[This post contains disturbing sentences that will leave strong, unwelcome images in the reader's mind. Be warned. Burn sage while reading --a lot of sage; it's a long post.]
If they try to deep-six my ass, I'm going to butcher them in court. --Ward "The Cleaver" Churchill, U. of Hawai'i, Feb. 22, 2005.
You've got to be carefully taught. --Rogers & Hammerstein.
by Jerome du Bois
When a high-school student turns in a detailed written description of murdering a classmate, he (sometimes, not always) goes to counseling. But when University of Hawai'i Professor Haunani Trask wrote a book of poetry called "Racist White Woman" --which detailed "her fantasy of punching, knifing, mutilating and ultimately murdering a white colleague she despised"-- it was published.
Since the beginning of this blog, we recently realized, we have repeatedly encountered the sticky tar of a disturbing heartlessless now becoming obvious in the faculties and student bodies of many American universities. (Professor Trask, on Sept. 12, 2001, quoted Malcolm X on President Kennedy's murder: "Chickens have come home to roost." Okay: ditto, X; right back at ya, Malcolm.)
We wrote about artists, but most of them are attached to, or emerged from, academia --Jon Haddock, for example, championed by Arizona State Curator John Spiak; the entire museum curatorial staff --Marilyn Zeitlin, Heather Lineberry, Spiak, et al-- who created the despicable and falsely-titled "Democracy in America" exhibition; also Heidi Hesse, Beverly McIver, Michael Ray Charles, Neal Lester, John Jota Leaños-- every one of them parroting with a twisted smirk the notion that whatever America gets, she deserves.
But now they're getting really personal, and visceral, and up-close. Here's Cigar-Store Indian Ward Churchill answering questions in public at The Left Bank Book Store in Seattle, August 10, 2003 (hat tip to Michelle Malkin):
Question from audience: You mentioned a little bit ago, ‘Why did it take a bunch of Arabs to do what you all should have done a long time ago,’ that’s my question. . . .[snip]
Churchill: I’m gonna repeat that, tell me if I got that right: Why shouldn’t we do something and how do you move so they don’t see you coming.
As to the first part, not a reason in the world that I could see. I can’t find a single reason that you shouldn’t in a principled way—there may be some practical considerations, such as do you know how (laughter from audience)—you know, often these things are processes. It’s not just an impulse. And certainly it’s not just an event. And the simple answer, although it probably should be more complicated, but I’m not being flip and giving the simple answer, is: You carry the weapon. That’s how they don’t see it coming.
Is it becoming clearer to anyone out there why I carry the weapon? 24/7? We've been threatened with physical harm by people who have graduated, or emanated, from Arizona State University. We two live with eyes in the back of our heads, in a local culture shot through with twisted strands of cruelty, sadomasochism, and rebarbarization --the ragged end of decadence, before the rebirth of decency-- and the universities nurture it.
By coincidence or synchronicity, I have just finished reading Roger L. Depue's vivid, wise, and quotable memoir Between Good and Evil, subtitled "A Master Profiler's Hunt for Society's Most Violent Predators." (Written with Susan Schindehette.)
This is the man who, though he didn't create it, grew the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit to its current excellence. In what follows, I will use some of what he has learned to draw disturbing parallels in the psychological profiles of contemporary human predators and contemporary academic liberals.
And no, this is not parody. Not a word of it is funny. . . . Okay; some of my Ward nicknames, maybe.
From Depue, Chapter One, page six:
My job has been to try to stop human predators before they kill again, and after studying them so closely over so many years, to me their traits seem clearly recognizable.
They are rational, sadistic, often intelligent, and almost invariably narcissistic. They see themselves living in a realm somewhere above the rest of us, in a place where the rules of normal society do not apply. Over the years, I've drawn up a list of their common operating principles, something that I call the Anti-Commandments:
[1] "That which you love is what I most seek to destroy."
[2] "Life is as meaningless as death."
[3] "There are few things more pleasurable than hurting someone who is trying to help me."
[4] "People die too easily. It should be more painful, and take longer."
Almost exactly two years ago, when we were talking with Tucson artist and high-school teacher Mark Rubin-Toles, a Yale alumnus, we were stunned and horrified when, over lunch, he told us that he was fascinated by the images of the WTC jumpers, telling us that Mexican cable TV would show those images over and over and over . . . "It's kinda funny," he actually said, especially of the pair falling holding hands.
