Ward Churchill confronts the brother of a dead little eichmann

[sunoffreedom]

youtube.com/watch?v=mXaaAy4Ud6U
youtube.com/watch?v=qrEt8U2ksT0

Skip the opening; Ward Churchill comes on at 6:00 in part 1 and explains why the chickens came home to roost.

In the 2nd part, Ward Churchill's logic leaves Mr. Righteous Indignation fishing for sympathy from the audience with platitudes.

This man’s thinking is unfortunately far too common. When it gets personal, then it's suddenly not their fault!

Sun of Freedom

[Led Zeppelin]

Why skip the opening? Real Time with Bill Maher rules.

[jake williams]

That's some heavy shit right there. I basically agree with Ward Churchill, at least the general point, but if your brother is actually Adolf Eichmann then you're going to be sad and angry and you're going to miss your brother, and maybe hate your brother, but you're going to miss your brother, and you're going to be entitled to all of that. When the only people giving you reason to question the nobility and benevolence of that relative's professional activities are making Nazi analogies (which are never exact and rarely appropriate) it's hard to pick up any reason to hate them properly.

[Hiero]

I think the point of Churchill, or at least the point I got out of his arguement gets lost when people apply morals. In this video clip the man says his brother couldn't possibly be a little Eichmann because his brother is not "evil".

His brother's individual character is irrelevant in Churchill's arguement, or should be if it isn't. This irrelavence affirms the arguement, as little Eichmann just push the system of expliotation along without anyway position for or against the system. They simple play a role and receive their share of the expliotation.

I think Churchill made some good points in the clip, but I have the feeling he is really holding back.

[Ultra-Violence]

so basicaly churchill didnt realy say anything could have said a MILLION THINGS he really just sat thier

[Invader Zim]

Churchill's claim that between 30 and 60 million died on the Middle passage is bullshit; a fabricated figure. The entire number of people from the point of capture, etc, in Africa, with the aim of being sent across the Atlantic, numbered 20 million, and millions of them survived. So the very idea that 60 million died simply cannot be true.

[Phalanx]

Not only that, but Africa's total population at the time was estimated at fewer than 100 million before European contact. And I highly doubt the solid majority lived in West Africa.

[Publius]

Ward Churchill may have a valid point.

But he's full of shit, personally. I mean, he was fired for academic misconduct (which should be the fatal black mark on any "scholars" reputation...), he pretends to be a Native American when investigations have reported that he isn't, his degree is in "Technological Communications" for God's sake.

He's the very definition of a poseur, a pretend-academic, someone not worth even the time of day in academic discussions -- I have ever bit as valid a claim to teaching what he taught, that is, none. All this proves is that "ethnic studies" departments are, in large part, a joke.

[Invader Zim]

Not only that, but Africa's total population at the time was estimated at fewer than 100 million before European contact. And I highly doubt the solid majority lived in West Africa.


Well, that actually didn't matter. The slave-trains often would cross thousands of miles prior to reaching the point when the slaves would be loaded onto ships. It is actually on this leg of a slaves journey that the slave was most likely to die, compared to the more notorious 'Middle Passage'.

[IcarusAngel]

Part 4 is pretty good:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IKXmJ6WKsW4

We're in trouble when one of the few sane voices that appear on the media is actually janet reno. :laugh:

[venderm]

But he's full of shit, personally. I mean, he was fired for academic misconduct (which should be the fatal black mark on any "scholars" reputation...), he pretends to be a Native American when investigations have reported that he isn't, his degree is in "Technological Communications" for God's sake.

He's the very definition of a poseur, a pretend-academic, someone not worth even the time of day in academic discussions -- I have ever bit as valid a claim to teaching what he taught, that is, none. All this proves is that "ethnic studies" departments are, in large part, a joke.

But that’s the thing these days – you don’t need great credentials and you don’t even need speak rationally or have anything valuable to say. As long as you’re pissing off some segment of traditionalists (whether they’re holding on to value systems that are of 50 years ago or 5) there will be a sizable group that will get behind you and support whatever it is you say. We’re experiencing a resurgence of the Bohemian ideal: the idyllic man is one who rages against all of society’s standards, values, and restraints. Of course, this means that at times you have people who are fighting against certain aspects of the status quo without first questioning if they have value or serve a purpose. It’s just rebellion for the sake of rebellion. I feel like more people stake their identity these days in being against certain things, rather than being for things. Perhaps it’s because it be a lot more work formulating what should replace the items in question. But back to the issue at hand – I had tons of professors like this when I was in college a couple of years ago. I had classes I signed up for where we would virtually never talk about the subject of the class because the teacher was on his soap box 90 percent of the time ranting about his bizarre views. Students would complain (since we were paying to learn about a particular subject), but as long as they would stir up controversy amongst the students they felt they were an asset to academia. These failed to teach at all and were tenured in. So much for a quality education.

[jake williams]

But he's full of shit, personally. I mean, he was fired for academic misconduct (which should be the fatal black mark on any "scholars" reputation...), he pretends to be a Native American when investigations have reported that he isn't, his degree is in "Technological Communications" for God's sake.

He's the very definition of a poseur, a pretend-academic, someone not worth even the time of day in academic discussions -- I have ever bit as valid a claim to teaching what he taught, that is, none. All this proves is that "ethnic studies" departments are, in large part, a joke.
This all seems to be probably true, but it's the very definition of an invalid ad hominem attack, if you intend it to be pertinent to his argument and not just an aside. The general thrust of his arguments are quite sensible, and what he says about his own ethnic argument and so on is irrelevant, whether he's right or wrong. If you make a good, valid argument, the strength of the argument has nothing to do with your own personal character.

It's a different matter when you claim to have knowledge that you can't make self-evident - if you're a witness to a crime, say, or something like that - and there's some characteristic of the person that makes their testimony less than likely - that they're blind, say. But he makes an argument that you can investigate on your own and come to conclusions about, and my conclusions were that what he says has a lot of truth to it.

[Bud Struggle]

This all seems to be probably true, but it's the very definition of an invalid ad hominem attack, if you intend it to be pertinent to his argument and not just an aside. The general thrust of his arguments are quite sensible, and what he says about his own ethnic argument and so on is irrelevant, whether he's right or wrong. If you make a good, valid argument, the strength of the argument has nothing to do with your own personal character.



Churchill had NOTHING to say. The guy just grunted through the entire interview.

Blaiming some working stiffs (no matter what class) for the evils of society is just wrong. It's like killing every Communist for Pol Pot.

He might be an evil man if he wasn't so dumb.

[BuyOurEverything]

Blaiming some working stiffs (no matter what class) for the evils of society is just wrong.

Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to watch the clip because I think Ward Churchill is kind of a tool. That said, Eichmann was just a paper pushing bureaucrat, not some evil mastermind, yet he was responsible for massive atrocities. That's Churchill's point.

[jake williams]

Churchill had NOTHING to say. The guy just grunted through the entire interview.
I've heard about his arguments elsewhere, that's where I'm coming from.


Blaiming some working stiffs (no matter what class) for the evils of society is just wrong. It's like killing every Communist for Pol Pot.
He's not blaming "working stiffs" - he's blaming people he perceives, without hundred percent accuracy with some validity, to be powerful within the broader Western imperial-corporate system (and though it certainly sounds like I'm just putting buzzwords together, if you want I can explain what I mean in more detail). He says - these are people who have responsibility, because of their power and what the substance of their work entails they do, for huge atrocities in the world, and hence they're guilty. I forget whether he even says they deserve to die, his main point is to challenge their status as "innocent victims". Though I don't think we should be using Hitler analogies, the point was that Americans are Germans but some of the people who died in 9/11 (and personally I think the firefighters and rescue volunteers were unqualified heroes) were more analogous to Nazis. It's an important distinction.

Also, I happen to think that it's not good when people are killed, however atrocious they or their actions might be. Sometimes it might be necessary, sure, but in that case it's still horrible, and that case isn't this case.

[Bud Struggle]

Unless you KNOW of each person's INDIVIDUAL crimes, and that person is TRIED in a court by his peers and found guilty you have no cause to blame anyone. Just to say that all the people died in the WTC were Capitalists and that Capitalists are oppressing the world is a truly a miscarrage of justice.

Justice and fairness is slow, difficult and imprecise. It is better to free the guilty than to convice the innocent. All in all, whatever you think of Capitalists--9/11 is an an act of true villany and evil. Otherwise it's "justice" of the: die Capitalist, die Coimmie, die Jew, die honkey, die Nigger variety.

[jake williams]

Unless you KNOW of each person's INDIVIDUAL crimes, and that person is TRIED in a court by his peers and found guilty you have no cause to blame anyone. Just to say that all the people died in the WTC were Capitalists and that Capitalists are oppressing the world is a truly a miscarrage of justice.

Justice and fairness is slow, difficult and imprecise. It is better to free the guilty than to convice the innocent. All in all, whatever you think of Capitalists--9/11 is an an act of true villany and evil. Otherwise it's "justice" of the: die Capitalist, die Coimmie, die Jew, die honkey, die Nigger variety.
I basically agree.

[Intelligitimate]

I don't find the idea of Eichmann being a "paper pushing bureaucrat" as even remotely plausible. Eichmann used it as a defence, but he was a liar. Hannah Arendt was a moron for being fooled by him (among other things).

[Publius]

This all seems to be probably true, but it's the very definition of an invalid ad hominem attack, if you intend it to be pertinent to his argument and not just an aside. The general thrust of his arguments are quite sensible, and what he says about his own ethnic argument and so on is irrelevant, whether he's right or wrong. If you make a good, valid argument, the strength of the argument has nothing to do with your own personal character.

True. And his argument may be valid -- I'm sympathetic to the notion that we basically engendered the terrorism that we're now fighting, though I disagree with his argument ad Hitlerum characterization, which is pretty weak.

So I'm not using this as an ad hominem against his argument, which may be perfectly valid. My point is this: he's not to be taken seriously as a scholar anymore, due to his past history of misrepresentation. He may be right, just like a known con-man can say something right. But the point is that academics who committ this sort of fraud SHOULD be looked upon harshly. It's a very serious offense. You get thrown out of college for that, and rightly so.

My point is just this: I think "the Left" can find a better "scholar" than Mr. Churchill, as he's pretty much an embarassment to the cause, even if he is right on this issue.

[Zurdito]

That's some heavy shit right there. I basically agree with Ward Churchill, at least the general point, but if your brother is actually Adolf Eichmann then you're going to be sad and angry and you're going to miss your brother, and maybe hate your brother, but you're going to miss your brother, and you're going to be entitled to all of that.


actually no, if my brother had turned out like Eichmann I wouldn't miss him at all.

[Hiero]

And it is an excuse that "little Eichmann" use today. This is part of the point, that the people inside the world trade centers were "innocent". They are not innocent, they do the paper work for the imperialist and are paid through the expliotation of workers.

[sunoffreedom]

Ward Churchill didn’t come out as forceful as he could have in this interview because he was in front a live audience of easily offended liberals. These people should have actually taken the time to sit down and read his essay, rather than parroting everything the media used to slander him.

The campaign organized to remove Ward Churchill’s tenure at the University of Colorado at Boulder was fabricated because he voiced unpopular opinions about Amerikan empire after 9/11.
Here’s a run down of the dirtiest stuff they tried to dig up on him related to his supposed academic fraud:
tryworks.org/blog/the-churchill-smear/but-what-about-the-academic-fraud/

It has also been documented that Ward Churchill was the victim of an organized campaign in the right-wing media to attack his personal integrity and race. No other professor has had to endure the kind of humiliating and vicious treatment that Ward Churchill has for expressing their political views.

Sun of Freedom

[Publius]

The campaign organized to remove Ward Churchill’s tenure at the University of Colorado at Boulder was fabricated because he voiced unpopular opinions about Amerikan empire after 9/11.

All the more reason for him to keep his nose clean.



Here’s a run down of the dirtiest stuff they tried to dig up on him related to his supposed academic fraud:
tryworks.org/blog/the-churchill-smear/but-what-about-the-academic-fraud/

Yeah, just what I thought: he's committed numerous infractions. This writer even admits that but explains that his plagiarisms were just "a few paragraphs" in over 20 volumes of work, as if that makes it OK. So it's OK to plagiarize as long as that plagiarism comprises only a small percentage of your work?



It has also been documented that Ward Churchill was the victim of an organized campaign in the right-wing media to attack his personal integrity and race. No other professor has had to endure the kind of humiliating and vicious treatment that Ward Churchill has for expressing their political views.

Sun of Freedom

Sure they have. He wasn't shot and killed. He isn't "silenced", he can still say whatever he wants, as evidenced by his visit on that show. He just got terminated from his job for breaking the rules and not admitting that he was sorry about breaking them.

I can't see how this is anyone's fault but his own.