Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Ward Churchill

By David Peterson at Feb 19, 2005


Change Text Size a- | A+
Between ourselves, I would never want to work for the Racial Statistics Branch of the Population Division of the Census Bureau in Washington. Nevertheless. It appears that some of my fellow Americans would. Thus a friend tells me that a recent edition of the Denver Post published a chart that attempted to trace the “ethnic” or “racial” ancestry of the embattled University of Colorado at Boulder Professor Ward Churchill. I write “ethnic” or “racial” here because it is by no means obvious what the Denver Post's intrepid staff of investigators could have thought they were looking for. Ancestry is a straightforward biological question, and nothing more. What ancestry is not is an inquiry into “race” or “ethnicity”---outside some of the more highly civilized racist circles, that is. Like you and me, Ward Churchill had biological parents, biological grandparents, biological great-grandparents, and so on. "Race" and "ethnicity," on the other hand, are taxonomic artefacts. Particularly virulent ones, to be sure. But taxonomic artefacts nonetheless. Even the U.S. Census Bureau recognizes the element of self-designation that goes into one's racial or ethnic identity. Quite typically, respondents, when asked repeatedly over long periods of time, do not float back and forth between "black" and "white." But this is their hang-up. Not Nature's. Now. In what sense have Ward Churchill's detractors opened a line of inquiry into his "racial" or "ethnic" ancestry? In what sense could they have? To speak more frankly, who wants to know about Ward Churchill's American Indianness? About his Native Americanhood? And why? I mean, what are they really interested in finding? Do they want to know the names of Churchill's biological parentage stretching back, say, over 12 generations? Over 24 generations? No. They most certainly do not. I know and you know that this whole line of inquiry into Ward Churchill's Native Americanhood betrays a racist mentality. Plain and simple. Dress it up anyway you like. Take Ann Coulter's commentary, “The Little Injun That Could”---among the most widely posted commentaries on the whole Churchill affair. Like the Denver Post, Coulter wants to see the “evidence about [Churchill's] Indian heritage.” That is to say, is Churchill a “real Indian” or is Churchill a “phony Indian”? Coulter believes that Churchill belongs to the class of phony Indians. She even closes her commentary by calling him a “white man of English and Swiss-German decent”---though she doesn't say where she took this bit of information from. A dossier critical of Churchill that happens to be in circulation at the moment, perhaps? The Ann Coulter byline aside, I can't help but wonder how much of Ann Coulter's material Ann Coulter really writes. But, a question. What kind of people undertakes inquiries such as the one Ann Coulter pursues here? What kind of people publishes charts in newspapers (or does the equivalent on TV) to determine whether Soandso's biological ancestors were or were not ethnically or racially of suchandsuch a pedigree? Where else in human history (besides the United States of America in 2005) do we find other examples of this line of inquiry? This kind of interest? This kind of curiosity? The whole challenge leveled against Ward Churchill's over his identity cannot in any reasonable way be explained as a response to the content of Churchill's September 11, 2001 commentary, "'Some People Push Back': On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," or to the content of his book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality (AK Press, 2003). Quite the contrary. Churchill has been selected as a proxy-target for everyone else: Churchill's head is to be mounted and hung on the wall as an example to everyone. Thus a recent segment on the Fox News Network's The O'Reilly Factor opened as follows ("Interview with Greg Noone," Feb. 9):
Continue now with our lead story, the radical Professor Ward Churchill's situation. Can he be tried for either treason or sedition?
And just two days later, Fox's O'Reilly Factor introduced another segment as follows ("Impact: U.W.-Whitewater Does Not Cancel Churchill," Feb. 11):
[A]as you may know, "The Factor" got involved with the Ward Churchill story, because Hamilton and other colleges were paying the guy to spread his hateful anti-American rhetoric. I feel that's kind of dubious, don't you? After our initial reporting, everyone canceled Churchill, except for the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater. Now we called Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, but he is unavailable, as they say. But joining us now from Madison is Wisconsin state assemblyman Steve Nass. This just came in over the wire, Mr. Noss, interestingly enough. You know, the Hamilton College is what started this whole thing for "The Factor." He was going to speak there. And we got on to the story and they canceled him. Well, the woman who invited him to speak there, Nancy Rabinowitz, has now resigned her position as the director of the project that brings in these kinds of speakers. So that's good.
As to the question of why this is happening now, three-and-a-half years after Churchill first wrote his commentary, I think there's a strong element of randomness to it. Criticism of the Hamilton College invitation that had been extended to Churchill to deliver a speech there literally broke in the Hamilton College student newspaper, The Spectator, on January 21---the first issue after the Christmas break, please note well. (See "Controversial speaker to visit Hill," "Advocacy and Academia," and "Deja vu all over again?") The U.S. wire services didn't take up reporting the Churchill affair until January 26 ("Choice of speaker ignites protests again at Hamilton College," Associated Press)---two days before The O'Reilly Factor first started haranguing the affair over the Fox News Network. Now already three weeks later, The O'Reilly Factor has yet to let it drop. Clearly, Ward Churchill has earned a very long list of enemies for himself over the years. On either February 13 or 14, I heard someone on the Fox News Network mention that are roughly 50 academics working at colleges and universities in the United States today that are problematic in some manner similar to Churchill. (Sorry I can't be more precise.) Just who compiled a list such as this, no one mentioned. But that there is such a list (and who knows how long it really is) seems likely. Right now, Ward Churchill is serving as a proxy persona non grata for all of the personae non gratae academics to have run afoul of various establishment factions over the years. The subsequent focus, not on his ancestry, but on his Native Americanness, is merely a case of the American racist monster let loose upon the scene. Imagine the twist of history involved here, though. Churchill's racist detractors are hell-bent on excluding him from the academic community. So they've called for him to be rounded by the modern American Gestapo, and given the once-over by a board of race scientists to determine whether he really is the offspring of American Indians. If he is, then he's a real Indian, and can keep his job. (Maybe.) But if he isn't? Then he's a phony Indian, and ought to have been fired. Yesterday. If possible. Don't forget: This is America we're talking about here. Not Nazi Germany. Postscript. Perhaps the one line of thought for which Ward Churchill's “Some People Push Back” has brought the greatest opprobrium down upon his head has been the following:
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in 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. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
But as Fidel Castro said during a speech in Havana, some 11 days after Churchill wrote these lines (“Terrorism and the War Crisis,” Monthly Review, November, 2001):
The unanimous anger caused by the human and psychological damage inflicted on the American people by the unexpected and shocking deaths of thousands of innocent people, whose images have shaken the world, is perfectly understandable. But who have been the beneficiaries? The extreme right, the most backward and right–wing forces, those in favor of crushing the growing world rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still left on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice, and a great crime, whoever they are who organized or are responsible for this action
Personally, I think this answers Churchill's question ("If there was a better...") about as thoroughly as one needs to bother. Qui bono, in either case.
'Some People Push Back': On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," Ward Churchill, September 11, 2001 (Here linking the Dark Night Press website's edition of Churchill's commentary.) “On the Injustice of Getting Smeared,” Ward Churchill, CounterPunch, February 3, 2005 “The Right Has a License To Write Anything,” Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch, February 5-6, 2005 "The Churchill episode: Two unfortunate currents," Editorial, Indian Country Today, February 10, 2005 "Ward Churchill: Right to Speak Out; Right About 9/11," Robert Jensen, CounterPunch, February 14, 2005 Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals By Race, 1790 to 1990, and By Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, For The United States, Regions, Divisions, and States, Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung, U.S. Census Bureau, September, 2002 (For the PDF version of the same report)
Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bellsofsaintmarys, Shoshana at Apr 25, 2005 23:44 PM

To ME, the main question is Ward c. I was reading a lot about him before the thing about 9-11 broke out. I believe the allegations about him. For instanc, in a paper by an outfit called"Dark Night" which is part of AIM Colorado, which is WC's aoutfit, WC tries to defend himsels from allegatiions by Native AMericans that he is noty Native, and he does this by saying that he got affirmative action in the past. Thier is substantial proof that he is nopt and much has been in the Native AMer. press liong before the brouhaha over 9-11

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bellsofsaintmarys, Shoshana at Apr 22, 2005 00:11 AM

C'mon Graeme! This is a blog? WHo gets to define the main question? Not just you! And if you think that Alistairs comments are baseless, you haven't done your homework......He is more than right. Furthermore WC got jobs thru affirmative actoin claiming to be something he isn't and taking jobs from people who a,so applied and relly were Native amer.? Disgusting

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Illuminati718, Aleister at Mar 14, 2005 12:12 PM

Peterson suggests that one's ethnic ancestry is a matter of existential choice. Nonsense. I had a great-grandmother who was an Indian. Hence, I have more "Indian blood" in my veins than Ward Churchill has in his wildest fantasies about himself. Unlike Churchill, I don't pretend to be an Indian, because I have more respect for people who were born as Indians and lived their lives as Indians than Churchill and Peterson do. Churchill, Peterson and I may as well pretend we are Chinese. Peterson can also claim he is African-American AND Chinese. For god's sake, fire Peterson and hire me to do your blogging. Ward Churchill is not an Indian because he is not an Indian. He is also not a Vietnam veteran who was a paratrooper who went on long-range reconnaisance patrols, because his military records disclose that he was a non-combat soldier. He is also not the artist who created the piece he sold prints of for $100 a pop. He is also not the person who wrote the pieces he apparently plagiarized. No one knows who Ward Churchill is--including Ward Churchill. Fire Peterson. I should replace him. Scott

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 13, 2005 18:38 PM

Like there aren't official documents and quotes from Arab leaders who say the opposite? Big Deal. You pick and choose yours facts.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 11, 2005 06:58 AM

Chomsky & Said... nothing like alternative history. Regarless of what these (and other) fringe sophists, the bulk of objective historical evidence contradicts your views.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 10, 2005 00:17 AM

Comment by Graeme posted on Tuesday, March 08 at 08:48 PM If "its not because of occupation, its because its jews [sic]" then why did Palestinian resistance groups not form until the mid-60s, and violence only begin well after 1967?" Did Israelis only become Jews in 1967? First, You ignore the entire history of continuous violence perpertrated against jews prior to 67. Second , the emergence of a nationalist palestinian movement evolved over time. There was no palestinian nationalistic identity in 48. They prefered to remain under the "greater syria" protectorate rather then concede to allowing the emergence of a jewish state. part

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 10, 2005 00:11 AM

"It is well understood that the 1948 and 1967 wars at least were both started by Israel. In its short existence Israel has repeatedly invaded, occupied, and/or attacked all of its neighbors, and beyond, including: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Jordan, and even the United States (the USS Liberty)" Are you kidding? Israel was the agreesor nation in 48 & 67...you are so far from reality I'm surprized you didn;'t dispute the Holocaust! And including a reference to the USS Liberty as proof of Israeli agression? You write well... you just have a problem distinguishing the truth from bullshit! Is there anyone else out there that honestly believes Israel started the wars in 1948 & 67?

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 09, 2005 04:08 AM

"How about illegally invading and occupying a country," killing thousands... it makes Apartheid look nice and friendly? " You misrepresent the history, and again you ignore the context of Israel's actions. Next you will be telling me that the suicide (homicide) bombers act out of "desperation" because of the opression.. oh wait... that was last decade's rationale,(I'm sure you bought it then) now its because of the (in)balance of power... If the Palestinians want peace, then they will have to remove the cancer (extremeists) first.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 09, 2005 04:00 AM

"Israeli textbooks don't exactly dwell on Deir Yassin and the expropriation of Palestinian land..." Considering the history and context of Israeli "agression", as compared to its neighbors, your comparison has no credibility. "...Perhaps if the Palestinians were equipped with Apache gunships the numbers would start to balance out. " Ironic that you should bring up the point because , in fact, the numbers would not "balance out." If the show were on the other foot you would see annihalation and its not because of occupation, its because its jews I'm sure your "defenders" will continue to "defend" until there is no Israel.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 09, 2005 02:53 AM

Comment by Graeme posted on Thursday, March 03 at 06:51 PM "... that the Palestinians can all be saints and nothing would change." Why do you say that?

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 09, 2005 02:47 AM

Comment by Graeme posted on Thursday, March 03 at 06:51 PM "...you are blaming the Palestinians for decades of brutal Israeli occupation of their land... Third, a large number of the killed Palestinians were the "agressors"* (*god forbid I should offend any readers by using the term "terrorists- since that is so "subjective). I can keep going...

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 09, 2005 02:41 AM

Comment by Graeme posted on Thursday, March 03 at 06:51 PM "...you are blaming the Palestinians for decades of brutal Israeli occupation of their land. The balance of power and violence in this equation is so dramatically tilted towards Israel (the actual figure is closer to 4 to 1 MTBrad) that the Palestinians can all be saints and nothing would change." Your superficial analysis, based on number of deaths, is not only irelevent, it denies fundamental issues of moral culpability. First, the "numbers" ignore the fact that the "successful" homicide bombings only represent a small percentage of attemps. Second, the # of injuredIsraelis is signifcantly higher when compared withthe number murdered. Third,

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 09, 2005 02:31 AM

Comment by Graeme posted on Thursday, March 03 at 06:51 PM Even crazier is the idea that leftists in the West played any role in 'encouraging' Palestinian terrorism. I think you are greatly misconstruing both our intent and our influence. What is your intent when you justify terrorism?

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 09, 2005 02:25 AM

Comment by MTbrad posted on Thursday, March 03 at 06:14 PM "Arafat never took steps to help move the culture away from being a culture of death based on hatred of Jews." Neither did Sharon!! Israel's a culture of hate like the Palestinians? Besides yourself,who do you think you are kidding?

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 05, 2005 09:14 AM

Sorry about the triple negation. I should have said "I think even the Natives who question WC's identity would agree. "

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 05, 2005 09:11 AM

I don't know what does WC has to gain by impersonating a Native American as the First Nations are quite oppressed as a group. That I don't think even the Natives who question WC's identity would not disagree. Would anyone impersonate a black man in South Africa(or in the U.S for that matter) for personal gain? That doesn't make sense.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 05, 2005 08:55 AM

Some Native people question WC's ancestry, but at the same time there are other Natives who support him. The Natives do not speak with one voice. In addition to the utter irrelevancy of the accuasation, nothing is proven as far as I know. It is all whispers and inuendos.It looks like a text book case of a smear compaign. The First Nations are not a homogenous group. They are not immune to internal power struggles. WC may very well have some enemies in the Native community. My impression is that he can be quite undiplomatic when he gets carried away(as the "little Eichmann" comment proves) Since smearing and mud slingling is so much a part of American politics it is not inconcievable that that some of WC's Native detractors may have taken a page from main stream American politics. But even if WC does pull a Grey Owl that doesn't automatically invalidate his message and his work. It is a diversion tactic to question his ancestry instead of debating him on his points(Grey Owl seems to be regarded as some kind of visionary now even though he was defintely a imposter.)

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bellsofsaintmarys, Shoshana at Mar 04, 2005 21:44 PM

Comment by Shoshana Graehm: You misuderstood me, I think! Iwasn't talking at all about WC's opinions. Of course Native AMericans can disagree with him and with each other. WHy did you think I was talkoing about that sort of thing" Must be my inarticulate ness! I was talking about WC's identity and honesty. Please read online INdian Country TOday,.......... News from indian Country.....PAul Campos In the Rocky Mountain News.......WC is fraud in his identity, artwork writintgs...

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bellsofsaintmarys, Shoshana at Mar 04, 2005 21:26 PM

to GHraehm From SHoshana I guess I didn't make maysekf clear! Of course other Native Americans can disagree with Mr. Churchill {tho the word 'other' would be incorrect as he is not a native american} I wasn't refering to Natives disagreeing with his opinions, I was talking about them questioning his identity.. Please go to the sites of Indian Country Today and News From Indian COuntry and you will see what I mean. Mr Churchill is a fraud thru and thru. HIs identity His writings His artwork...... I,m not talking abouyt his opinions.....His charactar.....more later Also see Rocky Mountain News, Boulder Camera Denver Post 0

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 04, 2005 02:14 AM

"Arafat never took steps to help move the culture away from being a culture of death based on hatred of Jews." Neither did Sharon!!

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Mar 04, 2005 02:14 AM

"hypocracy displayed by many "progressive" organizations (e.g UN, )towards the actions of the people of Israel vis a' vis the Palestinians have actually encouraged the Paletinian leadership" I don't know were to start, first the UN as a progressive organization...the same UN that otherizes the use of force and sanctions that kill thousands of people. The same UN that has a security councel with members that can veto any resolution. Apologists for the destruction of Israel.. You mean the destruction of palastine right! Israel kills two palastinians for every Israeli killed and you call the palastinians violent and the poor Israelies.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 04, 2005 02:05 AM

Re: "You're kidding right? 'Destroy Israel?' Get off it." Let me be clear about what I am saying. I'm not saying that the apologists are for the destruction of Israel (although those who advocate "two people one state might as well be), but there is no doubt in my mind (I'm not alone in this) that the double standards and hypocracy displayed by many "progressive" organizations (e.g UN, )towards the actions of the people of Israel vis a' vis the Palestinians have actually encouraged the Paletinian leadership to continue to resist making the necessary internal changes that would lead to more opportunities for peaceful coexistence. With all the talk about peace (to the West), Arafat never took steps to help move the culture away from being a culture of death based on hatred of Jews.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bellsofsaintmarys, Shoshana at Mar 03, 2005 22:47 PM

Mr Peterson was saying that he couldn,t uinderstand why anyone would want to question Churchilll,s Native identity. It makes a lot of difference if it proves a person's total dishonesty. Native people have beem trying to bring WC down for years. Surfing American Indian newspaper websites shows this more than clearly. And you can read his own AIM COlorado's paper "Why Do you think we call it struggle?" form the AIM Colorado website, a defense of Churchill's folk agauinst his native MAerican detractors. Download it, in it you can read about WC's depravity in his own words. He calls questioners of his iodentity racists and nazi=like these are Native MAeericans he is taklking to....a clear con artists game. Put your questioner on the defendive.......... He has gotten affirmative action, claiming Indianness....which he doesn't have. He has lied in his writings.......See Indian Country's stiries on him...... He's a real rat' Too bad the issue is also freedom of speech. He is the wrong person to defend....defend the write to speak not him.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 03, 2005 07:42 AM

I wonder how long it will take before apologists for palestinian terrorists accept personal responsibility for their helping perpetuate the atrocities committed in their quest to destroy Isreal.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 02, 2005 00:32 AM

I find it curious that in the context of this discourse, about accepting personal responsibility, that you single out US (and Isreli) Solders (..."are beginning to come forward and take individual responsibility."), as if they represent "the worst of the worse".

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 02, 2005 00:07 AM

I'm a little unclear as to the question you are posing to me. Am I supposed to somehow become enlightened through some cathartic event by "...take[ing] responsibility for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or Dresden? or Baghdad?"

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Scott, Speak2me at Mar 01, 2005 01:56 AM

sHOULD WARD CHURCHILL APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A FRAUD AND MISLEADING PEOPLE? DO ENDS JUSTIFY MEANS? YOU WANT A BLANKET APOLOGY? WHAT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 20:36 PM

The current ultra-jingoistic nature of the US is the result of a supression of the truth and a suplanting of nationalism out of denial to self evaluate. The denial is caused by the very real hurtfulness of the self analysis in the contempory US culture. The alcoholic family would be an appropriate analagy. The fear of the painfulness and world shattering affect of self evaluation is stronger than the desire for truth. This is the underying assumption I am opperating on, that the citezenry of the US knows very well the affects of their action and the resulting responses, yet they oppress these notions into thier subconscious and surplant them with the jingoism and denial. This will lead to one of two possible outcomes; 1) the denial will spiral into self destructive behaviour (may already be happining) or 2) there will be a rapid reawakinging of consciousness and the US population will almost instantly becomd cognizant of thier folly.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 08:55 AM

As for the opinions of the US public, the jingoism will not last, it is a fad that goes in and out very rapidly. Also, the public opinion for a failing war is very short lived, whether iraq or "the war on terror", we are failing at both. Economicaly we cannot keep up the wars in the current economic situation, which may also be the plan of OBL.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 08:50 AM

"The only result of the American reaction to 9/11 has been an ever-increasing disconnect between the US and the rest of the world" World public opinion will eventially make it to the US public, or we will isolate ourselves enough to render ourselves obsolete. The politics of the neocons has all the apperance of a dieing breed cornered and fighting for it's very existence. Violent leaders are often the result of helplessness and desperation.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 08:44 AM

"If this was bin Laden's goal then he is one the greatest geniuses who has ever lived. 9/11 was planned long before Bush got into office, therefore bin Laden would have had to predict Bush's peculiar ideology" It is pretty well documented that OBL was waiting for the right US rigime to initiate the attacks. The Clinton Admin. showed remarkable restraint in response to Oklahoma City and the cole. This I would argue is why they waited until a more bellicose admin. was in power. You are also eliminating the possiblity of collusion between the neo-cons and OBL, something I am not willing to do. As for the planning of the invasion of Iraq, this plan was so obvious to anyone watching the way the sanctions were playing out.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 04:11 AM

Public opinion behind Bush's was? I don't think so. Should read; Public opinoin behind Bush's wars? I don't think so.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 04:09 AM

I am not "'blaming the victims' for their fate.", or "justifing the unjustafiable." But we must face the consequence of our actions, we must understand that there is a reaction to every action and that we do not live in a moralistic vacume. One way to do this in a society that is very over stimulated by "news" and oppinions is to use overly strong provacative language. This what I meant in my origonal post, that the "victoms" of the sept. thing did deserve it in a metaphoric sense, just as we all deserve what we will get if we don't change our ways (this could be applied to other issues as well, ie. global warming).

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 04:02 AM

"This explains the attacks however, it doesn't justify them." I never intended to attempt to justify them, nor would I ever seek to justify killing. " I don't think you can make any reasonable claim that the World Trade Centers were "the source of most of the violence in the world," Here I meant the US and global Capitalism generally, not the trade centers themselves. "they have radicalized people to do precisely the opposite, namely blame the Arabs and Muslims for all the violence in the world." This is at the heart of what I am talking about, showing all who care to look the discusting underbelly of the capitalist beast that is the US. Exposing the oppertunistic "jingoism" of the US to most of the world. If a few americans still wave the flag and vote for Bush, this does not limit the nagative impact of his actions.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 03:56 AM

"The US has launched 2 wars and occupied 2 countries since 9/11. The fact that they have been run very poorly is a separate issue. American public opinion remains squarely behind Bush because people think he is protecting them from the terrorists." The resulting invasion of the two countries since the sept. thing is a terrible occurance. I don't think that they could have been run "better", we isolated our selves and went into a war. In the process we exposed for all to see our weaknesses and the emptiness of our claims of ritousness. Public opinion behind Bush's was? I don't think so.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 28, 2005 03:52 AM

"it led to jingoistic nationalist American support for a war against Iraq" I agree that it lead to jingoism in the US, but globally it exposed the US empire for what it is. It created a cleavage between the US and Europe (which may have been the goal of OBL)and lead to the exposure of the true duality of global capitalism; "You are either with us or against us." And as most of the world know realizes, they are not with us.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Puritybrown, Puritybrown at Feb 27, 2005 18:44 PM

This interview with Churchill on Democracy Now! clears up some of the issues in this thread. E.g., "little Eichmanns" was not meant to be a belittling term, though it comes across that way. And did he think the WTC was a legitimate target? "Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not." He also says "I don't know that I even agreed with the execution of Eichmann, per se." On the basis of this interview, I think a lot of the problem is that the original essay was designed to be provocative, to make people think, but that Churchill got carried away and didn't make his own position clear. As if someone were to read Swift's Modest Proposal and believe that he thought poor Irish babies should be eaten. WC was pointing out a) that by US standards, the WTC would have been considered legitimate targets, b) that the attack was a predictable result of US foreign policy, and c) that the concept of "innocent civilians" is a lot more problematic than we might think.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 27, 2005 09:25 AM

"inherently evil acts." If you truly believe in "evil acts" than you are probably beyond reason. This is the sort of hyperbole that W resorts to. The labeling of something as evil is an excuse for actual thinking.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 27, 2005 09:23 AM

..one sided violence that leaves the source unafected will only lead to further unnecessary violence. At some point you must face the consequences of your actions, no matter how spoiled you are.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 27, 2005 09:20 AM

I agree that the violence of the past few years has been terrible, and I would certainly like it to have not happened. Never the less, to think that this is an anomaly in the violence of human history you are living in a fantasy world. If an incidence of violence affecting the source of most of the violence in the world is what it takes to wake people up to the facts of thier actions, it must be.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 27, 2005 09:13 AM

"If you really mean this then this is callousness of a high order indeed." I did not say that the september thing was in anyway a postitive development. I was simply making an analysis of the resulting exposure of the true nature of the US empire. The september thing only exposed the US for what it is, it exposed the motives behind the diplomatic lies. It also surly did weaken the empire, not strengthen it as you imply. It has lead to an overextended military, exposed the callous avarice driven nature of the global capitalists and united many on their quest to end the empire soon.

Reply this comment


50

Re: Ward Churchill

By Peterson, David at Feb 26, 2005 11:32 AM

Throughout I have taken Ward Churchill's "little Eichmanns"-phrase to mean people for whom it is more or less true that, as in Eichmann's defense of his work for the Judenreferat while on trial in Jerusalem, they were just doing their jobs, following orders, and cannot be held responsible for the nature of the task assigned them or its overarching design and consequences. As Hannah Arendt reported in Eichmann in Jerusalem (from which the phrase "banality of evil" derives---though not what it means):
[W]hen I speak of the banality of evil, I do so only on the strictly factual level, pointing to a phenomenon which stared one in the face at the trial....Except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, [Eichmann] had no motives at all. And this diligence in itself was in no way criminal; he certainly would never have murdered his superior in order to inherit his post. He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 26, 2005 08:38 AM

Look, ultimately Churchill was wrong on this point if only because 9/11 has lead (and will continue to lead) to many more deaths and much more suffering in the Middle East, not less. Again I disagree, ultimately the distruction of the US empire will lead to less suffering and death in the ME and everywhere.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 26, 2005 08:31 AM

"And by the way WC... said *little* Eichman's. This imparts a lesser degree of responsiblity." No it doesn't, it is just an attempt to insult them (litterally, 'belittling' them) at the same time it is justifying their deaths. I still disagree, he meant it as a slightly less damning term.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 26, 2005 08:28 AM

The attacks weren't against a building. A building can't "cause thousands to starve to death." The attacks were against people. Well of course, I meant that the actions of the people in the building had lead to the deaths of hundred of thousands of people.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 26, 2005 08:27 AM

"I would disagree... I think that he was saying that we deserved it for the tens of thousands that we have killed." If that is what Churchill was really trying to say, I would have to disagree with him. I think his analysis has a lot more validity if his point was what I interpreted it as. He would not have used the Echmann analogy if he thought that the trade center employees did not diserve death, like the German Echmann.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 26, 2005 07:24 AM

If I understand him correctly WC claimed his intent wasn't to make any moral judgement.He was(according to him) merely pointing out the objective law of cause and effect: what comes around, go around. If you create a lot of miseries aboard, people will retaliate.

Reply this comment


Person

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 25, 2005 07:35 AM

And by the way WC never called anybody Nazi's or Eichman's, he said *little* Eichman's. This imparts a lesser degree of responsiblity.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 25, 2005 07:32 AM

I would disagree, I think WC was not saying that when they do it, it is wrong and when we do it, it is wrong. I think that he was saying that we deserved it for the tens of thousands that we have killed. We have to remember the targets on that day, the pentegon; an obviously deserving target. And the "World Trade Center", a building that has caused thousands to starve to death because of the decisions made inside it.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Caper_1974, Aintitso at Feb 25, 2005 03:41 AM

Thanks Graeme for not making any snide remarks implying ignorance or lack of education on my part just because I brought up a tender subject, really. I did not mean to imply that ALL Native Americans were responsible for their demise. Naturally the individual nations had chiefs who held counsel and made decisions, the consequences of which were brought to bear on the whole people of that nation. One excavation site at Crow Creek Canyon uncovered no less than 486 men, women, and children, the youngest being between five and seven years old. Most had been scalped and the majority had hands and feet removed, most likely taken as trophies by the invading tribe. My point is that when the scope of your whole world is the size of the northern plains, this surely must have seemed to them, worse than 9/11 seemed to us. Not all were responsible, but yet some, on one side or the other, were disposed to aggression and/or revenge. Ward may not have said that all Americans should be prepared to die but, to the average Joe, his statements resonate don't be surprised if you do and because you elected Bush, you probably had it coming.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Caper_1974, Aintitso at Feb 24, 2005 22:39 PM

I'm confused. If the 9/11 victims “had it coming to them” so to speak, because Americans are an evil race of oppressors and commit all sorts of atrocities against humanity, would it then be fair to say that the Native Americans had it coming to them because of their practices of warring on each other, taking and trading slaves, scalping women and children of neighboring tribes, sometimes for no other reason than to prove a young warrior's bravery? I mean no disrespect of any kind but there is scientific and historical evidence that shows the indigenous people of what now is the U.S. did indeed prey upon one another when it was expedient to do so or sometimes just to prove a point. Dismemberment, torture, killing of women and children, annihilations of entire villages, were all a part of daily life. Would Ward's standard apply? Don't get me wrong. I've got no axe to grind against Native Americans. I'm merely trying to understand what seems like a double standard to me. Civilizations rise and fall, and depending on your perspective you can pick and choose which “chickens came home to roost”.

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Shannon, James at Feb 21, 2005 20:32 PM

There is a revolution brewing in the hearts and minds of those who understand that democracy is anything but democratic and freedom is meaningless without economic justice. The United States government - like all governments throughout history exist for one reason and one reason only. To protect the interests of the monied elite. We are free to vote for the Nazi's of our time who are looking out for the rich - yet another generation of mindless sheep led to economic slaughter for the benefit of the few. Most people do not push back - Those who do are killed literally and figuratively by the Nazi's protecting the wealth of the elite. Freedom of Speech is yet another joke of our culture. Say what you believe and if does not agree with the Naxi thinking of the right you are not a patriot. "United we fall devide we stand."

Reply this comment


Person

Re: Ward Churchill

By Tdc, Wtgn at Feb 19, 2005 08:20 AM

WC lying about his injun, or "red man" blood line is symptomatic of far bigger issues related to credibility. WC not only lied about his injun roots, but his service in Vietnam, and he is an academic fraud. The man lies about the most basic and fundamental aspects of his self as well as his life's work, and he deserves anyone's respect? Why do you idiots stick up for him? I say he gets the injun punishment that a traitor deserves: bury him up to his neck, cover him with honey and let the fire ants finish him off. Truly, this would be a fitting end for this proud native warrior (ha ha ha ha)!

Reply this comment

Loading_border