NationStates Jolt Archive

This may seem late but itd worth discussion. I ask only this, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE NO FLAMING. KEEP IT SERIOUS. Lets all show our intellect here and have a good, analytical conversations. What did you make of his essay and what should be done?

What essay would that be?
:confused:

This wouldn't have anything to do with Zepp & Steph, would it?

As long as freedom of speech is a right in the United States, let the man speak.

This wouldn't have anything to do with Zepp & Steph, would it?
It does and they're absolutely right. I may be new to this particular forum, but most of the political threads turn into flame wars.

The essay is "Some People Push Back".
Heres the link http://cryptome.org/ward-churchill.htm

What essay would that be?
:confused:

i assume "some people push back: on the justice of roosting chickens". but i'm bored with that one. we could talk about "pacifism as pathology" instead. or "a little matter of genocide".

i assume "some people push back: on the justice of roosting chickens". but i'm bored with that one. we could talk about "pacifism as pathology" instead. or "a little matter of genocide".
The thread says Ward Churchill, not really specific on which essay though so go for it.

i assume "some people push back: on the justice of roosting chickens". but i'm bored with that one. we could talk about "pacifism as pathology" instead. or "a little matter of genocide".
Don'tcha know. The only 'intellectual' topics worth dicussing are well trod ones where everyone knows all the arguements already and where it is possible to practically guess the point of a post if not the poster ;)

Mr. Churchill's essay was typical of left-wing hardliners. If he wishes to write that stuff I have no objection, it is his right to do so.
I also have no objection to him remaining a prof. as long as the university has an equally nutty right-wing prof to give students an alternative. Universities generally cram left-wing ideology down students throats, it happened to me on numerous occasions and I didn't even go to a really radical university. I want an equal balance of throat cramming, tit for tat!

Don'tcha know. The only 'intellectual' topics worth dicussing are well trod ones where everyone knows all the arguements already and where it is possible to practically guess the point of a post if not the poster ;)
damn I guess I'm slow. Well, hmmm. How about a discussion about John Galt? Thats always fun.

How about a discussion about John Galt? Thats always fun.
Who is John Galt?
:D

damn I guess I'm slow. Well, hmmm. How about a discussion about John Galt? Thats always fun.
You mean John Galt, a character from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? :D,

You mean John Galt, a character from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? :D,
Indeed I do.

damn I guess I'm slow. Well, hmmm. How about a discussion about rationalism? Thats always fun.

Sorry, slightly bitter (nothing to do with anything on these boards or anything of any importance).

Realised after it may be contrued as a flame and was about to delete, but you replied and took it good heartedly (Bravo Sir!).

I think I'll go back to lurking :D

You mean John Galt, a character from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? :D,
Come on, you're no fun!
The proper way to hold a debate about John Galt is to not tell anybody who he is. So you end up with a whole room of people asking "Who is John Galt?"
Then you cackle with glee and mirth.

It doesnt matter who he offends with things he decides to write, freedom of speech and especially his academic freedom allow him to publish, without consequences or threats of them, anything he believes.

What should be done about it? Absolutely nothing. To hell with all the people saying that academic freedom is ok - but only if it doesn't go too far. Why does academic freedom even have to be an issue? A valuable part of education is exposure to opposing points of view. Through these we can see how our own opinions measure up. Through comparison we can determine what parts of our opinions stand strong and what parts fall short. Without these we become sedentary and, ultimately, uninformed. Limiting what a professor can say is like limiting a person to having sex with close relatives. It narrows the gene pool down until we resemble European royalty of old.

One could make the argument that some students place a lot of trust in the opinions of their professors and that the power of suggestion can be a dangerous thing in this situation. One could argue that it's not education if the argument is made up of half-truths. Nonsense. A lot of people use half-truths in arguments (most discussions about sexuality consist of a generous serving, even from doctors that ought to know better). You need to learn to deal with those some time. You need to learn to think critically. Why not do it in an environment where you can share your thoughts with people around you that will be interested in what you're discussing? College seems like the ideal place for this to me.

Of course he's a professor of ethnic studies. But that won't stop people at college from talking.

What I make of his essay is that I disagree with him strongly. I only skimmed through it. If you want my to analyze it I'll have to read it again.

What should be done about it? Absolutely nothing. To hell with all the people saying that academic freedom is ok - but only if it doesn't go too far. Why does academic freedom even have to be an issue? A valuable part of education is exposure to opposing points of view. Through these we can see how our own opinions measure up. Through comparison we can determine what parts of our opinions stand strong and what parts fall short. Without these we become sedentary and, ultimately, uninformed. Limiting what a professor can say is like limiting a person to having sex with close relatives. It narrows the gene pool down until we resemble European royalty of old.

