Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Some Regents Push Back: Chief Lies-alot Fired
Yesterday, the University of Colorado Board of Regents
voted 8-1 to fire Ward Churchill, professor of crackpottery at the
university's Boulder campus. When not pretending to be an armed
revolutionary (see photo), Churchill spent his tenured days posing
as a Native American (he
isn't) and a scholar (he's a serial
plagiarist with a MA in communications, not a PhD in
history). This, not his famous "little Eichmanns" comment, informed
the decision to fire, said a university spokesman. From the
Times' account:
"We wanted to do what was right for this university," the board chairwoman, Patricia Hayes, said after the vote. "We did not address Professor Churchill's freedom of speech as part of our discussion."
The university president, Hank Brown, who recommended that the board fire Professor Churchill, said he deserved to lose his job because he had "falsified history" and "fabricated history."
Brown is referring to not just to the discovery of Churchill's plagiarism, but also to his questionable body of academic work—like his claim the U.S. Army embarked on a program of genocide by deliberately infecting Indians with small-pox. Sounds plausible, but, according to this investigation by the Rocky Mountain News, not supported by the available evidence. "In fact, the pages of various books he refers to not only don't buttress his argument," wrote the News, "they contradict it." UCLA professor Russell Thornton, a scholar of Native American history, calls Churchill's writings on the smallpox epidemic "just out-and-out fabrication."
Churchill is clearly cavalier in his approach to the historical record, twisting and misrepresenting facts in order to make a grand, "anti-imperialist" point. When rereading his controversial essay "Some Push Back"—in which he refers to the "little Eichmanns"—I noticed this passage on Gulf War I:
In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys"--or was it "sand niggers" that week?--in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance.
100,000 killed in the closing days of the war by "hyper-lethal types of ordnance"? (As opposed, I suppose, to moderately lethal ordinance.) Easy to understand "why they hate us," I suppose. Except that Churchill's casualty figures are off by about 99,700.
As Washington Post correspondent Steve Coll wrote, "more Iraqis fled their vehicles and were taken prisoner than were killed by U.S. bombing of the highway. There still are no reliable figures on precisely how many people were killed in the convoy, but reporters who visited the scene as bodies were being collected say the most they saw at any one place was 40, and they estimated that a total of 200 to 300 Iraqis may have died at the scene."
It is this sort of thing that resulted in Churchill's termination; he was not, as this Newsday headline says, "fired over [his] controversial 9/11 essay." If this were true, it would be a clear violation of Churchill's academic freedom—a freedom to write amateurish, semi-coherent philippics comparing sinister capitalists "braying into their cell phones" to the fascist "desk killers" responsible for Auschwitz. His Eichmann comments surely precipitated the accusations of academic misconduct, but so what?
The Norm Finkelstein case, which I blogged about here and Cathy Young discussed here, was a tougher call—and after surveying the evidence I agree with Prof. Norm Geras' position. But Churchill's firing is unambiguous: it has nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with academic standards and honesty.
reason on Ward Churchill here.
|7.25.07 @ 3:09PM|#
University of Colorado Board of Regents voted 8-1 to fire
Ward Churchill
Who was the one? Can they fire him/her next?
|7.25.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Just wait till those Little Eichmann's on the review board get a taste of his supporters crunchy grooves.
|7.25.07 @ 3:10PM|#
The fact that he could operate without significant scholarly credentials and as an open plagiarist this long is disturbing enough. I'm sure someone else will pick him up. Maybe the Falcons?
|7.25.07 @ 3:12PM|#
No, really, this had nothing to do with Churchill's politically incorrect essay. Really. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's so obvious.
VM|7.25.07 @ 3:15PM|#
semi-coherent philippics comparing sinister capitalists
"braying into their cell phones" to the fascist "desk killers"
responsible for Auschwitz.
Sort of a reworking of the train wreck scene from "Atlas Shrugged",
but done in an afternoon movie format for the Lifetime
network?
Or like "Free Willy" sans whale?
|7.25.07 @ 3:17PM|#
In other news, a community college in Connecticut fired a
janitor for smoking a joint in the boiler room.
So? I don't understand why this person gets so much attention from
the media.
BTW, I don't know squat about Churchill's "scholarship," but a
letter in General Belcher's hand, describing how he ordered
smallpox-infected blankets distributed to local Indians during some
war or other, was found a year or two ago.
jimmydageek|7.25.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Hey, PL...Have you worn your Bibertarians shirt in public yet? If so, any comments??
|7.25.07 @ 3:21PM|#
In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do
well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports
of what was happening along the so-called Highway of
Death
At least he won the Most-Prepositional-Phrases-in-a-Sentence
Award.
Some academic...
VM|7.25.07 @ 3:23PM|#
"In other news, a community college in Connecticut fired a
janitor for smoking a joint in the boiler room."
that's right! just before Scott Baio goes crazy at the roulette
party.
ZAPPED!
joe - are you thinking of Lord Jeff Amherst? Probably a rumor
started by a Williams grad (a little NESCAC humor this
afternoon)
srsly - use of disease or dead animals was a part of warfare - why
is the blanket story implausible?
|7.25.07 @ 3:24PM|#
I think this is the testimony that did him in
Please, I have to talk to you all right now!
Kid, we're have a meeting.
Something very big is happening, and if you all don't give me a
moment of your time, there may be no more University of Colorado to
regents over!
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the end of all life as we know it. For the past
several days I've been... noticing a steep rise in the number of
hippies coming to campus. At first I thought maybe it was just a
coincidence. Then I saw this... Three new drum circles have
sprouted up here, here, and here. They're all growing in diameter,
at a rate of two hippies per hour. What this means... is that the
hippies are conglomerating. They'er thriving, if you will. I think
that they're setting up for a... hippie music festival.
|7.25.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Caption:
"If I grow a beard, I'll look just like Che, and the girls will
think I'm dreeeeamy."
VG|7.25.07 @ 3:25PM|#
I seriously think Churchill was not serious in his views, but
more an agent provocateur seeing how much he could get
away with.
Think about it, hes adopted all the stereotypes of leftist
professors--dead white man bashing, racial identity politics,
'radical' writings, and teaching in a subject you are unqualified
for.
fyodor|7.25.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Actually gotta agree with Dan T's naming of the 800 lb gorilla,
as poorly as he himself addresses it.
Cause however bad Churchill's scholarship may have been (and like
joe, I don't claim to know), it's obvious that no one cared till
his "little Eichmanns" crap reared its head (to mix a metaphor!).
Not that that necessarily clears him if he indeed committed
tenure-breaking crimes, but it's unsettling that expressing a
noxious POV, even one that's deservedly noxious, should be what
calls out the dogs to sniff out your sins.
But then, that said, that's life. If you got stuff to hide, you may
wanna keep a low profile.
Allen|7.25.07 @ 3:28PM|#
The point isn't that things like the smallpox are implausible;
that the sources Churchill cited do not back up his claims.
What scares me is that this guy was ever hired in the first place.
More so that this sort of shoddy "scholarship" went on for so long.
But most of all that he got away with claiming he has a PHD when he
doesn't. A $100 background check would've kept all this from
happening in the first place.
|7.25.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Caption:
"It's pronounced 'Ward Che-chill."
(Would have been funny if P Brooks hadn't posted a Che reference
first.)
fyodor|7.25.07 @ 3:33PM|#
I seriously think Churchill was not serious in his views,
but more an agent provocateur seeing how much he could get away
with.
