Whether you are convinced is irrelevant, it is what he wrote. He wrote it badly and was far from clear but he does make the differentiation. His argument is flawed already so why do you need to embellish his error to argue against it?
>Doug wrote:
>
>Because people - whether nonideological or not - will throw
>Churchill's quote in your face whenever you bring up U.S. brutality,
>whether in Indochina or Kansas. He's made it a lot easier to dismiss
>critiques of imperialism and genocide.
How has he made that easier? How does his poor use of a comparison with Eichmann make critiquing genocide any more difficult? One marginal professor who wrote one bad essay over three years ago suddenly has the power to effect the entire discourse of critiques of genocide and imperialism?
> ChuckO wrote:
>
> No, let me be direct about this: we are all "little Eichmanns" by virtue
> of being Americans who profit from the centuries of American genocide
> and oppression that Churchill documents in his books.
>
> OK, we can make an exception for the non-Americans on this list.
>
> But otherwise, I'm a "little Eichmann" and every American on this list
> is a little Eichmman. Why? Because we aren't doing everything we can to
> stop the American empire and its plans around the world. Look at our
> typical reaction to the Churchill controversy on this list. We are
> attacking Churchill, each other, and providing more rope for the right
> wingers to hang us us with. The liberals on this list are more like
> little Eichmanns than the rest of us, as they actively supported and
> campaigned for a rich white guy who wanted to continue America's empire
> around the world. We are all little Eichmanns because we opt for a
> comfortable opposition to American empire. We won't even put our names
> on the lines by speaking up for one radical professor. This lack of
> action is a long way from putting our lives on the line to stop the
> American empire.
This is stretching things more than a little. Churchill isn't saying what you are. He doesn't claim everyone in the US is a "little Eichmann" only those ill defined as constituting a "technocratic corps". You are not an Eichmann. Eichmann had power and authority. You and I have no comparable power and authority here. The number of persons who could actually be compared to Eichmann is by necessity quite small.
Churchill's argument is flawed. He needs to stick to issues he has a better understanding of. I understand his frustration at hearing how the US was an innocent country that did nothing to provoke the anger of the rest of the world that was so prevelant after 9/11. He is a hot head who wrote a poor essay on a topic he was not prepared to speak on. Big deal. It's done every day.
Maybe the best response would be to find professors who have written essays claiming the attack on Afghanistan was deserved by the population there and demand equal treatment? Same for Iraq. Those articles are just as silly but no one is gnashing their teeth about how it "harms the entire human race" the way Dawson has characterized Wards essay. People write bad essays all the time. There is no need to try and destroy their livelihood over it.
I will defend Churchill to the best of my ability and I will try to explain the errors in his essay to anyone willing to listen. There is far more to like in the body of Churchill's work than there is to dislike. If Churchill has the power to do such great and irreparable damage to the left he must be much more powerful and influential than I ever realized.
John Thornton