http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=4&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_us/speaker_protest

Ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado has a lot of people very upset.  I agree with this longtime Native American activist.  Americans need to quit acting like we are God's chosen people entitled to do whatever we want to the rest of the world. 
I wouldn't have used the nazi analogy Churchill used to describe the workers in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 
Most Americans believe the nazis deserved to die.  I don't believe any Americans killed on 9/11 deserved that fate. 
Some of the people killed in the attacks were bankers, businessmen, and "technocrats" directly involved in perpetuating American imperial oppression.  The vast majority were just people trying to earn a buck and get by.
I have no problem with Churchill using strong language to throw a proverbial bucket of cold water on self-righteous Americans, but he needs to lay off the nazi imagery.
Of course, if Churchill had said the same things in a less inflammatory manner, it wouldn't have mattered much.  Today, all dissent is considered un-American, and the rightwing media crucifiies anybody who objects to the current regime of madness.
I am especially glad Churchill hasn't backpedaled or backed down.  It's nice to see somebody say what they believe without apology.

I saw his interview with Paula Zann on CNN, and while I agree with you on the Nazi thing, the guy has a point.

You are right in pointing out that many of those killed in the WTC were not involved directly in the military, financial, industrial imperialism, I would point out that that is very often the case.  How many "collateral damages" did we inflict in Vietnam (as if the other "damages" were legitimate)?  How many East Timorans were slaughtered brcause Henry Kissinger noded his head in assent, how many Chileans?

I got a  tee shirt for xmas (which I mentioned before) with a foto of Geronimo and his band.  The caption is "Homeland Security, fighting terrorism since 1492".  Terroists attack us.  We kill in the name of democracy and freedom.  Unfortunately, for all to many, the "freedom" we are discussing is the freedom of the grave.  How many Russians died while we were empowering the Taliban?

Two words: FIRST ADMENDMENT!!! Without the First Admendment, this country wouldn't be what it is "supposed" to be. It gives us the freedom to speak our minds, practice our beliefs, etc. It really P!SSES me off when people try to stifle the First Admendment-whether we agree with it or not.




Cat

With all do respect, I don't see how anyone is trying to stifle his first amendment rights.  He didn't get hauled off to prison for saying what he did.  He stepped down on his own.  The Gov of Colorado wants him fired, true.  But that isn't stopping him from speaking his mind.

Although I totally disagree with what he said, I do respect him for not backing down.  Takes guts to do what he is doing.

With all do respect, I don't see how anyone is trying to stifle his first amendment rights.  He didn't get hauled off to prison for saying what he did.  He stepped down on his own.  The Gov of Colorado wants him fired, true.  But that isn't stopping him from speaking his mind.

Although I totally disagree with what he said, I do respect him for not backing down.  Takes guts to do what he is doing.

Yes, but if the University fires WC, the message will be: consequences of speaking your mind may result in loss of job.
That's what we First Amendment defenders call a "chilling effect."  It is an insidious method of repression.

I don't take what O'Reilly says at face value, but if WC did in fact say there was no systemic government plan to exterminate the Jewish people in the Third Reich, that is indeed deplorable.  It doesn't make WC wrong about everything else.  It does make me question his judgment.

This guy was well within his First Amendment rights to say what he said. I am also well within my First Amendment rights to say that I think this guy is a complete jackass.  >:(

Longtime local activist Evan Ravitz said "I've known Ward for 25 years, He's a big guy with a mean heart. He'll demean you if you get into it with him. His meanness discredits his work and brings a backlash."

Jeff O'Halloran, 20, a sophmore majoring in psychology and film student, asked during the question and answer period, "Where do you get the gall to call people who died on 911 'technocrats,' when you sit there and collect $90,000 a year from the government you puport to hate?"
Churchill replied that he never claimed to be innocent." Others said  he seems angry and bitter about things that happened centuries ago. 

My take...and I broke my New Years resolution that I'd stay out of this place, he's a mean spirited person....period :P

Longtime local activist Evan Ravitz said "I've known Ward for 25 years, He's a big guy with a mean heart. He'll demean you if you get into it with him. His meanness discredits his work and brings a backlash."

Jeff O'Halloran, 20, a sophmore majoring in psychology and film student, asked during the question and answer period, "Where do you get the gall to call people who died on 911 'technocrats,' when you sit there and collect $90,000 a year from the government you puport to hate?"
Churchill replied that he never claimed to be innocent." Others said  he seems angry and bitter about things that happened centuries ago. 

My take...and I broke my New Years resolution that I'd stay out of this place, he's a mean spirited person....period :P

Look, I don't wanna go have a beer with the guy.  He is angry.  A lot of people around the globe are angry for the same reasons.  The white man has mistreated every people and every culture he has met.  Whether the atrocities were last week, five years ago, or five hundred years ago, an atrocity unpunished is an atrocity excused.  That's the ugly truth as revealed by Churchill.

And I loved the way he smacked down those college Republican club-type wisenheimers!

With all do respect, I don't see how anyone is trying to stifle his first amendment rights.  He didn't get hauled off to prison for saying what he did.  He stepped down on his own.  The Gov of Colorado wants him fired, true.  But that isn't stopping him from speaking his mind.

