Then they came for Ward Churchill....

[Skidmore]

on FSTV. Just listening to this program. It is well worth hearing and what this man has to say is well worth defending as his his right to say it. His message that America's regard for wealth over human life is appallingly evident in the domestic and foreign policies it pursues is right on. I have no problem with what he is saying.

[4morewars]

1. But I didn't do anything....

Because I'm not Ward Churchill.

[murray hill farm]

2. Well...lets see...

We have to come down hard on Churchill...all but calling him a terrorist because of his views...now he is a threat to our freedoms..blah,blah,blah...security is all, ya know. However, somehow a fake journalist, using a fake name, running an online prostitution business....just sort of slips by whitehouse security..and does it for two years on a regular basis...hmmmmmmmmmm! Lets see...this "person" who the WH lets get within 50 feet of the president on an ongoing basis...and who did so using a fake name, etc...was never detected......hmmmmmmmmmmm! Now...i have to go through more security checks to get on an airplane..and the pres is covered with security 24/7..plus wears a bullet proof vest in all public appearances...because of the need for very high security...and somehow..........huge security flaw...this bozo..slips in...and get sooooooo close to the pres..and no one is concerned about that at the WH..........again, hmmmmmmm!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. truth is a hard swallow...and imho Churchill spoke truth........

they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." -Martin Niemöller

[Inland]

4. Churchill's, Al-Qaeda's regard for human life are peas in a pod

Both Churchill and Osama felt that the killings at the WTC were justified. If you can defend his calling the WTC victims "little Eichmanns", go ahead. Me, I got a problem with it.

[bpilgrim]

9. wrong

he said that according to our gov. rules they would be considered COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

and guess what... he's RIGHT.

peace

[Inland]

16. He didn't even see them as collateral. He saw them as deserving.

Ward Churchill saw the WTC occupants as culpable, not innocents. At least calling something "collateral damage" means that one accepts that you at least have to pretend that you would have rather they not be dead. Churchill says he can't think of "a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation." He thinks there death was not only appropriate, but the most appropriate penalty. I guess he doesn't distinguish between those who were killed in a first blow and those who died in the terror of a burning building--but hey, to him its all good.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0204-32.htm




Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. 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. 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.

[bpilgrim]

23. the FACT of the matter is that he is RIGHT...

when our collective actions and tax dollars go for genocide abroad who do you expect them to strike back at?

our schools and hospitals (nevermind that we do and whole cities)

or do you expect them to just take it?

Nineteenth century American writer and philosopher Henry David Thoreau was jailed for refusing to pay a federal tax that was to be used to finance the Mexican-American War of 1846-48, which Thoreau and others believed to be an unwarranted act of aggression on the part of the U.S. In his famous essay, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," Thoreau wrote: "If a thousand were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them and enable the state to commit violence and shed innocent blood."

Henry David Thoreau
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience


The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others — as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders — serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few — as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men — serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:

...

Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, neat at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless.

more...
http://www.constitution.org/civ/civildis.htm

what depth of hell do you condemn Thoreau to, i wonder?

and so it goes...


peace

[Inland]

24. Depends. How many thousands did Thoreau kill, or approve killing?

Thoreau didn't say that the Mexicans would be justified in coming to Massachusetts to kill thousands. He didn't "expect" schools to be targeted, by himself or anyone else. His call for morality didn't equate a farmer with a combatant. But Churchill blames all the evils, real and perceived, of the modern world on the shoulders of the guy who works in a cubicle, and delclares him worthy of the penalty of death worked on him by Osama.

We have a name for people who approve of targeting civilians in wartime. War criminals. And if targeting civilians in peace, terrorists. At least, we used to. Apparently the war criminals aren't those that attack with the purpose of killing civilians, but the civilians themselves. That's why Churchill called the WTC workers "little Eichmanns': his morality is so limited that he can't determine any distinction between a soldier and a civilian working in the economy, and therefore can't determine any distinction between killing soldiers in combat and killing a busboy with a pile of dishes, between blowing up a tank and blowing up a school.

