|
| Thread: 9/11 Victims = Nazis? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 10, 2005 08:30 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 10 Feb 2005
|
9/11 Victims = Nazis?
 http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/09/colorado.prof.ap/index.html
This was too funny to pass up. I simply had to start a thread about it. Professor Ward Churchill, of native american indian ancestry, got a standing ovation from thousands of Colorado supporters for; and I quote:
Quote:
In an essay, Churchill wrote that workers in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who ensured the smooth running of the Nazi system. Churchill also spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.
Peacemaker, this is all your fault isn't it? LoL. The guy has his rights to free speech but he is definitely out there in my opinion. What kills me is all the people who support him. What do you think; is this the making of a new doomsday cult? And if so what method do you think they'll use?
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 10, 2005 01:36 PM |
|
|
Sure he has the right to free speech, but does a college have to pay him to spout his nonsense? That's my problem with him.
If he is forming some cult, maybe they will all drink some kool-aid and we can be done with him.
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 09:28 PM |
|
|
Well, I see his point; it wasn't like he was attacking the people who died, just the way their tragic demise have been used by the current administration.
But I still think he crossed the line on that one.
But it's frightfully inpolitical correct, you'd have to agree with that...
Bah, he probably just said it to get some PR.Use extreme words or examples, and you're secured publicity...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 11:04 PM |
|
|
I see that once again, for about the 20th time this week, that my name has yet again been invoked in conjunction with Ward's. Strangely, in about nineteen of those cases, the outraged individuals confronting me about Ward HAD NOT READ THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION.
"I've read all about it in the newspaper."
Awfully trusting of this presumably leftist Press, don't you think? I mean we can all rest confident that the commentaries by disgruntled students, the outraged CU Staff, and the obviously equally enraged reporters themselves have told us all we need to know in order to pass judgment...
<SIGH>
Let's see here, what can I say without adding my own name to the conservative Churchill hit-list that appears to be forming around me?
I've known Ward for about twenty years. And yes, he's an activist zealot.
But I also think there's a bit of a witchunt afoot here.
I'll just remind all you insensed Americans of one thing. Primary among the claims by the leftist-activists is that the post 9/11 response has included several assaults to the Constitution. Who was it that said, "I may disagree vehemently with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it"??? Where, if not in a University setting, should people -- most prominently the Professors -- have leave to forward controvercal ideas and thoughts? Is this elongated attack against Ward not proving the point about how butchered our own sense of freedom in the country -- first and foremost the Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment -- has become?
I personally hold all politically correct standards in general contempt, whether those standards be forwarded by the left or the right.
So that I don't end up re-inventing the wheel, I'll just reproduce an e-mail exchange I had with my old boss, who was the first to approach me about Ward the day this story broke.
_____________________
My old boss wrote:
Quote:
Do you know anything about Ward Churchill? The link above is the article that has received some attention in the press of late.
I think the invasion of Iraq was a dumb idea, and I think W. is a disaster. But this Churchill guy seems both extremely hateful and very ignorant. How in the world did he ever become a tenured university professor? In a weird way, he agrees with W. He argues there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq. On that point, I think both he and W. are wrong.
And his comment that people who went to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11 are "little Eichmanns" who deserve to be put to death seems well past hate speech, and it is galling beyond belief that he can he can inflict that kind of intentional injury on the families of the victims without consequences of any kind.
To which I responded:
Quote:
Yes, Donna and I both know him. He was the Co-Director of Colorado AIM for decades, and is a fairly well-known local author and artist as well. He is extremely intelligent, but a senationalist zealot extremist who is known for doing these kinds of things.
Donna sent me a link the other day about this same topic with the comment:
Ward - "still crazy after all these years"
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4136982/detail.html
I used to know Ward well and I really like him. It is true that he is one of the most compassionate defenders of those around him I have ever known, whether he's a stranger to them or not. I have witnessed him undertake unbelievable acts of courage in dangerous situations to protect people in danger. Because I understand him, I am inclined to think that this piece was not nearly as inflammatory to me as it might be to others. I want to point out that his piece was written shortly after 9/11. It is possible that we have become more galvanized and immune to some of the first-days thinking many of us had; that sick feeling that we had a larger hand in bringing this on ourselves than we cared to admit. It therefore might seem even harsher now than it did upon first blush. Many of us, even moderates, were on the phone with one another during those early days talking about just exactly how we had such a hand, and it was during those conversations I am certain that Ward began this writing.
In that context, I want to make some observations. Without any intent to justify his more offensive comments at all, I tend to this day to agree that our own hand in bringing this about is completely overlooked by most, while our perception of our own attack is greatly inflated compared to the hundreds of thousands that have died elsewhere through terrorist attacks, ineffective embargos and years-neglected holocausts. I tend to agree that Americans for the most part apparently "still don't get it," and that America's first-nation status has been secured and sustained through a legacy of Machiavellianism, violence and genocide that is conveniently forgotten by its modern-day constituents, who scream with appalling self-righteous indignation and wage multiple wars when the same is visited upon them in the comparatively tiniest of metaphors.
On the other hand, Ward is also borderline sociopathic in my opinion. He is just about as anti-establishment as you can get. His comments about the people working in the Trade Center are referring to the fact that they participated willingly in the establishment -- the juggernaut capitalist society which engaged for decades in activities that fuelled the hysterical wrath leading to 9/11. I guess he thinks nobody in the United States who hasn't attempted a coup is innocent. If you ask me, I think we are all (globally, including any victim of terrorism) either equally innocent or equally guilty. Don't get me wrong. IMHO nothing nowhere justifies any of this insanity. I think ALL terrorist attacks are terrible and completely unjustifiable. Innocent civilians are innocent civilians. Each one is a whole, priceless person lost forever.
