Skip to comments.Pacifism as Pathology By Ward Churchill
Posted on 02/06/2005 5:26:49 PM PST by ken21
[An Phoblacht/Republican News]
The limits of pacificism
Pacifism as Pathology By Ward Churchill Published by Arbeiter Ring (e mail: email@example.com)
I would recommend to republicans a new book entitled ``Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America.'' It is a re-introduction of an essay written by Ward Churchill in 1984. This version includes a supplementary essay by Canadian anti-imperialist Mike Ryan, and an introduction by recently-released American anti-imperialist POW Ed Mead. I think it could be a valuable resource for republicans and their allies.
Ward Churchill, who is of American Indian descent, served for a short time as an Army Ranger in Vietnam. After a short time he realised that he was doing to the Vietnamese what had been done to his people by the US government. He refused to go out anymore, and was soon sent back home.
Immediately after his plane landed in Chicago, he called Students for a Democratic Society, and became an organiser with them. He lived in Peoria, Illinois and had a room-mate who was a Black Panther, named Mark Clark.
In December 1969, when Chicago Police killed Black Panther Fred Hampton in a shoot-to-kill operation, they also killed Clark.
Churchill also became a member of the American Indian Movement at the time that it was engaged in armed conflict with the Federal government in Pine Ridge, South Dakota. He spent some time as a national spokesperson for the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. Despite not having a PhD, Ward's incredible intellect and writing ability has earned him a top place in the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of Colorado in Boulder. I can hardly think of an issue he hasn't written about, but along with his work in American Indian Studies, he has also co-authored the standard works on the FBI's ``internal security'' campaigns (such as against the Black Panthers, labour, etc).
The book's main thrust is to analyze and tear apart the ideology of pacifism, explaining how it is, in many ways (as it is usually but not always practiced), a counter-revolutionary ideology. How in many cases pacifism allows people to pose as revolutionaries while ensuring that they are not in harm's way. Churchill argues that pacifism leads to liberalism and limits the ability of popular movements to create real change.
It is also argued that European-American pacifists, intentionally or not, ensure that the burden of violence is on non-European-American and Third World communities who are the most vulnerable to state violence and often have no real choice other than to use physical force in defence and in altering their situation.
Ward concentrates extensively on the Jewish Holocaust, pointing out that the overwhelming response of Jews was non-violence, but that when they did use violence they succeeded in destroying one entire camp, and one of the furnaces at Auschwitz.
Churchill does not advocate a shift from pacifism (especially if practiced in the purest form) to some kind of ``culture of violence.'' He is merely suggesting that left-wing and/or anti-imperialist movements should feel free to keep all options open, from rallies and petitions to armed self-defence to armed struggle and that this should be accepted by those who are not directly involved but who support the oppressed.
Mike Ryan quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. as saying: ``Whether they read Ghandi or Frantz Fanon, all radicals understand the need for action - direct, self-transforming and structure-transforming action.'' The point is that opposing repression and poverty and dismantling the structures which perpetuate them is more important than keeping ourselves out of harm's way.
As Ed Mead puts it, ``the question is not whether to use violence in the global class struggle to end the rule of international imperialism, but only when to use it.''
By Tom Shelley
"Douchbagism as a Pathology: A Look in the Mirror" by Chief Lying Fraud.
I think it's been established the guy is a nut job. The next step is to throw him out of his job.
This idiot Churchill is a real throwback to the 60's.
I think Ward Churchill is a terrorist. I've had his number for a long time. I dispise him.
He doesn't just have radical views, he advocates violence instead of working in a democracy.
He hates the US. And he trashes Indian leaders and puppets and stooges. He is always intimidating people.
Worse of all, a lot of uninformed people will think that Indians really think that he does--which they DON'T!!!
as you posted, the indians don't want anything to do with churchill.
that's probably a story in itself.
there's something odd about tenure that allows psychopaths to go on and on and on.
when tanya harding was convicted of violence, her skating career was over.
not so, ward churchill. he can pretty much do what he wants.
Words and Deeds
the real researcher is snapple. you oughta look at some of his stuff.
he dug up information that churchill had hit an old indian woman.
On this issue we should not be left against right. The democratic left in America has nothing in common with the likes of Ward Churchill.
Ward Churchill is a very dangerous person. He needs to be exposed. More will come out soon I think and everyone will be amazed.
According to an article posted on www.townhall.com, Churchhill claims to be an Indian, but he has never produced any proof of Indian descent or membership in a tribe. When the U of C was asked how he made tenure without a PhD, the university said it was because he had so many publications. Research on that point revealed that at the time he was granted tenure, he had exactly two publications of which one was a two page book review criticizing the FBI. He has since published three books, but they are published by radical fringe book publishers.
The article went on to say that he also claims to be a member of the American Indian Movement, and has made his career on being invited by other liberals to speak about the "genocide against his people" by the evil U.S.
I am a woman.
The Indians are going to expose Churchill.
They have had it with him.
long over due.
Churchill is old, hard-line AIM. This organization splinters into factions and each claims to be the one true AIM. So they all say the others aren't in AIM.
This is like different communist parties have factional fighting.
Allegedly Churchill injured a woman AIM activist who crossed him. Her name was Carol Standing Elk.
We've only seen the tip of the ice berg on Ward Churchill.
It is the Indians who are going to expose him. Indian reporters have been gathering information on Ward Churchill. The best Indian publication in my opinion is Indian Country Today. http://www.indiancountry.com/index.cfm
Suzan Shown Harjo and Jodi Rave have written about Churchill. http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410295
Rave got a bad grade in Churchill's class after she exposed that he wasn't really an Indian.