Uyen Nguyen Hill
2 May 2012
FD4
Who Is the Chicken?
Many people do not appreciate this peaceful country
of American, the rights and benefits it offers. One of those people is Ward
Churchill, former professor of ethnic studies and Chairman of Department of
Ethic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
In his essay in 2001, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting
Chickens”, he immorally compared some of the World Trade Center victims of the
September 11 attack as “little Eichmanns,” which is a reference to Adolf
Eichmann, a Nazi who played a key role in the killing of Jews during the Second
World War. [THESIS] More than many other non-educated civilians, Ward Churchill
has abused his Freedom of Speech and attack innocent victims of the September
11. [THESIS]
According to the First Amendment, “The Supreme Court
has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause
a breach of the peace or cause violence.” Obviously what Professor Churchill
said has caused serious anger and antagonism to certain group of people. Being
ambitiously irrational, Ward Churchill takes advantage of the First Amendment
and turns it into a brutal attack to innocent people. Churchill starts off his
article by reminding people of the damages which he thinks caused by subjective
or physical violence such as “a massive military presence and periodic bombing
raids,” “physical debilitation”, and deaths.
While spinning a long yarn about the ruthless violence caused by the U.S. in Iraq, Churchill himself creates
systemic violence, a socio-economic ordering. He goes on about how very not
innocent the people in World Trade Center and the Pentagon were, “sat at
computer consoles aboard ships in the Persian Gulf, enjoying air-conditioned
comfort while launching cruise missiles into neighborhoods filled with random
human beings.” However, Churchill forgets how hard these people were working
for peace and freedom of this country.
Churchill never gets the real picture of what life
would be without the U.S. Government and Armed Forces for the United States of America and the
world in general. The U.S.A’s significance to the world can be compared to
gravity’s. Gravity physically holds objects and living things on the ground,
while the U.S.’s
Government balances everything else by an invisible and irreplaceable power.
One fact that we can all agree on is that no matter how bad the economy in the U.S.
is getting, every single well-mined person wants to visit our country at least
once in their life. Some people who are more ambitious than others want to stay
longer, and build their life here. Some just simply enjoy the most fascinating
civilization of world. The U.S.’s
Armed Forces are not any less critical than the Government. Churchill is
well-packed with world and U.S.
history, but he has used it to wrongly defense himself. The U.S. military practically does not
only protect our lives and freedom, but also the world’s peace. Think about how
Japan would be without the
serious and mandatory support from U.S.’s
military, North Korea’s
spontaneous nuclear power bomb tests at any place of their choice, or Islamic
power’s determination and motivation to conquer the world. Churchill only sees
one side of the picture where people were treating like animals and dying in
the possibly worst way. If Churchill had completely looked the global economic
and political picture that had been painted and preserved by the U.S.’s
Government and Armed Forces, he would have had disregarded the minor defects.
Many people may defense Churchill by the direct
quote from the First Amendment, “The right to freedom of speech allows
individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the
government.” We certainly cannot deny Churchill’s rights to express what he
thinks publically. However, it is not about what people can do legally or
illegally based on the soulless words of the laws. It’s the matter of rational
morality and ethnicity, should or should not Ward Churchill have done what he
did? I cannot agree more with Sharlen McCarthy, “While freedom of speech is
exercised, it should be used with respect […]. You are allowed to say whatever
you want to say, but it is just rude and inhumane to attack people who are
still mourning.” Churchill might mean
well to protest against the war, but he certainly did not think it through
before putting his thoughts in words properly. After all, Churchill’s reaction
to the related questions only provokes people’s anger. Donna Olivas-Kaohi also
expressed her idea, “Though his words are […] cruel, hurtful and could draw
even the most timid into a seething outrage. Nonetheless, this seems to be the
reaction he loves to create.”
Jennifer Tamai asserted when defensing Churchill, “In
publicly disclosing his ideas, Churchill is simply exercising his freedom,
which is a fundamental part of what makes him an American citizen.” Her
statement reminds me of sex. This is like saying, since sex is legal for all
adults, every American citizen over eighteen should exercise sex to fulfill
their duties to the country. Sex itself is great because we all love to have
children and descendants. Nonetheless, so many people all over the U.S.
are abusing sex because they absolutely do not understand the great meaning of
it. If everyone is educated that sex is something so sacred to connect two
people who are truly in love, they will not take it for granted and mistreat
it. As a Professor and Chairman of Department of Ethnic Studies, Churchill
should know better the true outcomes that the First Amendment is meant to make
so that he would not have abused it.
People like Ward Churchill might not appreciate the
values of Freedom of Speech that they are enjoying and, in fact, abusing. I
remember one summer when I was out with my class. We were in a public park for
change because the teacher wanted to give us some out-door activities. Our
teacher was showing us pictures of Catholic Saints, and telling us stories
about their lives, journey and deaths. Then suddenly along came these two men
in their forties. As they got closer, we all realized that they were the park’s
security guards. We were all wondering they would approach us. They got close,
and started talking to my teacher and her assistants. One of the men pointed
pictures and our teacher’s lesson materials and said, “No religion teaching.