Although I totally disagree with what he said, I do respect him for not backing down.  Takes guts to do what he is doing.



They have been trying to stop him from speaking. They stopped him from speaking at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. but claimed it was due to security reasons. I think this story screams of First Admendment rights.




Cat

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=4&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_re_us/speaker_protest

Ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado has a lot of people very upset.  I agree with this longtime Native American activist.
AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT GRAND GOVERNING COUNCIL


MINISTRY FOR INFORMATION
P.O. Box 13521
Minneapolis MN 55414
612/ 721-3914 . fax 612/ 721-7826
Email: aimggc@worldnet.att.net
Web Address: www.aimovement.org




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ward Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York on February 3, 2005. His appearance was canceled by the college after he caused a public furor over his loathsome remarks about the 9-11 tragedy in New York. AIM's Grand Governing Council has been dealing with Churchill's hateful attitude and rip-off of Indian people for years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.

Churchill’s statement that these people deserved what happened to them, and calling them little Eichmanns, comparing them to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who implemented Adolf Hitler’s plan to exterminate European Jews and others, should be condemned by all.

The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns.

Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement.

New York’s Hamilton College Kirklands Project should be aware that in their search for truth and justice, the idea that they have hired a fraud to speak on Indian activism is in itself a betrayal of their goals.

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill.jpg

AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT GRAND GOVERNING COUNCIL


MINISTRY FOR INFORMATION
P.O. Box 13521
Minneapolis MN 55414
612/ 721-3914 . fax 612/ 721-7826
Email: aimggc@worldnet.att.net
Web Address: www.aimovement.org




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ward Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York on February 3, 2005. His appearance was canceled by the college after he caused a public furor over his loathsome remarks about the 9-11 tragedy in New York. AIM's Grand Governing Council has been dealing with Churchill's hateful attitude and rip-off of Indian people for years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.



Hmmm....this I did not know, but there it is right on on the AIM site.  Do they also object to Russell Means who introduced Churchill for his speech on Tuesday?  Probably.
Like ALL political movements, Native American activism is vulnerable to splintering, factioning, and internecine fighting.  To accept at face value the national AIM's impeachment of Churchill is no wiser than accepting at face value all claims made by Churchill himself.
AIM has survived inner struggles for money, power, and influence since the '70s.  In political movements, sometimes one's nearest allies become a threatening enemy due to ideological differences.
The article linked below, Open Letter to Paul DeMain by Bob Robideau, Spokesperson for New Mexico AIM, concerns the internecine fighting in national AIM and state chapters and does discuss claims made against Churchill.  Now, I'm sure Paul DeMain would impeach Robideau with well-backed arguments just as quickly as vice versa.  The rest of us concerned with the issues will just have draw our own conclusions.  This kind of 30-plus year fight never really gets resolved.
http://www.coloradoaim.org/history/1994RobideauslettertoPaulDemain.htm

From what I read in the article, Professor Churchill spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America. I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between voicing your opposition to your government (hell, I'M opposed to a lot of what our government does) and actively showing sympathy and support for a terrorist group that would like nothing more than to exterminate ever last man, woman, and child in the United States of America. Basically what Professor Churchill is saying, in a nutshell, is that Al-Qaeda are the good guys. This whole notion of "America got what it deserved on 9/11" makes my blood boil. (Yeah, f*ck'em, they were yuppies.) Would this jerk stand up and cheer if tens of thousands of Americans were suddenly vaporized by a nuclear device that was detonated in a football stadium?
    Is this really the sentiment of the left in this country? Is this what today's kids are learning on our college campuses? I never finished college, so I may not be as educated as the rest of you, but how on Earth can you support someone like this???

Yes, but if the University fires WC, the message will be: consequences of speaking your mind may result in loss of job.



They can fire him simply for lying about being an American Indian on his job application, and for having phony degrees.

Ethnic studies is a crock anyway.

Ethnic studies is a crock anyway.

Why?

AL-B wrote:
Is this really the sentiment of the left in this country? Is this what today's kids are learning on our college campuses? I never finished college, so I may not be as educated as the rest of you, but how on Earth can you support someone like this???
I don't "support" Ward Churchill so much as I accept his point of view as one held by many millions throughout the world.  Beyond the inflammatory nature of Churchill's remarks is the truth about America our government and our media try to hide.  They don't hate us because they are jealous of our freedom, or any of that insipid BS the corporate media pushes.  They hate us because of our imperial economics and murderous foreign policy. 
America, as the the remaining "superpower," is a target for terrorism.  We can become a militaristic state with walls, guards, and checkpoints everywhere, like Israel has, and still get nailed, like Israel still does, or we can rethink our national agenda.

.

Ethnic studies is a crock anyway.


What?  You mean we who are not of the ASP (Anglo-Saxon-Protestant) persuasion (the "white is redundant") are "a crock"?  Is only your culture of value?  Gandi was once asked what he thought of "western civilization"  his reply "I think it would be a good idea".  My own Hispanic heritage is as stained with innocent blood as is the anglo, but my Puerto Rican culturte is as valid as the anglo, and since you gringos made us citizens by act of Congress, you must think so too.  This is an extremely arrogant, ethnocentric, parochial (I could add some adjectives but I would probably get banned) comment I have seen here in a long time.  An example of right wing zinophobia. 

