Pro-Terrorist Ward Churchill a plagiarist?

[Giancarlo]

I'm not saying America has done no wrong. I'm saying that is irrelevant to whether those in the WTC were nazis... and start calling me by my real name if you want any respect from me. Personally I think everything you say is horse****, but that's my own opinion. Ward Churchill is not correct anything and he should be beaten up, in my opinion.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Yes, well if you choose to willfully ignore the rampant misbehavior of the United States in its direction of power, then you are indeed most responsible for any deaths that occur because of it. As such, not everyone who died on 9-11 were completely innocent of all charges - any advancement of US atrocities automatically bloodies your hand.
Fez, you are of course, free to disagree (unlike your fascist beliefs, I actually believe in free speech) however again, on this point he is completely justified in his beliefs.

Again this is irrelevant. The rampant misbehavior? What misbehavior? Again I don't agree. I also vehemently disagree with you on the 9/11 victims. I support the US war in Iraq but that does not make me a target. Additionally, this thread has moreso to do with the plagiarism committed by this professor. Additionally, it has to do with ethics. He is not completely justified in his beliefs, because america does no wrong.

[joncha]

Wow. Tass and Fez having a civil discussion on a highly charged political issue.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Not in my eyes, no, but in the eyes of many people around the world it does. You support a war that has taken the lives of so many and plunged Iraq into far more instability than it was in previously, now bringing instability to the entire region (moreso than before)...And then details of American "misbehavior" (to put it *mildly*) in Iraq only fuels this sentiment.

I don't care about other people who take issue with something that is nonexistent. It does not make it justified. And I support a war that liberated millions. Iraq is more better off then it was before. And there is no discussion to that. You will not discuss that point because it is indisputable. Actually this has brought a revolution of thought to the region. Again no, you are wrong. In fact you are hideously wrong.

Not by your beliefs, of course. However, I believe that bringing freedom and life are far more ethical than bringing despotism and death
Additionally, your support for the latter is what he is referencing to and, obviously what many people around the world (some of whom have taken up arms against the United States) take issue with

No. I believe in freedom and life, more then you do. That's why I supported the war against Saddam. I support freedom. I support both social and economic freedom, so please stop BSing people about what I supposeably believe in. And many people support the US around the world.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Even pretending it is nonexistent (which is false, btw), its probably best to take some concern in it considering the little mess theyve trapped the American military in

The little mess? Again stop being delusional and making things up. We got elections to go forward didn't we? we made it possible.

Not so much....Instability, fear, collapse of infrastructure, on top of all the human lives that American imperialism has cost in the past ten years...It seems that the US cycle of blood will continue for the forseeable future

Instability, fear and collapse of infrastructure was a fact during Saddam's regime. American imperialism? You are soooo delusional and so wrong. I will not respond to these repetitions of falsehoods, and little slanderous comments you make.

Really? I'm not seeing it, unless you mean a revolution in anti-American sentiment

Idiotic thinking. There has been democratic revolution over the middle east... more and more countries are starting elections.

You supported the war against Iraq because your dear leader told you to, Fezzie. Dear me, you are far more indoctrinated than even the most radical communist has ever been.

And who is telling you to believe in what you do? Anti-war people.. who are far more delusional then Bush. Also no, I had my own reasons for supporting this war so again stop putting words in my mouth.

You support whatever the Party tells you to support - restrictions on freedoms in various nations caused by the United States tend to lend to this, and your support for various dictators (none of whom will be mentioned) also seems to indicate you are far less supportive of freedom than you seem to espouse.
But please, your attempts at deception are most amusing

Again no I don't. In fact I'm not even registered as a republican voter. I'm registered as non-partisan. What dictators exactly? Try to name any. Please I'd like to hear this. And none of your bull**** accusations either... thanks. You are the one deceiving people here, and you are the one who is amusing.

But unfortunately they tend to be Americans. Infact, support AGAINST the US tends to be far higher in, well, nearly every region of the world.
Oh well

Nope. Prove it.

