MarkBen N. Paulino
28 November 2011
RD4
Everyone is entitled to ones’ own opinions and has the ability to speak of it freely, as supported by the 1st Amendment. Just because we have the right to speak doesn’t mean we should say all that is on our mind, especially if one has professional ties such as Ward Churchill. I understand where Churchill comes from and the meaning behind parts of his essay. The way he has written portrays a tone that demoralizes the American people and surfaced an unpatriotic feeling. Churchill is a tenured professor at a university and is predisposed to critical evaluations, which he should be aware of. He is an ethics professor a topic that is supposed to teach the difference between right and wrong and the virtues. [THESIS] Churchill has written a paper that has brought much controversy because of the lack of professionalism and his title as a professor, thus I cannot defend him. [THESIS]
28 November 2011
RD4
Everyone is entitled to ones’ own opinions and has the ability to speak of it freely, as supported by the 1st Amendment. Just because we have the right to speak doesn’t mean we should say all that is on our mind, especially if one has professional ties such as Ward Churchill. I understand where Churchill comes from and the meaning behind parts of his essay. The way he has written portrays a tone that demoralizes the American people and surfaced an unpatriotic feeling. Churchill is a tenured professor at a university and is predisposed to critical evaluations, which he should be aware of. He is an ethics professor a topic that is supposed to teach the difference between right and wrong and the virtues. [THESIS] Churchill has written a paper that has brought much controversy because of the lack of professionalism and his title as a professor, thus I cannot defend him. [THESIS]
I believe it is good that our university system has brought people from all walks of life and with different opinions. We should be open and display how diversified our school system is. We can’t just invite people we like then we would be one-sided just like Churchill. I am fine if we have the funds to pay for expenses such as flight and housing within reasonable price (i.e. not a 4 or 5 star hotel or first class seating that cost several hundreds). No speaker should be given compensation unless separate funding is provided either from the attendees, private donors, etc.
"I am not a 'defender' of the Sept. 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," stated Churchill. I’m sure the critics attacking Churchill knows where he comes from. Portions of the essay simply states that there are people who do not like the U.S. because of the way we monopolize and overpower other countries, after all we are currently known as the power country of the world. We have gone to other countries overtook their land and made people conform to what we see fit, sometimes resulting in casualties. This has angered many people and who’s to say there would be no recoil. If any army were to invade the United States because they see us as unfit, we are sure to retaliate. Churchill states past acts by the United States that seen retrospectively as despicable and inhumane and I do agree with that. This is as far as I’ll go to defending Churchill, but for the most part, a large portion of his essay is written in ways that I do not see fit of an ethics professor. Although he states that his essay was written out of a University setting/context he is an ethics professor and I believe there is an ethical dilemma.
Churchill outlandishly states that none of the people killed during the 9/11 attack were innocent. He has not clearly justified what the victims were guilty of to support his accusation of their non-innocence. Just like any other people they are working people, performing a job in order to obtain financial stability to support their life and even families, if working to support one’s life or family then all is guilty. He blames these people who worked at the world trade center for making profit for the United States who are in association with the military. Is it not the military that protects the people of the United States including Churchill from invasion of other countries and reducing the possibility of communism or genocide of all American Indians, which he supposedly claims to be. Every country has people who work and indirectly finances their government, yet he insinuates that the United States are the only ones. As a professor of ethics he should not have made the accusations of these people who passed to be not innocent and Eichmann-like. There is no evidence to say every single person who has died to be guilty of some sort, none were given a trial of justice and thus no ethical decision could be inferred.
Churchill practically itemized all the sordid actions and killings of the United States. He has done all he can to make the American people seem like the devil himself, that we have done no good and our land is surrounded with an aura of darkness. His essay can be seen as card-stacking, thus labeling him as a radical, right-wing, or anti-American seems appropriate in many ways. He has not once mentioned the good or the repentance that the United States have done. We have tried to amend what we have done, such as taking land away from the Natives and giving back even with monetary compensation. Just look at the Native Hawaiians who have been given a private school and funds to support those that seek college degrees. We have established the Peace Corps to aid developing countries and provided relief efforts to many other countries such as Haiti during their earthquake and recently to Japan when they were inundated due to the earthquake and tsunami. Churchill has mentioned much of the past and not enough of the present as the government, the people, and the whole world is changing. We, the world, have become closer to one another and communication between countries has increased greatly.
Churchill takes the United States government for granted. As Drake Akiyoshi states, “Freedom of speech is a freedom that has been given to us due to the sacrifice others before us has made.” It is the government who gives Churchill to speak worry-free. It is the government who has given Church and the American people certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. He is a tenured professor at a public university where his salary is much greater than the median. The university is supported by the state and government, which in turn supports Churchill’s job safety and salary. With all that the United States has done for Churchill he still disgraces the government and its people by writing such an essay. He must not have a sense of moral value or feel no appreciation for all the United States has done and given him. In all the readings given, none reveals how thankful he is to be a tenured professor or being given the right to speak freely. In many other places such as Iraq, this may be considered blasphemy and who knows what consequence would be brought upon him.
Not only has his essay brought about a controversial topic, but also his credentials as a PhD and a Native American Indian. He claims to have a PhD, but it is said that there are no documented proof. This further devalues his credibility, not only because he does not have proof, but that he had falsified this info. He also claims to be Native American or at least one-sixteenth, but has not been able to identify any ancestral lineage and no tribe has come up to support his claim. Again further decreasing his reputability. If he was a Native American, he has then brought disgrace among them. As stated by Suzan Harjo, president of a national American Indian-rights organization, “[Churchill has] besmirched the good name of Native Americans who rushed to ground zero and did ceremonies for the people there and poured money into the relief effort.” Not only has he brought up a topic of great controversy, but also a controversy of him where people now doubt him as a person. How can this much disapproval arise from a topic, unless it is abysmal.
Churchill outlandishly states that none of the people killed during the 9/11 attack were innocent. He has not clearly justified what the victims were guilty of to support his accusation of their non-innocence. Just like any other people they are working people, performing a job in order to obtain financial stability to support their life and even families, if working to support one’s life or family then all is guilty. He blames these people who worked at the world trade center for making profit for the United States who are in association with the military. Is it not the military that protects the people of the United States including Churchill from invasion of other countries and reducing the possibility of communism or genocide of all American Indians, which he supposedly claims to be. Every country has people who work and indirectly finances their government, yet he insinuates that the United States are the only ones. As a professor of ethics he should not have made the accusations of these people who passed to be not innocent and Eichmann-like. There is no evidence to say every single person who has died to be guilty of some sort, none were given a trial of justice and thus no ethical decision could be inferred.
Churchill practically itemized all the sordid actions and killings of the United States. He has done all he can to make the American people seem like the devil himself, that we have done no good and our land is surrounded with an aura of darkness. His essay can be seen as card-stacking, thus labeling him as a radical, right-wing, or anti-American seems appropriate in many ways. He has not once mentioned the good or the repentance that the United States have done. We have tried to amend what we have done, such as taking land away from the Natives and giving back even with monetary compensation. Just look at the Native Hawaiians who have been given a private school and funds to support those that seek college degrees. We have established the Peace Corps to aid developing countries and provided relief efforts to many other countries such as Haiti during their earthquake and recently to Japan when they were inundated due to the earthquake and tsunami. Churchill has mentioned much of the past and not enough of the present as the government, the people, and the whole world is changing. We, the world, have become closer to one another and communication between countries has increased greatly.
Churchill takes the United States government for granted. As Drake Akiyoshi states, “Freedom of speech is a freedom that has been given to us due to the sacrifice others before us has made.” It is the government who gives Churchill to speak worry-free. It is the government who has given Church and the American people certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. He is a tenured professor at a public university where his salary is much greater than the median. The university is supported by the state and government, which in turn supports Churchill’s job safety and salary. With all that the United States has done for Churchill he still disgraces the government and its people by writing such an essay. He must not have a sense of moral value or feel no appreciation for all the United States has done and given him. In all the readings given, none reveals how thankful he is to be a tenured professor or being given the right to speak freely. In many other places such as Iraq, this may be considered blasphemy and who knows what consequence would be brought upon him.
Not only has his essay brought about a controversial topic, but also his credentials as a PhD and a Native American Indian. He claims to have a PhD, but it is said that there are no documented proof. This further devalues his credibility, not only because he does not have proof, but that he had falsified this info. He also claims to be Native American or at least one-sixteenth, but has not been able to identify any ancestral lineage and no tribe has come up to support his claim. Again further decreasing his reputability. If he was a Native American, he has then brought disgrace among them. As stated by Suzan Harjo, president of a national American Indian-rights organization, “[Churchill has] besmirched the good name of Native Americans who rushed to ground zero and did ceremonies for the people there and poured money into the relief effort.” Not only has he brought up a topic of great controversy, but also a controversy of him where people now doubt him as a person. How can this much disapproval arise from a topic, unless it is abysmal.
Overall, I believe that universities should allow people whether they are disliked or not to have the opportunity to express their views. If there is a high volume of attendees such as that during Churchill’s appearance, then I believe it was not a waste. Portions of Churchill’s essay can be seen as true, in that the United States have made some decisions that have negatively impacted other countries and their populace. The United States has changed and continues to change that is for the betterment of the people and the world. In regards, to his essay as a whole it seems to be unfitting. He is an ethics professor who is supposed to have the ability to view the sides of two opposing parties and make an ethical judgment, his paper however proves otherwise. In Churchill’s essay, he has card-stacked in a way that portrays the United States as evil with no appreciation for the good that the United States has done. He insinuates all who worked at the world trade center were not that innocent, meaning their deaths were acceptable, this is something a kind-hearted person would never say more so a professor of ethics. I do not understand why Churchill continues to reside in the United States if he views the people as little Eichmanns. Churchill is a contradiction who should have been a national of another country.
Works Cited
Akiyoshi, Drake. “Attacking Ward Churchill.” Online posting. 17 November 2011. Laulima Discussion. 28 November 2011 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu].
Beaudin, Matthew. "Churchill Quits Chairmanship." dailycamera.com 1 Feb. 2005. 10 Apr. 2006 <http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_3513453,00.html>.
Steers, Stuart. "Churchill, the Man, an Enigma." RockyMountainNews.com 2 Feb. 2005. 19 Feb. 2005 <http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3516107,00.html>.
