> > Yeah, why? That's what I don't get. The unvarnished truth is terrible
> > enough - why did he have to make shit up? It makes no sense.
> >
> > Doug
>
> Maybe because Churchill is a third-rate hack?
Have you read "A Little Matter of Genocide"? Have you read "Kill the Indian, Save the Man"? Have you read "Marxism and Native Americans"? Have you read "Agents of Oppression"? Have you read "Perversions of Justice"?
I think it is deplorable that Churchill made shit up and while I will readily acknowledge that many authors "gild-the-lily" more than Churchill has I make no excuses for it for him. He knows he is controversial and that his work would be picked apart so besides being dishonest it was also kind of dumb. Smart people and good authors are not immuned from doing dumb things though. Irrespective of a few dumb mistakes however the above books were not written by a third-rate hack.
What about the above works strikes you as being the work of a third-rate hack? Are you basing this sweeping opinion of his considerable body of work on one or two essays?
> I saw Prof. Church. on the Hannity & Colmes comedy hour, and he was pretty
> pathetic. Bad enough to go on that thing to begin with, but if you do, make
> it count. Don't stand there with your hands in your pockets mumbling
> half-sentences. How did this guy get his rad rep? Simply embarrassing.
I don't watch TV so I didn't see what you are referencing but making any assumption based on seeing someone on one TV appearance is more than a little pointless. Rad people can't have an off day on TV I guess. Cuts into their radness perhaps? This is as silly as anything you accuse Chuck of.
> I remember Chuck "As an anarchist, I . . ." Munson celebrating Church., who
> to my knowledge was done nothing to progress the race. But when it comes to
> Chavez, who's operating in the real world of imperialist threats while
> actually spreading some wealth downward, Chuck can't be bothered with the
> guy. Which suggests to me that Chuck prefers the fantasy world of "rad"
> political figures like Church. as opposed to the existing world where
> anarchist pronouncements are empty chatter.
>
> Dennis
Chucks knee-jerk reaction against Chavez because Chavez is liked by leftists he dislikes is of course silly. His liking Churchill probably has nothing to do with fantasy however. Unless you also imagine most of Churchill's readers fall into this category.
To claim Churchill has never done anything to "progress the race" is an opinion not supported by the facts but don't let that stop you. Churchill looked bad on TV once, remember? Discarding the credible body of work Churchill has accomplished over his life because of a handfull of stupid decisions on his part would be even more stupid than Churchill's blunders. The left is pretty good at doing just that. After all, what better way to show just how good and right we are?
John Thornton