PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Weltall on February 05, 2005, 11:38:16 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20050205/ts_latimes/hesfoughtforhisviewsnowhisjob
He\'s Fought for His Views, Now His Job
By David Kelly
Times Staff Writer
BOULDER, Colo. — Ward L. Churchill has been angry for years, shaking a clenched fist at American power from the streets of Denver and the lecterns of academia.
He has compared his country to Nazi Germany and urged the hanging of "war criminals" like Henry Kissinger, President Clinton (news - web sites) and Madeleine Albright (news - web sites), the former secretary of State whom he called "that malignant toad."
Most of all, he has been a firm believer in karma: What America sows, it shall surely reap. "Payback," he said. "Can be a real mother."
For years, the radical views of the gray-haired professor in the dark glasses were heard mostly by his students at the University of Colorado at Boulder and his fellow travelers on the far left.
That all changed two weeks ago, when a paper surfaced that Churchill had written comparing victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to Nazis.
Now he\'s fighting for his academic life. Churchill has resigned as chairman of the ethnic studies department, but remains a professor. The university board of regents is investigating whether he should be fired, the governor wants him dismissed, the state Legislature has condemned him. And Indian groups are calling him a fraud, saying he\'s not a Native American, as he has said.
The controversy flared when Churchill, 57, was invited to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., on Native American prison issues. Before the lecture, a paper he wrote after the Sept. 11 attacks, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," was unearthed by Hamilton academics.
In it, Churchill argued that America deserved what happened Sept. 11 and had gotten off "very, very cheap."
Using occasionally crude language, he ridiculed Americans in general and spoke in admiring terms of the Al Qaeda hijackers.
If anything, he wrote, the "combat teams" were too patient and restrained in their attacks.
Churchill called the Pentagon (news - web sites) a legitimate target and said: "As for the World Trade Center…. Well, really. Let\'s get a grip here, shall we? … True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
The guilt of those who died at ground zero, he wrote, was having toiled in the "very heart of America\'s global financial empire." For that, Churchill called them "little Eichmanns," after Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann.
Hamilton College canceled the speech. On Thursday, University of Colorado regents publicly apologized to all Americans for Churchill\'s comments, while the state Senate passed a resolution denouncing the statements as "evil and inflammatory."
Controversy isn\'t new to Churchill. The longtime activist\'s writings include "Life in Occupied America," "Acts of Rebellion," "In a Pig\'s Eye: Reflections on the Police State, Repression and Native Americans" and "Fantasies of the Master Race."
Churchill did not respond to numerous requests for comment. But in a CNN interview Friday, he said he "probably could have been clearer" in his writing, but his goal had been to provoke the public. The point, he said, was to make Americans realize they were not immune to the suffering their government inflicted on others. As for the "little Eichmanns" comment, he said it didn\'t apply to janitors, food service workers and children killed in the attacks.
"I don\'t believe I owe an apology to anyone," he said.
Born near Peoria, Ill., Churchill has a master\'s degree in communications and is a U.S. Army veteran.
He has led numerous protests on behalf of Native Americans. Two weeks ago, Churchill and seven others were acquitted in the blocking of last year\'s Columbus Day Parade in Denver, which they said honored genocide.
"Ward is an extremely intelligent man, an advocate of nonviolence," said David Lane, a civil rights attorney representing Churchill. "He is very concerned about the underdog, both nationally and internationally. In this case, all he was doing was calling for an analysis on why 9/11 happened. When you are commenting on matters of public opinion, you can say whatever you want. He is blunt, direct and to the point — and that puts a lot of people off."
But others see him differently, including some Native Americans angry over his claims to be one of them.
At the top of his resume, Churchill lists his enrollment in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. Yet the chief of the Oklahoma tribe, George Wickliffe, said they "had no association with Churchill in any capacity whatsoever."
Churchill says he is three-sixteenths Cherokee.
Suzan Shown Harjo — president of the Morning Star Institute, a Native American rights group in Washington, D.C. — has Census data showing Churchill as born to parents listed as white. She said he had not shown up on the rolls of the tribes he said he belonged to.
"This is not a Native person. He goes around college campuses, saying he was at the occupation of Alcatraz, Wounded Knee and at the Bureau of Indian Affairs takeover in 1972. But no one can remember him being there," she said. "I was at the BIA takeover as a reporter, and I never saw him."
David Bradley, a well-known Indian artist in Santa Fe, earned Churchill\'s wrath by championing federal legislation that required those selling their work as Indian art to be able to prove their tribal ties.
"In the 1980s, money was flying like confetti around here. You had dozens of people pretending they were Indian and selling their art," Bradley said. "We had everything stolen from us for 500 years, and I wasn\'t going to let them take our art as well."
Churchill, who is also a painter, took issue with the effort.
"He wrote this slanderous attack about me. He tried to impugn my motives," Bradley said. "He ought to be fired. Shame on CU [University of Colorado] for giving this con man a job."
Bradley believes Churchill opposed the law because it affected his ability to sell his paintings.
Churchill attacked the 1990 Indian Arts and Crafts legislation, saying it gave rise to "witch hunts" among tribes looking for phony Indians and put undue importance on racial purity.
The American Indian Movement, based in Minnesota, has called for his dismissal from the university, saying he "fraudulently represented himself as an Indian" to build his career.
But firing a tenured professor isn\'t easy, and University of Colorado officials worry about stifling free speech.
For the next month, Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano will review Churchill\'s writings and recordings to see if there is evidence that could end in dismissal. Insubordination, incompetence and inciting violence are offenses that can lead to firing.
"One argument that could be made is that his writings and speeches have degenerated to a point where they are representative of professional incompetence," said Paul Campos, a law professor at the university and a columnist for the Rocky Mountain News. "In the same way, a college would not tolerate a member of the history department who said the Holocaust didn\'t happen."
Campos said even professors should have limits.
"A position that says you cannot fire a tenured professor because of anything he says is untenable — politically, morally and ethically," he said. "And I have had people in positions of power tell me that if this guy can\'t be fired, they can\'t support the notion of tenure."
Among Churchill\'s staunchest defenders are his students.
Thursday, dozens of them protested at the board of regents meeting, eventually shutting it down with their shouting.
"I agree with the spirit of his paper," said Shawn Baily, a former Churchill student. "If I wrote it, I wouldn\'t have put it that way. If they fire him, I will withdraw from the University of Colorado."
Even some who didn\'t agree with his Sept. 11 comments enjoyed his class, saying he welcomed dissent and argument.
"He\'s an amazing professor — the one I will always remember," said Darrell DeFabry, 21. "I was challenged on so many levels. How often can you say that?"
I have to give this wretched excuse of a shitsack masquerading as a human being one credit: He\'s honest enough to say what many liberals believe.
That said, he\'s still dispicable, and I can\'t think of enough horrible things to wish on him. If it were possible to be killed more than once, I\'d wish a million on him.
What a cocksucker.
-
i don\'t think you\'ll find ANY liberals that agree with his 911 statements,..but yea this cat is definitely screwed in the head...just because you\'re a professor doesn\'t mean you\'re immune to bein one sandwich short of a picnic...
-
Originally posted by clips
just because you\'re a professor doesn\'t mean you\'re immune to bein one sandwich short of a picnic...
Oh on the contrary, professors are actually more prone to being nuts. They stick within the confines of the school because they can\'t hack it in the real world.
Well Tom Cruise said it anyway in one of his many 80\'s flicks. :p
-
I don\'t agree with what he said, but he had the right to say it.
I\'d be more curious if in his class he presented his views or tried to persuade his students.
Saying the victims in WTC weren\'t innocent was ridiculous, even if his point that we have that kind of thing coming makes a bit more sense.
-Dan
-
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paulduncan.org%2Ffiles%2Fjerry_falwell.jpg&hash=420e124ab1f8113036aed71c430dbea28963b443)
-
I agree with atleast half of what he says.
Atleast.... the part about other liberals being bitches.
Edit:
Oh and after actually reading the article.... it is insanley biased and literally warps EVERY single point made in the essay itself.
I love the media.
-
This is the garbage our youth is being indoctrinated with. He will be fired and hopefully more people will start looking more closely at the staff at their children\'s universities.
He has a right to say this - but he shouldn\'t be holding the academic position he does while doing so. I wish I had been one of this guys students - I would have had a field day on him.
3/16 Cherokee LMAO.
-
Why shouldn\'t college professors be allowed to write essays???
-
That is an opinion piece - skewed by his anti Americanism. He is being paid by taxpayers because he is employed at a state university. People don\'t want their tax dollars funding this guys teachings.
-
I believe that the essay was published somewhere completley seperare from the school.
-
It would be so awesome if terrorists attacked America, and only people like this guy died. Horribly.
He is an enemy of the state, and I hope someone finds out he is providing material support to his friends over there, so there\'s a pretext to arrest him for treason and execute him.
