Full Version: Ward Churchill (part deux)
http://c-span.org/ has video clips of Churchill up if you want to watch them. Type in Ward Churchill in the video search bar.
Here's a link to the Znet collection of Articles written by Churchill.
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=62
The controversial Some Peoople Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
Churchill's response to the critics: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/wa...l_responds.html
Bill O'reilly, Colorado Governor Bill Owens and a whole crew of "Conservatives" have blasted Churchill. Churchill has stood his ground, and made it known that he will not back down, or apologise for any of what he has written, or said. Critics have latched on Ward Churchill's assertions that the "technocrats" of the WTC were "Little Eichmans". They have alleged that Churchill said that the victims of the 9/11 deserved it.
I watched the C-Span speech and Q & A session with great interest. There was clearly an enormous amount of tension in the air. No spin, just Churchill, and the Questions.
Questions to Debate:
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
Here's a link to the Znet collection of Articles written by Churchill.
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=62
The controversial Some Peoople Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
Churchill's response to the critics: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/wa...l_responds.html
Bill O'reilly, Colorado Governor Bill Owens and a whole crew of "Conservatives" have blasted Churchill. Churchill has stood his ground, and made it known that he will not back down, or apologise for any of what he has written, or said. Critics have latched on Ward Churchill's assertions that the "technocrats" of the WTC were "Little Eichmans". They have alleged that Churchill said that the victims of the 9/11 deserved it.
I watched the C-Span speech and Q & A session with great interest. There was clearly an enormous amount of tension in the air. No spin, just Churchill, and the Questions.
Questions to Debate:
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
I suggest Churchill take some lessons in diplomacy from Pat Buchanan. Pat can effectively critique our foreign policy without attacking the victims of 9/11. Churchill ought to be fired on the grounds of being an idiot. It is quite sad, whatever your philosophy is, to blame those in the WTC for their own demise. The right could not have a better friend than Ward.
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
No, he should only apologize if he said something he didn't mean, and he meant what he said.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
No, academics should not be fired for voicing their opinions.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
The problem with the media's coverage of this story is that they don't want to take the time to actually research Churchill's works. There's no depth to their coverage. And those on the right all just reacting like they always do when anybody dares discuss 9/11 with any thinking beyond "those who did it were evil"
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
The fact that the U.S. govenment committed genocide against Native Americans, which is the main subject of Churchill's academic work, gives his work a great deal of credibility. I personally think Churchill goes way to far in his thinkings, but then again he is a radical thinker, that would be the definition. If you take the time to read his book rather than make snap judgements based on generalizations of summaries, you would understand the reasoning behind his controversial statements.
Hugo, fails to understand that Churchill cares nothing for democrats or republicans, he is not looking for public acceptance, he's not looking to feed his ego and his pockets like Pat Buchannan. This is a guy that would be insulted to be called a liberal.
He is blaming every american for 9/11, even himself, not just those who died. Anybody who does not do whatever they can to ensure that the govenment (a republic acting in their name) does not commit vile acts against people in foreign lands, as well as against the people living in the U.S.
No, he should only apologize if he said something he didn't mean, and he meant what he said.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
No, academics should not be fired for voicing their opinions.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
The problem with the media's coverage of this story is that they don't want to take the time to actually research Churchill's works. There's no depth to their coverage. And those on the right all just reacting like they always do when anybody dares discuss 9/11 with any thinking beyond "those who did it were evil"
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
The fact that the U.S. govenment committed genocide against Native Americans, which is the main subject of Churchill's academic work, gives his work a great deal of credibility. I personally think Churchill goes way to far in his thinkings, but then again he is a radical thinker, that would be the definition. If you take the time to read his book rather than make snap judgements based on generalizations of summaries, you would understand the reasoning behind his controversial statements.
Hugo, fails to understand that Churchill cares nothing for democrats or republicans, he is not looking for public acceptance, he's not looking to feed his ego and his pockets like Pat Buchannan. This is a guy that would be insulted to be called a liberal.
He is blaming every american for 9/11, even himself, not just those who died. Anybody who does not do whatever they can to ensure that the govenment (a republic acting in their name) does not commit vile acts against people in foreign lands, as well as against the people living in the U.S.
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
No, he doesn't, not if he meant them. His statements speak for themselves. I believe this is his essay on 9/11. Some people push back.
It is his right to write this sort of thing and publish his thoughts. It is the right of everyone else to think what they will about them. Freedom of expression works two ways.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Yes, but not because of his essay. Rather because he has apparently mis-represented himself as an American Indian and used that misrepresentation as a tool to gain his position at the University Of Colorado. If he lied on his application to that university about his heritage, they have the right to terminate him.
There are some within the American Indian community who aren't taken with Churchill.... From AIM...
And AIM isn't the only one. From The Rocky Mountain News.....
And from Indian Country, we have this.......
Oh yeah, put on a headband, put your hair in a pony tail and walk around pretending to be the "noble savage". Given my heritage, that kind of ticks me off.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
I've paid quite a lot of attention to this story. I graduated from the University of Colorado with both a BEE ESS (to get around the language filter) and an MS degree and anything that casts a cloud on my school bothers me. I think Ward Churchill is a disgrace. The media has done what the media is supposed to do and exposed him for the fraud he is.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
No.
edited to clarify....
Bee Ess stands for a Bachelor of Science degree and simply using the normal term for that gets over-written by the language filter.
No, he doesn't, not if he meant them. His statements speak for themselves. I believe this is his essay on 9/11. Some people push back.
It is his right to write this sort of thing and publish his thoughts. It is the right of everyone else to think what they will about them. Freedom of expression works two ways.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Yes, but not because of his essay. Rather because he has apparently mis-represented himself as an American Indian and used that misrepresentation as a tool to gain his position at the University Of Colorado. If he lied on his application to that university about his heritage, they have the right to terminate him.
There are some within the American Indian community who aren't taken with Churchill.... From AIM...
QUOTE
Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement.
And AIM isn't the only one. From The Rocky Mountain News.....
QUOTE
One Montana woman has an especially personal tale of confronting Churchill on his claim to American Indian heritage. She was taking one of Churchill's classes at CU in 1994 when she wrote an article for the Colorado Daily newspaper, saying there was no evidence he had any American Indian background.
"For so long it was whispered on campus that he really isn't an Indian," said Jodi Rave, who studied journalism at CU. "Here you had the director of the Indian studies program and he's not an Indian."
Rave is a Mandan-Hidatsa Indian originally from North Dakota. Today, she is a reporter and columnist with the Missoulian newspaper in Missoula, Mont. She was recently a fellow in the prestigious Nieman program for journalists at Harvard University.
In one of her journalism classes at CU, Rave was assigned to write a profile, and she decided to profile Churchill.
"To have somebody of that stature masquerading as an Indian was intriguing to me," Rave said. "On two separate days I asked him questions. I was up-front in asking him questions (about his background)."
Rave says she discovered that Churchill had enrolled in the Keetoowah tribe under a program initiated by a former tribal chairman that let almost anyone sign up. She says the Keetoowah later discontinued that program and disenrolled the people who had joined under it.
When her article came out, Rave says Churchill was furious and insisted that he did have American Indian lineage.
"He called me and said, 'Jodi Rave, this is your professor and I need to talk to you right away.' He was surprised I had a story published that called into question his identity."
He also defended his American Indian background and said her story was unfair.
Rave said she was enrolled in one of Churchill's classes when the article came out, and her grade went from an A to a C-minus.
"For so long it was whispered on campus that he really isn't an Indian," said Jodi Rave, who studied journalism at CU. "Here you had the director of the Indian studies program and he's not an Indian."
Rave is a Mandan-Hidatsa Indian originally from North Dakota. Today, she is a reporter and columnist with the Missoulian newspaper in Missoula, Mont. She was recently a fellow in the prestigious Nieman program for journalists at Harvard University.
In one of her journalism classes at CU, Rave was assigned to write a profile, and she decided to profile Churchill.
"To have somebody of that stature masquerading as an Indian was intriguing to me," Rave said. "On two separate days I asked him questions. I was up-front in asking him questions (about his background)."
Rave says she discovered that Churchill had enrolled in the Keetoowah tribe under a program initiated by a former tribal chairman that let almost anyone sign up. She says the Keetoowah later discontinued that program and disenrolled the people who had joined under it.
When her article came out, Rave says Churchill was furious and insisted that he did have American Indian lineage.
"He called me and said, 'Jodi Rave, this is your professor and I need to talk to you right away.' He was surprised I had a story published that called into question his identity."
He also defended his American Indian background and said her story was unfair.
Rave said she was enrolled in one of Churchill's classes when the article came out, and her grade went from an A to a C-minus.
And from Indian Country, we have this.......
QUOTE
Discerning indigenous identity is not an exact science, but it has its rules. It would not be a primary issue relative to research and writing of producers from any quarter, except Churchill represents himself as a major spokesman for Indian people through his participation in a branch of AIM and his claim to Cherokee origins. So far, nothing whatsoever has surfaced that gives evidence to Churchill's claims to having Cherokee Indian origins. Given the intense antagonism and attention focused on Churchill, his biography in this context is likely to be further scrutinized by the University of Colorado, the media, and others who were led to understand he was an American Indian professional at the time of his hiring.
Oh yeah, put on a headband, put your hair in a pony tail and walk around pretending to be the "noble savage". Given my heritage, that kind of ticks me off.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
I've paid quite a lot of attention to this story. I graduated from the University of Colorado with both a BEE ESS (to get around the language filter) and an MS degree and anything that casts a cloud on my school bothers me. I think Ward Churchill is a disgrace. The media has done what the media is supposed to do and exposed him for the fraud he is.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
No.
edited to clarify....
Bee Ess stands for a Bachelor of Science degree and simply using the normal term for that gets over-written by the language filter.
Well, let's take a look at some of the things Mr. Churchill actually said in one of the articles you cite:QUOTE
"Professor" Churchill- The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.
