portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

9.11 investigation

Ward Churchill speaks at Reed

Controversial figure appears at reed College and receives a friendly reception.
On Saturday night, Judy and I saw and heard the currently notorious Ward Churchill speak at Reed College. At first this was supposed to be a big public event that charged admission but the Reed power elite were somewhat frightened off and the evening was turned into a free student -- teachers only event. Judy and I got in via a special "guest list." Churchill became famous because he wrote some harsh and extreme things right after 9/11 that were interesting, challenging but definitely on the insensitive side. His basic thesis is that the US acts like a global bully, brute killer and exploiter and that it has done this since its founding. America was cruising for a bruising and inevitably on 9/11, its chickens came home to roost. The right wing turned Ward into a super villain and demanded he be fired from his teaching post, he became an official member of its most hated list. Actually Ward's ideas aren't all that original, they are kind of a mix of historian W.A. Williams, Tragedy of American diplomacy and the Weather Underground's Prairie Fire. For him, it was all a matter of bad timing. I wasn't sure how I felt about the guy, till I head him speak. Now, I like him. He seems kindly and he has a genuine sense of humor. His speaking style reminds me of another likable guy, Panther cofounder Bobby Seale. Churchill is a fine, even elegant speaker with something vital and important to say. He presents his position logically and factually and then, unlike the cowardly George Bush, he verbally and humorously takes on all comers. The audience of 500 rewarded him, at times, with thunderous applause. Strength to you Ward Churchill and carry on.

homepage: homepage: http://members.aol.com/stewa/stew.html


Harsh truth 17.Apr.2005 12:56

Jason

insensitive side? Why should he be 'sensitive'? We are certainly not sensitive towards all the Iraqis we kill. We were not sensitive towards Fallujah where we recently leveled a city of 300,000

By sensitive do you mean candy coat things for all the United States citizens who are uncomfortable to see the harsh truth of this country? The United States has been killing people in other countries non stop for decades. I remember during the first war on Iraq in 91. The TV news announcer, after 24 hours of non stop bombing stated that "there were no casualties today". Obviously he meant "American" casualties. The Iraqis did not count.

If people in this country are offended by straightforward statements, they have only themselves to blame for their head in the sand denial of the truth. The United States brutally murders people by the thousands, and then is offended by some words spoken by one man. The level of priviledge and entitlement assumed by people here is appalling.

Be Nice to the Little Eichmanns 17.Apr.2005 13:29

School Marm

Yeah, be sensitive and polite when you confront my genocidal mentality. I don't want you to make me feel UNCOMFORTABLE. I hate it when my conscience hurts. It reminds me that my privileges come at the expense of little brown and black corpses all over the world.

You be nice now. Or I am not going to listen to you.

author's response 17.Apr.2005 14:57

stew Albert

The reason to be sensitive to situations and to adjust your words accordingly, is because it's crucial to politically defeat imperialism, and bad ass moralizing won't do the trick. It's important to find the right language and speak in a way that changes people for the better. The point of my article was to say that Ward Churchill had developed that language, that he has not let his enemies break him or reduce him to empty rhetoric. In doing that Ward sets a fine example for all of us.

I learned of Reed's original plans to make Ward's talk a completely open event with a price at the door from a Reed official. I am well aware that non Reedies were there, because I was there, but only because I had Reed connections. Those who didn't have such connections could not get in. And that's too bad..

hmm 17.Apr.2005 15:14

heck

PDXIndy's got the skills. You folks rock!

Redefining "sensitivity" 17.Apr.2005 16:43

CatWoman

The thing that apparently makes Ward Churchill "insensitive" is the fact that he does not begin each and every rumination about September 11th with a reminder that it was all a "horrific act" and that it was perpetrated by the worst sort of terrorist and that, of course, there could never, ever be any justification for such a thing. I'm so tired of such apologist, back-pedaling, cultural-ass-kissing, politically runny crap I can't even tell you. Every liberal-leaning pundit trying to figure out what went wrong that day seems to feel obliged to pull that officially sanctioned doctrine out of the hat before saying anything else, in a cowardly bow to "sensitivity" and political climate. Man, it's so much more refreshing to hear someone's honest thoughts, no punches pulled.

For the record, I tend to disagree with Churchill on at least one point: I do believe that those responsible for the fall of the WTC were, in fact, the worst sort of terrorists. Not some shadowy Arab caricatures who slipped in under the wire, but rather a much more sinister crew, much closer to home. But I completely agree with his assessment of world sentiment toward the US, and the reasons for that sentiment. Like him, I can understand why there were people in the world celebrating when they heard of the attack. (Though, of course, some of that was put on by the corporate media in an effort to whip up anti-arab hysteria as well. The footage shown over and over on CNN and Fox, for example, of Palestinians dancing in the streets and firing guns in the air turned out to be stock footage, several years old, and had nothing to do with 9/11.)

The truth is, this nation is SO waiting blindly for its blowback. US emperialism is wreaking all manner of death and destruction throughout the world. And yet we have been completely numb to it. Oblivious. Mindlessly consuming the life blood from the rest of the planet. Indeed, it's way past time for us to awaken from this stupor. It IS time for the war to be felt at home, not just "over there."

I believe it's insensitive for us to pretend our nation is above all that while the rest of the world is steeped in it. It's insensitive to portray that particular calamity with so incredibly much more feeling and empathy than we have ever shown toward, for example, the pain of the people of Palestine at the dangerous end of US-made guns, or the US-induced starvation of the people of Iraq under Clinton, or the unending oppression of the world's workers in US sweat shops. It's insensitive to pretend that white people clutching briefcases were more valuable than brown people clutching their children.

Yes, I cried when I saw the pictures of people leaping from the flames of the world trade center. And I was left feeling as dazed and empty after it all as the rest of the country. I'm still sad for those people, but that does not blind me to the reasons why the rest of the world might have found cause to celebrate. And it does not make it "insensitive" to mention that, whomever it was, those who hit the WTC and the Pentagon could not have found a better target. US capital and the US war machine, two arms of the same demon, were at least symbolically injured that day. The people who fell out of the sky with all those scraps of paper that day were, as they say, "collateral damage." As such, I weep for them as much as I weep for every little Iraqi child cut down by American guns. No more, and no less. And as such, I consider them to be victims of the same hand. Those who would blast the skies over Fallujah with Napalm and machine gun wedding parties in Afghanistan in order to make a literal killing, would not even bat an eye at allowing thousands of people to burn to death in the world trade center. If we're going to cry for them, we need to cry for them all. The ones at home, and the ones "over there." The ones blatantly cut down by US hands, and the ones more insideously, secretively, cut down by those same hands. And if we're ever going to stop this, we know what we need to do.

What's Worse Stew? 17.Apr.2005 18:08

Your Wrong

what's worse stew? (1)inviting everyone in portland to the event in order to get another 200 people into kaul auditorium then telling everyone else that the doors are closed and that they have to go home. not to mention possibly increasing the risk of someone coming in to cause violence to someone in kaul. don't you know that many of ward's speeches have been cancelled due to "threats of violence?" or (2)invite all reed community members to the event (who actually paid for it through student body funds), allowing each of them to bring two 0ff-campus guests (free of charge), and having a long guest list (over 150 people) to prevent something violent from happening? power elite my ass. you want to talk about power elite? let's talk about your jelousy that not as many people came when you spoke at reed last december. plus i remember that off-campus people had to pay for that event. so what's the big deal? let's talk about your elitism for a moment. weren't you part of the yippie oligarchy? you were on the guest list to attend the ward churchill speech probably because of your prestige as a formerly outspoken activist. prestige ultimately makes you somewhat elite, does it not? in conclusion, ward you're wrong about the "reed power elite," but i agree that ward was great.

Be aware of your rhetoric 17.Apr.2005 18:32

outsider

As another person who wanted to hear Ward Churchill. but who is not a member of the "elite", I and many others were excluded from this important event.

It's this kind of behavior that turns people off to getting involved in essential actions that will change the way we think and live.

re: Your Wrong 17.Apr.2005 18:35

S

Stew, as many people who post to this site, wants a better world, and has worked for that. Stew doesn't deserve such a harsh comment as yours. Such comments do not foster dialog. Argue, disagree on points and so on, but please do think about whether what you are writing is actually for a benefit, or just to attack someone.

Stew's last reply 17.Apr.2005 18:51

Stew Albert

I feel bad that people I know wo wanted to get in could not get in. Why does that make me an elitist? Maybe you are right, maybe there were good security reasons for scheduling Ward's talk the way it was done. My own feeling is that closing down to a significant part of the public is a bad way to go, but maybe I'm wrong. Now let me ask you why you feel a need to get ugly and insult me just because I have a point of view that you don't like? What's all this crap about me being jealous of Ward. In my article, I praised his talk to the sky and said I thought he is a very good guy. Of course he outdrew me --he also outdrew the former Black Panther with whom I shared that excellent evening at Reed. Churchill is a very important front page personality, As he said in his talk, government attacks on him are building his fame. Only an egotistical moron would be jealous of him. You say I'm "formally" outspoken. Please read my articles and poems that appear regularly in online CounterPunch to see just how not "former" this behavior of mine still is.