He was also surprised that we didn't just jump into his hate-Bush anti-war frame. He insisted that we were going to war because Americans can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. I yelled that no, we were going over there because Saddam was cutting their tongues out! And we left him there.
From Depue's book, page 291: "[A 9/11 eyewitness] recalls onlookers standing, stunned, in the minutes after the second plane hit the World Trade Center. They looked to the sky, and saw dark blots that began hitting the sidewalk, and realized, in horror, that they were people. She remembers a group of kids, standing in baseball caps and baggy jeans, who were watching these things unfold. But as the bodies hit the pavement, those teenagers shouted and cheered."
Now, reader, can you imagine yourself standing beside those teenagers, either silently or loudly encouraging them? How about Mark Rubin-Toles? How about Haunani Trask? How about Non-Indian Giver Ward Churchill? How about the 200 CU Boulder professors who just publicly stood behind him? How about the U of Wisconsin Whitewater faculty sponsors? I can see it easily; these people have hearts like fossilized raisins, and there are tens of thousands of them, their eyes like iron marbles, their mouths frowned down into humorless horseshoes. (Ward Churchill didn't even raise his leis to inhale their fragrances.)
They are rational, sadistic, often intelligent, and almost invariably narcissistic. They see themselves living in a realm somewhere above the rest of us, in a place where the rules of normal society do not apply.
Among the statements in their unqualified endorsement of Ward Churchill, the American Association of University Professors writes that what was “reprehensible are inflammatory statements by public officials that interfere in the decisions of the academic community."
In other words: the learned monks are convening, ignorant peasants hush up. Those loonies don't yet see their bad moon waning.
As to narcissism, one good example comes from one of the racists of color we have called out in the past, Neal Lester. Catherine King asked him, on the blog and in emails, to explain an anti-American statement in an art exhibition catalog with which he appeared to agree. He finally deigned to slip an email from under the door of his little kingdom. But he had only two things to say: he asked if we were under psychiatric care, and he corrected us about the length of his hair.
Catherine King had written about racism, moral values, human dignity, twisted history, the nature of beauty, bad education, questionable curating --and this pitiful squib was, and remains, his only reply.
Neal Lester doesn't have to care about truth, honesty, or the future. He doesn't have to care about us, out here in the blogosphere. He's got tenure --and dreads. He is sittin' pretty up there.
[1] "That which you love is what I most seek to destroy."
Inalienable Individual Rights. The United States. Private Property. Mutual Respect. Capitalism. The Military. Political & Economic Equality for Women. Secure Borders. The US Constitution. The Declaration of Independence. Freedom of Religion. The Rule of Law. Education. Academic Freedom. Technology. Freedom. Liberty. Happiness. Life.
Haunani Trask: "We need to think very, very clearly about who the enemy is. The enemy is the United States of America and everyone who supports it." . . .Professor Trask has even promoted her classes by claiming in speeches that if students believe “the United States is good, [take my class] and think again.”. . . In essays published by Professor Trask, she repeatedly rejects “the concept of academic freedom as a bourgeoisie white intellectual construct. . ." [Ryan O'Donnell, Frontpage magazine, June 25, 2003.]
Another one of Churchill's promoters in Hawai'i is Robert Perkinson, an assistant professor of American Studies there. Here's what Laura Brown at Hawaii Reporter reports about this guy:
[Faculty like] American Studies Assistant Professor Robert Perkinson, who organized Churchill’s visit, promote anti-American, anti-capitalism propaganda while collecting their upper-middle class paychecks made possible by their students’ capitalist parents, student labor, corporate sponsorship and taxpayer dollars.
Perkinson, who teaches courses such as American Empire, World War II in America and Hawaii and Slavery and Unfree Labor, published an op-ed against America in the Jordan Times last year entitled Practices that Demand Scrutiny, which was carried by Al-Jazeerah.
Both Perkinson and Churchill are signatories of a Dec. 2, 1999, statement advocating violence against the World Trade Organization in 1999, identifying themselves as “We - the broad Left, anti-corporate, pro-livable world community.”
These unequivocal statements follow, “Adherents to ‘non-violent’ protest methods preach against targeting corporate property. We feel that this is an uncritical acceptance of the dominant value system of American consumer society: private property has a higher value than life. At this time, we feel that we, as activists, need to debate these issues further among ourselves.”
