I've bon this list for some months, and enjoy the copious discussion and debate. I too was at Ward's talk in SF on Friday, but I have a different take on the matter.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:20:42 -0800, Joseph Wanzala <jwanzala at hotmail.com> wrote:
> the so-called 'anarchist' AK Press
> people who in 'true anarchist spirit' only allowed written questions which
> they selected (i.e. censored) and handed to Churchill one by one to read and
> answer.
I would wager that written questions were done to avoid dealing with people who think "Q&A" means "make two minute statement but have no actual question regarding the content of speaker's talk".
> first said "as to what actually happened on 9-11, I'm open to different
> theories, I have not seen any evidence" (to which I would of course say -
> well why don't you at least examine it!) - or something to that effect.
It's not every writer's job to prove or disprove the theories that pop up about what "really" happened on 9/11. Churchill does a superb job writing on the topics he writes on and probably adds more of substance to social movement theory and struggles for radical social change than any alternative 9/11 theory, despite the admittedly useful questions the latter asks. Also,
> with the idea that it was an inside job is that it suggests that brown
> people are not capable of such feats and gives all the credit to the white
> man, another master race fantasy". Many people seemed impressed by this
> facile analysis - although a couple of people shouted loudly "that's
> ridiculous!".
I think it's a reasonable statement and belief on his part actually. I agree with CHuck0 on the conspiracy theory bit. FWIW, I know some class war anarchists that say the same thing re: race :)
In the end, the key moments from his talk were the following:
1. In response to the inevitable "what am i supposed to do?" question Churchill said, "That's a question I never hear when I speak in the Third World." Very telling...
2. Natsu Saito, during her introduction, talked about how ridiculous were the complaints by progressives, claiming they agree with Ward's roosting chickens essay's sentiment, who wish he could have said it differently, basically been nicer about it.
3. Somewhat satisfying was when Charlie Brennan, a reporter from the Rocky Mountain News in the audience (and in town to interview one of Ward's ex-wife), was called out directly by Ward for basically being a scumbag reporter who digs up the most insignificant factoid from 20 years ago and presents it as evidence that Ward is indeed a horrible person and purveyor of violence, both personal and otherwise.
Anyway, I thought the talk was very good. Sometimes Ward's style and manner of speech are gruff, abrupt, and caustic, the content is right on.
Cheers,
Ian M.