Oh, the whiny liberal pukes are going to scream about this...

Professor Under Fire For 9/11 Comments
Free Speech Furor Roils Over Remarks
By T.R. Reid
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 5, 2005; Page C01


BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 4 -- The University of Colorado staunchly defends its faculty's rights of free speech and open academic inquiry. Most of the time.

But Friday, interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano launched an "academic investigation" that could lead to the firing of Ward Churchill, a tenured full professor who ignited a national firestorm by applauding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and condemning the victims as greedy, arrogant and cruel.

In a rambling, acidic commentary he says he dashed off within hours of the attacks, the 57-year-old professor of ethnic studies described the bankers and stock traders who died in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." He called their deaths a "penalty befitting their participation in . . . the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved."

For years, those remarks went largely unnoticed. Indeed, Churchill was promoted to chairman of his department. He enjoyed a devoted corps of student supporters on the campus here and commanded four-figure lecture fees across the country for speeches on his academic specialty, poverty among Native Americans.

But then Ian Mandell, the 21-year-old editor in chief of the student newspaper at New York's Hamilton College, did the homework that nobody else had done.

With the professor scheduled to speak at Hamilton -- in a forum titled, aptly, "Limits of Dissent" -- Mandell googled "Ward Churchill" and found the phosphorescent 2001 essay.

One Web site version, available at www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html, has text under Churchill's byline saying that the trade center victims in New York were ignorant of the evil they did every day "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."

Mandell's story last week in the Hamilton Spectator drove conservative radio commentators into full-scale fury. The static from the airwaves, in turn, has prompted battles over academic freedom at Colorado, Hamilton and a few other schools that have pending invitations to Churchill for lectures.

At first, the colleges involved stood by the professor, citing the transcendent value of unfettered scholastic debate. "Prof. Churchill's comments have precipitated a discussion we ought to have," said Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman. Chancellor DiStefano said, "I must support his right . . . to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant." At Hamilton, Prof. Nancy Rabinowitz, who runs the forum where Churchill was to speak, argued last week that "the students should hear his whole argument before they boil it down to a few sound bites."

But in media-saturated America, a few incendiary sound bites can easily overpower esoteric discussions about the right of tenure and the value of free discussion. Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart announced Tuesday that the "Limits of Dissent" discussion would be canceled. She cited numerous threats of violence among the thousands of e-mails that poured in after Churchill's 9/11 commentary was lifted from its previous oblivion.

And Colorado's DiStefano, after an angry grilling from the university's Board of Regents -- an elected body dominated by conservatives -- reversed himself and announced a 30-day investigation of all of Churchill's lectures and publications. This is the first step, the chancellor said, in the legal process required to fire a tenured professor.

Meanwhile, there have been Web site calls for the resignation of Stewart for allowing Churchill to be invited in the first place.

Walking across the snowy Boulder campus this week, with his graying hair hanging to his shoulders, a cigarette hanging from his lip and a phalanx of students hanging on his every word, Churchill himself seemed less flustered than virtually anybody else about the uproar surrounding his opinions. He sounded almost amused as he described the "mass" of death threats he has received and the swastikas that were painted on his truck. Asked whether his job is in danger, Churchill hitched his thumbs into his jeans and drew a chuckle from the adoring student crowd by promising to sue if his tenure is violated: "They really don't want to do that unless they want me owning this university."

Still, Churchill did try to reduce the tension this week by agreeing to step down four months early from the administrative post of chairman of the ethnic studies department. That move reduced his annual salary from $115,000 to $94,000. It did nothing, though, to soften the bipartisan fury among Colorado politicians who had known little about the popular professor at their state's flagship public university.

Churchill is a Vietnam veteran who became a full professor in the field of American Indian studies without the benefit of a PhD -- he holds a BA and MA from the University of Illinois-Springfield. He has published several books. He was acquitted last month with other Indian activists on charges of blocking the Columbus Day parade in Denver. Jurors said they accepted Churchill's contention that a parade honoring Christopher Columbus amounts to "hate speech."

