Anyone ever read Ward Churchill's Essay about 9/11

He IS right here. We SHOULD have paid more attention to what was going on with the war, than what little things occupied our thoughts. Maybe not thinking of "Iraqi tikes", but at least paying attention to the concept...
Click to expand...
"We"? Please leave me out of the "we". And just in case you haven't noticed, the United States has put more time, effort, and blood into sparing its enemy's suffering, that the effort eclipses the sum total of any similar efforts made by all the countries that ever existed.
Wouldacouldashoulda isn't so much a correct observation as it is a whine.

Oh, and the terribly oppressed Iraqis were welcome to formulate and execute the solutions to their own problems anytime they wanted. Instead history did a death-dance right on top of their heads for about the millionth time in human history. Maybe it's time they spend a couple of petro-bucks and buy a clue.
Those are the only points I'm going to pull out: I REALLY don't want to wade through all the conspiracy theorist BS to pick more out. Which was kinda the point of my original post: there ARE correct statements in there, but they're threaded together with black helicopter bull...
Click to expand...
Well if that's what you meant by correct then I'm sorry I asked. Please consider this for a moment though. Throughout what constitutes Mr. Churchill's work he exhorts his readers/listeners to be the implements of America's destruction... or as he is so fond of saying "U.S. Out Of North America!" All while bringing up bug-a-boo about nefarious "others" out there in the wild waiting to spring.

The guy is beyond pathetic.
 
Thanks for introducing me to Fred, MeekAndMild. I'm really not seriously offended - just felt that I had to defend myself. I'm in a Forestry Department, and have always worked in Ag Colleges. I can't say that I ever really had much contact with faculty outside of Colleges of Agriculture, so I really can't characterize them. But, I can say that the people I have worked with don't fit the Ward Churchill profile. And we DEFINITELY don't make $114,000 a year! Fred - I accept your right to express your feelings and appreciate the exchange of opinion.
 
Apples and oranges. Manson was a small time psychopath.
Click to expand...

Well ... Churchill and Manson may be apples and Oranges, but the comparison is still true. And an apples to oranges comparison is valid if you're comparing things they have in common; i.e. they're similar in weight, they're roughly round(ish) in shape, they grow on trees, etc.

All I was saying is the fact that Manson was intelligent and articulate didn't make up for the fact that he was a dangerous nut.

You are right, though -- Churchill is a speaker for a large group of Americans, many of which are in the movie making industry. In this same manner Hitler was speaker for a group of people who had made a choice as to who was causing all the world's problems.

Hopefully this movement won't gain in strength until we end up electing Churchill president, and he burns down the capital building, declares himself "the Leader" and begins rounding up all people of European descent to move them into internment camps with big chimneys.

Since I have as much native american blood as he does, though, maybe I can just start throwing stones at the Columbus day parade and be saved.
 
But, I can say that the people I have worked with don't fit the Ward Churchill profile.
Click to expand...
Not at an Ag college. And I pray to God that never changes.

I should have been more specific in saying I meant LibArts professors.
Fred - I accept your right to express your feelings and appreciate the exchange of opinion.
Click to expand...
Same here. :)
 
Too bad, Garand. The one drop rule applies. Those of us who are 3/4 white or 1/2 white or whatever will be considered white, though if we are good little socialists and agree to work in the mines maybe they will let us live for a few months. Recall that when the Nazis came for the Jews it didn't matter if only your grandmother was Jewish, you still got the axe. Of course so did a good number of Catholics and Lutherans because they weren't Nazis.

I'm in a Forestry Department, and have always worked in Ag Colleges.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh! that makes you a capitalist pig dog like some of the rest of us. Could you bring an extra toothbrush when they round you up for the reeducation camp? I forgot mine. :eek:

Garand, he's not a nut. He is a nut herder. There is a big difference. The nut is the one who actually believes the stuff. The nut herder is the one who thinks of interesting ways to keep all the nuts in line and move them along toward the socialist goal.
 
*sigh*

Did you actually READ what *I* wrote, or did you just read what I quoted from the essay?

>"We"? Please leave me out of the "we". And just in case you haven't noticed, the United States has put more time, effort, and blood into sparing its enemy's suffering, that the effort eclipses the sum total of any similar efforts made by all the countries that ever existed.
Wouldacouldashoulda isn't so much a correct observation as it is a whine.

Oh, and the terribly oppressed Iraqis were welcome to formulate and execute the solutions to their own problems anytime they wanted. Instead history did a death-dance right on top of their heads for about the millionth time in human history. Maybe it's time they spend a couple of petro-bucks and buy a clue.<

"WE", the public of the United States as a whole, need to start being a little more concerned with the major events going on in the world than we are with "Getting "Jeremy" and "Ellington" to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little "Tiffany" an "Ashley" had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords. And, to be sure, there was the yuppie holy war against ashtrays – for "our kids," no less – as an all-absorbing point of political focus". WAY too many Americans are too caught up in these things to bother with anything important (like maybe voting in the national elections?). THAT was my point. Not anything about limiting "collateral damage": that happens in war...
 
It is always dangerous and unproductive to generalize and stereotype as Fred Hansen does in his comments on university professors.
Click to expand...

Amen. There are certain members of this board who are not sophisticated enough to recognize shades of gray. It's all black and white to them. Doubly annoying as they view themselves as quite sophisticated, and are thus blind to their own limitations. Mr. Churchill is a little wacky, but I wholeheartedly support his right to free speech, and he makes many good points. Sorry Fred, but you and gburner bring it on yourself, so you deserve everything you get. Don't like it? Then don't post on non-gun-related subjects. I wish the mods would close all non-gun-related topics like this one, but as long as (a) they are going to be left open for some unknown reason, and (b) we get the Limbaugh kool aid drinkers chiming in the party line, then there's going to continue to be a balanced response.
 
FF...

I should live long enough to get everything I deserve.
In the mean time, I guess I'm off your holiday greeting list. Pity. ;)
 
Given the admonition 'think twice, post once', I hesitated before writing this. I was, however, rather gratuitously mentioned in FF's last post even though I had not weighed in on this tread.

I am proud to look at much of the world through black/white glasses. There is no gradient of shade between good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral, simple and intellegent, juvenile and mature, left and correct. Anyone who says that there is is trying to sell something putrid.

Some of our members habitually post left leaning, overheated, emotionally driven, conspiricy laden drivel that would not pass the sniff test in a junior college debate class. These posts are patiently, regularly and thoroughly discredited. When these posts are refuted, the result is always the same...finger pointing, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Also consistently observed among the offended who post such tripe is the apeing of behavior seen on TV which passes for debate. It is little more than name calling and chest thumping. It is largely misguided and immature. Their positions are rarely based in documented fact.

Those of us who take the conservative side are not, dispite reports to the contrary, impressed with our sophistication. Nor are we blind to the multi faceted nature of world events. Quite the opposite. We are, though, simply unimpressed with the gymnastics necessary for the left to maintain the philosophy of moral relativeism. There are, after all, some issues that just boil down to black and white. Any attemt to characterize them otherwise is analogous to trying to polish a turd. All of the semantic contortions by the left and their acolytes cannot change that.

Perhaps age, experience and exposure to real world conditions will change some of our left leaning member's perspectives. I'm not holding my breath, though.

FWIW...Ward Churchill is a cheat, a bufoon and a traitor. His writings give aid and comfort to the enemy. He should be in a Federal prison, pleasuring his cell mate while sweating out a death sentence for treason. Is that black and white enough for ya?
 
FWIW...Ward Churchill is a cheat, a bufoon and a traitor. His writings give aid and comfort to the enemy. He should be in a Federal prison, pleasuring his cell mate while sweating out a death sentence for treason. Is that black and white enough for ya?
Click to expand...
No more calls please... we have a winner. ;)
 
"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."

Opening 2 paragraphs of Ward Churchill's - *essay*?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro's friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political "football game" that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.

Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights. In this profitable game of deceiving and exploiting the political politician of the American Negro, those white liberals have the willing cooperation of the Negro civil rights leaders. These "leaders" sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains. These "leaders" are satisfied with token victories and token progress because they themselves are nothing but token leaders."
- Malcom X

Two paragraphs taken from Malcom X's "Home to roost" speech.
link: http://www.malcolm-x.org/speeches/spc_120463.htm
===============================================

Clearly, Churchill is trying to prove a point using a totally out of context remark as the opening basis of his (very poorly researched) work. Malcom X had a very deep hatred of the Democratic party, and the Kennedy's in particular. Anyone that's read any of his speeches or works would know that. I believe either Churchill attempts to decieve people by misleading them with his opening paragraph,,,,or more likely,,,he's never read any Malcom X and the quote just looked spiffy and like it would fit.

No - I didn't bother to read the essay. He's (Churchill) so far out in left field with his opening salvo it's rediculous. There's no analogy between Malcom X/Kennedy and 9/11/Bush as he'd attempt to draw.
Matter of fact, a more appropriate analogy would be Malcom X/Kennedy and 9/11 /Clinton. After all, the Twin Towers were attacked what, twice?, under Clinton's watch.
 
The guy's like a spoiled-ass child who, after being given everything he ever desired and everything he never deserved, smashes all his toys and gifts and kills his parents. Traitor in the first degree.
 
Fred, you are full of it with your claim that Churchill's views are "overwhelmingly supported and echoed by most of what pass for professors today."
Prove it.
You won't be able to because what you say is a lie. We have enough problems without people making false accusations against fellow Americans.
Your hostility to academia is pretty obvious and your comment reveals much more about you than the people you falsely accuse.
 
Better yet you tell me how a guy without a PhD got to be a department head at a major university. Department head, not a TA or a janitor. Department head.
 
Fred - That is a great question. I've worked at OSU since 1969 and can give you some insight on this. One reason that he got to be department head may very well be because...he is not considered that good of a scientist by his own peers! "Department head" is perceived and handled like a hot potato nobody wants in my college because it involves a lot of administrative duties and time away from research. You really don't need to be a good scientist to be a good department head, more important is to be a good administrator. A Dean who sees a professor is not garnering much research money from outside might ask the given prof to "volunteer" to be department head or be an Assoc. or Asst. Dean. After reading about this Churchill guy, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
What I have said above may not be true everywhere, but it is here and at most other universities I've had contact with.
 
I have no doubt that what you are saying is true. Add to it that Mr. Churchill laid claim to being a Native American, and that put him over the top for the position.

In any case it only bolsters the point I was making. And first let me say I take no pleasure in what I said about the majority of (LibArts) professors that I am aware of. I love learning. I love the ideals behind higher education. I spent nearly a decade of my adult life in a community that is famous for the five colleges and universities that (supposedly) grace it. And while I fully understand that no human endeavor is perfect, I do expect more from those who crown themselves with a mortar board and tassle.

The facts are that I was there when the idea of "political correctness" first spilled out of the Ivory Towers into the gutters awash with the hoi polloi. I was there when it became more important that a department head candidate had the equivalent of an "honorary" Keetowah tribal membership in his or her pocket, while having no PhD on his/her office wall. I also know that for every professor like J. Rufus Fears of Oklahoma University - a man I admire very much - I know of a dozen other professors like Peter Singer of Princeton, professor Bellesiles of Emory, or this rat Churchill.

Some might wish to think people like professor Singer who advocates euthanizing retarded babies, or professor Bellesiles who was so unable to substantiate his work that he was made to resign*, are anomalies in today's colleges and universities. I know better. And frankly it breaks my heart that I do.



* Only after he had already been praised from every rooftop by his peers, and awarded the prestigious Bancroft prize, which was subsequently stripped away because the scrutiny on his work became so intense.
 
Fred - I'm sorry I sounded so angry at you in that first post I addressed to you. A lot of my personal friends are in that group and I did take it personally. I'll stand by what I said, without the anger part. I'm sure we'll agree/disagree on other matters, that's part of being in a vigorous democracy that allows free speech. Your last post makes me want to withdraw my "hostility" comment in particular.
"That is not politically correct!" Ugh, I remember the first time I heard it. It conjured up an image of some Communist "political re-education" training camp. Lliberals are supposedly for free expression and thought...I thought. Well, most liberals I know don't like the PC statement, either, but everybody I know who endorses it sees themselves as a liberal. To me, anybody of the PC mindset is more similar to any extreme "true believer", regardless of the true believer's particular political philosophy...left, right, religious, atheistic, etc. than they are to the rest of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top