I don't "support" Ward Churchill so much as I accept his point of view as one held by many millions throughout the world.  Beyond the inflammatory nature of Churchill's remarks is the truth about America our government and our media try to hide.  They don't hate us because they are jealous of our freedom, or any of that insipid BS the corporate media pushes.  They hate us because of our imperial economics and murderous foreign policy. 
If that is the case, then why all the countless instances of American generosity throughout history? It seems like every time a Third World nation is devastated by some natural disaster, the U.S. is the first to respond with food and medical aid and search and rescue experts. If we're such horrible people than why did we sink billions of dollars into the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan? And if that tsunami had hit the West Coast and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, how many countries would so much as lift a finger to help US?
    Look, I wasn't born yesterday. I know that our government has done some bad things in the past, particularly when it came to fighting the Cold War. And I know that some of our past dirty deeds are coming back to bite us in the @ss. And I know what Ward Churchill's motivation is. He's trying to make people think. Lord knows he's made me do some thinking. But I also think that this is a stupid way to go about it, especially if you're a liberal in the year 2005. Whenever a liberal tries to make an inflammatory statement (or action) to try and draw attention to their cause, it's such an ineffective and self-defeating tactic that it amazes me that in this day and age there are people out there who still use it. No one ever gives a hoot about the cause they are trying to promote, and all they wind up doing in the end is making complete fools of themselves. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity LOVE people like this. People like Ward Churchill validate every stereotype about liberals that the right-wing talk shows try to perpetuate. Stuff like this makes me believe that the liberal movement is utterly clueless when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of Middle America. If the left can't figure this out than maybe the Republicans deserve to be in power for another generation.

If that is the case, then why all the countless instances of American generosity throughout history? It seems like every time a Third World nation is devastated by some natural disaster, the U.S. is the first to respond with food and medical aid and search and rescue experts. If we're such horrible people than why did we sink billions of dollars into the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan? And if that tsunami had hit the West Coast and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, how many countries would so much as lift a finger to help US?
Well, here we have to dispel the notion that the U.S. is either all good or all evil.  In fact, I would rather not think in those terms regarding global politics.  I would rather refer to economic power beyond good and evil
The United States acts out the economic interests of corporations and the super rich.  The Marshall Plan was in the interests of the economic elites.  It was worth doling out the billions rather than see Europe fall into the heads of the Soviets.  A great time would be had by all if Uncle Joe was running the farm, right? 
Wrong. 
In light of what happened in Germany after WWI that led to the coronation of the Nazis, and in light of  Soviet oppression and Soviet atrocities, the Marshall plan was humanitarian, perhaps ultimately humanitarian.  There is sort of a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq.
But there will be no Marshall Plan for sub-Saharan Africa.  Unlike Europe then and Iraq now, corporate America sees too little consequence in Africa to bother.

The U.S. cuts with one hand and heals with the other.  The U.S. causes human suffering in countries such as Vietnam, but will deliver most generously to a country victim to a high-profile disaster.  The Indonesian tsunamis was a high-profile natural disaster.  It was sudden.  It was elegant.  The U.S. wants to help because there is popular humanitarian support, and pressure from the other nations for us to help out.
Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are being slowly suffocated by the AIDS plague.  Bush made some sort of BS pledge to help with the problem and that was that.  From AIDS in Africa more people will suffer and die this year than people who were killed in the tsunamis.  Yet it has become quasi-acceptable to us that Africans die in nasty ways.  AIDS is a bigger disaster than tsunamis, but somehow the Indonesians are more deserving because their plight obviously was not at all their fault.
And the U.S. should give the most because the U.S. has the most.
    Look, I wasn't born yesterday. I know that our government has done some bad things in the past, particularly when it came to fighting the Cold War. And I know that some of our past dirty deeds are coming back to bite us in the @ss. And I know what Ward Churchill's motivation is. He's trying to make people think. Lord knows he's made me do some thinking. But I also think that this is a stupid way to go about it, especially if you're a liberal in the year 2005. Whenever a liberal tries to make an inflammatory statement (or action) to try and draw attention to their cause, it's such an ineffective and self-defeating tactic that it amazes me that in this day and age there are people out there who still use it. No one ever gives a hoot about the cause they are trying to promote, and all they wind up doing in the end is making complete fools of themselves. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity LOVE people like this. People like Ward Churchill validate every stereotype about liberals that the right-wing talk shows try to perpetuate. Stuff like this makes me believe that the liberal movement is utterly clueless when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of Middle America. If the left can't figure this out than maybe the Republicans deserve to be in power for another generation.