Think about it, hes adopted all the stereotypes of leftist
professors--dead white man bashing, racial identity politics,
'radical' writings, and teaching in a subject you are unqualified
for.
Was "Ward Churchill" a made-up name, like Ed Anger??
That reminds me, in more important news, didja all hear that the
Weekly World News is ceasing publication?? Due to the problems
stressing all print publications, they said. I hereby renounce my
libertarianism and call for a banning of the internet to effect a
means of protectionism for bringing back the Weekly World News!!!
BRING BACK THE WEEKLY WORLD NEWS!!!!!
|7.25.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Fyodor (and Dan T of course),
Actually I disagree. It took the university close to 6 years to
revoke his tenure. I think they actually liked his nutty, radical
rantings because he gave them publicity. Only when his fraudalent
academic stuff started coming out did they have to do something to
save their credibility as a university.
|7.25.07 @ 3:34PM|#
I don't think Churchill is some typical liberal professor, nor
do I see this as a major victory for anyone. Except maybe the
rational. But the fact that someone like Churchill wasn't denounced
for his lack of scholarship is telling. Of what, I have no idea.
Friggin' boomers.
Matt J,
From now on, the official language is Swedish.
|7.25.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Cause however bad Churchill's scholarship may have been (and
like joe, I don't claim to know), it's obvious that no one cared
till his "little Eichmanns" crap reared its head (to mix a
metaphor!). Not that that necessarily clears him if he indeed
committed tenure-breaking crimes, but it's unsettling that
expressing a noxious POV, even one that's deservedly noxious,
should be what calls out the dogs to sniff out your
sins.
It reminds me a little of people who said that Bill Clinton was
impeached only because he sort of lied under oath.
|7.25.07 @ 3:36PM|#
VM,
Maybe Amherst. Amherst is next to Belchertown, so I can never keep
them straight.
Which is also a problem for Northampton. Ba dum bum. A little Happy
Valley humor there.
Kohlrabi|7.25.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Joe,
Allen is correct. You don't get to be an acedemic by correctly
guessing.
Chavez is a thug|7.25.07 @ 3:39PM|#
"No, really, this had nothing to do with Churchill's politically
incorrect essay. Really. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's so
obvious."
Wow, such biting sarcasm. Please, we can't handle the
onslaught.
|7.25.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Pro Lib,
In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their
underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so
we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are
now... 16 years old!
|7.25.07 @ 3:40PM|#
his claim the U.S. Army embarked on a program of genocide by
deliberately infecting Indians with small-pox. Sounds plausible,
but, according to this investigation by the Rocky Mountain News,
not supported by the available evidence.
SIV will be along to claim VICTORY shortly...
|7.25.07 @ 3:42PM|#
You know, in that photo, he reminds me of Howard Stern. If he
were dressed up as Che for some reason.
For those who are quibbling over why he was fired, let's just say
that if he were a squeakily clean, qualified academic, an uproar
might ensue. But all I'm hearing are the crickets.
By the way, what's up in the Al-Arian case? Used to hear about it,
but it's been quiet, lately. I tend to think he deserved firing, at
least, though his continuing imprisonment seems a bit much.
|7.25.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Kohlrabi,
Was my use of the phrase "I don't know squat about Churchill's
"scholarship," but..." too confusing for you?
lunchstealer|7.25.07 @ 3:43PM|#
It doesn't bother me that he's getting fired for gross academic
incompetence. It bothers me that he got no real scrutiny about it
until he said something unpopular.
The lesson here appears to be that as long as you don't say
anything uncontroversial, you can be as lazy an unqualified as you
like, and you're golden.
|7.25.07 @ 3:46PM|#
You know, in that photo, he reminds me of Howard Stern. If
he were dressed up as Che for some reason.
Just don't call him a gun nut, that would be unfair and
elitist.
For those who are quibbling over why he was fired, let's just
say that if he were a squeakily clean, qualified academic, an
uproar might ensue. But all I'm hearing are the
crickets.
Another thing about this story is the way both the governor and
legislature of Colorado censured Churchill a few years back (right
after the publication of the infamous 9/11 essay, by
coincidence).
I mean, they take academic standards seriously in
Colorado!
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.25.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Cause however bad Churchill's scholarship may have been (and
like joe, I don't claim to know), it's obvious that no one cared
till his "little Eichmanns" crap reared its head (to mix a
metaphor!).
Which more accurately describes what happened?
A) Churchill said that dumb shit, and the university went looking
for a reason to fire him.
B) Churchill said that dumb shit; others outside the University
started checking out his record in the process of criticizing him,
found evidence of plagiarism etc.; they brought that to the
attention of the university, which then, using the same standard by
which all such allegations are judged, found Churchill guilty of
violating important rules.
I wholeheartedly support the rights of academics (and everyone
else) to dissent from mainstream views (though Churchill's dissent
was hateful nonsense counterproductive to those of us who speak
legitimate dissent). But we shouldn't turn expressing unpopular
political beliefs into a "get out of academic dishonor free"
card.
Chavez is a thug|7.25.07 @ 3:47PM|#
"Cause however bad Churchill's scholarship may have been (and
like joe, I don't claim to know), it's obvious that no one cared
till his "little Eichmanns" crap reared its head (to mix a
metaphor!). Not that that necessarily clears him if he indeed
committed tenure-breaking crimes, but it's unsettling that
expressing a noxious POV, even one that's deservedly noxious,
should be what calls out the dogs to sniff out your sins"
So, evidently, comparing murder victims to a man who abetted one of
the greatest mass-murders in history should inoculate this idiot
from criticism regarding his "scholarship". That is sure as hell
what this "argument" seems to be implying.
His scholarship is a matter of public discourse, not something akin
to a sealed juvenile criminal record. It is out there to be looked
into no matter the reason. If he didn't commit a litany of academic
violations, he would still have his job. I almost wish he did; at
least that way we could be spared the moral preening of the sort
that leads to the ridiculous arguments I quoted above.
|7.25.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Maybe he was secretly in charge of getting strippers for the football team. That would explain his near-invulnerability.
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.25.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Forgot to note that don't intend the dichotomy in my post as a "gotcha" question I've already answered in my mind, since I think the poster I quoted isn't really disagreeing. My recollection of this harglebargle is that it's basically B, but probably a little of both. And yeah, the school should have caught this a lot earlier. But that's a reason to fix their tenure process, not to excuse Churchill's misconduct.
|7.25.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Dan T.,
So what? He should've been fired before. By being an ass, he made
sure that scrutiny was placed on his scholarly record. I fear his
stone casting in a glass house was foolish, at best.
Professors have said worse things than he and survived. That's
because they were assholes with legitimate academic credentials.
And tenure.
|7.25.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I gotta agree with Anonymo - whatever their motivations, the
Churchill-hunters got the goods on him.
It's a shame that this episode will almost certainly encourage them
to try to pull the same stunt on legitimate professors, but that's
no reason to keep Churchill in his position. If anything, it's a
reason for colleges to poke into the dusty corners so the Horowitz
goobers don't have any ammunition.
|7.25.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Bananas is such a great movie. I miss the funny
Woody.
He's still funny, just not intentionally.
