Ward Churchill didn't say that "the healthiest desire is the desire for nonviolence," in the sense of desiring not to use force in any circumstances. What he said is that "the desire for a nonviolent and cooperative world is the healthiest of all psychological manifestations." He indeed says that we "must first break with" non-violence to achieve non-violence. Does he, then, think that violence is "the only way" to bring about "a nonviolent and cooperative world"? As he has participated in his share of peaceful protests and non-violent civil disobediences, he probably doesn't. For instance, he participates in symbolic protests against Columbus Day, and he (as well as seven others) was recently acquitted of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade. He must at least think that peaceful protests and non-violent civil disobediences have their place in social movements striving to create "a nonviolent and cooperative world." What he objects to is the idea of pacifism as a principle, pacifism as the only morally legitimate way of overcoming the roots of exploitation and oppression under any circumstances.
So far, so good.
That's only the beginning of discussion, however.
In addition, Churchill argues that commitment to pacifism prevalent among activists in the United States not only renders political activism ineffective here but it displaces Washington's state violence from internal targets to external targets. He goes so far as to say that pacifism is "objectively racist." "Pacifism is racist. In displacing massive state violence onto people of color both outside and inside the the mother country, rather than absorbing any real measure of it themselves (even when their physical intervention might undercut the state's ability to inflict violence on nonwhites) pacifists can only be viewed as being objectively racist," says Churchill. That's a matter of judgment, depending on social circumstances, as the auxiliary verb "might" in the last sentence acknowledges it parenthetically. Physical intervention "might" indeed make a difference, but only when objective and subjective circumstances favorable for its direct or indirect success exist. Therefore, it is wrong to conclude that "pacifists can _only_ be viewed as being objectively racist" (emphasis added).
Depending on the context, though, pacifism can indeed be racist.
John Brown waged jihad in bloody Kansas, to begin with, hacking five pro-slavery settlers to death at Pottawatomie in 1856. W. E. B. Du Bois wrote in his biography of John Brown: "Some say it freed Kansas, while others say it plunged the land back into civil war. Truth lies in both statements. The blow freed Kansas by plunging it into civil war, and compelling men to fight for freedom which they had vainly hoped to gain by political expediency." We owe a measure of peace and freedom we enjoy today in part to Brown's terrorism in the nineteenth century. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>