home

On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collective Guilt

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 10:51:27 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Rocky Mountain News today has a very interesting article on the concept of "collective guilt" in the context of the Ward Churchill controversy. The News traces the concept back to the bible and reports that it is very controversial.

The idea that an entire people can be guilty of common sins goes all the way back to the Bible, but in more recent times it's come to be known as "collective guilt." The concept is controversial, but discussions of collective guilt always tend to go back to the Germany of the 1930s.

...But many people believe the entire notion of collective guilt is wrong. "The whole development of European and American law is that there's personal responsibility," said Professor Robert Schulzinger, who teaches U.S. diplomatic history at the University of Colorado. "That was the whole idea behind Nuremberg, identifying the individuals responsible." Schulzinger believes the idea of collective guilt is inherently racist.

The article then quotes some Holocaust survivors on the issue of whether German citizens who stood by and did nothing knowing what their government was doing to Jews also were responsible for the genocide.

"The question comes up a lot whenever I speak to students," said Eric Cahn, a Denver man who survived the Holocaust. Cahn's German Jewish parents were imprisoned in a holding camp in southern France, and made the desperate decision to give 4-year-old Eric and his 2-year-old sister to French Resistance fighters posing as camp workers. His mother died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz; his father survived but refused to speak about his experiences in the camp.

"In terms of Germans my age or younger, I have no animosity towards them," said Cahn, 67. "I do have a lot of animosity and anger towards Germans in their 80s and 90s today who stood by and let the Nazis do what they did. People turned a blind eye. I do feel collectively they are guilty."

Another survivor, Amitai Etzioni, now a noted sociologist at George Washington University in Washington, agrees:

"Let's assume you live in a community and know a lynching is going on and do nothing about it - you are complicit," he said. "There have been a lot of studies that showed most of the Germans knew what was happening. There was complicity."

Etzioni says Schulzinger is confusing law with ethics. For reasons having nothing to do with the Bible, I agree with Mr. Cahn and Mr. Etzioni. I think there is a collective guilt on the part of those Germans who knew, stood by and did nothing. I also agree that Germans who were born after WWII bear no such responsibility.

Bringing it back to Churchill, however, Etzioni makes a great last point.

As for Churchill's comments about the dead at the World Trade Center, Etzioni doesn't think vengeance is ever justifiable. "Killing innocent people is not a way to deal with guilt," he said. "Two wrongs don't make a right. Even the Nazis got a trial."

< Legal Experts: Ward Churchill's Job is Safe | Michael Jackson's Court Attire >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collective Guilt | 30 comments (30 topical)
    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    There also has to be different levels of sin and certain context to be explored before assigning guilt. Motivation, in particular. Removing Native Americans from land for greed is not the same thing as bombing terrorist camps in Afghanistan. The Spanish American war wasn't nearly as imperialistic as, say, the Mexican-American war. Their isn't a perfect nation, culture, or religion. You have to look at the totatlity of the subject. BTW, if someone was to harm Churchill would we understand it because he brought it on himself? Afterall, if you offend someone then you have to understand that the chicken will come home to roost. The folly of his argument.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    Of course we would understand that's what happened. We'd also disagree with it just like we disagree with Churchill's views. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to express them.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    The possibility of martyrdom is not lost on Churchill. I would understand it as well as I understand the need to crucify Jesus or the need to assassinate MLK or Gandhi. Opposing violence in its complete range is inherently dangerous. Bocajeff is being coy and clever, but Churchill is being courageous.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    The Colorado chapter of AIM's website features a much-longer version of Ward Churchill's perspectives on 9-11 and collective guilt--alluding to "the Nuremberg Doctrine" and distinctions among kinds of "guilt" ("criminal"; "political"; and "moral")--in attempting to see the events of 9-11 from an historical perspective. This one (posted in 2004) is entitled "The Ghosts of 9-11: Reflections on History, Justice, and Roosting Chickens." It provides further contexts for Churchill's shorter 2001 essay--linked in TL's earlier thread--entitled "'Some People Push Back:' On the Justice of Roosting Chickens")--which contains the metaphor "little Eichmanns" and which triggered the recent controversy. (Ward Churchill is listed as a member of one of the "councils" in the Colorado AIM site. AIM's "principles" are listed on the site as well.)