RRRGH. 17.Apr.2005 19:56

Michael b

Read had the money to bring Ward here. The event was closed to people outside the guest list. That's the definition of eletism. I respect the organizers for doing this event. That said, there's a degree to which radical organizers at Reed, that use Reeds facilities have to play by Reeds rules. The school no doubt didn't want to be liable for some facist whacko causing trouble at the talk. The organizers had to deal within those boundaries. I respect the fact that they supported Ward and his politics by bringing him here, regardless of those boundaries. They played the hand they were delt, and did thier best to support peoples struggle. Thank you Blacklist.

I agree intirely with catwomans analasis of Stews coments, and Ward's speech.

I also think it's fucking rude for folks to conjecture or slader Stew beyond that. Please chill.

In love and war,
mb

Let's be friends? 17.Apr.2005 20:54

Sorry Stew (Originally You're Wrong)

OK. Thanks for seeing more sides to the story. I'm not mad anymore and I hope you aren't either. You gave a really great speech at Reed with Billy X last December, by the way.

Everybody, let's don't get started! 17.Apr.2005 20:54

PSU Rearguard

Yo, chill! It's all good.

OK, maybe elitists wasn't the best choice of words. Give the brother a break.

The fact of the matter is that security first and foremost was an issue here. Churchill had no less that 5 uniformed and plain clothes security within 4 feet the whole night. However you feel about pigs, that was the reality.

The students that pulled this off busted their asses. In order to carry through with the event they had no choice but to tow safety concerns voiced by administration. There was no advertising when it was decided that it would be best to only have Reed students, staff and faculty attend; again, safety issues. The students also did not wnat to have the coorporate media camped outside their door.

Yeah, I got on the list and got in. I also had the good fortune to have Ward over to my place afterwards for an interview (and the last person who called me an elitist had his rectum ripped out through his throat...). I had originally planned to interview the event student coordinators about some of the shit that they faced simply for bringing Ward in. Now it appears that it will be important to also have them respond to this flame-throwing. How fucking unfortunate and counter to what we are all supposed to be about...

The next issue of the Rearguard wil be out in a week or so, I'll also make it a point to post here. I will make sure that it clarifies as many of your questions as possible. I'll also address the evening's no camera/recording issue.

Keep it real goddamit, peace,
The Rearguard

Thank you PSU Rearguard 17.Apr.2005 21:06

Kellie La Bonty

Right on! Right on! Right on!!!

Safety First! 17.Apr.2005 22:21

the illuminati are in control

Of course it's about safety. We are only protecting you from danger. We here at the infirmary must do our jobs correctly.

It's difficult to feature Ward Churchill being flanked by SS officers and holding secret meetings with future anarchy specialists(Esq.)

Blech--it's time to put the books away.

a horible academic 17.Apr.2005 22:45

another reed student

I ask a well thought out question and he dissmissed with an exmaple not relating to what I asked. what an egotistical ass. he's logic is so off.

hip hop blows my mind 17.Apr.2005 23:10

backwards out my rectum

> and the last person who called me an elitist
> had his rectum ripped out through his throat...
>
> peace

okay, youth culture no longer makes any sense to me at all ... safety pins through the face i figured out eventually, but this constant vicious, fratricidal nihilism i just don't get ... and "peace" with that like an order of fries? is this supposed to be a joke?

Insubstantial and Contradictory 17.Apr.2005 23:51

Another Reed Student

I've read A People's History of the United States too, and while Churchill did a pretty good job of presenting the blood United States has spilled, once he left that area he proved insubstantial and contradictory. One of the first questions in the q and a session lay it out pretty well; "should we have bombed Auschwitz?" "The truth is, we actually didn't". Churchill totally misses the point; the question is not how the US behaved, but whether there's ever a place for us to intervene. Yes, the United States has done bad things, and does them still, but running around insisting on utter moral perfection before we dare to influence the world only allows Saddam Hussein to murder revolting Kurds and enables genocide in Rwanda. We aren't perfect, but others are worse.

this reminds me of the old joke about Frank Sinatra... 18.Apr.2005 00:45

me

A comic defends Frank Sinatra:

"You know, people tell these rumors about Frank Sinatra and the mob. I say, how dare you? Frank Sinatra is my hero! Frank Sinatra saved my life!

"You see, one day I was walking down a dark alley in Vegas after a standup gig. Out of nowhere, four guys jump me! Nearly beat me to death! But out of the shadows walks...Ol' Blue Eyes! And Sinatra walked right up to those thugs, stared 'em in the eyes, and said, 'Ok boys! That's enough.' Swear to God! Saved my life!"

This is basically the way I see the United States. You might as well say that Al Capone was bad, but his capos were worse. There's isn't one of these bogiemen the US government is currently demonizing (Osama, Saddam, you name 'em) who wasn't formerly on the Agency's payroll not so long ago.