"Well, really?" Is that "the most that can be honestly said (the absolute very most) of those involved" about their "in kind" response to what has been dispensed to "their people"? What exactly do you mean by "the most that can honestly be said" Mr. Churchill? By "those involved" you of course mean the unelected disowned Saudi multimillionaire/engineer/jihadist Osama Bin Laden, the members of his unelected terror organisation Al Queda, and the unelected mostly Saudi disgruntled Islamic fundamentalists who premeditated and commited the murder of over 3000 men women and children from various countries, religions, and stations in life? Yeah sure, it wasn't a terrorist attack by a small group of opinionated (mostly Saudi) true believers, they were simply "responding" to the call of their democratically governed constituency. What is meant by "their people?" Ummmm? We attacked Saudi Arabia when? Certainly their fanatical interpretations of Islam (much disputed by the majority of Muslims I've heard) had nothing to do with anything. right?
QUOTE
"Professor Churchill- That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.
"A testament to their patience and restraint? Is Churchill kidding? A testament? We all owe a debt of gratitutude to these guys for being "patient" and "restrained"? We all deserved it years ago?
QUOTE
"Professor Churchill- They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."
Hell no! They just appointed themselves unelected arbitors of "what is right and just". Yeah, they didn't "license" the targeting of innocent civilians. They just plain "targeted" them. Why wait around for a majority of your (non-democratic) countrymen to sanction your acts on behalf of your country. Why not have it both ways where you can claim to represent the entirety of Islam while at the same time every Islamic "country/government" "officially" condemns/disowns your actions. Very shrewd!
Here's some more of Ward Churchill's judgements of the innocent civilian victims of the September 11th attacks:
QUOTE
"Professor" Churchill- There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
"Well really." So that's the way it is? Those who didn't know (Ward's "truth") should have known! Of course his "truths" were only meant to be heard and applauded by his likeminded fellow travelers. Now that his "truths" have been exposed to the world, Mr. Churchill and his syncophants rail on about context and "what he was really saying is that..." They can try to backpedal and spin his sentiments to their hearts content but his words speak for themselves. He said what he said.
Questions to Debate:
QUOTE
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
No! And the people who deserve an apology shouldn't believe him if he tried.
QUOTE
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
That of course should be decided by those who pay his salary. No taxpayers should be forced to fund his opinions.
QUOTE
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
The basic thrust of the discussion in the "media" has not been the absurdity or validity of his opinions, but rather whether or not his first ammendment rights are being abridged. Nevermind that he is not being threatened with Federal, State, or local government charges of illegal speech. He said some things and other people are saying things about the things he said. There has been no violation by government of free speech here. Free speech is a two way street. Criticizing someones opinions is no violation. Calling for a resignation is no violation. Nor is calling for a firing. And certainly free people should not be forced to pay people to say things they find abhorent. While a discussion of government involvement in education at any level is a topic for another debate, this much should be crystal clear: While you should be free to say what you want to say, I should be free from having my earnings confiscated and delivered to you in order to subsidize your existence which enables you to "speak freely".
QUOTE
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
This is an awfully vague question. You ask "does Churchill have a valid point (singular) with his writings, and positions (plural). Aw heck, at least Charlie Manson liked the Beatles. Nice try! I might as well ask you if you thought President Bush ever "had a valid point with his writings, and positions."
QUOTE
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
No! Let those who are murdering the people of Iraq with their stealth bombers apologise. He owes no apology to people who support such a war and frame people who speak against the war.
QUOTE
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
I don't think people should be under risk for their opinions. I believe ge gets enough death threats already.
QUOTE
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
In the Turkish Media, there is very little coverage of this. I know little about the US but I believe the media is very biased and show only the parts of his work that they found offensive. You should read all of it to have a good opinion about him.
QUOTE
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
If you say that Churchill is talking nonesense, you should really visit Iraq and see for yourself. I was a die hard supporter for US policies until I went to Iraq. Now, every night I prey to God that he keeps the Iraqi people out of harms way, not only from insurgents but also the US. Go there, speak with the people and never say Iraq was a compassionate war by simply following the news.
In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq is no more moral than the annexation of Poland by Germany in WW2. Ths simple facts that there are no proven connections between the former Iraqi government and that no WMD are found are enough to understand the reality. (Oil) Thus, anyone I believe who supports this war, directly or indirectly, is quilty.
Don't get me wrong, I am certanly against the terrorist activities no matter what the purpose of it is.
QUOTE
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
Yes, starting with those who lost loved ones on September 11th. What he said was horrible and offensive, but he won't apologize, because he believes he is right.QUOTE
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Well, I look at this two ways. One, he works at a public [government run, essentially] school, funded by tax dollars, and the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay his salary. But then two kicks in, he works at a government run school, therefore firing him for his thoughts would be a clear violation of his freedom of speech. I'm leaning toward my second thought at the moment. As Charles Krauthammer put it, "the best thing about teachers like [Churchill], is that like the rest of us, they die."QUOTE
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
Bill O'Reilly has lost his mind over this guy. Michael Savage has claimed that Churchill doesn't have the right to say what he said. Hannity is outraged, Scarborough [the voice of reason] has basically said what I said, but he seems to want Churchill fired as well. Everyone in the media want's Churchill fired.QUOTE
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
I haven't read all of his writings, but, if you're talking about his Sept. 11th writing, then God no.CP
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.No, people should never have to apologize for what they think. If he does not like America's foreign policy then he has every right to say what he wants. I cannot stand it when people express their opinion and then recoil when it offends a lot of whiny people. On that note, I am very disappointed that the whiny people in this instance are conservatives.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk? If it turns out he lied on his resume then he should lose his job, but that is a separate issue from losing his job based on his writings. He is the Ethics Professor and he is teaching Churchill's version of Ethics, the students should be smart enough to figure out what is digestable.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?Fox is all over it, but you cannot get a peep out of CNN or MSNBC, save Scarborough Country. Yes there is a media bias but it does not matter because people can discern between honest journalism and biased opinion.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions? Yes, he does have a very valid point. His basic premise is that these 'terrorists' are actually combatants in war and their means of weaponry are not conventional like ours. He also mentioned that our civilians that die are comparable to our definition of 'collateral damage.' I could not agree more, with that said, I do not think we should acquiesce and withdraw our troops. I believe we are in a zero-sum game and should crush all terrorists, tyrants, and radical Muslims in the world.
[/quote]
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk? If it turns out he lied on his resume then he should lose his job, but that is a separate issue from losing his job based on his writings. He is the Ethics Professor and he is teaching Churchill's version of Ethics, the students should be smart enough to figure out what is digestable.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?Fox is all over it, but you cannot get a peep out of CNN or MSNBC, save Scarborough Country. Yes there is a media bias but it does not matter because people can discern between honest journalism and biased opinion.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions? Yes, he does have a very valid point. His basic premise is that these 'terrorists' are actually combatants in war and their means of weaponry are not conventional like ours. He also mentioned that our civilians that die are comparable to our definition of 'collateral damage.' I could not agree more, with that said, I do not think we should acquiesce and withdraw our troops. I believe we are in a zero-sum game and should crush all terrorists, tyrants, and radical Muslims in the world.
[/quote]
QUOTE(NeoCon30 @ Feb 22 2005, 09:02 AM)
Fox is all over it, but you cannot get a peep out of CNN or MSNBC, save Scarborough Country. Yes there is a media bias but it does not matter because people can discern between honest journalism and biased opinion.
This statement is inaccurate. The link below is to a CNN story on the Ward Churchill controversy.
It’s not that other media, like CNN don’t cover these stories, it’s that they don’t-- like Fox and Scarborough--keep running them long after their news value is gone.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/
Here’s a link to a non-Scarborough MSNBC story:
http://scj.msnbc.com/id/6949813/
I could go on, but I found at least a peep.
The whole point that seems to me to make the most sense is that there are reasons beyond "They hate our Freedom" or "they are evil" as to why many, many people in the world HATE America.
The atrocities in our history, the way in which the European conquerors took this land from the indigenous people is clearly genocide, and we rarely talk about it. The story of Thanksgiving is taught to our children to make it look like the "Pilgrims" and "Indians" got along. It leaves out the genocide part. That has been a very taboo subject of History here, and has been very "white-washed".
Churchill actually dares to look at the reasons that there is widespread hatred of the USA, and why? He has the guts to say it, knowing that many will be offended.
I for one, agree. America's actions in the World have left plenty of legitimate reasons for people to HATE us.
Our actions in Central and South America, the fact that 3500 children are born with genetic deformities every year in Vietnam, largely because of our use of Agent Orange. The fact that we are the only nation to EVER use a nuclear bomb (twice), the fact that we are currently dropping depleted uranium bombs (radioctive). The fact that we supported Turkey with arms under Clinton, as Turkey was waging a genocide on the Kurds, the fact that Reagan supported Saddaam as he was using chemicals on his own people because he was against Iran. Hell, we supported our number one enemy, OBL in Afghanistan b/c he fought the USSR for us. We have supported oppressive regimes in Saudi, Egypt, Israel, Columbia and so on and do forth for years.
There are a whole bunch of legitimate reasons for people to want to attack the US. I think that point is largely missed by the over-patriotic people who can only see the USA through rose-colored glasses.
Ward Churchill's statements don't come anywhere close to the magnitude of the pre-war lies by the Bush-Cheney campaign of misinformation, and yet people still whole-heartedly love "W". Houndreds of thousands are dead, and more every day because of those lies. Nobody's getting killed b/c of what Churchill has to say.
Ward Churchill actually has the guts to speak about the realities of the World. What goes around comes around, as the saying goes. He is right about American action in the World. He is right about the power and corruption of the "power-brokers" and the economic machine of the US being the driving force behind our military interventions. From Panama to Iraq, that is true.
Sorry the conservatives can't face a little reality without a lot of "waahhhhhh."
The atrocities in our history, the way in which the European conquerors took this land from the indigenous people is clearly genocide, and we rarely talk about it. The story of Thanksgiving is taught to our children to make it look like the "Pilgrims" and "Indians" got along. It leaves out the genocide part. That has been a very taboo subject of History here, and has been very "white-washed".
Churchill actually dares to look at the reasons that there is widespread hatred of the USA, and why? He has the guts to say it, knowing that many will be offended.
I for one, agree. America's actions in the World have left plenty of legitimate reasons for people to HATE us.
