M
Would you provide a link to back that up please?Bush's campaign has killed at least 4 times as more innocent people than on September the 11th.
skabanger13 said:Now this guy is a Moron, i thank its sick what he sead comparing the victims of 9/11 to Nazis, their wher children in that building and on those plains. if he thanks Americans are so bad maybe he should leave America, hell ill pay for his plain ticket to some remote 3rd world country wher he will get shot when he starts talking bad their government.Now you come to find out that he has plagiarized like all his essays that he wrote, hes had meetings with known terrorists and his clam of being native American , hes like 1/16, in that case I'm native American at least 1/16. This guy is a fine upstanding American, thats sarcasm by the way.
Squawker said:I think he has the right to speak out and I think the parents who contribute to the college have the right to withhold their money and find some place else to have their child educated. Would you provide a link to back that up please?
BOULDER, Colo. - University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has come under fire recently for comparing the Sept. 11 victims to Nazis and for questionable claims of Indian ancestry. Now, fellow academics are accusing him of fraud.
Several professors have alleged that in his writings, Churchill distorted the events surrounding a smallpox outbreak among Indians in North Dakota.
"I came across this story of genocide, and I thought: 'Why didn't I hear about this before?' As soon as you read his sources, you realize he is making it up," said Thomas Brown, an assistant professor of sociology at Lamar University who has researched Churchill's work.
Brown was referring to an essay in Churchill's book A Little Matter of Genocide, where he says the U.S. Army distributed blankets infected with smallpox to the Mandan Indians on the upper Missouri River in 1837.
"The blankets had been gathered from a military infirmary in St. Louis, where troops infected with the disease were quarantined," Churchill wrote. "Although the medical practice of the day required the precise opposite procedure, Army doctors ordered the Mandans to disperse once they exhibited signs of the infection. The result was a pandemic among the Plains Indian nations which claimed at least 125,000 lives."
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has come under serious scrutiny for an essay he wrote after Sept. 11, entitled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." In the piece, he argued that the Sept. 11 attacks were a legitimate response to the United States' treatment of Iraqis dating back to the Gulf War.
(Oops: I thought Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11.)
In this brilliant piece of scholarly wisdom, Churchill describes the terrorists as "combat teams," and the victims inside the twin towers as "little Eichmanns," in reference to Adolph Eichmann, the infamous Nazi who helped execute Hitler's plan to exterminate the world's Jews. He also went on to say that the victims at the Pentagon were military targets and that no victims were innocent.
In the last few weeks, Churchill has been at the center of a firestorm. He, his supporters and his opponents have debated the merits of his speech on every cable news channel ad nauseum. Hamilton College in New York cancelled a lecture by Churchill amidst the controversy, and while security concerns were cited, some free speech advocates believe the university caved in to public pressure. All the while, the governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, has called for Churchill's removal, and the University of Colorado is deciding if disciplinary measures (including firing Churchill) should be taken.
It's extremely easy right now to hate Ward Churchill. He's made baseless and egregious comments, offended anybody with a shred of decency and managed to insult innocent victims of terrorism. Nonetheless, his speech, albeit ridiculous, is constitutionally protected. The way to battle back against people like Churchill is to provide a normal opposing viewpoint, which in this case shouldn't be too difficult. The answer is not to silence him by firing him from the university for speaking his mind. In the end, well-reasoned and rational speeches win out over nonsensical ramblings. It's very easy to defend First Amendment rights when we agree with the speech in question. Any free society needs to protect the unpopular speech as well.
This country is going in the wrong direction and needs to get back to the principles that the founding fathers put in place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?