Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
John Chaney vs. Ward Churchill: Who's the real goon?
Some of you have no doubt checked out David Horowitz’s Discoverthenetwork.org website since it was listed as website of the day several days ago on the Counterpunch site. If you have not checked it out before today you will have missed the most interesting and disturbing thing about this twisted (yet strangely informative) site. In response to critics, Horowitz has removed the “Totalitarian Radicals” category from his homepage “grid”. This was the category Ward Churchill, Cockburn, Lynne Stewart shared (until today) with Mohammed Atta and other Islamic radicals.So our friends on the left are no longer lumped into the same group as Islamic Fundamentalists. Actually, I am disappointed by this change because I know it does not reflect a change in Horowitz’s views about the left. Islamic fundamentalist share much more with the right, and the fact that they share our disagreement with the global policies of United States does not change this fact. Actually there is not much that is political (right or left) about these religious extremists, but I am sure Horowitz continues to believe they are all part of the same problem that includes Cockburn, Chomsky, and as far as he is concerned John Kerry and Dan Rather! The scary fact of the matter is that by putting Cockburn, Churchill and others into the “Totalitarian Radicals” category along with people who have been accused of and/or convicted of crimes suggests he believes that intellectuals like Cockburn and Churchill (and obviously Lynne Stewart) should be in jail.
Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 03/01 at 08:00 AMI’m interested in the difference between Ward Churchill and Larry Summers. I am still not entirely sure what Summers said (partly because he has not yet released the notes from that meeting?), but I’d be interested in hearing other people’s opinions on the difference in reactions to these two.
Some differences. Churchill’s job security is now under review by state representatives, and college authorities. I am not sure if the same is
happening to Summers.I’ve heard many people defend the right of each of these individuals to state their opinions, without fear of losing a job. However, I haven’t come across anyone defending both of these people. Is anyone doing this?
Churchill’s academic department (Ethnic Studies) has also been put under the hammer, as their funding is being reviewed. Is there anything similar happening to Summers?
Churchill wrote down his ideas in an essay, and a published book, and as far as I know, Summers expressed his comments at an academic meeting.
People have asked how “indian” Churchill is. Has anything similar been asked of Summers? For example, even though he’s an economist, has anyone asked him for previous test results of his in the maths and sciences? All I know is that the management style of Summers is also coming into question.
Churchill is a tenured professor. Summers is a university president.Conservative media have had a feeding frenzy with Churchill. Summers has been called into question from the left. (i.e. I read an article by Katha Pollitt on his remarks) Has there been a major difference in this criticism?
Some liberals have attacked Churchill. Have any conservatives criticized Summers?
From what I understand, there are student groups on Churchill’s campus that are keeping tracks on him. Anything similar for Summers?
Has Summers had to rely on conservatives to sign petitions of support for his job? I saw one for Churchill.
Churchill has received death threats, and has been the subject of racist abuse. Anything similar for Summers?
Those are just a few initial observations I can suggest. What else am I missing? I’d imagine quite a bit, but what has interested me is that each case has challenged something. People will disagree on what exactly has been challenged, but it’s interesting to study the reactions and consequences of each challenge. For me, Churchill has challenged (in a very sloppy way) the moral one-sidedness of American standards, with particular reference to military targets. Summers has argued that innate differences can be found between males and females, and it is primarily in those differences that one can understand the low representation of women in the maths and sciences.
Are there limits to what academics can challenge? I agree with sections of Churchill’s argument, and I disagree with what I believe to be Summers’ argument. This is why I’d like to learn a bit more about Summers.
Posted by mike on from Dublin 03/01 at 11:05 AMMike...I defend both Churchill and Summers. I believe that they both have given thoughtful messages. I am far more familiar with Churchill’s body of work. If Summers statement was simply a recognition of the biological and psychological differences between the genders, I would agree with it. I know that that is not the politically correct postion, but I believe that there are demontratable differences between men and women.....I do NOT believe that Churchill was sloppy in his argument. I don’t see how he could have been any more clear. His use of the “E” word, which has offended so many, was really a mark of genius (even if unintended). It has finally opened up the discussion.
