Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Harsher and Dreader Realities: Enough Double Talk on the Left

By Nate Collins

Robert Jensen’s article “Ward Churchill; Right to Speak Out; Right About 9-11” purported by its title to be a vehement defense of Ward and his arguments, but turned out to be at best a lukewarm proclamation of Jensen’s righteous liberal perspective of the world and yet another hanging of Ward out to dry. Dare to be as radical as Ward or more radical or I would say shut up and stop trying to use radical rhetoric if you don’t plan to live up to it when the heat comes.

Jensen proudly states “It would be particularly cowardly if I tried to distance myself from Churchill and his ideas, given that I have made similar arguments in print and in public speaking over the past decade, especially since 9/11.” Then Jensen proceeds to backpedal from the provocative title “Ward Churchill...Right About 9-11” throughout the rest of the article. His redundant restatement of Ward’s ideas does not determine the gist of his article, but his departure from Ward’s ideas is telltale.

I have found many people on the left and in the “global justice movement” in particular who have done, and are doing exactly the same thing. They utilize radical rhetoric when it serves their purposes. When the heat comes it is all backpedaling and apologies and assurances of decency, seemingly to promote ones own ass and remain staunchly middle-American in substance even while retaining leftist style and rhetoric. I pray that this is not the whole of “global justice movements,” but I hold little faith in the relentless pursuit of reforms couched in the name of revolution.

First and foremost Churchill has taken a seemingly non-critical stance toward al-Qaeda and their like whom Jensen wisely uses his article to denounce in no uncertain terms (save your ass boy!). The reason that Churchill seems to be uncritical of the attackers is because he knows how to defend embattled and oppressed people, as he has been actively and radically defending indigenous people here, not by pointing out their flaws to the general public but by being their straight forward Champion!

First rule, never play into the hands of the oppressor by allowing them to define the parameters of the debate. It is politically expedient for the US to keep focus on the depravity of its enemies namely al-Qaeda, and as long as these quote “defenders of Ward Churchill” such as Jensen use their words and airtime to apologize for what has been said and ensure the American public and the powers that be that yes “indeed we are decent and civilized” and “we uphold the same values of decency as you.” As long as the so-called “defenders” like Jensen waste their time and ours back-pedaling, they should go write for The Nation or some other sellout lukewarm liberal publication. Many lefties or so-called lefties, or should I just call them lukewarm libs or infiltrators, have said that they are silent on this issue at this time. Well the time to be silent is when all of the justifications for War and Empire are rolled out, when everyone is dwelling on the depravity of the oppressed, that is the time to be silent if you choose, that is the time not to join the chorus. I will continue to champion the oppressed, all along.

I cannot tell if Jensen is joking or not. Maybe because I have heard “global justice” bohos mouth such fork-tongued rhetoric in the past. What a joke when Jensen says, “...But I also want to articulate where I disagree with his analysis—not to distance myself from him but instead to demonstrate solidarity. Real colleagues do not ignore differences; they engage them.” Then Mr. Jensen why have you not engaged Ward Churchill up to this point? Engage him outside of the media if he is really your colleague. Why is it now that you desire to publicize your differences of opinion with him? You are engaging Ward on Counterpunch now? I don’t think so. The divide and conquer that you mention Mr. Jensen is being fulfilled by you and your inability to put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed and escape your middle-class American sentiments for decency and collective self-interest.

Then Jensen addresses his critique of Ward Churchill in the middle of his article with the actual words “To Ward Churchill...” Mr. Jensen, could you not address your “colleague” before this particular time when it is so politically expedient to distance oneself from Ward? I would not be so upset if it were not for the hypocrisy of couching your politically expedient statements with strong proclamations for your support of Ward. Now is the time for unequivocal support for our man Ward. It is a fascist attack against him and we will gain no ground in our defense of him if we feel compelled to do all of this shucking and jiving and assuring everyone that we are neat and decent and against the terrorists too. Let them be scared of our potential before you go ahead with all of these assurances of shared values. At this time I choose to articulate those values that I DO NOT share with this Imperialist society.

Jensen states, “Osama bin Laden and others in networks like al-Qaeda criticize those policies, but that does not mean they are the voice of the dispossessed or constitute a national liberation movement.”

“Networks like al-Qaeda”? Does that mean all Islamist movements or only clandestine ones or only the ones who use terror or only the ones who use terror on noncombatants? You see because when you make statements as such to a general reading audience, that is a very broad stroke you paint with. Certainly bin Laden is not the chosen voice of the dispossessed but perhaps he is the de facto voice. That is the predicament, the voices and actions that have filled the vacuum left by the lack of authentic national liberation movements or real political solidarity.

