Thousands attend speech by embattled Colorado professor

[struggle4progress]

By Erin Gartner
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:43 p.m. February 8, 2005

BOULDER, Colo. – A University of Colorado professor who angered two governors and offended families of World Trade Center victims with his comparison of 911 victims to Nazis gave a speech Tuesday to a cheering crowd of hundreds. <snip>

Nearly two dozen uniformed officers inside the ballroom used handheld metal detectors to scan the more than 1,000 attendees for weapons. No weapons were found and nobody was arrested, said Derrick Watson, assistant to vice chancellor for administration. <snip>

The crowd was loud and orderly as Churchill, whose writings and speeches face a 30-day university review that could lead to his dismissal, spoke: "I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for (Gov.) Bill Owens. I work for you," he said to thunderous applause. <snip>

Churchill spoke for 35 minutes and was interrupted several times by applause, never by protest. Most of his speech centered on United State's foreign policy, and the history of domestic policy toward American Indians. <snip>

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050208-2043-wst-speakerprotest-speech.html


<edit:> Speaker Churchill's visit debated at UW-Whitewater

By MEG KISSINGER
[e-mail]
Posted: Feb. 8, 2005

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater administrators spent much of the day Tuesday fielding calls from people expressing their opinions about the school's plan to host Ward Churchill ...

Brian Mattmiller, university spokesman, said the calls, which he numbered in the dozens, were split evenly from those wanting the school to cancel Churchill's talk and those urging that he be allowed to speak.

"It's 50-50," said Mattmiller.

UW-Whitewater Chancellor Jack Miller is reviewing the situation and is expected to announce in the next few days whether the event will be held as scheduled, Mattmiller said. <snip>

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/feb05/300100.asp

[thefloyd]

1. Good for him

I do not agree with Churchill but could give a damn about what he said. If churhill gets fired.. thinking at Universities will suffer and so will the students. All through the public education system no one made you think about issues or took the unpopular side of an argument. College was a great place for me to view things in a different light and now Cons are turning college into crap

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. This is good news in the war on free speach

Now hopefully the other university will grow a set also.

[Skittles]

22. grow a set of what?

please do not infer that male body parts are required for courage

[Blue_Tires]

39. the women can grow a set, too

of ovaries!!:silly:

[GiovanniC]

54. They Might Have Implied It... YOU Inferred It

n/t

[TahitiNut]

78. (grin) Few people know the difference between "infer" and "imply"

I guess it's a personal responsibility thing. :silly:

[EST]

97. Bravo!

Now, would you attack, please, the constant injudicious use of the word "incredible," when the speaker or writer wishes to imply " amazing," or "astonishing."

I have always thought that the permission one gives oneself to public speaking or writing carries with it the responsibility of clarity and, at least, a modicum of knowledge about the tools one uses. Silly me!

[ConsAreLiars]

3. On CNN he struck me as a somewhat reluctant 2nd Amendment

hero.

When the neo-nazis attack him for a phrase - see the AP writer's paraphrase for one example - you know that their goal is larger. The attack on the free exchange of information and anaysis is taking place on many fronts. This is just one example. What they really object to is the fact that someone is blowing their cover. I'm glad he had a chance to get some appreciation.

[Hand]

83. Not to be pedantic about it, but...

I think you mean 1st Amendment, assuming you mean free speech. 2nd Amendment is the "keep and bear arms" one so dear to the--well, not heart, since he doesn't have one--umm, giant cavity in the chest of John Asscrack and his NRA minders.

:hi:

[donheld]

4. I'm very glad

i wish i had been there.

anyone have a link to his offending article?

[ConsAreLiars]

5. More here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

The article, which has received so much media recently, was written 9/12/01 is reprinted here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WC091201.html

(edit to add commas)

[theresistance]

6. .

[Disturbed]

7. The only part of his article that really got...

coverage was the "little Eichmans" comment. Most of his article is correct in my view. He wasn't advocating the 911 Attack nor was he applauding it. He has the right to his views and should not be fired for voicing his views.

[Turley]

9. Was that "hate speech"?

It seems to me, the only way he could be fired is if the University says he engaged in "hate speech". Personally I'm far removed from academia (by miles and years) so I'm not really up to speed on what constitutes hate speech.

Does anyone know if the Eichman comments could be classified as hate speech? I felt the Eichman comment was over the top, but I'm not convinced it could be viewed as hate speech since there is no defined target group unless you consider WTC dwellers as some sort of distinct sociological grouping.

Sorry if this has been discussed previously.

[piece sine]

11. here's a clue

If it's hateful and it's spoken, it's hates speech. Any questions?