My old man is a huge early Allen fan. He still makes restaurant
reservations under the name Fielding Mellish. As a teen I could get
out of almost anything if I said:
Guilty...With an explaination.
lunchstealer|7.25.07 @ 3:54PM|#
But then, that said, that's life. If you got stuff to hide,
you may wanna keep a low profile.
The converse also being true, if you wanna go out and really piss
off the powers that be, make sure you've got your academic shit at
least plausibly together.
Kohlrabi|7.25.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Joe,
?? Not at all. Did I say something to make you believe that? You
pointed out that he may have been correct. I pointed out that that
makes no difference. What does this have to do with your level of
knowledge regarding his "scholarship"? Weird.
|7.25.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Good old Woody quote:
"Hey, don't knock masterbation. It's sex with someone I love."
|7.25.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Dan T.,
So what? He should've been fired before. By being an ass, he made
sure that scrutiny was placed on his scholarly record. I fear his
stone casting in a glass house was foolish, at best.
That's assuming that the charges against him are legit and not
either trumped-up or exaggerated. And we know that there was a lot
of political pressure for CU to get rid of the guy.
|7.25.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Kohlrabi,
You seemed to be implying that I was defending Churchill's
scholarship. I wasn't.
|7.25.07 @ 4:00PM|#
He was in the ethnic studies department.
In much the same way I honestly wonder why good cops tolerate bad
cops, I often wonder why real academics (e.g. biochemists or
economists) put up with ethnic studies departments. I certainly
would not want to be associated with such "research" as goes on in
most ethnic studies departments.
|7.25.07 @ 4:00PM|#
Of course, one other angle is that thanks to America's sudden concern with academic standards, a lot more people are going to read Churchill's 9/11 essay, which does contain some pretty dangerous ideas. Making him a free-speech martyr in the eyes of many probably helps his cause as well.
|7.25.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Koko--that's true wisdom. Really, the gorillas are ahead of us
in many respects.
Professors, if anything, are too immune to these kinds of attacks.
How often does this happen? And let's not forget the near-infinite
Teflon® of tenure when it comes to opinion issues.
|7.25.07 @ 4:08PM|#
If anything, it's a reason for colleges to poke into the
dusty corners
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to produce your work to
get a job? Are raises dependent on continued scholarship?
the innominate one|7.25.07 @ 4:11PM|#
Pro Lib:
that's a major reason for tenure: to be able to hold controversial
opinions without fear for your job.
|7.25.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Caption:
The initially proposed cover for "Fear & Loathing On the
Campaign Trail '72"
thoreau|7.25.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I don't claim to know much about his work either, but if he
committed plagiarism then I'm glad he got fired. Although I should
refrain from any firm judgements unless I examine the details, my
hunch is that the case was pretty strong if they fired him.
Without knowing how well he covered his tracks, I can't say whether
his department should be faulted for not catching it sooner.
It is of course true that the case unfolded the way it did because
of his insane remarks, but that doesn't change the fact that if he
plagiarized then he has to go.
As to this:
In much the same way I honestly wonder why good cops tolerate
bad cops, I often wonder why real academics (e.g. biochemists or
economists) put up with ethnic studies departments.
Because reputations are based on individuals and departments as
much as schools, and because academic politics is such that it's
hard for one department to have much effect on another. You can
bitch about the screw-ups in another department and see nothing
change, or you can do a good job of research and teaching and
develop a good scholarly reputation and train your students well.
The first approach is pointless, the second approach is satisfying
and productive.
Besides, I suspect that there's actually a baby in that bathwater.
In addition to the freak shows there are probably some people doing
good research and teaching on history, literature, art, and
culture, only with a focus on a particular group. I don't know why
the good ones put up with the freaks, but it just makes it all the
harder for outsiders to justify investing the time and political
capital to root out the freaks.
If I have a choice between spending my time supervising some good
senior thesis projects, or serving on a committee to review another
department, guess which one I'll spend my time on?
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.25.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Of course, one other angle is that thanks to America's
sudden concern with academic standards, a lot more people are going
to read Churchill's 9/11 essay, which does contain some pretty
dangerous ideas.
Agreed. The idea that thousands of murdered civilians should be
equated with Nazi war criminals is very dangerous.
I usually just take your trolling as a curious diversion, but you
need to shut the fuck up now.
fyodor|7.25.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Answer to my own question after googling: it was in both (Bananas and Sleeper). I believe I saw Sleeper first, when it first came out (when I was a teenager), so that's probably why I associate it with that one.
|7.25.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Agreed. The idea that thousands of murdered civilians should
be equated with Nazi war criminals is very dangerous.
That's not really what he meant. Here's Churchill's own
explanation:
Finally, I have never characterized all the September 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.
|7.25.07 @ 4:25PM|#
fyodor,
It's originally from Bananas. But Sleeper was
great, too, and Allen can certainly refer back to his own works
whenever he wants. I also liked Love and Death. I have a
soft spot for tsarist humor.
|7.25.07 @ 4:26PM|#
I think there's a reason that most of the posts in this thread
start with the obligatory "I don't know much about this case,
but..."
The reason: No one gives a fuck.
thoreau|7.25.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Taktix gets post #69 in this thread.
Ironically, he uses that treasured post to say that nobody gives a
fuck about the topic at hand.
Chavez is a thug|7.25.07 @ 4:32PM|#
"That's not really what he meant."
Actually that is exactly what he meant. That long-winded quote
compares the individuals in the World Trade Center to the
individuals who aided in Nazi atrocities. I guess that somewhere
prior to 9-11 there must have been American "industrialists"
participating in the murder of 6 million Jews.
dhex|7.25.07 @ 4:32PM|#
funny ha ha thing about churchill was some of the stuff he wrote
about encroachment by non-indigenous people on indigenous
identities.
man that's preacher who hates gays in public but smokes meth,
funboys in private funny ha ha.
revenge of the repressed?
|7.25.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Take the Money and Run is a personal favorite. Kudos to
joe for the gub reference.
"You know, he never made the 'ten most wanted' list. It's very
unfair voting; it's who you know."
dhex|7.25.07 @ 4:36PM|#
re: beyond the usual "lolz reading is for fags not like math why won't anyone touch my junk must be commies lolz?" stuff, the "good ones" in various cultural studies/cultural anthro sections put up with the "bad ones" (i.e. jackasses) because a) you want tenure b) you can't just kill people you don't like and c) uh yeah really they can't just shoot them in the face double barrel john woo style while screaming "THIS IS FOR THE DATA SET YOU NEVER HAD."
|7.25.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Come to think of it Allen kind of invented the mockumentary with
Take the Money and Run.
I can't think of an earlier example.
And yes this is a threadjack, but it's more fun than talking about
a douche like Churchill.
|7.25.07 @ 4:39PM|#
If Churchill actually had a degree in history, he might have
realiced that Adolf Eichmann did not just "insure the smooth
running of the infrastructure" of genocide, but was a major figure
directing its creation and use.
If he'd known that, maybe he wouldn't have picked such an
inappropriate analogy, and his shoddy academic credentials wouldn't
have come to light.
Poetic justice.
|7.25.07 @ 4:45PM|#
I'm with joe: I simply cannot abide so-called historians who
can't get their Nazi history right. After all, there's a whole
cable channel devoted to Nazi history.
Woody Allen's stand-up was great, too. And he gave us Christopher
Walken, for all intents and purposes.
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.25.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Yeah. Nobody associates "Eichmann" with Nazi genocide. No
connotation of evil. Just "smooth running of infrastructure".
German efficiency.
I repeat: shut the fuck up.
thoreau|7.25.07 @ 4:46PM|#
dhex-
I didn't mean to imply that humanities is worthless.
FWIW, I suspect that while ethnic studies might attract more
loonies and jackasses than other departments (and the sciences have
their own forms of loonies and jackasses, lest anybody think I'm
being a science snob here), they probably also have to put up with
a much bigger spotlight. There are people just itching to get
offended by something that an ethnic studies professor said, but
not as many people looking to get offended by something that a
physics professor said.
There is also a feedback loop between scrutiny and attention
whores.
FWIW, the only thing I ask of humanities and social science faculty
is that they require my students to read a ton of books and write a
ton of essays. I'll leave it to them to decide what the books and
essays should be about, just as long as my students get that
valuable training of massive reading and writing assignments.
The problem is that my expectations for the humanities faculty
leave a lot of leeway, while the engineering school expects a
shitload from me: "We want students to study x, y, and z in
freshman physics, and master the following skills..."
dhex|7.25.07 @ 4:52PM|#
"I didn't mean to imply that humanities is worthless."
oh, i know that. consider it a preemptive strike, since that's
generally what comes up when these things are mentioned. (that and
"book xyz is only respected because no one can understand it, and
by "no one" i mean "me"")
sadly, some of these things are tolerated because jerkoffs get
tenure and well, yeah. and its reinforced when the people howling
for your blood are right wing radio show host types and the usual
partisans. it's like, "oh these fuckfaces again...man the
battlements! send out for some organic co-op sandwiches, now! we're
gonna be a while..."
|7.25.07 @ 4:52PM|#
The History Channel hasn't been devoted to Nazi history for two
years.
These days, it's all "Modern Marvels: Sippy Cups" and "Keith
Caradine Taking 30 Minutes to Relate a Two Minute Story About Some
Cowboy Who Got Shot in the Olden Days."
|7.25.07 @ 4:54PM|#
The highway of death thing did happen, may not have ben 100,000 -- but we're talking 1000s or 10,000s -- several reporters were on the scene and documented this. Washington Pravda's account is sloppy journalism
dhex|7.25.07 @ 4:55PM|#
also it goes without saying i have a lot of respect for the hard sciences, for anyone who pound the dirt for good data rather than good gotcha moments, etc. and i would love to see a greater fixation on evidentiary-based proceedings for a lot of the humanities and not just those connected to anthropology and sociology.
thoreau|7.25.07 @ 4:57PM|#
it's like, "oh these fuckfaces again...man the battlements!
send out for some organic co-op sandwiches, now! we're gonna be a
while..."
Just make sure the person who goes to get the sandwiches brings
them back in a cloth shopping bag, not a plastic bag.
:)
|7.25.07 @ 5:08PM|#
The History Channel hasn't been devoted to Nazi history for
two years.
These days, it's all "Modern Marvels: Sippy Cups" and "Keith
Caradine Taking 30 Minutes to Relate a Two Minute Story About Some
Cowboy Who Got Shot in the Olden Days."
Don't forget UFOs, Nostrodamus, Bible shit, and fucking trucks on a
goddamned horseshit-eating frozen lake in cocksucking Canada. How
in the felching hell are TRUCKS ON ICE history?? Give me back my
Nazi trivia, History Channel!
|7.25.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Joe
. . . not to mention evening after evening of recreated airplane
dogfights apparently done with Windows 98 cg.
And I swear there was a recent "Modern Marvels" episode about
"Garage Gadgets"-- door openers and whatnot . . .my god, has that
channel gone down the tubes.
thoreau|7.25.07 @ 5:10PM|#
I'm trying to think what it would take for a physics professor
to get on David Horowitz's radar, and I'm coming up blank.
But when I think about what it would take for an ethnic studies
professor to get on Horowitz's radar, I suspect the answer is "wake
up in the morning."
|7.25.07 @ 5:12PM|#
I'm trying to think what it would take for a physics
professor to get on David Horowitz's radar, and I'm coming up
blank.
Discover a new subatomic particle and name it the Hillaron. Or
Stalon. Or something.
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.25.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Not strictly apropos but thoreau's comment about physics and
Horowitz reminded me of this, which is always good for a
laugh.
Sokol
affair
|7.25.07 @ 5:15PM|#
Seriously, what makes the History Channel think that geeks like
me, who watched their Nazi documentaries for hours on end five
years ago, wouldn't watch them again?
BTW, does anyone remember the British series "Battlefields?" Mrs.
joe used to bust my stones about watching that.
"The ridge was held by several American regiments. The fourth..."
graphic appears "...the fifth..." graphic appears "...the sixth..."
graphic appears "...the seventh..." graphic appears "...and
elements of the eigth..." graphic appears "...the tenth...."
graphic appears "...and the eleventh," graphic appears.
"Arrayed against them were the German Fourth Division..." graphic
appears "...the Fifth Division..." graphic appears "...the Sixth SS
Division..." graphic appears "...and elements of..."
dhex|7.25.07 @ 5:16PM|#
"Just make sure the person who goes to get the sandwiches brings
them back in a cloth shopping bag, not a plastic bag."
cloth? do you know how many bleaches are used to make so your
so-called cloth? hemp is so much more durable! WHY ARE YOU RAPING
THE EARTH?!?!?
on a serious tip though, just between you, me and the internet,
hemp milk is fucking delicious. talk about something that should
suck so hard that doesn't suck hard at all.
and yeah, the sokol affair is both brilliant and sad. i don't blame
them for being pissed at cheeseheads, but at the same time spend
too much time staring at the low hanging fruit and thou shalt
become grapes.
|7.25.07 @ 5:19PM|#
joe,
Precisely. Why not bite the bullet and call it the Nazi Channel?
Just like TLC should become TTC (The Tattoo Channel).
|7.25.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Though, to be fair, they also could call it the Roman Channel. That's been the "other topic" since Gladiator came out. Which is ironic, since that movie was about as historically accurate as Star Wars.
|7.25.07 @ 5:22PM|#
"ales of the Gun"
There should be a T in there somewhere. Now I have an idea for a
microbrewery, though.
CL|7.25.07 @ 5:39PM|#
I usually just take your trolling as a curious diversion,
but you need to shut the fuck up now.
Oh noes! Not insulting dead people with horrendously inapt and
stupid comparisons! Why, how will the dead people ever live through
it?
|7.25.07 @ 5:43PM|#
In tonight's episode of "Ales of the Gun" Billy the Kid savors a surprisingly insouciant huckleberrypeachwheat pilsner, served in a glass rinsed with the water used in steaming the artichoke hors d'oeuvre.
|7.25.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Next week, on a very special night of "ales of the Gun:" Machine Gun Kelly gives us his rapidfire ratings on the wares at Lackawanna River Boat Repair's Brewpub.
|7.25.07 @ 6:05PM|#
Joe -- I've started watching those "Battlefields" shows on youtube, since I'm also disgusted that the "History" channel is now the "Repository of Flotsam in the A&E Collection" channel.
fyodor|7.25.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Anonymo/Dan T,
I think the key to understanding Churchill is that the bigger
picture comparison, for him, is between Nazi Germany and the U.S.
Sure, he wasn't calling 9/11 victims Nazis per se, but his point
was that the US was a force for evil in the world, and that the
workers in the WTC were facilitators of this evil, which made them
legitimate military targets for those who were ostensibly defending
themselves from this evil even if they (the WTC workers) did not
directly participate in perpetrating the evil themselves.
Personally I find this POV noxious and retarded, for a variety of
reasons. That he wasn't really directly calling 9/11 victims Nazis
doesn't do much to save him in my eyes. Though making his point
with a particularly vitriolic use of words does add somewhat to the
noxiousness of it.
That said, I don't think he should be fired for this POV. But
that said, a few folks have responded to my original post
on the subject by making the point (which I kinda pre-acknowledged
at the end of my own first post) that while Churchill's
controversial comments certainly brought his questionable past to
light, that does not necessarily mean that they created the kind of
witch hunt that might lead one to conclude he was singled out for
unfair persecution.
DanT Destroyer|7.25.07 @ 6:36PM|#
Yes, you scum ... you rabble. Dan T is an idiot extraordinaire, and his sidespeak is nothing but so much hot air. Empty and vacuous, it is not so much uneducated as it is annoying. Listen to me you mendacious baboon! We have had enough of your self-indulgent impetuosity. It is a lame attempt at being clever, or worse, a cry for attention. You are not clever, a thought provoking devil's advocate or an interesting commentator. You cloud an otherwise clear and interesting forum with your intolerable putresence. May you rot in the land of smarmy marmots, in the internet gutter of chat rooms that are composed of, for and by your intolerable ilk: the assholes that think far too highly of themselves.
Steve Verdon|7.25.07 @ 6:41PM|#
You mean Lord Jeffery Amherst anticipated the germ theory of disease by what...a century? A true military genius, obviously.
Bee|7.25.07 @ 6:41PM|#
These days, it's all "Modern Marvels: Sippy Cups"
Awesome, joe. I'll be wheezing with silent laughter all afternoon
now.
BTW, is it the History Channel that has all those mealy-mouthed
"Could this prove the existence of such-and-such from the Bible"
shows on the weekends? I really hate those. Or maybe it's the
Biography Channel? They irritate the shit out of me while I am
waiting for the Bristish murder mysteries to come on.
DanT Destroyer redeemero|7.25.07 @ 6:53PM|#
Just kidding. I actually think you are insightful , a breath of fresh air in a sometimes stale pack of quivering libertarians. Thank you for being DanT.
|7.25.07 @ 7:04PM|#
but a letter in General Belcher's hand, describing how he
ordered smallpox-infected blankets distributed to local Indians
during some war or other, was found a year or two ago.
How small pox did not infect and spread from the soldiers who
handed out the blankets is explained away by the use of plastic
containers to hold the infected blankets.
How the small pox survived in the blankets for long periods of time
is explained because the strain of the small pox was a militarized
form specially developed by the US army in the late 1700's.
Let no one accuse joe, who is very unlike Churchhill, of making up
facts or history.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.25.07 @ 7:45PM|#
Joshua Corning, thank you for that succinct summary.
I continue to be amazed by the contingent of ex post facto
historians who ascribe the brilliant plan to eliminate the Injun
populace through the use of smallpox infected blankets to people
whose medical habits did not include the most rudimentary
procedures. Like washing your hands before surgery.
This smallpox/blanket myth tent has now been enlarged to include
the Padres in the southwest. Three hundred years ago they were
medically advanced enough to infect the locals with smallpox. A
brilliant strategy as well given that the local Indians supplied
most of the labor required to keep the Mission communities
running.
|7.25.07 @ 8:55PM|#
You best watch yourself when disputing the "facts" of our smallpox genocide of aboriginal Americans. More than a few commenters will be ready to string you up.
|7.25.07 @ 9:02PM|#
joe-
It's a shame that this episode will almost certainly encourage
them to try to pull the same stunt on legitimate
professors
Ward Churchill was a "legitimate" professor (with
tenure!) until this investigation
started...
|7.25.07 @ 9:09PM|#
Glad to see Ward go but not near as satisfying as when Bellesisles got the boot. Takes damn near forever to fire these shitheads.
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.25.07 @ 9:13PM|#
Sure, he wasn't calling 9/11 victims Nazis per se, but his
point was that the US was a force for evil in the world, and that
the workers in the WTC were facilitators of this evil, which made
them legitimate military targets for those who were ostensibly
defending themselves from this evil even if they (the WTC workers)
did not directly participate in perpetrating the evil
themselves.
First, just noticed the copy of Churchill's essay linked in the
original post here appears to be abridged at the moment. It ends at
"As to those in the World Trade Center...", which is right where
some of the most infamous stuff begins and only about halfway
through the essay. This
appears to be the whole essay.
"...the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the
twin towers..."
Did he call the victims Nazis "per se"? He is not alleging them to
be members of the National Socialist Party which ruled Germany some
decades ago. But what does "Eichmann" convey if not "Nazi" -- not
literally "National Socialist" but "genocidal tyrants"? To call
someone "Eichmann" is necessarily to call them a "Nazi". I say
"Eichmann," you think "Nazi". We know the name Eichmann solely
because he was an important Nazi. There is no other place to go
with that reference.
Thus, I think saying he "wasn't really directly calling 9/11
victims Nazis" is to concede far too much. The only sense in which
he was not calling them "Nazis" is the most strictly
literal sense, "member of the National Socialist Party." I think
the only sensible reading of the "Eichmann" reference is he
intended to attach to the 9/11 victims every concept carried with
Nazism, which is now essentially a synonym for evil on the highest
order, save for the literal "National Socialist" meaning.
(And yes, I understand you are not defending Churchill; we are
merely arguing some semantics about his essay).
Anonymo the Anonymous|7.25.07 @ 9:17PM|#
Oh, and to lighten the mood...
"Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism; at least
it's an ethos."
"Vee believe in nothink!"
edna|7.25.07 @ 10:07PM|#
pro and fyo, "rebels are we" was in both bananas and sleeper. in
the latter, it's a song written by diane keaton when she goes
stockholm with her kidnappers. mostly from erno.
god, those were funny movies.
|7.25.07 @ 10:38PM|#
I haven't read all the comments yet, so my apologies for any
duplication...
But Dan T & joe are simply arguing against nothing. They state
that Ward was fired due to his speeches, but that's not true. He
was fired because he was a fraud.
The only thing that's true is that they probably never would've
found out he was a fraud had he kept a low profile. His loud mouth
and idiotic rantings forced others to investigate, and then easily
expose him for the fraud he is.
So yes, one thing led to another. Just like it does in any other
aspect in life.
For instance, if you lie on your resume and get hired anyway; stay
low key to ensure it never comes up, and there likely won't be any
negative impacts.
Argue against what most people in your company believe, rightly or
wrongly, be prepared to pay for both your contentiousness &
your original fraud.
This is life - or - A equals A
|7.25.07 @ 10:41PM|#
lunchstealer beat me to it -
The lesson here appears to be that as long as you don't say
anything uncontroversial, you can be as lazy an unqualified as you
like, and you're golden.
It sucks, but such is life.
Guy Montag|7.25.07 @ 10:44PM|#
Never fear, The New Republic should have Stephen Glass' old desk waiting for him, right between 'Scott Thomas' and Eve Fairbanks.
Mark Bahner|7.25.07 @ 11:20PM|#
"100,000 killed in the closing days of the war by "hyper-lethal
types of ordnance"? (As opposed, I suppose, to moderately lethal
ordinance.) Easy to understand "why they hate us," I suppose.
Except that Churchill's casualty figures are off by about
99,700."
"It is this sort of thing that resulted in Churchill's
termination;..."
If that was indeed the case, my respects to the University of
Colorado Board of Regents.
|7.26.07 @ 12:02AM|#
Never fear, The New Republic should have Stephen Glass' old
desk waiting for him, right between 'Scott Thomas' and Eve
Fairbanks.
Don't forget Lee Siegel. What a shitty little magazine.
Haven't heard anything about Fairbanks though. What's the story
there?
|7.26.07 @ 12:16AM|#
" if you lie on your resume and get hired anyway; stay low key
to ensure it never comes up"
Or you could just lie low until you get tenure, at which time all
bets are off.
Or you could actually be good at your job, which will reduce the
likelihood that people will dig your resume out of the file.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.26.07 @ 1:52AM|#
Reason usually likes guys who pose with assault
rifles.
OTOH, the commentors generally like hot naked chicks who pose with
assault rifles.
|7.26.07 @ 6:06AM|#
...the commentors generally like hot naked chicks who pose
with assault rifles.
They're bikini girls... with machine guns! Heheh heheh.
|7.26.07 @ 7:52AM|#
OTOH, the commentors generally like hot naked chicks who
pose with assault rifles.
Link, please?
|7.26.07 @ 8:06AM|#
RC, this probably isn't what you're looking for, but all the
Beavis & Butthead fans will appriciate it. As will Cramps
fans.
Bikini Girls
With Machine Guns
Boludo Tejano|7.26.07 @ 8:48AM|#
Re dhex, thoreau's comments regarding physics/eng/math vs.
humanities/ethnic studies,
or "hard" vs. "soft."
I was an engineer who went to education as a second career. A
thermodynamics or math professor cannot speak BS or conjecture.
Whatever such a prof says is backed up by logic, intellectual
rigor, and hard facts. Similarly, a student cannot succeed in such
fields without hard work, rigor, and logic.
I found out that Education profs would state as fact that which was
only conjecture. It was not difficult to find personal experience
or research in the academic or popular literature to easily refute
Education profs' fact masquerading as conjecture. I would have
found it virtually impossible to refute any statements by a math or
thermodynamics prof.
Education profs will come up with the teaching fad of the
week/year. Consider all the theories regarding math teaching in the
last 40 years. There are no such fad movements regarding Newton's
second law.
This is why people educated in math/science/engineering view the
humanities and social sciences as BS. Ward Churchill's lack of
rigor is only the tip of the iceberg.
|7.26.07 @ 9:01AM|#
This is why people educated in math/science/engineering view
the humanities and social sciences as BS. Ward Churchill's lack of
rigor is only the tip of the iceberg."
The sciences:liberal arts :: traning:education
|7.26.07 @ 9:14AM|#
So what they are saying is this guy is a good candidate for most elected positions in government. He has no problem making shit up to suit his agenda, dare I say he is perfectly suited for life as a politician!
Agent Provokeatear|7.26.07 @ 9:50AM|#
I seriously think Churchill was not serious in his views,
but more an agent provocateur seeing how much he could get
away with.
I seriously think joe is not serious in his views, but more an
agent provocateur seeing how much he can get away
with.
Engineer|7.26.07 @ 10:03AM|#
bob-cat,
If you can't make a stupid statement about the value of liberal art
education over the natural sciences and engineering without
stepping on your own words, you probably aren't that "educated."
Just sayin'.
|7.26.07 @ 10:05AM|#
Steve Verdon | July 25, 2007, 6:41pm | #
You mean Lord Jeffery Amherst anticipated the germ theory of
disease by what...a century?
Um, no, not even remotely. People in the West realized that the
causes of disease can reside in victims' bedding for centuries
before the Germ Theory was proven. They were burning Plague
victims' bedding in the Middle Ages.
|7.26.07 @ 10:09AM|#
joshua, TWC,
It's ok that you don't understand the events that took place. You
don't have to understand exactly how it was carried out. We have
the admission from the general who ordered it that he did so. Your
God of the Gaps denialism notwithstanding.
|7.26.07 @ 10:12AM|#
anon,
He may have had tenure, but that didn't make him a legitimate
professor.
SixSigma,
Maybe you should read the thread before mouthing off about what I
wrote, because as usual, you've confused me with the liberal in
your head. I've been arguing exactly the opposite of the position
you ascribed to me. Again.
|7.26.07 @ 10:16AM|#
Anonymo,
Churchill was definitely comparing the WTC victims to Nazis. But
the point he was trying to make was that they were like those
employees of the German state who kept the trains running and filed
the paperwork and took on other bureaucratic missions. Of course,
his analogy failed, because that doesn't describe Eichmann at all -
Eichmann was a big mover and shaker, not a clerk.
|7.26.07 @ 10:19AM|#
The Straight Dope on the Smallpox Blankets:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html
Yes, TWC and joshua corning, someone here is allowing their
political bias to interfere with the objective understanding of
history. Two of you, actually.
|7.26.07 @ 10:24AM|#
You mean people didn't routinely jump off cliffs before Sir
Isaac Newton?
The Straight Dope: Cecil
Adams rocks!
VM|7.26.07 @ 10:25AM|#
@ Steve Verdon | July 25, 2007, 6:41pm
um. what joe said this morning 10:05. and 10:19
use of dead/diseased animals was a part of warfare.
There's snark in your post (and others'), but I don't get why -
Lord J.A. may have ordered that. So what? He may not have. It was a
possibility. That's how they rolled back then.
Churchill (dickhead) didn't, apparently, source that claim.
However, that shows what kind of quibblefuq he is, it doesn't mean
you dismiss history out of hand. You dismiss HIM out of hand. And
then kick him (only figuratively) in the taint. (actually you
should stay away from him completely. Teh JACKAZZ!!11!!lolz is
contagious.)
There was a great deal of cruelty in war/ aggression back when.
There still is.
hier is
exactly an example (kinda graphic)
or - if you're threatened that Lord JA would have done such a thing
(why on earth?), just think of what Mayor Johnson said when
discussing Louis Pasteur and hoof/mouth disease: NEVER MIND THAT
SHIT. HERE COMES MONGO!
and WHY ARE YOU THREATENED BY THAT?????
jeezuz. you sound like a bunch of europeans whining that their
countries "never" traded in slaves (when they actually did)...
argh!
Bopo|7.26.07 @ 10:37AM|#
"The highway of death thing did happen, may not have ben 100,000
-- but we're talking 1000s or 10,000s -- several reporters were on
the scene and documented this. Washington Pravda's account is
sloppy journalism"
And we are to believe this merely on your say-so? I guess you have
more credibility than the multitude of reporters that were there
who claim about 100 people were killed. It was not just people from
one newspaper making this claim. But hey you were probably in Jr.
High when it happened, so you must be reliable.
|7.26.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Actually, there is no longer any question at all that Jeffrey
Amherst (and not General Belcher, whose only crime
was...un...massive corruption) ordered the distribution of the
smallpox blankets.
If you google "Amherst Smallpox Blankets," the very first link you
find is contains links to a letter from Amherst's field commander
recommending the practice, and to part of Amherst's letter ordering
it carried out.
