To object to Ward Churchill's labeling of the "technocratic core" of the American Empire as "little Eichmanns" because the label offends many Americans is to object to the labeling on the basis of political expediency, i.e. because it's not convenient to us. While it is not wrong to object to something solely on the basis of expediency, that's not the most compelling objection, for it implies its converse, i.e., that it would be all right to make use of the "little Eichmann" label if it happened to be politically expedient.
Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com, Sun Feb 6 15:49:12 PST 2005:
>Let's remind ourselves who Eichmann was. This is from his
>Encylopedia Britannica entry:
>
>>Eichmann joined the Nazi Party in April 1932 in Linz and rose
>>through the party hierarchy. In November 1932 he became a member of
>>Heinrich Himmler's SS, the Nazi paramilitary corps, and, on leaving
>>Linz in 1933, he joined the terrorist school of the Austrian Legion
>>at Lechfeld, Germany. From January to October 1934 he was attached
>>to an SS unit at Dachau and then was appointed to the SS
>>Sicherheitsdienst ("Security Service") central office in Berlin,
>>where he worked in the section that dealt with Jewish affairs. He
>>advanced steadily within the SS and was sent to Vienna after the
>>annexation of Austria (March 1938) to rid the city of Jews. One year
>>later, with a similar mission, he was sent to Prague. When in 1939
>>Himmler formed the Reich Security Central Office, Eichmann was
>>transferred to its section on Jewish affairs in Berlin.
>>
>>In January 1942, at Wannsee, near Berlin, a conference of Nazi high
>>officials was convened to organize the logistics of what the Nazis
>>called the "final solution to the Jewish question." Eichmann was to
>>coordinate the details; thus, although it was not yet generally
>>known that the "final solution" was mass execution, Eichmann had in
>>effect been named chief executioner. Thereupon he organized the
>>identification, assembly, and transportation of Jews from all over
>>occupied Europe to their final destinations at Auschwitz and other
>>extermination camps in Poland.
>
>How even an M&A lawyer, much less an antiwar liberal, is like this
>is way beyond me. Henry Kissinger's a lot more like this, but he's
>Henry Kissinger.
Notice, however, that Churchill did not call the "technocrats" of the American empires "Eichmanns." He called them "little Eichmanns," so he recognizes the difference in magnitude between Adolph Eichmann on one hand and M&A lawyers and bond traders on the other hand as well as the difference between Eichmann's conscious actions and American "technocrats'" unconscious actions.
Churchill makes two points here: actions taken by the "technocrats" of the American empire are indirect causes for deaths of human beings, whether or not they are aware of the chain of links between their trades, world poverty, and premature deaths of the poor; and "technocrats," if confronted with an idea that their actions cause premature deaths of millions and that their incomes and wealths require them, would probably reply, "I'm just doing my job" -- the reply that echoes the logic of Eichmann's final plea: "I cannot recognize the verdict of guilty. . . . It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate" ("Eichmann's Final Plea," <http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/01/when-doctors-go-to-war.html>).
In making the first point, Churchill is thinking like Peter Singer, employing a consequentialist utilitarian philosophy; in making the second point, Churchill turns to the Nuremberg Principles <http://www.nuclearfiles.org/etinternationallaw/nurembergprinciples.html>:
<blockquote>There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed -- nay, empowered -- their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.
If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans.
<http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html></blockquote>
In short, if we wish to argue against the label of "little Eichmanns," we need to argue against the aforementioned two principles behind them.
The third point that Churchill makes, which is independent of the "little Eichmann" labeling, the idea that the "technocrats" of the American Empire are legitimate military targets. That is certainly a legally indefensible point. He acknowledges that they are indeed civilians. Since they are civilians, they are not legitimate military targets according to laws of war, humanitarian war, and the Geneva Conventions. Law and morality, however, can be at odds with each other. Working-class soldiers are legitimate military targets, while the civilian rich who benefit from their sacrifice are not legitimate targets. Once again, if we wish to argue against Churchill, we might clarify ourselves on this point.
Churchill's fourth point is that those who are not "innocent" of the crimes of the Empire -- such as the "technocrats" of the Empire -- "deserve" punishment and the "penalty befitting their participation" in them is the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The philosophy that the guilty deserve punishment is especially worth arguing against, but that's easier said than done. As a matter of fact, the majority of Americans who would be offended by Churchill's idea that the "technocrats" of the Empire "deserve" to be killed by terrorists as punishment for their crimes -- workers in the World Trade Center and airline passengers made invisible as "collateral damage" -- if they heard it probably believe in the same philosophy as Churchill's -- the guilty "deserve" punishment. It is a difficult idea to dislodge from the minds of people.
John Adams jadams01 at sprynet.com, Sun Feb 6 16:20:55 PST 2005:
>To be fair, I first read about the horrors of Yugoslavia in The
>Nation and Off Our Backs, long before the mass media picked it up.
>
>Still, there's a real failure of human empathy that I think lies at
>the heart of many of the left's problems. Mirroring right-wing
>tactical innovations is fine and dandy and I'm all for it--picking
>up the callousness of their worldview is not.
>
>Isn't it supposed to be an exclusive 'or' in "Socialism or Barbarism"?
People of all political persuasions -- left, right, center -- are callous. If a topic is not turned into a "hot issue" by the national media, it might as well not exist. Everyone's empathy, yours and mine included, is politically selective -- and lasts only for a short time. That's a fact. What we can do about it is not clear. -- 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/>