| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ferrix
|
 Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
This was the first time I heard of Ward Churchill, so thanks - it's good to keep informed. Although I can't help thinking that what he has to say on the subject of 9/11, Iraq and US war crimes is not that new or original - Noam Chomsky (as well as much of the world outside of US) have been saying it for years...
|
|
|
 |
jebba
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya, Churchill has been saying it for years too. ;)
He mostly focuses on Native American issues. I've seen one of his books (something like "A little Matter of Genocide") and it is quite different from his rant. It is very much an academic book and has /extensive/ citations.
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
Jason
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you believe though. The book or the rant. The rant written from the heart or a book having gone through a ton of proofreaders and editors. One makes the other look like hot air and you wonder if perhaps he sells his soul to benefit commercially. Consistency is a key. You want to be left and target specific peop,e then by all means do so. Swerving and differing each time is just not the way to go I feel.
|
|
|
|
jebba
|
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'm not sure he's swerving.
One was written "in the heat of the moment" and was a rant. The other one is more the work of a professor.
Surely someone can write in both styles.
|
|
|
|
weyasey
|
| Posted: Thu May 05, 2005 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jason said
| Quote: | | Ward Churchill's rant was so far left that anyone neutral or right will instantly dismiss it. |
Now Churchill is showing that his views are not the ravings of a mad man but are the views of a sane (matter for debate) intellegent person.
We have to take into consideration that whenever anyone goes against the status quo especially on a subject of national patriotism, there will be mud slinging.
As the old cliche goes "It's a tough job but someone has to do it" and as always the messenger will be shot.
Weyasey
|
_________________
If it hurts it's because you're alive. |
|
|
Jason
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jebba wrote: | | Surely someone can write in both styles. |
That is true enough. The problem is quite often if you differ enough you can look like your heart is not in it or you aren't 100% believing in what is being said.
Same concept applies to us though if you want a different analogy. You can use both Linux and Windows but cannot be a Linux diehard when using both. If you preach something enough and go so far left (or a particular OS for instance), then to be caught using the other is almost hypocritical.
You also cannot love two girls with all your heart because giving 100% to both is impossible. You may do 60/40 or 90/10 but not give either 100%.
Now Churchill differs slightly because he did not contradict himself which would have been fatal. However changing your style is sometimes enough to make it look like you are backtracking or swerving. I am not saying I could have done better because I couldn't but maybe someone else doing one style and the other doing the other style may have been more beneficial. In politics or any political rant, you need to stick to one path and go down it. The public eye is a bitch sometimes but if you make your bed you must lay in it. However I don't hate the guy or not show him any respect. He is entitled to his opinion and an opinion can never be wrong. The basis of the opinion can be wrong but no one has any right to tell anyone else how to think. So well done to him for sticking to his guns however he may appear to deviate to the external eye.
| weyasey wrote: | | As the old cliche goes "It's a tough job but someone has to do it" and as always the messenger will be shot. |
Then surely one would realise it goes with the territory and has no reason to complain about it. Otherwise it would be a bit like joining the firefighters and moaning if you got burnt.
|
|
|
|
tron
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason wrote: |
That is true enough. The problem is quite often if you differ enough you can look like your heart is not in it or you aren't 100% believing in what is being said. |
well not really having different styles is nothing to do with believes. They are just means to achive an aim
| Jason wrote: |
Same concept applies to us though if you want a different analogy. You can use both Linux and Windows but cannot be a Linux diehard when using both. If you preach something enough and go so far left (or a particular OS for instance), then to be caught using the other is almost hypocritical. |
well again the gnu/linux versus M$ Windowz or even better the open source versus proprietary s/w have nothing to do with styles of doing things but legal and sociological matters of contributing to the society.
From ranted papers to "proper books" is not really the case of gnu/linux v windowz... (GPL or Proprietary is something else than styles)
| Jason wrote: |
Then surely one would realise it goes with the territory and has no reason to complain about it. Otherwise it would be a bit like joining the firefighters and moaning if you got burnt. |
There are always reasons to complain about what is wrong, no matter *how* likely are things to happen (wheter or not you will get a bad reaction), if is not fair or unjust you must complain if you can or you will always be down, very down
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
very interesting...
