Book: Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America Chapter: Pacifism as Pathology Revisited: Excavating a Debate (Again) Author: Ward Churchill Published: 2017 / PM Press
This introduction was written in 2016.
I need to highlight this part of the 'backstory' because I think it highlights something that succeeds in explaining the core idea of what the (intentionally catchy and controversially named) essay means:
Perhaps obviously, it emerged from the cumulative frustration attending my years of activist experience from early 1969 onward, as the broadly insurgent movement in which I’d cut my proverbial teeth dissolved into the (euroamerican) left’s generalized “turn to theory,” the “new age” charade of self-absorbed indulgencies like “est,” and other such willful diversions, with what remained having largely harnessed itself to the self-neutralization embodied in catechistic rituals of “nonviolent protest.” As well, and as a fair number of readers correctly surmised from almost the moment the essay first appeared in print, there was something much more specific that prompted me to write it.
The incident in question occurred when I accepted an invitation from Bob Sipe, an organizer of the Midwest Radical Therapy Association (MRTA), to conduct a workshop at the group’s 1981 annual conference, held near Boone, Iowa. The premise underlying my session was that many people on the left displayed an irrational aversion to firearms based upon an abject ignorance of—and consequent intimidation by—the technology itself. Worse, they were intent on glossing over this experiential skills deficiency by proclaiming such weakness to be both a “moral virtue” and a constructive political dynamic. To my mind, and Bob’s, this translated into a posture of deliberate self-disempowerment on the part of oppositionists, the only possible result of which would be a virtual monopolization of firepower by the very institutional/ideological status quo we radicals were supposedly committed to abolishing. To call such practice self-defeating was and is to dramatically understate the case.
Whether someone agrees with Ward here or not, this positions his essay within a specific context of what he would be discussing with regards to “pacifists.” It isn't vague, it isn't meandering; he's very clear in explaining something that sparked his frustration with concepts of “nonviolence” and “pacifism,” which helps us better understand the direction he was aiming.
I don't know (yet) if he does this in the original essay, but his introduction does a beautiful job of making it very clear what kind of pacifism I'm supposed to understand him to be critiquing.
You’d think, given this sort of favorable response, that similar exercises in demystification/personal empowerment might’ve been embraced by the MRTA as a whole. Instead, it seems I’d barely left the conference grounds en route back to Colorado before one of RT’s leading lights, Claude Steiner, demanded an “emergency plenary meeting.” When it was convened that evening, he advanced a resolution for ratification by the membership prohibiting such workshops from ever again being conducted under the organization’s auspices and barring anyone from bringing a firearm, whether real or simulated, to a conference for any purpose. The quality of the ensuing “discussion” can perhaps be gleaned from Steiner’s bald assertion that I was “a killer” who had “absolutely no place in the RT community,” and his response, when challenged to muster evidence of my homicidal propensities, that he’d “seen it in [my] eyes.”
This part continues into a discussion about personal attacks that have no basis in evidence (and is presented as such—I know nothing of Ward Churchill, and I'm not going to presume anything about him at this time). This again is a very good way of centering how I'm supposed to understand this essay, and it also does a good job in another area that is more appropriate than a straight conflation of all nonviolence: He provides the audience a specific example to understand and expand from.
If this is what motivated him to write his original essay, then it is a clear explanation as to what his terminology means. We can see that he means the 'nonviolence' as imposed by people who seek to retain their own positions of power, whether it is on a small- or large-scale.
Side note: I kind of love the mention of feminist lesbians who had admitted they came to denounce the whole thing as a macho exercise and then were like “Actually, this was good, and I want more of it.” I grew up around varying kinds of weaponry, learned how to use them, and I actually would like more places to 'demystify' them for most people so they can better understand their uses in varying contexts. (Also, this anecdote doesn't feel like the traditionally hostile-towards-feminists thing, nor does it make them feel like they were treated as idiots; it genuinely feels amusing to me and like something people I know would've done.)
Side note to the side note: I did say I loved it, but after the later discussed “lest I be accused” comment, I find I have questions of its inclusion.