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    I not big on organized religion, more agnostic, but I compltely agree with the concept of orginial sin or collective guilt. Just as a person can be found responbile for something through action you can also be responsbile through inaction. And the biggest "sin" I see with America is our materialism. We're obbessed with "stuff", while closing our eyes to what it takes to support this orgy. Simple fact, our foreign policy is guided by our economy. Ain't it nice to be able to sit around tommorrow in front of our new flat panel TV with 8.1 surround sound watching all this great commercials while blissfully ignoring the fact that our admisinstration has contempt for the Kyoto (?) treaty on the environment. Oh look "dark" people in the Sudan killing each other, they don't have oil so why should I care, silly people, pass the chips. Rant off. B

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#6)
    by Rich on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    "collective guilt" and the Holocaust are non-sequiturs. Perhaps the behavior of Jews, Israelis in the occupied and territories vis a vis the Palestinians and one Rachel Corrie present a more logical comparison, one where the thoughts, actions and behaviors of the overwhelming power, the US in the world since 1945, the Nazis in Europe during the 30's and early 40's and the Jews/Israelis in the Middle East over the past 25 years are held in critical review. We, the United States, hold ourselves less accountable than we do the poor, powerless and disenfranchised both domestically and internationally. Churchill nails it accurately which is why narcissists like BocaJeff strike out reflexively and viciously at the reflection in mirror

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    B Um..Sudan does have oil. In fact I think you will find that is one of the underlying reasons the UN will not intervene despite the US attempt to get the slaughter declared "genocide".

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#8)
    by chris on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 05:49:45 PM EST
    That fact that Ward Churchill comments are insulting and not to mention wrong are just another example of the left wing "frenzy" usual symptoms of Frenzy are Stupid and irelavant comparisons Feelings are more relavant than facts statements that are inflamatory are given credibility by all left wing people. And finally hate by the left wing when you dont agree them. I do feel sorry for the people who have lost loved ones though, i can remember a time when statements like Churchills comments would have been considered "bad taste" or bad manners
    .

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:22:23 PM EST
    B - Then the inaction of those Iraqi citizens who didn't fight against Saddam's killers, tortureers, etc., make them guilty? Now that is strange logic.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#10)
    by cp on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:37:12 PM EST
    the concept of "collective guilt" is a fraud. it is used by the victors to tar an entire group for the acts of a few, and by the guilty to assuage their individual responsibility for acts they committed. to take an above example a step farther: if i know about the lynching, and do nothing, i am complicit. if my neighbor, asleep the entire time, and unaware of events, does nothing, how can he be complicit as well? by your definition, he can be. merely because he lived in the same town, he will be tarred by collective guilt. during wwII, the nazi's and the japanese committed many atrocities, but not all germans and japanese were complicit in them. most germans and japanese supported the basic aims of their respective governments, but were not necessarily aware of all acts being committed in their names. to assume otherwise is kind of unfair. the concept of "original sin", in the catholic church is largely symbolic. no one truly believes a new born baby is guilty of anything, except messing up a lot of diapers. further, i don't believe my children, 14 & 11, bear any guilt whatever for the acts of our government, since 1776. for that matter, i'm not so sure i accept blame for them either. one individual can only do so much, whether in a democracy or dictatorship, even if we know our government is committing illegal acts. to blame that individual for the failure of society at large, seems a bit unfair to me.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:37:25 PM EST
    Robert, you have a point though I think it still fits our modis operandi. Our allies (Italy, UK, Canada) and China, who we don't want to anger, have a big investment in the country and it looks like they are getting their money. So maybe at NATO meetings they don't mention Iraq and we lay off the Sudan. I don't think Sadam was as complicint as the Sudanese government in selling out. PP Thomas Aquinas (I had this in a file) spoke of the secundum quid- the greater responsibility placed on the shoulders of those who have the ability to assume and discharge that greater responsibility. So yes I would say the Iraqi people do have some responsibility for Sadam and even for what is going on now but we live in a republic and have way more power over our government and thus way more responsibility. B

