"Freedom To" vs. "Freedom From."
University of Colorado Ethnic Studies professor Ward Churchill has recently come into the media spotlight for asserting that the some people who worked in the World Trade Center shared characteristics of German Nazis during World War II, with regard to their complicity and profiting from the suffering of Iraqis and Afghanis prior to September 11th, 2001. As of 3:48pm this afternoon, seven people have asked me my thoughts on this, including my wife. I figure it deserves some attention.
Firstly, Ward Churchill seems very much cut of the hardcore radical academic cloth. Simply put, he is a firebrand. His writing is virtually ranting, with a flair for the dramatic. I guess that's what got him in this situation in the first place. Ultimately, I both agree and disagree with different parts of his argument. I agree that profiting from economic interests that can only be read as imperial is problematic. The question then becomes whether the people working in the World Trade Center were complicit in the violence that Churchill asserts caused the backlash that was September 11th.
Immediately, John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" comes to mind. In the chapter in which he discusses the logistics behind foreclosing a farm, he argues that the people involved, from secretary who types up the papers to the sheriff who posts the public notice, don't necessarily delight in seeing the family evicted from their land. What Steinbeck argues is that the system that keeps all of them going is greater than the sum of its parts, and it then becomes a question of whether those "parts" are excused from the suffering they cause because they themselves are under the control of the very same system (in both cases, said system is capitalism). I could go either way on that debate, depending on whether I'm feeling optimistic or pessimistic about human nature.
Did they deserve to die for their complicity, as Fox News argues Churchill has "implied?" I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty, or that anyone should be killed for their transgressions (save for people who abuse children or animals and people who still pay with personal checks at the grocery store), so if Churchill does indeed believe that, then I disagree with him. Whether he actually believes that or not, or whether it's a Fox News "fact," I have no idea.
Other points of Churchill's argument are worth considering, especially given the context of post-9/11 American actions at home and abroad. Limitations on civil liberties and justifying the use of torture were undeniably Nazi hallmarks, and they believed that what they were doing was for the "national good" as well. A new book out called "The Nuremberg Interviews: An American Psychiatrist's Conversations With The Defendants and Witnesses" is an edition of transcripts by Leon Goldensohn, who had the "opportunity" to dive into the minds of Nazi war criminals. Suffice to say, they justified their actions on a variety of levels, and their arguments are eerily similar to those of people like the new Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (aka: Torquemada) whose legal memos to President George W. Bush argued justifications for use of torture in the "War on Terror," and Army Specialist Charles Graner, recently tried and incarcerated for the satisfaction of those pesky Americans demanding "justice" for the photographs he posed for in Abu-Ghraib prison. They both, along with many others who support these more problematic aspects of the "War on Terror," believe in their cause, and the means they engage to achieve its end.
Another point worth considering is that while his argument may be inflammatory, it offers a cross-section of Americans the opportunity to do what they do best: get offended. The question then becomes whether something deemed offensive by said cross-section ought to be censored, or the messenger silenced. It essentially boils down to a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of social and cultural freedom in America. People who skew liberal tend to believe in "freedom to." Freedom to assert their ideas, to believe what they want, to act in ways they see as in their interests. The end result is ultimately a democratic, diverse society. Those who lean conservative tend to want "freedom from." Freedom from difference, dissent, contrary opinions, and criticism. Its product is ultimately an authoritarian, uniform society.
And so the (Republican) governor of Colorado Bill Owens has called for Ward Churchill's removal from the faculty. His lackeys in the University of Colarado College Republicans have followed suit. Their chapter President Isaiah Lechowit said "This guy has to go. He's been out here just raving about this nonsense and the mindless drones over here are clapping and hooting and hollering for him." Yeah, I hate it when mindless drones clap, hoot and holler for people who rant and rave about nonsense too. That reminds me, the State of the Union speech is tonight.
Recently, while waiting on a Friday night pizza, the television behind the take-out counter was tuned in to Fox News. The story was on how college Republicans were "taking back" the universities. They had some "conservative academic" (about as oxymoronic as calling oneself a liberal Baptist) talking head guy pitching his book and talking about how students weren't going to "put up with" professors who essentially tried to get them to think critically about the world around them. The Fox News talking head seemed suitably encouraged that pretty soon schools would be like churches, where dissent or questioning the divine message is strictly forbidden. Social conservatives have the churches, all three branches of government, arguably the mainstream media given the recent "pay for praise" revelations and the fact that Wal-Mart among other mega-corporations is now a major sponsor of National Public Radio, and now they want the schools as well. Fantastic. I thought of how so many Americans lamented the fact that Iranian professors had been stifled after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and that universities in Iraq under Saddam Hussein were under strict scrutiny that their message be consistent with government policy, and insisted that academic freedom was necessary for a free society to exist. Where are those critics now that Ward Churchill is the face of dissent?
