Skip to comments.A Churchill By Any Other Name - What the Professor Really Wrote
Posted on 02/09/2005 8:42:03 AM PST by Chickenhawk Warmonger
A Churchill By Any Other Name By Robin Mullins Boyd February 9, 2005
Ward Churchill shares his surname with one of the pre-eminent figures in world political history, Winston Churchill. That is where the similarities end. The media has been in an uproar since Ward Churchill was "disinvited" to speak at Hamilton College in NY. The invitation was retracted after the public was made aware of the professor's anti-American screed about the September 11 tragedy. The University of Colorado has since started proceedings to evaluate whether Churchill should continue in his tenured position at the university.
The uproar centered on comments that Churchill made in an essay about the September 11 tragedy. According to the media reports Churchill labeled the WTC victims "little Eichmanns", a reference to one of the notorious members of Hitler's gang of murderers. But that is only one little line in his essay. In fact, it is one of the most benign statements contained in the professor's view of America's culpability in the tragedy. The essay, which the far left described as Churchill's view of why September 11 happened and how it could occur again, was much more than just some innocuous op-ed piece.
In "Some People Push Back", Churchill blamed the United States' foreign policies and acts of aggression as the driving force behind the terrorist attacks against out country. In his myopic view, America had murdered thousands of innocents in Iraq prior to September 11, 2001. The tragedy was our "payback". Churchill claimed that "the most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course. That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint."
Churchill opined that the real cowards were our military men and women - those that participated in the first Gulf War and those who patrolled the no-fly zones after the war. Our military "delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs." He even went so far as to praise the terrorists stating "the men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expended their own lives in attaining their objectives."
Churchill's actual description of the victims of the terrorist attacks was much more dark and vile than the media would allow you to believe. First he did not agree that the victims were innocent. Churchill wrote "But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire...and they did so both willingly and knowingly." He went on to describe the WTC victims as "too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated conveniently our of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants." As if that was not hateful enough, Churchill continued "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."
Churchill closed out his anti-American load of manure by calling the terrorist attacks "a tiny dose" of our own medicine. In comparison to the havoc that the United States wreaked around the world, the September 11 attacks were a tiny ant bite on the inside of Lady Liberty's ankle. Churchill reasoned that the tragedy "might be seen as merely a matter of vengeance or retribution and unquestionably, America has earned it, even if it were to add up only to something so ultimately petty." Unfortunately, according to the professor, America had not yet received a big enough dose of medicine from the terrorists and were due something much bigger.
Since the publication of his essay, Churchill has continued to bleat his opinions to whoever would listen. In April 2004, he gave an interview to the publication, The Satya. In the interview, Churchill equated most American people to the Germans during the Third Reich -- good and decent in their own mind while tolerating the commission of atrocities. He suggested that more 9/11s "are necessary" to transform the consciousness of Americans. One recommendation offered by the professor -- "I want the state gone; transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether."
I have watched the professors' interviews trying to explain the nuances of his writings and speeches. Well I may be just another ignorant redneck from the South but I do not need someone to interpret the meanings in his ravings. How can you misinterpret "some penalty befitting their participation" when describing the death of 3000 Americans? Is it even feasible to misconstrue "America earned it" as something other than "we got what we deserved"? Not even Chubby Checker could twist his way out of that explanation.
Those defending Professor Churchill have lamented the violation of free speech and first amendment rights. No one is hauling Churchill to the pokey because of his rantings. He's still free and able to spout all the anti-American feelings that he wants to. Ridiculously he is still free to teach and lecture students whose parents pay their hard-earned money for the children's higher education. The evil empire that Churchill believes deserves all of the tragedy of September 11 and then some, has allowed this man to live in total freedom. Churchill hides behind the Constitution while trashing the very country that it was designed to protect. In my heart of hearts, I don't believe that this was what the founding fathers sought to protect when they wrote the First Amendment. This is not simple genuine dissent. It's much more than that.
Bill Maher:"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building -- say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
Video of his speech from last night.
How does this SON OF A BITCH still have a job. He lied on his app., he spouts garbage and still bends young minds to his crap every day. The president of the college wants to take 30 days to decide if he has violated any rules. Why should it take 30 days????????
My thoughts exactly! What takes 30 days to review? In light of the fact that he got his position to fill a quota claims of being Indian are now in dispute so that would constitute fraud-he is also not of sound mind judging by his rantings so that would be grounds to fire him today!
It would not take me 3 seconds. Let's parachute him into the midst of the hottest area of terrorists we can find. Let him spill his guts to them!
How does that SOB stay on the air? Or in print? Let's ban him or boycott him.
I don't think this guy should be fired.
We need one of these anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, anti-American types on every college campus.
His less than cow dung speech serves as a good reminder to normal patriotic Americans how pathetic the far left liberals really are.
Don't silence him, play his speech--loud, so that all of the country can hear it.
This worthless humanbeing is what the democrat party represents today. Let it be known! Do not silence this idiot.
Right you are! How fast would it take to shove a Christian prof, tenured or not, out the door for holding a prayer meeting on campus?
Yet, some Indians appear to continue with their support. I'm glad some were honest about his "credentials."
This is the sentiment of most of the left and of a number of powerful people in the GOP and business, as well (provided it doesn't damage their stock portfolios). In fact, it's pretty much the main project in the works of the elite.
when describing the death of 3000 Americans
For the sake of accuracy it should be remembered that a significant number of those killed were not Americans.
In my heart of hearts, I don't believe that this was what the founding fathers sought to protect when they wrote the First Amendment.
See what I mean by saying some in the GOP want the U.S. out of North America? It's also a typical chick reaction - people shouldn't be allowed to say thing that are hurtful or cause trouble. It is to be resisted.
"I don't agree with what he says but I will defend his right to say it." However, being a college "professor" there needs to be a level of accountability, or academic contribution. Bombthrowing is not allowed but provide your facts and we can debate them. The notoriety he's receiving is more than he deserves. The market place is where his ideas will find their value. I'm glad his face will be identified with his statements as it should be. Punishing him will only increase support.
I'd watch it, but after reading that article I think it would give me the urge to buy a ticket to Colorado and choke the sh!t out of that SOB.
Don't take him on over the rules. That is a BIG mistake.
Academic Freedom, and Free speech (as long as it is not the PCRegulated, unfree Hate Speech) will get every usual suspect beating the drums for him.
FIRST you alienate him, by saying "We do not take issue with the professors opinion such as it is, he is after all entitled to it. That having been said, it does belie such an appaling lack of intellectual rigor, and analysis, that his ability to merit a professorship is called into question."
Dont fire him for his opinion. Fire him for Stupidity. That makes his defenders defend the CONTENT of his speech, rahter than his ability to assert it.
Anyone notice that Churchill blamed the 911 attack on Iraq? I wonder if he changed his thinking and joined the leftist mantra that there was no connection between Bin Laden and Iraq.
Anyway, the University of Colorado should fire him for falsifying his ethnicity. The guy was probably a phoney affirmative action hire, promoted to head the phoney affirmative action major. Actually, a better solution would be to just close down the whole department. It serves no purpose other than to provide easy courses for minorities to train to be radical activists.
I'm so sick of hearing why we are the bad guys. What's disgusting about the Left and their excuses for Muslim anger (including Israel) is that they have no historical perspective about these so-called grievances. Islam's anger with the West didn't just start in the last century...and it certainly didn't have anything to do with oil, or even Israel...for that matter.
From its founding, Islam has been an expansionist ideology. For all the whining we hear about the humiliation they suffered over their deconstructed Ottoman Empire, it was they who created its collapse. Heck, the empire was in shambles to begin with because of tribal warfare...but to make things worse, it was the Ottoman Turks who decided to side with Germany in WWI. What became of their empire was no different than what became of the empires of Germany and Austria/Hungary, as these empires were also carved up because of their aggression. To the victors goes the spoils...something that Islam has been intimately familiar with for centuries.
While the League of Nations and the victors of WWI did take special interest in the crumbling Ottoman Empire...instituting mandates to be governed by Britain and France, the Muslims of this region have no one to blame but themselves. This was a group of people who were engaged in the worst holocaust against indigenous people outside of that which occurred in Germany in WWII (surprise...many Muslims sided with Hitler).
From the Christian Assyrians to the Armenians to the Greeks, Slavs and Jews...Muslims had been ethnically cleansing Asia Minor of non-Muslims for centuries. As this threat encroached further into the "soft underbelly of Europe," the victors of WWI decided it was time to put a stop to this 2nd Jihad, which had not only killed millions of people, but was continuing to threaten Europe...again.
Yes, Muslims can bitch and moan, and play the perpetual victim of evil America and European colonization...and Leftists can defend them and help make excuses for their hatred and anger. Ironically, one could use Churchill's own argument against Islam...in that Islam was now reaping what it had sown; we were the ones finally striking back. This was a religion, that within its first 100 years, conquered more land and people than the Romans did in their storied history. Amazingly, liberals seem to have a short historical memory when it comes aggression and retribution.
And here's some irony about Islam's hatred for the Great Satan. For all the abuse America takes from these ingrates, it was America who led the way in pressuring Europe to recognize Arab independence after WWII. The Atlantic Charter, which proposed giving power to the people to determine their own governments was one of the first steps in moving the Mid-East away from their former mandates and colonial heritage. Sadly though, it was still "Europe"...and even the UN, who were the major architects in planning the fate of Mid-East statehood.
During the Suez Crisis, it was America who recognized Egypt's right to nationalize the Suez Canal...despite the fact that both France and Britain had purchased those rights earlier and financed its construction. The same can be said for the oil production in these lands, which were also expropriated after Western nations invested millions of dollars in these infrastructures and technology, since these people didn't have the skill to do it. Sure, America also had it's own interest in this region...but those interests only became relevant when, again, some Muslim nations decided to side with the enemies of freedom (USSR). For all their whining about their oppression, it has been their leaders that have sided with some of the worst tyrants throughout history.
From the Muslim secessionist movement in India (Pakistan) to financial and military aid during the Cold War and support in the Gulf War, Americans have stood with Muslims and defended them against aggressor nations and persons. In our own naivety and ignorance, we have even supported Muslims against Christians, whether it was the Muslim secessionist movement in Kosovo and the Balkans...or stopping such Christian movements from occurring in Indonesia/East Timor. Heck, after a decade of complete appeasement, with financial and military aid going to Muslim governments that we knew were also committing atrocities against minority populations (Turkey, Albania/Balkans and Indonesia)...we still got attacked on 9/11.
While Muslims like to lament the further division of their territories following the World Wars, these were necessary acts to thwart continuing tribal and religious differences...not to mention the threat that this "empire" posed before its division. The truth is, Muslims not only have a problem living among non-Muslims...they have a problem living among themselves, as many have butchered their own.
One of the biggest hoaxes perpetuated by the Left is their reporting of Israeli violence against the Palestinians, when their own Arab brethren have committed far worse atrocities against them. Heck, the number-one killer of Muslims, are Muslims...with Saddam right up there at the top. Sadly, we don't hear these details from people like Ward Churchill, who only see the USA as the true evil in the world.