Ward Churchill and Free Speech

[Warrior413]

So there's this radical professor Ward Churchill at Colorado University who has compared the victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns", referring to the Nazi bureaucrat, and has made some very controversial statements. I want to know what you think about this. Should he be fired, disemboweled, congratulated, given some slight attention then ignored, whatever.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2693730,00.html There's probably better information, but here's a start...

And on another note, my parents and I had a debate on this, my NF mom saying (more or less) he was a bad man and shouldn't say such naughty mean things, and my dad and I taking the NT side, saying he has a right to free speech, and he had a point, although we disagreed with him.

[HeyBooU]

As you said, he does have a point and has every right to express his opinion. I wish I could have heard him say and actually hear him speak to get everything into context. For some reason I'm thinking him being Native American has something to do with his views as well.

[Claverhouse]

He, and everyone else, has an entire right to believe what he likes --- this is part of the human condition after all, not all the powers in and out of this world can regulate thought --- and generally a near absolute right to express those thoughts. The last though are regulated by consequence. EG: only a fool will stand up in certain places and express their truly-held beliefs. Also other parts of the law of consequence come into play, such as it may be wrong to be valiant for truth if that truth brings destruction on others, either those you support or those you abhor.

An example would be 'outing' someone who does not wish his/her private life or teenage membership of the communist party to be made prominent; or more widely, if a truth about a tribes's past massacre revealed caused future massacres.

Nonetheless, although I find what he has said unpleasant and I imagine untrue, I can't really find it offensive. To use lack of conformity as a weapon always reflects badly on boasts of academic freedom.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


BTW Eichmann was not a top nazi. He was a lieutenant-colonel. Through the entanglements of a muddleheaded bureaucracy ( something not confined to the armed forces of the nazi state ) he reached a fairly minor post that had momentous consequences. His later kidnap and 'trial' both illegal under international law made him far more well-known than he deserved; allowing him to be the scapegoat for other equally or more guilty men.

He was also, amusingly considering they eventually killed him, a committed Zionist, and maintained excellent relations with those people before and throughout WWII.

[garak]

I saw him with Paula Zahn on CNN. He seemed quite like an INTP actually -- he was easily able to argue logically while separating it from his beliefs and whatnot. He said that some things he's said have been hyperbolic and purely to provoke people. Paula Zahn looked like a complete fucking idiot arguing with this guy. I have a lot of respect for him.

For example, he argued that what the terrorists did was understandable considering all of the things we've done in the middle east to piss them off. Paula Zahn was moronic enough to interpret this as him supporting the terrorists.

Another thing was his comparison of our collateral damage vs. theirs. They flew planes into the WTC to make a statement -- I doubt they really cared about killing those specific people. The US military is fighting over there and when they do so, they know there will be collateral damage in the form of thousands of innocent civilians casualties. They do it anyways. How are those thousands of "collateral" (but known in advance) deaths any different from the thousands of people killed by the terrorists making their statement? It's just another example of us devaluing the lives of arabs. We really don't care.

[mgb]

It's quite interesting actually, from the terrorist's standpoint, the WTC wasn't a civilian attack at all. The war they are fighting isn't about soldiers, they are fighting a war against the economic machine that is the US. The terrorists were fighting against Coca Cola being in every village on earth and McDonald's popping up all over the place. It wasn't collateral damage at all. The people in the office tower were directly and indirectly responsible for propagating these American ideals. I mean, if you want to look at it from their perspective.

The closest thing I can approximate it to would be the end of Fight Club, with more casualties.

If this fellow is a Native American, I can understand his dislike for the American economy and government.

The real problem facing the US isn't just the arab terrorists, but the white ones as well. Once they both realize they want the same thing (downfall of the US system) there will be some big trouble. You should read the Turner Diaries, pretty scary.

[joft]

garak, wtf @ your last paragraph. they didn't necessarily intend to kill those specific people? they just wanted to crash a plane into the building and knock it down but not anybody to die? I don't think so.

And the "collateral" deaths from our military actions are not intended, we put huge efforts and dollars into ensuring we kill as few people as possible.

Your last 2 sentences are pretty accurate, our society places a huge value on human life, but only human life that we're closely aware of. The further removed away from us, the less noticeable, and the easier it is for our consciences to write them off.

[garak]

garak, wtf @ your last paragraph. they didn't necessarily intend to kill those specific people? they just wanted to crash a plane into the building and knock it down but not anybody to die? I don't think so.
They didn't say "let's kill these EXACT ~3000 people." They didn't care who the people were. They just wanted to topple some huge buildings and kill some people to send a message.


And the "collateral" deaths from our military actions are not intended, we put huge efforts and dollars into ensuring we kill as few people as possible.
But we know they'll still die, and we still proceed. Their deaths are acceptable.

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min: 15654
Max: 17884
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

~1500 Americans have died?

[mgb]

They didn't say "let's kill these EXACT ~3000 people." They didn't care who the people were. They just wanted to topple some huge buildings and kill some people to send a message.


But we know they'll still die, and we still proceed. Their deaths are acceptable.

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Min: 15654
Max: 17884
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

~1500 Americans have died?

But they did have elections, I guess you CAN force democracy down people's throats.

[HeyBooU]

It is funny because I first heard about Churchill on Bill O'Reilly(Funny man he is. Always in for a good laugh when I watch him), and i had my other roommates in watching as well. Our completely different reactions was interesting because one roommates reaction was a typical "Oh my God, that guy is a horrible person." While the other was just silent with his eyes wide open while I sat back and laughed about the fact that someone had the balls to say something like that. People are fun.

[Spartan26]

I saw him with Paula Zahn on CNN. He seemed quite like an INTP actually -- he was easily able to argue logically while separating it from his beliefs and whatnot. He said that some things he's said have been hyperbolic and purely to provoke people.
I did not read or hear the speech but I read over part of a statement Churchill prepared explaining the context of his speech. It struck me as being somewhat similiar to Malcolm X's comment of the "chickens coming home to roost" in regards to John F. Kennedy's assassination. I didn't read the link but I assume the title of Churchill's speech alluded to that.

If you're going to say something to provoke people and rile them up you need to also give them an avenue to release whatever it is that's been worked up inside of them. Otherwise, what can they do but be pissed off and threaten to burn your house down, warrented or not?

I would've liked (not the best word) to have seen Churchill's comments expressed through some artform. I find the "music" of Shostakovich too painful to suffer through but I appreciate the message of the life in Russia he lived and struggled against.

I think the art industry could use a few radical people to make it more engaging, compelling, and breath new life into it. Which is not to say there aren't lines or boundaries to be respected.

I generally dislike trying to provoke just to provoke. If you've got a message to convey just say it, don't be cute. I can't think of a time where hyperbole ever worked. People generally miss the message you're trying to convey. Unless you're saying something you know them to already agree with, in which case it ceases to be hyperbole and becomes propaganda.

I think song lyrics and paintings are much more effective in delivering dissenting views in a way can raise thought and emotion. If you're going to do straight words without the pretty wrapping, then you better bury your message in punchlines.

Probably the most effective way to say something provacative is stand up. The harder someone laughs the more they have to consider to heart what you're saying. Chris Rock, Eddie Griffin, Marc Maron are three guys I can think of off the top of my head who can come up with radical, provoking view points but not be insufferable.

[Warrior413]

Some clarifications: he said his reference to Eichmann was apparently in the context of one of his colleague's works, and the point he was trying to make was that Eichmann and Americans just let it happen. This I can agree with somewhat.

About his being Native American, he claims some of his ancestors were Native American but it's very iffy and at most makes him 1/16th or 1/64th, and at that point...

I got this information from the Denver Post, yes the paper version.

Also, from the things he's said, his self-righteousness, and how he's simply being illogical, my best guess for him right now would be INFP.

[garak]

Also, from the things he's said, his self-righteousness, and how he's simply being illogical, my best guess for him right now would be INFP.
Have you seen him talk? To me he seemed very logical and emotionally detached from the issue. It's everyone else that is getting all uppity about him.

[Warrior413]

Have you seen him talk? To me he seemed very logical and emotionally detached from the issue. It's everyone else that is getting all uppity about him.
No, I read some of the comments that he made though. I chuckled at a few, I think one was something like, "What does it matter what high school I went to?" answering a reporter, and about his questionable Native American descent "Well I never claimed to be goddamned Sitting Bull." And yes, he does seem to be detached. But to me he still seems to be an INFP.

INFPs have the ability to see good in almost anyone or anything. Even for the most unlovable the INFP is wont to have pity.

Their extreme depth of feeling is often hidden, even from themselves, until circumstances evoke an impassioned response:
He made remarks about Americans being at fault for the death of many Iraqis and so on. He said the terrorists were forced to retaliate. And he served 11 months in Vietnam, saying that he would never want someone to be in the same situation, having to kill others. I think all of this demonstrates his idealism and at the same time shows very little logic.

After I read about him I came to respect a lot of what he said and did while at the same time being amazed at how many things were simply bullshit.

[crule81]

I generally dislike trying to provoke just to provoke. If you've got a message to convey just say it, don't be cute. I can't think of a time where hyperbole ever worked. People generally miss the message you're trying to convey.

Well it worked with us to a certain extent. Many posts in this thread have addressed Churchill's underlying message. His blazing rhetoric caught our attention and caused us to discuss his theories. Most people, however, are either too stupid or too disinterested to see through the rhetoric for the actual message underlying it. All Mr. Churchill's words would do for most people is to further prejudice the majority against the academic far left.

[Arioch]

No, I read some of the comments that he made though. I chuckled at a few, I think one was something like, "What does it matter what high school I went to?" answering a reporter, and about his questionable Native American descent "Well I never claimed to be goddamned Sitting Bull." And yes, he does seem to be detached. But to me he still seems to be an INFP.

He made remarks about Americans being at fault for the death of many Iraqis and so on. He said the terrorists were forced to retaliate. And he served 11 months in Vietnam, saying that he would never want someone to be in the same situation, having to kill others. I think all of this demonstrates his idealism and at the same time shows very little logic.

After I read about him I came to respect a lot of what he said and did while at the same time being amazed at how many things were simply bullshit.

Hmm.. no.

One: I don't see whats so illogical about it.
Two: What your seeing as illogical thoughts could very well be the influence of extroverted Feeling. A INTP's shadow function.

[JAFF]

It's quite interesting actually, from the terrorist's standpoint, the WTC wasn't a civilian attack at all. The war they are fighting isn't about soldiers, they are fighting a war against the economic machine that is the US. The terrorists were fighting against Coca Cola being in every village on earth and McDonald's popping up all over the place. It wasn't collateral damage at all. The people in the office tower were directly and indirectly responsible for propagating these American ideals. I mean, if you want to look at it from their perspective.



Treating those responsile for the attacks on the WTC on Sept 11 2001 as misguided anti-imperialists is a dangerous leap of faith. The truth is that they are not fighting against the spread of American culture, they are fighting for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic theocracy.


The situation in question not only involved freedom of speech, but the use of government money to finance that speech. I fully support the right of this man (whose essay I mostly agreed with) to speak freely, just as I would support the rights of someone who I didn't agree with. But should they be sponsored by the government (via being paid to give a speech)?

[Zero Angel]

He does have the right to express those opinions, and did raise some interesting points, but the world is not ready for his point of view (and he is lacking in tact) because everyone has already chosen their side and I think to them he's being disloyal (according to my understanding of the description of Fe), maybe even traitorous by taking such a stand. Comparing anyone to the Nazi's is way too harsh, even for a T, but I suppose he did succeed in getting his points across. However, the Nazi regime managed to trick people into thinking they were fighting for the right cause as well. So thats something to be vigilant of. Luckily, we live in the information age and propaganda is not so easily controlled (unless you subscribe to the mainstream media only)

[Claverhouse]

The situation in question not only involved freedom of speech, but the use of government money to finance that speech. I fully support the right of this man (whose essay I mostly agreed with) to speak freely, just as I would support the rights of someone who I didn't agree with. But should they be sponsored by the government (via being paid to give a speech)?
But then should a government only sponsor and employ the speakers of wholesome views who fully support the government and the established belief-system ?

'I say yes.' Josef Goebbels.

'Obviously.' V. I. Lenin.

'Only those committed to democratic ideals and the furtherance of economic and political freedom ( and low taxes ) should have a platform.' Big Business.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[floid]

So there's this radical professor Ward Churchill at Colorado University who has compared the victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns", referring to the Nazi bureaucrat, and has made some very controversial statements. I want to know what you think about this. Should he be fired, disemboweled, congratulated, given some slight attention then ignored, whatever.


His message should be given a lot of attention.

The dark side of the U. S. that nobody wants to look at because it might ultimately cramp their lifestyle is going to be the ruin of this "country".

It may be uncomfortatble to hear what he has to say, but the U. S. and it's supporters need to give it a long, hard, objective listen because it is the piece of the puzzle that is lost in their "blind spot", and will therefore be, if continually ignored, the achilles heel throught which they are destroyed.

I don't like rectal examinations.
But having watched relatives die of colon cancer I willingly endure them.

All Ward Churchill is trying to have us do is take an objective look at some of our dirty little assumptions.

If we're too bigoted to do that, then we're probably too far gone already.

[mgb]

Treating those responsile for the attacks on the WTC on Sept 11 2001 as misguided anti-imperialists is a dangerous leap of faith. The truth is that they are not fighting against the spread of American culture, they are fighting for the establishment of a worldwide Islamic theocracy.




Oh, I'd have to disagree with that.

I'd think they seek to protect the existing theocracies, except I don't even think that. Bin Laden attacked the US knowing full well what the consequences were. He also must have known that the attack would in no way have lead to people in the US, or anywhere, converting to Islam.

He attacked civilian targets with the sole intent of sending the message that they should stay the hell away from him. He attacked military targets because they are the weapons of the US corporations that allow the corporations to seep into every creavace of every society everywhere.

Bin Laden can also look at the numbers and see that eventually, within the next twenty years, Islam will become the largest religion on Earth.

There was no way this was done to propagate Islam and it's theocratic governments. To say that is to say that Bin Laden is a short sighted idiot. Russia would definetly disagree with that, the US would probably as well.

[joft]

I think it's much more likely that bin Laden (and many others) are thinking from a standpoint that's not just based on their religion, but their political idealism as well. This is very common all over the world (and possibly testifies to the fact that religion serves to keep the masses tamed). The amount of democratic and/or capitalistic rhetoric that is preached from pulpits in the U.S. is staggering.