Our actions in Central and South America, the fact that 3500 children are born with genetic deformities every year in Vietnam, largely because of our use of Agent Orange. The fact that we are the only nation to EVER use a nuclear bomb (twice), the fact that we are currently dropping depleted uranium bombs (radioctive). The fact that we supported Turkey with arms under Clinton, as Turkey was waging a genocide on the Kurds, the fact that Reagan supported Saddaam as he was using chemicals on his own people because he was against Iran. Hell, we supported our number one enemy, OBL in Afghanistan b/c he fought the USSR for us. We have supported oppressive regimes in Saudi, Egypt, Israel, Columbia and so on and do forth for years.
There are a whole bunch of legitimate reasons for people to want to attack the US. I think that point is largely missed by the over-patriotic people who can only see the USA through rose-colored glasses.
Ward Churchill's statements don't come anywhere close to the magnitude of the pre-war lies by the Bush-Cheney campaign of misinformation, and yet people still whole-heartedly love "W". Houndreds of thousands are dead, and more every day because of those lies. Nobody's getting killed b/c of what Churchill has to say.
Ward Churchill actually has the guts to speak about the realities of the World. What goes around comes around, as the saying goes. He is right about American action in the World. He is right about the power and corruption of the "power-brokers" and the economic machine of the US being the driving force behind our military interventions. From Panama to Iraq, that is true.
Sorry the conservatives can't face a little reality without a lot of "waahhhhhh."
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
Yes. He has no right to refer to any one else as an 'Eichmann'
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
No.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
I have heard nothing about this except here at AD.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
I'm not sure because I don't fully understand what Churchill is saying. He appears to be saying that people deserved to be killed because they are accomplices to 'foreign policy crimes' of the US government.
If that is the case, then I find this a very obtuse argument. I also believe that Americans, as citizens in a democracy (of sorts) share a responsibility for their nation's actions in other countries.
I do not believe however that this means Americans (or any one else) deserves to die because of their governments actions.
I do not believe the people in the Pentagon were a 'military target' for the people who killed them on 11 Sept either since the terrorists were not themselves of a national military and no decleration of war by a recognised government had been issued against the USA.
Yes. He has no right to refer to any one else as an 'Eichmann'
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
No.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
I have heard nothing about this except here at AD.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
I'm not sure because I don't fully understand what Churchill is saying. He appears to be saying that people deserved to be killed because they are accomplices to 'foreign policy crimes' of the US government.
If that is the case, then I find this a very obtuse argument. I also believe that Americans, as citizens in a democracy (of sorts) share a responsibility for their nation's actions in other countries.
I do not believe however that this means Americans (or any one else) deserves to die because of their governments actions.
I do not believe the people in the Pentagon were a 'military target' for the people who killed them on 11 Sept either since the terrorists were not themselves of a national military and no decleration of war by a recognised government had been issued against the USA.
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 22 2005, 02:25 PM)
Our actions in Central and South America, the fact that 3500 children are born with genetic deformities every year in Vietnam, largely because of our use of Agent Orange. The fact that we are the only nation to EVER use a nuclear bomb (twice), the fact that we are currently dropping depleted uranium bombs (radioctive). The fact that we supported Turkey with arms under Clinton, as Turkey was waging a genocide on the Kurds, the fact that Reagan supported Saddaam as he was using chemicals on his own people because he was against Iran. Hell, we supported our number one enemy, OBL in Afghanistan b/c he fought the USSR for us. We have supported oppressive regimes in Saudi, Egypt, Israel, Columbia and so on and do forth for years.
Sorry the conservatives can't face a little reality without a lot of "waahhhhhh."
Sorry the conservatives can't face a little reality without a lot of "waahhhhhh."
The Nuclear bombs that you discuss were in fact dropped by American bombers, but the technology was an international effort. The research and testing was flush with scientists from foreign shores. Considering the Japanese atrocities to Americans (as well as people all over the world), the hydrogen bomb was a viable alternative to extensive loss of American life. I doubt that
Our support of Osama Bin Laden that you mention is horrifficly convoluted. We really in fact supported the Taliban and their fight against the Soviets. Ironically, the Taliban (as we know it) emerged from this war. Osama Bin Laden was basically a freedom fighter in his own light. The weapons and resources were sent during the 90's and undoubtedly use to oust the communists. A completely logical decision....
Our use of Agent Orange, like many things, was without knowledge of it's long-term effects. It's similar to why we used to have lead paint in our homes. It had a short term benefit, and considering the fact that the South Vietnamese wanted us there, I think that it was far from an American atrocity.
Finally, depleted uranium ordinance is not harmful to the public after its initial detonation (of course). It's not "radioactive" like you'd lead people to believe, and it's amazing that you'd even say that. If it were in fact going to cause deformities, etc, don't you think it would be all over CBS ?? Really...
Finally, we did support Saddam. We had sincere interest in doing so, as Iran was a threat to domestic security. They had taken hostages and were a rogue state at the time (which seems to still hold true). Until the 1991 invasion of Kuwait, we really had no reason for concern nor did the rest of the region. Often times in life, we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Our love/hate relationship with Iraq developed over a period of nearly 20 years.
Also- conservative bashing proves no points, lacks originality, and often times negates and points that you may have made.
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 22 2005, 01:25 PM)
Sorry the conservatives can't face a little reality without a lot of "waahhhhhh."
Antny, you've expounded at length on your question #4, but would you care to answer #2?
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
I'm guessing that I know the answer, but would still like you to explain why a fake indian can't be fired for saying something controversial. If I wrote something that embarassed my boss, and his / her bosses got mad, they would sure as heck fire me. Why are professors so special that they can't get booted? To encourage this sort of thought?
QUOTE
Our use of Agent Orange, like many things, was without knowledge of it's long-term effects. It's similar to why we used to have lead paint in our homes. It had a short term benefit, and considering the fact that the South Vietnamese wanted us there, I think that it was far from an American atrocity.
Finally, depleted uranium ordinance is not harmful to the public after its initial detonation (of course). It's not "radioactive" like you'd lead people to believe, and it's amazing that you'd even say that. If it were in fact going to cause deformities, etc, don't you think it would be all over CBS ?? Really...
Finally, depleted uranium ordinance is not harmful to the public after its initial detonation (of course). It's not "radioactive" like you'd lead people to believe, and it's amazing that you'd even say that. If it were in fact going to cause deformities, etc, don't you think it would be all over CBS ?? Really...
Read these two paragraphs in reverse. The U.S. is absolved from any wrong doing concerning Agent Orange because they didn't know about any long term effects. But we shouldn't worry about using depleted uranium because we haven't heard of any of its lingering effects yet.
As for the idea that the Vietnamese people wanted us in Vietnam, that is a completely bogus statement. The U.S. knew that Ho Chi Minh would have won a national election, that's why they made sure one never happened. Instead they propped up a puppet government in the South. Agent Orange was a horrible mistake. Any short term benefits (like poisioning innocent civilians) are far outweighed by the negative consequences.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 22 2005, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 22 2005, 01:25 PM)
Sorry the conservatives can't face a little reality without a lot of "waahhhhhh."
Antny, you've expounded at length on your question #4, but would you care to answer #2?
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
I'm guessing that I know the answer, but would still like you to explain why a fake indian can't be fired for saying something controversial. If I wrote something that embarassed my boss, and his / her bosses got mad, they would sure as heck fire me. Why are professors so special that they can't get booted? To encourage this sort of thought?
I guess the answer is NO, I don't think his job should be at risk. I've seen the accusations that perhaps he lied on his job app calling himself an Indian...but I'd wager the guy has enough native blood to call himself such, so that doesn't really matter. He may or may not rightfully belong to a "Tribal Nation" as they currently exist, but I bet he's got plenty of native blood
Secondly, in the position of being an Ethnics professor, (not ethics, though that would be interesting) I believe that in order for a democracy to function properly, it is necessary for the educted citizenry to have exposure to diverse opinions attitudes and facts. To "encourage this type of thought?"... What type, the type that attempts to look beyond the propaganda, and address the realities. Yep, I'd say we need a whole lot more proffessors like him. My Government Prof, Rick Henderson at good old TX State was one of those. He railed against the establishment and opened our eyes to loads of corruption. If I had had one of those profs who just teaches as the status quo would have it, I would still be ignorant to the realities of politics. Perhaps if our Intellectuals offered a bit of resistence to the Propaganda Machines of the political parties, the people would try and think for themselves, instead of following like sheep to the slaughter...baaaah. This type of provocative, controversial discourse is necessary for healthy democracy. I think the guy should get a raise!
In Academia, things are a bit different than the standard boss/employee model in your little analogy. It's my understanding that the Colorado Board of Regents has a legal obligation not to fire Churchill over what he said. It's part of the contract, at least according to Churchill on C-Span. If the Board of regents are embarrassed, they are no more embarrassed than I am about the actions of the Federal Government of the country that I live in , and the man who was governor in my state. American FP is an embarrasment. Torture is an embarrasment. Speaking one's opinion is not embarrasing.
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 22 2005, 03:21 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 22 2005, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 22 2005, 01:25 PM)
Sorry the conservatives can't face a little reality without a lot of "waahhhhhh."
Antny, you've expounded at length on your question #4, but would you care to answer #2?
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
I'm guessing that I know the answer, but would still like you to explain why a fake indian can't be fired for saying something controversial. If I wrote something that embarassed my boss, and his / her bosses got mad, they would sure as heck fire me. Why are professors so special that they can't get booted? To encourage this sort of thought?
I guess the answer is NO, I don't think his job should be at risk. I've seen the accusations that perhaps he lied on his job app calling himself an Indian...but I'd wager the guy has enough native blood to call himself such, so that doesn't really matter. He may or may not rightfully belong to a "Tribal Nation" as they currently exist, but I bet he's got plenty of native blood
While it's interesting that you are "willing to bet," that does not make it true. So, you can bet all you like, but I'd appreciate a debate based on evidence. Fake Indian is what he shall be for the remainder of my discourse.
Prof's genealogy is sketchy; he offers little clarification
QUOTE
Ward Churchill traces part of his American Indian lineage to Joshua Tyner, a Revolutionary War veteran from Georgia.
