I live in Colorado, so we're updated daily on the adventures of Mr. Churchill. The latest buzz is Mr. Churchill used to be an "artist", and it came out late last week that some of his art was a blatant rip off. The report showed a painting by an actual artist, a piece of work that was copyrighted. Seems Mr. Churchill "based" his work on the painting. Problem is, his painting was exactly the same as the copyrighted work, except a mirror image. When confronted by a TV crew, Mr. Churchill attacked the cameraman.
I think the majority of us in Colorado are becoming rather tired of the antics of Mr. Churchill. Calling him a fraud is the nicest thing I can think of to say about him. The University of Colorado needs to show some guts and cut their ties with him. The sooner the better.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
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!
2 - sdk
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.
3 - RJ
Yep, those "little Eichmans" deserved nothing but death.
Thank you, Professor Churchill, for pointing us in the proper direction!
4 - William
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?
5 - dg
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.
6 - Dave Nalle
>>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
7 - Paul Wolf
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.
8 - sdk
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!
9 - Erin
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 !!!
10 - SFC SKI
You're willing to let a man like Ward Churchill do your speaking for you, no wonder fewer people bother listening.
11 - Dave Nalle
>>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
12 - Lono
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.
13 - tbagg
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
14 - DrPat
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.
15 - SFC SKI
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.
16 - Saiboto Explosivo
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.
17 - DrPat
...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?
18 - eric
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
19 - Eric
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
20 - Eric
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
21 - Eric
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
22 - Ted Bagg
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.
23 - eric
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
24 - Dave Nalle
I'm sure Ward Churchill would be proud to know that the anti-semites are on his side too.
Dave
25 - Eric
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