One more example of contempt for simple human dignity: After the 1993 incident in which Churchill, surrounded by his crew, spat on the injured Carole Standing Elk, Patti Jo King of California AIM and several others formally complained to his employer, the University of Colorado at Boulder:
During the protest that followed this shocking and reprehensible incident, the University of Colorado was contacted and complaints about Churchill’s inappropriate behavior were filed. Nevertheless, the concerns of the Indian community fell on deaf ears. One department head at the University of Colorado told the complainants, “What Mr. Churchill does off campus on his own time is his own business.” [my emphasis]
Such warmth and compassion from these people!
After he retired from the FBI, Roger Depue consulted with corporations about workplace safety and employees who go beserk. From Depue's book, page 268:
Whenever I was hired by a corporation to advise them on reducing the likelihood of workplace violence, I made a point of pulling out of my briefcase a well-worn copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. You can tell a lot about a country, or an organization, from its basic documents, I said, and these are ours. I told them I'd interviewed a number of workplace killers in prison, and almost every one mentioned how in some way, real or imagined, they'd felt shortchanged, denigrated, or demeaned by their employer.
The very first step in creating an environment where violence isn't likely to thrive, I said, isn't metal detectors, security cameras, and armed guards at the door. It's making sure the basic rights in our most revered documents are provided. The first step is to make sure you treat every employee with dignity.
Just substitute "student" or "colleague" or "citizen" for "employee" in the above passage, and remember how Ward Churchill flunked a student for not agreeing with him. Remember how he said that his Ninth Amendment rights trumped a questioner's First Amendment rights. (He went on at length about public stupidity of Constitutional law, ignoring that he really meant the Tenth Amendment, even after being corrected by an audience member. Idiota.) Remember how an astronomy professor spent 45 minutes trashing the President before a captive audience. That is fascism. (This abuse has become so common that some students now chant "OT,OT" [Off-Topic] in objection. They are there to learn, not be indoctrinated.)
To risk going off-topic myself, the following pellucid passage by Rabbi Hillel Goldberg of Denver seems appropriate here:
The pertinent pedagogical criticism of Ward Churchill is not for his opinons, but for espousing them in the classroom. If one defends Churchill, the teacher, on grounds of free speech, one perverts the purpose of the university classroom, which is not professor-focused, but student-focused. It is not a professor's free speech, but the student's rigorous, unbiased training, that is the university's purpose. If a professor must fall back on free speech or academic freedom to defend himself, it's usually because he violated his mission: focus on the student.
If only professors respected their students. It sounds like dreamland. Here is Haunani Trask concentrating her focus on a student (from Ryan O'Donnell, frontpage):
In essays published by Professor Trask, she repeatedly rejects “the concept of academic freedom as a bourgeoisie white intellectual construct,” some sort of racist notion she is apparently by no means bound to, despite being a member of a major department at a taxpayer-funded state university.
For example, in 1990, a white undergraduate student named Joey Carter penned an editorial in the University of Hawaii student newspaper expressing dismay over the continued use of the word “haole” in Hawaiian society. Mr. Carter’s concerns centered around the fact that the word was becoming increasingly depreciatory, and “when spoken with bitter sarcasm and prolonged intonation” seemed to carry “some of the burning hostility of the modern use of the word ‘nigger.’”
In response to the student’s letter, Professor Trask unleashed a racist, ad hominem attack on Mr. Carter. Dismissing Mr. Carter’s concerns as “uninformed, childish moaning” (how scholarly of her), Professor Trask both acknowledges the hostility inherent to the word “haole” while refusing to stop using it, declaring that Mr. Carter’s discomfort was “too bad,” because, as she informed Mr. Carter, “you are a haole and you always will be.” Trask then suggested that if Mr. Carter did not like enduring racial slurs he should “return to Louisiana.”
[Personal aside to Prof. Trask, hapa-haole: I am a poi-dog haole --French Huguenot and Scots-Irish-- born in Lanikai and raised there fifteen years. My father, who was golfing at the Oahu Country Club on December 7, 1941, went to war and earned five Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and two Silver Stars helping to save the families that gave birth to your sorry ass.
What did your daddies and granddaddies do during the War, Prof? Were any of them hiding out hanging out on Ni'ihau, maybe? While my mom dodged the blackouts, heart thudding, going outside to do laundry for her and her infant daughter? While my dad shed blood, and scarred his soul, on Guadalcanal and Okinawa? For freedom, for the future, for all peoples? You feckless, heartless fool!]