The words of Martin Luther King are as true today as they were 50 years ago: "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government." And as soon as you start buying into the whole Cruise Missile Liberal "Hemanitarianism" ( http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann12082003.html) trip, you may as well just by into the whole agenda of the power elite -- because it is they who will determine where to point the guns next, not you with your woolly headed "liberal interventionism."

yes Hussein is poor example 18.Apr.2005 01:16

tc

Hussein's actions were the result of US interventionism. Without the intervention of the US government Hussein could have never come to power, much less have maintained that power. The Kurds, the Shiites, the Iranians, are all victims of US interventionism. This is why many libertarians and conservatives have maintained that intervention is categorically against a nation's self-interest. This isn't a question of "moral perfection" or morality at all; it's a question of real effects of US, or any other nation's, intervention into the affairs of another sovereign nation. WWII is another great example of interventionism trying to clean up the problems caused by interventionism. If the US had not intervened in WWI, Hitler would have never rose to power. And for what did the US become involved in WWI, and what was the consequence? When you start examining these issues you start to see that interventionism benefits the few at the expense of the many, every time. And this is what Churchill has been saying, when you intervene in other countries affairs expect blowback. This is what Pat Buchanan and other conservatives have been saying for decades. This is what libertarians have been saying for decades. It is a pattern that has borne itself out so many times that one has to truly be willfully ignorant to deny or dismiss it. The US government is not capable of solving the world's problems and by attempting to do so it seems to always exacerbate those problems as those making money selling weapons and reconstruction contracts continue to laugh all the way to the bank.

The best form of influence is to lead by example, and that influence has been abandoned by the US so it resorts to bullying, a form of influence that is always short lived. Perhaps there is a case where certain forms of intervention are necessary, but without an honest appraisal of all the times where it is not only unnecessary but counter-productive, one cannot hope to make a case for any form of intervention.

sounds like next gen of Little Eichmanns still suspend their disbelief 18.Apr.2005 07:26

.

"We aren't perfect, but others are worse."

Care to quantify that statement? I would venture that no one has ever, ever been as bad as the gross influence of the United States on world history.

No one is worse than the U.S, at least the corporativist Wall Street part of it. Wall Street first destroyed the democracy of the United States, and then has moved around the world: under its tutelage, the schools have been reconstructed to make idiots grow on trees, and to then get them willingly involved in viscious destruction throughout the past 150 years straight--whether we are talking the imperialist designes of the Civil War, to Phillipines, To Cuba, to Mexico, to Latin America, to the Carribean, to China, to WWI, to WWII, to Vietnam, and even within the USSR (if you read Antony Sutton's books)--not to mention all those little "splendid little wars" of the other hundreds of little corporate supporting and market creating invasions inbetween.


A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS:
From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan
Compiled by Zoltan Grossman
(revised 09/20/01)

Grossman: Killing Civilians
The List (Printing)

U.S. military spending ($343 billion in the year 2000; in 2005 its around 500 billion per year) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend $14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total.

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 1999. This guide does NOT include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities. <

 http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm
Little Eichmanns then
Little Eichmanns then
and now
and now

To: Another Reed Student 18.Apr.2005 09:02

David

Another Reed Student states that the U.S. should not be prevented from intervention to prevent "genicide" just because it is not morally perfect. I wonder if he or she is aware of the history in the Balkans, where the U.S. fomented ethnic strife, supporting unsavory regimes or groups such as Croatia and the Kosovo Liberation Army, then used humanitarian intervention as an excuse for war. Ask yourself why U.S. military Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is where it is, is so big, and is not being withdrawn. If you think it is to protect Albanians I think you should read more about the history of the Balkans in the last 20 years. A good start is Balkan Tragedy by Susan Woodward, and Tariq Ali, ed., Masters of the Universe: NATO's Balkan Crusade. A close reading of the Milosevic trial transcripts would also be revealing, though very time-consuming. Some approximation of the truth might result from triangulating between trial reports by Tribunal cheerleader Coalition for International Justice, www.cij.org, and trial reports of Milosevic supporters at www.slobodan-milsoevic.org. I find the latter closer to the actual testimony.

Anyway, my big point is that humanitarian intervention is a big fraud, the lates example of which is the Sudan, where the U.S. has supported rebels for years of civl war. Why? Oil, most likely, or keeping control over oil from the Chinese anyway. Which is a reasonable goal I could accept. What I can't accept is lies.

Been away from the internet bit for a couple days 18.Apr.2005 14:13

Fleeta

I hate to fuel the fire, but hey I guess i'm cold right now.
You reed ass mother fuckers were trembling like the cowardly lion when he goes up before oz.
Not to mention the nonsensensical, decadent, naive, and racist questions that were asked, like "I know some Navijo's and they are quite happy" Or "what about the alcohol and crime I heard about". YUK.
Who-ever that reed punk who criticized Stew he has no idea about much of anything accept the fact that HE is an out of touch with reality priveledged white dude who has no concept of the sacrifice that people like Stew Albert,have made for us all.Stew and others like him whom Ward has written much about in his study of cointelpro, put their very lives on the line in the fight against capitalist oppresion.