I don\'t think freedom of speech should protect him. Freedom of speech is not absolute. You can\'t yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Nor should you be able to propagandize for our enemies without consequence. What he\'s doing isn\'t simply using freedom of speech, he is helping terrorism and promoting the causes of the terrorists.
-
He\'s a writer, not a terrorist. Well I guess he is a terrorist, since his writing causes such problems. Which is why terrorism is such a weird word, it doesn\'t neccicarly relate to violence, yet it is used almost exclusivly with violence.
It\'s awsome how you relate essays to funding terrorism. You might as well execute him for the essay using your philosiphy.
And what the fuck did he say in his essay that is so bad?
His essay was very blunt, but the core of the essay was a simple and commonly stated message:
That terrorism is a result of American foreign policy.
He surley is NOT the first one to present that view.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
He\'s a writer, not a terrorist. Well I guess he is a terrorist, since his writing causes such problems. Which is why terrorism is such a weird word, it doesn\'t neccicarly relate to violence, yet it is used almost exclusivly with violence.
uh. its called TERRORism for a reason. Its using the act of violence. And osama clearly stated that he attacked because we helped Israel out. So maybe their pissed at our foreign policy now, but there were other things that led to 9/11.
And the guys a retard. But i dont think he should be put in jail or something extreme. Would be nice to see him on the news for trying to jump from one 40 story building to another.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
And what the fuck did he say in his essay that is so bad?
His essay was very blunt, but the core of the essay was a simple and commonly stated message:
That terrorism is a result of American foreign policy.
He surley is NOT the first one to present that view.
What wasn\'t so bad? All you have to do is read the article. It will tell every American why they deserve to die at the hands of Arab Terrorists.
This man is an unabashed cheerleader for our enemies. He applauds them, but is unhappy they were as restrained as they were. He points out with hope how many more such attacks are required to even the score.
This man is a terrorist who lacks the fortitude to actually kill Americans on his own, so he contents himself to merely applaud those who do, and hopes the death toll is as high as possible.
I agree, with one major excetpion: I hope those who die are only those who agree with him.
-
uh. its called TERRORism for a reason. Its using the act of violence. And osama clearly stated that he attacked because we helped Israel out. So maybe their pissed at our foreign policy now, but there were other things that led to 9/11.
It\'s actually called TERRORism because it induces TERROR. Terror is not exclusivly the result of violence.
-
What wasn\'t so bad? All you have to do is read the article. It will tell every American why they deserve to die at the hands of Arab Terrorists.
This man is an unabashed cheerleader for our enemies. He applauds them, but is unhappy they were as restrained as they were. He points out with hope how many more such attacks are required to even the score.
This man is a terrorist who lacks the fortitude to actually kill Americans on his own, so he contents himself to merely applaud those who do, and hopes the death toll is as high as possible.
I agree, with one major excetpion: I hope those who die are only those who agree with him.
I do not agree with him about the reality of the militant actions against the US. He believes they are wide-spread and come from a centeralized group, where as I believe it is actually just terrorist hit-n-run attacks, not a "war".
-
That doesn\'t really matter. He believes we deserve to die at their hands. Do you agree with him on that.
-
I don\'t believe anyone "deserves" to die.
But I do believe that the American citizens are really not paying attention to anything, and I think the population is too cynical about politics, and because of this cynicism, it allows bad people to control the direction of our society.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
That terrorism is a result of American foreign policy.
He surley is NOT the first one to present that view.
i\'ve always agreed with this notion to some degree...even tho i felt no one should have died on 911, and felt that the u.s. needed to respond in some fashion, at the same time i\'ve always questioned how our gov\'t treats other countries for the sake of u.s. interests...i have to assume at some point that they are bein treated unfairly on some level due to our foreign policy....
had to also add that i think it\'s little bit of both in which that the terrorists are mad about some foreign policy issues, but at the same time, some are just evil men anyway who want to use this excuse just to spread chaos and destruction...this doesn\'t just fall all on the amer. gov\'t... some terrorists are just assholes from the jump...
-
Because we have the strongest economically and militarily, we give the most aid to other needy countries in the world, etc, etc... I believe that lets get away with more than say Sweden could. Our foreign policy is very fair considering the circumstances and events going on in the world. The Iranians have an earthquake - we send millions in aid - who else would do that for their ideological enemy?
-
Originally posted by Weltall
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20050205/ts_latimes/hesfoughtforhisviewsnowhisjob
I have to give this wretched excuse of a shitsack masquerading as a human being one credit: He\'s honest enough to say what many liberals believe.
That said, he\'s still dispicable, and I can\'t think of enough horrible things to wish on him. If it were possible to be killed more than once, I\'d wish a million on him.
What a cocksucker.
You are a joke.
"He\'s honest enough to say what many liberals believe."
You really make a point. Next time you hack into somebody elses heads, can I watch you so I can learn how to do it also?
I haven\'t read the paper and don\'t intend to. The article you posted is obviously biased and in no way even attempts to view the paper in an objective view. But, you hail and worship this article because it feeds your need for "correctness" and your views.
I agree with Hamster and clips. He took this issue too far in the way he presented his opinion, but it\'s very valid for the same reasons Hamster and clips said.
It\'s also true that we are all tools of the government. Even liberals are. We are used to fuel your anger and blind visions by providing a target on which you can retaliate and not face any kind of consequence. Then they give you all sorts of news reports, stats and Republican spit to "back them up" And as a bonus, they give you a badge that you can hand out to people that you believe are true Americans.
It must feel great being part of the mainstream.
And Giga, you really shouldn\'t be boasting about all our foreing aid because you have proclaimed to the entire forums that you would be the last person to donate anything. You would just say "F\'em" and live on with your live. You might be American, but you can\'t take credit for the good deeds you don\'t support.
-
Originally posted by Weltall
That doesn\'t really matter. He believes we deserve to die at their hands. Do you agree with him on that.
You believe liberals deserve to die because you claim that we all think in that same manner. You believe that what I think is wrong and I should be labeled as an "unamerican" and shipped back to where I came from. You believe that if we don\'t all think alike, then the ones that think different are wrong.
Now, do I deserve to die for that?
Because your ideology is different from mine? Would you be willing to kill thousands just to make a statement? Would you be willing to kill a single human just to prove your point?
If you believe I should die because we think different, don\'t I have the right to believe you should die for the same reasons?
The terrorist did during September 11. And then we returned the favor.
Who\'s right?
-
He believes I should die because I\'m American.
You believe I should die because I believe he should die.
Everyone has the right to be wrong, I guess.
I believe you should die if you advocate the killing of American citizens, yes. And I do think you agree with him on that level.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paulduncan.org%2Ffiles%2Fjerry_falwell.jpg&hash=420e124ab1f8113036aed71c430dbea28963b443)
-
WTF does Jerry Fallwell have to do with this? Stop posting a picture if you aren\'t going to explain your abstract connection to the ongoing discussion.
-
Jerry Falwell = Ward L. Churchill
-
You are reaching. Granted I don\'t care for Falwell, but he is no Ward Churchill.
-
They are both extremists who make liberals/conservatives look bad.
Ward Churchill is a bit more extreme in how slanted his views are from the mainstream but Falwell has said a lot of things that are just as off the wall.
When you have these extreme communist liberals that vie for the fall of America you merely have to look at the extreme fascist conservatives who, in essence, want the same thing.
I just don\'t think you can take someone from the fringes of an ideology and use them as an example of what that ideology stands for.
-
The scariest part is there are teachers like this across the country indoctrinating their students, forcing their radical ideology. Take for instance my professor, Dr. Fitrakis. Do a search for him on google, then imagine this man forcing his view on the class. Thats what I get every other day.
-
Slap him with a gyro sammich.
-
I just don\'t think you can take someone from the fringes of an ideology and use them as an example of what that ideology stands for.
The "Fringes" have very little in common with the two major parties. Infact, i\'d go so far as to consider them completley different groups.
The scariest part is there are teachers like this across the country indoctrinating their students, forcing their radical ideology.
Wow, if College students are really stupid enough to blindly agree to what someone says, then it is proof that our schooling system doesn\'t work.
I\'m sick of this "Forcing your views" bullshit. Everything is biased in one way or another, there is no middle point on any issue, because there are more then two sides.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Wow, if College students are really stupid enough to blindly agree to what someone says, then it is proof that our schooling system doesn\'t work.
I\'m sick of this "Forcing your views" bullshit. Everything is biased in one way or another, there is no middle point on any issue, because there are more then two sides.
You my friend are an idiot. Do you understand the idea of school?
Being a teacher he should objectively show ideas rather than force his views on the class. On politics there might not be a middle but there sure as hell can and should be in class.
Don\'t make comments on college students when you\'re showing your simple high school kid thought process.
-
"Do you understand the idea of school?"
I understand the idea of public high school but colleges often have different goals, and it is not a universal standard set by the state.
"Being a teacher he should objectively show ideas rather than force his views on the class. On politics there might not be a middle but there sure as hell can and should be in class."
Umm, totally depends on the situation.
If the teacher presents his point of view, i have no problem with that. (Ward presents his POV and allows for argument)
If they are presenting their opinion without discussion, THAT IS WRONG.
Can we agree on this point?
And how can you say "There is not a middle" then say "There should be one" in class?
Didn\'t you just try and tell me it should be objective? Well isn\'t the school-board setting a middle-ground just as subjective as a teacher presenting his personal opinion without argument?
No, I\'m not your friend.
The idea of school is different throughout history and culture.
And yes, I\'m in high school.
-
The political scene and school aren\'t the same. And just as many teachers across the country, all my teacher does is talk about how his ideas are right and others are wrong. Sadly college has no room for conservative students.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
You my friend are an idiot. Do you understand the idea of school?
Being a teacher he should objectively show ideas rather than force his views on the class. On politics there might not be a middle but there sure as hell can and should be in class.
Don\'t make comments on college students when you\'re showing your simple high school kid thought process.
College professors have worked their ass off on a specific field and they sure as hell are going to present their opinions. If somebody worked for 10 years and dedicated their lives to a certain perspective of our lives and decide to preach to everybody about it then it\'s their freaking right. As long as the class\' intention is met then there is no problem with it.
Besides, I would trust that somebody with a masters or a Ph. D says that what Giga or even Bush might say.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
College professors have worked their ass off on a specific field and they sure as hell are going to present their opinions. If somebody worked for 10 years and dedicated their lives to a certain perspective of our lives and decide to preach to everybody about it then it\'s their freaking right. As long as the class\' intention is met then there is no problem with it.
Besides, I would trust that somebody with a masters or a Ph. D says that what Giga or even Bush might say.
I agree they have put in their time and do deserve respect for all they\'ve done but many of them take their teaching job as a place to spout their political bullshit. Hell I had a speech class and all my teacher did was talk about her liberal agenda. The classes intention isn\'t pulling people to the left.
-
People in most jobs would be fired for spouting off crap like that. There\'s no reason a professor should be exempt. He is case proof that you can have a master\'s degree or doctorate and still be a collossal moron.
The first amendment guarantees that the government will not harm you because of anything you say. It does not mean that you can say any damn fool thing you want without consequence.
He deserves to get fired, and I hope he does.
-
Originally posted by Weltall
People in most jobs would be fired for spouting off crap like that. There\'s no reason a professor should be exempt. He is case proof that you can have a master\'s degree or doctorate and still be a collossal moron.
The first amendment guarantees that the government will not harm you because of anything you say. It does not mean that you can say any damn fool thing you want without consequence.
He deserves to get fired, and I hope he does.
What if instead he was talking about how wonderful Bush is and compared all of the middle eastern\'s as terrorist and america haters? And of course, if he added a couple of "support our troops" and labeled himself a true American.
I doubt you would react the same way. It\'s his right to speak his mind and if he gets fired over such a thing I would not doubt a possible law suit.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
What if instead he was talking about how wonderful Bush is and compared all of the middle eastern\'s as terrorist and america haters? And of course, if he added a couple of "support our troops" and labeled himself a true American.
I doubt you would react the same way. It\'s his right to speak his mind and if he gets fired over such a thing I would not doubt a possible law suit.
I would react the same way. I\'ll have a class of 45 come in and by the end of the quarter you\'ll see it around 20 people. Half of the drops are cause they don\'t do work and the other half normally have the opposite view on politics. I haven\'t had a conversative teacher yet but I think it\'s real lame that a teacher can get away with the things they do whether it be either side.
On a sidenote, you\'d be kidding yourself if you denied the liberal involvement in college teaching.
-
It all depends on what class your in... and no one is being specific. Obviously a history class should not be biased, and I find that most history classes in high school leave out a lot of choice material.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Sadly college has no room for conservative students.
That is untrue. Southern and Ivy League schools have a lot of conservative students and professors.
In my experience, the classes that tend to give a glimpse into the professor\'s political leaning are (of course)political, philosophy, and some economics classes.
-
More idiotic remarks from Churchill:
Joe Scarborough played part of a radio debate between Churchill and the father of a victim of 9/11. The victim worked in one of the Twin Towers as an assistant trader at Cantor Fitzgerald. Here is a transcript of the exchange between Churchill and the father:
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
FATHER OF 9/11 VICTIM: My son was an assistant trader at Cantor Fitzgerald. He was 23, his first job out of college.
(CROSSTALK)
WARD CHURCHILL, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Well, I would like to do something here. I would like to engage you.
PETER BOYLES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Let me ask him, if I could, before it gets away, Ward, would his son have qualified as one of the little Eichmanns?
CHURCHILL: Yes, he would have.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6935792/
-
How is that any different from the original post?
It would have been another moronic statement if he said the kid WASN\'T what he originally called him. (My point being, he is just being consistent... so there is no need to point it out twice.)
Later in your article:
"Well, more than that, don‘t call yourself a radical if you have tenure. Everyone else in the world suffers consequences for the things they say, if they said something as outrageous as this. These guys want to go around acting like big radicals, getting laid by coeds with hairy armpits, who probably don‘t like men, by going to conferences and saying, oh, yes, I‘m the one who said that."
Wow, that is insulting on so many levels, to so many different people.
SCARBOROUGH: Coming up next, from Bill Cosby to the Super Bowl to Britney Spears, plus, female soldiers mud wrestling.
:rolleyes:
-
What does that last quote have to do with anything? Scarborough is just like O\'Reilly - he covers a variety of topics. Yes there is a scandal of sorts involving female soldiers mud wrestling... Trying to make him sound like Springer shows your lack of knowledge.
The fact is Churchill is a scumbag and just so you know - Churchill also claims the Jews made up the Holocaust, yet he calls the people in the Trade Center little Eichmann\'s - that should show you the idiocy of this so called tenured "professor".
-
If you can quote him on the holocost statement, i\'ll completley withdraw my argument.
Also, I just felt like quoting the last part because it made me chuckle. Plus, I hate how conservative hosts talk. :P
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
What does that last quote have to do with anything? Scarborough is just like O\'Reilly - he covers a variety of topics. Yes there is a scandal of sorts involving female soldiers mud wrestling... Trying to make him sound like Springer shows your lack of knowledge.
The fact is Churchill is a scumbag and just so you know - Churchill also claims the Jews made up the Holocaust, yet he calls the people in the Trade Center little Eichmann\'s - that should show you the idiocy of this so called tenured "professor".
Churchill was tenured?!
Republicans just love being fed hate by these guys. You take some guy like Churchill, completely hate him for not believing what you do and then label him and throw him in our side.
I could care less about what this guy says. You love him because he makes your wild and extreme fantasies about liberals come to life.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Churchill was tenured?!
Republicans just love being fed hate by these guys. You take some guy like Churchill, completely hate him for not believing what you do and then label him and throw him in our side.
I could care less about what this guy says. You love him because he makes your wild and extreme fantasies about liberals come to life.
Of course you don\'t care what he says. He\'s your boy.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Of course you don\'t care what he says. He\'s your boy.
Yes, yes it is.
There, doesn\'t it feel great to have stupidity confirmed?
-
Prior to this incident, Churchill\'s scholarly reputation was based mainly on a squalid tract called A Little Matter of Genocide (1997), in which he argues that the murder of European Jews was not at all a "fixed policy objective of the Nazis," and accuses Jews of seeking to monopolize for themselves all that beautiful Holocaust suffering that other groups would very much like, ex post facto, to share.
He also argues that Jewish "exclusivism" had nearly erased from history the victims of other genocidal campaigns, and that Jewish scholars stressed the Holocaust in order to "construct a conceptual screen behind which to hide the realities of Israel\'s ongoing genocide against the Palestinian population."
He not only likened Jewish scholars who have argued for the unique character of the Holocaust to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers; he said that the Jews are worse than the latter-day Nazis because "those who deny the Holocaust, after all, focus their distortion upon one target. Those [Jewish scholars] who deny all holocausts other than that of the Jews have the same effect upon many."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16917
-
^^^What you quoted is not the same as saying that Jews made up the Holocaust. He is saying that Jews were not the only people killed in the Holocaust but Jewish scholars have painted themselves as the only people who felt the wrath of genocide during the war.
The validity of the statement is not my place to judge but what I do know is that it is not the same as saying they made up the Holocaust.
You can distort the truth with the best of em Giga.
-
No distortion - he downplaying the fact that one of the theological goals of Nazism was to eliminate Jews from Europe - then he says Jewish Scholars are worse than today\'s Neo Nazi\'s that deny the holocaust? WTF? To me that is a kin to saying Holocaust didn\'t happen.
This all stems from his hatred for his own heritage (well 13/16 of it anyway) and the the treatment of Native Americans by Colonial America. He claims to be Native American and Sorry, but 3/16 Cherokee does not a Native American make.
This brings up a personal hook in addition to my intellectual motives. It comes with the fact that I am myself of Muscogee and Creek descent on my father’s side, Cherokee on my mother’s, and am an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. I’m also married to an Ojibwe woman of the Lynx clan, from the Onegaming Reserve in Northwestern Ontario. The truth is, although I’m best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my wife’s uncle. So there’s that, and I suppose it speaks for itself.
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/wardchurchill.htm
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
he (is) downplaying the fact that one of the theological goals of Nazism was to eliminate Jews from Europe - then he says Jewish Scholars are worse than today\'s Neo Nazi\'s that deny the holocaust? WTF? To me that is a kin to saying Holocaust didn\'t happen.
I\'m just not seeing that. He said the Holocaust DID indeed happen; but Jewish scholars have distorted the facts about HOW it happened. To him that is worse than denying it happened in the first place. I don\'t agree with him but I understand what he is saying.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
This all stems from his hatred for his own heritage (well 13/16 of it anyway) and the the treatment of Native Americans by Colonial America. He claims to be Native American and Sorry, but 3/16 Cherokee does not a Native American make.
There definately seems to be a lot of self hate going on there.
-
You are nothing but a revisionist as well BS if you actually "understand" where he is coming from. Then again, you are in college so what can I expect?
-
I never said that I understand where he is coming from. I said that I understand what he is saying which apparently you do not. Especially seeing as how you have taken his statement and given the opposite meaning to it three times already.
Understanding the meaning of something does not equal acceptance of that same thing. But you are a closeminded conservative who generalizes and sees only black and white so I fully expect this statement to go in one ear(rattle around your skull for a second or two) and out the other.
-
A picture is worth a thousand words... exploiting a picture of Jews being rounded up by Germans (oh maybe they are gypsies, homosexuals, or whatever:rolleyes: ) and trying to apply it to US immigration policy.
Face facts here BS - the Holocaust was directly aimed at Jews - yes gypsies and other undesirables were targeted, but not on the scale that Jews were.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Face facts here BS - the Holocaust was directly aimed at Jews - yes gypsies and other undesirables were targeted, but not on the scale that Jews were.
Dude, I NEVER said it wasn\'t.
[EDIT]It may be better to say that I am not disputing that Jews were the focus of the Holocaust.
I\'m just looking at what dude said and trying to understand it.
-
Giga....
Your last post is completley unrelated to anything me or BS said.
But since you posted it...
The picture directly proves that Churchill knows the holocost happened. So thanks for destroying your own argument.
How is using that picture any different then Bush using 9/11 in campaign ads? Dude, that is just fucking stupid. Comparing modern events to historical events is VITAL for progress. I love how people like to make Nazi Germany an untouchable subject, I\'m suprised Giga is not over in Europe trying to ban the Swastika with those other facist bastards.
-
This isn\'t directed toward you BS, but some others on here who are trying to defend this fraud...
Do a google on him and see what you come up with. Amazing - as far as I can tell this guy is neither a Professor (he has his Masters Degree) and no one can find a trace of Native American blood in him.
Found on the AIM Council on Security and Intelligence web page is this 1994 letter from Susan Shawn Harjo of the Morning Star Institute regarding the ethnic identity of Ward Churchill, once a member of one tribe or another, and now fairly exposed as a fake, a phony and a fraud. (This of course will result in his speaking fees increasing faster than his bookings at colleges around the country and in France.)
Still, it is interesting to see that Churchill\'s poseur status has been known for well over a decade. By everyone, it would seem, other than his employers and publishers.
What follows is a transcription of part of the text of the letter discussing a call Harjo received from one Regina Brave. Ms Brave asserted:
"...that she knew WC [Ward Churchill] when he surfaced in Boulder as an Indian of several other tribes before he settled on Cherokee/Creek/Metis, and that she never bought into his assertion that he was an Indian of any kind; 2) that another of the \'judges in Bellngham, Washington shared her concerns, and another, a woman from Canada, was on a scholarship at the University of Colorado and living with WC and his wife; 3) that she has heard WC claim that he provided firearms going into Wounded Knee in 1973; and 4) that she overheard WC tell another white man ... that he was an expert witness in the Bernard Escamillo trial in Council Bluffs, and that she called one of the men associated with the trial that said WC was not a defense witness, but that he recognized WC\'s name as a prosecution witness... From the way she relates a story, it could go either way...but it is a lead to follow tht might have documentable clues about not only what but who WC is.
Hope you have enough fax paper for all this."
More great stuff...
Other interesting reading includes:
1)Press Release on Churchill\'s brief times as an "associate Keetowah"; and
2) a page from the letter expelling Ward Churchill from AIM in 1993.