Ward Churchill is not a "liberal," he is a radical.  He's not part of the "liberal movement" either.
And I agree with you about Churchill's rhetoric, BTW.  The problem is, I don't know how you tell Americans their country done wrong?  If you're subtle about it, it creeps in one ear and straight out the other.  If you're blunt and inflammatory about it, like Churchill, they cuss you and call you "anti-American."
If you read Noam Chomsky, you will see enumerated the opressive misdeeds of America.  Chomsky is biased against the American government, but all the misdeeds Chomsky mentions are true.  You can go back and document everything he says (but not if you use American history textbooks).  What I like about Chomsky is he shows us the results of American capitalism.  Now, there are certainly good results of American capitalism, but you read all about them in school, or just watch  FOX News.
We need to know the true motivations of corporations, familes of influence, and the U.S. government in order to be informed citizens.
Right now we are fed dogmatic diatribes about "market good, government bad."  We live in a fog created by Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.  There is no "liberal" media when it comes to capitalism.  Well, my friends, that just don't cut the mustard.
That's where tell-all Noam Chomsky comes in.  And even Ward Churchill.
Yes, let's read about George Washington crossing the Patomak, but let's also read about Reagan's illegal war in El Salvador.
I'm not with Ward Churchill on banning Columbus Day, but when Columbus Day comes, let's not kid ourselves.  Sure, let's take the standard far Columbus hagiography in stride, but let's also read the first chapter of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States

That's my rant, that's my rap, and that's a fact Jack!

Saying the people on 9-11 deserved to die is terrible!  :o  Even if they are yuppie scum, I wouldn't wish death on them.  That's sick!  But I don't think his right to speak anally should be taken. 

I'm a moderate liberal, although I'm VERY anti-Bush, but I don't like the way extremists like Moore talk.  They disgrace their parties and really help Republicans.

Effectiveness:  Ranting against US foreign policy turns people off.  Critisizing it logically and factually is ignored.  Which is better?

The issue itself:  Given our horrendous record of slaughtering "innocent victims" (like in Iraq) one could say that it is hardly surprising that sooner or later some one would figure out how to hit us.  On 9/11 those hit were not your run-of-the-mill enlisteds, as with the USS Cole, but at least some corporate big wigs, "the ones who give the orders".  Just remember, Adolph Eichman was just a bureaucrat following orders and miking the trains run on time.

Effectiveness:  Ranting against US foreign policy turns people off.  Critisizing it logically and factually is ignored.  Which is better?

The issue itself:  Given our horrendous record of slaughtering "innocent victims" (like in Iraq) one could say that it is hardly surprising that sooner or later some one would figure out how to hit us.  On 9/11 those hit were not your run-of-the-mill enlisteds, as with the USS Cole, but at least some corporate big wigs, "the ones who give the orders".  Just remember, Adolph Eichman was just a bureaucrat following orders and miking the trains run on time.

If only it was thst explicit.  The buck can be passed, but not passed to all.  Congress can pass the ball to the president, but the president can't pass the ball to the corporate paymasters.  No the president takes the fall for the corporate paymasters--and so does the legislative branch.  We've got to keep up appearances on this "democracy" thing.

Well, here we have to dispel the notion that the U.S. is either all good or all evil.Thank you for clarifying that.  :)
Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are being slowly suffocated by the AIDS plague.  Bush made some sort of BS pledge to help with the problem and that was that.  From AIDS in Africa more people will suffer and die this year than people who were killed in the tsunamis.  Yet it has become quasi-acceptable to us that Africans die in nasty ways.  AIDS is a bigger disaster than tsunamis, but somehow the Indonesians are more deserving because their plight obviously was not at all their fault.
I agree with this. I remember when Bush mentioned pledging money to Africa to help fight the spread of AIDS in his State Of The Union address a few years back, but I never knew what came of it. I was also angered at the U.N.'s response, or lack of it, to the massacre that occured in Rwanda several years ago, especially when you compare it to how quickly the situation in the Balkans was handled.
    Perhaps there is a more sinister motive behind the powers-that-be turning a blind eye to the AIDS epidemic. Maybe they think of it not only as a convenient way to get rid of people whom they consider to be less than desirable, but ulitimately as a form of population control.
Ward Churchill is not a "liberal," he is a radical.  He's not part of the "liberal movement" either. And I agree with you about Churchill's rhetoric, BTW.
Most of my friends and my family fall into the "liberal category," particularly my older brother, whom I have discussed this very topic with. I don't think that Ward Churchill speaks for the majority of liberals either but as I said earlier people like him provide the right-wing media with ammunition to further push their agenda.
The problem is, I don't know how you tell Americans their country done wrong?  If you're subtle about it, it creeps in one ear and straight out the other.  If you're blunt and inflammatory about it, like Churchill, they cuss you and call you "anti-American."
It seems like the left is caught between a rock and a hard place today. Over the last 10 years the right has become more media-savvy and right now they seem to be much more skilled at selling their agenda to Middle America. The pendulum has swung far to the right in America today, and it seems like the Republicans are doing everything in their power right now to ensure that it never swings back. After 9/11, it has become an increasingly difficult task for the Democrats to sell a progressive agenda to the American people while at the same time convincing us that they will do what is necessary to defend us.
If you read Noam Chomsky, you will see enumerated the opressive misdeeds of America.  Chomsky is biased against the American government, but all the misdeeds Chomsky mentions are true.  You can go back and document everything he says (but not if you use American history textbooks).  What I like about Chomsky is he shows us the results of American capitalism.  Now, there are certainly good results of American capitalism, but you read all about them in school, or just watch  FOX News.
We need to know the true motivations of corporations, familes of influence, and the U.S. government in order to be informed citizens.
Right now we are fed dogmatic diatribes about "market good, government bad."  We live in a fog created by Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.  There is no "liberal" media when it comes to capitalism.  Well, my friends, that just don't cut the mustard.
That's where tell-all Noam Chomsky comes in.  And even Ward Churchill.
Yes, let's read about George Washington crossing the Patomak, but let's also read about Reagan's illegal war in El Salvador.
I'm not with Ward Churchill on banning Columbus Day, but when Columbus Day comes, let's not kid ourselves.  Sure, let's take the standard far Columbus hagiography in stride, but let's also read the first chapter of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States

That's my rant, that's my rap, and that's a fact Jack!
What books by Noam Chomsky would you recommend? I would like to read up on this more.