From one organizer 18.Apr.2005 16:02

Mackenzie mackenzie@reed.edu

Briefly, I'd like to make a few points:

1. Reedies are not, just as indymedia folks aren't, homogenius in our backgrounds and not even in our beliefs. neither were the organizers of the event. to that effect, one of my main hopes for having churchill come was to dissuade as many of the students who go to this school and may end up as Technocrats from choosing that route. of course, many students are beyond sheltered, and we saw that at the lecture in many of the questions. however, in some churchill has lain seeds, and hopefully they will allow themselves to be accountable for the system whose support they garner everyday, unfairly, and hopefully some will do as much, if not more, than Stew has to attempt to deconstruct that system.

2. I, personaly, would like to apalogize to everyone who wasn't able to get in or find out about the event. there were a range of reasons for this. first, we pulled this whole thing together in about a month and a half, which is rather quick when you're also a fulltime student at Reed. originally, the event was open to the public for a $5 contribution, sliding scale, which was in place to reimburse student senate for some of the 1500 dollars they contributed. then, about a week and a half before, when we'd already started advertising off campus, upper level administration who typically aren't consulted for events put on by students, found out about Churchill's visit and were mad no one told them. up until this point, i was surprised at how backed we were by the administration folks I talked to. but when this happened, i started getting lots of emails discussing things about the event that had never before been brought up with the student organizers, the first of which went something like "well, if their are going to be added security costs, shouldn't the student group who is bringing Churchill pay for them?" those costs turned out to be 2000 dollars, the prospects of getting that much money a week and a half before time were null. the option that was laid down was to reduce security and make the event open only to the reed community and invited guests. we did our best to invite everyone we'd been in contact with. and to be fair, i think that many people in the administration fought for this event or it would have been straight up cancelled by the president, though this is just conjecture on my point. ok, i'd like to say more, but i have a class to run to.

3. the event was video taped by Reed AV and we want to get it out to Indymedia and other groups who could show it for educational purposes, and not for making a buck, to do so. I think, from talking to Prof. Churchill, that this is his sentiment as well, though i in no way speak for him.

lastly, why the hell are we all so interested in labeling eachother and people we dont even know, and pretending that anyone of one of us knows better the circumstance that caused our their actions? i mean, shit everybody, there are some major fucking problems in this world, and going off on eachother isn't changing them. i dont know any one of you intamitaley enough to tell you what you ascribe to, how you define yourself, and i'm dont believe in authority so im not going to pretend to know any better than you how to do something when i dont even know the circumstance which dictated why you did it. was it good Churchill came to town? i think yes. Were there problems in the way it happened? when aren't there? Churchill himself said somewhere during saturday that there may be problems with his speech or choice of action, but that one mistake doesn't change the body of work, and that by focusing on it, many people are only trying to confirm for themselves their own suppiority by claiming that as a reason to ignore the rest. let's stop trying to convince ourselves we supperior, and just acknowledge that there is an opposistion that we agree is SERIOUSLY fucking up the world, and this infighting takes time from outfighting. and yes, i see the irony in an argueing for trusting your fellow fighters and thereby suggesting i know better how to deal with things. but if im wrong i trust youll tell me, but hopefully not disregard the sentiment.

aha! 18.Apr.2005 17:14

he didn't deface this one quite enough

Here's the "little Eichmanns" photo without Curry's propaganda ...
little Eichmanns
little Eichmanns

Hard on the eyes 18.Apr.2005 20:27

Egg

I respect what everyone posted here, but reading most of the posts I have to say it struck me that your methods determine your aims, and I shudder to think what your aims could be with the way you are promoting them. Why is everyone so quick to go for the throat? Being sensitive, kind, communicative, respectful, tolerant, are not oppressive traits but revolutionary traits.

oops 18.Apr.2005 20:52

we've offended a hippie

> I respect what everyone posted here, but reading most of
> the posts I have to say it struck me that your methods
> determine your aims,

No they don't.

> Why is everyone so quick to go for the throat?

Maybe we don't all get to go to Reed. Some of us have more important things to worry about than whether activists are being nice enough to each other this week.

> Being sensitive, kind,
> communicative, respectful, tolerant, are not oppressive traits
> but revolutionary traits.

They're neither. They're passive traits. Power concedes nothing without struggle.

Hmm 18.Apr.2005 21:51

Egg

Please educate this hippie.Could you please explain how your methods don't determine your aims? What does then, your ideals, your intentions, your ouija board?

