Ward Churchill’s roosting chickens
Ward Churchill’s call for destabilizing violent action in America is persausive, but may open the door to the same thing from other sides
by Michael Nenonen <mnenonen@republic-news.org>
Ward Churchill, professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado, has ignited the fury of American conservatives and the blaze shows no signs of dying down anytime soon.
In his 2003 book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of US Imperial Arrogance and Criminality (AK Press), Churchill argues that the responsibility for 9/11 falls squarely on the shoulders of the American state. Churchill compares the terrorist attacks to the bombing of Germany by allied forces in World War II. In the same way that the German people, by failing to overthrow the Nazi system, brought these attacks upon themselves, so has America, in Churchill's view, brought about these assaults against its people and institutions.
Drawing upon Hannah Arendt's analysis of the banality of evil, he writes that "a decided majority of those killed in the WTC attack might be more accurately viewed as 'little Eichmanns,' that is, as a cadre of faceless bureaucrats and technical experts who had willingly (and profitably) harnessed themselves to the task of making America's genocidal world order hum with maximal efficiency—than as 'innocents.'"
To support his assertions, Churchill provides very detailed chronologies of American deployments of military force since 1776 and obstructions of international law since 1945. These chronologies lay down the often-horrifying foundations upon which he bases his argument for armed resistance, an argument presented in the closing pages of his book:
"Only the most thoroughgoing destruction of the Nazi system would ever have been sufficient to have prevented it from consummating itself as it did. And it is this that the German people are faulted for not having accomplished—or at least initiated—of their own volition. The same rule applies to those of us residing within the US. Precisely how it must be acted upon is to a large extent rendered contingent by the terms of struggle imposed by the state as it mounts its internal defence. In this regard, the rampant growth in/militarization of the US police/prison apparatus over the past quarter-century speaks loudly, as do recent relaxations of longstanding prohibitions against use of the military itself in preserving the domestic order. The meaning of these developments must be taken for what it is, ways and means devised, skills developed, and—most of all—a consciousness inculcated among opportunists that allows us not only to set about meeting the state's forces on their own terms, but to overcome them."
Churchill explains that the goal of armed resistance should be to destabilize the US and thereby give other nations sufficient leverage to force it to abide by international law. It's important to understand that Churchill isn't placing his hopes on the overthrow of the government, but rather on the depletion of the government's resources and international clout. He believes this would transform the US into a weaker but more ethical nation. More than anything else, it's this call to arms that has aroused the conservative ire.
He’s got a point
I find Churchill's argument more than a little compelling. Since long before George W Bush the American establishment has seemed utterly resistant to the kinds of moral appeals expressed through the protest marches, letter-writing campaigns, petitions, and other non-violent strategies so dear to so many activists' hearts. The American court system appears irredeemably biased in favour of entrenched economic interests, making recourse to the law something of a pipe dream for environmentalists and proponents of social justice. Municipal, state, and federal governments dangle from the strings of their corporate puppet-masters, rendering non-violent and progressive political change increasingly unlikely. In contrast to pacifism's apparent impotence, violence has occasionally facilitated progressive social change in developed countries. The labour movement of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries would never have had any success if workers hadn't responded in kind to the brutality of industrialists and their police enforcers. The social safety net was erected upon broken limbs and cracked skulls, and activists like John Clarke of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty persuasively argue that the defense of that net today will depend upon a return to the tactics of old. If we're honest, we'll admit that militant resistance does have a certain ethical and strategic appeal.
Having said this, I believe Churchill's argument has some serious flaws. Churchill's chronologies are intended to demonstrate the true character of the American State, and thereby arouse sufficient moral revulsion in his readers to convince them of the appropriateness of armed resistance. It's unfortunate, then, that in them he presents conjecture as fact and that he fails to adequately reference his sources. For example, he writes that on April 19, 1993 the FBI used tanks to inject CS gas into the Branch Davidian compound and then intentionally ignited it with incendiary flash grenades. He also writes that the rising incidence of lung cancer in the United States is directly attributable to the tons of plutonium released into the environment by American nuclear testing, rather than to such causes as second-hand cigarette smoke. These are indeed very plausible hypotheses, but Churchill presents them without any accompanying citation of sources. Instead, he provides a bibliography and instructs readers to "match titles therefrom to matters of particular interest within the chronology itself and follow up accordingly." Personally, I've always felt that in scholarly works the more controversial the position asserted the more important it is to thoroughly and specifically reference the evidence supporting it. Respected dissident scholars like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein hold themselves to this standard; why can't Churchill? Lacking such documentation, it's impossible to say whether he's writing history or inflammatory propaganda.