[2] "Life is as meaningless as death."
This statement presents no problem to those who have been eating the French cheese all these years: Saussare, Barthes, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard, Cixous. The key word here is neither life nor death, for them, but "meaningless," the hollow heart of their program. The destruction of meaning, then language, then life's juice itself, is their goal.
The prime recent example has to be Joe Deutsch, the sociopathic student artist who nearly blew his brains out in Chris Burden and Nancy Rubin's performance art class. Both teachers promptly resigned (twenty years late in my opinion). If you want to peek into the resinous heart of our culture, go read the comments in this posting from art.blogging.la. Main tone there: La-de-la, what's the big deal? I have been trying to find the transcript of an interview by John Kasich on Fox with one of the students, who wanted to insist that whether the bullet was real or not was not the real issue. The real issue was, was it art?
Kasich said something about him feeling different if the poor fool's brains had been splattered all over his face. (I think Kasich is wrong about that, sadly. This young man was a zombie.)
For my second example, let's revisit John Jota Leaños's callous claim to fame: the Pat Tillman poster. From his speech about it at ASU, we begin with the words JJL forced into Tillman's mouth:
Remember me? I was killed by my own Army Ranger Platoon in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004
I am a hero to many of you
my death was tragic my glory was short-lived
flawed perceptions of myself my country and the War on Terror resulted in the disastrous end to my life
[JJL:] To me, this to me is a quiet piece. It is an emotional argument. It brings issues into question. It does not violently scream at you. It uses first person as an artistic strategy. It's a declaration from the dead.
There are many explanations and points of entry to this piece, but I would like to say that this piece, for me, is a work for the Days of the Dead. As you know, the Days of the Dead/Días de los Muertos is a Mexican, Xican@ and indigenous tradition that ritualizes the CELEBRATION of the dead. We honor our dead during these falls weeks by creating altars and artwork with our dead's favorite objects, foods and drinks and by inviting the spirits back to our homes. We talk to our dead. This may seem strange to some of you, but it is an ancient tradition passed on to us. We create caricatures of the dead making fun of the living and caricatures of the living poking fun at the dead. We also use caricatures of the dead to comment on political and social contradictions. This tradition goes way back before the work of Jose Guadalupe Posada.
So the question put forth with this piece was, "What if Pat Tillman's image/spirit came back to ASU speaking to us about the tragedy of his death and the mistakes and errors of war? What would happen?"
Pat Tillman was a complicated fellow, no doubt. If we examine Tillman, the man, it's evident that he was complex, not seeking heroic status, constantly questioning, searching, and a self-declared atheist. But this work deals more with the use of his image rather than Tillman the man; it's a memorial about the manufacturing of heroes by the military and the quasi-religious and dogmatic adherence to Tillman's mythological heroic image by mainly conservative male Americans.
Before we focus on the Pat Tillman desecration, notice first the priveleging of the indigenous with all the huffing and puffing about Day of the Dead. Big deal. Humans all over the world for over fifty thousand years have done all the things he describes, and even more, over and over. There is nothing particularly special about the Xi%&n@ (whatever) Day of the Dead.
But JJL uses it as a colonialist would: as a prop, a puppet, a cultural overlay to justify his attack on Tillman and America. One is not supposed to criticize other cultures for fear of being called racist. To hell with that: he's using a cultural tradition as a bludgeon, disrespecting both the modest tradition and his dead, now defenseless victim, a man he couldn't hold a candle to on his best day on this Earth. [I've written about JJL twice before, here and here.]
flawed perceptions of myself my country and the War on Terror resulted in the disastrous end to my life
Notice, first, the passive voice. Typical wimpy wanky academic limp noodle yakking. Army Rangers don't talk like that. They say: We. Go. Now. They say, "Rangers don't leave Rangers behind."
But no: JJL has read Pat Tillman's mind and brings us the news that Tillman wasn't seeing himself, his country, or the War on Terror at all clearly. He was deluded. JJL offers no evidence of the provenance of this new information. A seance, maybe? A vision quest and a sweat? Consulting a bruja? I don't think so. It's loony left boilerplate, and it's about as credible as Rangers using toy guns.
It uses first person as an artistic strategy . . . But this work deals more with the use of his image rather than Tillman the man . . .
