Ward Churchill

Hey proletarian I went to the University of Colorado during the Churchill controversy. He is not a Marxist, BTW, but a scholar of Marxism. He struck me as a hateful firebrand, oppositely yet equally the shit-kicker that Jerry Falwell was. Don't expect intellectual debate from this man, only the fiery, impassioned rhetoric of a man fully convinced of his own infallibility. I'm glad he is only a polemicist and not a politician, because bitter, spiteful men have always committed the most egregious acts of abuse of power. Hate is as poor a motivation as greed.

lolwut wrote:

Hey proletarian I went to the University of Colorado during the Churchill controversy. He is not a Marxist, BTW, but a scholar of Marxism. He struck me as a hateful firebrand, oppositely yet equally the shit-kicker that Jerry Falwell was. Don't expect intellectual debate from this man, only the fiery, impassioned rhetoric of a man fully convinced of his own infallibility. I'm glad he is only a polemicist and not a politician, because bitter, spiteful men have always committed the most egregious acts of abuse of power. Hate is as poor a motivation as greed.

I live in Denver, I have met Churchill and I think that although he is not a Marxist, he has more to offer Marxism than you are giving him credit for. Though he could work on his PR, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens is a book that redefined leftism in the age after 9/11. Frankly, I think that any Marxist that doesn't stand up for his academic right to say what he has to say, isn't a Marxist. Read him before you discredit him.

proletarian wrote:

I live in Denver, I have met Churchill and I think that although he is not a Marxist, he has more to offer Marxism than you are giving him credit for. Though he could work on his PR, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens is a book that redefined leftism in the age after 9/11. Frankly, I think that any Marxist that doesn't stand up for his academic right to say what he has to say, isn't a Marxist. Read him before you discredit him.

He may have "redefined leftism" for you and others who agree with him, but I have been fully engaged in progressive leftist politics without Churchill since my college years. In my opinion, playing the Nazi card to advance your argument is an attempt to convince by force of emotion rather than logic. If your argument is of sound logic it will continue to be so without resorting to labeling your opponents Nazis. And he was a plagiarist. And overall too vitriolic for my taste. I have nothing against vitriol in principle, but I just don't believe his is justified. He may have a small percentage of Indian ancestry, as do I (1/128th), but he is as much a citizen of the United States as I am. He claims to have the moral high ground of someone who exists apart from the system he criticizes, but he has probably bought a gallon or two of petroleum in his lifetime. But as always, I could be totally be wrong on this.

lolwut wrote:

He may have "redefined leftism" for you and others who agree with him, but I have been fully engaged in progressive leftist politics without Churchill since my college years.

If you don't buy his stint on imperialism, you aren't a leftist, since it is also what Lenin's stint on imperialism is. Somebody needed to write something on 9/11, and I thought it was tasteful for him to wait almost 4 years afterward to publish it.

lolwut wrote:

In my opinion, playing the Nazi card to advance your argument is an attempt to convince by force of emotion rather than logic. If your argument is of sound logic it will continue to be so without resorting to labeling your opponents Nazis.

You just oversimplified Churchill's arguments. If you are referring to his phrase "little Eichmann" it was intended to be used as an allusion to the fact that the Lawyers and businessmen of the WTO were indeed the enablers of Empire. How can you honestly disagree with this as a leftist? If you thought the rhetoric was harsh, stay out of the kitchen. Revolution isn't a dinner party.

lolwut wrote:

And he was a plagiarist.

This has been disproven by the University of Colorado, who reimbursed Churchill $1 in compensation for wrongful termination. Even if Churchill was a plagiarist, I don't see why that would affect any of the work he didn't plagiarize. If you were attempting to make an ad hom argument (he is wrong because he plagiarized), that is immeasurably juvenile.

lolwut wrote:

And overall too vitriolic for my taste.

As for mine. Like I said, he could use some PR skills, but the man is uncompromising, something that all leftists should model.

lolwut wrote:

I have nothing against vitriol in principle, but I just don't believe his is justified.

I believe that the man is "vitriol" because he is passionate about what he believes, and he believes that the vast majority of Americans are living in a state of apathetic ignorant bliss when it comes to where their cheap goods come from, and who's starving for it. Nothing wrong with admonishing people for not being smart consumers.

lolwut wrote:

He may have a small percentage of Indian ancestry, as do I (1/128th), but he is as much a citizen of the United States as I am

I'm pretty sure that Churchill has a bit more than 1/128th ancestry, but even if he didn't, John Brown wasn't black, Mao wasn't a poor peasant, Fidel came from a wealthy family, Marx was an academic. It's called "nation traitor," "class traitor," etc. Once again, his heritage is irrelevant. I am not any percent First Nation, but I am a full supporter of AIM and take an active role in the First Nation protests down here.

lolwut wrote:

but he is as much a citizen of the United States as I am.

Also irrelevant. I am a US citizen, yet I do not support the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Being a citizen =/= supporting your country's stupid and harmful decisions. Identity is also a very personal concept, and Ward Churchill identifies as an American Indian. If a transexual identifies as a woman rather than a man, are you going to tell them that their identity is wrong? Think about it before you answer.

lolwut wrote:

He claims to have the moral high ground of someone who exists apart from the system he criticizes, but he has probably bought a gallon or two of petroleum in his lifetime.

Once again, irrelevant, because you yourself are a leftist, yet you are also a beneficiary of imperialism. By your logic, we should all be mountain man minimalists which is stupid because:
1) It's nearly impossible to live in an oppressive system without being oppressive yourself
2) You are doing more harm than good because you are not helping to fix the problem, but instead, shifting the responsibility to others while pursuing what you see as a liberalized altruistic existence. Ward Churchill is using the tools he has to draw attention to things that are inherently wrong with the world.

This is a stupid thing to be arguing about. I suggest actually reading Churchill and understanding him before trying to discredit me by discrediting him. I'm not surprised that you are turning away from leftism, because it seems to me like you haven't studied it much, nor do you hold the same thought processes as a leftist. Maybe sticking to Social-Democracy is the path you should take. Anyways, this conversation is over, because its a juvenile attempt at discrediting somebody's opinion by the person in their avatar.

Welcome to S-E.

I remain firmly committed to leftism. Dogmatism is what I aim to shatter. And I too am bored of this talk of Ward Churchill. Your enthusiasm for him doesn't stop him from being one the most marginalized leftists in mainstream U.S. politics. Mickey Mouse has more relevance to practical, American leftism than Ward Churchill does. You remind me of one of those RCP Bob Avakian disciples.

lolwut wrote:

You remind me of one of those RCP Bob Avakian disciples.

Ha, no. Ward Churchill is still a First Worldist that I do not agree with. Don't try to play that I am a Cult of Personality freak because I defended the person in my avatar with shit that, frankly, you couldn't respond too.

I could not respond to your detailed defense of the writings of Churchill simply because I have not read him any deeper than what was presented in the media. I also got to meet with both his supporters and detractors in the school staff and student body while I myself was a student at CU, but I did not take any classes he taught. By all means, allow me some free time to read his shit and I will respond. My single point in all these words is essentially what you mentioned, that he has a PR problem. He is not the only fragging leftist who has ever said the things that he says, far from it. Like you said, intelligent analysis of imperialism and its effects has been around since Lenin and probably before. But when you play that fragging Nazi card you open yourself up to ad hominem attacks. The left needs people to represent them that have strength of character to not play that card, regardless of the veracity of their other work.

In an unrelated story, if Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, why couldn't Obama free the health care? Didn't the democrats have a supermajority when this shit was going on??!! They should have manned up and told the Reactionaries to suck it, bitch, we're going universal.

Ward Churchill is well known amongst First Nations and activist movements in Canada and The United States. I particularly liked his essays on 9/11. Probably not a Marxist, but not a marginalized, unknown figure either. He regularly visits Canada and gives lectures I believe.