As I sat at the UMC observing the worthless bickering of two angry factions, it was clear that few from either side got the point... probably because they had read nary a word from the author. The small band of College republicans employed a bullhorn to claim Churchill advocates terrorism whilst a raucous mob screamed in defense the Bill of Rights, neither side much concerned with the actual content of the essay, just yelling because I guess that's what you do at this type of thing. I soon realized that I was enveloped by a perfect analogy for the mass media's treatment of this issue (and every other).
We certainly should defend freedom of speech with all our might, but there is a huge gap between saying something and influencing someone. If we are to truly respect freedom of speech, we must have the intelligence and desire to access and assess diverse ideas... whether they be presented in a protesters yelp or a professor's essay. Churchill's intention was to enlighten the public by offering an opposing take on the causes of 9/11 and we ought be grateful for his contribution.
After decades of an imperialistic / oppressive American foreign policy, it is only natural that someone might fight back. Being the "super power" that we are, terrorism is the only weapon that could strike America. In ignoring the crimes of our government, we have indirectly taken responsibility for them. Therefore, the terrorists were doing nothing more than waging war on a known enemy. This is a compelling argument that, if heeded, would save the world much conflict by illuminating that the true causes of anti-American action could all be avoided by a more generous, less domineering foreign policy.
It is thus quite unfortunate that we're discussing the state of free speech rather than the future of global relations. We must break institutionalized censorship, but let's not lose the message when fighting for the medium. Instead, we ought combine the two causes by building an open-minded / independent populous that circumvents the system, seeks out diverse viewpoints, and evaluates them objectively. That's the only way freedom of speech will produce the free flow of ideas... oh yeah, and thanks to those of you who are leading by example.
Read the essay and news updates at: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html
click here for your own printable Ward posters http://www.desconu.com/churchill2 Support Ward by contacting peter.steinhauer at colorado.edu
Related Essay: Believe it or not, Osama had a point http://www.desconu.com/osama
Plesase post your comments in the discussion below... I try to address as many as possible as soon as possible, so check back in a few days to view the response. Some additional thoughts... do you believe we are innocent? - then please send proof. Send the social responsibility reports for companies inhabiting the twin towers (if they even took the time to do them). Send what you know of Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, and the like. But do not send opposition without justification... it's a waste of my time and yours.
We Can Learn from 9/11
It is unfortunate that Osama could not have a more significant voice because, believe it or not, there are important lessons to be learned from the fundamentalists. He and his colleagues mistakenly chose to package their message in violence and have lost ground in doing so (we ought learn from their mistake), but the gravity of their action was taken in part to demonstrate just how revolting our imperialist culture has become.
A strong faction of the world population shares that fear and distrust of our foreign policy and "more fo' me" strict adherence to capitalism. Beyond military imperialism, we have forcefully exerted our global influence in uncountable ways.
+ The gap between rich and poor is expanding domestically - I hate to imagine what U.S. multinationals have done to developing economies. + Massive advertising campaigns have created a nation of consumers - it's even harder for the less educated nations to resist the indoctrination. + Likewise, the media dictates our national mindset - poorly funded international media outlets struggle to keep a voice.
We are undeniably demolishing cultures, but is that so bad when we are so proud of our own? In developing countries many of the young are seduced by our wealth and have willingly taken on our lifestyle (much to their economic benefit), however, such changes could be done in a way respectful of native cultures.
After all, it is not unfathomable for a traditional nation to be offended by our blatant sexuality (verging upon Romanesque orgy), conspicuous consumption (without regard for the environment), and unrefined cultural offerings (identical houses, restaurants, and entertainment yield little depth). Our culture has clear strengths and weaknesses, as do all others, and it is only in coexistence that we can decifer the good from the bad.
In its grand hypocrisy, our government has asserted that we will never change our stylo in the face of threat, but asks other nations to do just that on a weekly basis. If we place demands of cultural change upon countries, we must also respect their demands in order to avoid alienation. Those who live by the "might makes right" mentality only last until the weaker party gets pissed, finds a few friends, and beats the shit out of ?em. It's time to curb military and economic imperialism... now.
Ward Churchill addresses this issue
-- Michael Pugliese