Monday, February 07, 2005

Warning: More hate speech from W. Churchill

Posted by Mickey Z on 02/07 at 02:05 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus

  1. So why does Ward Churchill think people HE disagrees with (Nazis, KKK members, anyone who “advocates genocide,” as Mr. Churchill defines each of those terms, presumably) don’t have the same free speech rights he does? (Source: “Confronting Columbus Day,” included in his collection ACTS OF REBELLION) Since he’s (rightly,I think) asked Americans to rethink our relationship with the rest of the world, will his recent encounter with academic McCarthyism make him rethink his understanding of the First Amendment?

    Posted by Jon Swift from Baltimore  on  02/07  at  04:01 PM

  2. I haven’t read the essay you mention...but it’s not hard to imagine that any writer has presented contradictory statements. That hardly merits notice and plays no role in my support for any writer’s freedom of expression. 

    Be that as it may, if your interpretation of Churchill’s stance is indeed accurate, let’s hope this episode does offer him some much-needed perspective.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from   on  02/07  at  04:06 PM

  3. well put. a few, okay a million, details omitted. like the bigger picture in the imperium. like the consistently bloody american rituals called conquering or manifest destiny or democracy. nope nothing under here. don’t look there. american society is so profoundly sick.

    Posted by m from   on  02/07  at  10:44 PM

  4. This is what Winston had to say in 1904 about the ruling Conservative government when he was still a
    Liberal politico and hadn’t turned his coat “the
    right way” (as Thomas Mann put it):

    “A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation, corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad...sentiment by the bucketful, patriotism by the imperial pint, the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public house, dear food for the millions, cheap labor for the millionaire.”

    Sound vaguely apt 100 years later? This was soon after England’s politically expensive victory over Boers in South Africa, a ruthless campaign that added a new phrase to wartime jargon: “Concentration Camp”.

    Something else he said during WWII, that might sound relevant to our times:

    “The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”

    btw, the last statement was made when the outcome still wasn’t clear, circa 1942.

    Most folks don’t realize that systemic racism, ethnic “transfer”, settler annexation, etc. was
    on the whole kosher (if done under an ideological smokescreen, e.g. “White Man’s Burden”, “la mission civilatrice”, etc. and in a suitably discreet manner) until WWII, when the Nazis ended up giving a bad reputation to these well worn colonial concepts. Picking on the lionized Winston alone may single him out as a villain, but he just got carried away with his way with his wordplay and was honest enough to utter what millions in his his age and place thought…

    Posted by sk from   on  02/08  at  12:24 AM

  5. I agree 100%, SK. In no way was I insinuating Winnie was unusual for his times. I just coudn’t resist the “W. Churchill” coincidence.

    Here’s something I wrote on Sir Winnie nearly two years ago:
    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemID=3930&sectionID=15

    Posted by Mickey Z. from   on  02/08  at  06:26 AM

  6. Comment? Why, your piece entitled, Warning: More Hate Speech from W. Churchill, Dogs in the Manger was ... sublime. You penned the perfect irony.

    Posted by kc from   on  02/08  at  09:48 PM

Next entry: Mickey Z.'s next book: 50 American Revolutions

Previous entry: Survey: What is media indecency?