[lbo-talk] Re: Mr. Churchill

[Michael Dawson]

> Not a Scholar? Have you read the mans work? "Fantasies of the Master Race:
> Literature, Cinema, and the Colonization of American Indians", "Cages of
> Steel: The Politics of Imprisonment in the United States", and "Culture
> versus Economism: Essays on Marxism in the Multicultural Arena" among many
> others are excellent works. I do think he fucked up a bit with the essay
> discussed for the reasons I've already stated but to call the man
> non-scholarly and childish is to demonstrate a complete lack of
> familiarity
> with his work. He is very controversial and abrupt but not hate filled as
> his critics claim. I think he requires somewhat careful reading and it is
> easy to misread him if you skim through his words quickly. He is far from
> an embarrassment and a detriment to the left. We are damn lucky to have
> him.
> 
> I am going to assume you have not actually read one of his books as I
> don't
> believe you would have written the above if you had. Please pick one of
> the
> above titles to read and I guarantee you will not be sorry. I'll apologize
> if I'm wrong and you've read more than an essay of his to come to you
> conclusions about him you hold but I think that unlikely. Based on
> previous
> posts of yours I would have assumed you would find his writing amazing and
> rewarding. Am I that bad a judge of such things? The man is genuinely
> insightful and thought provoking. That is why this episode is as painful
> as
> it is.
> 
> John Thornton

He's not hate-filled?  Seriously?  Then I suppose he's a poser.  Take your
pick.

I suppose poser is probably the real answer, as he writes books arguing that
all nonviolence is counter-revolutionary and pointless (bye-bye Gandhi and
MLK) and that the 911 hijackers were patriots working on behalf of brown
people.  By that logic, if he's serious, Churchill should be off in Iraq or
Afghanistan fighting with his comrades, or else helping them blow something
up right here, amid all us Eichmanns.

His scholarship has involved some useful collection of data on the slaughter
of Indians.  That's good and badly needed, but a true scholar would not let
that data turn him into a raving irrational creep.

IMHO, one has to wonder if he's always been an FBI agent.  What more perfect
trap could there be for further weakening the left at this moment than for
us all to rally in favor of a Bin Laden cheerleader?