CU prof's essay sparks dispute
Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people
By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
January 27, 2005
A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.
Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.
They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."
The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of "chickens coming home to roost."
Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.
The essay contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.
It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."
The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."
"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.
Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay.
"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.
"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."
The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."
A longtime activist with the American Indian Movement, Churchill was one of eight defendants acquitted last week in Denver County Court on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade.
His pending speech at Hamilton has drawn criticism from professors and students, including Matt Coppo, a sophomore whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks.
"His views are completely hurtful to the families of 3,000 people," Coppo said.
A spokesman for Hamilton College released a statement noting that Hamilton is committed to "the free exchange of ideas. We expect that many of those who strongly disagree with Mr. Churchill's comments will attend his talk and make their views known."
In his essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, CU professor Ward Churchill argues that:
• The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.
• Hijackers who crashed jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.
• The people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."
Calling people who were murdered on 9/11 [i]technocrats deserving death [/i]disqualifies this moron from ever being taken seriously. And if he's so brave with that hypothesis, I know some folks in FDNY and NYPD who might like to adjust his attitude. But as he has no testicles, it seems like he's cancelled his Hamilton College outing. Thnink of it-taxpayers in Colorado pay to have this imbecile "teach" their children. That's rich. What he teaches them, I have no idea; and neither does he.
Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member
Post Thanks / Like
[quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 1 2005, 10:23 PM
[b] Come Back I'm surprised you haven't contacted this guy yet and arranged to meet him in some park to fight. [/b][/quote]
Noticed I asked where Clinton, NY was....anyway:
[b]Cancellation of Panel Discussion on Limits of Dissent[/b]
We have done our best to protect what we hold most dear, the right to speak, think and study freely.
But there is a higher responsibility that this institution carries, and that is the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and the community in which we live.
Credible threats of violence have been directed at the College and members of the panel. These threats have been turned over to the police.
Based on the information available, I have made the decision to cancel this event in the interest of protecting those at risk.
Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member
Post Thanks / Like
[b]Conservatives Censored on College Campuses? [/b]
When Christian students at Indian River Community College asked to host a screening of "The Passion of the Christ," administrators at first rejected the idea because of the film's R rating.
At the campus theater weeks later, however, another student performed a monologue in which she described performing sexual acts before the image of Jesus.
"That hurt, that shocked and I did take that kinda offensive," said Christina Koshi, a member of Indian River's Christian student fellowship.
Demarr Bell, another member of the group, said he thinks it is a case of discrimination against Christians.
College administrators say there was no discrimination; they simply didn't know about the monologue, which they will now investigate.
David French, whose nonpartisan group, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, monitors free speech on campuses, says conservatives are systematically suppressed and censored.
"The universities have been so captured by the left point of view, that you're going to get more political and intellectual diversity at your average suburban mega-church than you are at an elite university," said French.
Students are speaking out at institutions ranging from Columbia University -- where Jewish students complain about harassment from pro-Palestinian professors -- to Foothills College in California -- where Ahmad al-Qloushi says he was told by his American government professor to get psychotherapy after refusing to write an essay criticizing the Constitution.
"I was attacked and intimidated because I love America," al-Qloushi said.
Conservatives have responded with Web sites where students can name and shame professors, and they also spearheaded an effort to pass an academic bill of rights, outlawing what they call "in-class indoctrination."
Many academics say conservatives are blowing a few isolated incidents out of proportion to launch a McCarthyesque witch hunt designed to limit academic freedom and create a type of affirmative action for conservative professors.
Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Virginia, says conservative students may be trying to protect themselves from ideas they don't like. But he says schools should include more conservative views.
"I think there's also a sense that liberals have had it their way, they've advanced their views for quite some time," he said. "There should be balance."
The historical irony is rich. In the 1960s, liberal students started the "free speech" movement to take on the government. Today, conservatives are invoking the same argument for very different purposes.
ABC News' Dan Harris filed this report for "World News Tonight."
Well I wondered how long it would take before you guys would latch on to this one. I also scanned about 100 of the 500 emails sent to Hamilton College. I found all of them to oppose the lecture, some were threatening and all were ignorant. Not one cited any of the dozen books that Churchill had written. None new that he is the Dean of Ethnic American Studies of Colorado University. One of the largest institutions of higher learning in this country. And none had attended any of his public lectures much less enrolled in any of his classes. All in all a pathetic display of ignorance. The same can be said for much of what has been posted in this thread.