[Agathon]

I won't bother with the rest. Your responses have very little merit Might as well stick to the main point.

Me: If Churchill's guilty of the charges, he should be fired. Since he's a pompous ******* who says repugnant things, I'll enjoy it if that happens.

You: Who cares if Churchill committed a crime or not? He should be given carte blanche to do as he likes because actually enforcing the law would give a small modicum of satisfaction to people I hate.

Nice misrepresentation. Unfortunately, that won't work.

My position is that the plagiarism charges are only getting any play because of the context. That seems obviously true - no one would care otherwise. More to the point these sorts of things are always brought up in an efffort to fire people with unpopular views (If I hadn't personally seen this happen half a dozen times before, I might actually believe you - but I know what I'm talking about, so I don't).

So the reality is: left wing academic under threat because of right wing campaign to oust him.

Your pleasure at Churchill getting fired, is simply childish. If he goes, for whatever reason - that's not just a "small modicum of satisfaction to people I hate", it's a big win to nutcases like David Horowitz who want to purge radicals from campus and institute an "academic bill of rights" which is code for restricting academic freedom. I don't really care about Churchill individually, but I care that this doesn't happen.

If Churchill goes, for whatever stated reason, the real reason will be that the right wing campaign worked. After all, the plagiarism accusations are only getting air because of the context. If he's fired over these charges, it won't be because of them, it will be because they are a convenient excuse. That is a fact.

If he does go, then it will send a chill through the academic community (which it has already to some degree) and will embolden the right to oust other professors with views they don't like. There probably isn't a professor on any campus who couldn't be accused of doing something wrong and fired or suspended if pressure is brought to bear. Like I said, I have seen it happen many times. This is 100% political - it has really nothing much to do with the plagiarism and everything to do with censoring people like Ward Churchill.

In the grand scheme of things, it would simply be better to let one guy get away with plagiarism (if he actually did it) than to suffer the consequences of a general anti-leftist witch hunt on campuses across the US. I don't particularly care for Churchill himself, as I've stated, and I would probably not shed a tear were he fired in other circumstances, but the fact is that this is not what's happening. Ward Churchill is a test case for the right wing loons who want to tamper with academic freedom.

I guess you are incapable of understanding what "the greater good" means. But then again you are so absorbed with yourself that I don't find that hard to believe.

[Agathon]

And here's the reality of the "plagiarism" complaint:

On Tuesday, a Canadian university provided CU with an attorney's opinion on a 13-year- old publishing dispute involving Churchill. That attorney determined Churchill had published the work of one of the school's professors without adequate citation.

Dalhousie University of Nova Scotia spokesman Charles Crosby said CU officials contacted the school about whether Churchill misappropriated an essay by Dalhousie professor Fay G. Cohen for a 1992 book on Native Americans by Churchill's then-wife.

Cohen, in 1997, asked Dalhousie attorneys to determine whether Churchill took the essay without crediting her - and attorneys determined that he did.

Churchill had published Cohen's essay in 1991 in Copenhagen, Denmark, with her permission, and full credit. But in 1992, Churchill asked if he could publish it again, this time in North America in a collection being assembled by his then- wife. Cohen refused, and she says he published it anyway, without giving her credit, then threatened to "get her for this" when she objected, according to Crosby.

In the 1992 book, Cohen's essay is altered slightly in spots from the 1991 original, and the book says it was "prepared" by Churchill. Cohen is credited in endnotes and footnotes, but no true author is listed.

The similarities between Cohen's work and the article "prepared" by Churchill were published by historian John Lavelle in 1999, and never resulted in a lawsuit or university discipline.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2758694,00.html

See - it's not "plagiarism" as most people would think of it, and Churchill doesn't even claim authorship of the document (he claims to have "prepared" it, which is true). This is not a case of claiming that someone else's work is yours (plagiarism) but of using someone else's work without permission. That's bad, but it is not the academic offence that plagiarism is - it's more like a matter for a lawsuit than an academic offence tribunal.

See how badly you are a stooge for the right, Boris.