"A major agenda item was the need to deal with the wrath of \'wannabees\', instant shake and bake shamans, phony medicine men and women, artists, writers, and self-proclaimed \'AIM leaders\' who are really non-Indians masquerading as Indian people. These people for various reasons, whether it be romanticism, self grandeur, exploitation, greed, or possibly agents of Operation Cointelpro of the FBI and/or Operation Chaos of the CIA ... infiltrate the American Indian Movement and other organizations for the purpose of misdirecting, disrupting, and sowing division in order to discredit and neutralize the leadership of the American Indian Movement.
Two persons whose method of opertations (MO) fall clearly within this description is, of course, yøurself Mr. Churchill along with Mr Morris..."
There\'s more, much more, and it is fascinating, if not pretty, reading.
http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/005070.php
Statement issued by AIM:
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.
http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html
So basically this guy lied about his ethnicity to gain tenure at a State instution of learning. Let alone his idiotic views on 9/11 do you really think this person should be molding young minds? He is a leftist piece of crap.
-
Originally posted by Deadly Hamster
Giga....
Your last post is completley unrelated to anything me or BS said.
But since you posted it...
The picture directly proves that Churchill knows the holocost happened. So thanks for destroying your own argument.
How is using that picture any different then Bush using 9/11 in campaign ads? Dude, that is just fucking stupid. Comparing modern events to historical events is VITAL for progress. I love how people like to make Nazi Germany an untouchable subject, I\'m suprised Giga is not over in Europe trying to ban the Swastika with those other facist bastards.
He did state that the Holocaust was fabricated - I am just trying to find it. He has reversed himself numerous times on topics, essays, etc. which when his articles actually make sense I believe one of his obviously more intelligent underlings probably wrote it in his name.
Anyway, the picture and you buying into it is what is really scary about the future of this country. Thank God my son will have the common sense you lack. Comparing our government to the Third Reich is idiotic, so why am I not that surprised you find nothing wrong with it? Oh and I have nothing against the Swastika or Nazi Germany - I love the History Channel and no if we were living in the Third Reich I would be their poster boy. Hippy.
-
He only got tenure because he said he was a native american? Can you prove this?
I don\'t care if he is Native American or not. I don\'t care if he was at Wounded Knee. If he says he was, that\'s great. But I just don\'t care.
-
Anyway, the picture and you buying into it is what is really scary about the future of this country. Thank God my son will have the common sense you lack. Comparing our government to the Third Reich is idiotic, so why am I not that surprised you find nothing wrong with it? Oh and I have nothing against the Swastika or Nazi Germany - I love the History Channel and no if we were living in the Third Reich I would be their poster boy. Hippy.
Common Sense has absolutley nothing to do with History.
Our Government and Nazi Germany have things in common. Most governments do.
And don\'t bullshit me. You as well as most other people in this country have a hard time considering the negative aspects of our government. It isn\'t about common sense, it is about being able to look at things from other points of view.
"50 Stars to blind my eyes, 13 stripes to hypnotize, free thought is gone and you\'ll never see that you\'re just a pawn."
Yay for Nationalism!!!
-
Do some research yourself DH - Christ you act as if this forum is your only resource in finding out things. If he received tenure while posing as a Native American he will be fired for that - that much I can tell you. It should be interesting to see if he did - since he has touted that he was Native American I would assume he put that on his resume and job application. You do know there are special rules that apply for such things don\'t you?
"50 Stars to blind my eyes, 13 stripes to hypnotize, free thought is gone and you\'ll never see that you\'re just a pawn."
Lay off the LSD hippy.
I know perfectly well what is wrong with this country and trust me you wouldn\'t accept it if I told you.
-
Im not doing YOUR research.
Your posting statements that have no backing.
I don\'t do drugs.
And I\'m sure you know what is wrong with the country. But when people start knowing stuff, things get pretty bad. I don\'t understand why if people know something, they can\'t just impose their beliefs on themselves. Nope, gotta legislate against, and police the minority. (Germans thought Hitler was right about the Jews btw.)
-
This is not a discussion about Anarchy and if you are too lazy to counter my statements with a little googling don\'t post. I have a 3 year old at home who asks me why all time, I don\'t need one here.
-
Right, because it is always the readers job to find the authors sources.
Do you take debate lessons from the Republican Party? ;)
Edit: Oh and I know. Anarchy only comes up naturally when comparing Nazi Germany and America.
But we never really got that far.
Edit2: Well Anarchy or Totalitarianism.