But Tyner listed himself on the 1820 census as "white," and historical documents report that his mother was killed and scalped by Creek Indians.
...
Meanwhile, genealogy records researched by the Rocky Mountain News show that even if Joshua Tyner had been a full-blooded Indian, he would have provided Churchill with only one-sixty-fourth Indian blood.
...
He will not provide documentation of his heritage.
"I have never been confirmed as having one-quarter blood, and never said I was," Churchill said. "And even if (the critics) are absolutely right (about his lack of Indian ancestry), what does that have to do with this issue? I have never claimed to be (expletive deleted) Sitting Bull."
But Tyner listed himself on the 1820 census as "white," and historical documents report that his mother was killed and scalped by Creek Indians.
...
Meanwhile, genealogy records researched by the Rocky Mountain News show that even if Joshua Tyner had been a full-blooded Indian, he would have provided Churchill with only one-sixty-fourth Indian blood.
...
He will not provide documentation of his heritage.
"I have never been confirmed as having one-quarter blood, and never said I was," Churchill said. "And even if (the critics) are absolutely right (about his lack of Indian ancestry), what does that have to do with this issue? I have never claimed to be (expletive deleted) Sitting Bull."
QUOTE(Antny)
In Academia, things are a bit different than the standard boss/employee model in your little analogy. It's my understanding that the Colorado Board of Regents has a legal obligation not to fire Churchill over what he said. It's part of the contract, at least according to Churchill on C-Span. If the Board of regents are embarrassed, they are no more embarrassed than I am about the actions of the Federal Government of the country that I live in , and the man who was governor in my state. American FP is an embarrasment. Torture is an embarrasment. Speaking one's opinion is not embarrasing.
It is your understanding that the Colorado Board of Regents has a legal obligation not to fire Churchill over what he said.
1 - would you 'bet' on this too? on what basis? what odds?
2 - can they fire him for being a Fake Indian? Lying on his application? Incompetence? Any reason at all, or does he get lifetime employment?
If Ward Churchill were a different sort politically, would that also be worth protecting in the name of academic diversity? Example:
- How about if he said that Islam was a 'gutter religion' ?
- Wished death on a sitting (liberal) Supreme Court Justice?
- What if he said that the black man was the devil?
- What if he said "go out and kill black people for a day"?
Would you be championing the diversity then? Exactly what would a professor have to say in order to deserve being fired?
QUOTE
If Ward Churchill were a different sort politically, would that also be worth protecting in the name of academic diversity? Example:
- How about if he said that Islam was a 'gutter religion' ?
- Wished death on a sitting (liberal) Supreme Court Justice?
- What if he said that the black man was the devil?
- What if he said "go out and kill black people for a day"?
Would you be championing the diversity then? Exactly what would a professor have to say in order to deserve being fired?
I know that this wasn't directed at me...But just to interject. I don't think that it would be legal to fire him because of what he says. Because U. Colorado is a public school, wouldn't it be considered a First Amendment violation to fire a teacher because of what he says?- How about if he said that Islam was a 'gutter religion' ?
- Wished death on a sitting (liberal) Supreme Court Justice?
- What if he said that the black man was the devil?
- What if he said "go out and kill black people for a day"?
Would you be championing the diversity then? Exactly what would a professor have to say in order to deserve being fired?
CP
QUOTE
I know that this wasn't directed at me...But just to interject. I don't think that it would be legal to fire him because of what he says. Because U. Colorado is a public school, wouldn't it be considered a First Amendment violation to fire a teacher because of what he says?
I'm not sure how courts have interpreted this as pertains to the First Amendment. Yes, it's a State university but surely there must be clauses in the employment contract about character or bringing down the reputation of the University, no?
While I don't equate the two, it's interesting to note that Larry Summers over at Harvard, who made some pretty dispassionate observations about women in science, doesn't exactly have the ACLU and the New York Times beating down his door screaming "First Amendment!"
Just for the record, I don't think that this guy should be fired for what he said, unless it violates the terms of his employment contract. Of course, I wouldn't think that he deserved to be hired in the first place, since he's a Fake Indian and I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school that even had an "Ethnic Studies" department...
As for his brave, admirable against-the-grain championing of independent thought, his anti-American stance is sadly not out of the mainstream in today's academia, so he's really not doing anything heroic. (Or worthy of a raise for those who have suggested it)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Feb 22 2005, 06:56 PM)
Yes, it's a State university but surely there must be clauses in the employment contract about character or bringing down the reputation of the University, no?
UC faculty are governed by the Law of the Regents. To quote Article 5; Part C: Dismissal for Cause and Grievances; Section 1:
QUOTE
A faculty member may be dismissed when, in the judgment of the Board of Regents and subject to the Board of Regents constitutional and statutory authority, the good of the university requires such action. The grounds for dismissal shall be demonstrable professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude upon a plea or verdict of guilty or following a plea of nolo contendere, or sexual harassment or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity.
To summarize, grounds for dismissal are:
-incompetence
-neglect of duty
-insubordination
-conviction of certain crimes
-sexual harassment
-conduct below minimum standards of professional integrity
That being said, Part D: Principles of Academic Freedom; Section 1 states:
QUOTE
(A) The University of Colorado was created and is maintained to afford men and women a liberal education in the several branches of literature, arts, sciences, and the professions. These aims can be achieved only in that atmosphere of free inquiry and discussion, which has become a tradition of universities and is called “academic freedom.”
(B) For this purpose, “academic freedom” is defined as the freedom to inquire, discover, publish and teach truth as the faculty member sees it, subject to no control or authority save the control and authority of the rational methods by which truth is established.
(B) For this purpose, “academic freedom” is defined as the freedom to inquire, discover, publish and teach truth as the faculty member sees it, subject to no control or authority save the control and authority of the rational methods by which truth is established.
So, as I read it, you cannot censure Ward for his conclusions but you can examine how those conclusions were drawn. Article D; Section 2 states:
QUOTE
(B) Faculty members can meet their responsibilities only when they have confidence that their work will be judged on its merits alone. For this reason the appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure of faculty members should be based primarily on the individual's ability in teaching, research/creative work, and service and should not be influenced by such extrinsic considerations as political, social, or religious views, or views concerning departmental or university operation or administration. A disciplinary action against a faculty member, including dismissal for cause of faculty, should not be influenced by such extrinsic consideration.
And again in Section 2:
QUOTE
(D) Faculty members are citizens, members of learned professions, and members of the academic leadership of an educational institution. When speaking or writing as citizens, they should be free from university censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As faculty members however, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and institution by their utterances. Hence faculty members should be accurate at all times, should exercise appropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others, and when speaking or writing as private citizens should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
Of course, the nuclear option would be firing Ward Churchill for failing to sign a loyalty oath. Seriously, it's the law.
Colorado Statutes; Title 22: Education/Teachers; Article 61 Teacher Employment; Section 104. Professors, instructors, and teachers in state institutions of higher education to take oath or affirmation, states:
QUOTE
(1) Every person employed to teach in any state university, college, junior college, community college, or technical college in the state of Colorado, before entering upon or continuing the discharge of his duties, shall take the following oath or affirmation; except that no person employed to teach in a temporary capacity who is a citizen of a nation other than the United States shall be required to take such oath or affirmation:
"I solemnly (swear) (affirm) that I will uphold the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Colorado, and I will faithfully perform the duties of the position upon which I am about to enter."
(2) The said oath or affirmation shall be administered by any person authorized to administer oaths in the state of Colorado.
"I solemnly (swear) (affirm) that I will uphold the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Colorado, and I will faithfully perform the duties of the position upon which I am about to enter."
(2) The said oath or affirmation shall be administered by any person authorized to administer oaths in the state of Colorado.
If media reports are correct, Mr. Churchill failed to submit to this oath and the constitutional basis for this oath has already been tested in the courts. I believe that the UC Board of Regents has already signaled through the media that Ward Churchill will be dismissed. I also believe that this is the correct action for them to take. The question that remains, in my opinion, is if the reason given for his dismissal will pass the sniff test in the inevitable civil suit.
I guess the "fake indian" smear campaign has started. Evidently, most of you are clueless about the state of Native Americans in the U.S. The blood quotient rule was created as a way to help eliminate ties between mixed heritage individuals and their tribal ancestry. In addition to the U.S. government's efficient job of destroying Native American culture through disease, slaughter, relocation, and forced assimilation. They were aided by the fact that native American women were taken as wives by a variety of races.
My mother is Chumash, at least 1/8, but since my father is not, I myself am only 1/16, yet I still consider myself Chumash. Am I a "fake indian". Unfortunately, because of the logic that it is only your blood that determines your heritage, it is still a common practice in places like Sudan, to try and breed out certain ethnicities, thus the hororific practice of systematic rape.
Even if Churchhill has only 1/128 Creek blood, he is still Native American, I'll tell my children who will only by 1/32 and my grandchildren who will be barely 1/64 that they are Chumash, that they are part of the same heritage as their great grandmother. And I'll teach them to forgive the ignorance, contained in the insult, "fake indian", that may be hurled at them by those whose understanding of Native American culture extends no further than the racist mascots they cheer for at sporting events.
My mother is Chumash, at least 1/8, but since my father is not, I myself am only 1/16, yet I still consider myself Chumash. Am I a "fake indian". Unfortunately, because of the logic that it is only your blood that determines your heritage, it is still a common practice in places like Sudan, to try and breed out certain ethnicities, thus the hororific practice of systematic rape.
Even if Churchhill has only 1/128 Creek blood, he is still Native American, I'll tell my children who will only by 1/32 and my grandchildren who will be barely 1/64 that they are Chumash, that they are part of the same heritage as their great grandmother. And I'll teach them to forgive the ignorance, contained in the insult, "fake indian", that may be hurled at them by those whose understanding of Native American culture extends no further than the racist mascots they cheer for at sporting events.
I would also add that nationality proven solely through blood ties is the sort of argument I woul expect from Nazi's.
It is more than possible to be of a nation, or ethnic group by the most tenuous of links. I am surprised (well not really) to see an argument based on 'blood' proposed by an American given how many Americans put such great store in their European/ African national identity based on their immigrant ancestors rather than their own nationality.