He isn't alone of course: there are plenty of others who refuse to make distinctions. Osama didn't. Terrorists don't. War criminals don't. What I can't believe is that somebody can't see Churchill for an apologist for terror.

By the way, how would Churchill have an American avoid deserving death? Not by being against the war, since the bombing at the WTC didn't distinguish between pacifists and warmongers. Apparently, it was merely helpoing the American economy by working in it. By that standard, the only person able to avoid condemnation is somebody who adds no value whatsoever. Like a bad college professor. What a dick.

[bpilgrim]

25. and how many did churchill kill?

it is the collective 'machine' that enables our gov to commit WAR CRIMES abroad in the hundreds of thousands as Thoreau and Churchill point out.

do you naively believe that these sins will not be visited upon us, the machine, to try and make it STOP?

btw: the economic center of any state is a target of the US war machine.

wake up.

peace

[Inland]

27. Churchll approved of the killing of thousands. Not Thoreau.

You are confusing what happens with what's right.

Churchill said that killing of American civilians was right. Even if I agreed that it was predictable--in the sense that shit happens and evil happens--doesn't make it right.

All you do is make human beings into a single, undifferentiated machine that is guilty as a whole, and therefore deserving of death as a whole. Calling them the "economic center" is merely dehumanizing. Busboys. Cubicle workers. Janitors. Firemen. Husbands and wives and children. Those are the people whose deaths Churchill sees as not only deserved, but actually as perfect as he can imagine. Of course, HE doesn't deserve death by slow roasting or a fall from a hundred stories. He's an academic. He contibutes nothing to society. He is innocent, a bystander. Not that fucking busboy, however: he serves the state. What a dick.

You wake up. Civilians need protection, and it isn't done by announcing OUR civilians are ALSO fair game for anyone with a gripe. It only becomes a situation where the soldiers on each side kill the unarmed on each side.

[K-W]

34. No he didnt, that is a LIE.

His entire point was that ALL of these deaths are wrong.

You have taken a section of his work out of context, misunderstood it and now you are spreading lies.

[Inland]

37. Read it yourself.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0204-32.htm




Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. 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. **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.** emphasis added.


Some penalty befitting their participation. Little Eichmanns. Churchill not only says the WTC victims deserved the penalty of death, he couldn't think of any BETTER way to punish them.
This guy's no hero. He's an apologist for terror and war crimes.

[bpilgrim]

38. he, as Thoreau, pointed out how US here at home are culpable for OUR sins

in enabling this WAR machine to keep on killing millions of INNOCENTS.

his whole point is that the KILLING MUST STOP and that we collectively are GUILTY by our actions that feed the machine.

i as well as many others here agree with that obvious FACT.

YOU, twist his words and say things he didn't say. therefore i'm out, since the point is very simple and has been made repeatedly yet YOU choose to demonize him instead.

peace

[Inland]

40. And he, unlike Thoreau, thought our sins deserved a horrible death

at the hands of Osama.

Churchill's "whole point" is not that the killing must stop. His point included that the round of killings that took out the two towers was justified. That it was as perfect a penalty that he could conceive of for the sins of....what, again, exactly? Not being pro-war, because bombings don't really discriminate. Not for being an economic or military asset, since busboys and secretaries aren't such assets.

I guess their crime was, as you put it, "feeding the machine"--and they probably thought they were feeding their families by working.

So please don't tell me that you and Churchill are asking for the killing to stop, not when you are justifying it as a deserved penalty.

[Karenina]

43. The Belgians "get it."

Look at the pix and do get back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1611788

[Democrat Dragon]

26. People are forced to pay taxes.

therefore it is not their will for their money aid in bloodshed. To some people, they pay taxes not to fund the killing in others, but rather to pay for schools, firefighters, policemen, national parks, social security, etc.

