Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 03:59
VIEWED: 16391
PAGE 3 of 16
I don't know about you, Evilmike, but I've gone to colleges all over the globe and there's nothing that professors like to hear more than the sound of their own voice in their ears.
I can count on one hand the number of instructors I had in ANY subject that didn't think their viewpoint was the valid one and anyone else's was inferior.
No matter what you study, professors love to hear themselves in your paper.
This doesn't mean the student actually agrees with them - it just means the student is bright enough to know which side of the bread is buttered.
As for the poor baby students who don't want to have to hear what anyone else has to say, I'll just refer back to the blonde bimbette who was whining about Michael Moore visiting the University of Minnesota last fall. To quote, "It's just too painful to have to listen to the liberal point of view."
Boo friggin who. Now we don't even have to listen to people who don't goose step along with our particular view? It's too painful?!?
Poor blow-dried thing doesn't have a chance once she enters the real world. Can't wait until her employer's view is that she get out of bed at a reasonable hour and show up for work every day. ... "It's just to painful to have to listen to the business owner's point of view."
"Just keep walkin, preacher man."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"As for the poor baby students who don't want to have to hear what anyone else has to say"
Except that, as I understand it, the intent of the ABoR is to allow everyone to have a voice. I'm not sure legislation is the best way to deal with this issue, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as a trick of the right.
Does this 'poor baby' statement also apply to the Seattle Central Community College students who chased Army recruiters off campus? Or to the University of Washington students who harassed an 'Affirmative Action Bake Sale' protest until authorities shut down the sale?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm tired off all the poor baby students on all sides. You cannot censor your opponent without endangering yourself.
I don't care what your personal beliefs are, you should show everyone respect and allow them to speak. Listening is not endorsing.
This is usually the most effective way to allow a moron to prove themselves moronic.
My politics? I view myself as a fiscal conservative - social liberal. I'm a 10 year veteran who believes that the goverment shouldn't waste my money on 'Star Wars' anti-missle defense or on studying artificial rain forests in Iowa. Both are waste.
Also, keeping your morals off my womb is a wonderful idea.
Quote:
Originally posted by evilmike:
"As for the poor baby students who don't want to have to hear what anyone else has to say"
Except that, as I understand it, the intent of the ABoR is to allow everyone to have a voice. I'm not sure legislation is the best way to deal with this issue, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as a trick of the right.
Does this 'poor baby' statement also apply to the Seattle Central Community College students who chased Army recruiters off campus? Or to the University of Washington students who harassed an 'Affirmative Action Bake Sale' protest until authorities shut down the sale?
"Just keep walkin, preacher man."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Knibblet- libel then. (I kept trying to think of the word but was too tired to look it up. Thanks for the correction.)
And this is the libel: "He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position." Can you prove both accusations? (One against Churchill and the other gainst the U of Colorado.)
Now I realize that you have a right to your opinions. Most likely, nobody is going to nail your *ss to a wall because of your accusations unless they can prove harm (As I understand it, in civil law the rule is "no harm, no foul") and quite frankly none of us is significant enough to really harm anybody. (Unless of course you criticize a company's product or policies on the internet, and then you WILL be sued. Ah well... so much for free speech! I guess it costs a lot of $$$$ to be able to speak freely!) But just as you have a right to your opinion, no matter how baseless it may be, so does Ward Churchill. So far, I think Churchill has demonstrated more foundation for his position than you have for yours.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Knibblet- libel then. (I kept trying to think of the word but was too tired to look it up. Thanks for the correction.)
And this is the libel: "He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position." Can you prove both accusations? (One against Churchill and the other gainst the U of Colorado.)
Now I realize that you have a right to your opinions. Most likely, nobody is going to nail your *ss to a wall because of your accusations unless they can prove harm (As I understand it, in civil law the rule is "no harm, no foul") and quite frankly none of us is significant enough to really harm anybody. (Unless of course you criticize a company's product or policies on the internet, and then you WILL be sued. Ah well... so much for free speech! I guess it costs a lot of $$$$ to be able to speak freely!) But just as you have a right to your opinion, no matter how baseless it may be, so does Ward Churchill. So far, I think Churchill has demonstrated more foundation for his position than you have for yours.
I'm not making a formal CHARGE against anyone, but merely posing a question. It is no secret that Mr. Churchill has claimed to be of Native American heritage. As for how much he makes, I've not done any cross reference, but what I heard was over 100k. As he is an employee of the state of Colorado, I'll bet an exact figure can be found. Sorry, but that ain't 'libel' on MY part, no matter how you parse it. And it's really bizarre that you'd even make such a suggestion.
I also don't see where you get off saying that, he has demonstrated more foundation for his position than I have. All I've done is asked a question based on what is known. I would say that he as absolutely no basis for calling the victims of the 9-11 attacks " little Eichmans ", but even though he's wrong, he still has the right to say it.
Trust me, far worse has been written and spoken about Mr. Churchill than you'll see here.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't see a question mark at the end of your accusation, so you weren't asking a question. Now, I COULD rephrase your STATEMENTS as questions... "Did Churchill misrepresent his ethnic heritage? Did that give him an unfair advantage?" But that wouldn't really lead to the demand to "fire him", would it?
Don't worry about being accused of libel. You really only have to worry about businesses suing you. So don't diss anyone's product and cost them sales, or you WILL wind up in court!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is a red herring. I don’t need to be intimately familiar with this man’s work in order to draw the conclusion that he is a fruitcake. I only need to be familiar enough, which I am.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe you should read his publications and tell us what you think. Do some quality research of your own BEFORE you make up your mind about a person and the quality of his work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How familiar is that? You read a headline that contained two words out of many pages, and decided that was familiar enough? Since you apparently have NO intellectual rigor, why should I pay attention to anything you say?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Familiar enough.
Originally posted by SignyM:
How familiar is that? You read a headline that contained two words out of many pages, and decided that was familiar enough? Since you apparently have NO intellectual rigor, why should I pay attention to anything you say?
As far as my intellectual rigor is concerned and why you should pay attention to what I say is a topic for another conversation. The fact remains, however, that you do pay attention to what I say, or you wouldn’t have replied to my post otherwise.
But to elaborate on your first question:
"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."
-- Ward Churchill on why innocent victims of the 9-ll terrorist attack are tantamount to Nazi executioners of millions of Jews, and why the attack that killed 3000 innocent people was not only justified but befitting. When questioned about this statement, Churchill simply defended it (attempted to in any event). This statement, among many other gems, is from one of Churchill’s, apparently enlightening papers. Well, I’d really be interested in hearing about the so called “quality research” that brings an intelligent person to this conclusion. Until I am convinced of such “quality research,” Churchill will remain a fruitcake.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not being Churchill, I can't explain his position for him. However, I don't find what he said to be strange. I'm sure you will DISAGREE with my position, it has to do with the USA having a long... very long... history of sending in troops and installing USA-friendly, dictatorial governments. I could bring a wealth of facts to the table including recently declassified quotes from Kissinger and so forth, and I have done so in the past. I'm not going to repost on that issue, but the fact is that the United States has militarily and covertly "intervened" dozens of times since 1900 and currently has over 800 military installations around the world. YOU can say- probably have said- that the Russians did it too and that it was because of the cold war. Guess what? When the Russians did it, we were BOTH hated as imperial powers. Now that we are the premier imperial power (and have been for over 15 years, so WHY are our troops all over the world?) we are also the premier object of fury.
You can explain it all you want, and you might even convince Americans, but you can't control how our conquests feel. Just don't be surprised about it, or dismiss them because there are a LOT of them- and they can be dangerous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME