He's claimed to be Indian, but he's apparently not.

He claims to be an artist, but he's apparently not.

The only thing we know for sure about this guy is that he hates his own country, the US of A, and yet he has hundreds of mindless Leftist students who support him.

Oh, and we also know he looks like he's homeless.

Dean in 2008!

The substance of Churchill's essay has nothing to do with HIS race/ethnicity.

The question for me is do we want Bill O'Reilly, et al, to pre-read and censure prose that HE finds personally offensive.

Granted, Churchill has a caustic style. However, it must be viewed from the vantage of ethnic people. And on balance, the USA has a history of voilence toward non-white/Anglo people; Native American's, African's (Slaves), Hispanics. Since the 1970's, these USA groups collective voice, along indeginous people around the world have been trumpeted by the likes of Churchill.

The fact is, the USA military has directly been responsible for many deaths (prior to 9/11). And to the extent that mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters in Iraq, Palestine, or any number of places can feel pain and anger, then "hitting back" the country responsible seems reasonable, to the extent that war is reasonable.

Where do you hit? Well, is it reasonable to bomb the stratgic military center and economic center of a country we are at war with? The USA bombed a number of strategic targets in Iraq. And people who worked within these strategic targets as individual's advancing their countries ideology and control became valid targets. And so, likewise, people working in the World Trade Center (who knew it to be a target prior to 9/11) were similarly valid targets of an "enemy."

I am sad for all innocent life lost in war. But, can we not expect violated peoples to hit back, at some point?

That is the disturbing question that Churchill asks.

Yep, those "little Eichmans" deserved nothing but death.

Thank you, Professor Churchill, for pointing us in the proper direction!

Looks like he's homeless? Are you out of your mind? What an incredibly small-minded statement.

I look like a conservative republican (white male, short hair, six foot tall), but that doesn't make me one.

Maybe you should try looking at the world through eyes that see more than physical appearance. While you're at it, why don't you come up with some evidence of Ward Churchill's heinous crimes?

I don't have any particular love for the guy, but I have yet to see any actual evidence of any wrongdoing. Add in the fact that none of his "adventures" were noticed or raised until three years after his perhaps poorly chosen phraseology, when a few righties needed an intellectual pin cushion, and you really just have a bunch of mindless noise.

Why don't you try talking about something you know, and quit contributing to a pointless partisan withchunt?

You want evidence of Ward's crimes? Check this out:

http://news4colorado.com/siteSearch/local_story_055200531.html

Theft of someones copywritten work is the least of this guys crimes.

>>Yep, those "little Eichmans" deserved nothing but death.<<

There is no greater crime in this world than crunching numbers for Wall Street brokers. It's just like sending Jews to the death camps.

Dave

Churchill's many frauds are debated in detail on the indymedia website:

http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/112864.shtml

The only thing positive that can be said about him at this point is that he is entitled to freedom of speech. When that is your best argument, and when your supporters defend you on that basis, it's time to take a good look in the mirror.

Excuse me, Mr. Wolf? Freedom of speech is likely one of the most important rights and necessary requirement in a free democracy. You need to read the Federalist Papers, and maybe the essay by Churchill, because you do not get it. I think you are following the crowd without critically thinking about how dangerous to freedom your views really are!

Whatever the circumstances around his heritage or art work, the fact remains he speaks for a large portion of our country. And god forbid, he teaches our youth to think for themselves.....a very scary thing for the right in these times. He proposes a different view which is the only educated way to make a true and right decision. Carry on ....and peace to us all !!!

You're willing to let a man like Ward Churchill do your speaking for you, no wonder fewer people bother listening.

>>Whatever the circumstances around his heritage or art work, the fact remains he speaks for a large portion of our country. <<

Which portion would that be, exactly? Homeless people who mumble about how god sends angels to steal their blanket every night?

>>And god forbid, he teaches our youth to think for themselves.....a very scary thing for the right in these times. <<

If he teaches by example he teaches that it's possible to hold completely fraudulent beliefs based on paranoia and racism and get away with it. Is that a lesson we want to teach our kids?

I'd prefer that they learn to think for themselves - to analyze facts and come up with rational conclusions from them. Ward Churchill can't teach this because he clearly hasn't learned it himself.

Dave

Whatever you think about his 9/11 statements... check out the news link above about his art. I'm all for free speech and Churchill can say what he wants (isn't that what college professors are for) - but this art is total fraud and it is THAT which I have no respect for.

plus, dude is totally gravy training this controversy.

Churchill is highly regarded by his students, academic colleagues, and by legions of progressives who value him as both scholar and leader. His tenure was well-deserved and well-earned, and is now serving precisely the purpose for which tenure is designed, namely, as a bulwark against political attack. Almost none of Churchill's attackers can even quote him accurately. This discussion is not really about anything Churchill has done wrong. Rather, it's about what he's done right. He's being targeted for clarifying our understanding of American oppression and the the stuggle against it, and for inspiring those engaged in that struggle and related ones around the world.

More perspective on this witch-hunt:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_rwor.html

Spin is fine, but the problem with scam artists nowadays is that anything they've written (or painted and sold) gets included in some database online. It's hard to back away from a published position, and I doubt Churchill will succeed. (Although I will give him an "E" for effort...)

The good opinion of his students and neighbors won't protect him from charges of art fraud; neither should his tenured position.

Yep, like the LA Times article on Norht Korea, the danger is not the only in what is said or written, it is that if left unchallleged and debunked, it winds up passing into conventional wisdom. The old maxim, "A lie repeated often enough becomes truth" is proven almost every day, and becomes worse as people start arguing from gut instinct than reason, coupled with fewer folks willing to back up argument not with fact, but little snippets of info gleaned from TV.

Churchill may sound like a bastard, but the kind of soap-box diatribes people like him and Chalmers Johnson produce are necessary to get Americans thinking outside of what Fox and CNN tells them. We as a nation are less informed about our governments doings than most other first-world nations, and it would seem that we may like it better that way. The devil's advocate in me loves these guys - they blow things out of proportion, express their views in such an inflamatory light that they can't be ignored. This of course also has the other effect of reducing their credibility. But scholars like these open the doors for more reputable analysis. In any case, it should be addressed by Americans that what we do has repurcussions which kill people. Sometimes those repurcussions come back home. We trained and supported the taliban, osama, and husein at one point or another to serve our own interests. We knew they were extremists then. This is just a little taste of things we have done. there is no denying facts like this, nor does anyone try. most people just dont know or care or are indifferent. So what Churchill said about the 9/11 being a crack team of iraqis - well thats probably not true. when he said that the WTC was a legitemate military target because it has a CIA office, and that the pentagon was a military target, well i would be inclined to agree. Churchill says that he doesn't condone violence but stresses that violence is violence whether america or terrorists perpetrate it. It is also important to stress that terrorists attack civilian targets or attack military targets in unconventional ways which we deem cowardly because there is no way for them to attack us otherwise. we can mobilize massive armies or tight covert operations and our forces are virtually invincible. So terrorists attack the soft underbelly, strike fear into the hearts of complacent americans who dont really realize what is truly going on elsewhere. it is one of the only options they have available to them. does that make it just? does that make it moral? no. but since when has anyone really cared about an overall justice or morality when it comes to issues of international security anyways? does america follow international law? no. are the things we do really moral? not really. What it comes down to is that peoples will do what is in their power in order to protect what they believe are their own rights. Wow, this is turning into an unfocused rant. Bottom-line: free speech is key, Churchill should keep his tenure. America does horrible things, we also do good things, but in the end we do everything in our own interest. terrorists do horrible things, but they usually come from a life raised among horrible conditions and so why not throw some of that back in the face of the people they deem responsible? Life's a b*tch.

...they blow things out of proportion, express their views in such an inflamatory light that they can't be ignored. This of course also has the other effect of reducing their credibility.

Yes, it does. When ridiculous overstatement is the only way to get attention, you concede the weakness of your argument right at the start.

Churchill has the right in America to say such ludicrous things without let; that is free speech. He does not have any constitutional right to a job at the University -- that's a different issue altogether.

Some friends who are Colorado residents and alums of the school believe he will be fired, and then, under the terms of his tenure, the University (and Colorado taxpayers) will continue to pay him $85K per year for the rest of his life.

Pretty good scam, eh?

I disagree with a lot of churchill's marxist and anti white politics,but the man does make some valid points.9/11 was a reaction to our governments polices and if he wants to hate America let him there are a lot of things to hate about America,but mabey some of you right wing conservitives are to filled with pro American propaganda to see that

how churchill propagandrizes white/anglos committing genocide on blacks,browns and reds is basically the same tatics the nazis used against the jews the only differance is he is his agenda is anti white social marxism.I could propagandarize the fact that the mixed race arab/black moores enslaved,raped and murdered the white people of southern europe for 700 years or that gangus kahn who invaded and almost breed out central europe was the same race as the american indian or that in the past 40 years black americans murdered 80,000+ white americans acording to fbi statistic or that 1 million europen whites where enslaved by africans from the 1500's-1800's get my point. the fact is all people have murdered and enslaved in the name of race,religion and teritory not just whites

Churchill propagandarizes the fact that white/anglos committed genoiced on blacks,browns and reds those same tatics where used by the nazis against the jews the only differance is churchill's agenda is a anti white-social marxist one.I could propagandrize the fact that the mixed race arab/black moores enslaved,raped and murdered the whites of southern europe for 700 years or that gangus kahn who invaded and almost breed out central europe was the same race as the american indians or that 80,000+ white americans where murdered by black americans in the last 40 years acording to Fbi satistic or that 1 million white europens where enslaved by africans from the 1500's-1800's . get my point? the fact is all people murdered,conqured,raped and enslaved in the name of race,religion and teritory not just whites

churchill and all his slave trade 3rd passage crap the fact is everyone had their hand in slavery . everyone from the neighboring african cheiftons who enslaved their own to the white/jewish slaveship owners to the 6-8 percent anglo/white collinist that owned slaves and as for Native Americans there are more Native Americans and mixed bloods then there where when columbus arrived

It's too late to do anything to help the Arawaks -- their genocide was complete a century after Columbus arrived on their shores. But it's _not_ too late to correct the huge and continuing wealth inequities between African-Americans or American Indians and the descendants of the European settlers who enslaved and dispossessed their ancestors.

Remember Reagan's Trickle-Down Economics, the idea that if the public treasury demanded less of the very rich, the rest of us would benefit from their increased investment? Didn't turn out that way; wealth is now much more concentrated at the top of the income scale than it was when Reagan took office.

The top 4% of the population has 59% of the wealth, according to United for a Fair Economy
http://www.stw.org/
We need to redistribute the wealth in this country, to loosen the grip of the super-rich on our government and repair the continuing damage the slavers and settlers did to large parts of the United States population.

Telling the injured parties to "just get over it" doesn't cut it.

ted the majority of white settlers where poor/working and middle class and had nothing to do with the opresstion of anyone. as for the 4 percent who has the money here and globally ? well, who owns the trade ceneter,aig,fox,time warner,liz clay borne and every other major corparation that exploits people world wide? and also owns every major Tv-radio station and makes up 75 percent of bush's cabinit?jews not white anglo saxons white anglo saxons sold their soul and country a long time ago to jews ,infact he even sends his children to die for israil and oil 66 percent of all american troops in Iraq and 69 percent of the casualties are white mostly anglo saxons . these are the majority of Americans who live in trailers and rural are and have no job oppurtuinities who you bash and cast the blame on

I'm sure Ward Churchill would be proud to know that the anti-semites are on his side too.

Dave

No I,M not a anti-semite,infact I have 1 quarter jewish ancestory an i AM not casting blame on every jewish person just stating the facts

and 9/11 hapened as a result of American policies aboad and Americas pro zionist policies. any right winger

gun-ho patriot fool who thinks they did this because they are religious nutts are subscribing to anti-semetic propaganda,because arabs are included as semetic

why do you think russian is not supportive of america? because we are not a domacracy we are social marxism and they had enough of that. we are not a domacracy and haven,t been in well over 100 years and we do not install domacracies in other countries we install social marxism

Dave how can you say I,m anti-semetic? why are you not condeming others on this board for beeing anti-anglo or anti white?regardless if i agree with them or churchill they still have a right to a fourm to be heard

Editorial Note:

"Eric" and "eric" do not equal "Eric Berlin" or "Eric Olsen" (if I may speak for Mr. O here).

~ Eric B.

Jews do NOT make up 75% of Bush's Cabinet.

In fact, I can't name a single Jew in his Cabinet, though there probably is one or two...

I can't think of one off-hand.

About the Jews "running things," I always go back to the absolutely brilliant thoughts of Jackie Mason, who did a whole bit about Jews at a retaurant arguing over who would pay the bill, how many plates should be brought out, if something should be served on the side, on one plate, etc., arguments over who's eating too much, too little, etc. The upshot: if the Jews (Disclaimer: I am one) can't get together in a restaurant, how can they be running the planet?

>>No I,M not a anti-semite,infact I have 1 quarter jewish ancestory<<

So did Hitler.

>> an i AM not casting blame on every jewish person just stating the facts<<

But your 'facts' are actually not true, and all they do is expose your bigotry.