Funny thing too, Ward seems to overlook that he participates in the establishment as well by being a college professor. I guess in his mind the fact that it is a University instead of a multi-national makes it okay for him to continue living here, visiting the local grocery stores and movie theatres, and enjoying the fruits of "freedom and democracy" (including the right to spew whatever kind of trash he decides to). While I understand where he is coming from I think he tends to make an ass of himself with his extreme myopia. I mean if the participants in this society are guilty by association, then what about the people killed in our many conflicts in the Middle East, and victims of terrorism in any country? Are they also guilty because they are born in the societies they live in? What about the atrocities visited by their governments???
Ward will never resign. He's just grinning at the attention right now you can bet. And I think that trying to fry him for the article would be adding fuel to the extremists' fires; they will scream "SEE I TOLD YA!!! The fascist post- 9/11 PATRIOT ACT hysteria mentality is wiping out the Constitution!!!!" It would be handing them one count against the First Amendment on a silver platter, man.
Somebody might pick him off one day though, making comments like some of those he made. I don't know what he is trying to accomplish. In fact I lost track of what the Churchill type thinkers were trying to accomplish a long time ago. It just seems about as counter-productive as you can get sometimes. I think it's just too bad he threw away all the better parts of the message by making a few totally wasted, unnecessary comments that everyone is training in on. For being so bright, he's not very smart. And for all his comments on the psychology behind terrosism, American hypnosis, and whatnot, you'd think he would have known that's exactly what would happen. But hey. In order to justify any terrorism, one has to think like a terrorist. And I'm afraid that's exactly what Ward is doing. Based on my experience with him, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Hate speech? Maybe. Definitely for those whose loved ones and friends died in the attack. Who knows? Maybe they'll find a way to give him a taste of his own medicine.
P.S. Here's a link or two on Ward's books and other writings.
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=62
http://www.southendpress.org/books/author/churchill.shtml
http://www.speakersandartists.org/People/WardChurchill.html
http://getunderground.com/underground/columns/article.cfm?Article_ID=1565
As to why people follow Ward, well I have a few thoughts on this.
Ward suffers from an identiy complex which I will simply, obliquely refer to as "TMWB." Also known as "NEIB." Unfortunately I suffer from the same complex and it's one of the reasons I like and identify with Ward.
But when one has an identity complex combined with a huge amount of charisma, (s)he can tend to lure people nearby (particularly young impressionable college students and large groups of Indians and breeds in desperate need of leadership) into loving and adulating them. This tactic eases the mind of the one with the complex and makes it easier for them to like themselves.
Now this comparison is in terms of identity complex only, at least for the moment. But it's a little like Hitler hating the Jewish blood that was doubtless coursing through his veins to the point of fomenting maniacal hatred toward the ones who represented the blood he most resented in himself (while at the same time whipping up fanatical adulation and love for himself in the masses).
There. That should probably complete the hit-list against me. I am now probably on Ward's, too.
I hope this satisfies your rather morbid curiosity.  I'm sure I've said enough things to equally enrage both sides of the growing polarity over this issue.
Now if you don't mind, I'm going to bow quietly back out of this conversation, since I am really getting sick of talking about Ward, not to mention thinking it's really becoming increasingly dangerous for me to do so...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 11, 2005 01:03 AM |
|
|
He seems to be making, in a rather sensationalist way the point that the US should consider the theory that there are reasons why terrorists are attacking it, and they might not be because they hate democracy and freedom. As PM says, his comments are a little extremist due to the way he casts his net of blame pretty far, but somewhere deep down he's making a valid point that is swamped by the news being willingly twisting the argument in their own sensationalist ways.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Zsa
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2005 02:37 AM |
|
Edited By: Zsa on 10 Feb 2005
|
well I think he has a pretty good point. He is obviously overreaching in his statements, but it is true that a lot of people are pretty oblivious or choose to be so on matters like this.
Everybody in the media just focuses on that little bit about him comparing 9/11 victims to "little Eichmanns" which is in my opinion stupid.
YES we can all see that that is the most far fetched idea in his speech, how about the other things he said? And privatehudson makes a really good point on this matter. OH that was all his speech? Great, look my dear americans, HE IS CALLING THE 9/11 victims NAZI's. Jump on your mighty horses and let's go eradicate this person just like our ancestors eradicated so many indian nations.
Well now, go sit down and try and even imagine the number of people that died because of agressive or simply tyrannical USA foreign policy. Oh wait, but the 9/11 victims were innocent -- yah, but so were most of these people too, so what's the real difference, please tell me - oh yeah I KNOW, because they aren't terrorist acts right? If you think that, go sell your bullshiet somewhere else or pick up a history book.
Want it or not this dude is (or better said was) a chairman of the university of colorado. Now, before all of you really 'intelligent' people which obviously know more than he does, brand him, you should try at least to listen to what he has to say.
I mean he actually makes a couple of good points in there, and even if they aren't completely right, they should at least be ponered on.
I am not an anti-american, I didn't like what happened at the World Trade Center, i'm not a hater either, I just wish more people would pull their heads out of their asses.
If you felt in anyway offended by my writing I really do not care :.
Here's a small section posted on the net from professor Churchill's "Crimes against Humanity"
"First, as a counterpart to the Redskins, we need an NFL team called "snows" to honor Afro-Americans. Half-time festivities for fans might include a simulated stewing of the opposing coach in a large pot while players and cheerleaders dance around it, garbed in leopard skins and wearing fake bones in their noses…"Hispanics?" They can be "represented" by the Galveston "Greasers" and the San Diego "Spics," at least until the “Wisconsin "Wetbacks" and Baltimore "Beaners" get off the ground. Asian Americans? How about the "slopes," "Dinks," "Gooks," and "Zipperheads?"…Let's see. Who's been left out Teams like the Kansas City "Kikes," Hanover "Honkies," San Leandro "Shylock," Daytona "Dagos," and Pittsburg "Polacks" will fill a certain social void among white folk. Issues of gender and sexual preference can be addressed through creation of teams like the St. Louis "snows," Boston "Bimbos," Detroit "Dykes," and the Fresno "Fags…" "
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 11, 2005 08:13 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 11 Feb 2005
|
Peacemaker,
Please call me Jake. I want to make this as personable as I can. You need to know something. I do not know you Peacemaker. I have only read about a year's worth of your postings here at Heroes Community. When I created this topic I was hoping you would have an opinion to post about this guy in your state. He's obviously a pro-native american indian idealist who holds his beliefs and principles very high on the agenda. Statistically speaking, college campuses are a common location for idealistic philosophies. I had no idea that you actually knew the guy. I was shocked to hear that you knew him. Is there really anyone here who knows that much about you? Even if there is, I'm not one of them. I would never have posted this topic if I knew you were being hounded by a handful of others. I certainly wouldn't want to put salt in a wound. I would like to know more about you. I know little to nothing about you really.
