Ward Churchill

[a.k.a.]

I’m sure at least some of

you have been following the media circus surrounding Ward Churchill. The corporate press frames him as some sort of

wild eyed agitator; while the alternative press tends to depict him as some kind of hero for democracy.
(For

a relatively balanced view, check out this recent interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman:

http://www.democracynow.org/article....5/02/18/157211 )


The funny (?) thing is that

I’ve met him on several occasions and my impression is that he’s not very radical at all. One of those armchair

pontificators that would probably run and hide if a real revolution ever hit the streets.
Truth is, I don’t

quite like the man. Part of it may be that I have to introduce myself afresh every time. Another thing is that he

speaks with that smug certainty that I hate about academics.
But mostly I hate his open disdain for class

analysis.

In my darker moments I think there’d be some karmic justice if he did get dismissed. Because

he stepped on quite a few Marxist backs (during a time when “communism” was the boogeyman) to get where he is

today.

But that would be wrong, because this whole ‘controversy’ has almost nothing to do with Ward

Churchill and almost everything to do with free speech, academic freedom, and the criminalization of

dissent.

First of all, the academic review that is currently taking place is pure media drama.


Like him or not, Ward Churchill is extremely intelligent, extremely well read, extremely prolific, and extremely

competent within his field. A walking encyclopedia of Civil Rights statutes and International Law.
Pick up one

of his books (I heartily recommend "Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the Fbi's Secret Wars Against Domestic

Dissent" or "Agents of Repression: The Fbi's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian

Movement" ) and you’ll see historical research the way it’s supposed to be done (Primary sources wherever they exist

and impeccable documentation throughout).
The notion that he lacks academic credentials and is merely skating

by on taxpayer money is pure fabrication; and IMO playing to racist images of lazy Indians demanding handouts from

Uncle Sam.

Second of all, even if you take his comments out of context, they don’t approach any

legalistic definition of sedition. (I’m sure this is why the focus is on his academic credentials.) Everything else

is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.
If you read his “little Eichmans” reference within context.

He’s making a good point about the blow-back we should expect from trying to impose a double-standard on the world.

Something that should concern anybody that’s genuinely concerned about national security.

Could he

have made the same point with a bit more tact and sensitivity? No doubt.
Is he a grandstanding little drama

prick? Probably.
Should he be stripped of his academic credentials and publicly demonized? Maybe the guy

deserves it, but I shudder to think of the precedent that this would set.

The way I see it, it’s not

about Ward Churchill’s career. It’s about our freedoms.

[DumLuc]

This put me in mind of the

Sinclair Lewis novel It Can't Happen Here. This is a quick review of the novel: 39 of 40 people found the

following review

helpful:

It

CAN Happen Here!, December 8,

2003
Reviewer:Charles Häberl (Cambridge, MA United States) -

See all my reviewsSurprisingly, Sinclair Lewis' darkly humorous tale of a fascist

takeover in the US, "It Can't Happen Here," is not merely out-of-print, but also quite hard to find. As dated as it

is (1935), its themes will be quite familiar to Americans today. It starts with the highly contested election of an

oafish yet strangely charismatic president, who talks like a "reformer" but is really in the pocket of big business,

who claims to be a home-spun "humanist," while appealing to religious extremists, and who speaks of "liberating"

women and minorities, as he gradually strips them of all their rights. One character, when describing him, says, "I

can't tell if he's a crook or a religious fanatic."
After he becomes elected, he puts the media - at that time,

radio and newspapers - under the supervision of the military and slowly begins buying up or closing down media

outlets. William Randolph Hearst, the Rupert Murdoch of his times, directs his newspapers to heap unqualified praise

upon the president and his policies, and gradually comes to develop a special relationship with the government. The

president, taking advantage of an economic crisis, strong-arms Congress into signing blank checks over to the

military and passing stringent and possibly unconstitutional laws, e.g. punishing universities when they don't

permit military recruiting or are not vociferous enough in their approval of his policies. Eventually, he takes

advantage of the crisis to convene military tribunals for civilians, and denounce all of his detractors as

unpatriotic and possibly treasonous.
I'll stop here, as I don't want to ruin the story -- I can imagine that you

can see where all this is going.