Were the 9/11 victims innocent?
Hey all,
I have been hearing a lot about this Ward Churchill professor from Colorado on the news. I think what he has to say is kind of interesting and very controversial. What do you guys think? This is a link to one of the many columns written about him. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2676169,00.html
7 Comments:
sound very strange, I will read the article further and get back with you on the issue, but as far as innocence, how can we deny the victims innocence in a tragedy like this?!
Wow! I hadn't heard anything on this man yet, but I have to say that in a way, I kind of agree with him. Just as we tend to lump "Afganistan" or "Taliban" or "Al-Quida" together, its possible they lump "Americans" together and see us all not as individuals who may be for or against the actions of our highly industrialized nation, but as pollutors, women who dont cover themselves decently, all the things that are different where the differences offend them on some level. In that way it seems to me that we are all not as clean as we make ourselves out to be. I may have been asleep in my dorm room the morning of 9/11, but I'm guilty of wearing a bikini to the beach each summer and participating in free elections. Quite the guilt by association, don't you think.
As an update: the panel was cancelled due to threats of violence. The Hamilton College website with statements and other information is here.
Wow, i've never even thought of the whole situation like this and before i even read the article i thought to myself " how can anyone think something like that." But after reading the article and then reading rebecca g's post it sort of makes sense. I mean i dont think that the victims were guilty of anything but i see where people might feel the same way as the professor.
I'd suggest that, at the very least, Churchill's engaged in a false analogy & a poisoning the well fallacy.
Also, consistency.
If those who died in the WTC attacks were "guilty" because of who they were, then aren't civilians of oppressive regimes equally "guilty" of the crimes of their regime? And therefore justifyable targets?
It's one thing to argue against US policy. It's another thing to make the kind of poisonous claims Ward Churchill made. I'd defend his right to speak/publish all that, of course, but I (personally) won't pretend to respect what he says as "intelligent" in any way.
From what I understand, Ward Churchill's argument is that America has blood on its hands, such as slavery, the treatment of American Indians, etc. The source of that is our greed as capitalists, which is the driving force behind our foreign policy today. Not only is that argument a little kooky to me, but to go on and argue that therefore America and the Americans that lost their lives deserved what they got is blatantly ridiculous!
This is the first I've heard anything about Churchill and his opinion on 9/11, but from what I've read I think he has a loose screw. And for the faculty at Hamilton College who invited and paid him to speak where there are many students who are related and/or friends of victims of the 9/11 attack on the WTC, I think they could've thought it out a little better. From reading the many statements that angry citizens sent to the university, they are going to be loosing a lot of business. Though most of us are for the first amendment right to freedom of speech, this is not what the framers intended. He can go speak on the street somewhere.
I had never considered what he is saying to be true but it is a different way to look at the situation. Although i dont believe in it completely some of what he is saying serves as a purpose to why they would do it. interesting article anywho
Post a Comment
<< Home