Now let's talk about this guy. I feel he's using his ethnicity and cultural status(as a bonified professor) to promote his message/principled speeches. But neither do I think the governor of Colorado is behaving appropriately.
Racism
1. One might say he is a racist. If Native American Indians were the majority population then he would be implying that his way of life and spiritual beliefs are the 'right(eous)' ones and all others are wrong. I think he's very confusing to me. I've spoken to you in emails and through IM's a few times. I've told you that I have a few of those beliefs myself. Having this ancestry yourself, you know well that the term "native american indian" is a very broad generalized term used to basically describe anyone who lived here before the europeans started colonization. The term is lazy and ignores the value of the individual; and I feel it is quite unacceptable. But the indians of America were in fact not at all homogenous. There were, and still are, many different tribes whose religious beliefs cover a variety of different ceremonies and rituals. To declare one's self "Native American Indian" would be as generally prophetic as declaring one's self "Black", "Hispanic", "Asian", or "Caucasion". It almost sounds like he is trying to create an anti-modern American point of view. I may be a caucasian male but my ancestry is littered with German, English, Welsh, Dutch, and Irish. I have never thought of myself as any of those to be honest. I am me. I was born a baby boy in the capitol of Texas back in 1975. I was raised in a mostly western-America suburban environment. The point is that I don't stand up in front of other people and use my White-colored(more pink than white) skin to promote any sort of agenda/message of any kind. It doesn't matter if I'm a white person. I feel like he is using his ancestry to say our fundamental government and economic system is to blame for 9/11. I feel like this is an attack against my country's sovereignty by a domestic-grown disgruntled enemy of the state.
Cultural Status
2. I also feel like none of this would even matter if he wasn't an accomplished educated professor. The man is as astute as they come. His reputation seems to be attracting attention to his political motives.
Peer Pressure
3. I also know that the governor of Colorado is openly/publicly threatening the University of Colorado to take action or he will bring charges against the school. I feel this is illegal. I will personally be looking to New Mexico's Governor(Bill Richardson) for his thoughts on the matter. He could be of tremendous help in keeping that conservative hard-liner(Colorado gov.) in line. He's abusing his power as governor. I think he may have some keen insight on how best to go about handling this matter. He is extremely intelligent. This could be his chance to shine for the 08 presidential democratic nominee race.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2005 01:19 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 11 Feb 2005
|
I saw this guy being interviewed on CNN. Of course,
the main issue was his comments about 911. Since he
has written many things and is no stranger to
controversy, I can only conclude he knows what he is
doing, and wrote those things consciously knowing
they would inflame not just right-wing Bushniks, but
many middle-of-the-road folks.
He was kind of back-tracking and saying he meant no
offense, but he obviously did mean offense and has
a great cause on his shoulder that he is carrying
around. He may have valid points about many things,
but he is a kind of stupid-intelligent guy for
making sweeping statements that can be so easily
twisted and misunderstood. He did his cause a great
deal of damage by speaking in this way.
I also have a problem with those that say the US brought
on 911 by their actions and policies. This is such a
a cynical statment and totally denies the fact there is
anything like Islamic fundamentalism that has a violent
xenophobic tinge to it. This kind of thing is echoed
in the Muslim world constantly, whilst they say nothing
about their own internal problems and ways of thinking
that create repressive societies. Its way to easy to
blame someone else and never look at you self.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 11, 2005 03:06 PM |
|
|
Churchill has every right to say and write what he does and I don't feel that any action against him is warranted by the University of Colorado. He hasn't been stealing from the Bursar's office or anything. As a professor, he was hired basically to think and to describe what he's thinking to students and others. He has fulfilled his end of the contract, UC must fulfill theirs. (Besides, if they're really worried about the reputation of UC, they should pay attention to the actions of that football team of theirs). There were a lot of professors at my university who would encourage horrible acts, we called them "Business School Professors," but that doesn't mean they should be fired. They were fulfilling their part of the contract, so should the University.
Now as to what I think of Churchill's writing, it's extremely well written. As to what I think of his message, it's somewhat juvenile. He has that sense of outrage and absolutism that you actually normally see only in high schoolers who have discovered their first cause (c'mon, everyone remembers that bratty 13 year old who discovered vegetarianism and started lecturing everybody who couldn't run away fast enough... yeah, it was me. Or the snot nose who reads Ayn Rand for the first time and babbles on and on about the mediocracy and how if every body was left to their own devices, everything would be perfect forever... not me, I thought Ayn Rand was self evident drivel from the beginning.)
He's a bit like Emerson in his holding everybody to insane (albeit different) standards and being utterly unforgiving if they fail to meet those standards. (Actually, kind of like the Old Testament God in that way). He fails to understand that there are differences between unwittingly benefitting from immoral acts, knowingly benefitting from immoral acts but being powerless to stop them or to stop from benefitting from them (for instance, one could argue that the health, sanitation and security that I benefit from simply by living in the United States is the result of immoral acts perpetrated by the US government and/or private citizens that led to the wealth of the US. However, it's not like I can choose to be in the middle of a cholera epidemic or something), being able to prevent an immoral act but not doing so, causing the immoral act to occur and actually commiting the immoral act. They're not all equivalent. Not all of them are equally responsible nor do they deserve equal punishment.
He's dead on about the Washington Redskins though. Especially because not only does it institutionalize a racial slur, but, based on their play, it suggests that Native Americans are incompetent.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 11, 2005 09:13 PM |
|
|
A Treatise on Ward Churchill
Man, what a bunch of great posts!
Now that I have made the mistake of reading all of them, despite my proclamation to bow out of the discussion, yet having been awake most of the night still thinking about all this and about some of the ways I said things in the original post, I must relent, and respond.
First of all Jake – LOL!!! You have absolutely no apologies to make. Fact is, I laughed with appreciation when I read your post. When I taunted you about your “morbid curiosity” I was just kidding. In the back of my mind I knew you might not take it that way, but thank you for telling me so that I could clarify this point.
I sat here nodding at practically everything you said in your second post as well. Excellent observations. I think you are right on, and have a few points in reply. But in doing so I also want to clarify some things I said that have been bugging me all night, about Ward’s charismatic ability to gain a following, and what that represents in the psychology of what’s happening here.
To fully consider this situation, one must first understand some things about the larger American Indian Intelligentsia in the United States. Ward is one of the most visible, outspoken members of that Intelligentsia. Breeds and other “Indianists” frequently are. This is because we possess an endemic sense of “being Indians,” but have still incorporated the Western thought matrix sufficiently to at least try to bridge an otherwise inexpressibly wide cultural gap, and to express non-Western ideas and ways of thinking through the vehicle of the Western thought matrix. This eluded people on both sides for centuries and completely prevented any effective communication. Let me tell you: this is not an easy way to live; it is not an easy thing to communicate. It’s a little like having your feet in two canoes that frequently only seem to be drifting further and further apart. Right now Ward’s about doing the splits and I foresee a groin injury.
At any rate, the mental/emotional shrapnel this produces can compel people to think and express themselves in strange and sometimes counterproductive ways. When you’ve made the case in what should be clear terms and they still ignore you, sometimes you become enraged and start screaming. The louder you scream, the more they ignore you. The more they ignore you, the more you scream. And so on.
So, what is the case that Ward is trying to make? Perhaps I can clarify.
As many of you have observed, many people, including many Americans, hold a certain distinct distaste for what America represents. To those who have simply been born here and never had the occasion to experience or study the things which produce these negative feelings, who have been brought up within the culture largely leading a good and peaceful life, anti-Americanism is an enigma which partially or completely alludes them. Let me explain to you what I personally know, feel and understand about this sentiment, in the minds of both American Indians and peoples of other nations and cultures elsewhere.
The American socio-cultural influence around the globe is much more pervasive than most Americans understand. This in itself isn’t bad. What’s bad about it is that, because of the endemic nature of “the American way,” this influence acts like a scouring powder removing or obliterating elements of other cultures which are essential to their internal consistency and integrity as organic living things. Most Americans think of “cultures” as people in colorful clothes making exotic foods and practicing various mysterious social and religious practices in obscure little countries orbiting the United States, just waiting to “catch up with us.” While intellectually I think many Americans comprehend this is not the case, our international policies and actions proclaim it is as though on a bigger and bigger bullhorn in an ever-larger fashion.
On the other hand, Americans generally do not perceive themselves as having a “culture.” They do not realize that a fundamental essence of their culture is an extension of European Imperialism; a seemingly irresistible urge to “colonize,” to spread the Euro-American way of existing, and the pervasive global impact on non-European cultures. Because this influence is generally presumed to be both good and desirable, Americans are blind, to an astonishing degree, to the scouring effects their culture has when it is exported as a piggy-back addendum to the political and economic exports in which we regularly engage.
The first cultures to be “scoured” were those thousands of tribes, nations and communities which pre-existed Columbus and Company (to which Jake alluded). One after another, we were wiped out. The most recent data is that of some eighteen million pre-Columbian North Americans who lived in approximately a thousand separate nations and tribes and spoke upwards of two thousand distinct languages and dialects, across the board about half those nations were wiped out completely, and of those remaining, 95 to 99% of the populaces were eliminated. I want to remind you all that this whole process started with the Columbian era during which Indians were used as dogmeat and slaves, killed and burned by the hundreds of thousands, and the Jesuits estimated fifty million people were obliterated in the first fifty years of European occupation. The current allegations in the papers against Ward’s argument of deliberate genocide are about the most offensive thing yet in this whole ordeal.
Well, you might say, this is pretty much ancient history. Well for some of us it is. For some of us we are STILL struggling to gain back the tiniest pieces of the sovereignty guaranteed us by the U.S. Supreme Court over two hundred years ago, and a few scrapes of land here and there which were taken forcibly, either by canon or the subsequent stroke of the judicial/legislative pen. For the few remaining tribes and Indians, our choice is to relent and go to Wal-Mart, or continue to try and preserve the thing we most love – our culturally distinct communities, where life is still virtually nothing like it is in any given American city.
No, I’m not talking about preserving “poverty.” I’m talking about places like where my son’s grandmother lived and died – where people still share lands and work the fields together and speak their own language together and have a longhouse where the entire community, all people of a distinct, common culture and religion -- gather each night to cook together and eat together and clean up the mess together and pray together and do the ceremonies that are unique to them together, and so on and so on. When you have those things, sometimes you hold them so preciously, you are willing to live in poverty to keep them rather than give them up. Sometimes you are willing to engage in decades-long struggles with the federal government to keep them, or to get back enough land and control to restore them if they have already been lost.
And sometimes, those struggles can make you very, very bitter, indeed, even and especially if you are one of those Indians born outside your original culture, and you never even got the chance to experience it to begin with. If it is as genetically endemic to you as it is to people like Ward and me, you miss it even though you never lived it, perhaps even more, since everything around you screams the demand of its erasure despite that it remains essential to who you are. Everything around you continues to make excuses for the enormously imbalanced impact on everything from the tiniest insects to whole villages in other countries. Everything around you continues to insist on its own self-righteousness ethical legitimacy since you have a right “to be an Indian in the privacy of your own home.” This sentiment utterly fails to apprehend the fact that the place you consider home resembles absolutely nothing in any of your surroundings, and that it is impossible to be “Indian” in “the privacy of your own home,” since it is an entirely distinct way of life we are talking about here.
While such clinging may seem childish to many, I submit to you that you have no concept of the depth of this grief. And the fact that it is still happening to others is perhaps what compels us to continue struggling to stop it. Some of us, such as Ward, have intimately researched exactly how America did this to us, and still does – not only to us but to other cultures in other countries as well. The well-developed and intricately-articulated loathing he feels toward what this country stands for and does, becomes a beacon for those around him -- Indians and others as well -- who have always had a fragmented but distinct sense of malaise about this country. He provides a framework explanation for that feeling of ill-will – the feeling that many of us have, that America is like a grand ball where everyone is dressed up and dancing elegantly and eating the finest delicacies, all the while apparently completely ignoring a strange, overpowering foul odor permeating the great hall. Some of us sitting in the ballroom have for years grown angrier and angrier at those around us for their apparent ignorance, and Ward represents the guy who finally crashes the ball in fatigues and a dirty overcoat, throws open the doors to an adjoining room and reveals the piles of bodies lying there in their own stench and covered with maggots.
So if you saw Ward’s speech at CU on C-Span the other night, and wondered why the hell all those folks – clearly of literally all races and cultures – kept standing up and cheering every time he said something with righteous anger – that’s why. It’s because he has given many, many people a voice they felt they could not have had without him.
This is why my comparison of Ward’s personality traits to those of Hitler kept me awake last night. I was afraid they might be taken and run with in the very same way that Ward’s comparison of establishment workers in the Trade Center to Adolph Eichmann was. It’s much more complex a point than that, just as Ward’s comparison was.
So anyway Jake, regarding your comments on racism. This is a tricky thing. To say the Ward or the rest of us think Indian culture is superior, and all others are wrong, kinda misses the whole point. The whole point is that by virtue of its very nature, it is American culture that is designed to assume and assert its own superiority, to the point it consumes like a three-dollar late' anything that doesn’t fit its own socio-economic-cultural paradigm. In this respect, I guess you could say Ward and I both are racists, or more accurately, culturalists. If we are “anti-American culture,” it is because of its endemic penchant for being so anti-anything else that none of the rest of us has much of a chance or a right to be anything else. If it seems like Ward’s trying to create an anti-American point of view as you said, it is because, for this main reason, that’s precisely what he is doing. To say that people like us “use” our ancestry to promote our viewpoints pretty much misses the whole point, because our roots, tattered as they are, are the point.
There’s no doubt that many get caught up in the charisma net with Ward. I pretty much did at first, twenty-some years ago. But that’s not all it was, cause I’m one hell of a lot older and more independent now. I started out on this most recent episode about as pissed as everyone else because of a couple of the things he said. But after these past few days this goddamned witch hunt has certainly clarified my own thinking. I sold Ward short when I first described him as simply being hypnotic to the young disenfranchised masses. Fact is, I smelled that foul odor and knew I had been robbed of my culture and I was already pissed when I first met Ward and the other Indian Intelligentsia. They just gave structure, substance and articulation to the myriad complex reasons why.
To Shiva: Another great post, man.
I have a question about the end though when you said:
Quote:
I also have a problem with those that say the US brought
on 911 by their actions and policies. This is such a
a cynical statment and totally denies the fact there is
anything like Islamic fundamentalism that has a violent
xenophobic tinge to it. This kind of thing is echoed
in the Muslim world constantly, whilst they say nothing
about their own internal problems and ways of thinking
that create repressive societies. Its way to easy to
blame someone else and never look at you self.
First, I don’t know about Ward, but I don’t deny fanatical fundamentalism or its violent xenophobic tinge. But what you say next just makes the point – nobody anywhere should be denying their own responsibility in any kind of conflict, if responsibility is to be had. Including the United States. If you think our foreign policies and interventions, the hundreds of thousands dead, our role in plopping Israel right in the middle of Muslim territory after WWII, our propping up repressive regimes over there, and about a hundred other things we have done did not play a role in fomenting that fanaticism, then I would respectfully disagree. I’m not sure here, maybe I just missed your point.
To bort:
Quote:
Now as to what I think of Churchill's writing, it's extremely well written. As to what I think of his message, it's somewhat juvenile. He has that sense of outrage and absolutism that you actually normally see only in high schoolers who have discovered their first cause…
Well said, man. I wish Ward would grow a little tact since he’s probably only further alienating the very people he needs to get through to. It infuriates me that he cannot see this, and that it only does more damage than good. It’s certainly not like we need any help getting more polarized or anything.
Quote:
He fails to understand that there are differences between unwittingly benefiting from immoral acts, knowingly benefiting from immoral acts but being powerless to stop them or to stop from benefiting from them...
Okay, here’s where everybody seems to keep getting off track. Far be it for me to speak for Ward, but read all his works for yourself and tell me I’m wrong. One of the things that enrages Ward most is that unlike many of the other nations which perpetrate outrages on those around them, WE THE PEOPLE are presumably the ones who vote these yayhoos into office who then continue to perpetrate those outrages. WE THE PEOPLE choose which jobs to pursue, and far too easily throw our hands up in the air, proclaiming with presumed helplessness that the system is already set up that way, and we may as well play the game whether we think it is ethical or not. But the point is we DO have a degree of control over which direction this country takes, and through our own self-imposed blindness, or greed, or whatever reason, we fail to exert that control. We are therefore supposedly not only acquiescing through our overblown claims of helpless, we are actually perpetuating the juggernaut.
And finally – Zsa – On behalf of Ward, thanks for another great post. I share nearly all your comments, and appreciate your sense of indignation. Thanks for expressing it so well. Also, good one posting that rather famous article by Ward. It's always been one of my favorites. It's always amazed and enraged me when anybody tries to muster up some kind of distinction between the "Redskins" and the plethora of fictitious comparison epithets he then lists. I must say I've done a bit of my own screaming on a few of those occasions.
Thanks for letting me spew, everyone. I should have known the people in this community, as shown through your statements of both support and disagreement, would have greater clarity than those witch-hunters that now surround me. You nearly always do.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 12, 2005 04:07 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 11 Feb 2005
|
Dubius
You won't like what I'm about to post but they are my true feelings and I owe you nothing less than my personal honesty. I suppose many may not like what I have to say.
I am from Texas ergo I was born there, raised, and educated a Texan. All of my family are from Texas and theirs also. When someone approaches me with an air of Native American vengence you won't find me cowering or giving way on my ground. It's not in my ancestral blood. Being raised a Texan, I was educated on Indian culture; most notably the Comanche way of life.
http://www.texasindians.com/comanche.htm
As a young child I was taught by Comanche descendants and other Indian tribe descendents. They showed me something that I had never known before. They showed/taught me how to never waste anything. This was a vital aspect of Indian life. Their's was a culture I admire, fear, respect, and adopt for personal strength.
When I hear about some vaguely described Native American who hates capitalism and modern technology I smile at him. My first question is which tribe he hails from. It's not enough to say you are "native american". That doesn't mean a damn thing in my book. There is no Indian difference according to this guy. But really, if he wants to call 9/11 victims little Eichmans then I want to know what most "native americans" were doing when Hitler was about to conquer the world. I'm sure he can explain how the 'windwalkers' were asked to help the U.S. government. They weren't actively seeking involvment because they were too busy living off the land on their reservations. They'd rather be a traditional native american than stop Hitler from killing literally millions upon millions of innocent jews. I grow more of a nationalist the more I hear this man talk about our weak-mindedness. I am not weak. In fact, I honor the very thing he worships; the earth. But I do it with greater scope than he does because I know that a vote will stop oil-drilling, strip-mining, clear-cutting, sewage dumping, land-filling, and fossil fuel bi-products from harming the very thing we live off of; earth. So tell me what would have happened if we Americans would have simply declared ourselves all followers to the Native American way of life. You can bet I would be speaking German while you, and other of the racially inept(according to Himler and Hitler), would be "cleansed". And I'm afraid that includes mr Righteous-Native-American-philosopher. The point is that it's time to progress and incorporate philosophies rather than preach secularism. The old Native American way of life would simply have left the world to the Nazis.
If he thinks using the 9/11 victims is a good way to promote his philosophies then I will quite offensively be forced to see him as nothing more than an Native American Black Panther(call them Red Panthers if you want). Hate-filled speeches never created/accomplished anything but propogate more hate. I know this because Dr. Martin Luther King jr. told me so; and I prefer to take King's word over Ward's.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2005 02:13 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 12 Feb 2005
|
Peacemaker, thanks for your "spew"..really, I got a good
insight to what is going on. Before I go on, a bit of
backround on me.
I went to college in the 60's, early 70's..in Montreal. At that time, there were a flood of draft dodgers in the city and I was happy to be a Canadian and not have to face that choice at all. I was never politically active, but sympathized with the protests of the time, anti-war or civil-rights in the US. The militant groups of the time never appealed to me.
Every generation has its protest against the establishment. Ward has gone beyond a generation, made it a life work. Society needs critics, often they have a conscience that is forgotten in the drive to succeed and make money. Chomsky comes to mind as a man who continues to critique his own country intelligently. Ward comes to mind as a someone who doesn't.
The rage of a dispossed people is hard to fathom at
times. I am also Jewish, but I've never been to Israel.
I do have a sense that Israel deserves to exist. It came
into being as the world expereinced a collective
revulsion to WWll and what happened, and all the
major countries as a whole voted it into existance at the
UN. The Jews are unique in that they have survived for 2,000 years without a country, something the Dalai Lamai recognized. He met with some rabbi's so he could
understand how the Tibetan people might have a better
chance of surviving after being overwhelmed by China.
What gives a country the right to exist? Primary right
is the fact that it is there. Israel will not go away,
unless the whole region is unthinkably destroyed. With
the acceptance of that, there is hope for peace there
There are a million causes in this world, sad stories
of inhumanity that go back in time forever. Perhaps the
white man has perpetrated many of these, perhaps we are
all just a victim of being alive in a world that hasn't
quite figured out how to exist with it self.
Personally, I laugh a bit at those who think they can
control this world and seek to do so. They too will die
and can take nothing with them. It is like trying to
catch the wind, in end, after all your effort, you have
nothing.
So my people have been both persecuted and persecute in
return. Your people have been over run by the Macdonalds
culture, yet you are still there knowing your roots.
Times change, we all have to adapt. What ever the
present form of civilization is, we all have to live with
it. Or you can opt out, drop out, but I bet someones cell
phone will follow you where ever you go
Back to Ward..you can well understand why the use of
name "Eichmann" would offend many. I still have relatives
with numbers tatooed on their arms from the camps.
Nothing today can match the willfull extermination of so
many, not just Jews, but Russians, Poles, Gypsies, anyone
that didn't meet the Aryan ideal. For the ill considered
use of that name, Ward is a real idiot.
Lastly, for now..my comment about American responsibility
for 911. Its a bit like a rapist blaming the rape victim
for enticing him. The one who perpetrates the violent
act has responsibility for doing so, no matter how they
are provoked by what someone else appeared to do. There
is no other way to end a cycle of violence.
The US is at its ascendancy as a country and no doubt
acts in an imperial manner...but any country with power
does, even if only over their own people. Nationalism at its extreme is a frightening thing, but despite all it's flaws, I'm glad its the US with its shallow culture that is there, not Communist Russia with Stalin at its head, or China (some think they will in the future) or other rather tainted politicos that perhaps dream of an empire.
Bush's view of Democracy and how to project it on the
world is misguided, especially when he is gutting his
own countries social and environmental fabric to push
the agenda of big business, but the point is,you can vote and change that. There are many people in the world who have no choice.
OK, my fingers are tired..regards to all, what a great
thread!
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 12, 2005 07:31 PM |
|
|
Great posts you guys. You're right Shiva. This is a kickin' thread. Glad to see something good come out of Ward's essay.
And thanks for more of an introduction to your personal backgrounds. Shiva, you're an even older fart than I am! Glad to see some more geriatrics kicking in here!
Jake, there isn't much I haven't heard when it comes to the various takes on an individual's connection with their Indian blood. So you needn't anticipate my reactions or be concerned about how I will feel. I find your observations interesting, and can understand why you see things the way you do.
One thing I want to point out is that many urban Indians rarely dwell on the particulars of their tribes anymore (with the most major exception being Lakotas). At least that's the way things here in Denver are. Most wouldn't want to admit this, but for most, it's true.
Every individual has their own unique experience. But there are also some commonalities. When you're an urban Indian you become part of the larger amalgam of the "Indian community." I am Oklahoma Cherokee and I've never even been to Talequah. But when you're in an urban setting, the other Indians around you take you under their wing and make you part of their family, especially when you are separated from the home of your original nation. They adopt you, like. Sometimes formally even. I have been informally "adopted" and even named by different Navajos on separate occasions. The Navajo community here in Denver and I just seemed to gravitate to one another. I also have some pretty strong political ties with Big Mountain from the removal days of PL 93-531. Hell, I'm probably way more Navajo than Cherokee in the way I think and my attitude and stuff.
Now don't get me wrong. Tribal identity remains a critical element to one's sense of identity. Sure, we all know what our tribes are, and we all know what we have learned from our parents about our distinct tribal histories and cultures and clan structures and relatives, and those of us who still have connections with home -- that remains a huge part of awareness too. When we first introduce ourselves, standard protocol is always name, then nation, and then sometimes clan especially if we are in the company of others from our nation.
But we also have more general aspects of what it means to be part of an Indian community, made up of Indians from dozens of different nations from practically all over the country. We all go into the same sweatlodge and smoke the same chanupa when we come out; we all go to the same pow wows, and cross over on each others' tribes' beadwork patterns when making dance outfits, and frequently choose dance styles that do not reflect our regions. We know one anothers' songs and sing them together. We learn one anothers' stories, and we pass them around.
We basically become one anothers' brothers and sisters, whether we are a full-blood Lakota, a quarter Comanche, A mixed-breed Mesquakie-Anishinabe, a quarter Shawnee, a Navago half-breed or some uncertain sixteenths Cherokee. BTW, I just described my son's nanny, my best friend and old boss, my ex-husband, the Director of Colorado AIM, a kid I went to Law School with, and Ward. They all know one another, they all consider Ward to be "an Indian" and part of this Indian community. So do I.
In essence, urban Indians -- especially those who are second, third or fourth-generation urban Indians, live in a different reality than before. Once you come to know someone, they are who they are. Whether they are part of the community is up to the community, and nobody else.
There's plenty more to say here, but for now I will remain aside, think more on some of your ideas, and respond further later. I wrote a piece last night about being Indian and what that really means to a person today. Let me think on it and I may post it here later. I did not write it for public consumption but it speaks directly to the point you are raising.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 12, 2005 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
He fails to understand that there are differences between unwittingly benefiting from immoral acts, knowingly benefiting from immoral acts but being powerless to stop them or to stop from benefiting from them...
Okay, here’s where everybody seems to keep getting off track. Far be it for me to speak for Ward, but read all his works for yourself and tell me I’m wrong. One of the things that enrages Ward most is that unlike many of the other nations which perpetrate outrages on those around them, WE THE PEOPLE are presumably the ones who vote these yayhoos into office who then continue to perpetrate those outrages. WE THE PEOPLE choose which jobs to pursue, and far too easily throw our hands up in the air, proclaiming with presumed helplessness that the system is already set up that way, and we may as well play the game whether we think it is ethical or not. But the point is we DO have a degree of control over which direction this country takes, and through our own self-imposed blindness, or greed, or whatever reason, we fail to exert that control. We are therefore supposedly not only acquiescing through our overblown claims of helpless, we are actually perpetuating the juggernaut.
I apologize that I currently only have enough time to respond briefly to this point alone. My point in my comment about failing to distinguish between distinctions of culpability for an immoral act was not to absolve those, nor myself from responsibility for the acts. Everyone gets a certain level of tarnish to their souls from failing to prevent acts of immorality if they, in fact have any control whatsoever over it. However, a bit of tarnish is not the same as being a legitimate target of an act like the 9/11 attacks. I fail to see how a janitor cleaning out the urinals can be in any way considered to be even partially responsible for his own murder simply because he is not a morally perfect individual.
The other mistake that this line of thinking is that it fails to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Yes, the monolithic "we" could prevent whatever acts our government perpetrates, but the individual "I" does not speak for the monolithic "we." I am responsible for my own actions and only my own actions and I have to make my own moral decisions based on that taking into account the realistic result of my actions. In many cases, it would actually be immoral to do all one can do to prevent immoral acts. I'm going to leave that sentence as a hanger since I don't have time to finish my post right now and hopefully leaving a vaguely inflammatory statement like that will make sure that I remember to finish this as soon as possible.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2005 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I apologize that I currently only have enough time to respond briefly to this point alone. My point in my comment about failing to distinguish between distinctions of culpability for an immoral act was not to absolve those, nor myself from responsibility for the acts. Everyone gets a certain level of tarnish to their souls from failing to prevent acts of immorality if they, in fact have any control whatsoever over it. However, a bit of tarnish is not the same as being a legitimate target of an act like the 9/11 attacks. I fail to see how a janitor cleaning out the urinals can be in any way considered to be even partially responsible for his own murder simply because he is not a morally perfect individual.
The other mistake that this line of thinking is that it fails to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Yes, the monolithic "we" could prevent whatever acts our government perpetrates, but the individual "I" does not speak for the monolithic "we." I am responsible for my own actions and only my own actions and I have to make my own moral decisions based on that taking into account the realistic result of my actions. In many cases, it would actually be immoral to do all one can do to prevent immoral acts. I'm going to leave that sentence as a hanger since I don't have time to finish my post right now and hopefully leaving a vaguely inflammatory statement like that will make sure that I remember to finish this as soon as possible.
This is an extremely interesting point. I don't believe
that "just following orders" is ok..I also don't think
it's possible to stem the tide of the goverment with the
"monolithic we" at all times. Truly a dilemma.
Society is made up of individuals, although the group
think can blur those lines easily. In the end, we are
responsible for our own actions, however, the shadow
of the group we belong to always reflects on us, even
if we personally were not involved. Thus, the collective
lumping together of Americans, Jews, Muslims etc.
You can refer to American culture as a whole, but one can
never forget the individual.If you ask me what is the
best of the US, I only have to refer to this thread..
Peacemaker, Bort, Consis and others, all thoughtful
people with great insight into things. Bush does not
represent America to me, you all do.
I still have the hope that sanity will prevail in this
world, and when I read what you guys write, it helps to
support that. At an individual level, the great majority
of this world are really good people, its just not on
the news everyday.
In the end, its only that we do what we can, whether or
not the powers that be are truly good or not.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 13, 2005 07:28 PM |
|
|
bort, I think you are making a very good point there, and I will wait to respond to it until you complete the thought.
As to the first point you made about the janitor, during his interview and the Boulder presentation last Tuesday he "clarified" that we was not talking about ay of the innocents -- the janitors, the cook/support staff, passersby, any children, and even some others who worked in the Trade Center. The only "Eichmann's he was talking about were those ones who were operative in the CIA, multinationals, investment corporations and other entities seated in the WTC which form the base of current American Socio-Economic Imperialism -- which is clearly the reason the Towers were chosen to begin with.
(Backpedaling? Maybe...But that "clarification" is more consistent with what I know about Ward than is the first interpretation -- that he meant everybody who was killed.)
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 12:31 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 13 Feb 2005
|
More 'Clarification' Is Needed
What exactly is an "American"?
In order to label my country imperialistic; wouldn't there need to be some things that the people of said imperialism must have in common? Wouldn't an imperialistic nation, by definition, need to be characterized as forcibly injecting something of itself upon other countries? What is it, exactly, that makes an American = American?
1. Is it our religious preference?
2. Is it our distinct government?
3. Is it a shared economic belief/practice?
I would argue none of the above. My reason being the country's we have allegedly imperialized(LoL) don't reflect our own religious preferences, distinct government, or shared economic beliefs/practices. Many have not turned to capitalism. Others have not become majority christian protestants. And still more haven't even set up a congress or legislative branch. How, then, has America been perceived as even remotely imperialistic?
I would argue that our social advances such as the right to peacefully protest, equal opportunity for women, and religious tolerance is not exclusive to the American citizen. I would also argue that our belief in democracy as having come from an innate human need to be free to pursue each our own happiness. We are all human beings. Two people are not equal if only one can vote while the other is prevented. Giving a person the right to vote is my country's most powerful message. If this is the imperialism of America then I too am an imperialist.
My whole point is that I'm having a difficult time pinpointing what an American actually is according to Ward. I want to know how he can call any American citizens "little Eichmans" when our government is clearly not a Fascist-Nazi regime. He almost seems like one of those people who were comparing Bush to Hitler during the 04 election. I couldn't help but laugh when I heard people say such things.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 12:55 AM |
|
|
Imperialist,maybe not in the strict sense of the word, as
in acquiring an empire. However, in the more modern sense
of projecting its power and influence around the world,
yes, the US is imperialistic. As in the influence of Rome,
some of its influence is good, some not because there is
always the tinge of national interest put ahead of
impartiality.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 14, 2005 01:46 AM |
|
|
Consis -- Shiva's is a good short answer to your question. For a long one, there's reems of literature out there that would help you better understand this take on American foreign policy and global influence. But this issue is incredibly complex, invoking vastly divergent perspectives and realities in practically every aspect of human life -- social, cultural, ethical, religious, economic -- practically the whole web of human existence is being rewritten by the influence of the West as spread by it's greatest (or worst) carrier -- the United States. And people do not always like what is happening and how it is happening.
While it might not be exactly on point, you might start with Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer. Google that book in Amazon and you'll find a whole slew of books on related topics. Or you could read practically any of Ward's books for the really hard-line take and supporting evidence on this issue.
Meanwhile I will try to put my finger on some other ready sources of literature on this subject, since you might want to look elsewhere than Ward at this juncture.
<EDIT>
Okay, here's another item that might help you get started.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3430199.stm
You can apparently click on the icons to the right and listen to the entire audio program chapter by chapter, but I haven't actually tried it yet.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 14, 2005 04:46 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 14 Feb 2005
|
Excellent Link Peacemaker
Quote:
"The paradox of American power", for all its global might, the US is unable to get the outcomes it wants by acting alone. In terms of issues like countering transnational terrorism, dealing with the spread of infectious diseases, global climate change, international financial stability, none can be managed by any one country.
The message for US policy-makers is simple: "We are the strongest nation the world has seen for some two millennia and yet we can't get what we want by acting alone".
Now that's what I call a good article. How true it is; how true indeed. This is the best description I've yet seen of our country in terms of imperialism. Thankyou Peacemaker.
Now if only they'd remember to incorporate our social advances such as human civil rights(abolished human slavery/equal rights and opportunites for women) and the right to speak out against one's own government. Mixing those into the market capitalism and democracy would be a more accurate account methinks. I think some people get so caught up in the sensationalization of calling America an empire. It is unique and cannot be called what it does not define as. And if anyone dares quote Shakespeare ("If it looks like a rose, and smells like a rose then it must be a rose") to me then I'll simply roll my eyes with annoyance.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
| |
|
|
