ward churchill

I'm just going to drop this right here and walk away.

“Snitch-jacketing” or “bad-jacketing” refers to the practice of creating suspicion — through the spread of rumors, manufacture of evidence, etc. — that bona fide organizational members, usually in key positions, are FBI/police informers, guilty of such offenses as skimming organizational funds and the like. The purpose of this tactic was to “isolate and eliminate” organizational leadership; such efforts were continued — and in some instances accelerated — when it became known that the likely outcome would be extreme physical violence visited upon the “jacketed” individuals(s). Bad-jacketing was [and is] a very commonly used technique. For instance, in a COINTELPRO proposal submitted on July 10, 1968 by the SAC, New York, to the Director, it was recommended that:

“…[C]onsideration be given to convey the impression that [SNCC leader Stokely] CARMICHAEL is a CIA informer. One method of accomplishing [this] would be to have a carbon copy of informant report reportedly written by CARMICHAEL to the CIA carefully deposited in the automobile of a close Black Nationalist friend… It is hoped that when the informant report is read it will help promote distrust between CARMICHAEL and the Black Community… It is also suggested that we inform a certain percentage of reliable criminal and racial informants that “we have heard from reliable sources that CARMICHAEL is a CIA agent.” It is hoped that these informants would spread the rumor in various large Negro communities across the land.”

The proposal, which was approved the next day, also contained a report on another COINTELPRO directed at Carmichael:

“On 7/4/68, a pretext phone call was placed to the residence of STOKELY CARMICHAEL and in absence of CARMICHAEL his mother was told that a friend was calling who was fearful of the future safety of her son. It was explained to Mrs. CARMICHAEL the absolute necessity for CARMICHAEL to ‘hide-out’ inasmuch as several BPP members were out to kill him, and it was probably to be done sometime this week. Mrs. CARMICHAEL appeared shocked upon hearing the news and stated she would tell STOKELY when he came home.”

One result of Carmichael’s bad-jacketing may be detected in the statement of Black Panther Minister of Defense Huey P. Newton on September 5, 1970 that, “We… charge that Stokely Carmichael is operating as an agent of the CIA.”

While such exercises may seem on their face to be merely slimy, the more lethal implications were brought out clearly by an FBI infiltrator named Thomas E. Mosher who had penetrated the Bay Area Radical Union in 1969 and “insinuated [himself] into a relationship with the national office of the Black Panther Party.” As he later explained…, Fred Bennett, a prominent Bay Area Panther and “general in George Jackson’s People’s Army,” had been successfully bad-jacketed as a police informer at some point in mid-1969. Consquently, Bennett was executed by Jimmie Car, another ranking Panther and People’s Army commander… [A] bad-jacket operation was also under way against Carr; by early 1972, the idea had been successfully implanted in movement circles that Carr was a police agent and was skimming funds from the People’s Army. He was assassinated in his own San Francisco front yard April 6 of that year by Richard Rodriguez (a Southern California Panther) and Llyod Lamar Mims (an L.A. Panther).

—  Ward Churchill & Jim Vander Wall | Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (1988)

Representative of the [settler colonialist] mentality is an oft-televised public service announcement featuring an aging Indian, clad in beads and buckskins, framed against a backdrop of smoking factory chimneys while picking his way carefully among the mounds of rusting junk along a well-polluted river. He concludes his walk through the modern world by shedding a tragic tear induced by the panorama of rampant devastation surrounding him. The use of an archaic Indian image in this connection is intended to stir the settler population’s subliminal craving for absolution. “Having obliterated Native North America as a means of expropriating its landbase,” the subtext reads, “Euroamerica is now obliged to ‘make things right’ by preserving and protecting what was stolen.” Should it meet the challenge, presumably, not only will its forebears’ unparalleled aggression at last be in some sense redeemed, but so too will the blood-drenched inheritance they bequeathed to their posterity be in that sense legitimated. The whole thing is of course a sham, a glib contrivance designed by and for the conquerors to promote their sense of psychic reconciliation with the facts and fruits of the conquest.


