward’s book, QC, here’s something I wrote that incorporated it more than a year ago:
    http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/mickeyz12112004/

    You know, whenever I hear the name Marc Cooper (or Michael Moore, Alternet, MoveOn, Common Dreams, Christopher Hitchens, The Nation, and most rock stars, for that matter), I think “liberal right” (as opposed to the “radical right,” which includes everyone from Hillary to Dubya to Ashcroft to Albright).

    You can always count on the liberal right and radical right to hold hands and sing hymns if anyone on the Left goes “too far.” Case in point: those liberal right wingers defending Starbuck’s from “anarchists” during the Seattle protests in 1999. In the nasty every-man-for-himself game, capitalists, fascists, and communists will often do the strange bedfellows thing in the name of keeping anarchists at bay. Just ask Spain.

    Btw, if you’ve carefully read Ward Churchill’s work and/or heard him speak, the events of the past week essentially prove his primary points about the state of dissent in the U.S. Where’s Alanis Morissette when you need her?

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  02/07  at  11:46 AM

  3. I have a piece on the Swarthmore professor who Cooper cited as part of his 2-part attack on Ward Churchill:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/indian/swarthmore.htm

    Posted by Louis Proyect from NYC  on  02/07  at  12:16 PM

  4. Some good news...Cooper, since his tenure as union buster at Pacifica has no credibility.  I think that GNN is far more dangerous than a has-been writer like Cooper or his pal David Corn, having a breakdown because Mark Crispin Miller sent out a Press Action piece about him - see davidcorn.com - funny funny stuff.

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  02/07  at  12:18 PM

  5. The website that David Corn references in his blog about him being a “mole” but does not want to mention or link to is Mike Ruppert’s “From the Wildnerness,” I believe.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  02/07  at  12:50 PM

  6. It is apiece by Andreas Kargar (sp?) that was on Press Action.  Sorry for the mixup.

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  02/07  at  01:10 PM

  7. The guy is being left out in the cold.  Holy smoke signals.  The Cherokee disown him with a loud shrill.  The Colorado Buffalos stampede him.  Next thing you know, the Jolly Roger pirates will push him to the end of the plank.  Noah would have him thrown off of the Ark.  Satan will refuse him in hell.

    No safe quarter for the (insert your favorite racial identity that you might think he is), is there?  Richard Nixon thought he got kicked around. 

    A man without a country.  Vietnam veterans don’t get any respect, even after 30 years.  Kick him while he’s down; whip him for good measure.  Off to gitmo for Ward.

    Posted by MDPB from  on  02/07  at  01:49 PM

  8. (an e-mail I sent DH)
    I’m disapointed to see that Doug Henwood sees Ward Churchil as a nihilist, but is, unlike some, defending him.  A nihilist is Flea in Big Lebowski “Ve believe in nussing” or at best, perhaps Turganev.  I am very influenced by DH’s work on capitalism, far more than I am by WC, but DH is like too many (but not all) Marxists and post Marxists, critical of discourse outside of the Marxist tradition.  I’ll be the first to admit not having read that much WC - I’ve read “Pacifism as Pathology” and “Cointelpro Papers” - I’d probably scoff at his critique of Marxism, and find his views on violence misguided.  Still, I would think that of all people, a Zizekian Marxist like Doug Henwood would understand at the very least, what WC was attempting to do.

    Zizek once told a tale in response to Sontag’s statements that the “US left was soft on communism in the 50s, and McCarthyites were right” - about information, that is.  On the surface, this is factual - as Zizek points out, many leftists had idealized visions of the SU based on the wrong info, and the Right, in understanding the threat of any kind of socialism in general to capitalism - whether Soviet influenced or not - had the right information.  But it is one thing to have the right and wrong information - on their attitude towards the Cold War, the American left was right, and the McCarthyites were wrong.  The kernel of truth tha tthe right had, caused them to react like any counterrevolutionarires.  The kernel of lies that the left had, kept them honest.  It may seem paradoxical, but it should be considered.  Who was right, the misguided fan of Stalin who was a great labor organizer?  Or the misguided fan of McCarthy who smashed labor?  So in the case of WC, even if people are subjectively misguided, in DH’s view, they are objectively correct, when matched against the forces that DH is right to criticize (O’Reilly et. al)

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  02/07  at  02:13 PM

  9. Another thing about this whole"issue"is this:

    Churchill is a college professor,a teacher.I would hope,by the age of maybe 18 to 20,most young adults have the ability to think for themselves.Or at the very least be developing some critical thinking skills(if earlier schooling didn’t beat it out of them,but that’s another topic).So,it seems to me,if I were a student UC Boulder,I’d be kinda bummed the adults of this world considered me such a moron that I can’t figure things out for myself.Granted,alot of being able to sort things out comes with some age and life experiences,but still,I’d much rather be paying for my kid’s education knowing they’d be exposed to different views,ideas,and so on,face some challenges to mull over and develop a real curiousity about the world around them(something that’s not embraced that much anymore).Isn’t that in part what college is for?I really wouldn’t want to pay the tuition for my kid to go to school just to become another mindless drone working in an office.

    It’s not a bad thing to have the status quo challenged regularly,to ask yourself"Do I believe everything I’m told(or read),and if so,why?"I can’t for the life of me understand why that’s so threatening.I thought that was one of the things that makes America so special.I also wouldn’t be telling my college age kid that because I’m paying for their school,I own what they learn.I’m sending them to school because I love them and want them to have broader horizons than I did at that age.

    If they come for Ward,who’s next?He may be “out there"according to some,but if this door opens and stays open,ANY disagreement with those in power is in danger of being suffocated.