One could make the argument that some students place a lot of trust in the opinions of their professors and that the power of suggestion can be a dangerous thing in this situation. One could argue that it's not education if the argument is made up of half-truths. Nonsense. A lot of people use half-truths in arguments (most discussions about sexuality consist of a generous serving, even from doctors that ought to know better). You need to learn to deal with those some time. You need to learn to think critically. Why not do it in an environment where you can share your thoughts with people around you that will be interested in what you're discussing? College seems like the ideal place for this to me.

Of course he's a professor of ethnic studies. But that won't stop people at college from talking.
You have to present student alternate points of view in order to stimulate their minds, if that didn't occur what would be the point of intellectual thought?

You have to present student alternate points of view in order to stimulate their minds, if that didn't occur what would be the point of intellectual thought?

Why cannot the students find alternative points of view themselves?

To be honest, it isn't that hard. Even in subjects dominted by one particular ideology. Such as modern British Social History, which is dominated by Socialists and Marxist historians.

Why cannot the students find alternative points of view themselves?

To be honest, it isn't that hard. Even in subjects dominted by one particular ideology. Such as modern British Social History, which is dominated by Socialists and Marxist historians.
I just think it would help if you presented, not force on them, alternative viewpoints. Then they can analyze them. If they can find alternative views on their own then allow them to. I thought it would help get them started.

I just think it would help if you presented, not force o them, alternative viewpoints. Then they can analyze them. If they can find alternative views on their own then allow them to. I thought it would help get them started.

True, I'm not saying that sources from authors that the lecturer disagree with should be disregarded.

But all I'm saying is that students are stupid, they think. (Although I mentioned British Social History, the History faculty are very good at providing alternative viewpoints.)

The problem with Ward was that he was a fraud in many ways. I mean, he was also an asshole for pulling the 'little eichmanns' bit, but had that been the end of his idiocy it would have ended there. However, it then came out he was lying about his heritage and that he plagerized artwork.

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

An exclusive report by CBS4 News indicates embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill may have broken copyright law by making a mirror image of an artist's work and selling it as his own.

Placing Churchill's work beside that of renowned artist Thomas E. Mails and the two look like mirror images. But one is a copyrighted drawing. The other is an autographed print by Churchill.

The problem with Ward was that he was a fraud in many ways. I mean, he was also an asshole for pulling the 'little eichmanns' bit, but had that been the end of his idiocy it would have ended there. However, it then came out he was lying about his heritage and that he plagerized artwork.

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html
Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the essay. That could just be accompaning backlash.
To Anarchic Conceptions:
Students can be stupid, not all, and they sometimes accept whatever viewpoint is presented, therein lies a problem.

The problem with Ward was that he was a fraud in many ways. I mean, he was also an asshole for pulling the 'little eichmanns' bit, but had that been the end of his idiocy it would have ended there. However, it then came out he was lying about his heritage and that he plagerized artwork.


and this is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.

besides, churchill claims that he spoke to the original artist and gotten permission before doing his rendition. and nobody can disprove that.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4242051/detail.html
"There was nothing unusual about adapting the Mails' imagery," Churchill said, referring to Thomas E. Mails. He also wondered, "How come it's taken 25 years to become breaking news?"
Churchill said, "The whole issue is utterly contrived."

...

"Could it be that Jasper Johns was not the original designer of the American flag? Or Andy Warhol of Campbell's soup labels and Brillo boxes? Or that Marcel did not invent the urinal? Where was the outrage when Fritz Scholder did a knock-off of the famous Annheiser-Busch image of Custer's Last Stand?" Churchill asked. "In other words, there was nothing especially unusual about my adapting Mails' imagery. And if I was going to 'rip him off,' I'd neither have spoken to him about it before the fact, selected an image out of one of the best-selling books on the topic at the time I made the print, nor published an entire edition (a one-off painting would've been rather easier to hide, assuming I felt there was something to be hidden)."

and nobody has proven that he was lying about his heritage. all that's been aired is the same old shit that's been being pushed by a rival faction of the old american indian movement for years - ever since the split back in the 80s actually.

As long as freedom of speech is a right in the United States, let the man speak.

He definately has the right to speak, but I also have the right to ignore him.

He definately has the right to speak, but I also have the right to ignore him.

true. though ignoring is a bit different than calling for him to be tried for treason or having the government pass resolutions condemning him. nobody is complaining about your right to ignore him.

I wrote enough that I think I should put it in a separate post.

What I make of his essay is that I disagree with him strongly in that I think it's a little harsh to suggest that all people working in the world trade center were working for companies that controlled the military that had bombed Iraq. It could just be that some busniesses that had offices in the world trade center weren't connected to the military. I also think that it would have been more topical if there had been a bit less time between when it was written and when it was brought up.

In the essay his main theme is that each of us is responsible for the deaths in Iraq and the deaths in every war in U.S. history (regardless of whether we were alive at that time) by aiding and abetting the U.S. government. Protesting isn't enough to absolve oneself from these deaths. Would quitting your job suffice? Perhaps if everyone quit their jobs the economy would crumble and the government would be unable to continue their policy of indiscriminatly killing everyone that isn't white enough or Christian enough for us. He might consider that a noble gesture, but from what he said I would assume that he would only consider that act to be stopping the government from doing further damage. People killed in the past have already been killed and quitting our jobs won't change that. Does that mean that we must (More accuratly, will. I'm not sure he's saying that we should die so much as we will die, but the intent that we should die can be inferred until he clarifies.) pay with our own lives until the number of American deaths equals that of the number of deaths Americans have caused? Even the ones that occured before I was born, because it's assumed that if I would have allowed what happened in Iraq to happen then I would allow any of the other deaths also? Interesting proposition. I don't want to die.

He does raise a few issues that I do agree with - to an extent. First, personal responsibility. Regardless of the justification of war, each of us is technically responsible for deaths of the innocent in war. If they attack our interests or our country and we retaliate and kill their people then we're responsible for the people we kill. We're all responsible in the sense that we can stop the killings if we REALLY want to (read: rebellion, or at least wide spread civil disobedience of sorts). Even if it's just one person we killed, we're all responsible and one American must eventually die. This American is picked arbitrarily. Even though we're all responsible. Wait, logic just started to break down. Let's look at this from a different angle.

What if they wronged us? Isn't every person in their country responsible for the wrong they did to us? Does that justify blowing up any number of people in their military (who we assume are all equally responsible) and a number of now un-innocent civilians equal to the number of innocent civilians (and innocen military personelle, since they weren't killing anyone before they were attacked - unless you count past wars making militarys un-innocent for all time and the hereditary loss of innocence previously mentioned, but that makes for messy book keeping)? What if country A attacks country B? Is country A un-innocent only to country B in the sense that they are open to justifiable retaliation, or is country A open to attack from countries C, D, E, and F now? When Japan invaided China in WW2 they killed many, for my intents and purposes but apparently not Ward Churchills, innocent civilians. Does that make Japan un-innocent to China and the United States, or just China? Just the same, when Iraq invaided Kuwait they killed and subjugated many 'innocent' civilians. Wouldn't that make ALL of Iraq guilty and thus open to retaliation from the United States?

The eye for an eye philosophy does not work well with the philosophy that states that all citizens of a country that do not sucessfully force a government to give up its policy of war before the war takes place are all equally guilty, or at least guilty enough to deserve death at the hands of retaliating 'innocents'.

At the same time I believe strongly in personal responsibility. I believe that everyone is responsible for those deaths. Guilty of a crime punishable by death at the hands of a vigilante? Maybe not, but responsible all the same.

Edit: It would seem as though this line of thought brings up the question of what entails 'innocence' and the ethics of 'justification'. One example applicable to current events would be the justification of preemptive strikes, i.e. the second invasion of Iraq.

Another thing the essay touches on is ignorance to what happens in war. People complain that they don't want to see people being shot, blown up, and burned during combat because they're sensitive people and that seeing such things would make then 'uncomfortable' and leave them 'mentally scarred'. I'll bet that's how the people getting shot feel, too. This attitude is morally repungent. You support war but you can't stand the results of war? Then what aspect do you support? The ends? Alright, you can say that the ends justify the means, but if you can't stand to watch the means then you're a horrible person. There's a term for this that they apply to people being able to eat ground beef but not being able to watch a cow get killed in order to get said meat. I just can't remember what the term is.

You have to present student alternate points of view in order to stimulate their minds, if that didn't occur what would be the point of intellectual thought?

I agree with you. When I presented an opposing argument I was doing just that: acknowledging that there is an opposing and equally valid (but still no more then an opinion) argument against my own. I think that my argument stands firm against it and I tried to argue against the opposition. I think I just did a bad job of clearly writing that post. I don't often go over what I write here twice.

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the essay. That could just be accompaning backlash.
To Anarchic Conceptions:
Students can be stupid, not all, and they sometimes accept whatever viewpoint is presented, therein lies a problem.


A university has no obligation whatsoever to cater to students who might "accept whatever viewpoint is presented." Primary and secondary schools do because their pupils are children and their attendance is compulsory.

Universities are elective institutions of higher learning, people without developed skills at critical reasoning do not belong in universities, and it does a university a disservice to accomodate them.

This Ward Churchill issue presents the entire subjeect of freedom of speech and academic freedom on campuses. (sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I just heard a panel on the subject, so here goes)

Here in Canada, there have been several occasions (in Concordia U. York U, and others) where speakers have been prevented from delivering their adresses by groups of protesters that have crossed the line into hooliganism by turning violent. The group that was responsible for the riot at Concordia that prevented Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking vehemently defends freedom of speech, BUT not for people that they percieve to be war criminals, and sponsors of state terrror (which is where their line is drawn) and somehow, they, not the international criminal court, or the Hague, are the ones justified to make the determination of a particular individual's guilt on the behalf of the student population, and prevent such a person from being legitimized by speaking on their campus.

That's just one example. Interestingly, it is often these groups, which are the most agressive, vocal, and on occasion, violent, who are the ones complaining of the degeneration of freedom of speech on campuses (media attention?). All the other clubs that go about their buisness have no complaints, it seems. People will enthusiastically embrace "freeedom of speech" as long as whatever is being said is not particularly offensive to them. We have laws that determine when violence, incitement of hate, etc. are not acceptable, and that is when the police step in. But short of that, EVERYONE should be allowed to speak their mind.

This is not the environments in Canadian universities, however. Members of opposing student groups have been blatantly heckelled, intimidated, and shut up at each others events by students, and even proffesors. Some groups (Arab groups, in the recent "Israeli Apatheid week" at York, for instance) actively discourage their members to engage and discuss with people of opposing viewpoints, while claiming that their events exist for the reason of stimulating awareness and debate. Such is the state of Canadian universities that the Administrations have applied rules in such an inconsistant way that they have turned spineless and called in the police at every little protest. That signifies a serious failure on the entire university (Proffesors, students, and admin), and its frankly sad.

What I would like to see is someone from a palestinian group saying "I abhor Netanyahu's views, I detest all that he represents, and I think he is morally corrupt and wrong, but I want him to come back and adress our students, so that they can make up their own minds and engage in this debate" or something equivalent from the other side. We have to defend everyone's right to speak, and foster an atmosphere in universities that cracks down on violence, enforces ettiquette (that's the key), within the laws of the land.

As for Ward Churchill, he should be fired. :D

EDIT: ....kidding... damn, even this blatantly low hypocracy tactic didn't get a response.

While I think that what he said was wrong, he should not necessarily loose his job. Universities are centers of free intellectual thought, and Ward Churchill tried to contribute to that. However, I feel, along with several others, that his intellectual basis was stupid. If he cranks out more work like this, then the university should fire him. Why keep a professor on the payroll that doesn't even think?

Freedom of speech. Let him say whatever he wants. Let him teach. The people who he teaches probably already have their minds made up anyway.

In response to his essay: I disagree strongly. It is a fine example of anti-American propaganda. It is not balanced, it is not fair. Have any "chickens" of his ever "come home to roost" in other countries of the world that have been just as destructive as the US? I think not.

Have any "chickens" of his ever "come home to roost" in other countries of the world that have been just as destructive as the US? I think not.

um, what? how do you explain things like the russia/chechnya situation? you push people around, somebody will eventually push back. its pretty frelling basic.

um, what? how do you explain things like the russia/chechnya situation? you push people around, somebody will eventually push back. its pretty frelling basic.
My point was that Churchill directs his propaganda at America only. Consider the havoc, death, and disruption that imperialist Europe brought upon Africa. In my opinion, it was many times worse than everything America has ever done, and yet he ignores it completely. By his logic, the capitols of Europe deserve to be burned to the ground many times over to atone for their deeds.

um, what? how do you explain things like the russia/chechnya situation? you push people around, somebody will eventually push back. its pretty frelling basic.
People can only take so much. Eventually they will release it in a destructive way.

My point was that Churchill directs his propaganda at America only.

ha!