[K-W]

31. you missed his point and you are spreading lies

HE WAS MAKING A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PENTAGON AND THE TERRORISTS

He wasnt discussing his personal values, that paragraph was a part of a larger argument.

[Fenris]

12. Did you even read his essay?

He siad nothing of the sort.

[Inland]

15. Here's what he said. Ward, that is. But it could have been Osama.

"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. 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. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0204-32.htm

[manic expression]

47. I agree with Churchill

He was saying that the people of the US indirectly contributed toward what happened on 9/11. Their government brought upon the attacks by their actions around the world, and those actions simply turned upon the one which caused them. The people who died (tragically, there can be no doubt, and Ward would agree with me in saying that) on 9/11 contributed to this because they did not completely oppose the actions of their government. This does not make their deaths any more justified or necessary in any way. What it does is show how the people of America have collectively and individually contributed to the actions of the US and therefore the attacks of 9/11. Me, Ward Churchill (he even said he was guilty) and every US citizen is in part responsible for this to some degree because of our support of our government (or because our resistance against our government is not strong enough) and the actions thereof.

To me, it makes the deaths of the people who died on 9/11 even more tragic, because their own government and system which they did contribute to (it is very hard to avoid doing this) caused their horrible deaths. That makes me even more sad/angry.

[Zuni]

19. He just posted the section of the article

It is mindless leftism---inarticulate, ahistorical political extremism.
Fuck Ward Churchill.
I'll defend his right to speak but I don't care to listen to what he has to say. He is an embarrassment to the progressive movement.

[K-W]

33. No, you are the embarassment. You chose to believe lies.

It is clear you havent a clue of what Ward Churchill actually said.

[leftynyc]

44. I agree with you 100%

Why people here are defending him is beyond me. As a New Yorker, what he said was vile and inexcusable.

[Skidmore]

14. You should listen to the program on FSTV...

I doubt very much if you'd disagree with the man after hearing what he has to say about peoples misinterpretation of his statement.

[Inland]

17. Thanks. I don't need Prof. Churchill to tell me how to read.

If he wants to claim to be misinterpreted, then he is a coward on top of it. He was plain enough, and to claim to be misinterpreted--well, he can apologize and take it back or lie about it. I'm really not interested in the latter.

"Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. 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. 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."

[K-W]

35. Apparently you do.

You didnt read it right. He never said what you think he said.

[Zuni]

18. I think his statement is quite clear

and it is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
Churchill is an asshat.

I think he is about as good for us as Gannon is for the pukes.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. Churchill is a Nazi asshat

.

[ohkay]

6. Yes he is

and if he wants to spout his garbage all day long, I support his right to do so.

[ulysses]

7. no more defensible a statement

than Churchill's regarding "little Eichmanns". Care to elaborate?

[bpilgrim]

10. spoken like a real reTHUG

on a public, progressive bbs... you must be proud

peace

[K-W]

36. You believe right wing lies as truth, you are the asshat.

You misunderstood ward churchill, good work.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[bpilgrim]

11. got a link?

or are you just spewing :shrug:

peace

[Fenris]

13. *chuckle* That's what I thought. Bye-bye disruptor.

Wasn't even trying. Next time don't spend your second post spewing conservative propaganda.

[ohkay]

20. aww!!

I missed it!! What did the troll say??

I always miss the trolls when they're live.
Damn you DU admin for being so efficient!

:(

[Selatius]

21. I understand Ward Churchill's sentiments

I think though his judgment of the victims was unwarranted. He does paint a very unflattering picture of the US in general, a genocidal, power hungry super-state. Perhaps he was lashing out over years of anger and resentment over the status quo in this country.

I don't wish death on anyone's head, but it's naive to think that there would not be a dear price to pay for the crimes the central government and its corporate financiers have committed IN OUR NAME throughout history. The attacks on 9/11 could've been avoided had the people over the previous several decades stood up and resoundingly sent a message to the government that these crimes, crimes such as the destruction of democracy in Iran in the 1950s to support of the bloody Contras in Nicaragua, are intolerable and that they must stop.

Unfortunately, we never lived in that world. We live in a world where few fought for justice, while the rest did nothing or actively made things worse.

[bush_is_wacko]

22. I don't like the words the man chose to use, but he was pretty truthful

about the WHY's? And I fear he is probably dead on about the fact that it is going to happen again if something isn't changed. Our government has a seek and destroy policy and it seems to have reached critical mass with regards to how many times it can conduct this CYA policy before it becomes completely obvious they are doing it.

By my estimation this particular administration and the previous Bush administration have accidented and suicided and WMD'd so often people got curious. When they realized how interconnected all of it was they got WORRIED and when they realized the MSM was in on the secrecy they got PISSED!

I think we've reached the stage where the secrets are too many and too gruesome to be completely covered up. One lie leads to another, to another, to another...

Too many lies!

Churchill just saw it BEFORE the rest of us did with a little more clarity.

[B0S0X87]

28. What he said is indefensible

and if you wish to carry on the stereotype that democrats are bin Laden apologists who don't care about human life, go ahead, defend what he said.

I'll defend his right to free speech no matter how asinine it is (same with guys like Santorum), but really, saying that the people in the WTC deserved what they got is beyond reason.

[Tinoire]

29. Guess you didn't read his essay either. n/t

[B0S0X87]

30. Actually I did

And calling the people who were killed in the WTC attacks "Little Eichmanns" got my blood boiling.

I knew a few people who were killed that day. They were good, hardworking people who supported their families and lived ethical lives.

Fuck Ward Churchill.

[not systems]

32. Then they were not the "Little Eichmanns" he was...

very clear what he meant by that.

Anyone who fit the description "Little Eichmanns" was not living a
ethical life.

The sad truth he pointed out was that by our own standards
the WTC was a "command and control center" and the good people
who died would be easily dismissed as collateral damage by
most Americans.

He said the attack was wrong and it is also wrong when the
US kills innocents. Like we always do with a quick dismissal
as military necessity.

[ArkDem]

39. I really liked his 'Blood,Sweat and Tears' speech!

[SoCalDem]

41. Sorry, But Ward "let them in" ...he sent them an invitation..

Controversial people often say unpopular/outrageous things to gain attention that they otherwise would not get..

He's an intelligent man, and he could have made his point in many other ways.. He chose his words, knowing that they would create an uproar.,

[bpilgrim]

42. oh... he just wanted attention for himself

:crazy:

peace

[BansheeDem]

45. Dismantling the Politics of Comfort

A portion of the The Satya Interview with Ward Churchill:

So if it takes eradication of the beast from within, how would you see that happening?

Well, first the withdrawal of consent, people imbued with consciousness to withdraw altogether from an embrace of the state. If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? I’ve never fashioned myself to be a revolutionary, but it’s part and parcel of what I’m talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in which something better can replace it. In instability there’s potential. That’s about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. I’m actually a de-evolutionary. I don’t want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.

So what does that look like?

There’s no U.S. in America anymore. What’s on the map instead? Well let’s just start with territoralities often delineated in treaties of fact—territoralities of 500 indigenous nations imbued with an inalienable right to self-determination, definable territoralities which are jurisdictionally separate. Then you’ve got things like the internal diasporic population of African Americans in internal colonies that have been established by the imposition of labor patterns upon them. You’ve got Appalachian whites. Since the U.S. unilaterally violated its treaty obligations, it forfeits its rights—or presumption of rights—under international law. Basically, you’ve got a dismantlement and devolution of the U.S. territorial and jurisdictional corpus into something that would be more akin to diasporic self-governing entities and a multiplicity of geographical locations. A-ha, chew on that one for awhile. There’s no overarching authority other than consensus or agreement between each of these. There has to be a collaborative and cooperative arrangement rather than something that’s centrally organized and arbitrarily imposed.

