Genociding Ward Churchill for over a 20th of a century

CNews 30November07

Many PB commenters (okay, a couple) don't seem to have ejumacated themselves in the rich history of Warchillian fabrications (leading them to constantly insist other commenters provide "evidence"), and so, we present for their confoundment (and your entertainment) "A Lying Liar and the Lies He Lies"—a collection of articles covering many of the more obvious lies, frauds, cons, and prevarications Ward Churchill has committed. (and yes, we're aware we "plagiarized" the title of Al Franken's book. Grow up.)

Thousands of people wielding clubs and knives marched through Khartoum after Friday prayers denouncing what they termed the lenient sentencing of a British teacher for insulting Islam and calling for her to be shot.

Sheikh Abdul Jalil Karuri, a leading cleric, whipped up a crowd attending the city's Martyr's Mosque by telling them Gillian Gibbons had deliberately named her class's teddy bear Mohammed "with the intention of insulting Islam."

Later the protestors joined other worshippers to congregate in Martyrs Square, in the centre of the capital, where they chanted "Shame, shame on the UK".

"Those who insult the Prophet of Islam should be punished with bullets," the crowd shouted after Gibbons, 54, was jailed for 15 days on charges stemming from naming a teddy bear Mohammed.

CNews 29November07

The UC-Davis student newspaper reports on the lively Q&A at Professor Ward Churchill's Zionism-Naziism speech there Tuesday.
Excerpt:

As Churchill concluded his lecture, approximately 10 audience members stood in a line to ask a question. Though Churchill said questions "should be limited to 3.5 seconds," most audience members ignored his request.

"As a proven academic fraud and imposter, what basis can you claim in coming to a public university, which is funded by the government, which from your speeches and writing you so clearly despise?" asked Pete Markevich, a junior political science major.

Markevich was referring to Churchill's dismissal by the CU Regents, who had conducted an investigation into claims that Churchill had falsified and fabricated research, lied about his American Indian heritage and plagiarized other authors. Churchill is currently suing CU, claiming he was fired in retaliation for an essay in which he wrote that the "little Eichmanns" in the World Trade Center - an allusion to convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann - deserved to die.

Markevich attempted to explain his question further, but Churchill told him to "shut up."

"My answer is, far more than you," Churchill said. "By the way, you want to look at the famous university report? The university has completely withdrawn that from scholarly scrutiny. There is no case other than the 'little Eichmanns' thing."

"completely withdrawn." You gotta love it.

CNews 28November07

CNews 27November07

Good article in today's California Aggie on Professor Ward Churchill's upcoming lout-shout this evening at UC-Davis.
Excerpt:

"Ward Churchill's views on the 9/11 attacks have been grossly misrepresented by the mass media," [event organizer Amir] Ali said.

CNews 26November07

As we've mentioned previously (or at least seem to recall mentioning), The Perfesser will be in San Francisco this evening to preach to the converted on the evils of pretty much everyone who isn't present at the time (so be there, or lose your place in the hegemonic imperialism hierarchy!)

...and don't forget: tomorrow night, Warchill gives the Zionists what-for at UC-Davis.
Update: Looks like the Davis College Republicans plan to protest the event.

In advocating the complete return of First Nations land, Churchill argued that First Nations should be given complete sovereignty over their land. While Churchill said that every indigenous group would have the ability to decide how to deal with ‘settlers’, he felt that most would deal with non-Natives in a way similar to current governments.

“There is no reason in the world why a non-indigenous…could not be nationalised as a citizen within a sovereign indigenous government—that’s the prerogative of any government…There’s no reason why, short of that, you [settlers] couldn’t be landed immigrants or have some kind of green card status. The only real change we’re talking about here in all probability is that the jurisdiction changes and you’re living under Native law…what’s so shocking about that?”

Nothing, we guess. But we've been reading Warchill's stuff for a long time now, and nothing much shocks us anymore. Later:

“The lesson plans for Native kids in the school system are no different than the lesson plans for everyone else, so they’re being trained to see themselves through the lens of a society that has despised Native people so much that they wanted to utterly eradicate it—tells you something about what they’ll be walking out with in terms of self-esteem and self-concept. That’s the genocidal process.”

CNews 24November07

Elisa Facio, newly-minted director of CU's Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race in America (CSERA), takes time out from her busy indoctrination schedule to officially confirm two long-held suspicions of ours: That ethnic studies is populated with socialist ideologues whose paranoid fear of the strawman "neo-conservatism" is self-fulfilling, and that Humpty Dumpty wasn't unique in his insistence that words mean just what he chooses them to mean, neither more nor less. (emphasis added):

"Given the neo-conservative environment and political agendas of academia across the nation, research units such as CSERA, which advocate critical studies in the interdisciplinary nature of race, class, gender and sexualities, are being contested more than ever. Furthermore, the series of events calumniating with the firing of our colleague, Professor Ward Churchill, have resulted in the interrogation of the discipline’s academic legitimacy."

"Most American white men are trained to be fags. For this reason it is no wonder their faces are weak and blank. … The average ofay [white person] thinks of the black man as potentially raping every white lady in sight. Which is true, in the sense that the black man should want to rob the white man of everything he has. But for most whites the guilt of the robbery is the guilt of rape. That is, they know in their deepest hearts that they should be robbed, and the white woman understands that only in the rape sequence is she likely to get cleanly, viciously popped." [quote taken from Wikipedia's entry on Baraka]

CNews 23November07

...and We're Back! (CNews 22November07)

...note to self: Never repeat the past five days. Never.

Ever.

Where does all this lead? One answer is to genuine and complete rather than partial or figurative decolonization on a planetary basis. Another, is to a redefinition of the relations between peoples in terms of the mutual acknowledgement [sic] of fundamental rights—hence, mutual respect—a matter establishing self-determination and free association as the cardinal principles upon which the affairs of nations are conducted. Perhaps self-evidently, such principles preclude the exercise of the kind of centralized, arbitrary, and inherently coercive authority which constitutes the very essence of statist organization. This, in turn, would serve to delegitimate in its entirety the 17th century Westphalian system of international relations, wherein states are the only entities deemed to be legitimate for purposes of deciding questions of world order.

The upshot would be a multiplicity of sociopolitical environments, wherein decision-making processes are inherently geared to what Kirkpatrick Sale once and aptly described as “human scale.” All but inevitably, this would lead to the contours of the resulting societies conforming closely to bioregional realities, a circumstance that would go far towards shaping the nature of their economies and facilitating a high degree of interactivity among/between societies through the medium of satisfying reciprocal needs.

Still awake?

Update: In our comments section, Noj points out—and this email seems to confirm—that the Left Turn issue in which the above Warchillian ramble appears was guest-edited by none other than his current wife's daughter, Akilah Kinnison née Jenga. Small world, huh.

* Contraction of "Ward Churchill" into a handy adjective that does not sully Winston Churchill's name.

CNews 15November07

According to this site [post, entitled "The United States--Is Revolution Possible?" and dated 2007/11, has been removed], looks like Professor Ward Churchill may be an invited speaker at the International Book Festival in Caracas, Venezuela this month. Subject of at least some of the forums: "Is revolution possible in the United States?"
Update V (we know, it's out of order. Sue us.): TDR (@sspats be upon him!) found a Google cache of the elusive blog post.
Excerpt:

Is revolution possible in the US? Yes. Will it happen tomorrow? No. The United States is a large, multi-layered and complicated society. It is also the heart of empire and war in the world. It's possible, but it will entail serious, long-range and encompassing efforts on the part of revolutionaries. Latin America will not—and has not—waited for the US revolutionary process to mature. There are, of course, key links that must be forged between the revolutionary process in the US and that of Latin America.

CNews 14November07

Courtesy of PB reader Leonard Washington, Inside Higher Education surveys even more studies that "suggest" a leftist tilt to academia.
Excerpt (and contender for Speediest Implementation of Godwin's Law Ever):

[AAUP president Cary] Nelson said that the reason some scholars focus attention on the political leanings of humanities professors is in fact political. “It’s about the future. It’s about our students. It’s about the kind of country that higher education can help shape. It’s about the desire to establish the 1,000 year Republican reich,” he said. “It’s an effort to create in the public mind the notion that one should properly ask a candidate for a professorship: Are you now or have you ever been a registered Democrat?”

CNews 13November07

But then I got to remembering when I lived in Boulder, CO, and a professor, Ward Churchill, was fired for a controversial opinion essay he published on what he felt might be the causes of what happened on 9/11. Many within the academic community at the University of Colorado at Boulder stood up for their colleague's right to express his own opinions: but they were only professors and students, and their views apparently didn't hold enough weight with the administration. Churchill, with twenty-plus published books and countless essays under his belt, had always been controversial, but in the oppressive political climate of post-9/11 hysteria, his views were not seen as appropriate or welcome in the academic environment anymore.

Thus, the much watered-down tale of how one man's intellectual and academic freedom was denied him, and how today more than ever, it is important to continue to fight for these intangible liberties we often take for granted until they are gone.

CNews 12November07

We missed this info at the tail end of a story PB reader Leah turned us on to days ago (@sspats be upon her), but better late than never.
Excerpt (bf added):

The university also is wrapped up in a legal battle with the former professor. Churchill filed a complaint claiming the university and university regents violated his First Amendment rights to free speech

The university filed motions in September to dismiss the complaint and Lane, Churchill's attorney, filed a response last week. The university will file reply briefs to his response soon, said Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the CU System. There won't be a ruling for about a month, he added.

CNews 10November07

CNews 8November07

CNews 6November07

CNews 5November07

Blast from the past (courtesy CU Ph.D. Anthro): Ward Churchill explains his essay (bf added):

• The piece circulating on the Internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.
  
  
• "I am not a defender of the Sept. 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States , but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
  
  
• This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed... without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today—my own government."
  
  
• In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
  
  
• Finally, I have never characterized all the Sept. 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
  
  
• It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad , this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
  
  
• It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9/11 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
  
  
• The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9/11-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
  
  
• These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country."

As we pointed out nearly three years ago, Churchill did not differentiate between "the children, janitors, food service workers, [et al]" and the "technocrats of empire" in his application of "little Eichmanns." Now, having read many more examples of The Perfesser's critical thimking, we'll allow that he just might have intended to make the differentiation, but lacked the writing skills to do so.

CNews 3November07

PB contributor Zombie discovers what's behind all the world's problems at the San Francisco Anti-War Rally (via LGF)

CNews 2November07

CNews 1November07