Suffice it to say that, although no one who’d actually attended the workshop voted in favor of it, Steiner’s resolution was passed by a decisive margin. As if this weren’t bad enough, a question was then posed by one of those who’d opposed the measure as to whether, should the cops show up at a future conference, those who’d voted in favor would be prepared to disarm or forcibly eject them. This caused a brief dither before an amendment was quickly mustered and ratified, exempting “police and other civil authorities”—e.g., the FBI—from the MRTA’s otherwise blanket ban on weaponry. For at least some of those present, this finally said it all, thoroughly validating a remark I’d made during the workshop Q&A to the effect that, in practice, the term “principled pacifist” can often translated as “active accommodationism,” and sometimes as “outright collaborator.”
Again, here is a clear example of what is meant. This is good positioning of the topic being discussed.
(Lest I be accused of “sexism” in my framing here, it should be noted that less than 2 percent of all those killed by police are female).
I don't like this inclusion because I think it needs to be framed better than this. It's not sexist to say that, under “official” capacity, police are more likely to kill more men (particularly men of colour) than they are women (though I'm curious what the percentage is now, if it was 2% in 2016).
However, it should included that police are more able to kill women outside of official capacity (sex workers, women they target in any way, partners), and those crimes are also less likely to be dealt with (women who report their abusive cop boyfriend to the police... don't stand a chance). It's not an either-or here; it's both. Women are far more likely to die to a cop outside of his “official” duties, and that only adds the argument being made because it shows that on top of their behaviour in “official” duties, they weaponise the same positions external to them.
And had he not made the “lest I be accused” thing, I wouldn't have actually had any thoughts on the presentation of information; I would've probably wondered “What about...” but it wouldn't have read as badly as it does. (Professor, are you scared of being ~cancelled~?)
As concerns the current scene, Peter Gelderloos, from his station in “the younger generation” and in his own inimitable fashion, has said much of what I might’ve said regarding the stultifying stranglehold exerted by proponents purely “peaceful protest”...
Full offense, but Peter's book is a meandering mess that does little to define his meaning. If you get something from it, I guess cool? But also, it's literally written in a way that you bring your own definitions to it and he does nothing to get you on the same page. (Meanwhile, while I'm not liking Churchill that much? Especially after the pre-emptive “lest I be” nonsense... and also the intro, which I didn't comment on... Churchill does at least organise his essays in a way that forces the reader to understand what his meaning is.)
Anyway, skimming through the footnotes for any interesting bits:
-11-. “I advocate training in arms [because] non-violence presupposes the ability to strike [emphasis added],” the Mahatma observed, adding that, “Taking life may be a duty,” and that, “Even man-slaughter may be necessary in certain cases.” See Krishna Kripalani, ed., All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as Told in His Own Words (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1960) pp. 121, 134, 138.
If anything, something like this is interesting because it shows that even a person whose “nonviolent movement” included contextually necessary violence. Just noting it for some reason.
-16-. The consistency reflected in Black’s lengthy record of relying upon character assassination, often to the extent of outright snitch-jacketing, as an expedient means of “winning” theoretical disputes is truly remarkable. That he is himself a documented snitch, yet is still accorded a certain degree of respect by people who should know better, is even more so. Instructively, his smears are often quite popular on right-wing blogs like Discover the Networks and David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine. See, e.g., Bob Black, “Up Sand Creek Without a Paddle,” FrontPage Magazine (November 2006), now online at discoverthenetworks.org. A February 21, 1996, informant letter sent by Black to the Seattle police is posted online at seesharppress.com. For an attempt to excuse his conduct, even while acknowledging it, see Anonymous [Aragorn], “In Defense of Bob Black,” Anarchist News (September 21, 2015), online at anarchistnews.org.
This is just the funniest one, honestly, especially as it implicates both Bob Black and Aragorn in either being a certifiable snitch or laundering one in a movement. The Bob Black piece that is mentioned is no longer available where it's linked in the above (but I'm leaving the domain it was listed on when this edition of Churchill's book was published). It took some hunting, but I archived it here and it is super white supremacist (so please take care if you choose to read it). Like, it is appalling. (It's also uploaded on his academia.edu, but I refuse to make an account to download it there.)
The snitch letter is archived here.
Similarly, Aragorn's piece is no longer on anarchistnews.org (unless they've changed the structure of the site), but it is on TAL (archived here).
Idk, maybe we can get rid of Bob Black or (if you must engage with his bullshit) start contextualising his work by knowing exactly who he has always been.
I honestly wasn't expecting that when looking at what was in the citation, but wow.