So, according to Churchill, his perfect world would not include the United States, but rather "... territoralities often delineated in treaties of fact—territoralities of 500 indigenous nations imbued with an inalienable right to self-determination, definable territoralities which are jurisdictionally separate."

I not only find this kind of thinking rather bizarre, but dangerous. If this is the type of action that he is advocating from his position as a professor - then he needs to step down.

http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html

[Tactical Progressive]

46. Churchill's point is that we are all 'little Eichmanns'

including himself, when we countenance evil done for our ultimate benefit. It is, in effect, done in our names and so is part of all of our doing, especially so in a democracy.

The concept is unassailable. If you think the concept is wrong, then you haven't the vaguest notion about what humanity is.

I saw his campus speech on C-SPAN and he included himself as part of the problem, though less than many because he has fought to try to stop it. That again is conceptually correct, and the self-inclusiveness ought to afford some accessibility to those reacting to the starkness of the argument.

As to the language, it is indeed inflammatory, on purpose, and I can see the case where it is warranted, to try to knock some sense of reason into what is otherwise an intentionally oblivious mindset we have here in America. It would be one thing if the more terrible costs of Western, capitalistic ascention were part of the civic dialog, but they are not. Ever, in this country. So you make the point hard, and the way he did that is to hit on the wound of 9/11 to make it. I call that a public service, and a brave one. I've said this before and I'll say it again: Ward Churchill cares more about the people who died in the World Trade Centers than those who use 9/11 to further their own ends or those who wallow in it to affirm their pre-existing bigotries about our society.

If you think that *you* are not 'a little Eichmann', then you are indeed one of the uglies. I know I am. I like my standard of living and I rarely spend much time thinking about how much pain it causes to have it. Churchill is trying to get people to see that pain and he uses the pain of terrorist blowback to try to pry people's hard-shut eyes open. In that cause I support his strident metaphor to try to get the point across. In that context his stridency is not just warranted, it is necessary.

Those who choose to not understand what he is and has been saying, are by definition more a part of the problem than than those who do understand.

[Inland]

48. Sorry, but that's a lot of hooey.

Something that is done by somebody else doesn't become my liability because a sufficiently vague and meaningless term like "countenanced", or "done for our ultimate benefit" is attached to it. It is not the doing of the busboy, dead in the world trade center, that something is "in effect, done in his name".

I could no more apply that attenuated dispersal of responsbility through societies to the WTC than I could apply it to a nuclear bomb on Saudi Arabia or a genocide of Arabs.

Even aggressor societies upon whom there is a declared war are treated better than that, and they should be. Even in Nazi Germany, not every man, woman and child was an Eichmann, or even a Nazi.

So I am wondering what it is that the WTC victims did that was so criminal that they deserved a horrible death and the terrorists were justified. It turns out that it was nothing THEY did. And nothing they could have prevented. And maybe nothing they even knew about.

While they can't escape a penalty, the people who did it are justified as working justice.

And Ward Churchill doesn't consider himself part of the problem. If he did, he would gleefully kill himself. His essay shows his disgust with the celphones, and the stock trading, and the working and the making money. He, as an academic who contributes nothing to society, is freed from any implication of guilt. But the busboy and the secretary are part of the economy. They are complicit in death squads, imperialism, as Churchill sits on land taken from the Indians and awarded his university and paid with taxes earned from the very economy he decries as a war engine. What a dick.

And please--it isn't the use of a metaphor. There isn't anything metaphorical about declaring the dead to have received a just punishment. It isn't about shock value. Justifying murder in order to make people aware of the pain their lifestyle causes isn't just bad polemic likely to make enemies out of people who don't feel they should be killed for working nine to five. It is profoundly evil.

Here's a moral guidline for you when figuring out who to punish for a nation's crimes. First of all, the people who did it, did it. Those who didn't do it, didn't do it.

It's a good rule.