BTW Max, thank you for a spirited and intelligent debate! ;)

Thank you for clarifying that.  :)I agree with this. I remember when Bush mentioned pledging money to Africa to help fight the spread of AIDS in his State Of The Union address a few years back, but I never knew what came of it. I was also angered at the U.N.'s response, or lack of it, to the massacre that occured in Rwanda several years ago, especially when you compare it to how quickly the situation in the Balkans was handled.
    Perhaps there is a more sinister motive behind the powers-that-be turning a blind eye to the AIDS epidemic. Maybe they think of it not only as a convenient way to get rid of people whom they consider to be less than desirable, but ulitimately as a form of population control.Most of my friends and my family fall into the "liberal category," particularly my older brother, whom I have discussed this very topic with. I don't think that Ward Churchill speaks for the majority of liberals either but as I said earlier people like him provide the right-wing media with ammunition to further push their agenda.It seems like the left is caught between a rock and a hard place today. Over the last 10 years the right has become more media-savvy and right now they seem to be much more skilled at selling their agenda to Middle America. The pendulum has swung far to the right in America today, and it seems like the Republicans are doing everything in their power right now to ensure that it never swings back. After 9/11, it has become an increasingly difficult task for the Democrats to sell a progressive agenda to the American people while at the same time convincing us that they will do what is necessary to defend us. What books by Noam Chomsky would you recommend? I would like to read up on this more.

BTW Max, thank you for a spirited and intelligent debate! ;)

Beware of falling into the rhetoric of the Right.  They are not "media savvy," they OWN the media and use it to spread their lies.  I find the Right obtuse and nakedly fascist.  Corporations don't like free markets.  They like a rigged deck.  Fascists like FOX News' Roger Ailes come right out of the advertising and public relations industry.  The goal of advertising and public relations is to deceive.  Reality is scary.  It alienates people.  Fantasy feels good and attracts people.  Thus, America's fascist party, the Republicans, sell Americans fantasy.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were utterly discredited except where it counts to Republicans, in the realm of fantasy.  FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the fascist lapdogs in the corporate media rant endlessly about how America has always been a force for justice and liberty in the world.  This is nonsense except where it counts, in the realm of fantasy.  The entire 2004 election was run on fantastical character issues and rumor-mongering on the level of a clique of ninth grade girls.  So-called "Middle America" bought it hook, line, and sinker.  It does no favors to grant "Middle America" the fantastical definition of "God-fearing, salt-of-the-Earth, true Americans."  This definition was thought up in the heart of "blue" America, New York City, by sophisticaed PR men with advanced university degrees.  "Middle America" believed what the Frank Luntzes of the world were telling them about themselves, and they got duped into voting against their own interests---BOTH economically AND culturally.  For this, "Middle America" (aka Whitey), deserves to be defined as no better than "vain and stupid."
Remember that Aesop's fable about the fox and the crow.  The fox wants the crow's prey, so he proceeds to flatter the crow until she is utterly pleased with herself.  He then flatters her about her wonderful singing voice and convinces her to give a recital.  When the crow opens her beak to sing, she drops her prey, the fox grabs it and splits. 
The crow is analogous to "Middle America" and the fox is analogous to the Republican Party (and "FOX" News)!

Ward Churchill may not be right about everything he says, but at least he says what he means, and doesn't play the PR game like the sissy mainstream Democrats.

IMO, the guys an idiot, but I have to defend his right to voice his opinion.

I'll grant he's impolitic, but what makes him an "idiot"?

the guy is an idiot.....


And possibly a plagiarist.....http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42834

And possibly a plagiarist.....http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42834


Paraphrasing with citation is not plagiarism and is accepted academic standards. 

The CONTROVERSY over the intentional spread of small pox is far from settled.  In fact, there is compelling evidance that Europeans as far back as the French & Indian war used this form of biological warfare, as did the Indians.  It is well know, for example, that Europeans packed dead animals in their grapeshot canisters in order to spread infection among their enemies.  So the assretion that the army didn't do it in 1837 may be technically correct, but totally misleading.  Further, whether the army did or did not use "biological weopons is rather a mute point.  There can be no denying that US policy regarding Indians was one of genocide. 

Paraphrasing with citation is not plagiarism and is accepted academic standards. 

The CONTROVERSY over the intentional spread of small pox is far from settled.  In fact, there is compelling evidance that Europeans as far back as the French & Indian war used this form of biological warfare, as did the Indians.  It is well know, for example, that Europeans packed dead animals in their grapeshot canisters in order to spread infection among their enemies.  So the assretion that the army didn't do it in 1837 may be technically correct, but totally misleading.  Further, whether the army did or did not use "biological weopons is rather a mute point.  There can be no denying that US policy regarding Indians was one of genocide. 