At what point for example does an African American cease to be an African American?
And, having said that, I would like to ask, just why does this man's ethnic identity matter so much? Surely its his opinions we are concerned with, not his ancestry.
It is more than possible to be of a nation, or ethnic group by the most tenuous of links. I am surprised (well not really) to see an argument based on 'blood' proposed by an American given how many Americans put such great store in their European/ African national identity based on their immigrant ancestors rather than their own nationality.
At what point for example does an African American cease to be an African American?
And, having said that, I would like to ask, just why does this man's ethnic identity matter so much? Surely its his opinions we are concerned with, not his ancestry.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 23 2005, 02:33 AM)
I would also add that nationality proven solely through blood ties is the sort of argument I woul expect from Nazi's.
This is the standard by which native American tribes determine is one is of their tribes ancestry. In days of old it really mattered very little. However, in modern times, several tribes have become wealthy enough to provide housing, college educations, etc do to casinos being legally built on reservations. As a result, tribes tend to require proof of ancestry before accepting someone as a member.
In matters not in regard to the mans opinions, it matters because the man put down on his job application that he was native American. The problem with this is that he possibly took advantage of affirmative action hiring programs that he was may not have been entitled too.
QUOTE
And, having said that, I would like to ask, just why does this man's ethnic identity matter so much? Surely its his opinions we are concerned with, not his ancestry.
What it comes down to is that if the University decides they no longer wish to deal with the uproar this mans opinions tend to create, then they have legal grounds to terminate him if they discover he is not in fact native American, because he falsified his application.
If you are going to take on the world in this fashion, you better have you ducks in a row to ensure that the world doesn't smash you in return. It is beginning to appear that he did not.
QUOTE(TOTD @ Feb 23 2005, 01:21 AM)
Even if Churchhill has only 1/128 Creek blood, he is still Native American...
Except that he's not, and refuses to prove that he is. I frankly could care less, but since the guy has built his career on it, and finds himself in the spotlight, he could do better than claiming a Revolutionary General whose only tie is that he was buried "indian style" and claiming various fractions of blood depending on who was asking and when.
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 23 2005, 02:33 AM)
I would also add that nationality proven solely through blood ties is the sort of argument I woul expect from Nazi's.
It is more than possible to be of a nation, or ethnic group by the most tenuous of links. I am surprised (well not really) to see an argument based on 'blood' proposed by an American given how many Americans put such great store in their European/ African national identity based on their immigrant ancestors rather than their own nationality.
At what point for example does an African American cease to be an African American?
And, having said that, I would like to ask, just why does this man's ethnic identity matter so much? Surely its his opinions we are concerned with, not his ancestry.
It is more than possible to be of a nation, or ethnic group by the most tenuous of links. I am surprised (well not really) to see an argument based on 'blood' proposed by an American given how many Americans put such great store in their European/ African national identity based on their immigrant ancestors rather than their own nationality.
At what point for example does an African American cease to be an African American?
And, having said that, I would like to ask, just why does this man's ethnic identity matter so much? Surely its his opinions we are concerned with, not his ancestry.
moif, I agree with you 100%. As racial amalgamation continues in the US, we will have to address our affirmative action status and how strange it is to give special treatment to those of a given race, especially obviously white European men like Ward Churchill whose relatives have been in this country for 200 years. Otherwise, we will have to start defining people by color, measuring nose width, and doing all of the hideous things that were done by Nazis and apartheid-era South Africans. As I noted on another thread, some estimate that West Africans and their children are receiving an outsized portion of "african-american" scholarships to institutions like Harvard. What is an African-American, indeed.
QUOTE(TOTD @ Feb 23 2005, 02:21 AM)
I guess the "fake indian" smear campaign has started. Evidently, most of you are clueless about the state of Native Americans in the U.S. The blood quotient rule was created as a way to help eliminate ties between mixed heritage individuals and their tribal ancestry. In addition to the U.S. government's efficient job of destroying Native American culture through disease, slaughter, relocation, and forced assimilation. They were aided by the fact that native American women were taken as wives by a variety of races.
My mother is Chumash, at least 1/8, but since my father is not, I myself am only 1/16, yet I still consider myself Chumash. Am I a "fake indian". Unfortunately, because of the logic that it is only your blood that determines your heritage, it is still a common practice in places like Sudan, to try and breed out certain ethnicities, thus the hororific practice of systematic rape.
Even if Churchhill has only 1/128 Creek blood, he is still Native American, I'll tell my children who will only by 1/32 and my grandchildren who will be barely 1/64 that they are Chumash, that they are part of the same heritage as their great grandmother. And I'll teach them to forgive the ignorance, contained in the insult, "fake indian", that may be hurled at them by those whose understanding of Native American culture extends no further than the racist mascots they cheer for at sporting events.
My mother is Chumash, at least 1/8, but since my father is not, I myself am only 1/16, yet I still consider myself Chumash. Am I a "fake indian". Unfortunately, because of the logic that it is only your blood that determines your heritage, it is still a common practice in places like Sudan, to try and breed out certain ethnicities, thus the hororific practice of systematic rape.
Even if Churchhill has only 1/128 Creek blood, he is still Native American, I'll tell my children who will only by 1/32 and my grandchildren who will be barely 1/64 that they are Chumash, that they are part of the same heritage as their great grandmother. And I'll teach them to forgive the ignorance, contained in the insult, "fake indian", that may be hurled at them by those whose understanding of Native American culture extends no further than the racist mascots they cheer for at sporting events.
I'm about 20% Cherokee, and 25% African American...Through the standards of the Government [or whoever sets standards for such things], I am not "unwhite" enough to be considered anything but Caucasian. The point that some here are making when they call Churchill "fake Indian", is because he doesn't have enough [or any] Indian in him to be considered Indian by the same standard that says that I'm Caucasian. They're saying that, because he masqueraded as Tatanka when he initially wanted the job, that would be [in their opinion], grounds for termination.
CP
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 21 2005, 07:28 PM)
Questions to Debate:
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
[
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
[
1) No, he has the right to make any statement he wishes without apology. The 1st Amendment gives a person the right to make an fool out of himself.
2) This should be up to the University of CO and no one else. I know if I were the dean of a college, I would not want this man teaching students. And I don't buy the freedom of speech argument. Freedom of speech doesn't mean we provide everyone with a platform and bullhorn on which to shout their message.
3) I'm sure there has been some bias in the reporting. On the other hand, however, Churchill's words speak for themselves. It's very hard to believe they are being interpreted out of context. The reason why this story has gotten so much coverage is because of his allegedly outrageous language.
4) This question asks for an opinion of the veracity of Churchill's position. I don't think he has a valid point. He is simply a man who holds such an extreme leftist view that even Michael Moore has to blush. You can make the argument against capitalism without alluding that those making use of the capitalist system to feed and support themselves and their families deserved to die.
Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
No. Freedom of speech is just that. It doesn’t say freedom of inoffensive speech. There is no cure for stupidity, and stupid people will continue to say stupid things, and outrageous people will continue to say outrageous things…keeps life interesting.
Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
He resigned on January 31, so this is no longer an issue. And besides, shouldn’t CU have done their homework on his ethnic background if he was applying for a position in ETHNIC studies?
Correction: oh, well, POOP, he only resigned his department chair post, not professorship. My bad.
Carry on..........Source
No. Freedom of speech is just that. It doesn’t say freedom of inoffensive speech. There is no cure for stupidity, and stupid people will continue to say stupid things, and outrageous people will continue to say outrageous things…keeps life interesting.
Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
He resigned on January 31, so this is no longer an issue. And besides, shouldn’t CU have done their homework on his ethnic background if he was applying for a position in ETHNIC studies?
Correction: oh, well, POOP, he only resigned his department chair post, not professorship. My bad.
Carry on..........Source
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Feb 22 2005, 08:42 AM)
QUOTE
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
Yes, starting with those who lost loved ones on September 11th. What he said was horrible and offensive, but he won't apologize, because he believes he is right.QUOTE
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Well, I look at this two ways. One, he works at a public [government run, essentially] school, funded by tax dollars, and the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay his salary. But then two kicks in, he works at a government run school, therefore firing him for his thoughts would be a clear violation of his freedom of speech. I'm leaning toward my second thought at the moment. As Charles Krauthammer put it, "the best thing about teachers like [Churchill], is that like the rest of us, they die."QUOTE
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
Bill O'Reilly has lost his mind over this guy. Michael Savage has claimed that Churchill doesn't have the right to say what he said. Hannity is outraged, Scarborough [the voice of reason] has basically said what I said, but he seems to want Churchill fired as well. Everyone in the media want's Churchill fired.QUOTE
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
I haven't read all of his writings, but, if you're talking about his Sept. 11th writing, then God no.CP
CP,
Churchill apparently teaches above and beyond the accepted workload, and has turned a surplus to the schools by doing so. In effect, he is "making" money for the school by teaching more students per semester than necessary. I don't think the tax payers should be upset about that.
So, you think it's not a valid point that the reasons that Churchill asserts for the 9/11 tragedy are all accurate. I suppose it must really be because "They hate our Freedom, and are evil" instead? America's actions throughout history has nothing to do with it, right?
QUOTE
While it's interesting that you are "willing to bet," that does not make it true. So, you can bet all you like, but I'd appreciate a debate based on evidence. Fake Indian is what he shall be for the remainder of my discourse.
Prof's genealogy is sketchy; he offers little clarification
Prof's genealogy is sketchy; he offers little clarification
OK, so If I decide to refer to the Bush Admin. as the Fascist Rulers of America, can I continue to use that throughout the remainder of my discourse? Bush's history is skechy, and his Admin gives plenty of evidence for me to use that term. He also offers little "clarification". It is no more degrading than your "fake Indian" slander. If you want to set the precident for giving slanderous titles to people, and using them consistently, I can follow suit. However, I think the quality of the discourse would rapidly deteriorate.
I suggest that Ward Churchill remain Ward Churchill in your discourse, and I will continue to refer to President Bush as Bush, "W" or any of the rest of his pseudonyms.
I guess since none of the indigenous peoples of America are from India, they are all "fake Indians". Since the European conquerors thought they were in India...and were not.
I believe he is a descendant of Native Americans. His appearance is pretty much consistent with other Native Peoples I know.
Regardless, you will not be able to derail this debate with slanderous labels.
Mr. Churchill has valid points. You may not agree with them, but they are valid. Your efforts to defame his character, and his identity are embarrasing to you. It amounts to nothing more than mudslinging.
QUOTE
So, you think it's not a valid point that the reasons that Churchill asserts for the 9/11 tragedy are all accurate.
Mmkay, here's what I saidQUOTE
I haven't read all of his writings, but, if you're talking about his Sept. 11th writing, then God no.
I disagree with him when he says the civilians who died in the worst tragedy in our country's history are Nazis...Forgive my narrowmindedness.QUOTE
I suppose it must really be because "They hate our Freedom, and are evil" instead? America's actions throughout history has nothing to do with it, right?
What, in the name of all things sacred, are you talking about my friend? I've never said anything about why we were attacked in this thread. If you'd like to know, I really don't care why we were attacked. Because by caring, that would imply that I want to know why they attacked us, which would imply that I might want that reason taken care of...Which implies that I think we should appease terrorists, so I don't care. I'm sure they're mad at something, but can you think of something that would drive you to kill children? I can't either...Nothing justifies it, so if this man is writing an essay that justifies terrorism, I say it is untrue. In addition, I don't think they "hate our freedom", so much as I do think that they're evil...Car bombing cafes, blowing up women and children...If that isn't evil, what is?CP
How to properly address our foreign policy...if you are anti-interventionist and wish to do something besides outrage individuals. From Buchanan's "A Republic, not an Empire" speech.
Later same speech:
I actually agree with 90% of what Ward is saying. When you tick off even those who agree with you all you are doing is aiding those who oppose your views. If all he wanted was attention he got it.
QUOTE
Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."
Later same speech:
QUOTE
And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?
America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense.
America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense.
I actually agree with 90% of what Ward is saying. When you tick off even those who agree with you all you are doing is aiding those who oppose your views. If all he wanted was attention he got it.
QUOTE(Antny @ Feb 23 2005, 12:34 PM)
QUOTE
While it's interesting that you are "willing to bet," that does not make it true. So, you can bet all you like, but I'd appreciate a debate based on evidence. Fake Indian is what he shall be for the remainder of my discourse.
Prof's genealogy is sketchy; he offers little clarification
Prof's genealogy is sketchy; he offers little clarification
OK, so If I decide to refer to the Bush Admin. as the Fascist Rulers of America, can I continue to use that throughout the remainder of my discourse? Bush's history is skechy, and his Admin gives plenty of evidence for me to use that term. He also offers little "clarification". It is no more degrading than your "fake Indian" slander. If you want to set the precident for giving slanderous titles to people, and using them consistently, I can follow suit. However, I think the quality of the discourse would rapidly deteriorate.
I suggest that Ward Churchill remain Ward Churchill in your discourse, and I will continue to refer to President Bush as Bush, "W" or any of the rest of his pseudonyms.
I guess since none of the indigenous peoples of America are from India, they are all "fake Indians". Since the European conquerors thought they were in India...and were not.
I believe he is a descendant of Native Americans. His appearance is pretty much consistent with other Native Peoples I know.
Regardless, you will not be able to derail this debate with slanderous labels.
Mr. Churchill has valid points. You may not agree with them, but they are valid. Your efforts to defame his character, and his identity are embarrasing to you. It amounts to nothing more than mudslinging.
Your point on rhetoric is a good one and I acquiesce. However, so far you are willing to bet and you believe, but you have provided no evidence. I offered links to newspapers Mr Churchill's own words (I never claimed to be $#%& Sitting Bull!), and you disagree with me based on your belief and his appearance. The Rocky Mountain News, along with many real Native American organizations, believee that Mr. Churchill is not an Indian. according to indynews and others:
QUOTE
Churchill has described himself as Cherokee, Keetoowah Cherokee, Muskogee, Creek and most recently Meti. In a note in the online magazine Socialism and Democracy he wrote, ''Although I'm best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my wife's uncle.'' In biographical blurbs, he is identified as an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. But a senior member of the band with access to tribal enrollment records told Indian Country Today that Churchill is not listed. George Mauldin, tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla., told the Rocky Mountain News, ''He's not in the data base at all.''
Suzan Shown Harjo, a columnist for ICT who has tracked Churchill's career, said that aside from the in-laws of his late Indian wife, he has not been able to produce any relatives from any Indian tribe.
Suzan Shown Harjo, a columnist for ICT who has tracked Churchill's career, said that aside from the in-laws of his late Indian wife, he has not been able to produce any relatives from any Indian tribe.
Can we agree to call him a "wanna-be" Indian instead of "fake"?
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Feb 23 2005, 08:44 PM)
What, in the name of all things sacred, are you talking about my friend? I've never said anything about why we were attacked in this thread. If you'd like to know, I really don't care why we were attacked. Because by caring, that would imply that I want to know why they attacked us, which would imply that I might want that reason taken care of...Which implies that I think we should appease terrorists, so I don't care. I'm sure they're mad at something, but can you think of something that would drive you to kill children? I can't either...Nothing justifies it, so if this man is writing an essay that justifies terrorism, I say it is untrue. In addition, I don't think they "hate our freedom", so much as I do think that they're evil...Car bombing cafes, blowing up women and children...If that isn't evil, what is?
CP
CP
If bombing cafes, blowing up women and children is evil then the US has to pay a price for all the evil it has commited. Many Iraqi children were killed by the US bombings on Iraq. Never forget Fellujah either.
If you drive a plane into a skyscraper and kill innovents, they call you a terrorist. I totally agree, such people deserve to burn in hell. But when you use your bombers to bomb cities and kill innocents, they call you a freedom fighter. This I don't understand.
QUOTE
If bombing cafes, blowing up women and children is evil then the US has to pay a price for all the evil it has commited. Many Iraqi children were killed by the US bombings on Iraq. Never forget Fellujah either.
If you drive a plane into a skyscraper and kill innovents, they call you a terrorist. I totally agree, such people deserve to burn in hell. But when you use your bombers to bomb cities and kill innocents, they call you a freedom fighter. This I don't understand.
If you drive a plane into a skyscraper and kill innovents, they call you a terrorist. I totally agree, such people deserve to burn in hell. But when you use your bombers to bomb cities and kill innocents, they call you a freedom fighter. This I don't understand.
The distinction has to do with "intent". The terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC intended to kill innocent people. The U.S. actions in Iraq are not intended to kill innocent people. I understand that they have indeed killed innocents, but that is not their primary purpose. Traditional warfare seeks to identify combatants and specific areas where military action can occur. Terrorism seeks out specifically innocent people. Surely you can see the difference.
I had this interesting piece sent to me in an e-mail from another list. I thought I would share the line of reasoning. It came from people who call themselves "Indians" also.
I have no genealogical evidence either way, though I'm sure if they wanted to put this issue on trial and and a genetic comparison they could. Is it worth it? He looks "Indian" to me. He claims Indian heritage. He fights for the rights of indigenous peoples ("Indians"). My great grandmother was known as "Squaw". I have no other name than that for her. I have no idea where she came from, or what tribe she might have at one point in history belonged to. I say that I have Indian blood in me because of that fact. I've seen one picture of her, in a white dress. She looked about as Indian as I could imagine, so I think she probably was. Am I fake by saying that I have Indian blood in me? I can't prove a thing, except for that is what my family told me, and I've seen one picture in my life.
I think this entire conversation is a smokescreen designed to get the focus away from the real issue. Just like the use of 2 lines out of all his writings is a way to cloud all of his work. It's the good old tried and true Rovian propagandist style. If we use the emotioanlly divisive issue, they'll never figure out what's really going on. I mean, Really, accusing the man of being a "fake Indian" of all things. That's disgraceful.
Right on FMA
Haleyanne wrote:
What do you call the kinda warfare that takes innocent civillians hostage, and tortures them to find out information, after years of sanctions that are responsible for thousands and thousands of civilian, mostly children's deaths, and a "Shock and Awe" campaign that crushed and occupied the Nation? What is the "primary purpose" of the people giving the orders, not the ones following them here in America? Are we sure it's such a noble one? Is it worth all the lives that it costs, and the billions and billions in debt for our country?
I'm sorry, but I think that actions, results, consequences, and behaviors far outweigh any signifigance that "intention" may hold. You are responsible for your actions in the world, not your intentions.
QUOTE
He's Indian Because we say he is...
Why is the white community obsessing over the question about Ward
Churchill being Indian?
It was the American Government who came up with the blood quotient
rule, not the American Indians. We have many forms of kinship, our
ancestors, because they believed in the connection of ALL in the human
family had no problem taking in others as their relatives,( how do you
think the pilgrims survived?). This is a custom that is still practiced
today by the Indian people, it wasn't until another tool of genocide and
oppression was created (the old divide and conquer ), blood quantum, the
rule of 1/16 black blood...(need I go on?) that ones "belonging" to a
particular group, nation or tribe was determined by blood quantum.
My point is the white people who are questioning the validity of Ward
Churchhill being Indian are out of line....It's not your place, nor do you
have the right to determine or decide what constitutes being
Indian....Ward Churchill is Indian because WE say he is! End of Story..
Tashina Waste Wi, (Rhonda)
Sicangu Lakota
Why is the white community obsessing over the question about Ward
Churchill being Indian?
It was the American Government who came up with the blood quotient
rule, not the American Indians. We have many forms of kinship, our
ancestors, because they believed in the connection of ALL in the human
family had no problem taking in others as their relatives,( how do you
think the pilgrims survived?). This is a custom that is still practiced
today by the Indian people, it wasn't until another tool of genocide and
oppression was created (the old divide and conquer ), blood quantum, the
rule of 1/16 black blood...(need I go on?) that ones "belonging" to a
particular group, nation or tribe was determined by blood quantum.
My point is the white people who are questioning the validity of Ward
Churchhill being Indian are out of line....It's not your place, nor do you
have the right to determine or decide what constitutes being
Indian....Ward Churchill is Indian because WE say he is! End of Story..
