Re: Turbulo : I don't see the point to all this careful parsing of Churchill's remarks. Were computer programmers who worked in the WTC more culpable than janitors? It's pretty obvious to me that, despite recent disclaimers, Churchill buys into notions of "mass guilt" on the part of ordinary citizens of imperialist countries. Such ideas have an old pedigree among radicals, going back at least to Weatherman, which regarded just about all caucasian Americans as the beneficiaries of "white skin privilege." This kind of thinking can only hurt any effort to undercut popular support for imperialist policies.
But isn't it also clear that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. aren't only going after Churchill, but any public person not on board with the Bush crusade? So should the leftist response be mainly to amplify Bushite attacks or defend Churchill's tenure? Again, the answer seems self-evident. But not to some, like Cooper and Newman, apparently. This to me is the most disturbing aspect of the recent discussion. It's not a question of whether one agrees or disagrees with Churchill, but where one places the emphasis.
^^^^^
CB: Turbulo's comment made me think about a theme in this thread. With due respect, it seems to me that the whole discussion proceeds here with the rightwing initially controlling the "parsing" of Churchill's essay. The rightwing parsing is way too influential in the left discussion of this incident. So, we do need some left reparsing of the whole "incident".
I accept Churchill's parsing of his own essay in his followup , Janurary 21 statement before I accept suspicions that he harbors some kind of inappropriate "mass guilt" theories regarding the US people. There is nothing that I have seen that does not make me accept as absolutely accurate Churchill's statement that
"It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack..."
I have no reason to accept all the commentators' suspicions and characterizations of what Churchill thinks or meant over what _he_ says he meant and thinks in reference to "little Eichmanns" , the main "offending" words in this whole much ado about nothing, rightwing inspired , demogogic distortion, worthy of Goebbels and Nazi prevaricators, swallowed hook, line and sinker by way too much of the left.
And by letting the rightwing set the terms of the debate, obviously, "the left", by and large, has tied one hand behind its back in fighting back. In this regard , in this incident the quasi-independent left is mimicking the Democratic Party's approach to just about everything for a long time : Let the right set the terms of the debate, including the characterization of the left itself , then "fight" back half-armed.
The American people do bear some responsibility to get their rogue state under control. Who else is going to do it ? The central portrait of USers as the main victims in this whole scene is an expression of Romantic Americanism.