Can the A&A Group weigh in on this?

[Tafiti]

The Ward Churchill controversy.

What's everyone's opinions on this matter? I realize that this doesn't exactly pertain to Atheism or Agnosticism per se, but honestly, I have a great respect for posters in this forum, and I'm curious as to what you all think.

If you haven't read his essay in its entirety, it is here:

http://www.uvm.edu/~wmiller/roostingchickens.htm

Also read his recent press release, concerning the current controversy:

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

[Az]

1. The first illusion is that war is civilized

War is terrorism. We are used to it being waged between similarly armed cultures. In such a case it bears the illusion of fair. Defense against offense. Tactics and strategy. And yet it is still death and destruction.

People will defend what they have. Be it a bit of dirt or a way of life. They will defend it any way they can. But when a rich nation faces a poor culture there is no civilized way to resist.

A rich nation begins by inundating the culture. Economic forces and social forces come to bear. If the culture is able to hold them off it is typically by force and strong dogmatic authority. Anything less and the wolves will be in the village in no time.

But once such a resistance is put up it creates a context to use force. Their repression of the freedoms we so lovingly wish to present them with can be nothing less than tyranny. Thus they become tyrants. And tyrants must be destroyed. So now we have our pretext to use force.

But the sides are not well matched yet again. There may be no standing army of the side of the poor nation. All they have are people. People and conviction. Against the tyranny of the encroaching armed nation many will rally.

When pressed to a corner such as this how else are a people supposed to react. They cannot hope to strike back against the civilized army. That is mere suicide. It accomplishes nothing. This notion of civilized conflict favors the rich nation. The one that can field the better armed force. There is no reason for them to play by our rules. They have no part of it. They are not the aggressors. They have been assaulted and they will defend themself against those that have attacked them.

It is the other culture that has attacked them. It is the rich nation that has attacked them. Our civilized army is just our form of terror. It is just our form of forcing our way. Because they move boldly and in the open we believe them to be the civilized way to kill people. But it is not the only way to kill people or to make a point. Thus the tactics of the poor are to strike at the people behind the army where they have their only chance to make a difference.

[Tafiti]

10. Yes, yes.

"Our civilized army is just our form of terror."

Why can't intelligent people recognize this? We come with "shock and awe", completely destroying infrastructure and killing countless innocents, and it becomes, "well, that's a part of warfare."

Then they retaliate, and we cry foul play.

In either case, it's death and destruction, period.

No one wants to face the root causes, and investigate them, and think deeply about them, because everyone knows what they'll find. So they resist even looking at it, and lash out against any attempts by others to show them. It's too unsettling to have a comfortable worldview shattered like that. Ignorance is bliss.

[Az]

13. The war starts long before our armies show up

It is cultural warfare first. But the catch is that its culture warfare in name only. We export our culture as a commodity. It is the shock troop of our corporate state. And when our freedom and democracy are rejected and the infrastructure is forced to defend itself from our sewing of dissent we then can claim justification for bringing in our troops.

[trotsky]

2. Giving it and his press release a cursory read...

I'd be hard pressed to find something I disagree with. Sounds like he's just another clear-headed, rational person who is getting shouted down by the jingoistic, militaristic, xenophobic, ultra-religious powers that be.

"Blowback" is the other term you see used, and it is totally accurate. We, yes we, the good old U S of A armed and trained those Muhadeen fighters in Afghanistan who ended up being the Taliban. We are the ones who helped Saddam retain power, and gave him weapons (including chemical and biological agents) to fight the Iranians when we hated them for overthrowing the guy that we installed to rule them.

He makes perfect sense - most of America's current problems in the world are a result of our own actions. That, as he tries to point out, does not in any way justify 9/11 or further attacks, but it is something we must understand or we will never make any progress.

[Az]

3. The American way

Approach a nation. Offer it all sorts of wonders. But attach strings. Make sure they take drink the coolaid. If they don't allow us access to their economy then begin encroaching and forcing as much as you can on the public. When the government puts up it's hackles and bars us from access cry foul and proclaim their a totalitarian regieme.

Its a beautiful thing.

[trotsky]

4. Here's a handy graphic.

[Tafiti]

7. This graphic is great. n/t

[Tafiti]

6. Agreed.

"I'd be hard pressed to find something I disagree with."

Me, too. His logic and reason is clear, and the facts he presents are simply too much for people to even consider. It's a knee-jerk response, rather than a thoughtful consideration of his ideas.

I don't know if you've seen, but you should see the insults being thrown around about him in LBN.

His essay is "garbage"..."anti-Semitic hate" (what?)..."offensive"..."a disgrace"..."bigotry"..."lunacy"...

and Churchill is "a hatemonger"..."wacko"..."amazingly incompetent"..."idiot"..."an embarrassment"..."an ass"..."ignorant"..."windbag"..."extremist"...

