Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 03:59
VIEWED: 16391
PAGE 4 of 16
There is some of what you have said here that I would disagree with and some that I would agree with, but none of it is pertinent so I won’t go into it.
None of this is justification for the murder of innocent people. None of this is support for the statement Churchill made. None of it. If we apply the same logic to the former Soviet Union, does it hold water? Where have we held that the People of the Soviet Union were directly responsible for the horrendous and genocidal actions of their government? Are Germans, in general, responsible for the actions of Hitler? The French government tramples around African like they own the place, should we declare open season on French civilians?
If indeed Churchill is correct and we can say that an attack, targeting civilians, which succeeds in killing 3000 innocent men, women and children simply because of actions of their government’s foreign policy, then civilians the world over are in horrible danger. If this statement is true then where does the complaint, often concocted, of the US targeting civilians in Iraq come from? It shouldn’t matter. Saddam Hussein was a barbarous ruler whose own foreign policy resulted in two wars of aggression for the purpose of the expansion of his totalitarian rule and the deaths of millions. If Churchill is correct then the Iraqi civilians are responsible for that government and should be killed.
That’s not a position I believe is reasonable. In fact, I believe it no different from hate speech. I can’t, nor would I want to, prevent Churchill from believing such things, but that doesn’t mean that I believe evidence exists to support such claims. And Churchill is therefore a fruitcake.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apprently you missed the part where Churchill went on to say that he was NOT inlcuding the busboys, janitors, waitresses, children and other victims who were not trading stocks or fixing interest rates or otherwise engaging in international commerce. Again, I can't speak for him. I draw my own distinctions. But based on his list of publications, my guess is that he is drawing an analogy between the people who appropriated Native American land and livelihood to international debt collectors and international capitalists. Just a guess, tho.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So what. Anyone not making minimum wage should be killed because someone doesn't agree with their countries foreign policy?
This is the kind of twisted logic used by fruitcakes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Taking your usual swipe at whatever you can't understand? I have to applaud you though, for at least looking up some news articles, even if it was only to better argue your arguments of control and punishment.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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!
You didn't see the question mark in the subject line .. Ward Churchhill NOT a Native American*? Fire him.
*It's right there...I'm pointing at it.
Seems clear to me that the preface is well layed out here. That IF WC lied about his heritage , and because of that lie, his classification as a minority in any way helped him obtain his position, then it's well with in C.U. right to fire this guy. There's nothing remotely 'libel' here what so ever, so any such suggestion of such is utter nonsense.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My arguments of control and punishment? What exactly are those arguments? That I don’t agree with fruitcakes? In general, I don't. And poor Mr. Churchill; he must live under the yoke of the oppression of me not agreeing with him. What will he do!
Originally posted by rue:
Taking your usual swipe at whatever you can't understand? I have to applaud you though, for at least looking up some news articles, even if it was only to better argue your arguments of control and punishment.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why should his heritage have any effect on his ability to do his studies? If firsthand experience is so important everyone can do his own studys on it and get the mentioned $100k.
If he lied, so what? What does it really do other then confirm poeple have to lie about their heritage? Why should it matter if he is or not?
It should't and even if it gotton him that position then the poeple who gave it to him are to blaim. Promoting poeple on this type of thing based on their heritage is close to discrimination, even if there is possible firsthand experience.
I think his comparison of 9/11 victims to Nazi's has been blown up. He was merely trying to explain what their role has been in the whole thing (wether they were or were not aware of it is a whole other matter).
Did he genuinly justify the killings of the 9/11 victims or did he merely explain on how the terrorists came to see it as a genuinge target?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
Why should his heritage have any effect on his ability to do his studies? If firsthand experience is so important everyone can do his own studys on it and get the mentioned $100k.
If he lied, so what? What does it really do other then confirm poeple have to lie about their heritage? Why should it matter if he is or not?
It should't and even if it gotton him that position then the poeple who gave it to him are to blaim. Promoting poeple on this type of thing based on their heritage is close to discrimination, even if there is possible firsthand experience.
I think his comparison of 9/11 victims to Nazi's has been blown up. He was merely trying to explain what their role has been in the whole thing (wether they were or were not aware of it is a whole other matter).
Did he genuinly justify the killings of the 9/11 victims or did he merely explain on how the terrorists came to see it as a genuinge target?
In a perfect world, I agree, it shouldn't matter. But in todays world, when trying to fill a post in the 'Ethnic Studies' program....
However, your comment ' If he lied, so what?'.... that's a bit alarming. People go to jail for lying, Presidents get impeached for lying, and football coaches at Notre Dame lose their job for lying. Thats what.
And no, him comparing the victims of the 9-11 attacks to NAZIS wasn't 'blown up', as you so aptly put. He meant what he said, and he's said there should be MORE attacks just like that. He clearly attempted to justify the utterly unjustifiable. He really is that delusional. Call that libel if you want, I don't care. Ward Churchill is delusional. Period.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay. Some scattershot after a few days off.
Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet
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.
...
Ain't that the truth. Try sitting in on research group meetings with professors from a number of disciplines and keeping to a timetable. It just won't happen. Recently I was embarassed to realize that I have absolutely no problem speaking for an entire class period. I guess that's one part of my professor-in-training requirements that I've met
.Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet
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.
...
Okay. It's official. Knibblet: YOU ROCK!!
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor
...
Seems clear to me that the preface is well layed out here. That IF WC lied about his heritage , and because of that lie, his classification as a minority in any way helped him obtain his position, then it's well with in C.U. right to fire this guy. There's nothing remotely 'libel' here what so ever, so any such suggestion of such is utter nonsense.
Okay. I couldn't resist channeling Jayne, "You know, I'm smellin' a lot of 'If' comin' offa this plan." To get more serious, I agree with Daikath's first sentence of response.
To bounce a little in another direction, in my first post I stated that Ward Churchill was an ideal target. What I meant by that was that the stated reasons for going after him are because of the statements he made - statements that I don't think a majority of people agree with yet, and maybe won't ever agree with. But to use those statements to try to get him fired is an attempt to sidestep the whole tenure thingie. It's very easy for opponents of Churchill to paint those who oppose attacks on the tenure of people who do countercultural work as being supporters of his statements. Nuance doesn't play well. [Or maybe it's just that confusing long sentences don't play well
- first impression after re-reading this post]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME