The new McCarthyism: the witch-hunting of Ward Churchill

[Karmadillo]

As always, the WSWS provides an interesting take on events. The article's interal link ("Anti-Americanism: the anti-imperialism for fools") is worth a click and a few minutes of your time.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/chur-f11.shtml

The witch-hunt spearheaded by the ultra-right, with the assistance of the media, against University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has dangerous implications for academic freedom and free speech in the US. It represents the latest manifestation of the new McCarthyism, the drive to suppress and silence critics of Bush administration policy and its “global war on terror” in particular.

<edit>

As we wrote on the WSWS in September 2001, in response to a British “leftist” who responded to the terrorist attacks with a verbal shrug of the shoulders, “To present ‘the US’ as some predatory imperialist monolith...can only confuse and disorient. It not only serves as a barrier to genuine internationalism, it overlooks the contradictory character of American history and society.... The contradiction between the democratic ideals and revolutionary principles on which the nation was founded and its social and political realities has always been the starting point of the struggle for socialism in the United States.”

<edit>

He continued: “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 9-1-1 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.”

Churchill’s clarifications and emendations, convincing or otherwise, are not likely to mollify his opponents. The University of Colorado professor’s empty-headed excesses and insensitivity provided the excuse for the onslaught, but no more than that. The real target of the Colorado Republicans, Owens, O’Reilly and the rest of this sordid right-wing crowd is the widespread and growing opposition to the illegal US intervention in Iraq and plans for further colonial wars of conquest. Their aim is to criminalize dissent, and intimidate and isolate opponents. Driving critics out of schools and universities, where they could have an influence on young people, is a particular priority of the witch-hunters.

more...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Isn't It Enough That Some Of Us On The Left Defend His Right To Speak?

Do we have to defend his comments in their entirety too?


His technician argument is bullshit...


My friend's a broker at AG Edwards.... Should he be blown to smithereens because if we employ Ward Churchill's nomenclature he's a technocrat who by some scheme of blame is responsible for the carnage in the Middle East...


I purposely put question marks because they are real questions and not rhetorical points....

[Karmadillo]

8. The article doesn't defend his comments. It calls them "wrongheaded

and deeply reactionary."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/chur-f11.shtml

<edit>

Nonetheless, to identify the American people, from whom virtually all knowledge about the consequences of the Persian Gulf war and sanctions has been withheld, with the US war machine is a terrible political mistake and writes off the possibility of profound social change in America. Moreover, the essential callousness of Churchill’s response to the bombings works in the opposite direction of cultivating humanitarian and generous impulses in the population.

more...

[JohnOneillsMemory]

17. Thank you. This is important. Americans are shielded from the truth

and are thus innocent of the crimes of their government.
Most Americans don’t realize that they have a fake president who is asked fake questions about a fake war by fake reporters like 'Jeff Gannon.'

This is applies to Bush** supporters, too. Churchill failed to make this distinction and fanned the emotional fire and smoke which is used to hide the truth from Americans and demonize other truth-tellers.

This is something I keep trying to highlight by showing how propaganda from the CIA/Corporate-steered press manipulates Americans into supporting atrocities while thinking they are virtues.

This is the same moral distinction made in saying "support the troops, not the war."

Our troops have also been lied to and are attempting to do 'the right thing' with the self-sacrifice of their own lives and their families based on what they know, just what the White House/Media complex tells them.

Churchill's crass words were successfully used to distract from the release of two things:

1) The 9/11 Ommission Panel report showing pre-knowledge of the threat to air traffic.
http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
(Operation Vigilant Warrior)

2) The CIA papers released showing the US took in five assistants of Nazi Adolph Eichmann after WWII.
http://test.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/536364.html

The keyword 'Eichmann' was cleverly played on so even people using search engines would get the Churchill story as a result instead of the CIA story of US-Nazi complicity 50 years ago which Prescott Bush was part of.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040513-052654-5254r
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
http://web.archive.org/web/20011225163401/www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/VestingExplain.htm#10

These bastards in the White House know how to play every mistake made by their detractors in their favor.

We must learn from this and do better by the American people we want to protect by informing them of the White Houses's deadly scam. To do this, we need to protect our own moral credibility as well by recognizing that most Americans don't know how their country is being destroyed right in front of them with the elimination of the Bill of Rights and a free press.

[Metrix]

2. How much unconscious racism is involved

in the reaction to Churchill's comments versus those of others?

http://www.greenmac.com/911/Sontag_Geive_NotStupid.html

The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards.

[Igel]

14. I don't know, but I found his comments to be fairly

offensive before I found out that he was a professor, that he worked in Boulder, was a Native American, or the chair of the Ethnic Studies program.

So if it's racism, it's probably not unconscious or subconscious.

[pstans]

3. It is not about what he said, it is about being able to speak at all.

Personally, I do not agree with the remarks that Churchill said. I watched the thing on CSPAN because I feel that it is good to hear different oppinions. Then I realized that is exactly what Churchill is fighting for: the right for free speach. Without discussion, there is silence, and then we end up in a war in the middle east based on lies. It all goes hand in hand. If we aren't able to speak, no one can learn, and we all lose.

The extreme Right is entering more and more into a Facists regime when they attempt to stop all discussion. If Churchill is unable to speak your mind now, who will be next?

[MichaelHarris]

4. they are now digging up people who

think they are historians to dispute Churchill:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3091514&mesg_id=3091514

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. My Best Friend Was A History Instructor At Rollins College...

He was far from a wingnut...

He said the Europeans introduced all kinds of diseases to the new world just by virtue of their presence in a new population.....


I think the scholarship on that subject is mixed and as an devotee of the scientific method I like my facts to be just that....

[JitterbugPerfume]

6. I can not agree with what you say

but i will defend to the death your right to say it


'nuf said

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Defend Ward Churchill's Right To Speak...

but the scholarship on the question of Americans purposefully poisoning the Native Americans is decidedly mixed...

[Mizmoon]

7. Where is Horowitz?

Isn't he going to defend academic freedom?

Or maybe, just maybe, the cons aren't actually interested in academic freedom at all ... :freak:

[flordehinojos]

10. History Professor Carolyn Baker of New Mexico State University has written

this article ... it touches on Ward Churchill's comments and the imminent destruction of American higher education.

you might like to read it, if you haven't already. I found it at Onlinejournal. Here is the link.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/020905Baker/020905baker.html

[Karmadillo]

12. Very interesting article. Thanks for posting.

n/t

[zulchzulu]

11. Boiled down: What Churchill said was STUPID

I don't care about him. His "theory" was stupid and now the MSM is using him as an example of "crazy liberal college professors" and other fodder to keep the eye off the ball.

He needs to crawl back into his hole and leave the goofy parlor talk offline. He's perfectly free to express himself...just like David Duke is.

[DirtyDawg]

13. What's Crazy...

...about saying that one 'reaps what you sew'? Sure, the Eichmann reference required a little more critical thinking than most of us are capable of, but putting oneself in the shoes of the other guy is an important first step in understanding how to deal with it.

[Just Me]

16. His "theory" is reality-based. Our government has done shameful,...

,...blood-curdling things in our name.

Is the revelation horrifying to un/disinformed Americans?

YUP!!!

Do the neoCONspirators/neofascists want to SHUT HIM UP?

YUP!!!

[DrWeird]

15. Yeah, he really pissed off a bunch of little Eichmanns.

His critics are unwittingly proving his point.