Who among us had fully formed values in our early 20s? Kids grow up, and all Indians I know believe that kids should have the opportunity to grow, to make mistakes, to become wise elders. Churchill's proper response to his insult of the dead would have been to apologize. His moral failure gives tribal Indians understandable reason to reject his invented Indian identity. His outrageous conduct led to a close reading of his work and it did not stand up to the vetting it never had at the front end, and that gave the University of Colorado cause to fire him.
If the University of Michigan wants a researcher and teacher, it would appear by objective criteria they have one. If they want a Cherokee, not.
Smith's record does not appear to require augmentation by hereditary advantage. Ethnic fraud is harmful to tribes and sometimes to individual real Indians if they are passed over for a fake in a job that really does call for a tribal person. Ethnic fraud is not harmful to universities unless they allow it to be. The University of Michigan should articulate its values and rule according to those values.
To be fair, Churchill directed his remarks at the WTC's "technocratic corps," its "relatively well-educated elite." Presumably that didn't include janitors, clerks, or interns.
Churchill was silent about whether the WTC's non-elite deserved what they got. Perhaps he considered them collateral damage. If so, that would make him no different from the well-educated elite in the White House today, who don't care how many civilians they kill in their mad hunt for "terrorists."
For Churchill's response to the criticism he received, see Terrorism: "Good" vs. "Evil."
14 comments:
"technocratic corps," its "relatively well-educated elite."
They were just as innocent.
Here's Churchill's response to that point:
* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
False claims and wild connections still do not make these innocent victims any less innocent.
He starts lying with his first sentence " Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis".
Eichmann, was in fact, a Nazi. Not a fringe member of the movement, but one of the few names most identified with it.
I don't buy your argument. If I compare you to some person, I'm not comparing you to every member of the group to which that person belongs. If I compare you to Mel Gibson, for instance, it doesn't mean you have the qualities of every filmmaker or Australian or anti-Semite.
Read this to see how churchill's 'defense' is bullsh*t:
http://www.pirateballerina.com/files/debunking_churchill.htm
The man's a vile degenerate. Also you made the idiotic claim that he's an Indian; now you might say that you didn't know about his lies but the pic you posted of him clearly shows that he's Caucasian. Not to mention you claim to be against violence right? Well wardo's a bit of an armchair terrorist wannabe, do some googling for his stomach churning comments.
Seriously why are you so easy on this scumbag? But then I guess you have something in common with him what with your inane bigoted anti-American blanket statements. (And yeah this an old post but there's nothing wrong with a wee bit of thread necromancy every now and then.)
You must be the same Anonymous who was too cowardly to sign his name elsewhere. I recognize your style from your other ignorant screeds.
Re your citation of Jim Paine's essay, it's based on the assumption that Churchill was referring to everyone in the World Trade Center. Sorry, but this assumption is flatly false. In his original diatribe, Churchill specified exactly whom he was talking about, and it wasn't everyone.
In the paragraph leading up to his "little Eichmanns" remark, he refers explicitly to "a technocratic corps," "this relatively well-educated elite," and people "arranging power lunches and stock transactions." Then he labels these people "little Eichmanns." To assume he meant the World Trade Center's clerks and janitors is a stupid misreading of the paragraph's plain English.
In short, spare me the sophistry. Until you quote Churchill explicitly saying that every single person in the World Trade Center deserved to die, your and Paine's opinion on the subject is worthless.
Incidentally, did you read Churchill's point about the Allies targeting German industrialists? What do you have to say about that? Were the German civilians killed by Americans guilty of Nazi atrocities? Or were they collateral damage in attacks on industrial targets, same as the WTC's civilians?
In case you're too dense to understand my position, I think any attacks that kill civilians are wrong. Such attacks were wrong in Germany and Japan, wrong in Afghanistan and Iraq, and wrong in the US on 9/11. Killing people who aren't trying to kill you is always morally wrong.
As for your other comments about Churchill, see Cowardly Comments About Churchill for my response.
*Note: I would have gotten to this sooner but I was delayed.
"You must be the same Anonymous who was too cowardly to sign his name elsewhere."
First off I don't have a google/blogger account and I don't see a reason to get, so I post anonymously out of laziness. Second I fail to see how anonymous posting is 'cowardice' if posting under your real name is bravery well standards of courage have really dropped.
"I recognize your style from your other ignorant screeds."
Ignorant? How so?
"Incidentally, did you read Churchill's point about the Allies targeting German industrialists? What do you have to say about that? Were the German civilians killed by Americans guilty of Nazi atrocities? Or were they collateral damage in attacks on industrial targets, same as the WTC's civilians?"