The smallpox infected blanket was a weapon of biological warfare deployed by none other than Lord Jeffrey Amherst.  Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. (my town), and many other Amhersts are named after Lord Jeffrey, who would be a terrorist by today's standards.  That is, unless he worked for the American government. 

So the other night Bill O'Reilly has this rightwing Indian named David Yeagley on his program.  He's got a site called baldeagle.com and rights for the rightie BS website "Front Page."  Anyway, Yeagley starts spewing this hogwash in objection to Churchill's "holocaust" comments.  Yeagley said his people were "warriors" who died fighting, unlike the "Jews who marched like sheep into the concentration camps."  I swear the further right a person goes the more ignorant he becomes.  I mean, is Yeagley genuinely ignorant or willfully ignorant? 
First, Churchill's detractors were criticizing him for using Nazi imagery, but this guy Yeagley who said on national television a most insulting thing about jews, that they just let themselves get slaughtered, passes under the radar.
Secondly, most indigenous people of the Americas did not die in battle.  Indians from Canada to Peru died en masse of European diseases, which often traveled faster than the white man himself.  The other chief causes of death for Native Americans have been economic privations, malnutrition, infant mortality, and alcoholism.  Far more Native Americans have died from these causes than were killed in conflict with Europeans.  Dr. Yeagley conveniently ignores the facts.
Then O'Reilly shoots his mouth off about a supposed "holocaust" of Indians "in the 19th century."  Oh, sure, like it was a transient phenomenon long over.  The "holocaust," the genocide of indigenous Americans started when Columbus landed in the Caribbean (there used to be such a people as Caribs, but not for about 500 years), and the slow genocide continues today.
THANK YOU FOX NEWS FOR BROADCASTING MORE PATHETIC LIES TO THE GULLIBLE AMERICAN PUBLIC!
::)

So the other night Bill O'Reilly has this rightwing Indian named David Yeagley on his program.  He's got a site called baldeagle.com and rights for the rightie BS website "Front Page."  Anyway, Yeagley starts spewing this hogwash in objection to Churchill's "holocaust" comments.  Yeagley said his people were "warriors" who died fighting, unlike the "Jews who marched like sheep into the concentration camps."  I swear the further right a person goes the more ignorant he becomes.  I mean, is Yeagley genuinely ignorant or willfully ignorant? 
First, Churchill's detractors were criticizing him for using Nazi imagery, but this guy Yeagley who said on national television a most insulting thing about jews, that they just let themselves get slaughtered, passes under the radar.
Secondly, most indigenous people of the Americas did not die in battle.  Indians from Canada to Peru died en masse of European diseases, which often traveled faster than the white man himself.  The other chief causes of death for Native Americans have been economic privations, malnutrition, infant mortality, and alcoholism.  Far more Native Americans have died from these causes than were killed in conflict with Europeans.  Dr. Yeagley conveniently ignores the facts.
Then O'Reilly shoots his mouth off about a supposed "holocaust" of Indians "in the 19th century."  Oh, sure, like it was a transient phenomenon long over.  The "holocaust," the genocide of indigenous Americans started when Columbus landed in the Caribbean (there used to be such a people as Caribs, but not for about 500 years), and the slow genocide continues today.


Oh good Lord, not another one. 

The government schools (aka the re-education centers) are brainwashing the kids.  Thank God some states (Ohio) are taking care of this.

Oh good Lord, not another one. 

The government schools (aka the re-education centers) are brainwashing the kids.  Thank God some states (Ohio) are taking care of this.

Another one what?  Another one willing to face basic historical facts?
::)

What are they doing in Ohio?  Are they inviting Sean Hannity and David Horowitz to manage the American history curriculum?
:P

What are they doing in Ohio?


www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5C%5CNation%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200502%5C%5CNAT20050211a.html

www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5C%5CNation%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200502%5C%5CNAT20050211a.html

I was being facetious, but I mean, speak of the devi!
Ohio Senate Bill 24 is said to be modeled after the "academic bill of rights" proposed by conservative activist David Horowitz.
:o
Horowitz is not conservative so much as he is paranoid, reactionary, vituperative, juvenile, and hysterical.

What a sick, sick world!

I heard that one of his "Sources" said that he LIED?

I heard that one of his "Sources" said that he LIED?

He who?

He who?
Russell Thornton, an anthropology professor at The University of California at Los Angeles specializing in American Indian Studies. I'll try and get you a link tomorrow but for now I have GOT to get some sleep....up at 5 for my job ;)

Russell Thornton, an anthropology professor at The University of California at Los Angeles specializing in American Indian Studies. I'll try and get you a link tomorrow but for now I have GOT to get some sleep....up at 5 for my job ;)


It's already known he is a liar.  Just use a search and find out his lies, I posted a link or two in the earlier pages, especially about him claiming he was American Indian....and his degrees are from these cheap "pay-and-get" type colleges...they (his degrees) are phony, as is he.

This is ridiculous....I've NEVER had a professor grade based on anything other than my performance in the classroom.  I've also never had one even state (or infer) their opinion or political beliefs in the classroom. ::)

I can't say no professors base grades on political prejudice, though it has never happened to me.  I'm sure there are some instructors neurotic enough to let their personal prejudices factor into grading, and shame on them.
However, the liberal bent of academia doesn't bother me.  I am a liberal because of what I believe is moral, just, and right.  If "balance" means teaching conservative ideologies about social policy and American history, for instance, I disagree because I think conservatives are morally and factually wrong.
By the same token, I have objected to some of the libertine attitudes of the far left on campus because I think they lead to trouble and misery.

Oh good Lord, not another one. 

The government schools (aka the re-education centers) are brainwashing the kids.  Thank God some states (Ohio) are taking care of this.


Your response to Max was so dismissive as to be arrogant.  Nothing that he said was historically inaccurate.  I'd be interested in knowing how Ohio "takes care of this".

www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5C%5CNation%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200502%5C%5CNAT20050211a.html


Stupid, and in my experience, unnecessary.

This is ridiculous....I've NEVER had a professor grade based on anything other than my performance in the classroom.  I've also never had one even state (or infer) their opinion or political beliefs in the classroom. ::)


I guess it depends on you major.  I express opinions and political beliefs all the time, however, I reward and encourage students to disagree with me and express their own views, as do my colleagues.

I guess it depends on you major. I express opinions and political beliefs all the time, however, I reward and encourage students to disagree with me and express their own views, as do my colleagues.


I agree, Carlos :) You're a teacher?  Good for you :)

I can't say no professors base grades on political prejudice, though it has never happened to me.  I'm sure there are some instructors neurotic enough to let their personal prejudices factor into grading, and shame on them.
However, the liberal bent of academia doesn't bother me.  I am a liberal because of what I believe is moral, just, and right.  If "balance" means teaching conservative ideologies about social policy and American history, for instance, I disagree because I think conservatives are morally and factually wrong.
By the same token, I have objected to some of the libertine attitudes of the far left on campus because I think they lead to trouble and misery.


There are bad apples in every profession, including in academia, but, as I tell my students, as my academic freedom is of critical importance to my, theirs must also be.  I reward them for disagreeing with me when they do it with logic and historical fact.

Your response to Max was so dismissive as to be arrogant.  Nothing that he said was historically inaccurate.  I'd be interested in knowing how Ohio "takes care of this".

As I've pointed out before, there's a supreme irony here.  I have huge issues with them gummint schools myself!  I always remember the Paul Simon line, "When I think back at all the CR*P I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all!"  However, I want to improve public education, the Right wants to destroy it.
American history in public high school has tended to be taught in a nationalist and iconographic fashion.  In fact, the most stunning thing is how little Americans tend to know about their own history.  I recently had to explain what McCarthyism was to a fellow who just finished his MBA.  That's not right!
As the cliche goes, "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it."  That is why it is vital not to deny the terrible things America has done from colonial times to yesterday.  The Right is incapable of thinking dualistically.  They think if you criticize America you cannot love it.  As Al Franken says, "Liberals love their country like grown-ups love one another, conservatives love their country like a three year-old loves his mommy and daddy."
As for "dismissive and arrogant," these are not qualities alien to the source!

There are bad apples in every profession, including in academia, but, as I tell my students, as my academic freedom is of critical importance to my, theirs must also be.  I reward them for disagreeing with me when they do it with logic and historical fact.
And that's the way things otter be!
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/AR/otter/otter-brown-left.gif

Stupid, and in my experience, unnecessary.


Is that why most liberals support the fairness doctrine?  Which is basically the same thing, but for radio.

Is that why most liberals support the fairness doctrine? Which is basically the same thing, but for radio.


Did you get my advice on how being polite would help your man more?  Because your posts have more polite lately. :)

Is that why most liberals support the fairness doctrine?  Which is basically the same thing, but for radio.

Uh, we support the Fairness Doctrine because it worked and it was necessary to the marketplace of ideas...not the literal marketplace of consumer products and services, but the metaphorical marketplace of social and political discourse.
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in the Reagan Administration in order to pave the way for the Republican propaganda machine personified by, but not limited to, Rush Limbaugh.
If Congress had been able to override Reagan's veto and save the Fairness Doctrine (then in place for 38 years), the American psyche would have been spared the rhetorical sewer of nonstop Limbaugh, Liddy, Dr. Laura, Hannity, Oliver North, and the rest of that pig swill. 
"Air America" would be unnecessary if the Right could compete in the ideas marketplace without quashing access to equal time.

And that's the way things otter be!
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/AR/otter/otter-brown-left.gif



Is that a play on words from the title of Rush Limbaugh's first book?

Is that a play on words from the title of Rush Limbaugh's first book?

You mean David Frum's book written under the name Rush Limbaugh!  And it wasn't a book so much as a spare toilet paper supply!
:D

Ethnic studies is a crock anyway.


The evidence just keeps piling up, doesn't it?

This, and Carlos this also is a reply to your reply to this comment, is so ASP-centric, it's sickening.