JJL justifies spitting on a man's grave as an artistic strategy. For the sake of JJL's "artwork," every strong moment of Pat Tillman's life has its legs cut out from under it. Once again, aesthetics trumps simple mutual human respect, and honoring the dead. Here JJL also cops to [3] above:
"There are few things more pleasurable than hurting someone who is trying to help me."
Let's put some words in JJL's mouth and see how he likes it:
"I hate this country and its success. I resented Pat Tillman's strength, his determination, his athletic talents, his clarity, his integrity, his modesty, his patriotism, and even his beauty. I got so juiced when I found out he had died by friendly fire. That made my idea perfect. Now, when people think of Pat Tillman, I'm right there too in their minds. That's what I wanted. Plus I can use him as a whipping boy for my new bogeyman, the New American University." (More on that last below.)
JJL also makes the false claim that he was dealing with the use of Tillman's image, not Tillman himself. As if they can be separated, peeled apart in deconstructed decalcomania. No; can't be done. The man himself is looking out at you.
There's no doubt a lot people wanted a piece of Pat Tillman, both before and after his tragic death. JJL claims that ASU took the hero thing and ran with it to promote its own agenda, which JJL has the skinny on, too, because he's empoying exactly the same strategy. He needs to, to save his job, and he'll desecrate Pat Tillman's memory the livelong day toward that end.
What do I mean about saving his job? The clue comes further down in the speech:
The "New American University," of course, is a philosophy and vision steeped in corporate influence and metaphor, aspiring to the MIT and Carnegie Mellon University model that stresses techno-science for the principal benefit of government, military and corporate profit. It is a model that furthers entrenches the paramilitary and corporate function of the university into the larger global economic structure. The humanities and arts in the New American University model are said to be necessary, but are ultimately devalued as these disciplines just don't bring in as much capital.
And why is that? Because they are increasingly irrelevant, the public is getting wise to it, and now these clowns must circle the wagons and whine about how special they are because they're one-sixteenth Pawnee.
So what? How does this minor historical accident help us get handles on the future? Long ago the Catholics slaughtered and burned alive most of my family on that infamous St. Bartholemew's Day, along with tens of thousands of others. Long ago the English drove my other family, by the edge of their broadswords, down to the blasted lowland heaths of Scotland to grub out a living, or not. Where's my repatriation, James Riding In?
Screw that. I don't whine; I pick it up where it is, and make improvements. It's called progress, bootstrapping, the forward look, the upward glance, the Western Way.
JJL, James Riding In, Haunani Trask, Ward Churchill, all you zombies --nothing is meaningless! Life is meaning! Wake up! --or rather-- be born --finally.
My third and final example of the willful destruction of meaning and language is Ward "My Brush Is My Weapon" Churchill's Winter Attack. No, I don't mean his physical attack on Raj Chohan and his cameraperson, I mean the artwork Raj wanted to talk about. The best example of the plagarism is here, courtesy of LGF reader DaZoid. (LGF readers are an internet treasure.)
When the Flummoxed Lummox re-emerged after the encounter, he offered a truly convoluted "explanation," the important aspects of which I list now:
It's original even if it isn't.
Stealing is no big deal, an outdated bourgeouis concept; think of my piece as appropriation.
It's your fault that you didn't know I stole from Thomas Mails.
My deepest fantasy is to be a Mystic Warrior of the Plains.
Okay, that last one I put in his mouth. But the rest are designed to destroy property rights, originality, authorship, copyright, trademark, legal responsibility, legal definitions of theft, and a lot more. (Now he says Thomas Mails knew all about it. Untrue. He should take Mark Twain's advice: "When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.") He wants to corrode all meaning to make the social fabric more malleable for he and his fascistic tribalism.
[3] "There are few things more pleasurable than hurting someone who is trying to help me."
The closest analogue I have to this in ethnic studies would be bayoneting the wounded. Let me explain by using a summary of the subjects of a dozen years of articles from Wicazo Sa, a Native American Review. (This analysis is restricted to the tables of contents online, though the review goes back to 1985.) Here is their mission statement, copied from the website at their new home, Arizona State University:
During the past two decades, Native American Studies has emerged as a central arena in which Native American populations in the United States define the cultural, religious, legal, and historical parameters of scholarship and creativity essential for survival in the modern world. Founded in 1985 Wicazo Sa Review is a journal in support of this particular type of scholarship, providing inquiries into the Indian past and its relationship to the vital present. Its aim is to become an interdisciplinary instrument to assist indigenous peoples of the Americas in taking possession of their own intellectual and creative pursuits.