The important part here, joshua corning and TWC, isn't that you
were wrong. The important part is WHY you were wrong.
You need to start basing your beliefs on something more substantial
than Jonah Goldberg disease, because this kneejerk denialism of
whatever lefties say keep leading you astray.
Chavez is a thug|7.26.07 @ 10:44AM|#
"It's a shame that this episode will almost certainly encourage
them to try to pull the same stunt on legitimate professors"
I still don't understand why it would be a shame to investigate
someone's record. If the individual did not commit academic fraud,
he has nothing to worry about. Academic writings are a matter of
public record, or would you prefer they be kept private to insulate
professors, most of which are paid with our tax-dollar, from
scrutiny concerning their scholarship. Boy, that system would
definitely guarantee academic integrity.
VM|7.26.07 @ 10:50AM|#
thanks joe - checked that out!
My bad for guessing it was a plot by those evil Williams Purple Cows...
:)
srsly - why be threatened guys?
it also reminds me of those people who got all upset, n all, like,
when they found out that Thomas Jefferson probably sired children
out of wedlock. With a slave. Who wasn't of the european
persuasion.
Isn't one of the whole parts of libertarianism is knowledge and
understanding the conditions, contexts, borders, and playing field?
Denial certainly does not belong there.
You take the good outcomes with the bad, you take the information
that is palatable and unpalatable for you, and you make the best
decisions possible. How does denial reconcile?
Or - how do denial and cherry-picking of historical events
differentiate the Ward Churchills from the other
deniers-for-ideology in the world?
|7.26.07 @ 10:51AM|#
"If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about"
- seriously, thug, that's your argument?
Politically-based witch hunts against professors are a bad thing. I
didn't realize that was such a controversial position.
Nice straw man about keeping people's academic work secret, though.
I'll get right on that, as soon as I'm doning stomping on these
kittens.
Chavez is a thug|7.26.07 @ 10:53AM|#
There's snark in your post (and others'), but I don't get why -
Lord J.A. may have ordered that. So what? He may not have. It was a
possibility. That's how they rolled back then.
Churchill (dickhead) didn't, apparently, source that claim.
However, that shows what kind of quibblefuq he is, it doesn't mean
you dismiss history out of hand. You dismiss HIM out of hand. And
then kick him (only figuratively) in the taint. (actually you
should stay away from him completely. Teh JACKAZZ!!11!!lolz is
contagious
Churchill's claim concerning smallpox blankets involved the
AMERICAN Army giving blankets to a particular Indian tribe. There
is no substantive evidence the United States Army ever gave
blankets with smallpox to American Indians, unless you thing LORD
Jeffrey Amherst was an American soldier (I would have thought the
lord would have given it away). You can get the info for this at
www.whythehelldoesjoethinkheknowseverything.com/mastersdegree
Chavez is a thug|7.26.07 @ 10:55AM|#
So now we are calling an investigation of publically available
material a witch hunt. Engage in hyperbole much, joe?
And you claim I am erecting a straw man. Haha.
VM|7.26.07 @ 10:56AM|#
thug -
huh?
the typing was blurred from all the spittle you were generating, so
I'm genuinely lost of what you're trying to say...
Chavez is a thug|7.26.07 @ 10:57AM|#
The first part of my post was a quote from someone else. I forgot the quotation marks.
VM|7.26.07 @ 11:00AM|#
yeah - I kinda figured that you weren't pulling a joe biden there. the second part.
|7.26.07 @ 11:04AM|#
thug,
Any time you can find a reference to the American army in anything
I wrote, or a defense of Churchill's scholarship, you'll let us
know, right?
So now we are calling an investigation of publically available
material a witch hunt.
A witch hunt can involve the use of publically available material,
yes. It's not the source of the information used by the witch
hunters that make it a witch hunt. When the McCarthyites accused
General Marshall of being "a conscious agent of international
Communism," they presented publically available letters and reports
he made as evidence.
You know, at a certain point, it's going to start dawning on you
that I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Chavez is a thug|7.26.07 @ 11:24AM|#
"Any time you can find a reference to the American army in
anything I wrote, or a defense of Churchill's scholarship, you'll
let us know, right?
Firstly, the given quote was not yours. Secondly, since this is a
thread about Ward Churchill, one can reasonably assume that
discussion concerning smallpox blankets was in regard to
Churchill's writings on the subject. And as the quote I made in my
post made clear, individuals were in fact erroneously assuming that
Churchill was discussing any incident concering blankets, and not a
particular incident, which in fact, never occured.
And lastly, uncovering evidence of academic misconduct is not even
remotely analogous to the Mccarthy era, unless you think fraud,
including plagiarism, should be protected by the first amendment.
Examining an individuals academic record is not a witch hunt, no
matter how hysterically you claim it is. Does this mean that the
vetting process that occurs prior to hiring or the granting of
tenure is only acceptable to you if the individual is not some
lunatic bigot; taking your argument to its logical conclusion, it
would seem you do think that.
It may dawn on me that you may be right every now and then if you
would stop arrogantly putting yourself forth as the definitive
voice of reason on every single thread on this message board.
|7.26.07 @ 11:25AM|#
@ bob-cat
The sciences:liberal arts :: traning:education
A careful reading of my posting refutes your
"traning(sic):education" comparison of liberal arts versus the
sciences. I was "trained" in science and engineering and was able
to locate research in education and ed psych, fields that were new
to me, that refuted the assertions of a tenured Ph.D. Professor of
Education, who was by definition an "authority." That sounds to me
as if I had been well-educated.
As others have noted, your spell-checking needs improvement. That
supports my assertion that those in the "liberal arts" often lack
rigor. At the same time, I do not always spell-check myself.
|7.26.07 @ 11:41AM|#
wow.
Third thread in about a week to get into the Amherst smallpox
debate. Links and evidence provided every single time.
Think of it like fossils.
One well documented incident might mean that it was something that
was done more commonly, (or it might not, hard to prove). A tactic
used in 1763 by the British (also used against the American in
Canada, iirc), would certainly have been remembered by the US army
as hostilities increased during expansion.
Churchill, who is a twit, claims the smallpox claim is based on
Native American oral history.
Demonstrating that oral history is accurate is tough to do.
Churchill wasn't up to the task.
|7.26.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Secondly, since this is a thread about Ward Churchill, one
can reasonably assume that discussion concerning smallpox blankets
was in regard to Churchill's writings on the subject.
Let's go to the tape: BTW, I don't know squat about Churchill's
"scholarship," but a letter in General (Amherts's) hand, describing
how he ordered smallpox-infected blankets distributed to local
Indians during some war or other, was found a year or two
ago.
No, thug, it cannot be reasonably assumed that I was talking about
Churchill's scholarship. I was talking about objective, factual,
proven history, and explicity stated that I wasn't talking about
Churchill's scholarship.
And lastly, uncovering evidence of academic misconduct is not
even remotely analogous to the Mccarthy era, unless you think
fraud, including plagiarism, should be protected by the first
amendment.
There were actual cases of Communist espionage uncovered in the
50s, too, thug. That didn't make McCarthyism legitimate. It was a
witch hunt, and a partisan one at that, despite the fact that it
was being carried out allegedly in the name of a legitimate
goal.
Examining an individuals academic record is not a witch hunt,
no matter how hysterically you claim it is. That would depend
on how it is done.
