It’s Not What You Say, It’s How You Say It
Chaz Hirata
29 April 2011
RD4
In the United States, Americans enjoy many civil liberties that are not granted in other countries. Chief among these rights is the freedom of speech which allows citizens to voice their opinions freely without fear of persecution. It is a right bestowed upon us by our forefathers to insure that Americans do not suffer any religious, journalistic, or verbal restriction or repression. While the First Amendment grants all Americans the freedom of speech, it does not protect the individual from the backlash and condemnation that may ensue as a result of those remarks or observations. [THESIS] For Ward Churchill’s distasteful and unpatriotic comments on the September 11th attacks, the author has indeed, as he put it, “reaped what he sowed.” [THESIS]
There are people like Ward Churchill who knowingly abuse this valuable right for their own personal benefit. In essence, these individuals are hiding behind the Bill of Rights and liberally interpreting the text to tailor-fit their needs. When Churchill claimed that the September 11th attacks were provoked by the United States’ stringent foreign policies, he made a valid point. However when he insinuated that the civilian workers killed in the World Trade Center bombing were “military targets” and that the real heroes were in fact the airplane hijackers who “manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives,” Churchill deservedly encountered harsh criticism and widespread condemnation. His sentiments were considered extremist and Anti-American, making him a social pariah and eventually costing him his job at the University of Colorado.
Churchill’s writing style can best be described as aggressive and antagonistic. His essays and books focus on controversial subjects like the US governments’ fight against the Black Panther movement and the systematic displacement of American Indians from their homeland. He is courageously defiant in his wording and his content is far from politically correct. While we must have free-thinkers like Ward Churchill to ruffle some feathers and say what needs to be said, it must be done in an appropriate manner.
Leo Tsuchiya writes, “Speakers like Ward Churchill must be carefully monitored and kept in check. Speakers like Churchill make nonsensical metaphors and use many controversial and emotionally charged material specifically to get a rise out of people. By using the "little Eichmanns" metaphor Churchill is using sensationalism to increase interest in his book and essay. His writing can't stand on his own so he is creating a stir and interest by using such an emotionally charged term. Speakers like Churchill who use this type of material just to draw attention to their own works or agenda must not be allowed to thrive or it will overshadow the people who do not employ sensationalist tactics and have real material that people should be aware of.”
I agree with Leo that the crucial mistake made by Churchill was the unsympathetic and abrasive tone of his essay. His choice of words was off-putting and extremely offensive to the families of those killed in the September 11th attacks. The author appears to be out of touch with reality, unwilling or unable to see eye-to-eye with his intended audience. As we move into the 21st century, many Americans are still not in tune with the world around us. When Churchill reiterates that point in his essay, you can sense his distaste for his fellow countrymen. He writes, “As a whole, the American public greeted these revelations with yawns. There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Getting ‘Jeremy’ and ‘Ellington’ to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little ‘Tiffany’ and ‘Ashley’ had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords.” (Churchill)
He goes on to disparage and belittle his fellow countrymen by questioning their ethical fortitude in allowing an act of “deliberate genocide” to occur, later insinuating that the World Trade Center bombings were some richly deserved retaliation or as he put it, merely “chickens coming home to roost.” These statements struck a nerve in the general populace. There were angry letters and over 100 death threats aimed at Churchill as outraged citizens protested his personal analysis of the September 11th attacks.
In his essay, Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, Churchill writes, “True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire and they did so both willingly and knowingly. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.” (Churchill)
These statements allege that these attacks represented America “reaping what it sowed.” However, the 9/11 attacks cannot be justified solely based on the United States prior transgressions. Jeremy Hine states, “In the aftermath of September, 11, 2001 Ward Churchill's essay made many valid points on the causation of the 9/11 attacks as he tried to come to an intellectual understanding of how such attacks could have happened. However, his insensitivity and offensiveness when using certain correlations with 9/11 victims made many of his arguments weaker. This being said, we cannot silence such speech. I think many Americans are offended by the notion that we are in some way implicit in what happened on September 11, which I think is another reason so many jumped to attack Churchill. Freedom of speech means we have to accept and allow statements and sentiments that we don't agree with, in order that we can make statements that others will not agree with. Although there are several things I disagree on with Churchill, I would be the first to stand up and defend his right to speak his opinion. I have strong opinions myself, and I would want the same protection to say what I think.”
I would argue that most Americans are aware of our country’s history of political missteps and understand that terrorism is one of its consequences. However, Churchill’s declaration that civilians killed in the September 11th attacks were somehow comparable to Nazis could be the most ludicrous statement ever made. Just because these citizens worked for the US government in an administrative building, Churchill sees them as a justifiable target for terrorism? This guilt by association would incriminate us all as American citizens. If this is the case, who is to say that Churchill himself is not partially to blame? How can he feel comfortable chastising others about their lack of action when he chose to stand by and do nothing?
In his addendum, Churchill finishes by saying, “I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things. For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins. Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter. Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ‘50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner). And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” (Churchill)
I imagine that Ward Churchill’s noticeable distaste for America stems from his Native American heritage and the federal government’s long history of exploitation of American Indians. As a professor of ethnic studies, he stepped outside of his area of expertise and his ideas were met with hostility and anger. His essay dehumanized the victims of the World Trade Center bombings and characterized them as mindless drones working for the powers that be. Instead of celebrating them as hard-working Americans who had their lives ended too soon, he rationalized that their deaths were justified and even necessary. In a 2004 interview Churchill was quoted stating, “One of the things [I’ve] suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary.”
We must remember many Americans lost important family members and loved ones in this tragedy and are still in mourning. Although Ward Churchill was unaffected by this tragedy, September 11th will be remembered by many as the day when their lives changed forever. Instead of honoring those who perished on that fateful day, Churchill chose to denigrate the victims and their families. For that, Ward Churchill deserves nothing more than our contempt and disdain.
Works Cited
[Churchill, Ward. "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." N.d. _Dark Night Press_. From _Pockets of Resistance_, 11 Sep. 2001. 14 Nov. 2006 <http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&c=recent&view=9&long=1>]
[Hine, Jeremy. “Defend Churchill” Online posting. 18 April 2011. Laulima Discussion. 27 April 2011. <https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201130/page/dce5cccd-f9ac-4ad1-8c6b-6896281bf756>]
["The Bill of Rights." N.d. NARA Webpage. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 20 June 2004 <http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html>]
[Tsuchiya, Leo. “Attack Ward Churchill” Online posting. 15 April 2011. Laulima Discussion. 27 April 2011. <https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201130/page/dce5cccd-f9ac-4ad1-8c6b-6896281bf756>]
Log of Completed Activities
_X_ Apr. 7- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4.
_X_ Apr. 11- Complete readings for paper #4.
_X_ Apr. 15- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X_ Apr. 21- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X_ Apr. 29- Submit RD4. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines.
_X_ May 2- Submit three RD4 evaluations [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
_X_ May 4-9- Submit FD4 [150 pts] Review the guidelines.
