Thank you too...for staying on topic. It's impossible to discuss anything related to 911 or national security when people take EVERY SINGLE opportunity to push their favorite conspiracy theory into the conversation....effectively obstructing any constructive discourse about a very important issue.

one does need to explain why Prof. Churchill might have said what he did.
And why they want himm to shut up
(because if one person talks, it leads to others embolden to talk more, and that is how it grows and becomes reality)

We all do our own research,
I do not really know if there is or not, either way, I just live with the consequences of such things. I tend to look around, but unfortunately, some do not have as much time as others.

As for the professor, he is entitled to his opinions. That is what makes America great. If it is not part of his curriculum, I do not think it should effect him. People can disagree with him, but that is in the realm of debate. Then again, the real world deals with prejudism in thought, so we see people getting maligned for their beliefs, morally, socially or religiously. I do not think that will change.

Would I like the guy? Most probably not. Would I find him fascinating? Perhaps. Would I attack him for his ideas? I would question him, as they are just thoughts. Implemented in to action however, is a whole different story. It almost reminds me of that sarcastic proposition that deals with eating babies/children, that is required reading for middle school.

I am not here to defend or deny Mr Churchill's statements.....I don't know enough about him, personally, but it might be interesting to understand his perspective....
As a Native American, he can certainly speak on at least that despicable time in our history......

Ward Churchill (Keetoowah Band Cherokee) is one of the most outspoken of Native American activists. In his lectures and numerous published works, he explores the themes of genocide in the Americas, historical and legal (re)interpretation of conquest and colonization, literary and cinematic criticism, and indigenist alternatives to the status quo. Churchill is a Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies. He is also a past national spokesperson for the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. His books include Agents of Repression, Fantasies of the Master Race, From a Native Son and A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas.

Do you shun the 51% of the American population that excused the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis that the Bush administration murdered? The majority of the dead Iraqis and Afghanis were every bit as innocent as anyone in the WTC. I won't defend much of what Churchill said in his article but a lot of Americans do seem to think that American lives are worth more than the lives of anyone else.

Perhaps a thorough reading would reveal that whatever Churchill is saying, shutting him up has come from the public grassroots not the government AND there is absoutely no mention of anything you have brought up here. Perhaps you would like to steer everyone to your favorite topic and thus force everyone else to "shut up" about the topic at hand. There are many ways to cause silence...what reason do you have? Who benefits from a discussion of Churchill's essay? If the logic of who benefits is used, it is you who benefits from spinning this topic to hear your magical words spun forward to attain more followers of your favorite topic.

Since so many Neocons on this board want to trash the guy, you might benefit from his own words instead of ones our war party enthusiasts put in his mouth...

His point of view may offend some, but then again the "Blame America for nothing" creed is broadcast 24/7.

This a direct quote from a post by Edie on another thread....
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ndpost&p=179175


From Churchill's comments on his three-year old article and the recent furor over it:

"I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, 'Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.'

"This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, 'I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.'"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0201-05.htm

Was reading an article where it was mentioned that there is debate on if Mr. Churchill actually is a Native American.

if that proves to be the case, that could discount his writing.....Have to check the Dawes Roll I guess!! Do you have a link to these articles??

That is precisely what should be done. Which is why I am unable to really say, if people are over-reacting or what not. Especially since I am unsure how many here has really read that piece of work of his, rather than just deal with interviews and news.

Thanks,
See, I needed to see this as well, rather than just immediate venom towards the guy. Kinda reminds me of the Spongebob, fiasco, where people get immediately riled up, without looking at things first.

Should the Taliban have been allowed to do what they did to Afghan women? Where were you all while that was happening? If a group of Afghan women blew up an airplane by flying it into the UN you would say what?

Should Saddam have been allowed to gas the Kurds, committing attempted genocide, after attempted genocide, after attempted genocide against them for decades? If so, then you will not mind if they commit terrorists attacks at your child's high school similar to Beslan?

When we intervened in Bosnia and in Kosovo to STOP the genocide there, do you think the people crying out for help were sorry we came? I will tell you this...a women joined the Kerry campaign here and sat next to me...she said "I want to help the Democratic Party because Clinton saved my life".

We are not the evil of the world...the evil of the world exists in all its glory in the world from which these thugs came. It's not the only place that such brutality occurs, but it IS what they are fighting to implement. Should we allow that, hanging our heads in shame and go meekly to their central square to have our heads cut off? Shall we turn over the progress of western civilization to those who are worse that Saddam himself?

Two countries where Al Queda ruled....Sudan and Afghanistan. This is what they want to put in place of our supposed guilty country. I am clear about the nature of the enemy. That does not make me a neo-con...it makes me reasonable.

Desron,

I did find a repudiation just now by AIM [American Indian Movement] and Dennis Banks. And am familiar with this group.....here is their statement.....thank you and I stand corrected with regard to my statement!



"The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.

Churchill’s statement that these people deserved what happened to them, and calling them little Eichmanns, comparing them to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who implemented Adolf Hitler’s plan to exterminate European Jews and others, should be condemned by all.

The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns.

Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement.

New York’s Hamilton College Kirklands Project should be aware that in their search for truth and justice, the idea that they have hired a fraud to speak on Indian activism is in itself a betrayal of their goals. "

Dennis J. Banks, Ojibwa Nation
Chairman of the Board
American Indian Movement
Phone: 218-654-5885


http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

Excuse me...but even real_dem's link does not give you the essay in its entirety. I don't really care if Churchill attempts to backpedal. I don't care what spin some Leftists lving in their comfortable homes would like to spin his words into. I care about the original essay and what he is teaching our kids.

His full statement is here
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

Yes, much of what he says is true about Americans, but what he leaves out about the people that attacked US...well....that's like blaming us for WWII without ever discussing Hitler.

Neocons aren't allowed in this forum and it's against the rules to call other forum members neocons, even if you managed to remain ignorant of this why should anyone take you seriously when you have to use baseless insults to compensate for lack of effective argument?

A prime example of America can do no wrong, eveyone else is evil.

BTW, we financed and trained the Taliban in Afghanistan, in case you forgot.

The "progress of western civilization" is not on the reason we are engaged, it is to secure power and dominion by any means.

Of course we mind when they kill our people, just like they mind when we kill theirs. What rubbish.

Tried to find the story again via google search but just came across other articles and posts where it was stated he was not actually a Native American and they didn't go into detail. What you posted later in this thread was far more informative concerning this then what I first saw.

Actually we didn't, we fought the Soviets who INVADED Afghanistan using tribes from the Pashtu who live along the border with Pakistan, after we LEFT, they took over.

But that still ignores the issue now doesn't it.

She didn't say what you claim, you substituted an extremist position so you could respond with the opposite extremist position. She clearly indicated we shouldn't have let Saddam gas the Kurds, a statement of our guilt. You rightly mention that we funded the Taliban but neglect to mention that al qaeda attacked us because they decided to (we hadn't attacked them) to deny the right of self defense. Half truths are lies.

It's one step removed but I think the argument can be made that we willingly and knowingly funded the Taliban. Their roots (as far as gaining power) were closely tied to bin Laden and we knew that when we were arming and funding him. Yes, it was a reaction to the Soviet invasion, but it's still true. In fact at that time we were actively encouraging that type of fundamentalism because it was causing the Soviets so much trouble.

She said exactly that.
"If so, then you will not mind if they commit terrorists attacks at your child's high school similar to Beslan?"

And she did not anything about us letting Saddam gas the Kurds.

Yes. The government of Afghanistan such as it was, was receiving funds from the USA...in agreement they were supposed to stop the opium production and allow free trade in oil...something we obviously need. WE should not have to work with these kinds of governments on ANYTHING. But at the same time that Churchill argues that the sanctions killed people...others were arguing that we should not do business with Afghanistan...which would have caused mass starvation there too. You see, its very complicated, not so simple as black and white. If you tolerate these tyrannical regimes you sin. If you try to overthrow them you sin. If you sanction them for their crimes, you sin. If you intervene, you sin. If you go to war to overthrow them, and try NOT to kill civilians, you sin because that means you acknowledge that there will be innocents killed, so you sin.

Churchill's got all angles covered doesn't he? So, we should never intervene because that way we can just blame the Sudan's of the world for genocide. Hey..at least WE didn't do it?

Yet still, that's our biggest crime in my opinion...that we do not intervene to stop horrible regimes when we COULD. I don't care if the reasons are not all lined up...I understand that monied interests are in the mix, but damnit, how long do you want to sit back and moan about the mass murderers of the world instead of doing something about it? So that Churchill can come along and write another essay on how the US let it happen!

All you propose is suppostion based on your distrust of this administration or of government in general. Not based on any hard facts. All of these things can EASILY be explained. But even if they are it wouldn't satisfy your appetite that this be some sort of conspiracy. There were helicopters there, the smoke was too thick to evacuate.

As far as the phone not working and telling people to stay put. Its all part of the fog of war. I am sure at that time after the first plane hit it wasnt clear to everyone whether this was an accident or a preplanned attack. I am sure certain people in the Fed did by then, but the people on the ground in NYC probably didn't. Its easy to go back and criticize and question all the things that took place that day. I am sure you are one of the Pearl Harbor conspirarist too.

I think its easy to say he/she would have acted differently had they been there. But thats pretty hard to say how everyone would react to such a catastrophic situation.

As far as Bush and Iraq go we can debate that issue in another thread. I guess that all boils down to your definition in the war on terrorism. Is it limited to Al Qaeda or is it a broader definition.

Convenient distorted quote, you left off the part that preceded it where she asked whether Saddam should have been allowed to gas the Kurds. Who did you think she was asking should have allowed it, Monaco?

read post 66 where you responded to me again. I did not say that America could do no wrong. In fact we have by allowing these things to go on in the world while we sit and do nothing whatsoever about it.

Churchill argues that we should expect that our chickens will come home to roost. Allowing genocide when people could have done something about it would also count as America's parade of horribles. According to him, the fact that we supported Saddam would make the Kurds taking our children hostage and killing them quite an appropriate response.

heart, don't kid yourself! The governor of Colorado wants Churchill fired! Governor Pataki interceded to help stop his speaking engagement in NY State. And many many Republicans (and probably a number of Democrats) would like nothing better than to abolish tenured professorships so that they can fire people at will -- especially when they don't like their politics.

Moreover, if he is disciplined or fired by his university, I believe that university is a STATE school, and thus a state entity.

A rather vigourous debate about a man I never had heard of till this thread was started.

No doubt Edie and I did not argue for firing. I am still thinking about what should be done. The question in my mind is would you be arguing for him to be fired if he made arguments this outrageuos about a topic that...for example...blamed the tsunami victims for the tsunami because they SHOULD have had a warning system...or that gay people can choose to be straight, or that African Americans are lower in IQ and that explains some hideous policy of discrimination. You see, I've heard this kind of argument made cogently, and I was very offended and wanted that government official or that _______someone______ fired too.

I keep thinking though, that if I were a professor in his dept, and kids did not come to that school for their degree anymore because of this, would Churchill be inflicting pain and suffering on them? Where does it stop? What would he have to say such that it would be a firing offense. Is it just a question of who he offends or is there some line?

Interesting on a couple of points, I'm also certain that some Feds knew it was an attack when the first plane hit (possibly a few minutes earlier due to there being 4 hijackings at once) but the locals didn't. With all the hoopla and investigations who knew when still hasn't been made clear, this should have been one of the first points cleared up to strengthen our ability to respond. The other is the politically contrived (by both sides) choice of either it's just al qaeda or includes Iraq, many (even many who take one side or the other) are uncomfortable with either extreme, trying to define the third option would indeed make for an interesting thread.

I've tried to respond to many of your concerns here: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ndpost&p=179118

Interestingly enough, Churchill's first essay makes the assumption it was due to Iraq. I guess more than one person suspected that. It wasn't until his revised essay (after he argued we should take Madame Albright, Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger and Bush 1 out and HANG them in penance) that he decided he wanted to pin the blame on another donkey (and I mean no disrespect to our donkey).

Indeed Tom I think it would make for a good debate. I am sure someone in the gov new this was some sort of terrorist operation at some point. The point is, did they realize before the first plane hit, what the intent was and even if they did, did they know what was gong to be hit. Its very hard to say and it something that may never be known with any certainty.