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Churchill is a complete fraud.
His "ethnicity" is fake, his "degrees" are fake, and his very presence (not to mention his tenure) is an insult to any real educator (or anyone educated in ACTUAL history).
He's just one of the most noisy though.
The universities are chock full o' moonbats just like him, and they have become little more than marxist indoctrination centers.
This is certainly not unique to the US though.
Modern academia is a sad joke on both sides of the pond.
Neo feudalists and racists have had it in a headlock for a few decades now and it is going to be quite a task dislodging them.
Thank God for new media.
At least they can be held up to public scrutiny SOMEWHERE now.
Maybe it will wake people to the garbage that is passing for "education" nowadays.
One can hope anyway...
|
|
|
|
Jason
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As much as I am neither for or against Churchill, don't you think them comments are rather slanderous without fact? Or do you have facts to back up what you say. You are allowed an opinion yes and if that is your opinion fine. I am intrigued though to know if you can add more to this.
|
|
|
|
rob.linux
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's very easy ( and safe ) to be slanderous and ignorant when you are also anonymous ....
Rob C.
|
_________________
Registered Linux User # 342652 Mandriva One 2007 Spring |
|
|
rektruax
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 1:00 pm Post subject: New Media? |
|
|
Here here Rob. While I can appreciate the idea that a greater truth can be expressed via anonymity, this is just a computer "geek" forum... I've read the essay in question, and I guess I might be a little jaded but didn't find anything too objectionable. Rant? In some ways I suppose, but no worse than plenty I've seen before. Being surprised by a left-wing rant from a college professor is like getting "outraged" by the antics of a pop star. "New media"... Please! New media, old media. They're out to feed an audience and shill products. Right now that audience seems to lean to the right. Someday it'll lean to the left and there will be another "new media". Yawn...
|
_________________
Few things bore me more than a "man on a mission". |
|
|
jebba
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Guest" just did an ad-hominem attack against Churchill, which is typical of what you see on things like Fox. I'd be interested to hear of anything incorrect in any of his academic books, properly cited...
He complains about low standards in schools and such, but then makes a simplistic attack....
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just didnt bother registering as I am not going to be here much.
I argue with leftwingers all I care to elsewhere and since you wear your colors on your sleeve (which I thank you for) there wll be little point in me hanging around here as a lone whipping post.
If knowing something about me is important to your senses of "credibility", fine.
My name is Tony.
I am a Sicilian 42yr old college educated military vet from Louisiana that's raised 3 kids to and has 3 small businesses (from poor parents - all on my own steam).
Better now?
I stand by what I said.
Watch the news on that fella that says what you like to hear.
He is being brought up on charges of plagiarism and fraud by a few different universities and actual professors right now.
I was "educated" by his ilk and I know from study and personal exposure that he is a lying, deluded sack of shit.
I have studied history for 20+yrs, but unlike most insulated, tenured, pseudo-intellectuals, I have traveled the globe and done most of it in the 3rd world.
As for media, well I cant speak for europe beyond what I see from the BBC, but in the US the media and congress had 50yrs of leftwing monopoly (and they still have academia in a headlock via unions and tenure).
This media lock was broken in the last 10yrs by the emergence of the hated Fox network, talkradio, and the internet.
Fox stands alone among all the other networks as having any conservative commentary (yea I know about the rare token conservatives on the others - same as always).
The internet reflects this ratio as well - among large news sources anyway.
Blogs and such tend to be a more even split - just like society I suppose.
Talkradio hasnt been sucessful for the left for one reason: they already have most of tv and newspapers. Their listeners dont need talkradio (which got popular with conservatives before Fox was around and they had only leftwing mouthpieces like CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS on tv).
Anyhow, take the time to learn both sides of things guys.
Rhetoric is nothing in the face of honesty - no matter how unpleasant.
|
|
|
|
jebba
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | I just didnt bother registering as I am not going to be here much.
I argue with leftwingers all I care to elsewhere and since you wear your colors on your sleeve (which I thank you for) there wll be little point in me hanging around here as a lone whipping post.
If knowing something about me is important to your senses of "credibility", fine.
My name is Tony.
I am a Sicilian 42yr old college educated military vet from Louisiana that's raised 3 kids to and has 3 small businesses (from poor parents - all on my own steam).
Better now? |
Uh, what I was talking about was the fact that you said he was basically dishonest without giving any supporting info. Perhaps you could actually quote something he wrote and disproved it. I don't care if you log in as guest or "tony" or whatever.
An "ad hominem" just means that you are attacking him as a person and sticking labels on him, without refuting his argument. Here's words you use that are attacks, but don't really convey anything: fraud, fake, insult, noisy, moonbats, marxist, sad joke, neo feudalist, racist, garbage, "education" (scare quotes), leftwingers, plagiarism, lying, deluded sack of shit, insulated, pseudo-intellectual, leftwing..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
| Anonymous wrote: | | I stand by what I said. |
Brilliant.
| Anonymous wrote: | | Watch the news on that fella that says what you like to hear. |
The news? I don't think they are the best crowd to do any analysis here. They aren't exactly known for their depth in covering issues. Reading the book and saying "page 27 he says X, but the truth is Y, as you can see by checking Z" or something is much more of a refutation than "I saw it on the news"...
| Anonymous wrote: | | He is being brought up on charges of plagiarism and fraud by a few different universities and actual professors right now. |
Being brought up on "charges" makes him guilty? Of course he's going to be targetted for what he wrote--it doesn't mean he's guilty just because he's charged.
| Anonymous wrote: | | I was "educated" by his ilk and I know from study and personal exposure that he is a lying, deluded sack of shit. |
Man, your writing is like a case study of "Informal Fallacies".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
In this case, your informal fallacy is "guilt by association" along the lines of "I had bad professors, he's a professor, he's bad".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association
| Anonymous wrote: | | I have studied history for 20+yrs, but unlike most insulated, tenured, pseudo-intellectuals, I have traveled the globe and done most of it in the 3rd world. |
Ah, the "appeal to authority" fallacy--in this case calling yourself the authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I have also travelled to ~30 countries (about half "3rd world") and have studied history for years. But it doesn't matter...as you can read above.
| Anonymous wrote: | | As for media, well I cant speak for europe beyond what I see from the BBC, but in the US the media and congress had 50yrs of leftwing monopoly (and they still have academia in a headlock via unions and tenure). |
Wow. If you think the US media is left wing... Holy smokes. Anyway, it's simply just your favorite ad hominem argument...
| Anonymous wrote: | This media lock was broken in the last 10yrs by the emergence of the hated Fox network, talkradio, and the internet.
Fox stands alone among all the other networks as having any conservative commentary (yea I know about the rare token conservatives on the others - same as always).
The internet reflects this ratio as well - among large news sources anyway.
Blogs and such tend to be a more even split - just like society I suppose.
Talkradio hasnt been sucessful for the left for one reason: they already have most of tv and newspapers. Their listeners dont need talkradio (which got popular with conservatives before Fox was around and they had only leftwing mouthpieces like CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS on tv). |
Uh, OK. Yes, the Internet is changing the media landscape.
| Anonymous wrote: | Anyhow, take the time to learn both sides of things guys.
Rhetoric is nothing in the face of honesty - no matter how unpleasant. |
You are being honest? You are relying on rhetoric only and not supplying any substantive arguments to this thread.
You have clearly committed a number of logical fallacies--I pointed out a few above. Those interested can learn more about these types of arguments by reading the links here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Oh, and yes, I've studied symbolic & informal logic. But that doesn't matter of course. Merely saying it is irrelevant--you have to /show/ it.
MHO,
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