This is the reason I wanted the A&A's opinions. Rational and logical thinking and can be hard to comeby elsewhere in DU, especially LBN.

[Az]

8. Still trying to clue into what the problem was

I read the first third or so and found nothing objectionable. Are they siting any chief comments as objectionable? I have not ventured into the LBN for a while and don't really want to wade through it right now. But have you noticed any main arguments?

[Tafiti]

11. Not really.

Some people readily admit they haven't read the essay.

The sticking point is his making the comparison between the people who worked in the WTC and "little Eichmanns", to make the point that "innocent civilians" is somewhat of a misnomer. His response to the criticism about that comment:

" 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. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name."

Other than that comment, no one's really engaging the core issues he raises in his essay to those in the thread defending him, and some only defend his right to free speech.

[Az]

30. The people of America prosper because they remain willfully ignorant

of their nations actions in other countries. Proclaiming innocence due to not actually pulling the trigger doesn't really cleanse our hands.

Our actions have consequences. Willfully blinding ourselves to them does not make them go away. In fact they can infuriate those we hurt all the more.

The people working in those towers were part of the machine that encroaches on the Islamic nations cultures. They may not be the planners. They may not be the killers. But they are part of the system that brings destruction to the world so far away.

[progressoid]

12. Wow, I didn't know. Strangely, I first heard it from Hannity's show!!

(I listen for a few minutes when picking up my daughter. When my blood pressure gets too high, I change stations).

But the only thing I read on DU wasn't bad.
Truthfully, I thought it was a minor news issue, like Hillary's stomach virus.

[progressoid]

5. To me an obvious comparison

between Churchill and the A&A group would be a tendency to see through the BS. In his case, the Orwellian political BS from our leaders and media. For us, it's religious BS. We have a tendency to not be clouded by the restrictions imposed from religious creed and dogma. He is desperately trying to free Americans from the shackles of blind patriotism. Many of us have also had to free ourselves from the shackles of religion only to watch our blissfully ignorant friends and family waste their time, energy, and $ on religion. This is frustrating to say the least.

He's clearly fed up with his country's ultra-nationalism and doesn't pull any punches in an attempt to wake his fellow citizens from their collective trance. In a few instances, he may have gone overboard but it's hardly reprehensible and certainly not untrue. He hasn't said much that we haven't already thought or read. The big issue is that he's a professor at a university - always a popular target for liberal bashing.

I can see how the RW is threatened by him - he tells the truth. He's a threat to the gospel of W and the Neocon disciples. Sadly, the only way they can fight this is to attack his patriotism or distort a single line in the essay.

[Tafiti]

9. As I said above...

...he's apparently not just a threat to the RW, but to many here on DU, where blind patriotism also abounds.

In addressing this issue to this Group, I had your thoughts in mind as well.

It's amazing how people cannot make the connections he makes in his article, as to how we somehow turn a blind eye to the pain and suffering we inflict on others, and blithely pass it off as "collateral damage", as he pointed out. It's this belief that America is the Godfather of the world, wise and benevolent, and undeserving of retaliation or revenge. Just looking at pictures of maimed and wounded (and dead, of course) in Iraq, the only surprise about 9/11 is that it didn't happen sooner, and more often.

One can apply here the cliche, "The truth hurts." Hence, all the name calling and the calls for his firing from DUers.

[kdmorris]

24. Their attempts to discredit him

Made them look like morons to me. But I'm not sure how it played to the rest of America. The only TV coverage I saw of this was on Paula Zahn, so that's all I have to go on right now, but he made her look like a complete fool.

"I can see how the RW is threatened by him - he tells the truth. He's a threat to the gospel of W and the Neocon disciples. Sadly, the only way they can fight this is to attack his patriotism or distort a single line in the essay. "

Here, here. And that just scares me all the more.

[Az]

25. The rest of America does not take the time

to educate themself. They accept what they are fed. Control the message and you control the people. This guy is toast. The message is he and liberals are terra loving America hating traitors. Get used to it. Thats the color for the day.

[kdmorris]

26. Oh, I'm used to it

I just try to find a spark of hope every once in a while. It's pretty hard to do these days. As far as I can tell, people pretty much believe anything that's on TV (as you said, if it's fed to them, they believe it). Add in the fact that I'm an atheist, and you get Terra Loving, America hating, God hating traitor to these people.

[Beetwasher]

14. I'm Lucky To Be Alive After 9/11

And I say this guy can say anything he damn wants as far as I'm concerned.

[fshrink]

15. If

America had seized 9/11 to promote peace, it would not have lost its supremacy (which it has now, although that might not be visible yet) and it would have ensured it for the foreseeable future. Supremacy, even in economical terms.
The leadership of this country, which includes, unfortunately, every single public figure except a lonely 94 year old man, has utterly failed its duty and missed an historical opportunity.
With an authentic idiot and a gang of fanatics kept in command due to the same failings, the rest of the story is highly predictable. A re-run of plundering and extermination with Hollywood special effects, emotions and smiles.
The guy is unfortunately right.

[SlackJawedYokel]

16. Ya know, the first time I read those

I thought "*finally* someone is saying these things out loud" besides me... ok, mumbling them quietly so as not to be overheard by the Thought Police... but still.
:D

Cletus.

[Tafiti]

19. No doubt.

Still being somewhat new to DU, I was reluctant to express my views in other forums like GD or LBN. But I'm comfortable in here, and I knew that I'd get calm, reasoned, thoughtful replies, and not knee-jerk, reactionary replies.

Sadly enough, I think the Thought Police has its share of deputies among some DU liberals as well.

[SlackJawedYokel]

21. Knee-jerk judgementalism is hard to overcome.

Still being somewhat new to DU, I was reluctant to express my views in other forums like GD or LBN. But I'm comfortable in here, and I knew that I'd get calm, reasoned, thoughtful replies, and not knee-jerk, reactionary replies.
Something to be said for having a safe place, eh?
Just don't let yourself get caught up in that segregationist mentality because as "calm, reasoned, thoughtful replies, and not knee-jerk, reactionary" people it is our civic duty to save these people from themselves.
Be a smarter-than-thou intellectual instead, like me.
:D
lol

But check out the *new* spin on this little caper.

I especially like this part:
"Well he was going to speak at some lefty university (they chickened out now and it's been cancelled) and there was outrage...

Oreilly did a story on it and that was about it...

But now it seems he is going to lose his job at the U of C...

Total Bullshit... Even Oreilly doesn't think he should lose his tenure over it..

I think they ARE going to fire him and it's because they are chicken SHIT... They can't take the fucking heat for what THEY support (And they DO support him or he would have been fired LONG AGO)

It's the public relations, chicken shit, can't stand up bullshit that is going to get him fired...

Ward Churchill is an idiot... But idiots such as this should be allowed their free speech... It does not go uncountered though... It is countered with additional free speech...
http://www.truthtree.com/Politics/posts/335076.html
(Disclosure: I was once an active member of this board, but the level of discourse never rose above 5th grade and the other "liberals" seemed more interested in kicking the puppies than anything else...99.98% of the posts are a complete waste of electrons.
I'd pegged and dismissed Sonic within 10 posts when he first arrived, but he became a fairly reliable source of all things "well spun" from the freepers as he seems only able to engage in blog-think.)

Anyway... enjoy.

Sadly enough, I think the Thought Police has its share of deputies among some DU liberals as well.
Yea, it can be tough.
It wasn't that I was worried about expressing myself, really, it was that I feel like most people aren't ready to hear the message.
And from recent responses to Prof. Churchill, still aren't.

Your average person is barely able to accept that they can be personally responsible, let alone socially/politically responsible.
And far too many people have an emotional investment in justifying America's Capitalist activity.
IOW, it wasn't that I was feeling repressed but rather that I felt arguing the issue was completely pointless.
Sorta like being a Marxist in this day and age, ya know?

Cletus

[kdmorris]

17. I hadn't heard about this until today

But it really bothers me. I saw this man on Paula Zahn today and I was so impressed. It was like listening to Dennis Kucinich speak. Except he was defending himself (really well, I might add) against that media cow who kept trying to get him to say that he had indeed said that "America deserved it".

First of all, this essay was written by Wade Churchill 2 and 1/2 years ago (check that 11-30-2001 date on the first link), and the media is using it now to make anti-war people (like me) look like a bunch of "terrorist lovers". And they will keep on belaboring the issue until they can get Democrats, in general, to separate themselves from us, thereby dividing us further. I don't love the terrorists. But I also can't hide behind the "patriotism" that says that America never engages in terrorism and we are always right. I think Osama Bin Laden should be caught and that the evidence we have should be presented in court. And I think the same thing should happen to both Bush 1 and Bush 2. Because what they have done in Iraq is a war crime.

Mr. Churchill is 100% correct. We have all these little colloquialisms to make it seem more correct when "we" engage in terrorism. "Collateral damage", "unfortunate accidents", "wrong place at the wrong time", "insurgents". But the truth of the matter is that it's the same thing. I hear so often "But we don't kill civilians ON PURPOSE". Like that makes them less dead. And whether it's on purpose or not, we don't give undue care to AVOIDING it either.

I'm talking about bombs, by the way. Not necessarily the "grunts" in the field. The fact remains that what Mr. Churchill said on Paula Zahn this evening made me cry to actually hear someone on TV not only use a vocabulary, but speak to the issue that I have long believed. We subjugate, humiliate, and dehumanize large portions of the world. We would have to be idiots to expect them not to fight back in whatever way they can.