Tashina Waste Wi, (Rhonda)
Sicangu Lakota
I have no genealogical evidence either way, though I'm sure if they wanted to put this issue on trial and and a genetic comparison they could. Is it worth it? He looks "Indian" to me. He claims Indian heritage. He fights for the rights of indigenous peoples ("Indians"). My great grandmother was known as "Squaw". I have no other name than that for her. I have no idea where she came from, or what tribe she might have at one point in history belonged to. I say that I have Indian blood in me because of that fact. I've seen one picture of her, in a white dress. She looked about as Indian as I could imagine, so I think she probably was. Am I fake by saying that I have Indian blood in me? I can't prove a thing, except for that is what my family told me, and I've seen one picture in my life.
I think this entire conversation is a smokescreen designed to get the focus away from the real issue. Just like the use of 2 lines out of all his writings is a way to cloud all of his work. It's the good old tried and true Rovian propagandist style. If we use the emotioanlly divisive issue, they'll never figure out what's really going on. I mean, Really, accusing the man of being a "fake Indian" of all things. That's disgraceful.
QUOTE
If bombing cafes, blowing up women and children is evil then the US has to pay a price for all the evil it has commited. Many Iraqi children were killed by the US bombings on Iraq. Never forget Fellujah either.
If you drive a plane into a skyscraper and kill innovents, they call you a terrorist. I totally agree, such people deserve to burn in hell. But when you use your bombers to bomb cities and kill innocents, they call you a freedom fighter. This I don't understand
.If you drive a plane into a skyscraper and kill innovents, they call you a terrorist. I totally agree, such people deserve to burn in hell. But when you use your bombers to bomb cities and kill innocents, they call you a freedom fighter. This I don't understand
Right on FMA
Haleyanne wrote:
QUOTE
The distinction has to do with "intent". The terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC intended to kill innocent people. The U.S. actions in Iraq are not intended to kill innocent people. I understand that they have indeed killed innocents, but that is not their primary purpose. Traditional warfare seeks to identify combatants and specific areas where military action can occur. Terrorism seeks out specifically innocent people. Surely you can see the difference.
What do you call the kinda warfare that takes innocent civillians hostage, and tortures them to find out information, after years of sanctions that are responsible for thousands and thousands of civilian, mostly children's deaths, and a "Shock and Awe" campaign that crushed and occupied the Nation? What is the "primary purpose" of the people giving the orders, not the ones following them here in America? Are we sure it's such a noble one? Is it worth all the lives that it costs, and the billions and billions in debt for our country?
I'm sorry, but I think that actions, results, consequences, and behaviors far outweigh any signifigance that "intention" may hold. You are responsible for your actions in the world, not your intentions.
Having weighed all of the evidence, I have decided that I am Italian. I am going to fight for Italian rights, and my great uncle once got his picture taken eating an Italian ice. Please call me Carlo.
Please get a grip.
While the fundamentalist Islamic terorirsts ruled in Fallujah, they instituted Sharia law, meaning that women were treated as property and those "infidels" who practiced different religions or forms of Islam could be killed. How is this freedom or civil rights? Hundreds of tortured dead bodies were found by our troops as they won the city.Many of the "freedom" fighters weren't even Iraqis, so how could they be freedom fighters?
Here is a web site where you can see the atrocities that were purpotrated by the foreign-led fighters that were terrorizing both the residents of Fallujah and foreign aid workers. Please open your eyes as to who the real terrorists are. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys and Ward Churchill is a useful idiot.
QUOTE(Fma)
Never forget Fellujah either.
Please get a grip.
While the fundamentalist Islamic terorirsts ruled in Fallujah, they instituted Sharia law, meaning that women were treated as property and those "infidels" who practiced different religions or forms of Islam could be killed. How is this freedom or civil rights? Hundreds of tortured dead bodies were found by our troops as they won the city.Many of the "freedom" fighters weren't even Iraqis, so how could they be freedom fighters?
Here is a web site where you can see the atrocities that were purpotrated by the foreign-led fighters that were terrorizing both the residents of Fallujah and foreign aid workers. Please open your eyes as to who the real terrorists are. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys and Ward Churchill is a useful idiot.
QUOTE
I think this entire conversation is a smokescreen designed to get the focus away from the real issue. Just like the use of 2 lines out of all his writings is a way to cloud all of his work. It's the good old tried and true Rovian propagandist style. If we use the emotioanlly divisive issue, they'll never figure out what's really going on. I mean, Really, accusing the man of being a "fake Indian" of all things. That's disgraceful.
Many people believe that the professor crossed a line in his writings and don't want him teaching students when he has such wacky beliefs. But he happens to be protected by a very strong university contract of tenure. There appears to be a loophole --if he misrepresented himself as an indian they have legal grounds to get rid of him. As far as who gets to define what Indian means -- I suspect it is the american government because the classification brings with it a mess of benefits.
QUOTE
What do you call the kinda warfare that takes innocent civillians hostage, and tortures them to find out information, after years of sanctions that are responsible for thousands and thousands of civilian, mostly children's deaths, and a "Shock and Awe" campaign that crushed and occupied the Nation? What is the "primary purpose" of the people giving the orders, not the ones following them here in America? Are we sure it's such a noble one? Is it worth all the lives that it costs, and the billions and billions in debt for our country?
I'm sorry, but I think that actions, results, consequences, and behaviors far outweigh any signifigance that "intention" may hold. You are responsible for your actions in the world, not your intentions
.I'm sorry, but I think that actions, results, consequences, and behaviors far outweigh any signifigance that "intention" may hold. You are responsible for your actions in the world, not your intentions
I never said, nor did I imply that a person or a government is not responsible for its actions. However, intent is always relevant and it always has been when assessing the culpability of someone's actions. We live in a civilized society and therefore make such a distinction. A man who pulls out a gun and shoots another man in the head in cold blood is treated differently under the law from a man who during an icestorm slides through a red light and kills the driver coming through the green light. In both instances someone is dead as a result of someone else's actions. But we punish the actions much differently-- and the difference is justified in large part by the actor's intentions. You cannot equate the actions of the U.S. government with the actions of terrorists. To do so is simplistic, unfair and inflammatory.
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
No, he should not be forced to apologize. If he does it will be a hollow act he believes those people deserved to die.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Yes, paticurally because he has delibretly misquoted or downright lied about others works supporting his own views. Professors should be fired for such activities (though they rarely are)
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
Not really I've seen it only once on the national news. It's all over cable talk shows though,
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
No. As a native myself (Choctaw) people like Mr Churchill do us no favors in explaining we were some sort naive stupid helpless savages who could do nothing against evil white people because we were somehow inherently inferior. The entire situation is very complex and certainly much more of a grey issue then Mr Churchill paints.
No, he should not be forced to apologize. If he does it will be a hollow act he believes those people deserved to die.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Yes, paticurally because he has delibretly misquoted or downright lied about others works supporting his own views. Professors should be fired for such activities (though they rarely are)
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
Not really I've seen it only once on the national news. It's all over cable talk shows though,
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
No. As a native myself (Choctaw) people like Mr Churchill do us no favors in explaining we were some sort naive stupid helpless savages who could do nothing against evil white people because we were somehow inherently inferior. The entire situation is very complex and certainly much more of a grey issue then Mr Churchill paints.
Churchill’s words are not anything new. Jerry Falwell made some similar remarks on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club on September 13, 2001. Although Falwell later apologized, his came at a time when the nation was in mourning and the flags at half-mast. And despite sticking his foot in his ample mouth (oops, that's not the only part of Falwell that's ample, butt never mind 
) on numerous occasions, Falwell is still around spewing his patented brand of hatred.
It amazes me that The Dixie Chicks caught more flack than Falwell.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter7.htm
What short memories some have.
) on numerous occasions, Falwell is still around spewing his patented brand of hatred.It amazes me that The Dixie Chicks caught more flack than Falwell.
QUOTE
I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, ... the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [terrorist attack] happen." Jerry Falwell, 700 Club, 2001-SEP-13.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter7.htm
What short memories some have.
just a quick update...
...he neglected to say that the sloppy reporters were also quoting him and his job application.
QUOTE
Churchill did address the issue of his ethnicity, admitting that he is not Native American.
“Is he an Indian? Do we really care?” he said, quoting those he called his “white Republican” critics.
“Let’s cut to the chase; I am not,” he said.
His pedigree is “not important,” Churchill said: “The issue is the substance of what is said.”
He went on to explain that the issue of whether he is Native American has been blown up by sloppy reporting and reporters quoting other reporters.
“Is he an Indian? Do we really care?” he said, quoting those he called his “white Republican” critics.
“Let’s cut to the chase; I am not,” he said.
His pedigree is “not important,” Churchill said: “The issue is the substance of what is said.”
He went on to explain that the issue of whether he is Native American has been blown up by sloppy reporting and reporters quoting other reporters.
...he neglected to say that the sloppy reporters were also quoting him and his job application.
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
I don’t think he does since it is his opinion and nothing more. I’m shocked so many people seem to revel in hating America with him.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Not based on his speech issues.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
I’ll be honest I have only seen it on Fox News and I haven’t been able to watch many other sources lately. I spend most of my news on fox and CSPAN and missed the CSPAN coverage.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
We killed Indians in wars just like other countries formed their origins. Some of the battles we won and some they won with great strategy and resourcefulness. Other than that I think he is full of crap. Frankly I’m surprised he hasn’t been shot to death by now. I’m pretty sure the conservative news will play this story until the guy is killed by some nut case and then look for a leftie to take up for his position to raise the passion of hate for the left. If Churchill can be painted together with the left then he will take Michael Moore’s place for paintball target practice.
I don’t think he does since it is his opinion and nothing more. I’m shocked so many people seem to revel in hating America with him.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Not based on his speech issues.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
I’ll be honest I have only seen it on Fox News and I haven’t been able to watch many other sources lately. I spend most of my news on fox and CSPAN and missed the CSPAN coverage.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
We killed Indians in wars just like other countries formed their origins. Some of the battles we won and some they won with great strategy and resourcefulness. Other than that I think he is full of crap. Frankly I’m surprised he hasn’t been shot to death by now. I’m pretty sure the conservative news will play this story until the guy is killed by some nut case and then look for a leftie to take up for his position to raise the passion of hate for the left. If Churchill can be painted together with the left then he will take Michael Moore’s place for paintball target practice.