And I don't go to Reed, I haven't even been to college. What? And I'm not frothing with rightous indignation, think I have all the answers or think that only I and I alone am worrying about more important things this week. Crazy huh?
It seems to me cause for worry if a bunch of activists are at each others throats over such a non issue then what can they possible contribute to changing things?

We obviously have different conceptions of what it means to be sensitive, kind, communicative, respectful, tolerant. To actually practice those traits takes a whole lot more courage and conviction then to dismiss them as weak or practice their opposites. I'd say thats the bigger struggle. If our country practiced these attributes or if the citizens applied and demanded more of them from their representatives and themselves I think that would be a good start don't you?

clever hippie 18.Apr.2005 22:09

here's a biscuit

> Could you please explain how your methods don't determine your aims?

Could you please explain how the sky isn't green? Thanks. We're all dying to know. I'm sure you've got nothing better to do.

let's try again 18.Apr.2005 22:12

nice small words

There are much bigger problems in the world than whether liberals are being nice enough to each other. Churchill would be the first to call bullshit on this whole philosophy. Read "Pacifism as Pathology," why don'tcha.

Oh 18.Apr.2005 22:35

Egg

Thanks for the compliment and the biscuit. I'm sorry I'm not up on sky phenomenon, you might want to try Bill Nye the Science guy's website. I was looking forward to your explanation but oh well I guess I'll have to get back to the hack sack circle, drumming circle, beading circle, you know hippie things. But good luck on your sky questions, and everything else.

Ah 18.Apr.2005 22:55

Egg

I'm still talking methods and aims. Who's pushing Pacifism? Violence is a option, but the dumb use it second after arguing and the smart use it last after exhausting every other option. I'm all for a country or individual defending their own self interest but don't you think a pacifist United States with the biggest standing army in the world used only as defense is a nice idea? Or are you and Ward gonna shoot everyone in power? The problem with liberals or whoever is that they can't get organized to tackle the bigger problems, sure the bigger problems are easier to spout off slogans about, but the smaller ones which we directly effect and can be held accoutable for demand more then just passing it off on "Power" or "Elites". If a handful of activists can't be civil enough to solve or even discuss a small problem, what makes you think they can handle the bigger ones?

Think and Learn 19.Apr.2005 10:23

Jason

let's try again
nice small words

There are much bigger problems in the world than whether liberals are being nice enough to each other. Churchill would be the first to call bullshit on this whole philosophy. Read "Pacifism as Pathology," why don'tcha.


This is nothing more than an excuse to not look at ones own rude, demeaning and domineering behavior. This attitude is another part of the American mentality of me first which is destroying the planet. Do think about it.

Jumping in one more time 19.Apr.2005 10:29

Matilda

I usually don't revisit these threads once the commentary has degenerated to such substanceless drivel. But, it occurs to me that I do, in fact, have at something to say here. First, I wanna say that I really respect Mackenzie for taking the time to compose the comment above. Particularly, these words: "lastly, why the hell are we all so interested in labeling each other and people we dont even know...? i mean, shit everybody, there are some major fucking problems in this world, and going off on each other isn't changing them." I wholeheartedly agree.

I also think that Egg's words were too quickly dismissed. Going for each other's throats is not revolutionary. It's just so much more of the same. And yes, sometimes our methods do determine our aims.

Hey you whiney @#@##@#'s! Stop your BS... 19.Apr.2005 23:20

sdelic sdelic@sdelic.org

This quote from above addressed to Stew:

"let's talk about your elitism for a moment. weren't you part of the yippie oligarchy? you were on the guest list to attend the ward churchill speech probably because of your prestige as a formerly outspoken activist. prestige ultimately makes you somewhat elite, does it not? in conclusion, ward you're wrong about the "reed power elite," but i agree that ward was great."

Well I attended the event and yes I had 2 guest list spots and NO I'm not part of any "reed power elite" as I do not know anyone related to or working for Reed college. Furthermore I am not a "formerly outspoken activist". I simply am lucky enough to of crossed paths with the right people and to be in the right place at the right time. If you were someone who happened to take even a part time interest in the struggle and happen to attend a few low key events around the city that happen all the time you too more than likely would of also been able to get on the guest list as well. In any case just because you didn't have what it took to be on the guest list is no reason to address such negative comments to Stew or anyone else. Maybe you should take at least a more part time active role in local events and maybe you too will get connected enough (which isn't that hard in the first place) to attend such closed events in the future. This BS of "reed college elite" is far from the truth. Those of us who were able to attend the event were simply either in the right place at the right time or we happened to know the right people in either case those of you who feel you were left out should take this as a personal incentive to get more involved and stop your bitchin.

To Stew: Too bad we missed each other at the event on Saturday it would of been cool to see you and Judy again.

point of speech 20.Apr.2005 12:48

jemma

I disagree with Stew that the point of the speach was that the US is so horrible. I think the point of the speach was that terrorism or any other means that are necessary in making an impact on the empire-- are like a force of nature, and are inevitable, not an issue of morality. He brought up volcanoes and such for that purpose.

About elitism--

I know Justin and several of the other reed organizers, and I tried to hook up anyone I do anti-imperialist work with, to this resource. Maybe ten of us got in. we had limited access to the event (because of short notice to organize) and other people had even less or no access to the event. This is the way reed works. It is a private institution. It may have a social and cultural impact, but it is essentially an economic fixture that makes lots of money, invests it in stocks (including weapons manufactorers)and serves to create upper-class identity and opportunity in its students. Like Justin spite says on the audio thread about this, not all reedies are from rich families. I wasn't-- but I got run out of the school (lost my grant etc) because I did not fit the class, social, and political environment there. I feel that blacklist and co. are going against the grain at reed in organizing a radical and "blacklisted" speaker to Reed. The very fact that reedies asked such ignorant questions show that the dominant culture at reed does not include many anti-imperialist revolutionaries.

Reed is one of the only entities I know of who has the dispensible cash to fly activists around and house them for speeking arrangements. Reed has this money for reasons that are integral to the capitalist and imperialist order (their stocks, wealthy donors, rich students' corporate/ military/government parents. Knowing this, I think all reedies of good conscience should be doing their best to funnel reed's massive resources into networks of resistance.

Anthony asked for "respect" on the audio thead. Well, I respect the effort you put into funneling the speech out of reed, and I kinda respect the idea of changing reedies' minds (athough I've found only a few who actually want to change or have any motivation to change). I do not respect reed or reed's money staying at reed. sorry. your education is being built to make you into a manager of other people's resources, to create monopolies of power, and to be an "expert" for personal gain, and that's part and parcel of the continuation of oppression.

Sorry if this is a reed centric rant. I just think this elitism thing is getting tangled up. Reed is elitist. Blacklist seems to be fighting against that within the constraints of reeds power structure. reedies who say "you should know who the fuck I am" and reedies who say "Indians aren't really indans anymore" are playing at being the managers of other peoples' resources. they should realize it, deal with it, and fight against it.

security eh? 20.Apr.2005 16:29

donkey

This was not REALLY about security. Otherwise, I would have been searched. Let me tell you for a fact that I could have walked in there with a gun.Anyone in the first half of the line could have slipped basically anything in. There was no ID, no searhches, no nothing. Also, any Reedy at all could have walked in there with a gun. I have no reason to assume that the general public is more dangerous than the Reed "community". Reed just wanted it to be framed as an academic freedom issue, and not a free speech issue. The security was for Reed, not for Ward Churchill. that in itself is the elitism people are stepping around.

but I have no problem with the fact that it happened, or Churchill's speech. all in all, I'm very glad I went.

Reed Security 21.Apr.2005 07:45

following the thread

I'm happy that Ward Churchill was allowed to speak. And I'm grateful to the organizers for their work in bringing him here. But it saddens me that those same organizers have allowed themselves to be blinded to what people are saying here (see other thread re the audiotaping of this event). The truth is, they allowed themselves to be coopted into believing the half-truths that the administration forced upon them. As someone points out above, closing this talk was NOT about security. What "security" purpose, for example, was served by preventing (or trying to prevent) anyone from recording the lecture? This was about controlling the story, nothing else.

Oh, and speaking of "security concerns" at reed, how's that nuclear reactor doing? You know, the one that's right there on campus, and has a history of leaky um...what does the administration call them? "Incidents." Yes, that one. The one most people in the surrounding neighborhood, and even many Reed students, had no idea was even there. The one that puts the whole community at risk. Yes, so much for the school administrations pretensions of concern about "security."

?/A period 21.Apr.2005 12:05

Poor college student

I believe that Reed is an elitist institution. That said I am also a Reed student. Though I am one of them who attends only because I am given massive ammounts of financial aid (unfortunately Reed, despite its wealth does not compare to some of the more well endowed liberal arts colleges in the country and therefore can only afford a small percentage of "needy" students each year). I am from rural america and Reed has been the biggest culture shock I have ever experienced. Before I came here I never considered myself poor or underprivilaged. Many of my friends at Reed are extremely wealthy, fairly radical, unfortunately (and in the best of cases this is begining to change) they are more or less blind to their privilage.

Hearing Ward speak, and I am very glad that he came, was mostly unimpressive. He is a good speaker, has a good message, but unfortunatly he didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know. This perhaps should make me feel good about myself? Still, an important speech. I did, however, have a problem with the question and answer period. Despite how poorly phrased, and sometimes offensive some questions were I found no benifit to harshly silencing these voices. I felt that often Ward interpreted people's questions in the worst way possible, and in a very Bill O'rielyish fasion chose to talk over or shoot down any further discussion. A strange thing to do when you are preaching free and open discourse. How on earth can one expect to change minds by telling people, from the postion of a stage, that they are wrong, racist, stupid... His performance in this regard seems to explain why this man in particular has become a target of the right. He cannot defend himself eloquently and tends to come off as a kind of playground bully. This tactic, like only works for those who completely agree with him.