Ethnic studies do indeed pervade all Arts subjects, as when we study European History and American History, we are studying the history of White people. In Am.Hist. we study the history of ASPs dominating and opressing everyone else who dared to live on this continent. When we are required to take English and Lit. classes, we are having the language a literature of mostly ASPs shoved down our throats (with a few exceptions). So basically, going to college or high school at all already exposes you to Ethnic Studies, that of Anglo-Saxons and their language... period (but that's not a crock because English is God's language... right?). God forbid someone want to learn about another culture, maybe even their own ancestral culture. Is it a crock for an Amerindian (or anyone else for that matter) to want to immerse themselves in the languages and cultures of Native Americans, and possibly earn a certificate for their hard work?

I am majoring in either Irish Studies, or English... either way I'll opt to take the full Irish Language course load, and either way I'll be majoring in an Ethnic study. Either way I'll be busting my ass and working those neurons silly to learn and either way I'll deserve a degree for it. And it won't be "phony." There has to be intstitutions which keep these non-Anglo cultures and languages alive, and there needs to be people qualified to teach them (ergo, there needs to be degrees and programmes there suited for these people).

And I'm just wondering now, GW, what sort of degree do you possess? What makes you so qualified to dub an entire phylum of academia as "phony?"

I learned in school that "blacks didn't do anything in the civil war, they were freed by white northern troops"(my gg uncle was in the union army), "slaves didn't have it so bad, they were fed and clothed" "Indians killed the people trying to civilize the prairie" "only boys can take mechanical drawing because girls can't learn how to use a slide rule" and on and on. American history is ethnic history, not the slanted, censored version that rich(you will notice alot of history is about the rich) ASPs' have force fed the working classes.  Sadly the working classes have swallowed it.  I am not saying[before you(gw) start jumping up and down about my discriminating against the ASPs) that all references to ASPs should be stricken, but alot of history has been ignored. Recognizing and incorporating the history of people other than ASPs should not be considered "Ethnic Studies" it should be considered "American History".  People with your attitude have get over yourselves and educate yourselves to what is real in our (American) history.

I am majoring in either Irish Studies, or English... either way I'll opt to take the full Irish Language course load, and either way I'll be majoring in an Ethnic study. Either way I'll be busting my butt and working those neurons silly to learn and either way I'll deserve a degree for it. And it won't be "phony." There has to be intstitutions which keep these non-Anglo cultures and languages alive, and there needs to be people qualified to teach them (ergo, there needs to be degrees and programmes there suited for these people).



Irish Studies is real interesting(even if it is ethnic).  They have had an Irish Studies course at Umass Boston for many years and one of the best things it did was have a class that equated the Irish experience to the African experience in America.  There is a lot of tension between these two communities, partly because they fail to recognize their similarities.  People who took the course had their eyes open to that reality and I believe it is the most valuable part of these kind of programs. 

Irish Studies is real interesting(even if it is ethnic).  They have had an Irish Studies course at Umass Boston for many years and one of the best things it did was have a class that equated the Irish experience to the African experience in America.  There is a lot of tension between these two communities, partly because they fail to recognize their similarities.  People who took the course had their eyes open to that reality and I believe it is the most valuable part of these kind of programs. 

Though the Irish have a rich and important cultural history both to Europe and American, and though they have been among Europe's most oppressed, I get tired of hearing guys named Brendan O'Malley saying, "My great grandparents came here to signs saying 'No Irish Need Apply,'" as though that makes what the Irish faced anything like what African Americans have struggled with.

Irish Studies is real interesting(even if it is ethnic).  They have had an Irish Studies course at Umass Boston for many years and one of the best things it did was have a class that equated the Irish experience to the African experience in America.  There is a lot of tension between these two communities, partly because they fail to recognize their similarities.  People who took the course had their eyes open to that reality and I believe it is the most valuable part of these kind of programs. 


Awesome. I am more concerned, however, with the acquisition of the language... Most people know about the hardships the early Irish-Americans had to endure, but there are tons of people who don't even realise that there is an Irish language. They're like, "that's just English with a funny accent."  >:(

I can't wait. Béidh mé ag dul go Halifax, Alba Nua go dtí an Ollscoil Fhéile Máire.

(I'll be going to Halifax, Nova Scotia to Saint Mary's University.)

I get tired of hearing guys named Brendan O'Malley saying, "My great grandparents came here to signs saying 'No Irish Need Apply,'" as though that makes what the Irish faced anything like what African Americans have struggled with.


Careful now, Max. When it comes to the American experience of the Irish, that couldn't be more true. However, while Africans endured about 400+ years of oppression at the hands of Anglo-Saxons in America, the Irish had to endure it for nealry 1000 years back in Europe... and it wasn't cakewalk, even in comparison. Imagine being conscripted to fight for the king whose hired soldiers raped your women, took your family's land and gave it to some rich Englishman, beat your children for speaking their own language, and turned your whole country into one of indentured servitude across miles of one serfdom after another. Then after all that, you have to fight on the front lines for that king, ill-equiped, and when you die, your family gets no money and you're not even given a Christian burial. That's just the sucralose version of the story. You can get the sugar in the raw on your own if you feel like it.

I don't like drawing platitudes between the two situations, because it's sort of like "my people had it rougher than yours" and it's childish... but I would hate to have the lessons learned therefrom and its memory cheapened.

John Lennon said it best; "If you had the luck of the Irish, you'd wish you was English instead."