For better or worse the despicable men have stepped up to the plate and attempted to use force to repel US aggression. Who else has used force? What have US movements done to actually repel aggression against Muslim people or inflict harm upon the aggressors? How about HizbAllah? They have repelled and successfully challenged Israeli imperialism with force, the only language that the Israelis seem to speak. Are you talking about them too? Do you believe the US govt. to be any less depraved than the govt. of Israel?

I don’t believe these al-Qaeda men are despicable solely because they espouse Islam or solely because they espouse Shariah. I believe they are despicable because of their particularly repressive and exclusive brand of interpretation of Islam, a distinction you fail to make. But I still have to ask the question, how come other “revolutionaries” throughout the 20th century who were just as fanatically anti-western and anti-US were never able to accomplish such a spectacular act of terror, never able to rock the US in such a significant way? That in and of itself deserves recognition (not necessarily obeisance) from real revolutionaries. None of this is for the faint of heart.

Jensen then states, “Their own political program is grotesque, not just by the standards of a secular leftist in the United States, but by the standards of progressive movements around the world.”

Are these the only standards that matter? The standards of US secular leftists and progressive movements around the world. You could easily have mentioned that citizens of Islamic societies who do not necessarily espouse the western ideology of “progressivism,” who nonetheless view the al-Qaeda program as grotesque. Why does it take a white and western voice to legitimize the critique? Would you have us believe that Muslims are all so savage that they have never critiqued the reactionary manifestations within their own societies? Or are their critiques insufficient for your taste?

“While they attack U.S. targets because they want to end U.S. domination of the Muslim world—a reasonable goal—they don’t seek the justice denied to them by the United States.”

What justice is that? How about freedom from bombs dropped on Muslim heads? How about freedom from alien exploitative consumerist commercial culture in the name of US corporations and trade? How about the justice of getting the #### out of Muslim lands? Any hint at moral equivalency between the US and the “hate that hate made” seems to me to be the outrageous assertion of a self-righteous liberal, unable to see past his own societies inherent values, unable to see the value and efficacy of religion and tradition and values not congruent with ones own for people the world over. The world is full of people who find strength and solace in their respective traditions in direct contradistinction to US hegemony.

“They seek to impose a different kind of authority and control.”

What, religious authority, religious control? If that is what you mean to say then you need to develop your argument, painting al-Qaeda as typical of all Muslim religious authority is I believe deeply racist and deeply ignorant and in fact precisely what the right wing and the US media attempt to portray. For example I beg you to compare and contrast the “liberal” rule of the Ottomans with the hyper-reactionary ideas of al Qaeda. Totally different. Both “Muslim” nonetheless.

Jensen then states, “So, I agree completely with Churchill’s assessment that ‘America’s indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world’s peoples ample cause to be at war with it,’ but I want to highlight the regressive characteristics of some of the political programs of people who go to war with it. As the title of Churchill’s essay reminds us, ‘some people push back.’ But some of those people pushing back aren’t pushing for justice. His labeling of the events of 9/11 as ‘counterattacks’ is true in a descriptive sense, but not in a moral one.”

So now Robert Jensen is the moral authority?!?

The insidiousness of Jensen’s article is that he displays knowledge of all of those facts and things that should make one a committed radical, in full solidarity with the embattled, and yet fundamentally he is attached to a need to be legitimized by Western values and society. Jensen effectively deconstructs any truly radical action or solidarity with his liberal arguments. True radical solidarity dictates that the critique of seemingly all-powerful US Imperialism takes absolute precedence over any mention of the “backwardness” of the oppressed. The “backwardness” of the oppressed, to the extent that it exists is mostly a matter for people to deal with among themselves, or among a smaller group than for general media consumption at a time of heightened media awareness. A critique of the “backwardness” of the oppressed is a major neocon pre-occupation for good reason, it deflects attention from US crimes.

We leftists here in the US are mostly white, like myself, and I believe that fact alone dictates that our overarching concern must be a critique of “OUR” people, and when we venture into criticism of the victims of US Imperialism we should tread lightly. I have read Ward Churchill and I must say that my interpretation of Robert Jensen is that he is on an entirely different page, so enough of the charade. My question is, why does Robert Jensen intertwine himself and his politics with the radically outspoken Ward Churchill? To me it is a cynical attempt to play both sides of the fence, which I have unfortunately seen a lot of from “Global Justice activists.” Enough double-talk from the left, let the true supporters of Ward Churchill step forward, no excuses. Full Solidarity Now!

Nate Collins, who lives in Berkeley, is currently co-producing an AntiWar Reggae Mix to benefit Funky Riddms Records as a social institution of resistance culture in Berkeley with local music aficionado DJ Riddm. He can be reached at: redshank@sbcglobal.net.

More from Nate Collins

Comments (46)

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: Disinformation: A Crime Against Humanity and a Crime Against Peace -->

<-- Previous: DiscoverTheNetwork: David Horowitz's Smear Portal

Support Press Action