| Reaction to a Reactionary by Eduard Terrones Simms Posted: March 23, 2005 The recent attacks on Ward Churchill by the media, politicians and average citizens were, and still are, in response to an analogy he made in the essay, "Some People Push Back, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," regarding the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington DC. He described some of the victims of the twin towers attacks as "little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers." Eichmann was an officer of Nazi Germany who was involved in the genocidal activities against Jews, Gypsies and others during the Nazi reign in Europe. He also suggests that the perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11 "manifested the courage of their convictions" by carrying out the operation. He considers that the plight of the Iraqis resulting from the embargo following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was one of the primary reasons that the "combat teams" chose to attack the United States. His main point, I believe, is that the United States, through the implementation of it’s worldwide policies, has created enough resentment around the world to expect attacks. His essay implies that those who worked at the twin towers as "a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire" were instrumental in spreading misery throughout the world embodied in the policies of the United States. Obviously, with the advent of the Homeland Security bureaucracy, the United States government also believes that this country will be subject to attack, for reasons not clearly defined by the government. There is no doubt that the analogy he made between the victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns" is totally insensitive and incorrect. Most of those in the twin towers were not military personnel, which Eichmann was. Some of those working there did contribute to the activities of American expansion around the world, which has resulted in many bad things. But most citizens in this country have also contributed to that same activity. Every time we pay taxes, as I assume Churchill does, we contribute to the corporate-military system in this country that has created many enemies around the world. Mr. Churchill is definitely a bitter person. Having read some of his other works, he is very critical of most of the policies of the United States government in regard to it’s expansionist and imperialistic aims since it’s formation. In his book "on the Justice of Roosting Chickens" he documents the actions of the United States government and how he thinks it has wrongfully treated the people it has come into contact with, especially Native Americans. Unfortunately, those types of injustices are not unique to the U.S. Many countries around the world have been just as ruthless when dealing with people in the way of their expansionist goals. Some have raised the issue of Churchill not being Native American, but having had received benefits for claiming that he is. The whole idea of someone being remotely descended from Native Americans and claiming to be an "Indian" has corrupted the way that Native Americans are perceived by others. The question becomes, what makes a Native American. Self-identity, in many institutions, is all it takes for one to be Native. Former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell claims to be 3/8’s Cheyenne, Ward Churchill claims to be 3/16’s Cherokee. Why do the American people feel that if one has any percentage of Native blood they are "Indian"? It is very similar to the concept of the "one drop of blood" concept of the 1800’s. If a person had one drop of African American blood (any distant relative), he or she was considered a Negro in many states. The greater test would be whether that individual speaks the language of their reported Native tribe, or whether he or she was raised in an Native American community with relatives that were also members of a particular tribe (not necessarily determined by the BIA). Although the tribes determine their own membership, that has not always meant that the person identified with that tribe is Native at all. For many mainstream (non-Native) individuals that call themselves "Indian," the result seems to be either monetary or political gain. But in reality, this is almost a non-issue as far as Churchill is concerned. If he provided incorrect information to his employer in order to land a job, that employer can take the necessary administrative action to correct the situation. It shouldn’t be an issue of concern for politicians or others, except that "other" Native American professor who might have got the job. If people are willing to label individuals with some Native heritage, but no significant tie to the Native communities, as being "Indian" then that is their own dream world they choose to live in. Unfortunately, that leaves many Native peoples who are not in the "mainstream" at a competitive disadvantage when competing for jobs, etc. Others are saying that his academic work is not up to standards. A truly critical review of what Churchill has written in the past would take a significant amount of time. This would include verifying sources as well as insuring originality. This also is an administrative function, not a political one. If it is proven that his scholarly work was not up to standards, this should result in administrative action, not acquiescence to political pressure. If his work meets all academic standards, then his opinions are his own. Churchill has found publishers to publish his works and, apparently, readers who are willing to buy his books. What is of interest in regard to his essay is how the reaction has evolved from a critical analysis of Churchill and his works to something else. It has become a wholesale attack on the right of faculty members of publicly funded educational institutions to openly criticize the governments actions. Tenure in educational institutions has also become a focal point of the attacks. When a State Governor and State Legislators call for the firing of a faculty member because of their revulsion of what that faculty member wrote brings a whole new dimension to the episode. What are they really complaining about? Apparently they disagree with the analogy Churchill used to describe the 9/11 tragedy, and they also don’t like what Churchill says about how this country is conducting itself world-wide. Is that worth gutting the whole system of academic freedom? To make such a big deal about the writings of an insignificant teacher (compared to the world of academicians) may reveal something else. Perhaps what he has said touched a nerve with many people in this country and they don’t want to hear it. Most people, I imagine, want to trust their leaders and want to think of their country being the best it can be. Maybe that is why, when Churchill crossed that imaginary critical point of insensitivity and anti-nationalism, it resulted in a very aggressive and unreasoned response, demanding his ejection from the system without due process. Do his critics really want to discuss his opinions point by point in a public forum? I think not. This controversy about Churchill isn’t worth all the trouble that has resulted from his insensitive and shockingly raw work. It may be important to him and some others to expose the perceived transgressions of the "evil doer" - the United States. All of this national attention, though, has blown his work totally out of proportion to what it really is: an essay of a bitter (or enlightened, depending on perspective), relatively unimportant person in a time of national catastrophe with an opinion that differs from a significant number of other people. If people in the United States are unwilling to hear unpleasant things, if they don’t want any dissention in the ranks of academia, and if they will not tolerate unpopular opinions, then this country is moving further away from that imaginary democratic and free country that most citizens think we have. Sources: Churchill, Ward. "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html Various media reports of politicians responses. |