Try looking this guy up: Craig Heimbichner

He has a masters in education and he teaches children too someplace I haven't found yet. But, he's a nazi, and anti-catholic, and anti-masonry, and anti-Harry Potter.

It's very important to have freedom of speech. This is true and if he were not teaching this in his classroom I would understand and defend his right to say what he wants. What if he is expressing these views, using Socratic method, or otherwise doing this crap in his classroom? He has the right to say it...and we have the right to boycott that school, but this really harms other people in much the same way that sanctions harmed Iraqi children doesn't it? Or, we could just say there is no censure for this and then what? Where does THAT stop?

From what I can piece together (with very small amounts of interpretation) by the time the third aircraft was reported as possibly hijacked it was known to be an attack (with crashing into buildings being one of the likely methods) and a serious threat requiring attention at the highest levels. The targets hit were among the short list of highest probability targets should it be crashing the planes. After the first plane hit there's virtually no question that this was the plan for any other aircraft hijacked by the same group (with it being possible one hijacking being unrelated). They knew enough to be able to respond to the second and third aircraft (barely, for the second to be stopped they had less than 10 minutes slack), but the specifics on who knew what when would show how the system broke down. As an example, the 9-11 commission never really addressed the question of why the FAA didn't have directives to immediately jump the chain of command to report multiple hijackings, where exactly did that breakdown occur?

This is the thing, from what I have been reading, the word is not "appropriate" but what is "expected" to be the response, as we should not be surprised that such is the reaction. Reminds me of the quote about "Sometimes the worst things come from the best intentions?".

I find that the primary reason for his essay, if what he is saying is correct from what he just said in that site, is that he wants America to acknowledge, that what we do, can come back here. Just like the "We reap what we sow". Of course this is debatable, but, no matter what our reasons, it can cause destruction. That part makes sense, as for the other part, and how he got to that conclusion, I am still not sure if I agree with him. However, I will never dispute his right to say it.

That is the heart of the matter. Should he be penalized for what he wrote? Even if I might not agree with it, I would say no. Did they ever stone the guy who wrote that proposition made about people eating their own children, which is required reading for middle school last time I checked(Sorry I really can't remember the name)? Now the practice of what is written, that is where I would have an issue with. As for talk, talk is talk, now if he places this in his curriculum, then perhaps he should be penalized. His wording needs better work.

Then where is the line if there is one?

Where do these 19, 20, 21 year olds go to be deprogrammed after he has slammed this "we deserve it, and we should hang our government, and we should expect more of this to bring us to our knees" agrument down in their brains?

Would you let David Koresh teach religion too?

This is beside the fact that so many, even here and on other democratic forums are not just supporting his right to say this...but some believe him too...some support the whole argument. I've not heard one republican do it...so once again we look like the morons!

Churchill has no reason to apologize.

The public however has a reason( no, an obligation) to pursue a response to Churchill. Separating the university from such pollution would be a good start!

I think what I am really getting at is, where is the "Not in my name" petition on this? It seems like we get get outraged only about things that justify harm to other people, and we can not find the same outrage for those who impugn the US is such an unbalanced manner.

I think you've come up with at least one part of the solution that nearly everyone would agree on, petitions should be circulating and decisions beyond that being made when the criteria are determined and heads are cooler.

See, the whole thing is that Democrats actually BELIEVE in the marketplace of ideas. The Republicans say they do, but they don't. The want to fire the guy...they want to arrest him or something...I don't know. They want to look into seeing if he lied on his application too. That's a underhanded method if I ever heard of one. What I want to see is for the Democratic party...rank and file too...say "We respect freedom of speech, and we do not want to see any voice silenced, but when you speak you must take responsibility for your words. We, as Democrats, find your argument to be disengenous, dishonest, and deplorable. We want you to know...and we want America to know, that YOU DO NOT SPEAK IN OUR NAME....even if you are protected under the constitution and Academic freedom to say these things. We hope that you have not brought this into your classroom, or sullied your university, thereby causing irreparable harm to your co--workers and your graduates. We want you to know that we do not stand with you and you do not speak for us"

Something like that!

We can oppose Gonzales right? So why not this guy?

where is it written that he speaks for all Americans? was that in his essay....???

I'm not sure about the Democrats doing it, wouldn't that be ratcheting up the level of political involvement? It might be more effective for those petitions to circulate at the University.

Here is a larger context for Churchill's "little Eichmanns" remark:

" 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. "

As inflammatory as some of this language is, it's still protected by the First Amendment. Because some this language is inflammatory and invokes blatant stereotypes it might not be protected by the principle of academic freedom.

The First Amendment and "academic freedom" are distinct constructs. Academic freedom does not include the prerogative to hold students as captive audience to this sort of a diatribe. Academic freedom entails freedom to inquire and freedom to express opinions and theories informed by inquiry and educational background in one's discipline. Academic freedom does not protect a professor's employment when he uses hateful stereotypes or expresses outright prejudice.

Nonetheless, I think we discount his "chickens coming home to roost" argument at our peril. What goes around, comes around. Collateral damage, no matter who inflicts it, is about killing innocent people. The relatives of innocent people tend to want payback. An thus, the cycle of violence continues.

No it wasn't in his statement that he speaks for all Americans, but we always let everyone speak and never say jack. Then someone comes along and bashes them for their stupid words and it's never a Democrat, it's always a Republican. I'm glad the Native Americans did speak up.

I would agree it should have been just the university, but apparently some victims familes from 911 showed up and started screaming at him...and may have tried to attack him I'm not sure if they were held back or not. It was on National News....and he was on Paula Zahn the other day thereby elevating the whole thing to the national level.

Of course the Republicans are talking about him...but we won't...AGAIN! Then we just look as F'ed up as usual whenever any wacko says stupid stuff and we almost always rush to their defense instead of saying NOT THIS TIME and IT'S NOT OKAY BY US WHAT YOU SAID. This is how and why we lose....it's how and why we are able to be painted as loons. Because the only time we speak out against something it's usually something that the rest of the country doesn't find offensive and when we don't speak out, it's always something most people DO find offensive.

I would shun them if they think those 10,000s "got what they deserved". I do not agree with them, and believe such ideas are terrible. In some ways, they are even more innocent, as they did not have any say, or very little control, in what those in charge of their countries did.

And I agree with you Heart, that he is responsible for his words and if that means he faces an action by the university, then those are the consequences of his own action.....and it seems as IStood pointed out that the university may be well within its bounds in their own action.

He has already resigned as chair of the department of ethnic studies at UC Boulder. http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/44.html

But for some here I guess that is not enough.

Well, maybe he should have his cell phone taken away so he can't "bray" into it anymore. Maybe his "investments" should be analyzed to see if any of them are involved in the US financial sector that isnt' totally benign...like what might that be by his criteria? Maybe he should not get to sit in his "sanitized" office, owning his "sanitized" safe home someplace terrorists are unlikely to strike. Maybe he should be given a motor scooter to get to work, so he doesn't use any of the precious oil that has made the US act in so many ways he deplores. In fact, if he is not a Native American, then maybe he should return his land to them...if he wants to be anything less than a hypocrite!!

On the other hand...can't we just beat him up: LOL!!!

ETHICS!!! Yeah right!! Ethics to justify murder because they were (gasp) engaged in the act of international trade, aka captialism while some anti-capitalist despot someplace sold his oil and built himself palaces and printed more and more banknotes which devalued his own currency!

You want to know what happened in Kurdistan....they kept the "Swiss Dinar" and when it was joined back with Iraqi currency, the ratio was 1 to 300 because Saddam had just printed money causing inflation and causing those babies to die. He sure had enough palaces...but no food for the marsh arabs living in the drained swamp that he DRAINED in retaliation. Never had the money to feed people in Sadr City huh? Oh yeah...he had plenty of money...but he just blamed the US sanctions and his people starved. These are things that Churchill leaves out convieniently, because in his "ethical" world view, the only people that seem to be able to be guilty of anything are Capitalists even when they are trying to do the right thing.

With reference to the NA situation.....there is apparently some schism going on with regard to AIM, and truth be told they've been fighting for many years. I was once more involved in NA affairs, but am not current as to the players.......from what I've just read Churchill is involved with a faction of AIM....considered a splinter group by the main organization. They may know better than I of his native heritage, but one thing I do know there are many who claim NA heritage for their own purpose and they may not even qualify as to the Dawes Roll.