 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Fire Ward Churchill
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 13 Feb 05 - 08:16 PM I can't wait for this radical moron to get fired from the University of Colorado. Free speech or not, this asshole is all about hate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Bill D Date: 13 Feb 05 - 08:56 PM then why do all the conservative morons get retained? If free speech is guaranteed to those who deny evolution and preach hate against homosexuals, why is Churchhill so bad? He has done NOTHING to advocate violent overthrow of the govt....he just says louder than most what he thinks is wrong.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Peace Date: 13 Feb 05 - 09:01 PM Some info and views |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Greg F. Date: 13 Feb 05 - 09:15 PM this asshole is all about hate. A truly autobiographical statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Feb 05 - 09:18 PM Ward Churchill has been making the same kinds of political statements for years. He is an activist, and is an important voice in American Indian scholarship and politics. He is widely respected in the field. The governor and the politicians who are weighing in on this issue have no business promoting their political agendas in this matter. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 13 Feb 05 - 10:44 PM I've heard he's not even a Native American Indian. I figured that a hater of America like you Greg F. would relate to this douche bag. You are a fucking poison to this country and so is he. He hardly represents what a majority of this country thinks. He is about hate, I repeat and I hope he loses his $90K a year job where tax payers are paying for it. Can't wait to hear the news. I'll be the first to post it hear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: shadygrove Date: 13 Feb 05 - 10:45 PM May an enrolled American Indian express an opinion? Ward Churchill has been trading on his apparently non-existent Indian ancestry for his entire public career. At the minimum, he is a fraud. His politics don't enter into it, as far as I am concerned. There are qualified people of legitimate American Indian ancestry who could have been hired for his position. As a non-Indian, he is not qualified to head up an Indian studies department or to act as a spokesman for Indians. I am sure that most Indians would agree with me that there are more than a few 'wannabees' out there, especially in the academic setting, who claim vague Indian ancestry (almost always 'Cherokee', for some reason) but whose ties to actual living Indians are tenuous to non-existent. Why some whites have this strange compulsion to represent themselves as Indians, even if they have a small quantum of Indian blood, is strange to me; it seems to bespeak an unhealthy self-hatred. Ward Churchill is a symptom of this phenomenon. He is an impostor, and his post should go to a genuine Indian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 13 Feb 05 - 10:48 PM I wouldn't say he is widely respected in the field at all, but I agree he is a long time activist, and good buds with Russ Means. He is also tenured, which is why he won't get fired. Now, if you are a lowly adjunct, or hired gun for a semester or year, you wouldn't dare speak your mind at an American college or university these days, because you absolutely would get fired. Same sort of shit happened to a friend of mine back in the 1990s, by the name of Gonzalos Santos, a math prof who used to teach at U of Colo. but moved to SUNY. He was also targeted by the right wing for his CISPES activism and criticism of US government policies in Central and Latin America. He didn't get fired either. Tenure is a good thing for academic free speech. Which is why tenure ain't offered much anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 13 Feb 05 - 10:50 PM I agree. And maybe, just maybe their will be some genuine integrity in that role. Not just a fucking big mouth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 13 Feb 05 - 10:51 PM My last post was in response to Shadygrove. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 13 Feb 05 - 10:54 PM BTW, when it comes to American Indian scholarship, Ward don't even measure on the scale much. There are many, many much better scholars than him. I don't really care one way or the other about the whole quantum blood thing. It's too damn destructive to get into that sort of stuff, though I know a lot of native folks who do get sucked into those debates. It's just really counter-productive, IMO. If you think there are a lot of wannabe Indians, check out the wannabe Celts sometime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Amos Date: 13 Feb 05 - 10:55 PM Neither is free speech, come to think of it.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Sorcha Date: 13 Feb 05 - 10:59 PM Seems Martie is on the prod again. Not sure which side I'm on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:09 PM No professor--and especially not a history professor--should EVER be fired for speaking their mind and voicing a dissenting opinion from the current government administration, no matter how much of a minority view it is, and whether it is right or left wing. Even if they are mediocre scholars. If we can't speak freely in an academic setting, we're pretty much screwed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: shadygrove Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:10 PM About the 'blood quantum debate', there is no debate as far as I can see in Churchill's case; he has no demonstrable Indian ancestry. It isn't just a question of how much. And my intention in posting an opinion was not to get involved in a flame exchange, so I will leave it at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:19 PM Good idea. I have no idea whether Churchill is Indian or not. I also don't care. I don't think one need to be a Native American to teach American Indian studies. But hey, that's me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Sorcha Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:24 PM Can you say 'tenure'? And why did they tenure him? He has a brain, let him use it. I am also not too sure what he said was so awful. Can someone explain why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: number 6 Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:30 PM His public (severe) statement in regards to the victims of 9/11 is an nothing but an insult to their survivng families and loved ones. That's what is at issue here, not that he is advocating his dissent to the current U.S. regime. If not fired, then send him to some sensitivity courses. No, fire the f8cker. It's not a matter of free speach here, it's a matter of outright ethics and morality. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:31 PM Don't worry Sorcha, Martin doesn't know what Ward Churchill said either, he just knows it is Ward who is getting kicked around the right wing media echo chamber by the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly conglomerate. And that's good enough for folks like him and DougR. They are just following their marching orders from their right wing nut pundit gurus. And Limbaugh hath said: "Go forth and spew vile hate about Ward Churchill!" so they did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: number 6 Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:33 PM Here's his statement on the victims of 9/11. "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. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:34 PM Ward Churchill didn't say squat about the victims of 9/11. What he dared to say was the US has engaged in certain very bad, damaging (to the populations of the Middle East) activities that resulted in Al Qaida attacking the US. So what is wrong with saying that, especially when it is true? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:39 PM Blood quantum is one of those nasty hangovers from the 1880s Dawes act. Much of what goes on now depends on whose ancestors signed up (was willing to take the risk to sign up--many weren't so now since they're not enrolled they're not "real" Indians). So mixedbloods today have a couple of hurdles. Was their tribal affiliation simply diluted by lack of family registration, or was it diluted by intermarriage? And at what point may someone who has a couple of cultures in their immediate family still choose to take an identifiable path? It's a bloody-awful battle when you start arguing about who is and isn't an Indian. I would say that people like Jamake Highwater made this much worse by masquerading as an Indian (he's Greek) for many years. A lot of people were burned. Last time I read anything about Churchill, he's simply your garden-variety mixedblood. And entitled to take a position and choose to defend it if he wishes. As someone else remarked, he has tenure. And a lot of people who have a lot of reasons that go beyond the current flap are hoping to make things hot enough that he'll choose to or have to leave. If you think this is simply based on remarks regarding Sept. 11 and his opinion of the culpability of Americans in general, you're naively mistaken. The internecine warfare between Indians and mixedblood Indians makes this look like child's play. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:51 PM Here is the entire text by Ward Churchill that has come to light. It begins: [Globalization] "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens written by Ward Churchill // 9-11-2001 This article appeared in Pockets of Resistance #11 September 2001 When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously – and quite charitably, all things considered – replied that it was merely a case of "chickens coming home to roost." On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well. The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival. If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior – the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. 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. All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated. 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. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew. Find the rest at the web link above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: number 6 Date: 13 Feb 05 - 11:59 PM It's the line in the article referring to the 9/11 victems as 'little Eichmans" ... that is what the stink is all about. "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. " Yup, .... the firemen, clerks, dining room staff, analysts, policemen and woman ....... Yup, they were all aware that morning when they wnet to work there poat in the Global economy. This Churchill guy has a tenure ?!?!?!?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Peace Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:02 AM I posted that link at Feb 13, 9:01 PM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:09 AM Brucie, I skipped through to the bottom, then went to my email to pick up a link a freind sent. Sorry I didn't see you'd already posted it. An essay turned up in The Nation that is closed unless you're a subscriber, so I'll put the gist of it here: Ward Churchill and the Mad Dogs of the Right by Alexander Cockburn When it comes to left and right, meaning the contrapuntal voices of sanity and dementia, we're meant to keep two sets of books. Start with sanity, in the form of Ward Churchill, a prof at the University of Colorado. Churchill is known as a fiery historian and writer, often on Indian topics. Back in 2001, after 9/11, Churchill wrote an essay called "Some People Push Back," making the simple point, in a later summary, that "if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned." That piece was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. About those killed in the 9/11 attacks, Churchill wrote recently, "It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American 'command and control infrastructure' in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a 'legitimate' target." At this point Churchill could have specifically mentioned the infamous bombing of the Amariya civilian shelter in Baghdad in January 1991, with 400 deaths, almost all women and children, all subsequently identified and named by the Iraqis. To this day the US government says it was an OK target. Churchill concludes, "If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these 'standards' when they are routinely applied to other people, they should not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them. It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns' characterization only to those [World Trade Center workers] described as 'technicians.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, [they] were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else." I'm glad he puts that gloss in about the targets, thus clarifying what did read to some like a blanket stigmatization of the WTC inhabitants in his original paper. A storm has burst over Churchill's head, with protests by Governor Pataki and others at his scheduled participation in a panel at Hamilton College called "Limits of Dissent?" In Colorado he's resigned his chairmanship of the department of ethnic studies, and politicians, fired up by the mad dogs on the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by Lord O'Reilly of the Loofah on Fox, are howling for his eviction from his job (Loofah? See O'Reilly's lewd fantasies: www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11272004.html). Why should Churchill apologize for anything? Is it a crime to say that chickens can come home to roost and that the way to protect American lives from terrorism is to respect international law? I don't think he should have resigned as department chair. Let them drag him out by main force. So much for the voice of sanity. Now for the dementia of the right. The New Republic's Tom Frank (not the Frank, please note, who just wrote a book about Kansas) describes in TNR how he recently sat in on an antiwar panel in Washington. Frank listened to Stan Goff, a former Delta Force soldier and current organizer for Military Families Speak Out, who duly moved Frank to write that "what I needed was a Republican like Arnold [Schwarzenegger] who would walk up to [Goff] and punch him in the face." Then upon Frank's outraged ears fell the views of International Socialist Review editorial board member Sherry Wolf, who asserted that Iraqis had a "right" to rebel against occupation, prompting TNR's man to confide to his readers that "these weren't harmless lefties. I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand for interrogation." After Wolf quoted Booker Prize-winning author Arundhati Roy's defense of the right to resist, Frank mused, "Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy." Now suppose Churchill had talked about Schwarzenegger's war on the poor in California and called on someone to punch the guv in the face, or have a jovial Graner force Pataki to masturbate what remain of Schwarzenegger's steroid-shriveled genitals, or have Ann Coulter rub her knickers in his face or get blown up by a bomb? He'd be out of his job in a minute. Right-wing mad dogs are licensed to write anything, and in our Coulter-culture they do, just so they can burnish their profiles and get invited on Fox or CNN talk shows. Why else would Tony Blankley call on the Washington Times editorial page for Hersh to be imprisoned or shot for treason? But it's a PR game only right-wingers are allowed to play. After savaging Churchill, the mad dogs of the right turned their sights on Shahid Alam, a professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston. Alam, author of the excellent Poverty From the Wealth of Nations, wrote a column for the CounterPunch website in December in which he argued that the 9/11 attacks were an Islamist insurgency, the attackers believing that they were fighting--as the American revolutionaries did, in the 1770s--for their freedom and dignity against foreign occupation/control of their lands. Second, he argued that these attacks were the result of the political failure of Muslims to resist their tyrannies locally. It was a mistake, Alam said, to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Now he has been labeled "an un-American" professor by Fox News, and there's an Internet campaign to have him stripped of his faculty position. So write to all the appropriate names, defending Churchill and Alam; and if you feel like an outing to execrate Frank and The New Republic, there'll be a demonstration sponsored by the DC Anti-War Network, the DC chapter of the ISO and others at 5 pm on Friday, February 11, outside TNR's DC editorial offices at 1331 H Street NW. This article can be found on the web at: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=cockburn Visit The Nation http://www.thenation.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: katlaughing Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:32 AM Thanks for posting that, SRS. I watched him on CSPAN the other night and, while I think he is a bit of arrogant ass, he's earned the stripes and I would defend his right to free speech. He should not be fired. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Peace Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:39 AM No prob. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Teresa Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM While I think it's a good idea to be aware of your actions and know their affects on others, I think also that there's a giant leap between that and saying that the 911 victims had it coming. That's very thin ice to tread. I agree with the idea that we should not be surprised if there is violent reaction to U.S. policies inside our borders, but then singling people out and saying they had it coming leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't know what Churchill meant by this, exactly, but I think he could have been a bit more lucid and a bit less vitriolic in his wording. Having said that, I am a strong believer in free speech, and I think he should be permitted to say what he feels he needs to say. The "blood quantum" thing is a separate issue, and I don't think it is a good idea to link these things together. Teresa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: DougR Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:51 AM Bill D.: I suspect there are a lot of morons on tenure at America's universities, but very few conservatives. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Peace Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:53 AM That is not actually so, Doug. Education and educators are quite conservative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 05 - 07:53 AM Sorry brucie, but the O'Reilly/Hannity/Limpaw conglomerate have told DougR and their minions that academia is a bastion of radical liberalism, therefore to DougR, it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 05 - 07:56 AM You all do realize Martin Gibson is just trying to wind all of you up, don't you? That he will use whatever story is ricocheting around the right wing echo chamber, post something here about it in his usual viper language, sit back, and watch the thread shoot over a hundred in less than 24-48 hours? He is doing his usual Martin Gibson trolling, in other words, and y'all keep chomping at his bait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 05 - 09:41 AM What's all the stuff about the CIA office in the WTC? Somebody told me it was the biggest office outside of Langley Virginia ;I find that very hard to believe. There are so many conspiracy theories going around about 911 it's hard to know what to believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Feb 05 - 10:02 AM Teresa, these issues aren't only not separate, they're annealed in a way that may not seem clear unless you've been in those trenches. The position that they should be separate is understood by many, but still, this flawed part of the argument is always going to rear it's ugly head, even if intellectually it doesn't seem to fit. Who may speak for Indians? Who is an Indian? How much is culture versus genetics? If you're Indian but don't have any knowledge of your culture, are you more entitled to speak for Indians as a whole than say, mixedbloods or non-Indians who have lived on reservations or comingled in such a way as to know what they're talking about? May anyone speak for all Indians? What cards are played in a way to always attempt to trump any other card played? "You're not a real Indian" is one of the biggies. Ward Churchill may come across to many as an angry, in-your-face activist, and what he says may offend Indians and non-Indians (but not all Indians and non-Indians) but you must understand that he speaks from the position of a colonized person. In many colonial countries, the colonizers left after a while (see Africa, SE Asia, etc.) Here, they stayed. It makes a difference in how the indigenous people speak to themselves and the rest of the world because of this. Churchill speaks for those Indians who feel they've been set up all over again. I have to go to work. At a University. Where tenured faculty are supposed to have free speech just like everyone else, and because they're tenured, in theory, they've done some thinking about what it is they're saying. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 14 Feb 05 - 11:49 AM The real controversy as to his status has to do with his international views, and whether his tenure gives him an absolutely rock-solid position as professor despite the unpopularity of his views in certain circles. While I intensely dislike what I consider the objectionable excess of his argument (the "Little Eichmanns" bit, the "they had it coming" bit, and so forth) I regard the meat of his argument as being contained in the "chickens-coming-home-to-roost" metaphor, which has much to say for it. Tenure is similar to the right of habeas corpus, in that it's given great honor in official pronouncements, but whenever it threatens to mean something there are strong calls to set it aside. The "quantum blood" and "real Indian" thing is purely irrelevant to the above arguments, whatever its own merits may be (and I wouldn't presume to judge that). It's only an emotional sideshow, distracting attention from what goes on in the center ring. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: DougR Date: 14 Feb 05 - 12:48 PM Sorry, GUEST, I know you hate to be wrong, but I was well aware of the preponderance of left-wing teaching by university professors long before Fox News Network hit the airwaves. And brucie, don't know where you are getting your figures, but I'd be happy to have a reference to any research that shows a large number of conservative thinkers populate U. S. university faculties. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 03:41 PM And Guest, I watched this asshole on C-Span spew his American hate. I don't need anyone to identify it for me. However, you are right. I get a royal charge posting topics that fry the radical left. Thanks for chomping, douche bag. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,observer Date: 14 Feb 05 - 04:39 PM Isn't it interesting that both Martin Gibson and DougR get highly upset when truth conflicts with their beliefs? A substandard intellect (MG) should never tangle with a superior intellect (Churchill). Remember that Martin, you twit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 04:52 PM Guest, Observer. You are best at observing your own asshole with a hand mirror. I don't get highly upset. You obviously did because you reacted just how I wanted you to when I started this thread. Better check what Al Franken wants you to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:02 PM You obviously did because you reacted just how I wanted you to when I started this thread. Only someone with great inadequacies feels the need to be able to control others. The fact that this control is delusionary is part of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:05 PM welcome to the Internet, pal. No inadequacies here. Just like to have some fun, that's all. sorry you are so sennnnnnnnnnnnsitive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:10 PM sorry you are so sennnnnnnnnnnnsitive. And yet again another example of our patients self delusion. See how he thinks he can influence others feelings and emotions. This is because he is unable to feel any of his own. A classic case and not one I would usually use to demonstrate the weaker side of the human psyche ( too run of the mill.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:11 PM I remember my instructor in an education course I took at the U of Idaho telling us that any restriction of freedom brought compensatory freedoms. If you are jailed, you are free from having to worry about room and board. He said that. I don't believe that's a leftist attitude. "Fascist" is what I thought at the time. And we couldn't have the artist Ben Shahn come speak about his art to us art students because of his political views. He had been pro-Sacco and Vanzetti, and he was anti- Goldwater. As a student I had to sign a loyalty oath to get my paycheck from the Library there. And so on. There are exceptions to everything, but in my experience, (which includes working for a university for over 20 years) most educators run from conservative to reactionary. And freedom of speech includes the freedom to be unpopular and even wrong. It's not just freedom of nice and approved speech. I shouldn't have to tell anyone this. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Amos Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:11 PM DaveO has the rights of the situation, and as well has the high ground because he is trying to speak rationally, which neither Martin nor Guest are doing. It is an interesting point that Ward stepped on so MANY toes by saying something that was not well understood -- most of the reaction was due tot he "little Eichmann" phrase without a full understanding of how it was being used. But it doesn't matter, because it was in poor taste. The REAL quesation is this : in the series of changes that culminarted in 9-11, in what ways and to what degrees DID the United States sow the seeds of this action, and to what degree could they have avoided it at those criticval junctures? This requires an analysis I am not equipped to deliver here to answer but I think some of Ward's thinking is definitely apropos, even if parts of it are overdone. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:12 PM Oh, blow me. You got your psychology degree in a tavern. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:14 PM My last post directed at Guest. Not my friend Amos. And I do believe in free speech. Ward Churchill can say anything he wants. He can also be the subject of extreme ridicule and be told he is completely full of fecal matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:17 PM You got your psychology degree in a tavern. And here is a fine example of a 'retort' from a person who feels intellectually inferior. He wishes he had studied. But rather than admit that, because that would be to admit his life is less than perfect, he tries to demean those he thinks of as intellectually superior. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Kim C Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:30 PM I am all for free speech. But I am also for good manners. I believe it is possible for a person to state an unpopular opinion in an intelligent and halfway decent manner. That is, after all, the best way to change minds, if that is, in fact, what you intend to do. However, if all you want to do is stir up shit, then by all means, say whatever you want however you want without any regard for how many people you may hurt. My question is, if Churchill thinks that 9/11 was retaliation for crimes against Iraq, does he therefore believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; and consequently, that the war against Iraq is just? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:33 PM Listen Pal. i don't have to demean you. You are doing a great job of that yourself. but it's just plain old interesting to demean you. in fact, it's just sport for me and I think you actually like it because you keep coming back for more. Just because I've said such things about Ward Churchill that you are sennnnnnnnsitive to and make you so uncommmmmmmmmfortable. What is he? Your fucking lover? Your pathetic life spent as a guest responding as some kind of high and mighty goon is all the proof I need to know that you really are quite inferior. C'mon back to me, guest. You certainly won't wear me out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Bill D Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:41 PM this furor is a result of one poorly chosen phrase with the word Eichmanns in it. Churchhill was not saying that all those peole deserved to die, or that mass murder was justified. All he really said was that none of them should be SURPRISED that various folks were angry and picked them as targets. I don't think I agree with Churchill that it is quite that clear, but he was explicating global political reality...whether you agree with his analysis or not. He wasn't even that original, as everyone knew from the earlier bombing attempt at the WTC that certain elements wanted to strike at the USAs financial interests. Churchill was chiding them for being so dense about the feelings their policies and attitudes engendered. If I were in Churchill's classes, I'd probably argue with him a LOT...but he is certainly qualifed to TEACH those classes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:46 PM It's hatespeak against America and supportive of terrorists. When does freedom of speech become destructive? You can't just yell "fire!" in a stadium, you know |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Feb 05 - 05:53 PM Churchill hates the hegemony in the U.S. He makes a good point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 14 Feb 05 - 06:00 PM C'mon back to me, guest. You certainly won't wear me out. This man gauges his worth from the length of time he can commit to an internet forum. Goodbye mg you are unchallenging in the extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Jim Tailor Date: 14 Feb 05 - 06:11 PM Curious times we're living in. Though I doubt that he'd ever resort to the tasteless "Eichman" bit (contrary to popular opinion), nor do I think he would confuse the poor working folk who died in the towers with a justifiable enemy (the most distatsteful element in Churchill's speech), a voice that is loudly agreeing with the "home to roost" part of what Churchill's contention is is, ironically, Pat Buchanan. I too would be interested in statistics that would point toward a conservative bent in acedemia. I've read Pugh polls that point rather emphatically the other way. Toodles! Have a nice evening! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 14 Feb 05 - 07:35 PM I'd like to see leftist/rightist university statistcs too. I tried to be sure to say "in my experience." Howsomever, I would suspect that however nutsy the professors and instructors are, the administrators, the men in charge, are conservative to reactionary. You don't get money from legislators & rich people by being a mad nonconformist. The profs in the school of business are higher paid than the profs in the humanities, which tells you something. It takes time to get tenure, and you have to pretty much be a team mamber; "you have to get along to get ahead." This does not encourage radical or original thought. Very few can maintain a conformist act for years and then throw off their disguise upon getting tenure. And there is a pretty strong caste system in a university; the faculty are the nobles and the staff are the commoners, very like the army where the Officers (who have ladies) are high above to the Men (who have wives). God help the enlisted man who pees in the Officers Latrine, and don't ask how I know. This is not a leftist social structure. One reason people like Churchill make such a splash is they are unusual, and therefore startling. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Burke Date: 14 Feb 05 - 08:09 PM Ward Churchill wrote his article on Sept. 12, 2001. Since than he has spoken many times on many campuses without problem of any kind. This is a tempest in a teapot, born out of internal campus politics at Hamilton College. The most thoughtful article I have read so far was in last weeks Syracuse New Times. This is not the daily Syracuse Post-Standard which was one of the first to swing a hatchet. I'm getting tired of hearing that Churchill has spoken 200 times since 9/11. If that count is accurate, I have to wonder when he had time to do his full-time job. Bill O'Reilly and The Wall Street Journal, etc. have done much more to spread Churchill's thoughts than he could ever have hoped to achive from his ivory tower. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Bill D Date: 14 Feb 05 - 08:48 PM piffle, Martin..his speech was not even vaguely comparable to "yelling fire in a stadium"... you want metaphor?----if anything, it was warning people about the condition of their stadiums. It was not a particularly good speech, but you can't equate "critical speech" with "hate speech" damn, I get tired of lazy, shallow, knee-jerk responses! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 09:50 PM Yes, I can Bill D. If I'm "critical" of gays, it's right away brandished as hate. If I'm "critical" of Arabs, it's right away brandished as hate. Works for Ward Churchill the same way. His "critical" is hate to me. I don't care how you interpet it or worse yet, make excuses for it. Bye, Guest. Go crawl off on your slug belly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Bill D Date: 14 Feb 05 - 10:15 PM so, if others make errors in atribution, it makes it better if YOU do also? and perhaps you should read carefully your own "critical" remarks....they are not exactly always models of reflective consideration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 14 Feb 05 - 10:24 PM And who you defend is not always in America's best interest, perhaps. My own critical remarks are not headline news. I never claimed they are models of reflective consideration. But there sure is a double standard among liberals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: number 6 Date: 14 Feb 05 - 11:20 PM If you catogrize me (from my political, philosphical leaning) you would slot me in with the liberals. Anyway, consertative or liberal, defense of free speach, quantim blood or whatever, put it all that aside, this guy Churchill should lose his tenure and the 90k annually that goes with it. It is his 9/11 statement, and his subsequent refusal to apologise .. I thought liberals defended the common working man, not sluffing them off (all victims of 9/11) as self absorbed Eichman's arranging power lunches and stock transactions on their cell phones, guilty of the greed and evil they wreak upon the world. What I see in Churchill is a man past middle age, who has not found his identity, angry and bitter, lashing out at an establishment that he himself is definately part of, in short a man that is past the point of being mentally competent. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 15 Feb 05 - 08:33 AM Truth tricky for Churchill alleges that part of his academic career is based on fraud. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 15 Feb 05 - 08:52 AM In Germany, his type of argumentation is only found in Neonazi writings. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Jim Tailor Date: 15 Feb 05 - 09:44 AM Wolfgang, I think the point of Churchill's defenders here is that, even if he were a neo-nazi, his speech should be protected -- he should not be fired. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Feb 05 - 10:16 AM Campos, the author of that article, has quite a nice platform from which to trash his colleague. Let's guess which side of this issue he is on, and let's speculate at just how powerful the court of public opinion is.
Of course some people believe they're Napoleon. But that's not a good reason for giving them professorships in French history. Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu. Unlike Highwater, who kept changing his story and was all over the board, Churchill has a consistent position, but in the world of blood quantem, it is very hard to prove or disprove. High school sounds like a good time to make the decision that you're going to explore a particular aspect of your ethnic heritage. Prior to that, can we expect him to have shown such resolve? (Few people know that I'm 1/4 Danish, but that doesn't mean I couldn't decide to learn a lot more about the Hansen branch of the family. . . ) Churchill has taken the activist, aggressive position that has ruffled a lot of feathers over the years. And now that the feathers are flying, why not have a law professor wade into the fray via a widely-read editorial. The line "might not be guilty of fraud in the narrowest legal sense" is a good working definition of "damning with faint praise." Along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife." To answer "I didn't. . ." you won't get past those two words. Didn't you stop beating your wife? That you never beat your wife so never needed to quit is beside the point, isn't it? First words out of your mouth are all anyone will hear. Chances are the law professor is one of those snobs who is insulted taht someone without a terminal degree is on the faculty. I've seen that one before, and the snobbery is hidden behind all sorts of petty acts that seem unrelated until you look at the bigger picture. I'll sit down when I have time and read carefully through this thread then revisit some of my scholarly materials about Churchill. Maybe there's something useful to add. But right now, what this "discussion" needs is a referee with a whistle. By the way--there are all sorts of ways to learn later on of Indian heritage that was suppressed by family members who were ashamed of the linkage. Many Cherokees who resisted "Removal" blended into the surrounding community, and simply never spoke of being Indian to their children. Yet one day you'll see one of those predominantly Indian family surnames pop up in the family tree and answers to nagging questions become clear. I was reading an article just yesterday about an African American doctor in the Dallas area who was a well-known activist. When I read that his mother's maiden name was "Linthicum," commonly found I think in Cherokee? areas, I realized that he was probably mixedblood Indian and African American. Maybe not, but it sends up a little geneological flag. The question then arises--if you are Indian and didn't know it for a while, but you live a life following your family traditions, aren't you still "Indian?" And how many of your family's practices or traditions might stem from the long-forgotten culture? There's just too much grey area there for Dr. Campos to make any definitive statements, so of course, he damns with faint praise and makes his derogatory statements in such a way that he makes lots of unsavory suggestions without actually saying them so he can't be sued for libel. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Amos Date: 15 Feb 05 - 10:26 AM The issue was never about "the best interests of America"; Ward was talking about the sources of the events of 9-11. In characterizing them as "chickens coming home to roost" he is making a point that any intelligent and responsible person would want to review -- namely, what is the scope of my own responsibility for this catastrophe? It would be pure hog-stupid not to at least examine the question. It would be nice if instead of flaming and screaming rhetorically, as Martin chooses to do, because of the phrasing of Ward's remarks, someone tried to examine exactly what the fuck he was talking about. His generalization, evenw ith the clarifications of who he meant, are still to wide to generate any light. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Wolfgang Date: 15 Feb 05 - 12:16 PM Jim, I know and I agree. I just thought it was an interesting point in itself to mention. His main thesis can be discussed completely independent of whether he has committed fraud. But when it comes to decide whether he has to lose tenure the fraud issue will play a role. AIM (American Indian Movement) statement on Churchill He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 15 Feb 05 - 12:45 PM "flaming and screaming rhetorically" Your style sucks completely, Amos. It's the epitome of blah, blah, blah. Your posts generally appeal to the SOODOH intellectual, many who just talk a lot and get very little accomplished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: DougR Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:18 PM Anyone interested in a column on this subject written by a respected writer of color might want to check out Thomas Sowell's February 15th column. You can find it on the Drudge Report. I agree wholly with Sowell's assessment. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Amos Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:41 PM Funny, Martin -- yours appeals to the SOODOH anti-intellectual, but you are nowhere near the bluecollar fart you pretend to be. Your too smart, fpr one thing. Blah, blah, blah. What WAS that guy Churchill talking about anyway? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Kim C Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:53 PM I ask again: if Churchill thinks that 9/11 was retaliation for crimes against Iraq, does he therefore believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; and consequently, that the war against Iraq is just? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Jim Tailor Date: 15 Feb 05 - 02:10 PM LOL!!!!!!! Kim C! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 15 Feb 05 - 02:27 PM Kim C said: I ask again: if Churchill thinks that 9/11 was retaliation for crimes against Iraq, does he therefore believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; and consequently, that the war against Iraq is just? Of course I can't answer for Churchill, what he might believe, and his logic in doing so. But it's important to remember that the concept of the nation-state (such as Iraq, Egypt, etc.) is not nearly as important in the mind of many of these people as it is in Western thinking. These nation-states are artificial creations, by and large arbitrarily created by the English after WW-1, without regard to anything like natural geographic boundaries, variations in culture, or the like. Many, many Arabs think rather in terms of Pan-Arabism, that all of the Arabic-speaking Muslims are the relevant nation. Thus, by their thinking, an attack on Iraq is an attack on "us", whether they are Egyptians, Afghans, Qataaris, or whatever. As an aside, Iran is a different matter. The Iranians are neither Arabs nor Arabic speaking. Iran has a real cultural and historical nationhood going back to ancient times, as Persia, and speak their own historical language, Farsi, so it is a true nation-state. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 15 Feb 05 - 05:00 PM You're right, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Feb 05 - 05:21 PM This remark was posted on one of my scholarly lists by a professor I've worked with in the past and whose opinion I respect. I've set up the links that were scattered through an email he posted.
freedom on one side and on issues of identity, scholarship, and plagiarism on the other. The charges of plagiarism and misrepresentation of sources are the most serious ones. The Western History list has had a number of messages about it. This one provides some other important links: From: Larry xxxxxx Date: 2/12/2005 9:31:58 AM Subject: Re: Ward Churchill redux Of course academic freedom and tenure should protect Ward Churchill, and of course in the present political climate they will not. But even as a free speech absolutist, I have trouble summoning any sympathy. Ward Churchill has gotten tremendous mileage out of a career that combines polemics, invective, and a Joseph Ellis level of self-invention. He is a wonderfully entertaining writer, but his actual scholarship has been slight. If the new accusations of research fraud and plagiarism prove true, and if it comes out that he has only been pretending to be Indian for all these years, the CU regents will seize on these items to fire him. And quite rightly so. Ward Churchill has spent two decades sowing the wind. Now he reaps the whirlwind. Roosting chickens indeed. Link on research fraud: Assessing Ward Churchill's Version of the 1837 Smallpox Epidemic http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm American Indian Movement (AIM--and I'll note that this group is really famous for it's infighting) http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html Another friend sent two sources regarding Churchill's identity: Prof's Indian Roots Disputed http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3519179,00.html Reporter's Notebook: Controversial CU professor stretches truth http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?display=rednews/2005/02/06/build/nation/67-reporters-notebook.inc These links are provided by people who are more active in the field than I've been for a while, so it's looking like Churchill's chicken is cooked, but from the academic end of things and not from the tribal end of things. Plagiarism will knock an academic down faster than just about anything else in academia. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Ebbie Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM "alleges that part of his academic career is based on fraud." Wolfgang, please note that that line is clumsy and jars my sensibilities- 'alleges' is not the word you were seeking. 'Allegations' may be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:47 PM Does anyone have a citation or site one can go to in order to learn what Churchill's claims actually are as to his Indian status? I know I just read he claims 1/16 Indian blood. That should mean (if my arithmetic is correct) that he had a great-grandparent who was full Indian. Does he anywhere substantiate that, or try to? "My great-grandfather Joe Jones was Kiowa, lived from 18__ until about 19__, and died in Yankton, South Dakota," or something like that? Or does he just make the bald claim? Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Amos Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:48 PM The Thomas Brown paper makes a good case that Ward Churchill showed little or no respect for the truth in promoting the legend of the US Army using smallpox in a campaign against the Mandan people. His assertions are baldly contradicted by eyewitness accounts. And he must have been aware of it; so if he gets suspended for generating excessive disbelief, by lying, it will be an appropriate action. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Bill D Date: 15 Feb 05 - 07:04 PM well..IF he is proven to have faked his research and otherwise mis-stated his credentials, I would not be very sympathetic. He has obviously gained a lot of knowlege AS a tenured professor, and may be qualified to teach now...but if he faked bunch of stuff to get the job, he might oughta be called to task for it. This does NOT mean he should be fired for being strongly opinionated and careless use of words, like many were hollering for. I have known a few teachers who were utter asses, but who were also qualified asses....and I have know some who were politically correct and would not have ruffled any feathers, but who were travesties as scholars and teachers. You MUST be clear what you are judging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Feb 05 - 07:16 PM This is a really slippery slope, once you start evaluating how much of something makes a thing "real." And there are all of the nature vs nurture elements to layer over the top of it. While I have mentioned it several times, I must tell you that debating blood quantum issues is a monster that will come around and bite you in the ass every time. With the Jimake Highwater example, though he continued to claim Indian blood, it was pretty easily demonstrated that he had none, and furthermore, that he vascillated in his claims over the years. Churchill has been consistent, and having watched various mixedblood scholars get the "not Indian enough" treatment (from others who may have more blood but know less about their own cultures, or those who are not Indian at all but are such afficianados that they claim to be able to tell who is who) it's a limb I'm not willing to climb out on and start sawing. The thoughtfully applied knowledge of any subject is something to be respected. In social debates, if the quality of the "use" of knowledge is going to be seen through a political lens, then there will always be some who disagree with the conclusions. Your best bet in this debate is to look at the facts that can be easily evaluated. Ward Churchill holds the unpopular opinion that the behavior of those in charge of money and trade and power in the U.S. are responsible for angering the rest of the world enough to make themselves the targets they became on Sept. 11, 2001. A lot of people don't want to hear that. They want to see the U.S. as a victim. Churchill is not alone in thinking that the U.S. has done too many offensive things over the years to allow that popular opinion go without remark. The position that he has done much of his work from is one of an ethnic outsider, as one who can speak from the unique position of having felt the full wrath and deceit that the U.S. (politicans and military) are capable of as nations were crushed and relocated and betrayed during the western expansion (and still today, if you look at the mess of all of the money and resources supposedly held "in trust" for Indian peoples). Ward Churchill can hold that opinion as an Indian or not. So like I said, his fate appears to rest on the credibility of his sources and his ability to give accurate citations. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:13 PM Hey, if he wants to hate America, it's my pleasure to tell him to get fucked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:38 PM I'm sure he'd have a similar sentiment to share with you, MG. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 16 Feb 05 - 07:37 AM Ebbie, actually, 'alleges' was the word I was seeking, but you may be right pointing out that the sentence is clumsy. I had meant that line to be read together with the link above as a single sentence: "(The article linked here) alleges....". Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Feb 05 - 10:26 AM Ward Churchill seems to be the hot topic on my academic discussion lists this week. My email is filling with posts. I dropped to the most recent and see that the speculation now is that if Churchill were to be fired, "no one would believe that it was for plagiarism" or other academic misbehavior, because of the political climate (ala Bush people going after critics). The view of this most recent post writer is that Churchill, should he be fired, will be able to sue and win handily. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Burke Date: 16 Feb 05 - 12:13 PM Here are links to stuff about Churchill written before this year. Speak Out is his speaking agency. John LeVelle has a couple of critiques of Churchill's writing. Look at "The General Allotment Act "Eligibility" Hoax: Distortions of Law, Policy, and History in Derogation of Indian Tribes" (It's a large PDF) and the review of "Indians R Us." I found some of this by searching the Rocky Mountain News for Ward Chuchill. See earlier links. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Bill D Date: 16 Feb 05 - 03:48 PM does anyone besides me think it's becoming silly to go thru the motions of debating Martin with involved reasoning and research, when HIS response is to ignore the details and simply make claims and toss obscenities? (I say this only because **Martin** started the thread.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 16 Feb 05 - 04:44 PM But I suckered you into it Bill D. Don't want to respond? Then don't. I'm not here to debate. I've said this before. I posted this to throw out my opinion. Doesn't mean I need or want to debate anyone about it. You want a debate, bill D. go find Amos or some other SOODOH intellectual that hangs out here. I could give a crap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Ebbie Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM I understood, Wolfgang. But 'Truth Tricky for Churchill alleges that part of his academic career is based on fraud'? That's why I called it clumsy. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: LadyJean Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:32 AM Ward Churchill sounds like a twit. The first amendment protects twits too. I have worked in offices. Most office workers are focussed on finishing the day, getting the check, and wondering whether their job will be there next week. Churchill calling file clerks, data entry clerks, word processors and mail room staff "Little Eichmans" suggests he needs to get away from the University a little more often. Lord Geoffrey Amherst wrote to Colonel Henri Bouquet, the Swiss mercenary in command of Fort Pitt, and reccomended that he use infected blankets and other objects to spread smallpox among the Native American population near the fort. There is some evidence that the experiment was tried. But I'm not sure it worked. Native Americans were much more suseptible to European diseases. Smallpox, measles, chickenpox, etc. spread with no help, and killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 17 Feb 05 - 08:59 AM No reason to say sorry, Ebbie, I did appreciate your post. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Burke Date: 17 Feb 05 - 11:36 AM If you put the quotes where they belong, Wolfgang's sentence makes perfect sense. Lots of us use titles in links counting on the link color itself to make the quote marks unnecessary. 'Truth Tricky for Churchill' alleges that part of his academic career is based on fraud. My amplified version: In 'Truth Tricky for Churchill' Paul Campos alleges that part of his [Churchill's] academic career is based on fraud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:10 PM Bill D, Martin may have brought it up for the worst of reasons, but why waste the thread to start another one when he'll just poop there, too. There are 31 "Re: Ward Churchill" posts still in my email from one scholarly discussion list that I haven't gotten around to reading yet. The intellectual maturity of the various writers has been interesting to note, and a few of them have strayed into areas that really are too much like the Republican "Swift Boat" attack on Kerry to be credible. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:20 PM Oops. That was me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:37 PM One comment regarding Martin Gibson's starting this thread, and then I'm gone. It precipitated a good, informative discussion, despite what MG's intent might have been. So, amazingly enough, he is good for something every now and then. Of course he won't debate. He is incapable of that because it requires thought. He just crows that he managed to "sucker" people into this thread. Well, fine. Let him enjoy his moment in the sun. It allows him to delude himself into feeling superior. Let us not begrudge him that. After all, he has so little to feel superior about. (Now, take note of the highly revealing intellectual content of his response to this comment.) Diogenes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Feb 05 - 01:42 PM trolling. . . trolling. . . trolling. . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 17 Feb 05 - 03:57 PM Dog genes it's not about me feeling superior. It's about how you deal with your own inferiority complex and how you have to debbbbbbbate and disssssscuss everything that is complete bullshit so you can feel like a SOODOH intellectual. It's about wasting my time. Debating what is obviously bullshit will still end you up with bullshit. However, I love to put up some good topics about bullshit. Of course in your case, it's Dog shit. apparently you have way too much on your hands, Dog Genes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Diogenes Date: 17 Feb 05 - 04:44 PM Oh, woe is me!! He hath withered me with the power and acuteness of his ready wit!! I am shamed! I am devastated! Oh, woe!! Oh, woe!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 17 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM Worse. You are fucked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Scooby Doo Date: 17 Feb 05 - 05:05 PM 100 and thanks |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM So, Gaia, did you have something useful to say, or are you prowling in this numbers game? You lose credibility if you haven't read the thread you just fingered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Diogenes Date: 17 Feb 05 - 05:32 PM Brilliant! I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: Once Famous Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:05 PM I know I'm brilliant. Go lick your dog dick, Dog Genes. Case closed, moron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fire Ward Churchill From: GUEST,Diogenes Date: 17 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM He just gets better! |