Firstly, Ward Churchill seems very much cut of the hardcore radical academic cloth. Simply put, he is a firebrand. His writing is virtually ranting, with a flair for the dramatic. I guess that's what got him in this situation in the first place. Ultimately, I both agree and disagree with different parts of his argument. I agree that profiting from economic interests that can only be read as imperial is problematic. The question then becomes whether the people working in the World Trade Center were complicit in the violence that Churchill asserts caused the backlash that was September 11th.
Immediately, John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" comes to mind. In the chapter in which he discusses the logistics behind foreclosing a farm, he argues that the people involved, from secretary who types up the papers to the sheriff who posts the public notice, don't necessarily delight in seeing the family evicted from their land. What Steinbeck argues is that the system that keeps all of them going is greater than the sum of its parts, and it then becomes a question of whether those "parts" are excused from the suffering they cause because they themselves are under the control of the very same system (in both cases, said system is capitalism). I could go either way on that debate, depending on whether I'm feeling optimistic or pessimistic about human nature.
Did they deserve to die for their complicity, as Fox News argues Churchill has "implied?" I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty, or that anyone should be killed for their transgressions (save for people who abuse children or animals and people who still pay with personal checks at the grocery store), so if Churchill does indeed believe that, then I disagree with him. Whether he actually believes that or not, or whether it's a Fox News "fact," I have no idea.
Other points of Churchill's argument are worth considering, especially given the context of post-9/11 American actions at home and abroad. Limitations on civil liberties and justifying the use of torture were undeniably Nazi hallmarks, and they believed that what they were doing was for the "national good" as well. A new book out called "The Nuremberg Interviews: An American Psychiatrist's Conversations With The Defendants and Witnesses" is an edition of transcripts by Leon Goldensohn, who had the "opportunity" to dive into the minds of Nazi war criminals. Suffice to say, they justified their actions on a variety of levels, and their arguments are eerily similar to those of people like the new Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (aka: Torquemada) whose legal memos to President George W. Bush argued justifications for use of torture in the "War on Terror," and Army Specialist Charles Graner, recently tried and incarcerated for the satisfaction of those pesky Americans demanding "justice" for the photographs he posed for in Abu-Ghraib prison. They both, along with many others who support these more problematic aspects of the "War on Terror," believe in their cause, and the means they engage to achieve its end.
Another point worth considering is that while his argument may be inflammatory, it offers a cross-section of Americans the opportunity to do what they do best: get offended. The question then becomes whether something deemed offensive by said cross-section ought to be censored, or the messenger silenced. It essentially boils down to a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of social and cultural freedom in America. People who skew liberal tend to believe in "freedom to." Freedom to assert their ideas, to believe what they want, to act in ways they see as in their interests. The end result is ultimately a democratic, diverse society. Those who lean conservative tend to want "freedom from." Freedom from difference, dissent, contrary opinions, and criticism. Its product is ultimately an authoritarian, uniform society.
And so the (Republican) governor of Colorado Bill Owens has called for Ward Churchill's removal from the faculty. His lackeys in the University of Colarado College Republicans have followed suit. Their chapter President Isaiah Lechowit said "This guy has to go. He's been out here just raving about this nonsense and the mindless drones over here are clapping and hooting and hollering for him." Yeah, I hate it when mindless drones clap, hoot and holler for people who rant and rave about nonsense too. That reminds me, the State of the Union speech is tonight.
Recently, while waiting on a Friday night pizza, the television behind the take-out counter was tuned in to Fox News. The story was on how college Republicans were "taking back" the universities. They had some "conservative academic" (about as oxymoronic as calling oneself a liberal Baptist) talking head guy pitching his book and talking about how students weren't going to "put up with" professors who essentially tried to get them to think critically about the world around them. The Fox News talking head seemed suitably encouraged that pretty soon schools would be like churches, where dissent or questioning the divine message is strictly forbidden. Social conservatives have the churches, all three branches of government, arguably the mainstream media given the recent "pay for praise" revelations and the fact that Wal-Mart among other mega-corporations is now a major sponsor of National Public Radio, and now they want the schools as well. Fantastic. I thought of how so many Americans lamented the fact that Iranian professors had been stifled after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and that universities in Iraq under Saddam Hussein were under strict scrutiny that their message be consistent with government policy, and insisted that academic freedom was necessary for a free society to exist. Where are those critics now that Ward Churchill is the face of dissent?
posted by MK | 3:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home