Straight Up with Sherri

Friday, February 04, 2005

WARD CHURCHILL: Just a Case of Chickens Coming Home to Roost!


Ward Churchill Posted by Hello


Ward Churchill is a tenured professor of ethnic studies and coordinator of American Indian studies at the University of Colorado. He was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College, in Clinton, N.Y. early this month, but the event was canceled after a media frenzy ensued over his controversial essay ''On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” In his essay, Churchill starts out by pointing to a statement by Malcolm X:


"When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously – and quite charitably, all things considered – replied that it was merely a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

If that isn’t offensive enough for you, it gets much worse:


"On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well."


He goes on to voice his compassion for the victims of 9/11 that were in the Twin Towers with this poetic paragraph:


"Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and hey did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

Hmmmmmm…… and I thought I could rant!

Since Ward Churchill’s essay has received some well-deserved scrutiny, the controversy surrounding him has been building.
Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and The AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT (AIM) have all been blasting his character to smithereens! (I personally feel the actual essay does this all on its own, but who am I?) Churchill claims to be an Indian in order to give himself credibility as he writes and speaks about the evils of America. AIM is not the least bit amused with him and has released a statement that not only questions his Indian ancestry, but accuses him of “masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband.” I highly recommend reading their statement; it is obvious there is no love lost here.

The heat for Ward doesn’t end there. According to
World Net Daily; on Tuesday, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens urged the university to fire Churchill, the state House passed a non-binding resolution yesterday calling his comments "evil and inflammatory,” and a similar measure is presently being considered in the Senate. Sen. Peter Groff (D) was the only one to vote "no", saying he disagreed with Churchill but that the resolution provides him with undeserved attention and attacks free speech.

Churchill released a statement in his own defense on January 31st. In his statement he tries to make the case that the media has grossly misrepresented his essay. I have to admit that upon reading it, I was only MORE convinced that he wasn’t misrepresented AT ALL! Those accusing him of defending the 9/11 hijackers and raking him over the coals for his deplorable words about the victims were spot on in my humble opinion. The one paragraph that convinced me of this reads:

“I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."



The University of Colorado Board of Regents ordered an investigation Thursday into whether embattled ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill should be fired, and then took the extraordinary step of apologizing to the nation for Churchill's writings about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. According to Carol McKinley of FOX News Channel, Ward's attorney has threatened to sue if anything "happens to Ward Churchill..." (in reference to his job). On the O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly quoted Ward as saying "they don't want to fire me unless they want me to own this school." (How old is this man?)

I have to say that I think our friend Ward actually brings up a GREAT point. Chickens DO come home to roost. The one phrase that I ABSOLUTELY agree with is the quote by Martin Luther King. By golly Ward, I think you got it! In your essay you try to make the case that the 9/11 hijackers were not "fanatics devoted to Islamic fundamentalism," nor were they “cowards.” In fact, Ward you say that the “men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives.” You base this claim on the fact that they were retaliating for the “genocide” by Americans during Desert Storm.
Ward, please remind me, WHY DID WE GO INTO IRAQ BACK IN JANUARY 1991? Let’s recap, okay? Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, after Kuwait wouldn’t price their own oil the way Saddam WANTED THEM TOO! (Hmmmmmmmm…. The phrase “No blood for oil” comes to mind!)
“Saddam himself exploited Islamic rhetoric in his claim that annexing Kuwait had been a religious duty, a jihad, since the al-Sabah family (Kuwait's rulers) had ruled over an artificial state set up by the British. Saddam claimed that his jihad had liberated Kuwait from dominance by Western infidels.”

Sadly, Ward, this is a bunch of malarkey since Kuwait had enjoyed full independence since 1961, and Iraq had officially recognized Kuwait’s sovereignty at that time and then once again in 1963. In response to Saddam’s invasion of Iraq, the Saudi's, themselves INVITED American troops into the area. It was the presence of American troops on Saudi soil that got Osama’s panties in a wad, and lead him to claim that attacks on Americans anywhere in the world were justified. (Is any of this sounding even FAINTLY familiar, Ward?)

Many of the world’s leaders tried desperately, for months to handle Saddam’s greed and arrogance with diplomacy. Saddam REFUSED! See how all this adds up? America heads over to the Middle East, BY INVITATION, to help Arabs and Muslims from a madman. We spilled OUR blood in order to protect Saudi Arabia and free Kuwait; but only after Saddam made “peaceful change impossible.” Please explain to ALL of us how you can justify ANYTHING in your essay by using this quote? The entire War on Terror stems from the actions of Saddam Hussein and HIS greediness for OIL!

Many want to claim that this is all about Israel. In reality, there is a bit more to it than only Israel. It is also about a madman, Saddam Hussein, and his sidekick lunatics Osama and Arafat. Saddam wasn’t happy unless he was planning a war, and he labored over plans with Arafat! If you are going to apply this quote, then apply it to EVERYONE, not just the U.S.! AMAZING! You are a professor? You are writing books and essays? How great is America when someone who is either totally inept in doing research, or is so bent on an agenda that they ignore the facts, can make money from books and speeches? While you sit in your campus office and rattle off your lies, I am sitting in my home exposing those lies. (No fancy degree needed, just me, pounding away on a keyboard and mastering the art of Google!) Not bad for a single mom without a bunch of letters after my name.

In all fairness Ward, I have to admit that I agree with the esteemed Senator in Colorado, Peter Groff. You absolutely have the right to free speech, but that freedom comes with responsibility. Just as you have the right to spew any disgusting, twisted version of 9/11 that you want to spew; so do others have the right to remove you from their campus and classrooms. For Pete’s sake, a cashier at WalMart couldn’t get away with spouting your crud out to paying customers, and for someone who claims to take up the fight for the little guy, what makes you think you are THAT special. YOU are what we REDSTATERS call an elitist, sir. Tenure may bring privilege, but it is not a license to pollute the students who pay for their education; nor does it give you free license to destroy the reputation of your University and negate any consequences for your “freedom of speech.” Say anything you like Ward, but when your words are exposed, take it like a “little Eichmann.” As the Colorado University Administrators are conducting their 30-day review, remember it is merely a case of
"chickens coming home to roost."

20 Comments:

  • Churchill's a radical. He'd be insulted to be called a liberal. That said, I guess it's OK if you lump him in with us as long as you don't complain when we compare you to David Duke (whose world view is actually closer to say, Michelle Malkin's or Pat Buchanon's that Churchill's is to Ted Kennedy's)

    I will say this for Churchill though. Everyone should read his Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement and The COINTELPRO Papers. The latter is nothing but photocopies of FBI memos--it's fascinating reading and although it's 20 years old, it's still a good place to start if you're trying to understand Bush's "Fear Based" America.

    By Blogger Gen. JC Christian, Patriot, at 6:04 AM  

  • General, sir

    I am honored and thrilled to have you stop in. I would like to point out that I did not call this man a Liberal. IN fact, I agree with you! He is a Radical- although I might go as far as to say a NUT! FULL FLEDGED NUT! I understand that due to calling him an elitist, that you may have felt that I was calling him a liberal. Please forgive me if this is the case. I do NOT consider Wacky Ward to be anything like you. Wacky Ward is scum.

    BTW- I know rich Republicans that are "elitists" by MY use of the word.

    Hope you consider returning some time. There will be plenty of days we will disagree, and I am sure it will be much more fun then.

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 7:27 AM  

  • Sherri, pretty harsh spanking there.

    By Blogger CA7350, at 12:50 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:33 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:54 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:10 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:18 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:24 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:26 PM  

  • I don't know who you are or why you insist on attacking me. If you are upset with Iron FIst- so be it. I don't know what that has to do with me. I am really trying to do something here that is important to me and to building something to help provide for my children. I know you don't intend to sabotage my future or my hcildrens future- but that is what you are ultimately doing. I don't mind if you disagree with me or anyone else. I don't care if we comment on things off topic. I just don't want all this talk of murder and guns, slander and foul language. That's all I ask. Please respect me in my own home. Please......

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 5:03 PM  

  • Pretty good article. Your research is quite thorough and you present it effectively. I agree with your final point that Mr. Churchill is allowed to say whatever he wants but the rest of us are allowed to not be paying his bills.

    Thanks for stopping by my blog. Just wanted to let you know I linked to your essay on social security in my post today. Please stop by again.

    By Blogger Beautiful Belgian Babe, at 5:42 PM  

  • Really good research, Sherri! Two thumbs up. I, too, have wondered whether or not Churchill has any Native American blood. He sure looks like a white boy to me. I'm thrilled that AIM is calling him on the carpet. My gut tells me that this man is a total fake.

    ---Lady Redhawk

    P.S. Thanks for deleting the comments from that lunatic. We are all sick to death of hearing about IF.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:58 PM  

  • Wow -- just found this blog. Great work Sherri! This guy is def. going to lose his job, and I hope some people who have to decide will read this blog. Perhaps you can send them a link, it will help them I think.

    Jack Lawrence, MT.

    PS. Who the heck is 'Iron Fist'? Sounds like a Stalinist to me!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:39 PM  

  • Jack

    Thanks for coming by!!!!!!!!!

    I would love if you would email me and tell me how you found my blog! You have no idea how great that would be...

    if not-- that is way cool too!

    Hope you come back!!!!!

    I think I just might take your advice and email a link to them!!


    YOU ARE BRILLIANT!!!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 9:49 PM  

  • While this particular essay of Churchill's is laden with inaccuracies, the underlying point, "You reap what you sow" is true. The fact is that the United States Government cannot go around deposing any leader or group of leaders that it chooses simply because they are madmen, as you so put it. Was Saddam a brutal, ruthless dictator? Yes, he was. However, which country gave him the funding and training to put him in power not to mention supplying him with the chemical and biological weapons used so effectively against the Iranians, Kurds, and Shia? If you honestly do not know the answer to those questions and refuse to accept my word here is a UPI article giving a little bit of 'forgotten' history. We put him in power.

    As for Osama, am I the only one that remembers how our CIA trained, funded, and used him to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and then abandoned him causing his 'holy war' against this country several years before we were 'invited' into Saudi Arabia?

    You seem like an intelligent, rational person, so I am willing to forgive these subtle historical facts being left out of your argument, maybe you forgot them or simply didn't know. However, these little facts tend to paint the underlying meaning of Churchill's essay in a different light, one that you should consider before you allow Nationalism, Patriotism, or whatever you choose to call it, to cloud your moral judgment. You cannot say that it is perfectly acceptable to allow an estimated 15,000-100,000 Iraqi Civilians to die for their freedom from a man that we placed in power and still expect to retain any semblance of moral standing.

    By Blogger Bob, at 10:03 PM  

  • Bob:

    Appreciate your post, but times change and political alliances change. Our world now operates under the "any enemy of yours is an enemy of mine" We were trying to isolate a regime that had taken our embassy and entrenched in Islamic fanatism. We can never know how things are going to change and things are not static. It is small minded not to take current world events into the mix and just take things out of context. We did nothing to deserve thousands of our people being murdered that way, and if you think differently, you are not worth fighting for anyway.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:15 PM  

  • I have a VERY POLITICALLY INCORRECT friend (Bass player for a swing band) who really got under some people's skin by always referring to Malcolm X as "Malcolm the Tenth". Malcolm X was born Malcolm Little on May 19, 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska. In Omaha, he is still a controversial character - achieving more notariety outside of our hamlet. He is a good precursor to Ward Churchill. (Strictly my opinion, of course - long live the chameleon).

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 11:16 PM  

  • More on the hero of Ward Churchill, Malcolm X:

    It was during this period of self-enlightenment that Malcolm's brother Reginald would visit and discuss his recent conversion to the Muslim religion. Reginald belonged to the religious organization the Nation of Islam (NOI).

    Intrigued, Malcolm began to study the teachings of NOI leader Elijah Muhammad. Muhammad taught that white society actively worked to keep African-Americans from empowering themselves and achieving political, economic and social success. Among other goals, the NOI fought for a state of their own, separate from one inhabited by white people. By the time he was paroled in 1952, Malcolm was a devoted follower with the new surname "X." (He considered "Little" a slave name and chose the "X" to signify his lost tribal name.)

    http://www.cmgww.com/historic/malcolm/about/bio.htm

    The chickens sure do come home to roost, don't they?

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 12:57 AM  

  • GREAT INFO TO ADD!!!

    This really just makes the whole picture of these people much clearer!!

    Thanks for sharing!!!!!!!!!!!!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 1:04 AM  

  • - Bobs points are well taken.....Unfortunately they paint a bad picture if he was trying to justify the Marxist Asshats mindless hatred of Bush, since most of the events he was talking about concerning Usama happened during Clinton's watch. But wait.....could it be that the liberal moonies actually hated Clinton's admin also. But then He was a Democrat and partisan blood is all that runs in liberal veins. Be careful who you accuse of partisan "blindness" Bob...Liberals invented the word.....

    By Blogger - Hunter, at 1:47 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home