I think those dead civilians were victims and that those attacks (ie Dresden or Hiroshima) qualify as terrorism.
"In case you're too dense to understand my position, I think any attacks that kill civilians are wrong. Such attacks were wrong in Germany and Japan, wrong in Afghanistan and Iraq, and wrong in the US on 9/11. Killing people who aren't trying to kill you is always morally wrong."
Yeah I grokked that, I wasn't accusing you of that.
In the paragraph leading up to his "little Eichmanns" remark, he refers explicitly to "a technocratic corps," "this relatively well-educated elite," and people "arranging power lunches and stock transactions." Then he labels these people "little Eichmanns." To assume he meant the World Trade Center's clerks and janitors is a stupid misreading of the paragraph's plain English."
Those people were still innocent and didn't deserve it.
"In short, spare me the sophistry. Until you quote Churchill explicitly saying that every single person in the World Trade Center deserved to die, your and Paine's opinion on the subject is worthless."
Two quotes were he denies that those victims were innocent:
"They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."
"True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
And here which pretty much shows that he thinks the 9/11 victims deserved it:
"With that, they've given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.. This 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."
Also note the sheer contempt for the American people here:
" Either way, it's a kind of "reality therapy" approach, designed to afford the American people a chance to finally "do the right thing" on their own, without further coaxing."
Obviously of course that's an insult to Indians oh and one more fun fact; ward apparently abused his Indian wife so yeah this f*ck's a true friend of the first nations.
One more point I forgot to make.
"In the paragraph leading up to his "little Eichmanns" remark, he refers explicitly to "a technocratic corps," "this relatively well-educated elite," and people "arranging power lunches and stock transactions." Then he labels these people "little Eichmanns." To assume he meant the World Trade Center's clerks and janitors is a stupid misreading of the paragraph's plain English."
Nah that assumption is correct:
“[…]befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns[…]” Here we could pretend that the little Eichmanns he refers to are a new group, completely separate and different from the “they” and the “those” he refers to earlier, but no such luck. Construction of the sentence insists that the “little Eichmanns” are identical and one-and-the-same as the “their” in “their participation.”
Apparently you can't or won't parse Churchill's comments yourself. Alas, your regurgitating of Paine's criticism doesn't make it any more valid than the first time I read it.
Paine's belief that he can divine whom Churchill's vague pronouns refer to is worthless compared to the facts. Namely, in the paragraph leading up to his "little Eichmanns" remark, Churchill refers explicitly to "a technocratic corps," "this relatively well-educated elite," and people "arranging power lunches and stock transactions." Then he labels these people "little Eichmanns." To assume he meant the World Trade Center's clerks and janitors is a stupid misreading of the paragraph's plain English.
Why are you wasting our time with Paine's pronoun analysis when Churchill's position is clear? Clerks and janitors aren't part of the technocratic elite. If you disagree, then explain why you think Churchill intended to include these non-technocratic non-elites in his technocratic elite.
And don't bother reposting Paine's opinions again. There's no way Paine's vague pronouns override the explicit definitions of the "little Eichmanns" in Churchill's key paragraph. Unless you have something new to offer, we're done debating this.
Re "I think those dead civilians were victims and that those attacks (ie Dresden or Hiroshima) qualify as terrorism": So you agree with me rather than Churchill? Smart move. ;-)
Actually, Churchill was merely applying the "logic" of the US political and military establishment to the 9/11 terrorists. If we can define whoever we want as military targets, so can they. But in his rush to make his point, he was foolishly insensitive to people's feelings.
I suspect Churchill is equally sympathetic toward all the victims of unjustified "terrorist" attacks. The point of his essay was just that: that all "terrorist" attacks are equally bad. That he won't give the US a free pass because it declares its criminal actions "just" or "noble."
"Actually, Churchill was merely applying the "logic" of the US political and military establishment to the 9/11 terrorists. If we can define whoever we want as military targets, so can they."
Yeah I grok that my point is that he pretty much states that they deserved it and then there's the anti-American blanket statements in the piece.
"But in his rush to make his point, he was foolishly insensitive to people's feelings."
It's obvious he think the victims deserved it and I don't buy the 'he was in a hurry and made a mistake' excuse. If he thinks that the victims were innocent why'd he write shit like this?
"True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
"I suspect Churchill is equally sympathetic toward all the victims of unjustified "terrorist" attacks."
Considering he denies their innocence multiple times and has said that 'America should be off the face of the planet' I doubt that.
"The point of his essay was just that: that all "terrorist" attacks are equally bad."
I agree with that but ward thinks they got what they deserved.
I think quoting Churchill again will suffice to answer your points:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/ward_churchill_responds.html
* 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."
Post a Comment