> The reason I'm outraged
> at Churchill is that he has done enormous damage to the credibility of the
> left. At a time when we all agree that the fate of humanity probably
> depends on the left putting together a second and better wave of state
> power-taking, we simply cannot afford Churchill's childishness. He'll never
> admit it, but he's done huge harm to the left, and through that, the entire
> human race, including American Indians.
The harm done was primarily to himself. How has the left in general been hurt? I don't see that. You can say that about anything controversial.
> About the racism charge -- defending Churchill this way is also damaging the
> left's credibility. Every time anybody savages a non-white intellectual,
> it's painted as racial. Churchill's a prick for writing what he wrote and
> for refusing to retract it and apologize. I'm mad because he's a famous
> leftist, not because he's Indian.
You are separating what he wrote from his being an indian and you can't do that. Is he the only person who wrote that the US was attacked because of what they had done to others? He is not. How many professors are in fear of losing their job for saying the people in Afghanistan got what they deserved? The people in Iraq? There is nothing racist in your mind about persecuting a professor who is not white who wrongly states that white people got what they deserve at the hands of brown people but when white professors wrongly state that brown people get what they deserve from white people no one bats an eye? If this isn't racism then please tell me what is. I am not saying that you dislike him because he is an indian but you cannot tell everyone that this attack on Churchill has nothing to do with his being an indian because you don't know that. You have no insight into some absolute truth that lets you know racism has nothing to do with this. All you can state is that you think it isn't. It would hardly damage the left if thousands of people came out with statements saying they feel this attack is partially motivated by racism either. I think it is. I acknowledge that my feeling this attack on Ward may be partially motivated by racism could, to a degree, be a function of my heritage. Why don't you go ahead and acknowledge your reticence to label it as racism may have something to do with your not being an indian? Unless this only works one way?
John Thornton