[quote][b]of course Hamilton college in upstate NY has to invite this liberal fag to speak at their college.[/b][/quote]
Well Matt39 anyone you don't like is a "LiberalFag" huh ! If you had read "The Cointelpro Papers" published in 1989 you would know the position of utter contempt he has for Liberals. One of the points he has repeated in his lectures over the last 7 years is what most of "The Left" is passing off as "Nonviolence" is nothing more than COWARDESS ! Churchill was blasting John Kerry and VVAW as a bunch of opportunist when you were knee high to fire hydrant. I saw him last summer at lecture put on in Berkeley by an Anarchist Book Collective based in Oakland. In his opening remarks he stated it was long past time for the Left to get out on the firing ranges. I have never see a room full of Hippies turn ashen with fear so quickly. It took immense self control to keep from bursting out in laughter. The thought of that incident still brings a big smile.
And that is not to say Churchill needs the AK-47 he is pictured with on the back cover of "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". Churchill stands 6'8" weighs 280 lbs. And he was trained in Hand to Hand Combat as a Paratrooper during the Vietnam War. One right cross from him would be able to knock most men into next week.
Churchill is just the type of leader the Left has been lacking for to long. Kerry, Clinton, Dean et al are figments nominated by the Capitalist Conservative Pundits that clutter up the media like O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Liddy.
Last Spring and Summer I ran a photo of the front cover of Churchill's last book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" as my avatar. I received not a single inquiry over the 6 months that a ran it. So now that you guys have been whipped up by the very media you decry as "Liberal" I will do a a reprieve in Black and White form which has a little more detail.
[quote][i]Originally posted by WestCoastMole[/i]@Feb 2 2005, 03:39 AM
[b] Churchill stands 6'8" weighs 280 lbs. And he was trained in Hand to Hand Combat as a Paratrooper during the Vietnam War. One right cross from him would be able to knock most men into next week.
[i]...and he has a flowing mane of silvery locks that dangles defyingly over his broad shoulders - the very essence of manhood.[/i]
WCM - do you hide Churchill's books under your bed or what?
bottom line 9-11 CANNOT be considered a military action because "TERRORISM" doesn't have an army with uniforms, generals and a common flag. Terrorism doesn't have a country with borders on a map, it doesn't have a currency and it doesn't get a seat at the UN.
You can't go to war with an idea and ideas cannot go to war with you.
You go to war against other countries, not organizations comprised of suicidal bombers that are already dead.
Most likely this is the gray area between CRIMINAL and MILITARY - but make no mistake calling the war on terror a "war" is false, not just because congress has not declared it... but also because you can't fight a nebulous underground group using infantry and tanks.
[quote][b]WCM - Do you consider the WTC to have been a legitimate military target or not?
Do you consider intentionally targeting and killing civilians to be an accetpable aspect of warfare?
If you answer in the affirmative to both questions, does that also apply to the United States? If not, why not?
Can't you stay on topic ? This thread is about Ward Churchill, a thread that I did NOT even start yet you want to redirect the subject towards me. You go pick up a copy of On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and rephrase those questions and I will gladly answer them.
[quote][b]Also, is it possible that you didn't receive an single inquiry about your avatar simply because no one here likes you or takes you seriously as a thinker?[/b][/quote]
Possible but not at all likely. I received numerous questions about Jabba-the-Hut.
WCM - Churchill thinks the Pentagon was a legitimate military target and that the victims of the WTC attack were not innocent. I am asking whether or not you agree with his description of the WTC victims and whether or not you think the WTC was also a legitimate military target. You've read Churchill, and seem to agree with his views. Your posts on this forum (cheering when contractors in Iraq are murdered, when US soldiers die, etc) leads me to believe that you agree with him.
So, obfuscate and attack me all you want, but you NEVER answer direct questions, especially when someone calls you out on something. It's your M-O. You always have some qualifier attached. Bugg has routinely challenged you and you always resort to some form of, "Once you get to be as informed as [i]I[/i] am, then I'll talk." You shy away from ALL challenges. It's as predictable as the sunrise.
So - was Churchill misqouted in his description of the WTC victims? If so, how so?If not, do you agree with him or not? I don't agree with his description and am happy to explain why.
Finally, he seems to think there is a very strong and direct link between Iraq and 9-11. Do you agree with that analysis?
Further, you have espoused similar views on this board regarding America's actions and their relationship to terrorism, etc. What I want to know is...why are other people or other groups justified in killing civilians when the USA is not? Or, in other words, do you lay 100% of the blame for 9-11 and terrorism on the US, or is the equation more complex than that, in your view? Also, if killing civilians to "impose your will" is wrong, does that also mean that Churchill or you disapprove of the actions of the "combat teams" on 9-11? If the USA should "expect responses in kind" shouldn't the terrorists expect us to relataliate? Isn't that relatiation justified?
If you think these questions are not fair, or "off topic" than I suppose it's not worth arguing with someone who doesnt even have the courage to defend or explain his views on an anonymous message board.
Ask me any question you want about this topic and I will respond....
[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Feb 2 2005, 01:33 PM
[b] ... im just waiting for Matt39's definitive list of people that need to be kicked in the face. [/b][/quote]
this guy, Paul Hackett and so on