What do you think?
Rate this book
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Consequences of American Conquest & Carnage
The United States has long been considered a deadly foe by the inhabitants of its ever-expanding "spheres of influence." In Reflections on the Justice of Roosting Chickens , Churchill examines the toll U.S. policies have taken on civilians around the world and the role activists are (or aren’t) playing to stop the carnage. The Western world was stunned to wake up on 9-11 to find that the Third World had "pushed back." By ignoring the suffering and loss of life of their victims while grieving over our own, Amercans have made themselves complicit in their government’s global slaughter. In a heartwrenching recount, Churchill reminds us of the untold millions who have perished as a result of U.S. military intervention (in either a physical, diplomatic or economic sense) in Iraq, Cambodia, Palestine, East Timor, the Americas . . . and the list goes on. To further illustrate his point, included are annotated chronologies of U.S. military actions from 1776 to the present and a compilation of International Laws either broken or ignored by the United States. Comprehensive, yet remaining concise, this book cannot be overlooked by those still "Why do they hate us?" "Few are as eloquent or as able to maintain lucidity for the lay reader as is Churchill."— Bloomsbury Review "Ward Churchill has carved out a special place for himself in defending the rights of oppressed people, and -exposing the dark side of past and current history, often marginalized or suppressed. These are achievements of inestimable value."—Noam Chomsky Ward Churchill is co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, a national spokesperson for the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee, and an associate professor of American Indian Studies and Communications at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Author of more than a dozen titles, he is also an indefatigable lecturer on government repression, American Indian affairs and global politics.
309 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2003
7 people are currently reading
507 people want to read
About the author
Ward Churchill
57 books137 followersWard Churchill (Keetowah Cherokee) has achieved an unparalleled reputation as a scholar-activist and analyst of indigenous issues. He was a Professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder, from 1990 till 2007; a leading member of the American Indian Movement (AIM); and has been a delegate to the U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Populations. He is the author of numerous books, including A Little Matter of Genocide, Fantasies of the Master Race, and Struggle for the Land.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 22, 2019
This is really only one essay with hundreds of footnotes. The rest of the book is a thorough catalog of U.S. interventions in space and time.
The lead essay is a devastating and, in my view, an unanswerable critique of the criminal basis and continuous criminality of the country called the USA. There is lifetime of Churchill's systematic and painstaking work in the footnotes -- many of which I have followed out and read.
Churchill reveals what has to be denied in order for the citizens of this country to think that they do not live in occupied territory, that their state is non-criminal, that they are not complicit in a continuing imperial and colonial history. My one critique is that too much of his work depends on taking law seriously; much of his case rests on laws and treaties signed by the U.S. But, if this tactic is seen as an internal critique, then I don't see how it can be answered except by one these two moves: "possession is 9/10ths of the law" or "the world is a better place despite US crimes." The first admits to the power of force alone and condemns the US as no more than an imperial power, the second justifies any and all crimes in the name of some notion of progress -- a move we might call necro-politics.
You can do many things with this book -- ignore it, throw it across the room, diminish it by slandering the author. But the hardest thing to do is argue against it head on. Because that would require a self-stripping down to the enigma of the human condition. Most of us cannot handle that kind of bright light on bare body.
Test yourself and find out.
The lead essay is a devastating and, in my view, an unanswerable critique of the criminal basis and continuous criminality of the country called the USA. There is lifetime of Churchill's systematic and painstaking work in the footnotes -- many of which I have followed out and read.
Churchill reveals what has to be denied in order for the citizens of this country to think that they do not live in occupied territory, that their state is non-criminal, that they are not complicit in a continuing imperial and colonial history. My one critique is that too much of his work depends on taking law seriously; much of his case rests on laws and treaties signed by the U.S. But, if this tactic is seen as an internal critique, then I don't see how it can be answered except by one these two moves: "possession is 9/10ths of the law" or "the world is a better place despite US crimes." The first admits to the power of force alone and condemns the US as no more than an imperial power, the second justifies any and all crimes in the name of some notion of progress -- a move we might call necro-politics.
You can do many things with this book -- ignore it, throw it across the room, diminish it by slandering the author. But the hardest thing to do is argue against it head on. Because that would require a self-stripping down to the enigma of the human condition. Most of us cannot handle that kind of bright light on bare body.