Although both the United States and Canada officially maintain that
genocide has never been perpetrated against the indigenous peoples within their borders, both have been equally prone to claim validation of their title to native lands on the basis that “group extinction” has run its course in a number of cases. Where there are no survivors or descendants of preinvasion populations, the argument goes, there can be no question of continuing aboriginal title. Thus, in such instances, the land-vacated by the literal die-off of its owners-must surely have become open to legitimate claims by the settler-states under even the most rigid constructions of Territorium res Nullius.

While the reasoning underpinning this position is essentially sound,
and in conformity with accepted legal principles, the factual basis upon which it is asserted is not. With the exception of the Beothuks of Newfoundland, whose total extermination was complete at some point in the 1820s, it has never been demonstrated that any of the peoples native to North America, circa 1500, has ever been completely eradicated. Take the Pequots as a case in point. In 1637, they were so decimated by a war of extermination waged against them by English colonists that they were believed to have gone out of existence altogether. Even their name was abolished under
colonial law. For three centuries, Pequots were officially designated as being extinct. Yet, today, the federal government has been forced, grudgingly, to admit that several hundred people in Connecticut are directly descended from this ” extirpated” nation.

Similar examples abound. The Wampanoags of Massachusetts were declared extinct in the aftermath of the 1675 “King Philip’s War,” but managed to force recogmtlon of their continuing existence during the 1970s. More-or-Iess the same principle applies to a number of other peoples of the Northeast, the Piscataways, Yamasees, Catawbas and others of the Southeast, all of whom were reportedly extinct by 1800, the Yuki, Yahi and others of northern California, largely annihilated through the “cruelties of the original settlers” prior to 1900, and so on around the country. James Fenimore Cooper’s “Last of the Mohicans” wasn’t, nor was Alfred
Kroeber’s Ishi really the “last of his tribe.” In sum, the fabled “Vanishing Red Man,” alternately bemoaned and celebrated with a great deal of glee in turn-of-the-century literature, didn’t.

By-and-Iarge, “extinction” is and has always been more a classification bestowed for the administrative convenience of the settler-states than a description of physical or even cultural reality…

In other instances, the U.S. has simply refused ever to admit the
existence of indigenous peoples. Notably, this pertains to the Abenakis of Vermont, who, having never signed a treaty of cession, actually hold title to very nearly the entire state. Other examples include the Lumbees of North Carolina, perhaps the most populous indigenous people in all of North America, and a number of fragmentary groups like the Miamis of Ohio scattered across the Midwestern states. While not following precisely the same pattern, Canada has also utilized policies of declining to acknowledge native status and/or refusing to recognize the existence of entire groups as a means of manipulating or denying altogether indigenous rights to land and sovereign standing.

While neither such official subterfuges nor the popular misconceptions attending them have the least effect in terms of diminishing the actual rights of the peoples in question, they do place the settler-states in positions of patent illegality.

—  Struggle for the Land by Ward Churchill
Pacifists tell us that the ends never justify the means. This is a statement of values disguised as a statement of morals. A person who says ends don’t justify means is simply saying: I value process more than outcome. Someone who says ends do justify means is merely saying: I value outcome more than process. Looked at this way, it becomes absurd to make absolute statements about it. There are some ends that justify some means, and there are some ends that do not.
—  Derrick Jensen, Preface to Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill
What do you do when the gang wears blue? …[T]his goes to this notion of how we frame and understand to perceive and receive the concept of terrorism. Terrorism is not something that’s done by people that are powerless and marginalized as a response to power and their marginalization. The word originates in the French revolution in direct association with the function of the State to maintain an order contrary to the interest of the people governed. That means, that all those things that were supposedly invisible… are maintained as operate realities, and the social and economic order, by the raw force, that is the terror of the State. That’s why the cop wears the gun on the hip. That’s why we have swat teams that have more fire power capacity than third world armies. They’re directed at us. We are maintained in order, in line by force of arms, that is to say – terror.

anonymous asked:

(1/?) Can I just ask that people fucking STOP making fun of white people with the "1/16 Cherokee" line? (as rahkess did in their submission). This is fucked up for several reasons. A) many Tsalagi (i.e. Cherokee) cultures and community do NOT operate the same as others regarding identity- the president of the Cherokee nation has a very low blood quantum but that doesn't matter in determining his identity and he is very committed to his people. So marking "low-quantum" people as white is creepy.