[fshrink]

18. Well said my friend. nt

[Tafiti]

20. Yes, well said.

It makes you think how incredibly unfortunate it is that some of brightest, most intelligent people, who really have something of substance to offer, are completely ignored by the media until they're forced to talk to them due to some controversy or scandal.

Not that it makes a difference, really. Judging by some of the reactions from DUers, his views are almost certainly falling on deaf ears to the rest of the general population. And considering some of the insults being thrown at him from these same DUers, think of what the pundits must be saying about him. (Haven't watched any TV coverage of this.)

[kdmorris]

23. The TV coverage is pretty brutal and disgusting

I'd avoid it except for the need to try to figure out what these people are doing by trying to read between the lines of what CNN actually says and trying to figure out what they actually mean. CNN is the only channel I can even sort of stomach, though I find myself using very unflattering names for most of the news anchors.

They are trying to make it look like this person wrote the essay yesterday and that he's a real wacko. They seem to have a double edged attack going against him. First is to make him look like a terrorist and make anyone who agrees with him a terrorist. (That old "With us or against us" crap.) Second is to make it look like you wouldn't want to really send your kids to college, because look what they will be exposed to.

The first issue seems to be a ploy to further divide the population of this country. (Black vs white, religious vs atheist, Republican vs Democrat, North vs South, "Red" states vs "Blue" states, gay vs straight) And the really sad part is that it seems to be working. Just look at DU. The minute after Kerry conceded the first post went up about whether we should jettison "gay rights" into the stratosphere and pick a more "winnable" platform. And maybe we should just skip that "abortion" thing, too. ALL of that was fostered by the media asking those same questions. I think that one of the things that ends up making us non religious is our ability to think for ourselves. I NEVER thought we should become Republican Lite just to get some votes. If anything, we should base our platform on compassion and equality for ALL.

The second issue seems designed to keep people from being educated AT ALL. A dumber population is desirable when you are trying to "control the masses". It seems that most studies have shown that more educated people are less willing to "follow the party line", more likely to be stuck in dead end, poverty wage jobs, and more likely to have more than 2 children. And, they are less likely to vote. I saw a lot of people on DU after the election talking about those "country hicks" voting for Bush. But truthfully, most of those "country hicks" didn't vote for ANYBODY. They couldn't find time while working their two jobs to go do it. And who the hell wants to vote for some rich white guy, anyway? Nothing will change for these people and Kerry sure as hell didn't inspire them.

Often, these days, I find myself very sad and on the verge of just giving up. And then, I see this guy on TV and in the papers. And even though they are vilifying him and trying to crucify him, he is still out there telling his side, and standing up for what's right. And he gives me hope. Maybe more people will start to realize that the media is just a propaganda tool and that the course that this administration has set for this country is alarming.

[progressoid]

27. Again...Well said.

[Beetwasher]

32. You're On A TEAR! A Couple Of Awesome Posts There!

:thumbsup:

Nothing to add at all. You stated the whole thing quite eloquently!

[trotsky]

22. Wow, I wish we could nominate single posts for the front page.

That was awesome, kdmorris. Thanks.

[GOPFighter]

28. Here's a typical knee-jerk reaction by Richard Cohen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59185-2005Feb2.html

...Hamilton College, a venerable institution of higher learning in Upstate New York, which has canceled a speaking engagement for Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. For more than a week, Hamilton stuck to its guns, insisting that Churchill would speak no matter what -- no matter what being that he is an idiot. For some reason, Hamilton did not know this at first. It soon learned it in spades."

.........

"A more repellent, idiotic and badly written passage you're not likely to read. It probably does no good, but I'd like to point out to Churchill that if infants starved under Saddam Hussein, it was because Hussein chose to use relief money to buy arms and build palaces. As for the "little Eichmanns," a fair share of them were restaurant workers and deliverymen and clerical staff, and, of course, cops and firemen. They had packed their power lunches that morning."

......


Too bad. I recently emailed Cohen thanking him for his recent columns, "Don't Ask, Don;t Think" and "Fools Gold". He had a perfect opportunity here to reiterate Churchill's central thesis that Americans are often blind to the way our government's policies are seen by the rest of the world, and we seem totally unable to put ourselves in their shoes and experience how we would feel if the tables were turned. A damn shame!

[fshrink]

29. If that is a copy/paste quote, I'd

like to comment that it's not "stuck to its guns" but "stuck to his guns" which would be the correct expression. A "badly written passage" that, unfortunately, lots are likely to read.

[lazarus]

31. actually

since he was referring to Hamilton College, "its" works better than "his".

[fshrink]

33. Stand corrected. Thanks. nt

[leftofthedial]

34. I absolutely support his right to express his opinion

I agree with most of what he says

I think his use of 'Eichmann" was a needlessly broad and inflammatory brush stroke.