Does this mean that the vetting process that occurs prior to
hiring or the granting of tenure is only acceptable to you if the
individual is not some lunatic bigot;
No, not even remotely.
taking your argument to its logical conclusion, it would seem
you do think that.
I don't think you know what "logical conclusion" means.
It may dawn on me that you may be right every now and then if
you would stop arrogantly putting yourself forth as the definitive
voice of reason on every single thread on this message
board.
A rather damning admission from you. You cannot make a reliable
judgement about information you are given because of the
personality and politics of the people who bring it to your
attention. Lemme guess - Bush voter, right?
VM|7.26.07 @ 11:45AM|#
joe - that was my comment he was spittling on.
I still don't get where you're going? French-Indian war (my college
was on a treaty line from that war - horribly enough, Ward C was
invited to speak there! argh!)
Dismiss what churchill said all the way. We should.
Boludo is obviously bitter he didn't get into Williams or Amherst.
Cuz there's no rigor there.
Just understand that forms of germ warfare were used, so it's a
pretty much "no big deal" even to raise that claim. It's not even a
"gotcha". It's a "so?"
then point and laugh at ward.
The Wine Commonsewer®|7.26.07 @ 11:52AM|#
VM, I don't see it as denial. The whole idea of deliberate
smallpox infection was invented in the 1970's and is purely
revisionist in nature.
Nobody (or at least me) denies the trail of tears, or the horrors
of slavery, or even that Jeff and Sally were doing the tango.
The issue is reality and when one deliberately clouds or distorts
reality to make a point (any point) then one's credibility is
diminished.
But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. If it's on the internet don't that make
it so? And you know what else? The American government blew up the
twin towers.
|7.26.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Actually, the use of smallpox blankets was first described in
history book published in 1851, and has been confirmed by a letter
in Lord Jeffrety Amherst's hand, which he sent to a battlefield
commander during the Pontiac Rebellion of 1763. They actually link
to a scan of the post-script in one of the links.
Google is your friend.
dhex|7.26.07 @ 12:07PM|#
"There are no such fad movements regarding Newton's second
law."
obviously. but the comparison is so apples and oranges that it
seems insane when some numbnut (and there are quite a few, sadly)
writer of culture/lit reads the back jacket of kuhn's book and
pulls a "that's just like, your opinion man" out of his or her ass
to dismiss a science or math field or finding that runs counter to
their beliefs. or to dismiss the idea that some things are 1 and
some things are 0 and that's that.
plainly put, people aren't math problems, and building a bridge
isn't the same thing as writing poetry. i wouldn't want to listen
to poetry that had been constructed from a list of instructions
(even tristan tzara mad libs get old after a while) and i'm sure
none of us want to travel across a bridge that had been constructed
like a poem. as someone who only knows enough math to do simple
statistics or program synthesizers, i have nothing but respect for
folks who speak that occult language.
Chavez is a thug|7.26.07 @ 12:12PM|#
"No, thug, it cannot be reasonably assumed that I was talking
about Churchill's scholarship. I was talking about objective,
factual, proven history, and explicity stated that I wasn't talking
about Churchill's scholarship."
That is why I didn't quote you in my post. Unless you are posting
under a different name. You are so fucking arrogant, you think
everything on this board revolves around you. That is why I enjoy
making jokes involving you.
As for logical conclusions, you seem to be saying it is ok to
investigate a lunatic and his writings prior to being hired, but
not after. What exactly is the difference? I guess issues of
integrity are moot after an individual actually starts teaching
impressionable college students.
ATTENTION THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE FROM JOE:
"It's a shame that this episode will almost certainly encourage
them to try to pull the same stunt on legitimate professors, but
that's no reason to keep Churchill in his position"
I am curious how exactly uncovering a long history of academic
fraud and deceit is a stunt? That statement would seem to imply
that you belief the Churchill affair was a "witchhunt". But then
you begrudgingly admit that Churchill should have been fired. Well,
which was it joe? An unprincipled witchhunt or a justifiable
investigation and termination of this fraud? You can't even keep
your principles straight in the space of one sentence and yet you
criticize others for logical inconsistency?
Bill|7.26.07 @ 12:13PM|#
What some people are forgetting is that CU-B didn't need to go
on a fishing expedition when they started their investigation. Some
of the complaints had been sitting on the dock for a while getting
ripe from the rotting resentment from the ignored complainants.
When the Eichmann comment came out, it became a window by which
complainants could get new traction form their complaints.
Arguably in light of the old complaints, Churchill was not *fired*
for his politics, but *retained* for his politics until people
outside of his protective bubble found out about them. At that
point, there was little that could be done to protect him. After
all, these complaints about his *published* (read public) conduct
cannot be dismissed as "fishing" for "new" issues with Ward. Once
it's out there, it's out there and free for review.
As such Churchill's only legitimate defense is that the misconduct
was supported by CU-B and as such CU-B was a standing accomplice in
his bad behavior. Not something I'd want to bring to court, if I
were him!
It also creates a nasty precedent. As soon as you find yourself
behind an eight ball of your own misconduct. All you have to do is
say something noxious to the larger community but popular in your
bubble and, Presto!, you are safe.
VM|7.26.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Nuff of this Ward Churchill talk.
Let's check out his wife, June. Is she hot?
(or did he turn his disease-soiled condom around to declare germ
warfare on her for faking it that one time)
ewwww.
|7.26.07 @ 12:35PM|#
That is why I enjoy making jokes involving you.
Ah, I get it; jokes. See, the lack of humor must have been throwing
me off.
you seem to be saying it is ok to investigate a lunatic and his
writings prior to being hired, but not after. No, not even
remotely.
Well, which was it joe? An unprincipled witchhunt or a
justifiable investigation and termination of this fraud?i>
Both. The two are not contractory - it was an unprincipled
witch-hunt based on politics, that uncovered actual academic fraud.
This is only a difficlut concept to grasp if you really, really
want it to be.
I've tried to disabuse you of your silly and self-serving
misreadings of what I wrote several times already, but you're
clearly too emotionally invested in your position to notice, so I'm
done with you.
Inspector Tagger|7.26.07 @ 12:40PM|#
Urkobold™|7.26.07 @ 12:57PM|#
JOE! BE ADVISED THAT YOUR ITALICS PRIVILEGES HAVE BEEN
SUSPENDED! FURTHER MISUSE OF HTML TAGS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND
MAY RESULT IN PERMANENT REVOCATION OF YOUR PRIVILEGES AS WELL AS
FINES AND IMPRISONMENT!
YOU WILL NOT BE WARNED AGAIN!
|7.26.07 @ 12:57PM|#
"A rather damning admission from you. You cannot make a reliable
judgement about information you are given because of the
personality and politics of the people who bring it to your
attention. Lemme guess - Bush voter, right?"
Gosh Joe, what a pompous ass you are sometimes. But don't let my
observation make you think I don't like you :-).
jwpaine|7.26.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Good catch, Mr. Maynihan. Having studied Churchill's writings for the past 2-1/2 years, I can only surmise that virtually every "fact" he posits is cut from whole cloth.
Urkobold™|7.26.07 @ 1:26PM|#
JOE, YOU ARE MESSING WITH THE WRONG TROLL. BEHOLD YOUR FIRST PUNISHMENT.
|7.26.07 @ 1:49PM|#
I never understood why this twit was famous, aside from hyperventilating Reds pointing and yelping at his antics.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245