Even if we were to assume the accuracy of his chronologies, his argument for armed resistance still seems to have some rather gaping holes. From a tactical standpoint, he doesn't acknowledge the possibility that left-wing guerrilla action may not only bring increased state repression and discredit social justice movements in the eyes of the public, but also encourage the spread of right-wing demagoguery and violence. Having opted for guerrilla action itself, the left would thereafter have little moral authority to criticize similar action by anyone else. The upheaval that Churchill recommends might succeed in destabilizing the state, but in the American milieu this destabilization would likely open the window of opportunity the extreme right's been waiting for.
Christian fundamentalists would certainly use this chaos to further the cause of American theocracy. The fascists in the militia movement would immediately exploit the situation to their advantage, as would those who support the bombing of abortion clinics. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties would probably become even more conservative in order to appeal to the inevitable growth of nationalist sentiment. The American Empire might collapse, but only at the cost of unending domestic savagery and, since the US occupies a linchpin position in the global marketplace, world-wide economic turmoil.
I wonder, too, if Churchill understands the corrupting effects of the violent social disintegration he's calling for. War correspondent Chris Hedges, in War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (Anchor Books, 2002), writes "War breaks down long-established prohibitions against violence, destruction, and murder. And with this often comes the crumbling of sexual, social, and political norms as the domination and brutality of the battlefield is carried into personal life. Rape, mutilation, abuse, and theft are the natural outcome of a world in which force rules, in which human beings are objects. The infection is pervasive. Society in wartime becomes atomized. It rewards personal survival skills and very often leaves those with decency and compassion trampled under the rush." Speaking of the 1990s Balkan catastrophe, he writes "War turned Belgrade, along with every other capital caught up in conflict, into Caligula's Rome." Given the history of American fanaticism and factionalism, given its addiction to eroticized violence, and given the scale of its military power, the human consequences of the kind of American civil war advocated by Churchill could be far worse than anything witnessed in the former Yugoslavia.
Finally, I suspect that in making his case, Churchill has underestimated the effectiveness of non-violent resistance. As Stephen Zunes writes in his article Recognizing the Power of Nonviolent Action (Foreign Policy In Focus, March 31 2005), “Primarily nonviolent ‘people power’ movements have overthrown authoritarian regimes in nearly two dozen countries over the past two and a half decades, have forced substantial reforms in even more countries, and have seriously challenged other despots.” Noam Chomsky regularly points out that in his later days Nixon admitted that the massive protests of the Vietnam War era prevented his government from escalating American intervention in Southeast Asia. Surely these successes need to be taken into account.
Read the book
People throughout the developed world have an ethical obligation to do whatever they can to oppose American tyranny. As citizens of the imperial state, Americans have a special obligation to ensure its compliance with both the spirit and the letter of international law. In light of the US record, this will be a Herculean task, one that will require agonizing choices and sacrifices. On this, at least, Churchill and I are of one mind. While I also agree that a case can be made for militant resistance, I don't believe Churchill has offered it. If he wants Americans to sail into a tempest of this magnitude he needs to provide a watertight vessel and reliable navigational charts. Judging from what he's presented thus far, I'm simply not convinced his arguments are seaworthy.
Despite my rather severe reservations about his conclusions, I strongly recommend On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Churchill's chronologies may not provide sound footing upon which to stand for any length of time, but they do offer a springboard for further study on any number of important issues. The records he provides of American votes in the General Assembly and vetoes in the Security Council are themselves worth the price of the book. While his arguments may be ultimately unpersuasive, they're presented well enough to at least merit serious consideration.
****
|