Also, as a side note, I was fairly disturbed by the lack of the usual Reed College banner that always hangs behind speakers on the back wall of the stage. This was the first speech I have ever been to, and I have been to quite a few, where it was missing. What the fuck?

re: jemma 21.Apr.2005 15:15

anthony ecocidalintellect@ziplip.com

to clarify i did not ask for respect. my post asked for nothing except a dialogue with "you know" in a face to face/ personal forum. i am now in contact with them hopefully "you know" group will consider some sort of accountability process. that granted dont (mis)quote me or for that matter critique my intentions of which you know nothing about. i dont post to this forum or for that matter read it accept when im involved in organizing things that are covered. While this site provides a crucial tool and info it as a forum provides nothing more than a space for (in most cases anonomous) gossip, slander, misinformation, infighting and basicly provides a space for things ppl dont have enough intergrity to talk out or say IN PERSON(ie respectful accountable constructive critism). i appreciate your efforts, opinions, and agree with a good deal of it but leave me out of it in this public forum. dont (mis)quote me. i simply wanted to get in contact with "you know" so that real dialouge might actually happen

best
anthony

if you can't see my point, so be it. I'm tired of splitting hairs. 21.Apr.2005 18:20

Jemma

"If you actually do any organizing in this town you would porbably know who the fuck i am or some one that does" -anthony - one of the organizers of the event

this is the quote that I paraphrased and that bothered me. sorry for paraphrasing, I did not mean to misqote you. I still feel that my analysis of reed is true to my experience with both reed and many reedies. I think that even if your intention is not to manage or control other people, you should still think about the effects that your words have. to me, these words seem condescending and belittling. What did you mean by these words? You gave your email, so its not like you're instructing whoever to find you through someone who knows "who the fuck" you are. I also think it belittles the issues I brought up which I think are pivotal in terms of class dynamics within PDX activism, to infer that my post is "gossip". I only said your name in reference to the concept of "respect" that you brought up, and to let you know that I think respect for the event's political aims and respect for Reed's elitism and wealth are two different things.

Re: Reed Security 21.Apr.2005 18:21

Reactor Operator's Husband

To: "following the thread"

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but can you name any one specific case where the Reed Reactor has had one of those "incidents" that you claim to know all about? According to several Reactor administrators and my wife (who's in the reactor program) on campus, there have never been any potential threats of over exposure to radiation with the Reed Reactor. There has never been an incident of someone receiving a large dose of radiation (over 0.1 REM) even since the reactor was built in 1968.

You would receive 5 times more radiation flying across the country then you would by spending your entire day standing next to the Reed Reactor. Yes, there have been 3 fuel leaks in the time that the reactor has been on campus, but you don't even probably know what is meant by a "fuel leak." The fuel leaks that have occurred were contained under 25 feet of water and did not result in exceeding any government limit or regulation. The "leaks" did not penetrate the containing barriers of concrete and aluminum and somehow ooze into the soil, as many people think might result from a leak. For Christ's sake it's a research reactor and it can't even generate power. Even if the Reactor could generate power it might, just might, be able to power a coffee maker. The fuel is mixed with zirconium hydride which makes it impossible for the Reactor to cause any sort of major (even mediocre) incident.

I suggest actually looking at the reactor site:  http://reactor.reed.edu/

With regard to the safety of the Ward Churchill event, unless you are a student of the college, I doubt you know anything about the "half truths" that you also proclaim to know all about. To be fair though, there probably was no security purpose served by preventing (or trying to prevent) anyone from recording the lecture, but I can understand how the recording of the speech by people in the crowd could have resulted in many bad recordings like the one on the other page. I don't think, however, that this was about controlling the story. I think it was more about keeping Ward safe from some fascist picking Ward off with a concealed weapon (he did have security hanging around him), keeping the students and their guests safe from some fascist assholes picketing the speech (the closed to the public policy), and making sure that everything went smoothly.

I remember that the intro. speaker also said something about not using any flash photography and turning off all cell phones and pagers in order to be respectful to Ward. Does that make the organizers people that were "co-opted" by the administration? I think I heard a cell phone go off during Ward's speech (which I thought was disrespectful). Does that make that person a "cell phone ringer liberator"? Maybe the organizers are going to release a decent copy of the speech (with video) on IMC in spite of the bad version coming out a day after the event (where you can here the people who recorded the speech talking the entire time). That's annoying! I can't wait for the official version to come out next week (see other page).