[Dhalgren]

12. Yeah. Who gets to decide?

[Turley]

35. You didn't answer the obvious question

who decides?

[mom cat]

14. I thought that the "little Eichmann's" comment referred to the military and

intelligence workers in the WTC. The US complains that other countries place military and intelligence units in civilian locations. then they claim that those countries are using the civilians as human shields. Then the US bombs them anyway and blames the other country for putting military offices in civilian locations. If that principal is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. We were housing military/intelligence functions in the WTC. It was those workers that Churchill was calling the "Little Eichmann's", not the food service workers on the top floor. The label may have been a stretch for those military/intelligence personnel who were working in the WTC, but not by much. It may have been less inflammatory to call them "the Good Germans", but the point is the same. That group of the WTC workers were engaged in advancing the Fascist policies of this countries. Did they deserve this kind of brutal death? No. Did the many victims of US aggression deserve their brutal deaths? NO.
I do think that the point that Churchill was making is that there is blow back. 9-11 was blow back for our imperial arrogance. I am sorry for the victims of that attack, but frankly, I am more sorry for the victims of all the US brutality, past and present.

[Turley]

17. Did you read what he wrote?

Because he never mentioned anything of the sort.

[Tafiti]

20. Did you read his press release?

Because mom cat's assessment is accurate. To read his clarification/explanation of his essay, read this:

http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/press_releases/ward_churchill_013105.html

[Turley]

25. Cutting him way too much slack

<i>It should be emphasized that I applied the “little Eichmanns” characterization only to those 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.</i>

Actually this was not obvious at all. That's why the guy is in so much hot water. I read the original piece and no, it was not obvious. Not even remotely.

[Tafiti]

38. Frankly, I have no problem with Ward Churchill.

Though you're right about it not being terribly obvious that the distinction he would later make wasn't readily obvious in the original essay. But in the addendum to the essay, added later of course, Churchill makes the following statement:

"The preceding was a 'first take' reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things."

He would probably agree that he could've been more tactful, or at least more explanatory, with his controversial remark in the actual essay, but I am personally satisfied with his clarification, and cannot disagree with him.

I also think the following quote from the preface basically sums up what Churchill is saying:

"A metaphor to think about: We ordinary American citizens are like the children of a Mafia boss who don't know what our dad does for a living, don't care, and we can't understand why somebody tossed a fire bomb through the living room window."

[xxqqqzme]

85. too bad U didn't watch his

UC speech on CSPAN last night - he made his intentions very clear. This is being rong wing/media driven. As he sais last night - the RW have now degenerated N2 attacks on his family history - so now its personal. This is the neo-con pattern. Twist the original message; stir the pot; launch a personal attack on the messenger. Pulled U right in they did!

[Turley]

87. No

I'm fairly capable of reading and comprehending written English. I don't live in the Stataes so I have not seen the media coverage.

I base my observations on Churhill's own words and nothing else. I think his original screed was reprehensible.

Your mileage may differ.

[greeklady]

96. That's because

he is a phony, unfortunately. He has no indian blood. Pretty similar to Iron Eyes Cody.

[Bo]

32. Thank you Tafiti

I now understand why the Wing nuts want to get rid of this person. They are applying the kill all the intelligentsia principle.

[Turley]

36. Just how does one achieve Eichmann status?

maybe you can explain that to me. Is it by working in a tall building? Guess not since we've excused the janitors. So who exactly is an Eichmann here? Does employment in the Financial Services industry clinch it?

That would be a shame. Cause then we'd have to take George Soros out behind the next barn and cut his throat. So who exactly were the Eichmanns and how exactly did they deserve that honor?

Anyone?

[Tafiti]

43. I think his point is well made in the essay in question...

...with plenty of factual evidence to support his point. But I chose a small passage from it to both respond to your inquiry and provide the probable reason why he chose to employ the now-infamous remark:

"There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, bur for what they had allowed -- nay, empowered -- their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly."

But I would submit that nobody who supports Ward Churchill, nor Ward Churchill himself, would feign innocence when it comes to the atrocities that are carried out in the name of America. I think that's partially his point. Everyone is guilty in one way or another. But addressing those in the WTC, what exactly is the WTC? What did those twin towers embody, symbolize in the eyes of "the others"? Beyond mere symbolism, what actually went on there? What function does it serve - and more specifically, what role does the organization as a whole play in geopolitical affairs, foreign policy, economic policy, etc., especially those policies that are deadly and lethal to so many of these faceless, nameless others? When you can answer these questions, you'll understand why Churchill said what he said. And as I said before, I think his essay speaks for itself. If you don't understand his essay, then I'm afraid I can't help you to understand it. I just don't think you want to see what he's showing you, and that goes for a vast majority of this country.

Nietzsche once said, "The memory says, 'I did that.' The pride replies, 'I could not have done that.' Eventually, the memory yeilds."

[Turley]

56. I understand it allright

Churchill wishes to equate American foreign policy with the Nazi killing machine which eventually murdered some 20 million people. He thinks our foreign policy is the equivalent of the Nazi final solution, the complete and utter extermination of several races of people.

And he compared normal, everyday Americans with the principal architect of that killing machine.

My guess is, about 99% of Americans would vehemently disagree with that comparison. If you reside in the 1% minority who believe his inanity, that's certainly your prerogative.

BTW I'd be very interested in you answering your own questions: "Beyond mere symbolism, what actually went on there? What function does it serve - and more specifically, what role does the organization as a whole play in geopolitical affairs, foreign policy, economic policy, etc., especially those policies that are deadly and lethal to so many of these faceless, nameless others?"

I would really like to know what nefarious activities you think were going on in the WTC.

[Make7]

59. the very heart of America's global financial empire

"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." - Ward Churchill
__________

He made the comparison of the people of the "technocratic corps" to Eichmann to illustrate the point that people who do not do the actual killing are nevertheless complicit if they support a system that knowingly, willing and intentionally causes death to others through its policies.

Not everyone will agree on who the "technocratic corps" is actually comprised of, but that is based more on how different people view the world than anything else. If we go by Mr. Churchill's interpretation, it would include those "at the very heart of America's global financial empire."

-Make7

[Turley]

60. Well do you agree?

Or does anyone else want to chime in?

Is a registered Democrat who works as a bond trader as culpable as a registered Republican who drives a Mack truck?

Why is a distinction made between people who work in the financial services industry, and people who work in other industries? Nearly all of us are involved in capitalist enterprises. Why single out finance employees? After all, there are other industries with higher profit margins?

Are people in the financial services industry somehow evil?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

58. Did you watch the speech?

cause that IS what he said.

He was saying that the people who flew those planes into WTC hate "us" because we have been fostering the wars in the middle east that have been killing their children. The US gives money, guns and ammo to some groups, to kill other groups, and as Americans, we are at fault for letting our government do this.
Silence is acceptance. We are guilty for not speaking up, and he includes himself.
That is what he meant.

[Auntie Bush]

79. That make sense...good explanation!

[seemslikeadream]

80. Silence is acceptance

[Turley]

84. I know why they hate us

but does that make us Adolf Eichmann? You? Me? The people in the WTC were the same as the architect of the final solution? Do you equate the two?

[klyon]

98. I think we all have blood on our hands whether we voted for Bush

or not. If we were able to find out what our government has been doing around the world all these years we would all cry for days and days. What little we know is bad enough and we all should be ashamed and ask for forgiveness from the world. I am very sorry for the actions of my government known and unknown to me.

KL

on edit Flame away

[Southern Dem 2005]

101. Ask forgiveness?

While we have done some crappy things around the world I doubt we need to ask for much forgiveness. Which countries have acted better? China? The Europeans?

[klyon]

110. what others do has nothing to do what we have done

two wrongs do not make a right or something like that

I am sorry

KL

[Sterling]

112. Wow is that what you do at church?

Strange way to measure morality. When you pray do you argue with god about the other sinners who are worse than you?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. i agree

[Turley]

33. Well, you're wrong

The NYT didn't discover, and report on the existence of the CIA station in one of the smaller buildings (WTC 7) until a month after Churchill wrote his screed. So obviously, he wasn't tallking about them, unless you really believe some professor at Prairie State U. is privy to some of our most closely guarded national secrets.

[theresistance]

49. Just to clarify, I deleted my message

[tlcandie]

8. I hope it works out for him....

Whether or not it does....he will come out the winner in the end, IMO.

[Southern Dem 2005]

10. Haven't read the article and don't plan to

but I imagine the school can fire him unless he has tenure. Most states allow you to fire an employee for any reason, incuding because you don't like what they said.

[Dhalgren]

13. Academia is different. Intellectual freedoms count for a whole

lot (at least in a lip-service sort of way) at the university level. Any administration would be very, very careful how they handled this issue.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GiovanniC]

67. And The Crux of the Issue Is Right Here

College professors should not have to temper their opinions with the threat of getting fired if said opinions are unpopular. College is a place where a free exchange of ideas is critical, and an exposure to these types of ideas and a discussion of them makes students more critical thinkers and better citizens.

[Southern Dem 2005]

68. Well, that depends on what is said

I agree that a professor shouldn't get fired for saying something that is simply unpopular. However, if the comment is offensive then I think it is a different story. I guess an example might be a professor at Harvard saying "everyone knows black people are ignorant." Seems to me that type of comment reflects on the college and would justify reevauating whether that person is a good fit for the school.

[GiovanniC]

71. Here Is Where Actually Having a Knowledge of the Situation Might Help You

Here's an idea: read the article. Then maybe you can present some useful opinions, because at the moment you're shooting blanks. You're comparing apples to oranges but you have no way to know that because you are, again, ignorant of the facts.

[Southern Dem 2005]

73. Ok, I've read the article

clearly he should be fired. You approve of calling 9/11 victims "little nazis?"

[GiovanniC]

88. Did You Read HIS Article?

Or did you read the one-sentence Cliff's Notes version in the news story?

But what this guy has said is that we as Americans are complicit in the crimes undertaken by our government, just as the "Good Germans" were complicit in the crimes of Hitler's regime. He even admits his own responsibility for failing to do enough to bring an end to the crimes of our foreign policy. The professor's premise is that the people working in the World Trade Center were in their way contributing to the United States criminal activities much the way that "good Germans" assisted Hitler's activities. Now he may be wrong or he may be correct, but it's a worthy discussion to have and it shouldn't just be shut down because it makes some people uncomfortable. And it is a world apart from your analogy to making racial slurs.

[Sterling]

113. Well I suggest a more humble approach.

You need to be here to learn not to preach until you have covered the prerequisite material. You will find many here will take the time to teach you if you are willing to learn. Otherwise you can expect to have your ill informed opinions scrutinized and most likely ridiculed.

What you get form this site is up to you.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigluckyfeet]

50. He Was on C-Span Tonight

It is so refreshing to hear the truth.

[GiovanniC]

57. I'm Curious As To Why You Tried To Pick a Fight

By posting in a thread about a subject you know absolutely ZILCH about.

You didn't read the article.
You don't really know what it said.
You seem to be unaware that this professor has tenure.
You seem to be blissfully ignorant of how academic policies treat tenured professors speaking their minds.

So you come in here apparently for the sole purpose of advertising your ignorance because you really didn't have much to contribute. Then you say a fellow DUer "probably doesn't have a job" and then act indignant about so-called "personal attacks"? These tactics seem familiar for some reason.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GiovanniC]

64. Well, See, If You Had Bothered To Read... I Don't Know... ANYTHING

About this situation at all, you would know that he was a tenured professor and not some at-will employee that can be fired for any reason or no reason. So explain to me again why you felt it necessary to post something completely irrelevant on a topic you do not know anything about and claim not to care anything about while making personal attacks against other posters?

Something smells like troll in here.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GiovanniC]

69. So Far, You're Calling People "Assholes" and Claiming They Have No Jobs

To cover up for the fact that you're spouting off uninformed opinions on a message board and getting called on it. NOBODY has made a personal attack on you, despite the opposite being the case.

I know they do things differently over at that *cough* OTHER *cough* website, so let me give you a few helpful pointers for posting here.

#1: If you're going to state an opinion about something, it would help to know SOMETHING about it.

#2: If you DON'T know anything about an issue, don't care to know anything about the issue, and don't care about an issue at all... then don't post on that topic.

#3: If someone notes that your "opinion" (such as it is) is ignorant of the facts, that's not a personal attack. When you respond that they are an asshole that probably doesn't have a job, that IS a personal attack. See how that works?

[Southern Dem 2005]

72. So post #34 doesn't strike you as a personal attack

What "other board" are you referring to? I have no idea what you are talking about. Is there a board where democrats can go to have reasoned discussions with other adults? The discussions in here are typically knee-jerk reactions to stories that usually aren't newsworthy.

[GiovanniC]

86. No, Post #34 Is Not a Personal Attack

Although I imagine that your mind must play tricks on you to make you think these things, what with you having been forced to come here to DU against your will and forced to read a bunch of threads that aren't newsworthy and to post on them.

[Southern Dem 2005]

91. No, I come here because sometimes there are interesting items worth

reading about, like the US occupation in Iraq or the church/state separation. However, people freaking out because some professor is about to get fired is a good example of knee-jerk reactionaries making a big deal out of nothing. Additionally, I imagine that if this professor had gotten into trouble for espousing right-wing ideas many posters here couldn't care less.

[GiovanniC]

93. Save It

I find your compulsion to post on threads you don't care anything about to be very interesting.
I find your complaints that we wouldn't care if this was a right-winger very interesting.
I find your contention that college professors should not be allowed to have controversial viewpoints very interesting.
I find your choice to have very strong opinions on things you admit you know absolutely zilch about to be very interesting.

So while you may not find things here very interesting, you certainly are very interesting yourself.

It's no wonder you are being held captive here against your will.

[Southern Dem 2005]

94. I appreciate your interest

I would have abandoned this thread long ago were I not arguing with you

[GiovanniC]

95. Then I Appreciate Your Interest As Well

Especially considering all your time constraints what with the family and job that you can't be bothered to read news articles that you want to spout ill-informed opinions about.

Makes me feel special.

[Southern Dem 2005]

100. You strike me as a "special" person

I'm glad you think so highly of my opinion that you feel the need to correct it. Your input, while childish and inane, is valued.

[GiovanniC]

102. Enjoy Your Brief Stay at DU

If you are this obvious in a thread where you don't care about the subject, I can't wait to see how you react when you do care.

By the way... "childish"? "Inane"? "Asshole"? "Probably don't have a job"? For someone who is so fragile and frail when it comes to imaginary personal attacks against you, you sure haven't minded dishing out.

But again, that's the nature of the beast, isn't it?

I'll also point out that while you have lots of insults to throw around at people, you have nothing to say about this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1222990&mesg_id=1227094&page= .

[Southern Dem 2005]

103. Of course I don't mind responding to personal attacks

As for the professor, the university isn't trying to shut him down. The university is (maybe) taking the stance that you can say what you want but you can't work for us if you do. There's a big difference between the two.

[GiovanniC]

106. That Is Not How University Tenure Works

And nobody attacked you personally. The same can't be said for you.

[Southern Dem 2005]

107. Ok, all personal attacks aside

I actually have a pretty good grasp of how tenure works. If you want to enlighten me feel free.

[GiovanniC]

109. If You Had as Good a Grasp As You Seem to Think You Do

Then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Universities exist to expose people to a diversity of ideas, even controversial ones. Punishing a professor for publicly giving voice to diverse or even controversial ideas is counter to the mission of public universities, in much the same way that limiting library books with controversial messages is counter to their mission, as well.

[Sterling]

117. I would have abandoned this thread long ago were I not arguing with you

Well at least you are making the most of your precious time away from work and family.

[Sterling]

115. No it was a factual observation based on your own comments

You said it, not me. I would never go around boasting about how I am not capable of supporting my opinions with facts or even a basic understanding of the subject being discussed.

I found it frightening that someone would take that attitude. I hope it is not contagious but it seems to be a common ailment for a lot of people, just not on DU very often.

[Sterling]

114. Personal attacks? You just called him an asshole.

Made fun of another poster being unemployed. Hell you can't even read the rules of the site much less the information being discussed. I hope somehow some sense rubs off on you from you visits here.


How old are you anyway?

[seemslikeadream]

89. But you don't know what it is, do you Mister Southern Dem 2005?

You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say, "Who is that man?"
You try so hard
But you don't understand
Just what you'll say
When you get home

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says
"It's his"
And you say, "What's mine?"
And somebody else says, "Where what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone?"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

You hand in your ticket
And you go watch the geek
Who immediately walks up to you
When he hears you speak
And says, "How does it feel
To be such a freak?"
And you say, "Impossible"
As he hands you a bone

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

You have many contacts
Among the lumberjacks
To get you facts
When someone attacks your imagination
But nobody has any respect
Anyway they already expect you
To just give a check
To tax-deductible charity organizations

You've been with the professors
And they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read
It's well known

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Well, the sword swallower, he comes up to you
And then he kneels
He crosses himself
And then he clicks his high heels
And without further notice
He asks you how it feels
And he says, "Here is your throat back
Thanks for the loan"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Now you see this one-eyed midget
Shouting the word "NOW"
And you say, "For what reason?"
And he says, "How?"
And you say, "What does this mean?"
And he screams back, "You're a cow
Give me some milk
Or else go home"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear earphones

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

-Dylan

[Southern Dem 2005]

92. try making your point in your own words

instead of using Dylan's song. If you have something to say its much more impressive if you actually say what it is you are thinking.

[seemslikeadream]

108. On a Sunday afternoon, do you take your family for a ride?

Among his tales of police brutality and revolutionary fervour, Seale inserted a chapter entitled ‘Huey Digs Bob Dylan’. The setting is the home of radical lawyer Beverly Axelrod in 1966: Newton and Seale are laying up the pages for the first issue of their party newspaper, cunningly titled The Black Panther. ‘While we were laying that paper out, in the background we could hear a record, and the song was named “Ballad of a Thin Man” by Bob Dylan. Now the melody was in my head... but I didn’t really hear the words. This record played after we stayed up laying out the paper. And it played the next night after we stayed up laying out the paper. I think it was around the third afternoon that the record was playing. We played that record over and over and over.

‘Huey P. Newton made me recognize the lyrics. Not only the lyrics of the record, but what the lyrics meant in the record. What the lyrics meant in the history of racism that had perpetuated itself in the world. Huey would say: “Listen, listen – man, do you hear what he is saying?” Huey had such insight into how racism existed, how racism had perpetuated himself. He had such a way of putting forth in very clear words what he related directly to those symbolic things or words that were coming out from Bobby Dylan. ‘I remember that the song got to the point where he was talking about this cat handing in his ticket and he walked up to the geek, and the geek handed him a bone. Well, this didn’t relate to me, so I said: “Huey, look, wait a minute, man”. I said, “What are you talking about a geek? What is a geek? What the hell is a geek?” And Huey explains it.’

Newton’s explanation runs for almost a page: ‘“a geek”, he tells Seale, “is usually a circus performer”, who has been badly injured and can’t work any longer. But he knows no other life than the circus, so he agrees to do the lowliest jobs just to stay in the community. Maybe he even agrees to eat live chickens in a cage as a freak attraction.’ Newton continues: ‘These people who are coming in to see him are coming in for entertainment, so they are the real freaks. And the geek knows this, so during his performance, he eats the raw chicken and he hands one of the members of the audience a bone. ‘Then to put it on the broader level, what Dylan is putting across is middle-class people or upper-class people who sometimes take a Sunday afternoon off and put their whole family into a limousine, and they go down to the black ghettos to watch the prostitutes and watch the decaying community.(...) That makes the middle-class and upper-class people, who are down there because they get pleasure out of it, freaks.

And this goes into the one-eyed midget. What is the one-eyed midget? He screams and howls at Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones doesn’t know what’s happening. Then the one-eyed midget says, give me some juice or go home. And this again is very symbolic of people who are disadvantaged. They’re patronizing Mr. Jones, the middle-class people. You know, they’re not interested in them coming down for entertainment. But if they’ll pay them for a trick, then they’ll tolerate them, or else they’ll drive them out of the ghettoes. This song is hell. You’ve got to understand that this song is saying a hell of a lot about society.’

Seale digests this explanation, and notes: ‘Bobby Dylan says, you don’t know what’s happening, do you, Mr. Jones? And to hand him the naked bone was too much – was really too much.’

An insignificant if amusing interlude, you might think, suggesting that Huey P. Newton missed his vocation as a literary critic. But as Seale explains later in the chapter, ‘Ballad of a Thin Man’ came to occupy a key place in the imaginative landscape of the Panthers: ‘This song Bobby Dylan was singing became a very big part of that whole publishing operation of the Black Panther paper. And in the background, while we were putting this paper out, this record came up and I guess a number of papers were published, and many times we would play that record. Brother Stokely Carmichael also liked that record. This record became so related to us, even to the brothers who had held down most of the security for the set.

http://www.judasmagazine.com/pages.asp/peterdoggettj1.asp

[Sterling]

118. "instead of using Dylan's song."

No surprise, you can't make heads or tails of something like a Dylan tune.

[Sterling]

111. And that has what to do with your pride in not knowing about certain

things?

[Sterling]

116. Tell the truth was that your post that was deleted?

If it was feel free to PM and tell me what you wanted to say.

[agitpropagent9]

15. let him speak

i hope he doesn't get fired simply because he would become a political martyr, which would then lend more credence to his misguided views.

i heard an audio clip of him on the larry king show telling a parent of a 23 year old (who had just taken his first job when he was killed on 9/11) that his son was, indeed, a "little eichmann".

ward churchill is a piece of shit, in my opinion.

[rodeodance]

16. take that Bill O'Reilly!! oh, is poor bill going to be upset. He was

boasting the other day of how he brought this issue to the attention of the University and the Colo. Gov. and wants Warren fired.

[agitpropagent9]

18. indeed, but...

the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

[rayofreason]

21. Fire Churchill?

Ward Churchill should not be fired for stating his views, not matter how repugnent. He could write articles saying that Africans are genetically inferior or superior (both views have been put forward by tenured professors), that Jews, Muslims, Christians, Communists, whoever, are the root of evil - it doesn't matter. By the rules of intellectual freedom for tenured professors, as long as he does not incite violence (and having read some of his stuff, it doesn't appear that he does that), he can say and write whatever he pleases, no matter who it displeases.

However, there is one thing that he can't do - engage in scholary or academic dishonesty. And it appears that Ward Churchill might have done just that. He has claimed that he is a Native American, and used that claim to advance his career as a Professor of Ethnic Studies. How else could someone get such a job at a research university without a Ph.D., the terminal degree in the field? Yet that American Indian Movement states vehemently that Churchill is nothing of the sort. They even claim that he is a government agent, secretly bringing discredit on their cause!

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html (and links therein)

Another report suggests that he has enagaged in significant academic misconduct (see link to article at http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/publications.htm).

Academics are secure in tenure ONLY because they agree to the academic code of ethics. A Physics professor who falsifies data and publishes conclusions based on those data may be dismissed for violating the code of ethics, no matter the content of the paper or the correctness of the conclusions. Churchill needs to be investigated, and if these charges of academic dishonesty hold up, he should be fired.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

61. stop that!

Read the whole damn statement, instead of using the soundbites thrown out by MSM. They took it out of context, and you have fallen for it. This man has taught for years, has a HUGE following (for good reason) has written 10-12 books over the years. They latch on to one statement and call him a kook. One statement, unless you have others? You did read some of his stuff and make that judgment after making up your own mind, right? BAAAAA!

[Red State Rebel]

82. That's the problem with these psuedo-intellectuals

They make these broad sweeping statements from their lofty positions without considering that these are REAL people they are talking about and hurting.

Anyone may exercise the right of free speech, but they must also be ready to face the consequences of their stupidity.

[underpants]

23. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE I CAN FIND THE ORIGINAL TEXT?

I found his rebuttle at *ahem* WND but I can't find the actual original text.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42740

[rayofreason]

24. look here

http://cryptome.org/ward-churchill.htm

[underpants]

26. Never mind I found it-ORIGINAL TEXT

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

[Mystified]

27. This guy's an ass

I don't believe he should be fired for his remarks or views, but remarks like "I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for (Gov.) Bill Owens. I work for you", and "I'm not apologizing to anyone" are, in my opinion, asshole-ish. I think that if he simply said, "I'm sorry some people were offended by my remarks, and I apologize for the harsh manner in which I presented them. However, I stand by the crux of my thesis, that US foreign policy bears some of the blame for the 9/11 attacks" then much of the fury aimed at him would likely dissipate. And by the way Churchill, you DO work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado.

[underpants]

28. Oh really?!?! Well you know what....?

I agree with you. That was very well stated. Churhill's timing couldn't have been worse and he also is milking this for everything it has. He is right in a way but he isn't bringing anyone to his message with the way he is handling it.

[Mystified]

29. He is milking it

He's trying to claim victim status, that he was simply misunderstood. As a college professor he knew that his essay was highly inflammatory and chose not to tone it down while still making some valid points.

[underpants]

30. I do have to say----this essay is over 2 years old

Me thinks someone found it and they decided to play "look at the crazy hippie". See he has long hair and doesn't wear a suit unlike the shorthaired suited whackos who got us into this mess in Iraq.

I think the point of this being brought up is to distract attention away from their whackos (actually IN power) and towards "our" whackos.

[Mystified]

31. I'm sure

I'm sure the essay was brought up for less-than-ingenious reasons, but Churchill's reaction is a great example of how NOT to handle a public relations crisis.

[dean_dem]

99. Actually, he's handling it brilliantly...

...from the perspective of advancing his career. He's turned himself into a hero for the left, gotten his name out there, and probably helped his book sales. It's the right that should have known that this was going to happen, and they were better off just ignoring him. You can't make better publicity for his book than this, he's probably thanking Scarborough and O'Reilly right now.

I think Churchill has a good point, but I think his analogy was poor, and he put his foot in his mouth by saying it. The guy's not a genius, but it would do a great disservice to academic freedom and freedom of speech to fire him for it.

[RandomKoolzip]

37. Let's not forget that the Colorado University that

is under scrutiny here is also the one which has been the testing ground for David Horowitz's "Let's Fire all the Liberal Professors" group.

I'm sure that had something to do with it.

[Mystified]

40. Even Horowitz is semi-defending him

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=5&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_us/speaker_protest

<snip>

"David Horowitz, a champion of conservative causes who has long accused American universities of overstocking their faculties with leftists, has said firing Churchill would violate his First Amendment rights and set a bad precedent."

Of course, then he says the university should look into its hiring and promotion policies.

[RandomKoolzip]

45. Two faced Horowitz speaks with forked tongue.

[MHalblaub]

47. I just read "Some People Push Back"

Spiky but true.

[Swamp Rat]

52. You got that right!

[Make7]

53. a few cents

"I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for (Gov.) Bill Owens. I work for you." - Ward Churchill

"And by the way Churchill, you DO work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado." - Mystified

He gets paid by the taxpayers of Colorado, but he works for the students. The effort he expends is for their benefit, not the anonymous taxpayer that contributes a few cents to his salary.
__________

He should not apologize if he's not sorry about what he wrote. He should not apologize just because that is what some people want him to do.

He clearly did not hold back when he wrote the original piece for fear of offending anyone. He should not hold back in defending himself now.

-Make7

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

90. I think you are misrepresenting what he has said and written.

He did not call the average Joe in the WTC little Eichmanns. He was referring to the technocrats he believes are at "the very heart of America's global financial empire."
__________

One of Mr. Churchill's ideas was to compare the technocrats in the WTC to little Eichmanns as a means to highlight the complicity of certain groups of people in an empire's policies. Should he apologize for that idea?
__________

His statement about who he does and does not work for was clearly meant to convey that he feels he works for the students. The effort he makes as a teacher is for the benefit of the students. (Some of whom may be taxpayers, but that doesn't mean he works for the benefit of all taxpayers as a group. Even if he does receive some money from them.) Since a much larger portion of income for the University is derived from student tuition and fees than from state taxes, I think it is fair to say Ward Churchill works for the students. Especially if you consider the monetary contribution per person in a comparison of the groups defined as students and as Colorado taxpayers.
__________

I pay taxes, but I don't feel that George W. Bush works for me - he represents so much that I am completely opposed to. If he is working against my interests, how exactly is he working for me other than getting a few pennies of my taxes in salary?

-Make7

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GetTheRightVote]

51. This fight is not about one man but about the right to free in government

:kick:

[Massachusetts]

55. Yes it is.

Churchill has been OUTRAGED for a long time, particularly at the "the horrors" OUR policies have inflicted on Native Americans, and people of color inside and outside of this country for DECADES.

How come MORE Americans aren't as OUTRAGED? BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW OR CARE TO KNOW! If they DID, maybe OUR government would be more ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE. IMO

[robcon]

74. I've been outraged, too.

Massachusetts wrote "Churchill has been OUTRAGED for a long time, particularly at the "the horrors" OUR policies have inflicted on Native Americans, and people of color inside and outside of this country for DECADES."

The biggest difference is that I am not a fascist, and Churchill is.

[rayofreason]

75. fascists and fakers

Being a fascist is no obstacle to being a university professor - but being a faker is.

Churchill is seems to be as much the latter as the former. If the allegations against him for scholarly misconduct hold up, he must be fired in order to preserve freedom of speech for legitimate scholars, no matter what their political persuasion.

[seemslikeadream]

81. Being a fascist is no obstacle to being a United States president either

faking's OK also

[sattahipdeep]

62. Some People Push Back:Ward Churchill

12 September 2001

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WC091201.html

[seemslikeadream]

65. Ward Churchill Radical Professor Speaks to Thousands of Cheering Supporter

Churchill surrounded by supporters while speaking to a crowd of at least 2000 people.



Thousands attend Churchill speech
By Erin Gartner, Associated Press
February 8, 2005

A University of Colorado professor who ignited a firestorm by likening the World Trade Center victims to Nazis received a standing ovation Tuesday from a crowd of more than a thousand who packed a ballroom to hear him speak.

University officials had announced plans to cancel the speech because of security concerns then backed off after Ward Churchill filed a lawsuit earlier Tuesday asking a judge to force the school to let him speak.

More than two dozen campus police officers inside the ballroom used handheld metal detectors to scan attendees for weapons. It was not immediately clear if police found any.

Outside the ballroom, about 250 people who were turned away, listened to Churchill's speech on speakers set up by university officials.

The crowd was loud and orderly as an Churchill, whose writings and speeches face a 30-day university review that could lead to his dismissal, spoke: "I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for (Gov.) Bill Owens. I work for you," he said to thunderous applause.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050208214150291


Watch here
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=f3fcd191-0abe-421a-01bc-e9a296571d1f&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

[sattahipdeep]

70. Good Americans

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WC022203.html

[seemslikeadream]

76. Good Americans

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1567.html

[EST]

105. It seems

that anti intellectualism continues to reign supreme. Would that I lived in a world of thinkers, rather then slaves to ignorant reaction...