Test yourself and find out.
July 18, 2012
An important refutation of the notion that the United States has been a "force for good", a "beacon of democracy", and a "purveyor of law" in the world. The first half of the book briefly summarizes the numerous war crimes of the United States since its inception; and they are legion. The second section is an exhausting chronology of the numerous violations of international law perpetrated by the United States since 1945 and it's outright arrogant disregard for the resolutions of the United Nations, especially when its own desires for world military dominance or the actions of Israel are involved. Churchill deserves accolades for putting all this together in one volume. This book acts as a great complement to William Blum's book, "Killing Hope." I highly recommend reading both of these books.
October 31, 2008
If civilization, as Stanley Diamond said, originates in conquest abroad and repression at home, then Churchill's work on the repression of the Black Panthers and American Indian Movement addressed the latter. This book documents the ways the imperialist record of the Unites States exemplifies the other side of that equation as well.
The title essay has become notorious thanks to Bill O'Reilly's campaign against Churchill and radical academia at large. Certainly anticipating some disagreement with his condemnation of "U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality," Churchill composed a 40-page chronology of U.S. Military actions and their explicit or implicit motives and another 164-page chronology of US violations of and contempt for international law since 1945. The gist of the main essay is that, given the violence (military and economic) that the US, since its inception, has perpetrated across the globe without interruption in defiance of international opinion, some people will eventually push back; hence, 9/11.
The formal written content weighs in at only 45 pages. The bulk of the book that remains is essentially reference material (chronology and notes). The result is at the same time, more abrasive and to the point than Naomi Klein's equally damning The Shock Doctrine; this is the encyclopedia to Klein's novel. Churchill isn't making any new friends here but presenting historical facts so morally offensive that he shouldn't expect to.
In the short concluding section of the book, which surprised me in its frankness, Churchill presents a rousing case for the revolutionary destabilization or destruction of the US state apparatus in order that it may be brought finally under the rule of international law. In this regard, Naomi Klein does not go so far.
The title essay has become notorious thanks to Bill O'Reilly's campaign against Churchill and radical academia at large. Certainly anticipating some disagreement with his condemnation of "U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality," Churchill composed a 40-page chronology of U.S. Military actions and their explicit or implicit motives and another 164-page chronology of US violations of and contempt for international law since 1945. The gist of the main essay is that, given the violence (military and economic) that the US, since its inception, has perpetrated across the globe without interruption in defiance of international opinion, some people will eventually push back; hence, 9/11.
The formal written content weighs in at only 45 pages. The bulk of the book that remains is essentially reference material (chronology and notes). The result is at the same time, more abrasive and to the point than Naomi Klein's equally damning The Shock Doctrine; this is the encyclopedia to Klein's novel. Churchill isn't making any new friends here but presenting historical facts so morally offensive that he shouldn't expect to.
In the short concluding section of the book, which surprised me in its frankness, Churchill presents a rousing case for the revolutionary destabilization or destruction of the US state apparatus in order that it may be brought finally under the rule of international law. In this regard, Naomi Klein does not go so far.
December 11, 2007
Ward Churchill, until recently an associate professor of American Indian Studies and Communications at the University of Colorado, Boulder, takes America to task for its hypocritical and often destructive foreign policy over the past 230 years. Churchill provides a chronology of international laws broken or ignored by the United states since 1776, as well as a comprehensive list of U.N. resolutions the U.S. has broken or duplicitously voted against. More or less an answer to the question of “Why they hate us.”
November 3, 2008
Churchill's infamous essay "on the justice of roosting chickens" lives up to the hype. it never holds back and would be hard to disagree with, even for the staunchest conservative, if they'd bother to read it.
we all know about the systematic violence this country has used on the world, but ward really spells it out. his passion and careful use of citations bring it home. i love the catalog of american imperialism included after the essay. its great for busting out in debates with dad.
we all know about the systematic violence this country has used on the world, but ward really spells it out. his passion and careful use of citations bring it home. i love the catalog of american imperialism included after the essay. its great for busting out in debates with dad.
November 11, 2007
The facts contained in this book will open your eyes to a fresh view of our history as a nation, as a society, and as a people.His claim of the US being at war since our inception is well founded by the facts shown clearly in the book.
February 9, 2009
This is an interesting book. The back story may ring a bell - Churchill was a professor at CU Boulder before losing tenure for writing this. His basic premise--that the US has done untold numbers of bad things around the world and within its own borders, in flagrant violation of both international law and basic decency, was not news. Pointing this out certainly doesn't seem like something that merits losing tenure--but few things do, to me, or what's the point of tenure?!
My big problem with the book (and I'm sure this is the librarian in me speaking) is that lack of sufficient *footnotes.* Cite your sources. Geez. For the most part his facts seem to check out, or are easy to track down, but he does make several rather outrageous claims that there's no way I'm going to take seriously without footnotes.
One thing this has really made me think about is the UN...the point of having "international law" if one country continually violates it...and why the heck do we have a veto on the Security Council? Actually why does any country? It's completely absurd (to give one example) that the US can screw up Nicaragua and then veto a SC resolution condemning us for doing just that. Sort of defeats the purpose, yes?
I bought The Shock Doctrine when I was in Denver and expect it to hopefully make similar points and expand on what I've read here in a more responsibly footnoted, slightly less dogmatic manner.
My big problem with the book (and I'm sure this is the librarian in me speaking) is that lack of sufficient *footnotes.* Cite your sources. Geez. For the most part his facts seem to check out, or are easy to track down, but he does make several rather outrageous claims that there's no way I'm going to take seriously without footnotes.
One thing this has really made me think about is the UN...the point of having "international law" if one country continually violates it...and why the heck do we have a veto on the Security Council? Actually why does any country? It's completely absurd (to give one example) that the US can screw up Nicaragua and then veto a SC resolution condemning us for doing just that. Sort of defeats the purpose, yes?
I bought The Shock Doctrine when I was in Denver and expect it to hopefully make similar points and expand on what I've read here in a more responsibly footnoted, slightly less dogmatic manner.
June 22, 2007
A well-documented, savage indictment of the United States by this noted author, activist and social critic. Half of the book is dedicated to detailing all of the United Nations resolutions on human rights that the U.S. government blocked and vetoed.
October 17, 2011
I'm surprised it took the Fox News types so long to jump on this; they clearly let slip their subscription to Green Anarchy!
September 29, 2014
There's a ton of controversy over his comments on 9/11 and there really shouldn't be. There's no tinfoil hat shit here. If anything he's being too kind by saying the attacks were only provoked and not that they were obviously allowed to happen and even aided by members of the U.S. government. The only thing he said that really bothered me was a few lines about "environmental tobacco smoke." Apparently only upper class spoiled naïve liberal yuppies believe there's a link between second-hand smoke and health problems in his opinion. There may be some truth to the idea that cancers caused by radiation from nuclear testing are being attributed to tobacco to downplay the negative effects of those projects but come on! According to him some studies even show second-hand smoke having positive health effects on children. Pretty ridiculous. Not sure if he's biased towards tobacco because of his Native American heritage or something but it's without a doubt the worst aspect of this book. Other than that though, this is a pretty good one.
October 23, 2007
I bought this book. That was a mistake. The essay was pretty good, and I bought this for him to expand on the ethical ideas that he was starting to develop in the essay. That didn't happen. However, there's a huge amount of reference data in every page that isn't the first 50. Seriously, don't buy this if you plan on reading more of the ideas in the essay, it's just alot of research. Good research on US intervention, but not ideas which is what I expected.
March 30, 2015
learned response to september 11, inter alia. this is a much more reasonable reading than truther conspiracism, i think--or than the pro-US view that it never did anything to anyone except drop golden beneficence from jesusland. whatever. both need to grow the fuck up.
anyway, churchill's correct: some people do in fact push back.
anyway, churchill's correct: some people do in fact push back.
February 21, 2013
Great information and wonderful book. It is highly biased but that's also part of what I like about it.
January 27, 2024
Churchill is bold and courageous and takes on Empire head on. This is the book that he lost his tenured job over, which is utterly absurd, cause his argument is neither that controversial nor is it incorrect.
March 10, 2013
Ward Churchill's infamous book about what he sees as the unrelenting evil of the United States, from the Jamestown settlement to today. Let me paraphrase: American soldiers are cowards, rapists and terrorists; we've spent 400 years abusing everybody from the American Indians to Muslims in the Middle East; and we deserved the attacks on 9/11 as a kind of retribution. Gets tedious after the first few pages and all history is presented with no back story, nuance or objective reflection beyond the basic premise that "America is bad, bad, bad." Churchill is so petty in his hatred of his own country that he makes fun of the obituaries of bond traders and other business people killed on 9/11, comparing them to Adolph Eichmann since they, "Participate in America's global terrorist economic hegemony." When he wrote this book Churchill had managed to hoodwink his way into a professorship at Colorado-Boulder but was subsequently dismissed for plagiarism which leaves him more time for lecturing, book-writing and rabble-rousing. He claims to have been in combat in Vietnam, (he drove a truck) as well as membership in the Cherokee and Creek tribes, (there is no evidence of this). Not a serious history, if interested in the subject matter pick up anything by Howard Zinn.
October 24, 2007
picked it up while wandering through an anti war rally a few months back. wanted to see what the controversy was all about. it's mostly a collection of poorly written rant's, and a thousand footnotes that only lead to other crackpots.
he was recently fired from the university of colorado. do you have any idea how hard it is to fire a tenured professor? the school had to establish fraud and incompetance on a massive scale.
going into an argument qouting ward churchill is only going to get youlaughed at.
he was recently fired from the university of colorado. do you have any idea how hard it is to fire a tenured professor? the school had to establish fraud and incompetance on a massive scale.
going into an argument qouting ward churchill is only going to get youlaughed at.
May 30, 2008
The essays in the book are good, however, this one is staying in my library as a great reference regarding US criminality vis-a-vis international law (especially of the UN). The final commentary was very clarifying regarding the role US citizens should take to more effectively combat the establishment... although of course a whole book would more properly address that issue, not a few pages.
Still, the book is excellent in documenting US instrasigence in the face of international consensus.
Still, the book is excellent in documenting US instrasigence in the face of international consensus.
Want to read
November 27, 2007to read again...
June 3, 2008
Good book to have in the personal library...
November 11, 2008
A good book. Good first essay on 9/11 coupled with time lines of American imperialism and genocide. A must.
September 13, 2021
This book, wew lad. Well let’s get this part out of the gate: the entire book is not worth reading, just the essay that serves as its figurehead.
I knew nothing about Ward Churchill before reading this book and I’m glad that he’s fallen into obscurity, though his ideas (appropriately watered down for public tastes) are basically the common talking point of those on the political left when it comes to discussing America’s role in the world and an interpretation of 9/11.
Speaking of 9/11, that was the reason I read this book. I was exposed to Churchill on a twitter thread and the little bit I saw made me want to read the whole essay. The original essay: “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” is a discussion of the 9/11 attacks from what can be described as a far-left/left position on globalism “imperialism,” and “colonialism.” I put those terms in quotes because the way they are used are so broad that basically everything falls into those two categories (besides of course whoever Churchill and those who use those terms like who seem to get a free pass because they hate the United States.)
So what is this essay about? Well, it’s about how the 9/11 Attacks were justified. Now I know what you’re thinking “Oh that’s terrible!” or “Oh that’s correct!” Chances are if you react the first way you’re a normal person and if you react the second way you’re probably leftist partisan. But even for those on the left Churchill probably goes too far. He refers to people who died in the attacks as “Little Eichmanns,” Charming. They were willing collaborators who supported capitalism and/or militarism and so their deaths were justified. This is really the big difference between Churchill and Chomsky. Chomsky and his ilk believe that America deserved these attacks but will let the individuals who were killed (besides maybe the people in the Pentagon) off the hook. Churchill goes full bore and the honesty is refreshing but also disgusting, but at least he’s more consistent.
Of course being shocking only matters of what you say is true. Well there is very little truth in this book or if there is any it is lost due to the lies. Like many other people who argue this point Churchill points out how America has been a power in the world and that the way we act has made people angry and upset at us. He casts the hijackers as primarily political actors who were fighting against capitalism and American imperialism. He actively dismissed the religious aspects of their belief system and believes that’s a false distraction and that they didn’t really believe in Islamic fundamentalism (yes he is that stupid.)
So when you show such an allergy to the truth, and willingness to cast things within your view of the world rather than accepting the facts on the ground, why would I take your opinion seriously at all? I don’t. I laugh, save some quotes to make fun of my left leaning friends when they bring up this stuff and I move on with my life.
I wouldn’t recommend this book (parts 2 and 3 are nonsensical lists of American use of power and why the author doesn’t like it, but why would I take him seriously if he can’t get basic truths correct?) there might be some benefit in reading the main essay (if for no other reason than to see how far your eyes can roll into the back of your head) but you can find it online.
I knew nothing about Ward Churchill before reading this book and I’m glad that he’s fallen into obscurity, though his ideas (appropriately watered down for public tastes) are basically the common talking point of those on the political left when it comes to discussing America’s role in the world and an interpretation of 9/11.
Speaking of 9/11, that was the reason I read this book. I was exposed to Churchill on a twitter thread and the little bit I saw made me want to read the whole essay. The original essay: “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” is a discussion of the 9/11 attacks from what can be described as a far-left/left position on globalism “imperialism,” and “colonialism.” I put those terms in quotes because the way they are used are so broad that basically everything falls into those two categories (besides of course whoever Churchill and those who use those terms like who seem to get a free pass because they hate the United States.)
So what is this essay about? Well, it’s about how the 9/11 Attacks were justified. Now I know what you’re thinking “Oh that’s terrible!” or “Oh that’s correct!” Chances are if you react the first way you’re a normal person and if you react the second way you’re probably leftist partisan. But even for those on the left Churchill probably goes too far. He refers to people who died in the attacks as “Little Eichmanns,” Charming. They were willing collaborators who supported capitalism and/or militarism and so their deaths were justified. This is really the big difference between Churchill and Chomsky. Chomsky and his ilk believe that America deserved these attacks but will let the individuals who were killed (besides maybe the people in the Pentagon) off the hook. Churchill goes full bore and the honesty is refreshing but also disgusting, but at least he’s more consistent.
Of course being shocking only matters of what you say is true. Well there is very little truth in this book or if there is any it is lost due to the lies. Like many other people who argue this point Churchill points out how America has been a power in the world and that the way we act has made people angry and upset at us. He casts the hijackers as primarily political actors who were fighting against capitalism and American imperialism. He actively dismissed the religious aspects of their belief system and believes that’s a false distraction and that they didn’t really believe in Islamic fundamentalism (yes he is that stupid.)
So when you show such an allergy to the truth, and willingness to cast things within your view of the world rather than accepting the facts on the ground, why would I take your opinion seriously at all? I don’t. I laugh, save some quotes to make fun of my left leaning friends when they bring up this stuff and I move on with my life.
I wouldn’t recommend this book (parts 2 and 3 are nonsensical lists of American use of power and why the author doesn’t like it, but why would I take him seriously if he can’t get basic truths correct?) there might be some benefit in reading the main essay (if for no other reason than to see how far your eyes can roll into the back of your head) but you can find it online.
April 17, 2024
I lost a loved one on September 11, 2001 in NYC.
Back when this book was published, I read a few pages and shelved it.
Blasphemy!
I didn't want to read anything that I felt impugned my country of
birth. After a short while, I threw the book away as rubbish.
I'd like to think that I've since grown as a human being, and am willing
to accept the truth. I purchased the book again and appreciate Mr. Churchill's
research, truthfulness, and courage now.
The words within are an inconvenient truth...
Back when this book was published, I read a few pages and shelved it.
Blasphemy!
I didn't want to read anything that I felt impugned my country of
birth. After a short while, I threw the book away as rubbish.
I'd like to think that I've since grown as a human being, and am willing
to accept the truth. I purchased the book again and appreciate Mr. Churchill's
research, truthfulness, and courage now.
The words within are an inconvenient truth...
September 18, 2025
A treasure trove of information you are unlikely to find anywhere else. The book contains a crazy amount of footnotes that I wrote down and have delved into over the years.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews