Ward Churchill

[RitalinKid]

Have any of you kept up with the Ward Churchill row? I found the controversial essay online, and I think the media and politicians have stretched this. Some want to say his essay was treasonous, but I just see it as an extreme and controversial way of asking people to try to look through someone else's eyes. I have a lot more to say about this, but for now, I'd like to know in a very civilized manner if you guys have read the essay (or only the reports) and what you think about it.

 

[jenn]

i've never heard of him or his essay. what's the scoop?

 

[RitalinKid]

Jenn, here's a link to all the recent articles at cnn.com.
CNN.com Query Results
...and here's a link to the essay.

The long and short of it is that Churchill is an Indian Rights activist and member of the faculty at Colorado University. He made a comparison between the US firebombing German citizens in economic centers as targets and terrorists attacking the World Trade Centers. People got upset. Of course, the self righteous tone that I hear in his writing and the insensitivity of comparing people's lost loved ones as nazi war criminals ("little Eichmanns") probably helped more to incite a media frenzy and public outcry than it helped make his point.

I probably don't agree with Churchill on a lot of subjects, but I still don't think he deserves the traitor tag that people are trying to put around his neck.

Please read the articles and the essay and form your own opinions so that we can hash out where or if Churchill went overboard and where or if the media or the public went overboard.

 

[novella]

I'd like to know in a very civilized manner if you guys have read the essay (or only the reports) and what you think about it.

I've read a lot about him, and I read that essay, and I think he's a big asshole and has pretended to be an Indian when he IS NOT recognized as a member of any tribe.

BUT I believe the first amendment should be upheld, even for assholes. Perhaps people don't want to pay 20K/year to have assholes preach to their kids. I sure don't.

 

[Motokid]

I have not read much of his stuff directly. Most of what I've got is through the various news channels, and from talk radio. Both are not the greatest places to get information.

The thing that bothers me is that a vast number of people tend to label anybody who speaks out against some of the things the American Government does as being traitors, or somehow aiding and abetting the "enemy".

Ward Churchill has the right to say whatever he wants, and we have the right to listen or not. I think what he said about the workers in the World Trade Center was way, way off base and out of line. I understand some of the outrage, but Churchill has every right to make that statement. Just as I would then have the right to say I don't want this man teaching my kids.

I heard he was making $90,000 a year. I'd bet there was plenty of people that died on 9/11 that were making less. I don't see how going to work, and making a living, supporting your family is comparitive to being a nazi. I'll have to go read his speech when I have time.

 

[novella]

Here's a link to the essay in question.


http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

Ward Baby justifies terrorism against the US throughout. He sees it as a legitimate act of war against an aggressor, and says the victims were not innocent civilians.

Well, I don't know about y'all, but I know relatively a lot of people who were in the Towers, including two of my cousins. My brother's girlfriend was on 104 of Tower II, my dad's next door neighbor was on 35 of Tower I. Golly, I never really thought of those people as "little Eichmanns." I guess taking home a paycheck is a crime against humanity?

 

[Motokid]

When a complete nutjob makes outlandish statements, does huge amounts of press in any way add validity to those statements? I’m not sure that the constant debating of what he said is not exactly what he had hoped would happen. He’s had more people hear his name and read his garbage than would ever have been possible if he had not made such ridiculous accusations. Isn’t the best thing to let this die as quickly and quietly as possible? At what point does it become more damaging to keep talking about it?

 

[novella]

Well, I think he just lost his job because of all the talk, so IMO that's a good thing.

 

[Motokid]

Does the college have the right to fire him for comments he makes outside of class?

I read he stepped down from being a department chairman, but that he still had his teaching job.
Maybe something has changed in the last few days?

Was he fired or did he quit?

 

[novella]

Yeah, you're right. He didn't resign his professorship. Too bad. We can but hope. . .

 

[Motokid]

I also read where he got a rousing ovation when he declared he would not back off his original statements from over 1000 people who came to hear him speak.

Who are these 1000 people? How could he attrack 1000 people in this country who would applaud him?

I haven't sold 1000 children's books (yet) designed to make kids happy, but this buttwipe can get 1000 people to come hear him speak about hatred....man this world is a crazy place.....

 

[RitalinKid]

Motokid, when it comes to civil rights (such as freedom of speech), there will always be someone to stand up. The ACLU even filed a motion in favor a child molestor's right to have sex with young boys. ?!?!?!

I think it's easy to say that he justified terrorist actions or compared innocent victims to Nazis, but let's step back. Was this paper really written because he hated the people in the 9/11 attacks or because he loves Muslim fundamentalists? No. I saw the main point of his essay as trying to ask Americans to think about what happened to us and why it happened. He points out that policies that the Western world has carried out has led to the death and discontent for many Middle Eastern people, and he tries to compare that to what Germany did leading up to World War II. Then, he points out that the Towers were an economic/production target, as was Dresden when the allies fire bombed it. I believe his intent was to say that we killed German civilians at work in the same manner that terrorists struck and killed one of our economic centers. I can see how this is similar and how it's not.

However, he tries to say that the German people along with those victims in 9/11 were guilty. Of what? That they wanted to earn a living? That they didn't organize a coup? This is the self righteous part I referred to earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the German people were not aware of what all was going on, and individual Americans can't be responsible for EVERY policy decision. (There could be another way of seeing this. Please let me know the specifics if you disagree.)

I think that Churchill wanted to wake people up to American policy abroad and had a somewhat applicable analogy. However, he was completely insensitive to those who lost loved ones. I think we've already established that he's a bit of an ass, but isn't that what this comes down to? Doesn't this just come down to being in bad taste? Essentially being inconsiderate is his crime.

Once again, I'm not a Churchill fan; I'm POSITIVE we would differ on lots of things. I just think there's something more to his essay than his pompous remarks. I almost don't want to post this because I'm not some left (or right) wing nut and don't want to be perceived as one. I also don't know how authoring an essay asking people to think about foreign policy and making Nazi references is really going to help anything, so I really don't like defending it.

 

[novella]

I almost don't want to post this because I'm not some left (or right) wing nut and don't want to be perceived as one. I also don't know how authoring an essay asking people to think about foreign policy and making Nazi references is really going to help anything, so I really don't like defending it.

Ritkid,
Never fear. Nobody here is in favor of curtailing anyone's right to free speech. I think we have a consensus on that.

Whether one would choose to pay to listen to such a person or pay tuition for one's kid to "learn" from such a person is the question. I find it unconscionable that such a lying, plagiarising, fool is a paid, tenured professor of ethnic studies. He is much more suited to a job that does not require a brain.

It's unfortunate that this person is referred to as "Churchill," being that Winston Churchill was the consummate rhetoritician and defender of democratic freedom.

As for whether there are workable analogies in Ward's essay, all comparisons with the Nazis are invidious, whether you can locate an analogous circumstance there or not; it's inflammatory discourse of the most purile, base kind. Is every citizen responsible--on pain of death--for policies and actions that they typically have no knowledge of until after the fact? (I don't recall any of the Clinton Administrations actions or the first Bush Admin's actions in Iraq being debated in the public realm before they were executed.)

These days I'm thinking of all those farmers (my neighbors) who voted for Bush (and had all their little "Ag Supports Bush" signs along the road) and are now seeing their crop and dairy subsidies cut. If they had known about this before election day, Bush would have lost handily. So they disagree with policy now; would Ward have them take over the gov't by force or something? That's not the way it works in America, but Ward perhaps doesn't understand that.

I think we're in agreement here. To me, the issue is not whether Ward should be able to publicize his views, but whether he is qualified to hold his position, and what the heck is wrong with the system that put him there?

 

[RitalinKid]

It's unfortunate that this person is referred to as "Churchill," being that Winston Churchill was the consummate rhetoritician and defender of democratic freedom.

Sorry I shortened it to Churchill. I'll use Ward from now on.

As for whether there are workable analogies in Ward's essay, all comparisons with the Nazis are invidious, whether you can locate an analogous circumstance there or not; it's inflammatory discourse of the most purile, base kind. Is every citizen responsible--on pain of death--for policies and actions that they typically have no knowledge of until after the fact? (I don't recall any of the Clinton Administrations actions or the first Bush Admin's actions in Iraq being debated in the public realm before they were executed.)

I agree. I think that was the strength of the analogy. The allies firebombed people who may have no nothing about death camps at work (and at home) in Dresden in order to further our cause against the German war machine. Was Ward not asking us to look at the situation from the terrorists' point of view? They see their fight as one against Western agressors. When they attacked a civilian target, it was to target the government.
I also agree that you can't blame civilians for a government's policies although the civilians will be the ones to suffer from either attack or sanctions. Did the majority of the German public understand what the "Final Solution" was? I believe not. Is the analogy not that we bombed the German people for Nazi actions like the terrorists attacked Americans for US policies in the Middle East?
I think Ward believes that we Americans are guilty which I find appalling, but I still don't think it's his main point.

These days I'm thinking of all those farmers (my neighbors) who voted for Bush (and had all their little "Ag Supports Bush" signs along the road) and are now seeing their crop and dairy subsidies cut. If they had known about this before election day, Bush would have lost handily. So they disagree with policy now; would Ward have them take over the gov't by force or something? That's not the way it works in America, but Ward perhaps doesn't understand that.

Yeah, everyone has to remember politicians ARE politicians. Think of all the religious people that voted for Bush based on morals. Hmph. Lie to us! Just don't let homosexuals marry! Farm subsidies are for another thread though.
Back to the real topic, I don't think he was calling for an uprising, which I would consider treasonous. He does write as though we are to blame somehow for our government's policies, many of which don't change even when different parties are in control. I think he was asking us to think about the pain we felt on 9/11 and then think about how many people around the world live a 9/11 everyday, such as the people in Rwanda. Then, maybe we can understand these people that attack us instead of just putting a label on them and writing them off as nut jobs. I think the underlying point is whether we're Americans, Chinese, or Indian citizens, our actions affect others. Maybe I'm reading my own views into his essay. That's very easily done.

Whether one would choose to pay to listen to such a person or pay tuition for one's kid to "learn" from such a person is the question. I find it unconscionable that such a lying, plagiarising, fool is a paid, tenured professor of ethnic studies. He is much more suited to a job that does not require a brain. ...
To me, the issue is not whether Ward should be able to publicize his views, but whether he is qualified to hold his position, and what the heck is wrong with the system that put him there?

You say you've read Ward's other material. What has he lied about and plagiarized? Those are pretty serious, and I haven't heard about that, but I know you read more than I do and would know more about it.
Here's part of my problem with this issue. Is this comparable to firing someone for religious views? I'm sure there are people who don't want people with atheist ideas to be teachers or in positions of power. What I read Ward to say was "Whoa! We're so quick to judge. Maybe we should also be thinking about reforming our foregin policy." If you can agree that was his main point, should his insensitivity (to put it nicely) be cause for his firing? To start at the bottom, do you agree with what I saw as his main point?

novella, I realize this a very touchy subject, and it's one that my views are not adamant about. My stance is an inquisitive one.