Students said Churchill makes a similar argument in his undergraduate course called "American Holocaust." His books, including "Fantasies of the Master Race" (1992) and "Colonization and Genocide in Native North America" (1994) regularly compare the American establishment to the Nazis, the same comparison he made about financial industry workers killed on 9/11.

At their meeting Thursday, university regents said they were determined to act against Churchill. The regents have gone through a tough patch in recent months, accused of inaction on a series of scandals that badly sullied the school's reputation. When the Boulder County prosecutor charged that Colorado football coach Gary Barnett was using "sex and drugs" to recruit 17-year-old high school football stars, the regents held endless meetings and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a detailed investigation -- and then decided that nobody needed to be disciplined.

A lawsuit by two undergraduates who say they were gang-raped by Barnett's football players and recruits is pending. After a student athlete was accused of referring to a female student by a four-letter slang term referring to part of the female anatomy, President Hoffman declared that this "c-word" can sometimes be a "term of endearment." Students and faculty denounced the president for "hate speech." The regents again took no action.

Accordingly, board members were clearly eager to act when they gathered Thursday to consider the Ward Churchill affair. Once again, though, the trustees lost control. Having issued an agenda for a "public meeting," the regents informed the packed auditorium that no students would be allowed to speak on the issue of free speech. This prompted a raucous outcry. The board members' discussion was almost completely drowned out by catcalls from the crowd: "This is 1984!" "This is McCarthyism!" "Worse than Saddam!" "Ward was using a 'term of endearment!' "

As the noise grew, the regents and the school president fled the room, and police in riot helmets cleared the audience, arresting two particularly noisy protesters. Afterward, a shaken Hoffman said the Churchill affair reminds her of a dark memory at the University of Colorado -- the treatment of former philosophy professor Morris Judd. At the height of the McCarthy era, in 1951, Judd was investigated and fired after anonymous students charged that his view of the Korean War sounded "communistic." More than 50 years later, the university held a lavish ceremony to apologize to Judd and create a scholarship in his name. "I hope we don't do anything now," the school president said Thursday, "that would cause future generations to have to apologize." (Emphasis added)



Yeah, no liberals support Osama bin Blowedup. It's just a coincidence that dozens of universities and colleges pay maximum bucks to host pukebags like Ward Churchill on their lecture circuits. :rolleyes:

You guys kill me. :rolleyes:
 
Fred: Granted there are a few America-hating liberals out there who make us look bad. Just as Bo Gritz, Eric Rodolf and all the other wack-job black helicopter fearing militia members make the right look bad.
Yet, I can't get over it when some chicken-hawk neo-conservative who has never served a day in the military gets up and lectures about how questioning the war is somehow "un-American" (not like we're fighting to bring the "American way", which happens to include freedom of speech, to Iraq or anything..........................).

70-101: Roger that. You are on target. lol
 
Granted there are a few America-hating liberals out there who make us look bad.
Please tell me when was the last time that a Bo Gritz recieved an Oscar, or a Robert Eric Rudolph recieved anything other than 3 hots and a cot in a jail somewhere?
Yet, I can't get over it when some chicken-hawk neo-conservative who has never served a day in the military gets up and lectures about how questioning the war is somehow "un-American" (not like we're fighting to bring the "American way", which happens to include freedom of speech, to Iraq or anything..........................).
Freedom of speech like the whore Jane Fonda doing photo ops on anti-aircraft guns in North Vietnam, and taunting American POWs. Only to find her sorry ass celebrated on every television show in America while she pimps her latest book.

BTW call me a chicken hawk to my face some time, we'll take it from there. :mad:
 
Put Down Your White Man's Burden, Support Iraqi Resistance
A Radical Opinion?
BY LIZ SPERBER


"Before we prescribe how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct their secular, feminist, democratic, nonviolent battle, we should shore up our end of the resistance by forcing the U.S. and its allied governments to withdraw from Iraq."

-ARUNDHATI ROY

UNCONDITIONALLY-that's the way I support the Iraqi Resistance these days. While I do not offer political support to all groups involved in the anti-imperial struggle in Iraq, I work to support its collective purpose: forcing the troops out now. Forcing because the United States won't leave any other way.

On a good day, the US corporate media would have its audience believe that a kinder, gentler imperialism is the only way forward for Iraq. This is, of course, not the case. Nor does it seem plausible, after two long years of occupation, that any kind of imperialism will be tolerated by the Iraqi people, for reasons I will enumerate below. Simultaneously, predictions that a formal draft will likely supplement the current poverty draft in the United States have been made by the likes of Seymour Hersh and North Carolina National Guard Specialist Patrick Resta. While the recent claim that a draft should be expected within 75 days is, at best, a misunderstanding of the Selective Service Administration (a vestige of the Cold War, the SSA was created to intimidate the Soviets with the possibility of short-notice US conscription), a future draft is not by any means out of the question. With its roots in the mid-1990s, the national crisis in military recruiting has been marked by a recent plummet undoubtedly related to the multiform horrors of the war in Iraq-not least the increasing threats to under-armed and under-manned US troops which have resulted in the increased use of carpet-bombing (and civilian-killing) which has typically led to increased resistance, continuing the vicious spiral.

In this vein, it is clear that those reports in the Anglo-American media that cite a decline in insurgent attacks are relying on coalition force press releases. These reports have been directly contradicted by recent articles in Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, and even the New York Times (which has been particularly ambiguous in its reporting). Therefore, with our own lives potentially on the line, and with the continuing failure of elected officials to represent their constituents, it is left up to us, the public, to explore other options.

I believe there is only one effective, though seemingly unspeakable, way to resolve the Iraq quagmire: immediate, unconditional withdrawal of US-led coalition forces. Outspoken, direct-action, grass-roots support for such a withdrawal is unambiguously advancing the cause of Iraqi self-determination while also adhering to the demands of those of our troops who have returned from Iraq opposed to the war.

The first step towards adopting such a plan of action is understanding why supporting Iraqi resistance groups is the imperative flipside of our support for US troops-even if we don't know, understand, or agree with the politics of the resistance groups themselves.

The typical conversation concerning Iraqi sovereignty goes like this: Although the Iraqis deserve freedom and liberty, they can't have self-determination quite yet, because we can't just pull out. We could pay reparations but we can't support fundamentalist, sexist, elitist, terrorists who threaten to take over in the vacuum of power left by political upheaval. It is our duty to occupy Iraq to ensure the safety of the Iraqi people. With our history of democracy, our strong army, and with those ethnic rivalries and disorderly histories, without us they can't build a proper state. But we can, and therefore we must.

A Terrorizing Etymology

From there it gets uglier: for instance, the most pressing flaw in the argument is its bigoted presumption that Iraqis lack something that Americans can give them, teach them-ostensibly a rational democracy. Yet, the War on Terror, of which we are to believe the Iraq war is a part, is different from other wars wherein sides attempted to 'defeat' one another. Instead, the War on Terror has as its goal the elimination of so-called terrorists. We don't hear about a possible defeat or surrender of the insurgents in Iraq. Rather, we read insurgency casualty counts as if they were mounting a staircase to an imaginary final destination: the magic number that will signal elimination of all terrorist threats. Accordingly, our first question becomes, what is it that the US government means by the word "terrorism"? And how does this relate to our installing a democratic apparatus in Iraq?

Historically, terrorism has been defined as illegitimate violence, violence outside of a state's monopoly on the use of force. Yet I would like to complicate this use of the term 'illegitimate' with a contemporaneous, other kind of illegitimacy: that which characterized colonial regimes throughout the 20th century. In British, French, Portuguese and even South African colonies, governments were often illegitimate in the sense that only a minority of people inside the nation were enfranchised, or represented by the group in power. The United States enlisted this logic to indict Saddam Hussein, whose elections were a joke and who represented only a minority of his population. Yet, history reveals in no uncertain terms that opposition movements, which over time emancipated colonies from often brutal rule, were time and time again branded terrorists. The FLA in Algeria, the ANC in South Africa, ZAPO and ZANU in Zimbabwe, and the IRA in Ireland were not deemed terrorists because of their tactics, which at least initially did not target civilians-rather, they were deemed terrorists because they threatened to overthrow illegitimate colonial rule.

While a bomb in Birmingham or London was never-and I repeat never-a good thing because the IRA initially only targeted British soldiers in Ulster, this kind of terrorism is necessarily complex. History is equally clear on the fact that the media of occupying governments are essentially prohibited from accurate representation of the occupation itself. Ideologically, the fact that a group of people in this country supported the war enough to enable it to happen indicates that the media will represent the view that Iraq does in fact need to be occupied, for various reasons. This prohibits them from portraying the evils of occupation as necessarily evil; rather, they portray the occupation as unfortunate but necessary. In this war in particular, however, there is the added factor of intense government censorship and the unprecedented embedding of reporters.

Thus, while the ostensible savagery of targeting of civilians does help the US government label the freedom fighters of the present as terrorists, the simultaneous media censorship omnipresent throughout the war in Iraq blinds us to the equally if not more savage violence perpetrated by our state against the Iraqi civilians. In Fallujah, for instance, where reporters were prohibited for several months beginning in November 2004, 65 percent of buildings were leveled to the ground and anywhere between 600 to 3,000 civilians were murdered, mostly by carpet-bombing, the increasingly favored technique employed in Iraq as manpower begins to dwindle. All of these conditions must be recognized when we consider our relation to the Iraqi resistance.
 
Pt. 2


Don't Be So Romantic

This etymological history, along with proof of a propagandistic media, is significant only to a point. On the one hand, an understanding not only of past invocations of the term 'terrorism,' but the situations in which terrorism became the only weapon of the majority of citizens in a nation-as was the case throughout the 20th century era of decolonization-underscores how imperative the stigmatization of 'terrorism' has been for minority regimes to maintain militarized rule. On the other hand, though, this history often tempts us to romanticize anti-imperial struggles, and similarly has lead to the romanticization of Iraqi resistance. Such romanticizing obscures what I believe to be the most essential point of this entire argument. If there is one thing that we take away from 20th century history, it should be this: it is neither your place nor mine to decide who is worthy of what degree of autonomy. Not only do romantic portrayals of resistance rely on self-serving reductionism, they also implicitly pronounce the kind of moral authority and higher-judgment that are part and parcel of maintaining an imperialist way of thinking. Thus, to argue that resistance in Iraq deserves our support "because (insert homogenizing, descriptive reason here)," is to invoke the same paternalist authority, which, in another era argued that "the African (singular) is a savage and must be governed accordingly."

Rather, if we support the Iraqis right to self-determination, it must be because we identify a common, equal humanity between us; because we recognize that US occupation of Iraqi land and the US-sanctioned torture, rape, murder, and theft are unjust. That, in addition to the plight of our soldiers, which many of them argue is worsening every day, is why we must demand troops out now. For no other reason. Accordingly, since the Iraqi resistance is the force working to regain Iraqi sovereignty, we support them-unconditionally.

We must bring American troops home simply because it is not their place to stop the insurgents. Granted, even the most inspiring national liberation movements had their crimes and their tragedies. Many liberation struggles, fought under the watchful eyes of the Cold War superpowers, even failed, in the end, to achieve their objectives (Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Algeria, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, the list goes on). Yet, suffice it to say here that the limits or failures of a movement do not nullify its purpose, although they may hamper it. Past failures cannot justify the abandonment of our commitment to the right of people everywhere to self-determination.

They are easy traps to fall into-romanticizing past struggles or indicting 'insurgents' for use of terroristic tactics. Yet, concerning the flat and stigmatized notion of 'terrorism,' 20th century history, in concert with brave soldiers such as Carmello Mejia, and the invaluable independent (unembedded) media shows us that our understanding of the word 'terrorism' is necessarily compromised when our government is occupying the land of the so-called terrorists. Conversely, regarding the romanticization of the resistance we have a model in Louisa May Alcott's writing through Jo in Little Women: "it is not because women are good that they should vote. It's because it is fair and just." To romanticize resistance moralizes women, totalizes, does violence, and gets us nowhere outside the haughty hegemonic box of imperial thought. Instead, historical hindsight would have us see a certain truth, a certain continued struggle, in the efforts and desires of people in Iraq-without needing to judge or purify them.