Dave

I can name more then 2 richerd perle,paul wolfwitz,kenneth adelmen,Ilewis libby,robert satloff,elliott abrams,marc grossman,rich haass,ari fleischer,david wurmser,elliott cohen,steve goldstein,adam goldman,mark winberger,stuart bernstein,jay lefkowitz,josh bolten,

and don,t believe everything you read hitler beeing half jewish is not confrimed.however,eva bran was half

you shouldn,t call people bigots cause your ignorant about whose in office. I am not a nationalist and I am not a socialist and I am not a fan of hitler don,t even conpair me to him I was just stateing facts

Please do not feed the troll....

Well, it is official. He is OUT. The Denver Press reported this morning that he was bought out of his contract.

my take: I fully support his intellectual freedom to say what he wants. Everything he has done since then is just annoying. He is running around with AIM as his posse because he is one/ one millionth native.

Besides the forged art scandal, I have heard passing reference to military record scandal as well. He is an opportunist schmuck.

thanks Lono, very important info. Sounds like he just became too big a liability. Maybe someone should write this up - hint hint

Wow, I wish I could lie about my background and pass off other' work as my own and walk away with a nice settlement to finance my own brand of stupidity, along with free publicity and martyr cred, some guys have all the luck.

"I can name more then 2 richerd perle"

Not in Bush's Cabinet.

"paul wolfwitz"

He's not the SecDef (Rumsfeld is), so he's not in Bush' Cabinet.

"kenneth adelmen"

Who?

"Ilewis libby"

Who?

"robert satloff"

Who?

"elliott abrams"

Who?

"marc grossman"

Who?

"rich haass"

Who?

"ari fleischer"

A FORMER PressSec, which is NOT a part of the Cabinet...

"david wurmser"

Who?

"elliott cohen"

Who?

"steve goldstein"

Who?

"adam goldman"

Who?

"mark winberger"

Who?

"stuart bernstein"

Who?

"jay lefkowitz"

Who?

"josh bolten"

Who?

So...you're batting 0.000...

"I can name more then 2 richerd perle"

Not in Bush's Cabinet.

"paul wolfwitz"

He's not the SecDef (Rumsfeld is), so he's not in Bush' Cabinet.

"kenneth adelmen"

Who?

"Ilewis libby"

Who?

"robert satloff"

Who?

"elliott abrams"

Who?

"marc grossman"

Who?

"rich haass"

Who?

"ari fleischer"

A FORMER PressSec, which is NOT a part of the Cabinet...

"david wurmser"

Who?

"elliott cohen"

Who?

"steve goldstein"

Who?

"adam goldman"

Who?

"mark winberger"

Who?

"stuart bernstein"

Who?

"jay lefkowitz"

Who?

"josh bolten"

Who?

So...you're batting 0.000...

Well done, RJ -- I was hoping someone would do that...

I think the most telling thing is that the troll has bothered to actually track down and catalog every person who is jewish or at least has a jewish sounding name in the administration. If he's wasting time thinking about that kind of thing, he's got to have a motivation, and the only one that makes sense is anti-semitism. Or maybe he just got the list off of the WAR website.

Dave

"Well done, RJ -- I was hoping someone would do that..."

My pleasure, EB. And I always enjoy reading your posts. Even though, you know, you're a filthy Jew bloodsucker... ;-P

[response to Arthur Bierman in Sunday?s Daily Camera (Boulder, CO)]

Your reading of Churchill?s essay was so tainted by your own sense of righteousness it disgusts me. Stick to physics, paisan!
Look, forget Ward Churchill.
Facts (shortened version):
1. Al Qaeda was created from the remnants of the Mujahadin?the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion. They had no real effectiveness until the U.S. in its dogged manic drive to outspend the Soviets to extinction (mission accomplished) sent in the CIA et. al. to train them to the point of effectiveness. It worked, the Soviets left, and so did all our support. Result: an army of Afghani rebels in a depleted society with no one to re-train them to help rebuild their country. Thanks for letting us use you, goodbye, you?re on your own?standard U.S. foreign policy. Hence, no little resentment towards the U.S. Did they find some way to redirect all their military skill and fervor? Yes?it?s called terrorism! Did they organize? Yes?as Al Qaeda. Just lookin? for more fightin?, ?cause that?s what they knew how to do!
2. The bin Laden family amassed wealth, in good capitalist fashion, by building palaces--and anything else?for the Saudi oil families. And how did they get rich? By selling lots and lots of oil to the world, but primarily to the most over consumptive, wasteful-of-resources, ignorant-of-the-world-outside-its-own-borders (let?s just say it?provincial) country in the world. Sure it?s the greatest nation ever, but ?great? can simply mean ?big?. So, to a great extent, they made their capitalist wealth off of the U.S. of A.
3. For whatever reason (maybe, say, access to Iraqi oil reserves?), back in 1990, the U.S. et. al made an implicit invitation to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. Surprise, surprise!?he did. Followed by the Gulf War, and 12 years of sanctions. The latter did not hurt Mr. Hussein significantly, but caused a lot of suffering and death from disease and shit for the majority of the Iraqi people, probably more than would have occurred just from Mr. Hussein?s fucking oppression. Point being, it didn?t help the Iraqis worth doo-doo What did I accomplish? it made us look good and moral. Well, that and $3.50 will get you a latte.. Oh yeah?not a partisan problem here--we?ve been greatest-nation-assholes under all administrations since the Cold War began. Well, all that death and suffering?and the presence of U.S. armed forces on Islamic soil?pissed off Osama, who was maybe not the most rational Muslim out there, but he had money and most of the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.
4. Osama meets Al Qaeda. It?s a match made in heaven (without the 70-odd virgins, although, who knows?). Together, they make a plan. Osama funds it. They carry it out. Not impulsively nor senselessly, and certainly with effectiveness.
5. 9/11/2001: what the U.S. has sown, it reaps.

Churchill?s point (and mine): WE ARE NOT INNOCENT VICTIMS. However, we are stuck in victim mentality, i.e.: we believe we bear no responsibility, that we are victims of terrorists, who are completely evil persecutors, and that George W. is rescuing us. Yee-hah! It?s the land of the free-from-any-responsibility-for-our-own-fucking-fate. If we could only sue the bin Ladens, we wouldn?t have had to go to war! Unfortunately, we don?t support the World Court. Damn!

I said this months before I had even heard of Ward Churchill: 9/11 was the chickens coming home to roost. And now the ignoramuses such as?well, just about anybody who has attacked Mr. Churchill, especially those calling for his dismissal from CU?you, Mr. Bierman, have failed to understand what he wrote, have attacked multilaterally without engaging in any dialogue in the issue?and instead have attacked his person--and are ready to trample all over freedom of speech in your rush to lynch yet another scapegoat in the War Against Terror, which is primarily the terror in your own little minds.

If this McCarthyism continues, I have half a mind (and that?s a mandate, you know) to pick up where my great ancestor Nathaniel Jones of Vermont left off in expelling the tyranny of Britain?s King George by taking up a musket, or whatever, shoving it up your uptight asshole, and expanding your mind! Figuratively, of course?.

I think that he had the right from freedom of speech but i dont agree with what he said there were way to many innocent lives that were killed and he needs to think before he says things cause it does affect lots of people.

Im all for freedom of speech unless its used like him...i know people that had familys in that world trade center and they were innocent...so the people that cleaned toilets are innocent anymore what is this nation coming its pethedic if you have something to say that will affect people keep it in your head is it really that hard...dont think so! im disappointed in the college that is letting him come it makes me so mad just thinking about people agreeing with that man! if he knew someone in that tower i dont think he would even think of saying something so mean and dreadful! i agree with nicole all the way i hope everyone else starts to too

You really can't be selectively for freedom of speech. You really have to be either for it or if you're against it at all you're basically against it. Freedoms tend to be absolute and if they aren't, then they can be taken away at any time.

Dave

Dave sez...
*You really can't be selectively for freedom of speech. You really have to be either for it or if you're against it at all you're basically against it. Freedoms tend to be absolute and if they aren't, then they can be taken away at any time.*

best...thing...typed...ALL DAY!!!

you Dave are entitled to one Whoopie Pie!!

/golfclap

Excelsior!

Sorry Dave...I can't agree that freedoms tend to be absolute...Standing up and screaming "Fire" in a packed theatre doesn't count, neither does standing up in a loaded 747 and screaming "This plane is going to Lebanon". And try this on for size, next time you're going thru security at an airport, try whispering to the TSA personnel, "There's a bomb on the 6:30 flight to Chicago". All of these would argue against your "Freedoms tend to be absolute" argument. If you express your freedom of speech in any of those ways, you'll probably get a little time to re-evaluate your freedoms in a non-free way. In a free society, there are very few absolutes. Take Freedom of religion...if your religion believes you should be able to sacrifice virgins on the capitol steps, you're gonna find there may be some limits on that. And...what a terrible waste of virgins! In a free society, there's alot of grey and not a whole lot of black and white. The black and whites come in non-free socities. Like Saddam's Iraq, or Hitler's Germany or the Taliban's Afghanistan. The fact that things are grey is what seperates us from the people that wish they weren't. I think if you asked the berka wearing women of pre-invasion Afghanistan, they would have liked a little grey in their society. Just my opinion...and thank god I have the right to one. And the right to express it.