Put those things away!” I wish he could have said it in a nicer and more polite
tone. Even though he never touched anyone or anything of us, I still felt like
he was going to drag away everything and wanted to lock my teacher up for
teaching religion beliefs at a public park.
My experience tells it
all about how a Socialist and Communist country works. People’s rights of
speech are so minimized that most of the times I feel deaf and mute. Students
are not allowed to talk back at teachers in class. History books are altered
and rewritten in the way the Government wants to students to believe. However,
as I get older, I have many chances to meet live witnesses of the war and realized
what I was taught in twelve years was total made-up stories. Many Vietnamese
elderly I know who served in the Vietnam War for the U.S. Government are fearful to go
back. The reason is that many of their friends have died trying to go back and
visit the country. Some tried to bring their money back and start building a
business. Things just got hard for them and eventually they lost all their
investment. If they were lucky, some got back to America safely, some died in their
home country by hands of their own people. Things have greatly changed in the
past few years. However, every Vietnamese citizen knows that to keep your live
and your loved ones’, you should shut it for the goods of all. Even right now,
Facebook is banned over the country because the Government is afraid that
anyone could use Facebook to spread Republican or Democrat ideas. They
absolutely do not want to see people stand up and take over the country like
what happened in Egypt
in 2011.
When Ward Churchill was invited to speak at the
University of Hawaii at Manoa in 2005, many could not help but write letter to
express their opinions about this issue. The idea that got my attention most
was the one from Scott Minium from Waipahu, “I
have to ask, however, if McClain would have extended this invitation had the
murderers of 9/11 struck Oahu instead of a
place thousands of miles away.” This statement is thoughtful and true. What
would people have felt about his presence here? Actually what would people have
done to him? For me personally, if the September 11 incident struck Oahu, I
would have responded very strongly. Even if none of my relatives or
acquaintances was hurt, I would still be angry and not know what I might do to
react to the fact that Churchill was invited to Hawaii.
Many may argue that for a doctorate level
professional like Professor Churchill, he absolutely knows the line. I agree
that his great knowledge is in fact the main resources for his statement. And of course, the fact that Churchill is a
Professor and former Chairman of Department of Ethic Studies does not affect
Churchill’s right to express his point of view as legal civilian of the U.S.
Nevertheless, he should be questioned about his understanding about ethical
values. Most certainly, no authority can arrest him nor should anyone assault
him either physically or mentally for what he did. However, honestly, they do
not have to. Churchill’s absurd and insensitive article has dumped his humanity
and reputation down the lowest level of mankind’s brute. Even though Professor
Churchill has stepped down from his position as Chairman of Department of
Ethnic Studies, people will never forget the disordered reputation he has
created.
One certain thing we know is that Churchill’s
article is like acetone being poured on the pain of September 11 victims’
families and friends. The most ironic thing is who could have thought a
Chairman of Department of Ethic Studies could be so immorally anti-ethical. Has
Ward Churchill ever thought to him what his article could have solved? Could he
bring back the life of the deaths in Iraq or stop the war there? Could be
rebuild the solid economy and strong political that this country has created
for centuries? Life goes on, people are forgotten and forgiven, so is Ward
Churchill. However, when mentioned, everyone must agree what Ward Churchill has
done is wicked, thoughtless and sociopathic like Alexandra Foster’s exact words
for him, “an insecure, pathetic, insignificant little boy.” Churchill, after
all, is a really dumb and coward chicken.
Works Cited
"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal
Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html].
Foster, Alexandra. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online
posting. 16 Apr. 2012. Laulima Discussion. 23 Apr. 2012
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu].
McCarthy, Sharlen. “Defense Ward Churchill.” Online
posting. 23 Apr. 2012. Laulima Discussion. 23 Apr. 2012
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu].
Minium, Scott. Letter. _Honolulu Advertiser_. 23
Feb. 2005. 26 Apr. 2005 [http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/23/op/op12pletters.html].
Olivas-Kaohi, Donna. “Attack Ward Churchill.” Online
posting. 17 Apr. 2012. Laulima Discussion. 23 Apr. 2012
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu].
"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].
Tamai, Jennifer. “Defense Ward Churchill.” Online
posting. 23 Apr. 2012. Laulima Discussion. 23 Apr. 2012
[https://laulima.hawaii.edu].
Log of Completed Activities
_x__ Apr. 5- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4.
_x__ Apr. 9- Complete readings for paper #4.
_x__ Apr. 16- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_x__ Apr. 23- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_x__ Apr. 27- Submit RD4. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines.
_x__ Apr. 30- Submit three RD4 evaluations [50 pts] Review the guidelines.
_x__ May 2-7- Submit FD4 [150 pts] Review the guidelines.