LIZ SPERBER '06 WANTS YOU! if you want resistance. Contact her at OutNow@brown.edu



Brown University is waaay outside the libs mainstream right? :rolleyes:









Yet another anomaly. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And another.
 
Fred, those articles you're posting are a great illumination of the wacky thought process I've been seeing on Iraq.

If the US is the problem, then an immediate pullout will cause the fighting to end....right??? I guess that's why Iraqis are the ones most often killed in suicide attacks. Because the "resistence" is against the US occupation? Give me a break. Iraq could be well on its way to improving the quality of life for all its citizens if it weren't for the dirtbags who won't or can't accept a democratic Iraq.

Show me one Iraqi resistence group that has a moderate social agenda, that actually includes something vaguely resembling human rights.
 
Wow Fred.............. I'm glad that you want to kick my ass over the internet. Maybe we could set up an online asskicking for me where we meet in a chat room and duke it out, all becasue evidently you have a fragile ego and didn't even bother to realize that I wasn't refering to you personally as a chicken-hawk. Feeling a little defensive or insecure lately?
 
all becasue evidently you have a fragile ego and didn't even bother to realize that I wasn't refering to you personally as a chicken-hawk.
You go right ahead and make believe that you didn't aim that at me, just like you make believe that you aren't aware of any liberal pigs that hate this country. Live in a dream world. It's what liberals do.
 
LOL! Not only a fragile ego and insecurity, but paranoia to boot! Well, I'm waiting for you to come out of your bunker too give me a wedgie and take my lunch money. lol.

Anyways, the demands of reality and a normal sex life require me to leave Fred to himself before I laugh too much more.
 
Laugh as much as you like. It doesn't change the fact that liberals who take the side of enemies of the United States find themselves heaped with cash and accolades by their fellow liberals.

You use as right-wing examples people like Bo Gritz; a guy who made it to oblivion in .0007 seconds. You use Robert Eric Rudolph; a guy who will never again see the outside of a prison - unless some slick liberal lawyer gets him sprung of course. :rolleyes:

What's next as an example of right-wing extremists? McVeigh? He got an eternal dirt-nap for his reward. At no time, nor in any way did any of the above recieve positive support from conservatives.

OTOH the traitor Jane Fonda finds her book listed as #1 on the NYT best seller list this week. Gee, there is a surprise. Ward Churchill - there is a piece of work - let's see... tenure, full professorship, department head, lucrative lecture circuit gig, and all he had to do was curse America for a couple of decades. Then of course there is good ol' Mikey Moo-er, a guy who calls the death-cult psychotic animals of Faluja "minutemen", an lo and behold liberals line up around the block to stack his beachball of a head high with laurels, and to kiss his ultra-hirsute hindquarters. Hmmm... must all be coincidence.
normal sex life
According to 90% of the liberals I know there is no such thing as normal. They do whine about the oppression they feel from hetero-normatives though. :rolleyes:
 
On a good day, the US corporate media would have its audience believe that a kinder, gentler imperialism is the only way forward for Iraq.

I thought on a normal day, we were hearing about how Iraq was just another Viet Nam, how there was no hope for peace, and that it is simply making the world more dangerous for America?
 
:barf: Another liberal who doesn't support enemies of the United States:

"He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better. We have not done that." (emphasis added because stupidity of this magnitude deserves to be highlighted.)

Senator Patty Murray (D for Democrat... in case someone thought it was for Dunce - easy mistake to make) WA.

She was talking about Osama. I guess that since Uncle Osama was doing the good liberal thing of handing out free stuff she just couldn't help herself. :rolleyes:

Oh, and by the way, she wasn't saying this BS to fellow adult liberal Demonrats, she said it to a bunch of high school kids in Vancouver Washington. They were being addressed by a sitting Senator as a "reward" for their academic excellence. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top