ENG 215 RD#4: A New Perspective

Kristine Asato

ENG 215

RD#4

A New Perspective

The Bill of Rights as well as the First Amendment states that, under the Constitution of the United States people are able to express themselves without government interference.   There are people who at times seem to disagree with the Amendment because of the commotion it presents.  But just as there are opponents to the Freedom of Speech, there are many people in this country that use it to its fullest extent. These people are writing articles in newspapers and tabloids, taking and publishing pictures of nude actresses at a strip club.  Many of these people have a lot to say about politics and religion, and are free to do so under the Constitution.  [THESIS] These people, some who are veered as activists as well, are unveiling another part of the world around us that we are unable to see. [THESIS]

One man in particular has a very strong voice, and is known for some of his recognizable statements on particular subjects.  Ward Churchill is an activist, an author, and most importantly, a citizen of the United States.  Churchill exercises his right as an American Citizen by expressing his views, however controversial, to those willing to listen.  As a previous professor at the University of Colorado, Churchill made a statement about the victims of the World Trade Center attack, and referred to them as “little Eichmann”.  Churchill is referring to Staff Sergeant Lieutenant Colonel Eichmann who was the culprit of many deaths in the Jewish race during World War II.  Stating that he was trying to make a point, Churchill’s statement has caused quite an uproar of protests from the families of the World Trade Center victims. 

Churchill has not apologized for his statement, an action he should not have to do.  Like many outspoken people, Churchill is only trying make people see things differently.  Simply speaking Churchill believes that the employees of the World Trade Center were responsible for their own deaths because of their support for unfair U.S. foreign policies.  In a sense it is true.  Here in the United States, we cannot cause havoc to other countries and not expect any consequences to come from it.  We as a nation can’t just go to Iraq or Afghanistan and force people to change their ways of life or kill them if they refuse, and go on living our lives.  In many conferences Churchill is asked whether or not he feels sympathy for the victims, to which he replies that it is completely irrelevant to the topic.  This is also true, just because Churchill said it, does not mean that he personally believes everyone should have died.  Churchill’s statement was not a personal attack on anyone personally, but a new perspective of the situation.  

The attack on September 11, 2001 was mainly remembered for the destruction of the World Trade Centers because it was the only fully successful attack.  Many people forget that two other planes were aimed for the White House and the Pentagon.  These places were not selected at random.  These locations are the heart of command for the United States.  Each monument was a representation of oppressive power to other countries.  We are the bullies of the world, and the assailants of the September 11 attack the rebellious geeks we pick on in the playground.  Ward Churchill’s statement was nothing appropriate.  By referencing Colonial Eichmann, who took part in the holocaust, Churchill has a right to say that we as Americans are also taking part of a holocaust of Middle-Eastern society.  Those who died on all four flights, as well as the respected landmarks, represented their country as bullies, and died because their government was too arrogant to believe that they were untouchable. 

Through a brief discussion, a classmate Patricia Miller-Ho states that “as a professor Churchill is in part accountable for the sound development of the minds that will influence our nation years after his resignation and death”.   Miller-Ho goes on to explain that if this was Churchill’s belief, he should have said so in a more concise manner, and that he has no right to impose these beliefs in such an offensive manner.  In rebuttal and support for Churchill, he has a right to say what he wishes, and to say otherwise would be implying that Churchill is not apart of the United States, and oppressive.  Also to refer to Churchill’s statements as his own personal beliefs is an inaccuracy.  It’s as if to say that when a news reporter states that a person convicted of murder is innocent, is their personal belief.  As far as being accountable for developing the minds for our future generation, Churchill is doing the future generation a favor by allowing us to see a whole new perspective of a situation that unanimously seems to be simply one sided.

Classmate Ryan Watanabe who has family in the military expresses his outrage towards Churchill by saying that “Professor Ward Churchill misuses the first amendment to hide behind their obnoxious claims”.  Watanabe goes on to say what can only be assumed the initial reaction to a statement such as Churchill’s, that he should be punished for such disrespect to his country.  It is clear that because of his ties to the military, Watanabe may be blinded by his emotions to see that what Churchill is saying is not a misuse of the First Amendment or any disrespect to the United States.  Many people make crude statements about our government, and our nation.  John Stewart host of The Daily Show, and Steven Colbert, host of The Colbert Report, make a living out of mocking our government; they are not being punished.  On the contrary, John Steward has been awarded a total of fourteen Emmy Awards for his show.  Steward and Colbert are just like Churchill, they are merely presenting the situation with a different perspective.  The only difference is Steward and Colbert’s reports are funny because we know they are true and we hardly any personal connection to those being reported on.  However, Churchill is doing the same thing in a more deliberate tone.  People who feel the way Watanabe does, is influenced by their personal feelings to see that Churchill is simply making a point.  Churchill wants us to know that we, as well as the victims are not innocent. 

In 2005, Ward Churchill was invited to speak at the University of Hawaii despite the University President David McClain’s discontent with Churchill’s statement.  McClain has shown a lot of courage in bringing in such a controversial speaker, but can be respected for his reason.  McClain was quoted from a written statement that "Freedom of inquiry and of expression are what universities are all about”.  Although it seemed not many of the faculty members were thrilled to have Churchill speak, McClain found a way to draw a crowd and find funding for Churchill’s visit.  Despite conflicting views, McClain supports Churchill’s rightful freedom of speech.  This is what we seem to lack in this great nation, an open-mind such as David McClain.  These great men are what make progress in this world possible.  There are the people who have the power to can introduce a new perspective on things and change the way you look at it forever.  There are also people who despite any personal controversy can swallow any pride or emotions that might get in the way, and allow others to forge a pathway for the next generation. 

There have been many controversial statements made about Churchill’s heritage.  People attack Churchill as if it is his heritage that defines the validity of our actions, our words, and ourselves. Suzan Harjo’s, president of the Morningstar Institute, a national American Indian-rights organization claims, “In 15 years of being interviewed and investigated, he hasn't come up with a single Indian ancestor".  Harjo’s continues to say that Churchill has “besmirched the good name of Native Americans”.  But the irony is, seeing as there is no proof that Churchill is of Native American ancestry, Harjo should not feel any offense culturally towards Churchill.  Although, if Churchill could somehow produce some proof on ancestry, it would not change Harjo’s feelings towards his statements.   Churchill’s statements have no reflection on the members of his heritage.  Harjo should not be against Churchill seeing as, it is the terrorists that are invading her homeland.  Churchill is the one with the answer as to why. 

The things that outspoken people such as Ward Churchill have to say are not insensitive or disrespectful.  Churchill is an insightful human being who hopes that one day we can no longer be naïve to the truth.  We are all entitled to our own beliefs.  Ward Churchill simply presents another option of belief.  Who are we to say that he is wrong.  Many believe that those whoa are blunt with their words or action, are bad people or wrong.  But the truth is, that we are unable to accept just that; the truth.  We need to take responsibility for our own actions, and the only way to do that is to be able to see why it is we are wrong. 

WORK CITED:

Creamer, Beverly. "UH Takes Heat Over Visit by Professor." HonoluluAdvertiser.com 19 Feb. 2005. 19 Feb. 2005 <http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/19/ln/ln22p.html>.]

Miller-Ho, Patricia. “Class Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill.”  Laulima: My Workplace.  22 Nov.  2010.  3 Dec. 2010.

<https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c>

Steers, Stuart. "Churchill, the Man, an Enigma." RockyMountainNews.com 2 Feb. 2005. 19 Feb. 2005 <http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3516107,00.html>.]

Watanabe, Ryan.  “Class Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill.”  Laulima: My Workspace 19 Nov. 2010.  3 Dec. 2010. 

<https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201110/page/580d9883-374c-4194-bb60-e4e1fe68988c>