    Posted by Quietly Contemplating from GA,USA  on  02/07  at  02:27 PM

  10. One of my favorite theology profs in university was a Catholic Opus Dei fundamentalist who even hinted to me, as an Agnostic and a Jew, that I was going to hell.  We got along great because we challenged each other.  Outside of outright historical revisionism (holocaust denial, Dershowitzian plagiarism) no one should be faulted for their views at a university.

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  02/07  at  02:38 PM

  11. Henwood a Marxist?

    Buh-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!

    Posted by Louis Proyect from NYC  on  02/07  at  02:56 PM

  12. We’re a nation of reactionary thinkers.  Critical thing is in a rare commodity between our borders.  Ergo, this is how reactionary thinkers instinctively treat a critical thinker, when they feel threatened by him.

    So how do we become a country of critical thinkers then?  Every study I read says that it has to begin with the next generation of citizens, and before they reach puberty.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  02/07  at  03:16 PM

  13. Louis - in brief, why is Henwood “not” a Marxist....

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  02/07  at  03:33 PM

  14. Henwood pathetically supported Kerry in the 2004 election and was as usually shilled for Kerry against Nader.  In fact Henwood was completely dumbfounded and demoralized when Bush won over Kerry as accepted the false premise that the U.S. populous has succumb to the reactionary rhetoric of the Christian Right.

    Henwood economic analysis may still be of significant interest but his politics has clearly trended rightward (liberal) for some time.

    WB

    Posted by Wilson Barber from  on  02/07  at  07:17 PM

  15. I didn’t ask about who he supported for president.  I asked about Louis’ very bold statement that Henwood is not a Marxist]

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  02/07  at  08:12 PM

  16. NR: I heartily agree with you about critical thinking. Good to see you on here.

    Posted by JayVos from Burlington, VT  on  02/08  at  05:58 AM

  17. Jordy, if you want to view Doug Henwood as some kind of Marxist, be my guest. For the past year or so, he has waged a vigorous campaign on behalf of John Kerry. In my opinion, support for a war-mongering, DLC type like John Kerry is incompatible with everything that Karl Marx stood for. I used to be pretty friendly with Henwood and often exchanged email with him 5 times a day. I think it would be more accurate to describe him as a Nation Magazine liberal nowadays, who finds some value in Marx’s economic writings. But Henwood never really understood Marx’s political writings, even during the years when he was hostile to the Democratic Party. It is not that unusual, by the way, for an economist to respect and utilize Marx’s Capital while remaining hostile to socialism. Robert Heilbroner, who died last month, is another example. Henwood is simply an updated version of Heilbroner.

    Posted by Louis Proyect from  on  02/08  at  08:48 AM

  18. Fair enough - I don’t disagree with your assessment- but what makes one a “Marxist” as opposed to a “Marxist-Leninist,” in my view is simply using his writings, not necc. getting them ‘right’ - and surely Heilbroner was not the only fan of Marx to be skeptical of socialism - remember that New Yorker thing about stock brokers and Marx?

    Also - Karl Marx stood for some things, I’m sure - but I’m talking about his (making manifest of an older) method...so of course I agree about Democrats- but how does Henwood disregard his method politically.  He is not the only Marxist (whom I disagree with, of course - though I’m Canadian and don’t really pay that much attention to electoral shit in the States) - to give what some used to call “Critical Support” to the Democrats.  How are they all wrong - not wrong in terms of tactics, but where in Marx(ism) is this said to be wrong?  I am not being facetious - I have respect for your knowledge and I’m curious.

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  02/08  at  11:17 AM

  19. Jordy, I am aware that some self-described Marxists advocate voting for the lesser-evil. Some self-described Marxists, including Henwood, were also for invading Afghanistan after 9/11. You cannot blame poor Karl Marx for what people say or do in his name. In any case, Marx and Engels were crystal-clear about workers not voting for bourgeois candidates:

    “Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be duped. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.”

    Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, London 1850
    Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

    Posted by Louis Proyect from  on  02/08  at  01:30 PM

  20. Fair enough - thats a great quote.  Yet, it seems - respectfully - that you are treating Marx the way religous literalists treat the bible.  Was it not Lukacs who said that even if he rejected everything Marx said, he’d still be an orthodox marxist because of his understanding of the method?  When one puts suffixes after a philosopher’s name, usually it means informed by those thinkers, not taking everything they say as handed down from God.  Marx was also for Lincoln, who was anything if not bourgeois (even if of course the Civil war was just.)

    Posted by j cummings from Canada  on  02/08  at  03:51 PM

  21. Louis & Jordy, I’m no student of Marx or Lenin or Stalin or whatever, but that Marx quote given by Louis, well, omg it’s exactly what some people were saying about those of us in the Green Party (I’m in Vermont) who voted for Nader.

    Jordy, I like your pieces on PressAction. I got to reading this site from having read Mickey Z’s.

    Cheers. Jay

    Posted by JayVos from Burlington, VT  on  02/08  at  08:54 PM

  22. JayVos:  The feeling is mutual.  Now that the general election is over, I have no reason to pitch a tent in the belly of the virtual Donkey-beast, as I did then.  If you have the antidote for the irrational dis-ease of ABB, you have to throw yourself into a throng of ABBers for the antidote to have any value.  I enjoyed your antidotal conraderie, at the time, as well.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  02/09  at  03:20 AM
    23. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Blood for US3r

    Previous entry: Growing Chorus: Prosecute Ward Churchill for Treason

    [ads]

    Support Press Action