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimcee on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    Although the Churchill thing is a bit long in the tooth, one has to admit that his position is controversial, it isn't much different from many Lefist leanings. That people were pissed because of what he said is a good thing. It means folks are paying attention to second rate profs from a third rate state university and are wondering why fake Native-Americans command so much publicity. After having spoken with three Hamilton alumni they agree that this piece o' sh*t got on their lecturer's list by a b*llsh*t push from certain faculty that have a Leftist agenda. Boy the '60's die hard, don't they. Those that defend this more than likely First-American fraud are as guilty of his bigotry as those that have demeaned him. At best I think he should be fired for his dishonesty about his Indian background. After that explain why he has any credibility to speak for Native Americans, let alone have his position at the U of C? A fraud is a fraud and Mr Churchill is apparently a fraud, so you knee jerk folks should identify to the rest of us why he isn't. Bye the by, one of his Indian students that actually pointed out the fact he wasn't Native-American by credentuals was given a C- after her report about that. She was a A student prior to her report. Hard Question; was she right and he used his position to reduce her grade or was she a bad student? Let me know because excuses for bad behavior is a part of being a Lefty nowadays. Just saying...

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    I just bought another DVD player for the TV in the basement. Someone will die somewhere and I might have saved him with the money that DVD player cost.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 11:01:58 PM EST
    "Posted by B: "I not big on organized religion, more agnostic, but I compltely agree with the concept of orginial sin" What a bizarre comment. Do you even know what Original Sin conceptually is? It is that by reaching for knowledge, humankind violated some kind of injunction from the Deity, and therefore are required to suffer. It is about the LEAST agnostic idea you could hold. " or collective guilt. Just as a person can be found responbile for something through action you can also be responsbile through inaction." This is a misnomer. Guilt through inaction (sins of omission, in Christian language) has NOTHING to do with the inherently racist concept of collective guilt, which holds that an entire race can be dehumanized because of the actions of a few members, but more generally, because of an innate and specific flaw of that racial group. It's a fundamental concept of racism. The concept developed not out of religion, but out of genocide theory. "We have been reproached for making no distinction between the innocent Armenians and the guilty. But that was utterly impossible, in view of the fact that those who were innocent today might be guilty tomorrow." Mehmed Talaat, genocidist. As far as Ward Churchill's views, it may be that he believes this, or that he believes that Americans would be lucky to escape from the BLOWBACK of very bad American policies foisted on us by a handful of evil characters, like Henry Kissinger or George Bush. I don't know what he believes, having not studied his thought. Jimcee's points are made in almost total ignorance as well; just more hate radio or Fox news lies, spewed around as if they were facts in evidence. As for 'speaking for indians,' why can't he? He may well be one of the thousands of non-indians who do what they can to bridge the gaps. Even the concept of 'indians' is just a convenient idea. Each tribe, each member of each tribe, is an individual, and may have widely-differing views. In reality, it isn't necessarily birth on a reservation that makes someone able to champion indian causes. But if he is claiming intimate CULTURAL knowledge of a specific group, then he should at least be a fluent speaker of the language of those he would represent, and have a history participating in the culture.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:36:07 AM EST
    Yea I think I get it. It's adam and eve and the apple and the snake. Elements of free will in there also. I'm pretty sure agnostic and dieties (or some larger unknown power) are not that far apart. Athiest would be a better example. And this is my hang up with religion because I really don't care where the idea came from because eventually someone will argue that because an idea was espoused in the bible the idea has religious origins. I disagree. It's the catch 22 of free will. We have control therefore we don't have control. Like the teenager who goes to college we get all the good parts of responsibility but also the bad like having to get a job and pay bills. I didn't talk about racism. I wasn't talking about original sin in the context of racism, and maybe that's your point, I was just addressing it more in our foreign policy. That, like it or not, you can't just have the perks of living in this country without responsibility for the unpleasant things as well. To me Churchill's comments were more focused on the faults of capitalism then they were on race. B

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:25:51 AM EST
    I find the idea of "collective guilt" dificult and not clear cut, even after having discussed in religion class in HS long ago. The first question is guilty of what? Take the lynching example someone gave above. The person who did nothing is guilty of not calling the police but the person who is sleeping is not. But say its the 10th lynching and both know about the lynchings, are both guilty of not trying to call police or trying or alerting someone in power? Are any of us guilty for what our distant relatives did to native Americans over 100 years ago? I would say no. But what about the poor treatment they still receive, including the fact that the Government office has been rift with corruption and mismangement. Do we all bear some guilt for letting those kind of policies continue? I would say yes. If people don't believe in collective guilt do they believe in collective punishment like that being practiced by the US in Iraq or the Israelis against the palestinians?

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 06:49:47 AM EST
    WHile you're at it Soc, why not that practiced by Al Qeada against Americans, Spanish, Dutch, Saudi and others, and of course, Palestinians against Israeli civilians? Intellectual morons. Punishing the innocent.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    SD - Collective punishment? You must be kidding. The invasion of Iraq was to change regimes.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:58:20 AM EST
    Jim, there were many reasons for invading Iraq and you're just using one convenient one to justify your arguement. Collective punishment is definitely at work in Iraq and that has been a given since the invasion began. Something to the effect of: "It's their own fault for not getting rid of Saddam in the first place". I'm sure many of us have heard that line before.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 11:04:56 AM EST
    "It's their own fault for not getting rid of Saddam in the first place." I never heard that one before. The Iraqis did try to get rid of Saddam, no? After the first Gulf War. And the West failed to assist them. I do not understand how you apply "collective punishment." If the Iraqis are able to establish a constitution in the wake of the recent elections and cobble together a consensual government, it's an example of collective redemption.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    PPJ - disingenuous as always. Its not the invasion thats the collective punishement, its the tactics used. As but one example, the wholesale bombing of fallujah was collective punishement. Punishing everyone for the actions of a minority is collective punishment. Dr Ace then Americans are morons for practicing collective punishment in Iraq. I know, if you can name someone else that does it that will make you feel better. Moral bankruptcy.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    I didn't take churchill's statements as defending the attacks on the wtc as vengeance. I took them as *understanding* the attacks on the wtc as vengeance.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:16:59 PM EST
    SD - That is your typical logic. Nonsense. The bombing was a military tactic. Nothing more, or less. Che - Regime change was the objective. There were many reasons that was true.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:36:22 PM EST
    PPJ - your ability to be dishonest and disingenuous no longer surprises me.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#26)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:06:59 PM EST
    It is said the peasants said the same about the Czar, Dark.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    SD - Are you saying that bombing wasn't a tactic? Tunesmith - So, do you forgive Churchill for them not forgiving us? Hmmm, a double. You should be proud.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#28)
    by soccerdad on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:01:25 PM EST
    Obviously it was a tactic. The bombing of a whole city and the indiscriminate killing of men women and children because of the presence of insurgents is the tactic of collective punishment.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    The whole procedure of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq is based on the theory of collective guilt. It is racist to the core. Jim thinks if he keeps on the bluster, these actions will cease to be WAR CRIMES. But, guess again. Another stolen election will not cover the blood. Colin Powell SPECIFICALLY told the Congress and the UN that the policy was NOT regime change. The resolution that passed the Congress did not approve regime change. Bush/Rumsfeld's criminal negligence in the deployment of the troops cannot be blamed on the Iraqis. 911 cannot be blamed on the Iraqis as a group, or Islam as a group, or on any of the 100,000 civilians Bush's misuse of our military has killed. Cue Jim, blathering. And some more of Ace's insults.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 06:41:41 AM EST
    Soc, please don't mistake me for someone who takes you seriously.

    Re: On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collectiv (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 13, 2005 at 02:48:05 AM EST
    Ward Churchill said the truth. The 9/11 victims are not innocent. They are collective guilty with the other Americans. Americans caused the death of around 10 million people (mainly kids in Iraq). It is the most cruelty the mankind ever faced. I salute Ward Churchill, who said the truth, though it is souring. Prathiba

    On Ward Churchill and the Concept of Collective Guilt | 30 comments (30 topical)