QUOTE(Ol Sarge)
We killed Indians in wars just like other countries formed their origins. Some of the battles we won and some they won with great strategy and resourcefulness. Other than that I think he is full of crap. Frankly I’m surprised he hasn’t been shot to death by now. I’m pretty sure the conservative news will play this story until the guy is killed by some nut case and then look for a leftie to take up for his position to raise the passion of hate for the left. If Churchill can be painted together with the left then he will take Michael Moore’s place for paintball target practice.
And YOU accuse HIM of being hateful?!?
I don't know that I've ever read one paragraph so chock full of putrid bile.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Feb 23 2005, 11:11 PM)
QUOTE(Ol Sarge)
We killed Indians in wars just like other countries formed their origins. Some of the battles we won and some they won with great strategy and resourcefulness. Other than that I think he is full of crap. Frankly I’m surprised he hasn’t been shot to death by now. I’m pretty sure the conservative news will play this story until the guy is killed by some nut case and then look for a leftie to take up for his position to raise the passion of hate for the left. If Churchill can be painted together with the left then he will take Michael Moore’s place for paintball target practice.
And YOU accuse HIM of being hateful?!?
I don't know that I've ever read one paragraph so chock full of putrid bile.Did I miss something here, I didn't accuse him of anything. Wars for change of government have happened since the beginning of time and I know of no country or lines outlined on a map that blood wasn't spilled for. The winners draw the map the losers are buried or suck it up. If this guy is an Indian, which is disputable according to my Choctaw Indian neighbor, then his position is based on sour grapes, we rejected Indian government and chose American government. Had we the Americans lost and I speak out against the Indians in equal condemnation then I would expect to be scalped. A negotiated peace was impossible so we had wars and they lost. Frankly I find it hard to decide if the Indians possibly had a better governmental plan with the women doing the cooking and associated tasks and men hunting and fishing, no clocks, no tax, no property just nature and a human animal in the mix as a carnivore protecting his hunting space. Then I guess you will find this statement chauvinistic too.
1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.
A decent human being might feel inclined to apologize for comparing people whose only real sin was showing up for work to the architect of the systematic mass slaughter of millions. I'm not holding my breath.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
His position should not be in jeopardy for what he has said. What it can be in jeopardy for (as already presented in this thread) boils down to a lack of intellectual integrity or (perhaps) technical issues about the application process.
To me, Churchill's statements are factually incorrect in many cases. He has apparently bought into Osama bin Laden's rhetoric in justifying jihad against the US.
He (like Osama) contends that the actions against Iraq's children justifies jihad. Perhaps this is a fair statement. I'd be curious to see what Churchill's stance is on the Iraqi dictator who siphoned funds out of the medicine and food programs set up by the UN. I'd also be curious to see what his stance would be on the UN officials who basically turned our attempts to feed Iraq's children into a "pigs feeding at the trough" scandal.
From his article: "Some People Push Back": On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
I think I would predict that Churchill would have disdain for all of the above, equally, if he were honest in his position. I'm just not certain that he is...
From the same article:
It seems that George H W Bush did say something similar to this, but context is, of course, key.
Context Is Key
This type of intellectual dishonesty, simply to make a rhetorical point, is appalling from a "professor", although not unexpected.
Other assertions, such as 500,000 children dying due to sanctions imposed in Iraq are blatantly incorrect. Ward Churchill, In His Own Words
Churchill's positions are built on a house of cards. He ignores relevant facts when they don't support him. That's probably ok for an internet poster, but not for a professor.
His job should not be in danger over what he said. His job should be in danger because of shoddy research and content.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
No, I haven't.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
Churchill is certainly entitled to his thoughts. I suggest he gets a blog after being fired.
A decent human being might feel inclined to apologize for comparing people whose only real sin was showing up for work to the architect of the systematic mass slaughter of millions. I'm not holding my breath.
2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
His position should not be in jeopardy for what he has said. What it can be in jeopardy for (as already presented in this thread) boils down to a lack of intellectual integrity or (perhaps) technical issues about the application process.
To me, Churchill's statements are factually incorrect in many cases. He has apparently bought into Osama bin Laden's rhetoric in justifying jihad against the US.
He (like Osama) contends that the actions against Iraq's children justifies jihad. Perhaps this is a fair statement. I'd be curious to see what Churchill's stance is on the Iraqi dictator who siphoned funds out of the medicine and food programs set up by the UN. I'd also be curious to see what his stance would be on the UN officials who basically turned our attempts to feed Iraq's children into a "pigs feeding at the trough" scandal.
From his article: "Some People Push Back": On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
QUOTE
Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.
I think I would predict that Churchill would have disdain for all of the above, equally, if he were honest in his position. I'm just not certain that he is...
From the same article:
QUOTE
The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public.
It seems that George H W Bush did say something similar to this, but context is, of course, key.
Context Is Key
QUOTE
As it turns out, President George H. W. Bush did use similar words, though not that exact quote, in a speech in 1991. Context, however, is key. In Remarks to Community Members at Fort Stewart, Georgia, February 1, 1991, President Bush said:
QUOTE(President George HW Bush's quote)
It began with Kuwait, but that wouldn't have been the end. (my emphasis) What we've witnessed these last few weeks removed any last shred of doubt about the adversary that we face: the terror bombing, without military value -- the terror bombing of innocent civilians with those Scud missiles; the brutal treatment -- that brutal, inhumane treatment of our POW's; the endless appetite for evil that would lead a man to make war on the world's environment. All of us know what we're up against. All of you know why we're there.
We are there because we are Americans, part of something that's larger than ourselves. (my emphasis) Our cause is right. Our cause is just. And because it is just, that world's cause will prevail.
And when we win -- and we will -- we will have taught a dangerous dictator and any tyrant tempted to follow in his footsteps that the U.S. has a new credibility, and that what we say goes, and that there is no place for lawless aggression in the Persian Gulf and in this new world order that we seek to create. And we mean it. And he will understand that when the day is done.
We are there because we are Americans, part of something that's larger than ourselves. (my emphasis) Our cause is right. Our cause is just. And because it is just, that world's cause will prevail.
And when we win -- and we will -- we will have taught a dangerous dictator and any tyrant tempted to follow in his footsteps that the U.S. has a new credibility, and that what we say goes, and that there is no place for lawless aggression in the Persian Gulf and in this new world order that we seek to create. And we mean it. And he will understand that when the day is done.
This type of intellectual dishonesty, simply to make a rhetorical point, is appalling from a "professor", although not unexpected.
Other assertions, such as 500,000 children dying due to sanctions imposed in Iraq are blatantly incorrect. Ward Churchill, In His Own Words
Churchill's positions are built on a house of cards. He ignores relevant facts when they don't support him. That's probably ok for an internet poster, but not for a professor.
His job should not be in danger over what he said. His job should be in danger because of shoddy research and content.
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
No, I haven't.
4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
Churchill is certainly entitled to his thoughts. I suggest he gets a blog after being fired.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 23 2005, 09:49 PM)
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
No, I haven't.
No, I haven't.
Anyone who hasn’t seen this on mainstream media outlets must not be watching much besides FNC.
CNN Link
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/
MSNBC Link
http://scj.msnbc.com/id/6949813/
BTW: Amlord I’m not fighting Churchill’s cause, but please tell how his words are much different from those of Jerry Falwell two days after 9/11:
QUOTE
I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, ... the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [terrorist attack] happen." Jerry Falwell, 700 Club, 2001-SEP-13.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter7.htm
Here is the guy some want teaching their children. I won't bother posting the parts where he advocates terrorism and laments that "the arabs did this when we should have thought of it first." I was intrigued with his theory of how to rebel against the oppression of ... speeding tickets. And this passes for intellectualism.
article link at Denver radio station
Link to Windows Audio file
article link at Denver radio station
Link to Windows Audio file
QUOTE
Churchill on getting revenge for speeding tickets: …And I’m not really comfortable with, since I’m presenting no public hazard ever when I’m ticketed, can attest to that, we can take that further at some point tonight if you’d like to, if you’d like to challenge it, but I’m presenting no public hazard, I’m simply being asked to ante up to pay for my own repression.
Not being comfortable with that, I have a rule of thumb: I smile very politely to the cop, take the ticket, look to see how much the fine is going to be, and before I leave that state, I make sure I cause at least that much property damage in state material before I go, so it’s a wash, boys and girls (laughter and applause).
Not being comfortable with that, I have a rule of thumb: I smile very politely to the cop, take the ticket, look to see how much the fine is going to be, and before I leave that state, I make sure I cause at least that much property damage in state material before I go, so it’s a wash, boys and girls (laughter and applause).
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 24 2005, 12:13 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 23 2005, 09:49 PM)
3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?
No, I haven't.
No, I haven't.
Anyone who hasn’t seen this on mainstream media outlets must not be watching much besides FNC.
CNN Link
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/
MSNBC Link
http://scj.msnbc.com/id/6949813/
BTW: Amlord I’m not fighting Churchill’s cause, but please tell how his words are much different from those of Jerry Falwell two days after 9/11:
QUOTE
I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, ... the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [terrorist attack] happen." Jerry Falwell, 700 Club, 2001-SEP-13.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter7.htm
There is little difference, substantively.
However, I can choose to not subsidize Falwell...by not sending him money. Can I also choose not to subsidize Churchill...? Not if I live in Colorado.
Ward Churchill can have any kook opinion that he wants, as can Falwell. But don't ask taxpayers to subsidize such incredibly faulty logic. It isn't in our academic interests.
I'll back Amlord up on this one. Falwell is a complete red herring in this debate.
One cannot justify one man's heartless statement by pointing to another's.
Churchill should be ashamed and have the decency to apologize, even if he meant what he said. It's common courtesy.
One cannot justify one man's heartless statement by pointing to another's.
Churchill should be ashamed and have the decency to apologize, even if he meant what he said. It's common courtesy.
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 24 2005, 10:18 AM)
I'll back Amlord up on this one. Falwell is a complete red herring in this debate.
One cannot justify o
One cannot justify o