[Agathon]

And here are the knuckle draggers who are the prime movers behind it

http://www.claremont.org/

[Agathon]

And here's Churchill's response to the initial allegations. Note that Fez, like many right wingers calls him "pro-terrorist". In fact he is no such thing.

And most of what he says below is true.

Text of Churchill statement

By DenverPost.com

Here is the text of a statement distributed to the media Monday on behalf of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Spelling and punctuation have been left unaltered.

Press Release - Ward Churchill January 31, 2005

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.
Advertisement
Click Here!

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a "defender"of the September 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. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E53%7E2686093,00.html

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
Note that Fez, like many right wingers calls him "pro-terrorist". In fact he is no such thing.

Just an annoying ****wit.

[Agathon]

Just an annoying ****wit.

I'm prepared to accept that description. But that is no reason to fire him.

If it were, only Spiffor would have a job.

[DinoDoc]

I don't really care about Ward anymore. I had my fun in my thread about him. However, he really should be fired for his academic sins stealing essays and regularly invoking Godwin being chief among them.

One of the highlights of said thread: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...515975,00.html

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Agathon
And here's Churchill's response to the initial allegations. Note that Fez, like many right wingers calls him "pro-terrorist". In fact he is no such thing.

And most of what he says below is true.

The guy can claim all he wants. He is still pro-terrorist because he attacked the US government. Again you are either with us or against us. Furthermore, he called the 9/11 victims nazis. That's enough for me. Again stop misrepresenting the facts with a press release done by this *******.

Unfortunately for you, the charges of plagiarism were in fact substantiated.

[Agathon]

The guy can claim all he wants. He is still pro-terrorist because he attacked the US government.

OK. So this means that Republican representatives who disagree with Bush policies and attack the government (and there are quite a few) are pro-terrorist?

Hmmm...

Again you are either with us or against us.

Which is what Bush likes to say. Yet him saying it doesn't make it true.

Furthermore, he called the 9/11 victims nazis. That's enough for me. Again stop misrepresenting the facts with a press release done by this *******.

He called some of the workers in the WTC "Little Eichmanns", because he argued that they are technocratic enablers of the US war machine. That is debatable, but it certainly does not entail calling all the 9/11 victims Nazis.

If anything it's a poor choice of words because it makes it easy for people to Godwinize the argument and lose sight of what he was trying to say.

Unfortunately for you, the charges of plagiarism were in fact substantiated.

Yes, but as has been reported, it isn't plagiarism in the sense that Churchill presented another person's work as his own. What we have here is a case of using materials without permission, which is a different thing altogether.

Try looking at the facts before you accept the spin.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Agathon

The guy can claim all he wants. He is still pro-terrorist because he attacked the US government.

OK. So this means that Republican representatives who disagree with Bush policies and attack the government (and there are quite a few) are pro-terrorist?

He attacked the government on some very fundamental issues. Those lawmakers attacked the adminstration on some policy moves.

Which is what Bush likes to say. Yet him saying it doesn't make it true.

Yes it does. In fact it is very true right now.

He called some of the workers in the WTC "Little Eichmanns", because he argued that they are technocratic enablers of the US war machine. That is debatable, but it certainly does not entail calling all the 9/11 victims Nazis.

My friend's brother was a technican basically working for some federal agency. He is not a "little eichmann". The guy is full of ad hominems and I don't think you should give him any credibility.

If anything it's a poor choice of words because it makes it easy for people to Godwinize the argument and lose sight of what he was trying to say.

His whole argument sucked from the beginning, so what is it you are trying to say?

Yes, but as has been reported, it isn't plagiarism in the sense that Churchill presented another person's work as his own. What we have here is a case of using materials without permission, which is a different thing altogether.

Try looking at the facts before you accept the spin.

You read and look at the facts I posted. Not the crap you managed to post defending this monster. Presenting another person's work as his own IS PLAGIARISM... it isn't a different thing at all. You are starting to sound like Clinton when he said "it depends on what the meaning of is 'is'".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plagiarized

"To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another"

Sorry... you just got your ass kicked and you got PWNED!