Posted by rosemarie on from 03/01 at 12:55 PMNice comparison, Mike. Now we can juxtapose all three. One criticizes the government, one makes a sexist remark (as far as I can tell), and a third instigates violence on the basketball court. Who will still have a job by summer?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 03/01 at 01:38 PMMickey, I do not know whether or not Summers made a sexist remark but I don’t think that it is sexist to recognize differences.
Posted by rosemarie on from 03/01 at 01:47 PMI agree, Rosemarie...but it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. This is the same guy who said Africa was “under-polluted.”
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 03/01 at 01:51 PMI dunno. If you are trying to get me to wager, I’d say this..
There’s sometimes a relationship between what a coach can get away with, and how many wins they get. Something I’m sure you already know. If this guy slapped a player before, I’d say he just would have to weather the storm. So long as he doesn’t lose too much, I’d say he’s probably going to be there next year. sad but true. ever read ollman’s talk on basketball?
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/basketball.phpSummers won’t go anywhere. If I were to guess, I’d say at the most, there might be some reforms in his management policy. But, I don’t see him going anywhere else. Just a guess though.
Churchill is obviously in more trouble. I think there might be a bit more than just “government” though in his problem. I’d imagine the “technocrats” he refers to want him out. Also, from what I understand, some people who lost family and friends want him out. Also, there are others who believe he is insulting those that died. He’s definitely most at risk.
It’s an odd paradox for him. Had he provided a more articulate analysis, I don’t think he would have had any media attention, at least not at this level. Therefore, his argument would probably not be heard by many outside of his usual readership. The fact that he used more confrontational, or aggressive, or sensational, labels has allowed his argument to be heard (albeit in a filtered fashion) by millions. This gave him the audience, but in my opinion, weakened his argument. This is another important issue in this event, the poverty of media. Must something be sensational, in both its coverage and content, in order for it to get media attention? Bourdieu’s “On Television” is very good on this point.
As for the remarks by Summers. I believe the argument that many would make against him is that he is attempting to mask social and cultural biases by invoking the “women are just different” mantra. This obviously has a history, if you look at everything from voting rights to participation in the workforce. As I don’t have his comments in front of me, I don’t know if that is the claim I would level against him.
Posted by mike on from Dublin 03/01 at 02:15 PMMike, you wrote: “It’s an odd paradox for him. Had he provided a more articulate analysis, I don’t think he would have had any media attention, at least not at this level. Therefore, his argument would probably not be heard by many outside of his usual readership. The act that he used more confrontational, or aggressive, or sensational, labels has allowed his argument to be heard (albeit in a filtered fashion) by millions. This gave him the audience, but in my opinion, weakened his argument.”
I agree.
P.S. I’ll check out the NYU link you provided soon.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 03/01 at 02:20 PMMike and Mickey, I’m sorry to disagree about Churchill. I think that the anti-war movement failed because it was too “nice”. There were and still are so many things that are taboo and cannot be said. Even hard, cold facts such as the ones that Churchill brought out cannot even be verbalized, unless you are willing to pay a high price just like Churchill is now. Who are the baby killers in this war? It’s time to stop glorifying and romanticizing them. When someone is killing civilians and “peace” people are more concerned about being polite and nicely ask for the killing to stop, it trivializes all of the innocent deaths. I have watched the “peace movement” from the inside and am about to give up on it......Also,I watched the 9/11 Committee Hearings and there were several families that did say that 9/11 was “blowback”.
Posted by rosemarie on from 03/01 at 04:32 PMI never said I disagreed with Churchill’s thesis, in general, and I never suggested that anyone be “polite.” However, his approach reeks of grandstanding. We live in a highly conditioned society and certainly Churchill knows that evoking Nazi imagery--even if it were historically accurate...and I don’t believe it was--will never serve its intended purpose under these conditions. His need to “go for the gut” allows the right AND the general public to dismiss the ‘left” as out-of-touch, America-hating traitors.
Michael McMoore embarasses the “left” with his shucking and jiving while Ward Churchill fufills every radical left-wing stereotype. Surely there are better choices than these.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 03/01 at 04:40 PMAbout Michael Moore, I just never thought that he was very far to the left. About Churchill grandstanding, hummm. That essay was written and forgotten about for years. He describes it as a stream of consciousness. His personal style could probably be thought of as grandstanding but I would not say that because he is under attack right now. That probably affects the way that he comes across. I am sure that his life is very difficult these days. It would have been very easy for him to just back down and say that he did not mean what the essay said. What he did by standing up, was something that I find to be very inspirational. I think, that sometimes passion for the cause, comes across as arrogance or grandstanding. The important thing is that he brought attention to some important information but the media is still attacking him personally, and ignoring the facts that he brought out. If many more people said exactly what he said, it would start to have an effect.
Posted by rosemarie on from 03/01 at 05:01 PMLong before his 911 “Roosting Chickens” article and subsequent book Ward Churchill was using the Nazi metaphor to criticize the actions of the U.S. One of the principle underlying theses of his 1996 book “From A Native Son: Selected Essays on Ingigenism 1985 - 1995” is the comparison of the campaign against indigenous Americans with the actions of Nazi Germany in the 30’s and 40’s, and I think he is right on target, as he so often is. First he calls Columbus a “Protonazi” and compares him to Himmler. He links the “settlement of the New World” with the Nazi lebensraumpolitik. Later on he compares the whole idea of “manifest destiny” again with “Hitler’s conception of lebensraumpolitik, the idea that Germans were innately entitled by virtue of their racial and cultural superiority to land belonging to others.” Again, I think the comparisons are correct. The only reason he is now being attacked by the right (and less intellectually sound aspects of the left) is that some creeps over at Fox News decided to dig him up as an easy target-of-the-week. The fear that is in the air in the so called “post 911 era” allows this new witch hunt to fester. Once they are done with Churchill they will move on down the list because O’Reilly and Hannity and all those frightened, frightening freaks on the right will not stop until those who are willing to speak the truth are locked up or too scared to speak. The one good thing to come out of all this so far is that all of us are talking about and, I hope, reading the important things Churchill has to say. Let us not be intimidated into stopping the conversation.
Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 03/01 at 06:07 PMPresident Ford, Suharto & Kissinger met in Jakarta 1975.Indonesia(military funded by Uncle Sam ) given green light to attack East Timor but quick.The result some 250,000 - 300,000 people killed. OIL IN REGION PLUS VITAL STRATEGIC SHIPPING LANE TO EAST STRAITS OF MALACCA.
Posted by john cameron on from Australia 03/02 at 02:21 AMHaven’t been following this to well from here, but charges of treason? Is this for real? Wasn’t sedition struck out in the sixties or seventies in the states?
Posted by Declan McG on from EIRE 03/02 at 06:12 AMThis is the definition of treason according to the U.S. Constitution:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” Michael Nimmo has an excellent article called “Growing Chorus: Prosecute Ward Churchill for Treason” about the on-going with hunt against Professor Churchill.
Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 03/02 at 09:26 AMMore on treason. The relevant law according to the true enemies of freedom on the right seems to be U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2381, which reads: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” The Michael Nimmo article I referenced above is harder to find than I thought. Anyone who wants to read it should go to the Press Action website at http://www.pressaction.com and look in the archives for 02/06/05.Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 03/02 at 12:35 PM
Next entry: Helping Orphans in East Timor
Previous entry: Clint Eastwood, Hunter Thompson, and the "right to die"
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