Many American Indian LEADERS are mixed Tsalagi such as Ward Churchill, but still get shit due to this (just google ‘Ward Churchill fake indian). If they were mixed Black they would NOT be getting this- the attacki on 'fake indian’ and Cherokee princesses mainly stems from colonizers efforts to destroy American Indians (and their cultures, way of seeing race, etc) by instituting restrictive blood quantums- the BIA and the CIA have a history of doing this and using it to split up AIM. B) It makes people who are mixed Tsalagi have an INCREDIBLE amount of shame and confusion to constantly see Cherokee ancestry being mocked BOTH by PoC and White people. I am mixed European, Black, Tsalagi,and am white-passing, but some of my family is brown or black-passing, and I personally receive the whole “Cherokee princess” attack so often I don’t even bring it up even though I am extremely proud and registered on the Dawes Roll. If a white person who is part Cherokee says something fucked up, they said something fucked up and you can leave it on that individual, but DON’T go making fun of others or causing collateral damage- you met ONE person with that background and identity who acted in that way- stop acting like you know otherwise or can generalize. It causes a lot of anguish and can have serious repercussions (see Ward Churchill again). Sorry for the long ask, and thanks for running an overall fabulous blog.

anonymous asked:

What are some books you believe to be a good, learning sources about racism, decolonization, socialism, etc. on your own bookshelf?

This is my and my girlfriend’s bookshelf as it stands now. Granted, many of these I am still reading or have yet to read (that seems to forever be a thing). 

(Click here and here for larger images)

But here is a list I previously made when I received this question. It is far from exhaustive, but includes at least many essays I have read too. I enjoy essays because you can print them and carry them with you if you aren’t much of a Kindle person:

  • The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
  • The Open Sore of a Continent by Wole Soyinka
  • Anarchism and the Black Revolution by Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin 
  • Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill 
  • Violence and the State by Standing Deer
  • Race Matters by Cornell West 
  • Race: How Blacks & Whites Think & Feel About the American Obsession by Studs Terkel 
  • Inipi: Sweat Lodge by Leonard Peltier
  • National Liberation Movement’s in Global Context by Jeff Sluka
  • Property is Theft by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
  • Imperialism: The Highest State of Capitalism by Vladimir I. Lenin
  • Thirty Theses by Jason Godesky 
  • July 4th Address by Assata Shakur 
  • Assata an Autobiography by Assata Shakur 
  • The Communist Idea and the Question of Terror by Alian Badiou 
  • The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon 
  • The Uses of the Erotic by Audre Lorde 
  • The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House by Audre Lorde 
  • Communion: The Female Search for Love by bell hooks
  • Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks
  • Letter From Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr. 
  • Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam by Martin Luther King Jr. 
  • Nonviolence and Racial Justice by Martin Luther King Jr. 
  • The Ballot or the Bullet by Malcolm X
  • Prison, Where is Thy Victory by Huey P. Newton 
  • Towards a United Front by George Jackson
  • Political Prisoners, Prisons, and Black Liberation by Angel Y. Davis
  • Power Anywhere There’s People by Fred Hampton 
  • On the Black Liberation Army by Jalil Abdul Muntaqim
  • The World’s Religions by Hudson Smith
  • On the Value of Skepticism by Bertrand Russel
  • The Ethics of Belief by William Clifford
  • All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer
  • Endgame Vol I: The Problem of Civilization; Endgame Vol II: Resistance by Derrick Jensen
  • On the Origin of Inequality Jean Jacques Rousseau
  • Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown 
  • Power Systems by Noam Chomsky 
  • The Threat of a Good Example by Noam Chomsky 
  • The Soviet Union Versus Socialism by Noam Chomsky 
  • A March of LIberty: A Constitutional History of the United States Vol: I & II by Melvin L. Urofsky & Paul Finkleman 
  • Quarrels That Have Shaped the Constitution by John Garraty 
  • The European Union by John Pinder 
  • The Undiscovered Self by C.G. Jung 
  • The Social Contract and the First and Second Discourses by Jean-Jacques Rousseau  
  • The Other World 9th Edition 
  • American Indian Mythology by Alice Marriott & Carol K. Rachlin 
  • The American Indian by Raymond Friday Locke 
  • The Removal of the Choctaw Indians by Arthur H. DeRosier Jr. 
  • Brave New World by Aldous Huxley 
  • The Jungle by Upton Sinclair 
  • Negroes with Guns by Robert F. Williams 
  • Discipline & Punishment: The Birth of the Prison by Michel Foucault 
  • The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexanders 
  • A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn 
  • Decolonizing Anarchism by Maia Ramnath 

Finally, search my blog for the tag books to find many more, for free at that! You can also scroll the side and click on each sub-category to more tailor your search. 

brittanyliah  asked:

I'm asking this from a genuine curious mind, I like to further my education in moral topics such as these. I saw your post against Pacifism & wanted to ask why it is you believe violence is necessary to help those in need. I agree with your statement that if action isn't taken people can be hurt but in reality in most situations the option of violence is taken advantage of. In the thousands of millions of wars in human history I only know a handful that have been just. I don't mean to offend you

Well, first, you cannot equate war and violence as the same thing for the simple fact that while all war is violent, all violence is not war. But my opposition to pacifism is rooted squarely in its poor pragmatism and immorality. Once again I’m going to pull from an article I wrote in 2014 to demonstrate the first half of my opposition:  

““In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience.”— Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture)

Nonviolence played a significant role in Indian independence, absolutely; but the premise that under the tutelage of Gandhi it was the premier force driving the nation toward liberation is a cherry-picked version of history. It downplays into nothingness the fact that the post-WWII crown could no longer maintain the brute force and financial obligation needed to run a global empire. Indigenous American scholar Ward Churchill in Pacifism as Pathology dismantled the myth that nonviolence effectively acted alone or in a vacuum unto itself:

“…Gandhian success must be viewed in the context of a general decline in British power brought about by two world wars within a thirty-year period. Prior to the decimation of British troop strength and the virtual bankruptcy of the Imperial treasury during World War II, Gandhi’s movement showed little likelihood of forcing England’s abandonment of India. Without the global violence that destroyed the Empire’s ability to forcibly control territories (and passive populations), India might have continued indefinitely in the pattern of minority rule marking the majority of South Africa’s modern history, the first locale in which the Gandhian recipe for liberation struck the reef of reality. Hence, while the Mahatma and his followers were able to remain “pure,” their victory was contingent upon others physically gutting their opponents for them.”

At best Gandhi worship ignores — at worst it erases — the revolutionary actions of people like Bhagat Singh and others who galvanized the resistance movement in colonial India. It removes the context of fear created by armed struggle, a reversal of the fear that underpinned British control of a country where Brits were enormously outnumbered. George Orwell, the famous author of 1984, as a former officer in the Indian police noted:

“Gandhi has been regarded for twenty years by the Government of India as one of its right-hand men… It was always admitted in the most cynical way that Gandhi made it easier for the British to rule India, because his influence was always against taking any action that would make any difference. The reason why Gandhi when in prison is always treated with such lenience, and small concessions sometimes made when he has prolonged one of his fasts to a dangerous extent, is that the British officials are in terror that he may die and be replaced by someone who believes less in “soul force” and more in bombs.”

The material and philosophical reality of nonviolence is one of insufficient means dictating for itself an impossible end. The sectarian nature by which many proponents of Gandhian doctrine preclude or lambaste the use of armed resistance only helps doom a people’s fight for liberation because it effectively counteracts any positive gain they together might achieve. A truly encompassing liberatory praxis must recognize the use of armed resistance as a legitimate and necessary method of achieving liberation. The dismantling of the Gandhi myth is therefore of primary importance in attaining such a praxis.”

To clarify, all nonviolence should not be mistaken for strict pacifism. Some nonviolence, indeed, can be militant and useful, but we should not be foolish enough to believe it, much less strict pacifism, alone could ever be sufficient enough to achieve liberation.

On the whole we have a severely underdeveloped conceptual understanding of violence. All violence is NOT the same. Violence wielded by an oppressor class can NEVER be equivocated with violence used in struggle toward liberation. Failure to differentiate between oppressive violence, passive and active force, and resistance is all too common though. They all get lumped together and treated as equal. This is a great disservice to the oppressed and our oppressors know it. They purposefully conflate oppressive violence with resistance in an effort (quite effectively) to decouple the oppressed’s natural right to self defense from the conditions which incubate militancy.

Violence is inherently neither good nor bad. It is all around us, but who uses it and for what purpose, i.e., the purposes of oppression, the purposes of survival, or the purposes of liberation, all must be contextualized in any discussion of it. Consider that self-defense is not necessarily violent, but oftentimes it is. When self-defense is violent, I submit that if such defense is in the pursuit of liberation, or is requisite to a person or community’s survival, especially when faced with an oppressor, then it is not only essential, it is morally justified. 

Violence is a tool, and like any tool it can be used in a variety of ways. Strict pacifism is the ideology of the fool who watches a cop beat a man to death. To quote Malcolm X, “it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”

There can be no absolution, no redemption of past crimes unless the outcomes are changed. So long as the aggressors’ posterity continue to reap the benefits of that aggression, the crimes are merely replicated in the present. In effect, the aggression remains ongoing and, in that, there can be no legitimacy. Not now, not ever.
—  Ward Churchill

One conflation of terms that really bothers me a lot, which still seems to be plaguing the discourse, is the conflation of the term “nation” and the term “state.” You have this entity out there called “the United Nations.” It really should have been called “the United States,” because to be eligible even for admission to the Assembly you have to be organized in that centralized, arbitrary structure. No “nations” as such are even eligible for admission to the United Nations. “The United States” was a name already taken, however, and this was very useful in obfuscating the reality.

But the upshot of that is that you’ve got a whole lot of anarchists running around thinking they’re anti-nationalist, that nationality, nationalism in all forms, is necessarily some sort of an evil to be combated, when that’s exactly what they’re trying to create. You’ve got four or five thousand nations on the planet; you’ve got two hundred states. They’re using “anti-nationalist” as a code word for being anti-statist. With indigenous peoples, nationality is an affirmative ideal, and it hasn’t got any similarity at all to state structures.

You may have nations that are also states, but you’ve got most nations rejecting statism. So you can make an argument, as I have, that the assertion of sovereignty on the part of indigenous nations is an explicitly anti-statist ideal, and the basis of commonality with people who define themselves as anarchists. We’ve got to deal with our own bases of confusion in order to be able to interact with one another in a respectful and constructive way.

—  Ward Churchill, interviewed by Upping the Anti in 2003

The children in my program are now being indoctrinated about 9/11. I can’t speak up in this situation because, well, I need to keep my job. 

I just want to share what Ward Churchill has said about educating our youth:

“Why is it, do you think, that children are always too young to hear the truth, but never too young to be lied to, systematically, conscientiously, in the name of Education?”

At this juncture, the entire planet is locked, figuratively, in a room with the sociocultural equivalent of Hannibal Lecter. An individual of consummate taste and refinement, imbued with indelible grace and charm, he distracts his victims with the brilliance of his intellect, even while honing his blade. He is thus able to dine alone upon their livers, his feast invariably candlelit, accompanied by lofty music and a fine wine. Over and over the ritual is repeated, always hidden, always denied in order that it may be continued. So perfect is Lecter’s pathology that, from the depths of his scorn for the inferiors upon whom he feeds, he advances himself as their sage and therapist, he who is incomparably endowed with the ability to explain their innermost meanings, he professes to be their savior. His success depends upon being embraced and exalted by those upon whom he preys. Ultimately, so long as Lecter is able to retain his mask of omnipotent gentility, he can never be stopped. The spirit of Hannibal Lecter is thus at the core of an expansionist European ‘civilization’ which has reached out to engulf the planet.
—  Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust & Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present
#Columbus “It’s hard to discover an occupied territory. I often go for the first time to visit people who have moved into the area. It may be the first time I’ve been to their living room but I can hardly say I discovered it. After all they lived there. Much less can I extrapolate by virtue of my noble achievement of knocking on their door that somehow or another that their newly discovered living room becomes mine.” ~ Professor Ward Churchill, Colorado University