Press Action

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Killing the Messenger: Ward Churchill’s Sins Against the Empire

By Steven Best

Read full article...

Posted 02/10 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

Steven, I like your article. It is very clear. I agree with it, but I am a little more enthusiastic about what Churchill is trying to accomplish, especially after hearing him speak last night on C-span. That was the best speech I have ever heard in my life. He is trying to do, what is almost impossible...sort of like trying to stop a tsunami. If, because of his “Not one inch” stand, we all gain a little courage to work for change, he is a real hero in my eyes. He has created a rare opportunity for all of us to get the message out. For years, many have been saying the same things as Churchill and it was ignored. Maybe, it is only his use of the controversial words, that has opened this door for all of us.

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 02/10 at 07:09 PM

When you say “those trying to silence him and trample on his constitutional rights shame themselves as the real anti-Americans traitors,” a picture of Sean Hannity as archetype comes to mind. The diabolical hiding behind the perfectly respectable. Almost of definition of “Bill Frist.” Go ahead; look it up in the dictionary.

The other side of the “(1) social systems of violence and aggression like Nazi Germany cannot run efficiently without the support of bureaucrats and functionaries like Adolph Eichmann; (2) everyone in the WTC worked for the US military or financial regime in some manner, therefore (3) they are all equally as culpable as Eichmann,” coin, is “I didn’t push the button so it’s not my resposibility. That is, it’s no one’s responsible. Exposing this concept, so rare in the corporate media was what was so exemplary of Churchill’s article.

Then again the Michael Jackson trial shouldn’t be “news,” at all, except in a very limited way to those most intimately involved. More cacophany and distraction to divert us from real issues.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from Chicago on 02/10 at 09:38 PM

The US government is evil. OK...so what are we going to do? I am happy there is some dialogue about this. But do you think Ward Churchill has changed anyone’s mind? Now the 3 percent of America that think everything done by the US government is a huge self-serving conspiracy have found a spokesman. Assuming this jaundiced perspective is true, how do you prevent it from happening in the future: by electing a complete Washington outsider for President? Maybe a Beerhall Putsch is in order?

Posted by karlli ebha from sac valley on 02/11 at 02:40 AM

Little Eichmanns. Adolf Eichmann was the architect of the Holocaust . He was directly responsible for the death of over one million men, women and children, every single one of whom was entirely innocent. This is the just another example of the Left’s constant and sickening trivialization of the Holocaust.

Academic Freedom. What if a professor said it was a good thing that blacks were lynched--a morally identical statement to saying all those who were incinerated or who jumped from the windows of the eightieth floor of the World Trade Center were little Eichmanns. What if this professor said those blacks, all of whom were innocent, really had it coming to them? How would other teachers and the students react? Academic freedom, my ass!

McCarthy. Joseph McCarthy was ferreting out Communists who worked in the United States Government--period (and, yes, he was a drunk---but not a liar).

The Patriot Act. Look at all that Janet Reno accomplished without the benefit of the Patriot Act, such as gassing all those women and children in Waco, and forcing little Elian back to the Leftist paradise of Cuba at the point of a machine gun.

Truth and Lies. Obviously it doesn’t bother you that Churchill lied about being an Indian. Lied about the Nazi’s not having a plan to exterminate the Jews. But, then, truth is a non-issue at the university. It’s all about pushing your agenda.

General James Mattis. Unfair! You quoted him out of context! He was talking about killing evil people who beat the crap out of their women for not wearing a veil. What do you expect our soldiers to feel when they kill the enemy? Angst? Guilt? Ought they write sensitive and nuanced sonnets, Professor?

Ward Churchill is an intellectual terrorist who ought to be tarred and feathered, and who no one ought to support, either on the Left or the Right. But you, Sir, are, with all due respect, a fool.

Posted by Jose Chung from Los Angeles on 02/11 at 04:40 AM

Jose Chung,

Churchill’s poorly chosen ‘little Eichmanns’ comment is not the same as saying blacks ought to be lynched. Why? Because C’s words are not encouraging or exhorting anyone to harm anyone, like lynching them. This quality is what defines hate speech.

I find your chosen expression, ‘intellectual terrorist’ suggestive of a willingness to criminalize political thought and speech.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/11 at 07:14 AM

Chung may have gotten his analogy from the many TV pundits attempting to “discuss” this controversy. For example, Joe Scarborough (sp?) on MSNBC had a student from U. of Colorado on...a student who supports Ward’s right to say what he said. Scarborough asked the kid if he’d like it if Ward came into the classroom wearing a swastika or using the “n-word.” He rattled the kid who answered, “I wouldn’t stay in the classroom.” Scarborough smirked as if he had proved a point.

Like it or not, there are varying laws governing certain usages of speech. In some cases calling someone a nigger or a faggot is a “hate crime.” Thus, to compare that example to a professor criticizing U.S. policy is either a display of monumental ignorance or a transparent attempt to mislead.

This is not about the tenderness of Churchill’s prose or the veracity of his claims to be an Indian (personally, I have no idea what his ethnic background is). The language he used was not a crime, he did not incite to violence, and the attacks on him are typical for a society that has undergone decades and decades of indoctrination.

Posted by Mickey Z. from on 02/11 at 08:14 AM

About the Mattis statement that it is fun to kill some people… Statements similar have being made all along. Remember the marine sharpshooter who said,"The chick was in the way” after he slaughtered a woman for no reason. That kind of sick, sadistic, depraved attitude is fairly common. Part of the purpose of military training is to remove the taboo against killing. Some have even argued that a sadist makes the best warrior. Why is the media not questioning the wisdom of giving weapons to sadists? The general population has such a misconception about the military. If most people knew what really happens in the military, they would be very shocked.

Posted by rosemarie jackowski from on 02/11 at 09:12 AM

The reality is that the Left has no compassion for anyone that can be confused as a human being—and lacks the courage required for intellectual integrity. It only has an identity.

1. Churchill would condemn 2 million people who graduated with an MBA over the past 10 years to die at the hands of those who share his anti-American ideology. Not to mention the millions of people who work for US corporations and the military. In other words, genocide is OK so long as those who are killed don’t share his political idenity. In his view, they deserve what they get-- and this view is shared by the Left. It summarizes the lack of moral authority and intellectual integrity of the Left.

2. Churchill asserts that the US must be repaid for the injustices it has committed historically. Of course, he ignores the 100 million people killed by Marxist/Commmunist ideology over the past 100 years. He ignores the millions who lost their life in the Arab world under totalitarian governments—as well as those in Africa, Asia and South America. Indeed, he ignores the fact that nearly every nation on the planet became a nation through conquest-- yet attempts to distort this fact as something unique to the West and the US. I suppose it helps to have selective morality and historical knowledge if your an ideologue. Its odd,however, when your a professor.

3. Churchill approves of violent actions that will likely result in the negation of those he claims to advocate-- as well as the freedom that he and other academics enjoy. A few more 911’s, which is his morbid desire, won’t destroy capitalism or the US or the “Nazis” that he’s defined within America. It will result in the will of the US to annihilate countless millions—as well as the destruction of academic institutions as we know them today. Such a brave man he is. Yes, encourage violent resistence that will result in the decimation of those he claims to advocate. Brilliant!

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/11 at 12:39 PM

“Like it or not, there are varying laws governing certain usages of speech. In some cases calling someone a nigger or a faggot is a “hate crime.””

It is a “hate crime” as determined by an academic institution but not a crime outside this institutional context. What this debate is showing is that academia has a very selective, politically motivated view of what is and is not acceptable speech. That is to say, irrational Leftists have free speech but irrational Right-wingers do not.

“Thus, to compare that example to a professor criticizing U.S. policy is either a display of monumental ignorance or a transparent attempt to mislead. “

No, its completely valid. The only difference is that academia has decided that Leftist hate speech is more acceptable that Right-wing hate speech. The professor didn’t just criticize US policy. He labeled a large segment of our society as being deserving of death-- using US policy as a mere pretext.

“The language he used was not a crime, he did not incite to violence,”

He merely justified and offered moral support to those who commited the violence...because those who commited this violence shared his anti-American enthusiasm. Of course, bin Laden would have all Marxists and atheists and gays and liberals and “free thinkers” killed if his empirical fantasies (which were not examined by Ward) were realized. But hey, I guess when your offering an analysis built on a foundation of anti-Americanism, it is not helpful to accurately represent the motives of those who carried out the attacks on 911. Its so much easier to assign motives to the terrorists (who contradict Ward’s assigned intent), as well as the the motives of 911’s victims. His ability to lionize Islamic totalitarians and de-humanize 911 victims was brilliant. Racists could learn alot from Ward.

“and the attacks on him are typical for a society that has undergone decades and decades of indoctrination.”

Oh no, Ward can’t handle people who disagree with him, think he’s a fraud, think he’s repulsive, think he’s damaging CU’s reputation, think he’s harming academia, think he’s an intellectual lightweight...People who have these views must be indoctrinated or ,perhaps, not adequately indoctrinated. Their speech is bad, maybe even a “hate crime”. Poor Ward. Why can’t the majority of the US just embrace self-loathing and self-negation?

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/11 at 01:13 PM

“Who cares what you think?"

- President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001

Ward Churchill may not be the most compassionate guy on the block, but he would listen to what you have to say.

George Bush could care less.

People are listening to him more than they are George Bush. It’s an indication that they want some answers instead of bullshit propaganda.

Have a nice day.

Posted by MDPB from on 02/11 at 01:46 PM

MDPB,

“Ward Churchill may not be the most compassionate guy on the block, but he would listen to what you have to say. “

If he could find time in between pushing folks towards annihilation or labeling sections of America or justifying violence against the US. Its difficult to listen when your taking a stand on both sides of the genocide issue-- while assimulating upper-middle class undergrads in the cult of self-loathing and self-negation.

“George Bush could care less. “

About what? Leftist aspirations and ramblings and concepts that are repulsive to 80-90% of Americans?

“People are listening to him more than they are George Bush. It’s an indication that they want some answers instead of bullshit propaganda. “

People are being exposed to the repulsiveness of the far Left, symbolized through Ward-- not turning to him as an alternative. If you think Ward is becoming a philosopher/prophet that Americans are turning to for answers...you are intellectually retarded. Indeed, he will be used to further the Conservative/Republican agenda in the US...not to roll-back this agenda. In fact, Republicans should thank Ward for making the Left even more irrelevant and repulsive. The attention he’s receiving is not helping any cause of the Left or even Liberals-- just the opposite. He’s just a simple freakshow who serves to negate what you claim to value—while propping up your identity.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond, VA on 02/11 at 02:17 PM

Cannon Yonts - Whenever I read the comments, within about four or five words I already know its yours, because of your reactionary predictability. Any chance from now, in lieu of making long rambling comments, you just sign your name, and let me and everyone else just intuit what it was you would have said, and save us that much extra time. Or else we can just tune into Bill O’Blowhard’s “Nothing But Spin Zone,” or Sean Hannity’s “Deception for Dollars” shows.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from Chicago on 02/11 at 03:56 PM

All of this bread and circus over Ward Churchill is deceptive bunkum and bosh.

George Bush and the neonitwits are to blame for this war and the pain it has caused to the Iraqi and American people. The damage is done and is costing both countries dearly.

It is as plain as day. The US government has caused much division and can be blamed entirely for the ugly aftermath.

It has become a cruel joke on both the Iraqis and Americans.

Posted by MDPB from on 02/11 at 04:24 PM

Tracy

Wow, the debating skills are intense! So convincing! I suppose this is how the non-Leftists must feel in Ward’s classes. Yes, simply create generic categories for those whom you don’t agree—and attempt to dismiss all arguement and debate due to the dubious nature of the categories you’ve invented. Yep, the Left has the intellectual depth of a typical racist-- only beliefs, ideals and values are what is substituted for skin color. What you don’t understand is that I am as amused and annoyed and disappointed with both sides of the ideological spectrum. In fact, there are many areas where I could speak against Bush and conservatives better than you could—and the rant would be a product of real concern. Indeed, it helps to have real concern rather than the kind manufactured along with compassion and moral authority by folks like Ward.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/11 at 08:59 PM

Cannon Yonts,

Having read enough of your stultiloquence here on PA for some time, I want to address a misleading refrain of yours, viz., your claim to not be ideological .

You often (and illogically) lump leftists together as a group, then call it something like the sycophantishly totalitarian Left. (Did you notice how I turned your favorite word into an adverb here? Incidentally, have you ever seen ‘The Kids In The Hall’ episode where a less than verbally gifted man man cannot stop saying ‘ascertain’?). Finally, you condemn these people with mad, sweeping claims (like here):

“[T]he Left has no compassion for anyone that can be confused as a human being.”

or

“[T]he Left has the intellectual depth of a typical racist.”

That is not just a untrue derangement of fact, that is actually insulting. If you insist on continuing to insult us, there should be no reason for us to refrain from insulting you. (Except Mark Hand’s reasonable request not to be abusive when commenting here on his weblog.)

You are misinformed, and accordingly, misinform. You don’t admit the pluralistic American left often cannot agree about much at all and does not possess a single, identifiable ideology. For example, on PA and other lefty sites, I have had exchanges with socialists, anarchists, indigenists, liberals, environmentalists, Marxists, labor rights activists, humanists, libertarians, Jeffersonian Constitutionalists, regularly everyday independents, disgruntled Democrats as well as people who’ve adopt a mildly more lefty, kind of hodge-podge position. Genrally, leftists disagree with amongst themselves ... because they are free to do so.

I listened to you trumpet your opinions about Marxism here, when you demonstated flabbergasting political illiteracy for someone so adamant. (You sophmorically referred to Marxism as an ‘economic system’ rather than a critique of political economy and were unable to respond to the most elementary points made in the Communist Manifesto, a text every educated person in the world has read. I am not going to bother correcting you here on PA, but refer you to an institution you have neglected, the library.)

You say whatever you want about politics and do not care how feverishly stupid you sound to others. And you are entitled to that right as much as is Ward Chuchill.

You clearly have an ideological goal. It is to misrepresent and malign the left. Your tactic hinges on hoping we think ourselves too smart to bother contradicting your copious, albeit informationally distortive and philosophically offensive commentary. Then, if no one picks up on this you will be able to feign victory and claim:

‘Wow, the debating skills are intense! So convincing!’

Disinformation and disparagement do not merit debate.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/12 at 06:55 AM

I apologize if I my tone’s been harsh here (and more generally, for never grammar checking my posts). But I think it should be clear to all that I am fighting fire with water.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/12 at 07:26 AM

Interesting"debate"here.

And as usual,there seems to be a total obliteration of what is REAL when we go"right vs left” on this topic.

Something sorely lacking here is humanity.The human costs(money aside for a moment,though that too is obscene).Since when are American lives more precious than any others?Who decides that?When you go to war,and in the process calculate"collateral damage”,you acknowledge that innocent people will die.You plan for it.If an individual did that,it would be called premeditated murder.For a nation of “peace and freedom loving people"we sure have spent an inordinate amount of money and time on military action.Pretty much non stop over more than a few years.It’s an outrage,IMO,that we have people here,right on our own soil who are homeless,starving,and minimalized,while we spend billions of dollars on the military industrial complex without batting too many eyelashes.The US is a country with alot of it’s own backyard to clean up before we can even begin to deem ourselves worthy of pushing anyone else around.It’s this sense of entitlement and exceptionalism that provoked 9/11,and will continue to provoke that kind of response.Our own government came up with the term"blowback",which tells me they KNOW what they are doing and don’t care.

Posted by Quietly Contemplating from GA,USA on 02/12 at 09:16 AM

Theo,

I regret if any of my views have threatened your identity and made you feel angry beyond the ability to maintain civil discussion. If I were as smart as you, I might be able to present my concerns in a way that effectively conveys my feelings (much of what were discussing is subjective) and better impresses the point that I have no hatred for the Left (only disappointment). It would probably benefit me as well to have a more appropriate sense of style and to read Marx more often. I thought reading that little book in in undergrad and grad school was enough-- and that I was permitted to go about reading other philosophers. At any rate, I accept your criticism that I haven’t memorized Marx. Unfortunately, I may be perpdisposed to thinking a certain way, reading only certain authors, holding/rejecting certain beliefs or merging certain beliefs. I’m from the South, so there may be a genetic or evolutionary factor that explains why I’m not as smart as you. I grew up in a rural area, so that might explain my handicap. Who knows? All that I ask is that you don’t discriminate against me or wish me ill will. I’m just a poor, uneducated, illogical and belligerent redneck who just needs some understanding and a hug.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/12 at 09:43 AM

The US government has little concern for humanity; by now, it should be abundantly clear to all. Fifteen years of bombing campaigns in Iraq, the Yugoslavian fiasco, homeless vets in the streets here in zie homeland are facts that don’t budge. The list goes on and on. Anyone with disconcerting eyes can plainly see that it isn’t going to stop.

Now, there is a proposal to increase the military budget and cut domestic spending. We can all thank to George Bush for such endearing consideration. No child left behind, no budget that can’t spend us into the poor house. Ward Churchill has nothing to do with that, but maybe somebody will find a way to include Ward in the fiscal process of the US gov’s budget.

George Bush’s daughters aren’t likely to be joining the ranks of the military or the unemployed. They’re exempt from the ‘human resource’ pool.

“The nation can’t afford any more Bushes."—Alan Greenspan

Cannon’s latest sardonic musings contribute little or nothing.

Posted by MDPB from on 02/12 at 11:13 AM

Cannon Yonts,

I’m not angry at all. Your ignorant spewing is yours. You should be angry with yourself.

If I chose to indulge my angry side and actually maim you dialectically, everybody here will wince and you would never show up again. Basically, I respect the Press Action crew and feel they deserve better than that kind of display.

As I told you the last time I made a fool of you here on PA, I do not look to my politics to identify me. Thanks for remembering my telling response. Just to share ... I am also influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, and so, do not exactly believe in identity. (Feel free to look up Buddha, along with with Marx, in the library.)

It is your manifest and insistent ignorance that’s transgressed the bounds of civility. You chose to consistently badmouth us (fallaciously, I add) first.

I do not discount your opinion (or Churchill’s) in the slightest.

I do recognize you as a pernicious voice in need of refutation. I hope everybody here on Press Action (and all over the www) joins me in showing you up for the blissfully disinforming twit you are.

This is a simple matter. When you try to come after ‘the left’ babbling your nonsense, I’ll trounce you. Again and again. You are a lightweight. The first time we met here on PA, I vaporized you. (I want to give Jordy props now for humoring your inane discourse in the first place.) The second time (now), I haply reaffirm that happenstance. This is not baseball and there are no three strikes. You have proven yourself an ignoramus, an ideologue and a joke. You had an opportunity to prove if you are serious political commentator or not.

You remind me of a bear my elder cousin shot down in Alaska ... you don’t know when you’ve been finished off. Bear just kept charging ‘til it dropped. My cousin’s got that its skin on his cabin floor now.

I hope any so-called ‘Red-Stater’ or ‘conservative’ who may read this recognizes that what I’ve said is pretty reasonable and that you have nothing going for you but big words you can’t even use. Your self-deprecating ‘Aw shucks’ attempt to paint me as a wordy liberal who’s just abusing your intellectual limitations falls flat when the truth comes out:

I’m a bad-ass country boy myself.

And I’m done with you.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/12 at 12:18 PM

MDPB,

As usual, I agree completely.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/12 at 12:33 PM

Theo,

You have only defeated your own intellectual integrity and avoided every point I’ve brought up for you to consider. If that’s the victory that satisfies you and offers you a sense of purpose, I am glad I could help. The reason you’ve not dealt with any of my arguements and views is because you lack the problem-solving and logic skills necessary to do so. They really need to teach some logic and problem-solving skills at Leftist universities. Instead of approaching a subject or topic in a reasonably objective manner (which requires a certain degree of ego detachment), you’ve chosen to internalize the points I’ve brought up and develop the delusion that I’m attacking you personally. That’s your choice, of course, and I’m down with your ability to choose. Your style of debate is not to consider points, offer refutations or provide suggestions that might better help people to develop their ideas. Your style is to say nothing of substance and engage in rather mediocre ramblings about my evil intent and intellectual prowess. That’s cool. I would have preferred that your rant addressed something resembling a point, but I did enjoy the dramatic tone and the sense that you were attempting to overpower.

I do remember that I enjoyed our debate on Marxism and capitalism—which helped me to form some new ideas and new questions. I didn’t view it completely through the perspective that we were at war ideologically. I found the points brought up by you and j to be quite valid-- though I differ on conclusions and solutions. Its disappointing that the spirit of that thread has been abandoned. Perhaps, I will create my own forum where people with divergent views, yet a common desire to challenge themselves intellectually can get together. At any rate, “I’ve gotten older and you’ve gotten colder and nothing is very much fun anymore” (Floyd, P., 1978).

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/12 at 04:47 PM

Cannon Yonts is confused. Churchill isn’t condemning anyone to die, or demonstrably ignoring people killed by the actions of their own governments (we’ve had a few of those), or approving 911’s. He merely pointed out the obvious, that Imperialism isn’t a free lunch. And for heaven’s sakes don’t blame the truth-teller when the US government decides to vaporize tens of thousands more innocent civilians as payback. Try and be a man, and take some of the blame yourself. I do. . . .

“All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
---Arthur Schopenhauer. . .

Karlli ebha asks: “What are we going to do?” . . We need to work at eliminating aggressive military interventions. One way may be found at: warisaracket.org

Posted by Don Bacon from California on 02/12 at 07:08 PM

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
Interesting article (albeit not completely up to date on deaths/murder in Iraq).
600,000 estimated civilian executions under Saddam Hussein. 100,000 Kurds killed in a single operation. 500,000 killed in the war with Iran. Oh wait...that’s the fault of the US. We supported Hussein. Avg. per day: between 70 and 125 for every day he was in power.

Does anyone have any numbers of the avg daily deaths since the US occupation? It would be interesting to compare.

Posted by karlli ebha from sac valley on 02/12 at 09:38 PM

Don,

“Churchill isn’t condemning anyone to die,”

This is a matter of how far you take his assumptions and how you interpret his declarations. He said he would like to see the US not exist, to be wiped off the map. How would this come about if not through the violent death of countless many millions? Does he think that a new Marxist or non-capitalist state ruled by the “oppressed” will come about as the result of some fantasy, non-violent change of our system. He would have to possess no concept of the consequences of his wish, which makes him an incompotent academic, or knowing advocate what would amount to genocide. Wiping the US off the map would cost millions of lives of bankers, stock brokers, managers, military personnel, contractors and others involved in corporate America-- as well as entreprenuers, Christians, “rednecks”, “good-old-boys”, Right-wingers, moderates and liberals. They, in turn, would kill millions. This is not conjecture. This is a logical consequence of his wish. Of course, he doesn’t just want to push those undesirable, evil elements (that he labels within our society) to annihilation, he’s advocating the same for other Leftists, Muslims, Arabs and anti-Americans. Why? Because he has to assume the consequences of his wish coming true, unless we are to assume he is intellectually inept.

“ or demonstrably ignoring people killed by the actions of their own governments or approving 911’s. “

He seemed comfortable ignoring those 1.2 million murdered by Saddam, those oppressed women, minorities and gays throughout the Arab world. He couldn’t make a good rhetorical point using these folks, so he ignored them. He rather find ways to justify a path to annihilation for those he claims to advocate for. Yes, more 911’s so the idea of annihilating our enemies will gain fashion with mothers and fathers, who value their children more than an entire region. Does he realize that there are consequences to things? Yes, that was the premise of his essay-- yet his logic ignores this premise. It was as though he discovered the idea of “consequence” as a theme and then ignored all the consequences of his ramblings.

“ Imperialism isn’t a free lunch. “

No, but terrorist attacks against the most powerful nation in the history of the world can and will lead to the annihilation of countless millions. That’s the consequences. He didn’t allow himself to logically construct the consequences of his theory and desire. He’d find himself defending both sides of the genocide position.

“don’t blame the truth-teller when the US government decides to vaporize tens of thousands more innocent civilians as payback.”

I blame no one and am certain the Left cares about the innocent civilians...unless they are being murdered by Saddam, Marxists, terrorists or totalitarians throughout the globe. If the little Nazis die or if those who can’t support a rhetorical point die, that’s OK.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/12 at 11:25 PM

The horror… the horror…
last dying words of Colonel Walter E. Kurtz, Viet Nam or somewhere nearby, possibly Cambodia

The hypocracy… The hypocracy…
words of disbelief of Shane Easton, So Chas, with a bottle of whiskey in him

Academic free speech and the First Amendment ARE NOT under attack. Again I repeat: Academic free speech and the First Amendment ARE NOT under attack.

Ward Churchill has every right to make an ass of himself by writing seditious and despicable essays while relishing every moment of the attention receives as a result of publishing such tripe. I hate cliches. . . Especially cliche I am going to spout off here: “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (that quote is attributed to Voltaire for those of you who shoot off at the mouth without first educating yourselves)

Although I would not give my life to defend the idiotic rantings of a lier who is hiding behind academic tenure and bodyguards, I fully recognize that Ward Churchill, a mouth breathing imbecile, can disparage and malign the United States and denigrate the victims of 911 with relative impunity. What I am tired of, however, is the shrill screams, often emanating from the left, that free speech is under attack. I have said it before and I will say it again. Free speech has limits. When someone like Ward Churchill exercises his right to free speech by stoking the fires of the majority that disagree with him, then Ward Churchill and those who support him should not be suprised when he is properly castigated and lambasted. After all, such criticism is itself free speech.

If Ward Churchill loses his job, its his own fault. He put his reputation at issue by making the statements he has made and standing defiantly against the great many he has offended. As such, he is solely responsible for the Univ. of Colorado critically reviewing any and all aspects of his employment at said University. This would include the falsifications contained in his employement documents such as over-exaggerating his Viet Nam experience and flat out lying about his indian ancestry.

To defend Ward Churchill is to defend the defensless. He simply has no credibility. If one is going to spew such hatrid with indignant contempt in our Universities, one should not carry the baggage of Ward Churchill. It makes one too much of an easy target for rank amatuer bloggers such as myself.

God Bless America
Shane Easton

Posted by Shane Easton from So Chas on 02/12 at 11:47 PM

Why do so many Righties make such a veritable god of “objectivity,” even as they invariably engage in inflammatory screeds which prove that they wouldn’t know “objectivity” if it bit them in the rear ?

I wasn’t aware that anyone on the Left, including Churchill, ever said that Sadaam was a stand-up guy who would be great to have over for a couple of beers and a round of poker. I also wasn’t aware that George II propped up the regime all by his lonesome. George I certainly didn’t have any trouble with the attrocities Saddaam committed for a good, long time, as I recall.

Your problem, Cannon, in addition to the fact that one can hardly find any substance in your text under the 50’ thick layer of boiling froth, is that you’re obsessed with extreme dualistic thinking. Sit down for this, because I know it’s going to be hard for you to believe: A person can hold two thoughts in her head at once. For example, I can know that Sadaam is a horrible person, and yet also know that the same chessplayers in the U.S. government that propped him up when it suited their own ends to do so turned him into America’s Public Enemy No. 1 when they suddenly decided on other priorities.

Also, just a reminder: None of the attackers on 9/11 were Iraquis, and a great many people who fancy themselve at least as smart as you still don’t believe that Sadaam and Al Queda could have been anything but mortal enemies. You might want to keep that “objectively” in mind.

Posted by alsis38 from Portland, OR on 02/12 at 11:53 PM

“Your problem, Cannon, in addition to the fact that one can hardly find any substance in your text under the 50’ thick layer of boiling froth, is that you’re obsessed with extreme dualistic thinking. Sit down for this, because I know it’s going to be hard for you to believe: A person can hold two thoughts in her head at once. For example, I can know that Sadaam is a horrible person, and yet also know that the same chessplayers in the U.S. government that propped him up when it suited their own ends to do so turned him into America’s Public Enemy No. 1 when they suddenly decided on other priorities. “

I’m sure the realtives of the 1.2 Iraqis killed by Saddam appreciated the silence and the moral relativism of the Left. Just as the millions of women, gays, liberals, Leftists and others who are oppressed and murdered and tortured in the Arab world appreciate the same. One can hold several thoughts at once but it appears anti-Americanism is the one that receives rhetorical consideration. Your arguement is that its OK for totalitarians in Iraq and elsewhere to kill over 1 million folks, since the US somehow endorsed this nearly 30 years ago (along with France, Russia, Austria, etc). The same sad, uninteresting, anti-human and anti-intellectual arguement shared by the Left and state-run media in the Arab world.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/13 at 07:37 AM

Cannon Yonts,

I’ve not ranted. What I have done is effortlessy knock you about.

You did not bring up any points for consideration. You reiterated your tired argument that people who espouse leftist views do so to affirm an identity. Forcing me to waste my time and again deal with your scampish claim.

Which I have.

Let’s further note that your defence here is to foist upon me exactly that quality which I showed to be yours in our previous exchange: an inability to respond. (Please compare my comments 26, 43 and 59 to Reza Fiyouzat’s article on Noam Chomsky.)

I am not from a leftist university. I do not treat this as personal. It’s my pleasure to refute your wimpy arguments as much as you forward them. The blundering here is all yours for all to read.

Just because you are glibly polite does not take away the fact that the substance of your repetition is harmful. Which is why it’s so easy to show you up.

If you were clever, you would have made an argument to the effect that:

“Your calling me ‘pernicious’ implies you believe that a ruinable, total, political viewpoint may exist, which is exactly why I call the left ‘totalitarian’”

I impishly left you that lifeline to save yourself and you didn’t even see it.

Again, I am fierce defender of your right to say whatever you want.

Nevertheless, in argument there are usually winners and losers. And you’re on a losing streak.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/13 at 07:40 AM

Theo,

Lets just agree that we don’t agree—and let all accept the fact that you are incapable of confronting a single point brought up that is not consistent with your viewpoint. In exchange, I will not only accept, but endorse your conclusions about my motives, intent and character...because I don’t think its terribly important. You win! What you’ve won is an intellectual and moral void, as well as an adolescent world view. You are free to do victory laps around the coffee house...and to serve as a sychophant of half-ass intellectuals. Congrats!

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/13 at 08:45 AM

“I’m sure the realtives of the 1.2 Iraqis killed by Saddam appreciated the silence and the moral relativism of the Left.”

[snort] Nothing like the FoxNews School of Debate[sic]. Get caught in a lie, keep repeating the same strawman over and over again in hopes of making your opponent cleave to the requirements of an argument based upon a lie. Cannon, are you truly so woefully uninformed about politics as to believe that Sadaam’s power waa created and maintained by American Leftists ? Or is this just an attempt to guilt-monger your political foes into silence ?

“Just as the millions of women, gays, liberals, Leftists and others who are oppressed and murdered and tortured in the Arab world appreciate the same.”

Which pundit’s rear orifice did you pull that one out of, Cannon ? (I assume not Michael Savage, since he hates gays, but I digress.) Since when was the Mid-East some kind of hotbed of Leftist power ? Of course, if the misery of foreigners comes at the hands of the U.S. military, however, or (for instance) at the hands of the Saudi elite, you’re just hunky-dory with it. Though I assume that if next week, Condi ‘N Friends suddenly decided to start screaming for the Saudi royal family’s blood, you’d parrot them like the brainless automaton you so clearly are.

“One can hold several thoughts at once but it appears anti-Americanism is the one that receives rhetorical consideration. Your arguement is that its OK for totalitarians in Iraq and elsewhere to kill over 1 million folks, since the US somehow endorsed this nearly 30 years ago”

You can put words in my mouth until the cows come home, Cannon, but that doesn’t make them true. It’s your own side of the table (and by that I mean Clinton, as well as both Bushes) that had no problem with the masses who suffered and died under Sadaam. Your cowardice is typical of the Right: The power elite in this country is too big and strong for you to dare confront. Like most bullies, you attempt to sink your teeth into a smaller and more serviceable target: A handful of Lefties, or a few university folk. I’m sure that’ll get you props a’plenty in the rest of the U.S., but in this space, it don’t mean diddly.

“30 years ago ?” Uhhhhh… Daddy Bush was supporting Sadaam right up until the Kuwait invasion. That didn’t happen 30 years ago. Get your timelines straight, Cannon.

“...(along with France, Russia, Austria, etc). The same sad, uninteresting, anti-human and anti-intellectual arguement shared by the Left and state-run media in the Arab world.”

[Snort.] Projection, thy name is Cannon. Learn the difference between anti-Imperialism and “anti-intellectualism/-human” before you go sticking your foot in your mouth next time, Cannon. Unless, of course, you consider the terms “imperialism,” “human,” and “intellectual” to all have identical meanings. In which case, carry on.

Also, if you find it all so “uninteresting,” what on Earth are you doing…

Posted by alsis38 from Portland, OR on 02/13 at 08:59 AM

(hah. went one word over the limit, aparently. That last line should read “What are you doing HERE ?”

Sorry, All.

Posted by alsis38 from Portland, OR on 02/13 at 09:12 AM

Cannon Yonts,

I’ve dealt with whatever point(s) regarding me you imagine you have raised (in comment 18 here).

Exposing your claim to neutrality as charlatanical is not a big victory but a tiresome chore.

You are not good enough to pull it off. Sorry.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 02/13 at 09:55 AM

alsis38,

Quickly, read what I said again. Accurate reading would have saved you the diatribe that implied I said the Left perpetrated the cimes of oppression and murder committed by totalitarians. I never said that. I said they were silent about it, did not seek to speak for these victims because they’d rather make an anti-Imperialism, anti-American arguement. I was writing about, protesting, organizing protests, raising awareness for the plight of those under Arab totalitarianism for 12 years. I didn’t base my concern for my friends in Saudia Arabia and elsewhere on a political identity. I didn’t do this to seem smart or feel superior or to pass time waiting for the next lecture. Iraq has been at war for 30 years and I opposed that war while Leftists sought “that-a-boys” from Saddam, the Arab press and totalitarian sychophants. Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs weren’t human beings worth fighting for to the Left then...or now. That’s why it has no moral authority or intellectual integrity.

Posted by Cannon Yonts from Richmond,VA on 02/13 at 12:09 PM

“Iraq has been at war for 30 years and I opposed that war while Leftists sought �t-a-boys from Saddam, the Arab press and totalitarian sychophants. Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs weren’t human beings worth fighting for to the Left then...or now. That’s why it has no moral authority or intellectual integrity.”

Uh-huh. Yeah, I’m sure the entire Lefty press was just awash during those years with stories about what a great, wonderful person Sadaam was. Care to produce any ? (Helpful hint: Four of five articles out of a few million do not a “Leftist tide of approval” make. Nor does a puff piece in *Time*, which is no more “Leftist” than a bucket of styrofoam peanuts.)

[cricket noises]

Didn’t think so. :/

Also, perhaps NPR and other mainstream pap peddlers didn’t know of the existence of Kurds and other ethnic minorities before the end of Gulf War I, but this would only prove your theory if anyone else in this room besides you considered the likes of NPR to be Leftist. Take a poll. I’ll go out on a limb and guess that no one here would want to maintain that fiction except you.

Frankly, it also bowls me over that in your zeal to guilt-trip Leftists for their alleged approval of Sadaam, you have no time and energy to spare for telling off the Republicans, like Bush I & II, who have supported and continued to support dozens of dictatorial regimes as bad or worse than Sadaam’s over the last 30 years, and then some. Not merely cheered them on, but BUILT THEM UP and SUPPORTED THEM-- with American tax dollars and American lives. It was the two-headed Demo-Republican beast that has spent years playing off Iran against Iraq, Afghanistan against the Soviets, and so on. We have all paid, in a multitude of ways, for what they have done. The Leftist Press or the Leftist professors did not do this. You claim to care for your “friends,” but it sounds more to me that you use them as clubs with which to beat your very specific political enemies. How does that help anything along other than your own crystal-clear intellectual laziness ?

Maybe your deflection games would work elsewhere, but they don’t seem to hold any water in this space. Have you considered submitting an article to *WSJ* or one of Scaife’s rags ? They lap that sort of revisionist swill up like its chocolate milk.

Posted by alsis38 from Portland, OR on 02/13 at 02:31 PM

Do you debaters agree, regardless of being “right” ot “left”, that it is good to see a radical voice (Ward Churchill) get some attention in the mainstream?

Posted by Elches1917 from on 02/14 at 12:15 PM

Thank you for your commentary, Mr. Best. You are helping us to look beyond the media-driven sensationalism and gross under-representation of Churchill’s side of the story. However, the facts are quickly becoming an overwhelming liability to Mr. Churchill. His sympathizers are now running for cover as it seems he has been exposed as a fraud. Paul Campos, a CU law professor has presented evidence (Feb 2 / Rocky Mtn News) that Churchill is not a Native American and has plagiarized others and fabricated facts in his writings. Furthermore, he does not meet the minimum qualifications for a tenured professor. Apparently he was the beneficiary of racial preference. Looks like the “witch hunt” may have yielded a genuine witch after all!

Posted by Ted from Colorado Springs, CO on 02/14 at 01:07 PM

I’m not a debater, but I agree. It is generally a good thing for the collective conscousness to receive a message that jars it from the comfortable arms of generaly acceptable ideas. And our discomforts with “radical” ideas have more to teach us about ourselves than the ideas which comfort us. It’s not coiincidental, either, that today’s conventionalism started out as yesterday’s unconventionalism.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/15 at 05:59 PM

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is amazing that something so fundamental as the right to free speech has become so misunderstood and abused in this country. The right to free speech is not a guarantee that one can speak in any forum that one chooses. Colleges and universities make choices everyday about who should be invited to speak on their campuses and teach in their classrooms. Very few of us are actually selected. Does this mean that the rest of us have been denied the right to free speech? Ward Hamilton is free to stand in the public square and shout his message to the masses; he is free to write books, essays and articles; he can buy ads and commercials, and best of all he can set up a website where he can spew forth as much insane blather as he wants. He has as much freedom to speak as anyone else not employed by a university.

In the real world it is not uncommon for people to lose their jobs when they are perceived to show a lack of good judgment in their speech. A prime example would be Rush Limbaugh, who lost his job as a sports analyst with ESPN for his comments about the sports medias treatment of Donovan McNabb. Regardless of whether we agree, ESPN had the right to decide what kind of commentary was appropriate for their show and whether Mr. Limbaugh was going to provide the kind of analysis they wanted. In that same vein a university has not only the right but also the obligation to employ teachers who show good judgment and common sense in their speech. In the case of Mr. Churchill, an ethics professor, there is an even higher standard to be met. His speech should display wisdom, thoughtfulness and coherence worthy of a teacher. It is time that university administrators and students stop mistaking controversial, angry rhetoric for wisdom. By the way, does anyone believe that Limbaugh, whose radio program reaches an estimated audience of some 15 to 25 million people a week, is now limited in his right to free speech?

The indignant hysteria by the left over Mr. Churchill’s supposed loss of free speech is the worst case of disingenuousness and blatant hypocrisy I have ever seen. In a land where 7 out of 8 university professors are liberal, where the few conservative speakers are routinely protested and shouted down (but where diversity is supposedly held dear), one has to wonder whether it is with unmitigated gall or complete blindness that Churchill’s supporters dare to play the free speech card. A simple phrase, inspired by the sage author Thomas Sowell, sums up the left’s attitude on free speech: Free speech for me, not…

Posted by Carol from California on 02/16 at 07:13 PM

Mr. Best,

I agree with you completely.

Considering that our most powerful financial institutions are swarming with corruption from the top down, our executive government “leads” through masterful spin and deception while stealing hundreds of billions of tax dollars to support self-serving interests for a minority of people, and the majority of our Congressmen are whores to corporate special interest groups, I just can’t help but believe that Churchill’s assessment of things is somewhat credible. I do not support anarchy or hostile rebellion for rebellion’s sake, but enough is enough. Our country IS over-ridden by corruption. Just read the back of Popular Mechanics to get a hint of how we as a people bend the rules to accommodate our own interests. Last I heard, stealing TV bandwidth was illegal, but you buy dozens of cable and satellite de-scramblers from ads in PM.

The greatest success of the corruptors has been to dupe the public into believing that anyone who dares to decry or even discuss the corruption within our government and corporations is a traitor to the country.

The probabability that Churchill may be correct frightens me more than the possibility that he may be a lunatic with an ax to grind.

Posted by Plitwin from Texas on 02/19 at 05:48 PM

*playfully muses on a rainy day*

“I am also influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, and so, do not exactly believe in identity.” (Theo)

An “I” not believing in identity, eh?

So what would that make an “I” then?

<--- occassionally dips his big toe in zen waters on occassion

Posted by Nader Rider from on 02/19 at 06:07 PM

Please, see my web site - “University of Toronto fraud”

http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/

This site gives over 50 documents exposing unprecedented fraud going on in Canadian academia.

Briefly:

My PhD research of five years was stolen by my supervisor who, a few months before this, fraudulently changed my status to “lapsed student” and so removed me from the University. She published, in American journals, three papers claiming credit for my discoveries, then, said that my discoveries belong to “community” and she simply “salvaged” them. She characterized me as “a man of proven scholarly attainments” and “a very creative scientist”, but her envy and hatred has put an end to my career. The documents show her pathological dishonesty.

The University has admitted that she “repeated” my experiments and “replicated or extended” my results, that she did not acknowledge this fact, and that my research was, in fact, based on theoretical paper published by me before I came to this university. Yet, these investigations ended with the conclusion that she did not steal my research. Five other professors and University of Toronto President participated in the fraud and obstruction of justice.

The fraud was followed by the largest cover-up in history. Over one hundred of organizations, govt. offices, law firms, etc. were corrupted and made to cooperate with the perpetrators of the fraud. The Government repeatedly refused to give me the constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the Law and any help whatsoever.

This story is prohibited for publication in Canada’s media for political reasons, and the fraud is continuing. Such journals as Science, Nature, Chronicle of Higher Education would not publish a single word of this story, obviously, protecting politically correct criminals in academia. I have no means of getting back the authorship of my research. No job has been available to me for 18 years. My protest that continued for nine months at the University campus was ended through harassment by the University police.

IT’S TIME TO STOP THIS FRAUD.
IT’S TIME TO STOP THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE.

Michael Pyshnov.

Posted by Michael Pyshnov from Toronto, Canada on 02/21 at 10:36 AM

I find people like Ward Churchill funny in a cartoonish, sitcom sort of way. Here is a guy spreading his liberal, leftwing message of how corrupted and imperialistic our government is, but has no problem collecting fat speaking fees and a tenured professors salary. Top 2% income bracket Ward old chap?? The beauty of this country is you can bite the hand that feeds you and still laugh all the way to the bank. Ward Churchill is living the American dream. His psycho babble is comical. Although the Eichmann comment was fresh. Hateful..but fresh.

Posted by Scott Nelson from Minnesota on 03/01 at 05:35 PM

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Killing the Messenger: Ward Churchill’s Sins Against the Empire

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Editor's Picks

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate