Ward Churchill - Articles - Zimbio

Finally, Ward Churchill’s lawsuit goes to court in 2009 (1.5)

Mon, 22 Jul 2008 04:27:00 GMT

posted by mcforte

Great news from How the university works that Ward Churchill’s very good case against the University of Colorado will go to court in early 2009, challenging the right wing witch hunt that unfairly targeted him and that stalks the 65% of faculty in the U.S. who are not tenured, or are not tenure-track. As laid out on that blog, and in many other writings, the charges against Churchill were nothing short of ludicrous and defamatory, and neither the investigating nor the appeal committees of UC felt that the extraordinarily minor items in question in Churchill’s writing merited dismissal. Hopefully this suit will teach the totalitarian hacks in charge of the University of Colorado a much needed lesson, not to mention the petty, pseudo-scholars that have tried to build their reputations by destroying Churchill’s. I encourage readers to visit the site of the Ward Churchill Solidarity Network as well, and to read the testimonies of the many internationally prominent scholars who have written in Churchill’s defense. To think that all of this began because of a mass mediated holy war in the U.S., fueled by outrage over Churchill’s piece, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens – still one of the most sober, best pieces of writing on “9/11″ to have been written by an American author. Unfortunately for Churchill, at that time any public writing that did not toe the line of authorized sanctimony and repeat the third-grade sentimentality of so many public commentaries would necessarily turn Churchill into a target. What few cared to understand was the way that Churchill turned U.S. military and nationalist logic on its head, so that in their outrage Americans could begin to sense a little of what it felt like to be on the receiving end for a change. The only other “public” figure to have gained such notoriety because of remarks about the attacks was Obama’s Rev. Wright, for making the same argument using the same metaphor, which Malcolm X used to frame the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Churchill, Wright, and Malcolm X were all, of course, disowned and ostracized in the land that speaks of “freedom” as if it had invented the idea and had special rights to its meanings. (Luckily for Oprah Winfrey, few remember that almost immediately after “9/11″ one of her shows was devoted to “root causes” and why the U.S. had provoked these attacks.)

What He Said! Professor Ward Churchill, Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt, And The Roosting Chickens Of Genocide

Fri, 28 Jul 2007 20:42:26 GMT

posted by leighm

Also: What he says.

A current interview @ NewsWeek:

INT: “But how can you possibly compare the victims of 9/11 to that of a man shipping the gold fillings from murdered Jews?

WC: Those (9/11 victims) who were engaged in the international-financial operations, which were the motive cause for U.S. policy … in full knowledge of what effects were on juvenile populations, sweatshops, and so forth—that’s the anchor there. Implement policy for profit, to maximize profit, to increase dividends, blah, blah, blah. Which also, by the way, increases their commission, establishes their stature, leads to their promotion trajectory, leads to their quality of life, and in full knowledge—they may suppress it—of the carnage that is induced in this profit-maximization profile.

…Basically, I said you are accountable for what you do in the world. And … if you are profiting from carnage … you are the moral and philosophical equivalent of Adolf Eichmann. You don’t like that, change the behavior. That’s not who you want to be, stop acting like that.

INT: So the behavior of every 9/11 victim is a moral equivalency to Eichmann’s support of the Holocaust?

WC: I don’t know. Why don’t you ask what the moral equivalency would be of the half-million Iraqi children that died in Iraq from U.S. sanctions?

[Read More]

Let’s cut to the chase and REALLY analyze the content & context of his ‘notorious’ remark about the victims of the World Trade Center attacks.

From ToTheCenter:

Ward Churchill’s paper trod on sacrosanct ground. We have been told by politicians, media pundits, and clerygmen that the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 “hate us because we’re free.” That is baloney. Al Qaeda is certainly a terrorist organization, but it is not a nihilist group. In fact, there is no point in committing acts of terror if you do not hope to gain from them. Like the Irish Republican Army, Hamas, and the political anarchists of fin-de-siècle Europe, al Qaeda is an organization of political terrorists with political goals.

What Did Ward Churchill Actually Say?

by Michael S. Leonard

Ward Churchill, the Colorado professor who sparked national controversy with a 2001 essay characterizing the victims…

…of the September 11 terrorist attacks as “Little Eichmanns,” was fired by the University of Colorado on Tuesday.

I will not discuss at any length the merits of his argument, which pertains to the most loaded, sacred, and taboo topic of the 21st century United States, and I will not tell anyone what to think. However, without either defending or ostracizing Professor Churchill, I do feel compelled to dispell the blatant mischaracterizations of the essay in question that have become prevalent in the days since his firing.

Mr. Churchill did not “call the victims of September 11 Nazis,” as one recent article on ToTheCenter asserted. That is not only a misinterpretation; it is an allegation that does not stand up to the most elementary fact-check. He made an analogy, and the fact that his remarks have been taken so literally is proof enough that the SAT’s recent removal of the “Analogies” section was misguided.

Furthermore, characterizing Adolf Eichmann merely as someone “who helped carry out the Holocaust,” while technically accurate, misses the point entirely.

This cursory treatment of the topic ill serves the discourse. It is impossible to know whether you agree with Professor Churchill or, in fact, whether he is “an anti-American socialist lunatic,” as one commenter recently described him, if you don’t know what he actually said or what he meant by it.

Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi bureaucrat eventually assigned to manage the logistics of mass deportation and execution that lay at the heart of the Nazi “Final Solution,” as the extermination of Europe’s Jews was officially termed. He escaped to Argentina after the war and was eventually arrested (in 1961) by Israeli intelligence agents, who transported him to Jerusalem for trial on charges of war crimes.

In Jerusalem, Eichmann adopted the “only following orders” defense that had failed so many of his superiors at the Nuremberg trials 15 years earlier. After colleagues sent highly incriminating depositions from Germany and Austria, many of which portrayed Eichmann as an overzealous careerist who frequently went above and beyond his “orders” in the hopes of impressing Nazi superiors, Eichmann was convicted and hanged.

Hannah Arendt, a reporter whose coverage of the trial formed the basis for her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, turned the case study into a landmark thesis of political philosophy and mass psychology. Throughout the book, she treated Eichmann as the embodiment of individual culpability for the atrocities of a totalitarian regime.

She pointed out that Eichmann was not an ideological anti-Semite; he was simply trying to out-perform rivals and advance his career. Arendt noted that he was not psychopathic, psychologically damaged, or distorted by hatred. She coined the term “the banality of evil” to describe the way in which people who abdicate their own moral responsibility can become desensitized to the immoral duties they perform as a matter of daily life.

Eichmann had surrendered his moral autonomy by refusing to judge the laws or actions of the state he served, and so had the millions of other Germans who abetted the Nazi regime in general and the Holocaust in particular…

[In Full]

Welcome to our wikizine called "Ward Churchill"

Tue, 27 Jun 2007 21:26:09 GMT

posted by Tony
Wikizines are interactive magazines that anyone can create or edit - and this one is called "Ward Churchill". Here you can find fresh voices and respond in real time. Some members write articles about recent news and trends related to the wikizine's topic, others recount relevant personal stories or share their favorite pictures and video clips. Got an interesting idea or story to share with other members of this wikizine? Well, then put on your journalist's cap and add your own article!

Supporting Ward Churchill’s academic freedom

Wed, 19 Jul 2007 00:05:06 GMT

posted by tormalina

James P. Sterba, Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame (excerpt from letter to University of Colorado Acting Chancellor DiStefano):

“I have been familiar with Professor Churchill’s work for a number of years now. I have cited his work approvingly in an essay I wrote for the journal Ethics in 1995 published by the University of Chicago. This journal is probably the oldest and most prestigious journal in the field of ethics and political philosophy published in the the United States. Later, I revised and published a portion of this essay which included the parts that referred to Professor Churchill’s work in my book, Three Challenges to Ethics, published with Oxford University Press in 2001. At the time, I asked Professor Churchill to write a blurb for the back of this book which he graciously did. Both Oxford and myself were pleased to have his endorsement of my book. All of this is evidence of my belief, and the beliefs of the editors of Ethics and Oxford University Press in the excellence of Professor Churchill’s work. There is not even the hint of incompetence here. It is excellence all the way down.”

Not quite as much a fringe lunatic as what talk radio would have you believe…or even some of the left-liberal mainstream.