Each issue contains articles, essays, interviews, reviews, literary criticism, and scholarly research pertinent to Native American Studies and related fields.
In twelve years, from 1992 to Fall 2004, Wicazo Sa published nineteen issues, once to twice a year. By my count, including editors' commentaries, the review published 185 articles and 78 book and film reviews, for a total of 263 written pieces. In this group we find:
--two articles about "drinking." Not "alcoholism." That word never appears.
--one article about AIDS.
--one article about child sexual abuse and AIDS.
--one article about diabetes (which blames the whites via displacement).
--one article about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Vietnam Vets).
--two articles about welfare reform.
--and three articles about gaming, all positive (which I will return to below).
That's 11 out of 263. Less than five percent. Let's list what Native American issues the editors decided were unworthy of their attention, scholarship and creativity essential for survival in the modern world:
--welfare dependency
--alcoholism
--glue sniffing
--domestic violence
--dating violence
--teen pregnancy & STDs
--infant mortality
--highest suicide rate of any US ethnic group; why?
--recidivism
--xenophobia
--the corrosiveness of gaming
--neglect and destruction of the natural environment
--gang activity
--crystal meth plague
What do they concentrate on, then? Can't you guess? Repatriation and Sovereignity issues dominate. They ran a special issue on Health. Suicide went unmentioned. They had a Film & Video issue as well. There was an article about toys, and one about the consciousness of rocks. The reader is welcome to peruse their tables of contents. Any example I cite will sound unfair. Go look for yourselves.
[Update: Oh, about the gaming. The first article was a survey, as far as I can tell. The second article was titled "The Apex of A Long Struggle." The third was titled "Lady Luck or Mother Earth? Gaming As A Trope In Plains Indians Cultural Traditions," by Kathryn Shanley. Nothing about appealing to the stupidity in human beings, and making money off of it. How noble.]
I don't know what "wicazo sa" stands for, but I translate it as "Turn back the clock for the priveleged Indian whiners." I mean these people, for starters:
Editor
* James Riding In
Associate Editor
* Susan Miller
Founding Editors
* Roger Buffalohead
* Elizabeth Cook-Lynn
* Beatrice Medicine
* William Willard
Contributing Editors
* Gloria Bird, Institute for American Indian Arts
* Duane Champagne, University of California, Los Angeles
* Steven J. Crum, University of California, Davis
* Vine Deloria, Jr., University of Colorado (emeritus)
* Donald Fixico, University of Kansas
* Jack D. Forbes, University of California, Davis
* Joy Harjo, poet and musician, University of California, Los Angeles
* Suzan Shown Harjo, The Morning Star Insitute
* Inés Hernández-Ávila, University of California, Davis
* Geary Hobson, University of Oklahoma
* Tom Holm, University of Arizona
* Craig Howe, Oglala Lakota College
* Ted Jojola, University of New Mexico
* Glenabah Martinez, University of New Mexico
* LaVerne Masayesva Jeanne, University of Nevada, Reno
* Robert M. Peregoy, Salish Kootenai College
* Kathryn Shanley, University of Montana
* A. Blair Stonechild, Saskatchewan Federated Indian College
* Luci Tapahonso, University of Arizona
* Laura Tohe, Arizona State University
* Robert Hill, University of Wisconsin
* Charles F. Wilkinson, University of Colorado
* Michael Yellow Bird, University of Kansas
Editor Assistant
* Chris Pexa
Message to all of you: you're betraying the future of your peoples while you publish irrelevancies. You know damn well the Hawai'ians are never going to get Hawai'i back. It's just a guilt grift with you operators. Look at you! waving your eagle feathers and tattered treatises on your little island in the backwaters of the university, while the unstoppable now and the incredible future sweep by you! While your peoples ruin themselves in a dozen ways! And you, hauling in all that green that folds. Shame on you all!
[4] "People die too easily. It should be more painful, and take longer."
And now we're back at the top, with Ward The Cleaver and Haunani "Bloody Knife" Trask, carefully teaching their students how to slowly and pleasurably carve the heart out of the American soul, the better to eat it raw.
POSTCRIPT: Several years ago my wife, Catherine King, was teaching sixth grade English in an affluent public school district in Cave Creek. One of her students was a punk who had come up through that school district, a Holocaust denier, Jew-hater and all-around twisted twit named Jaime Anderson. ("No, it's not Hymie, it's Jay-me, you stupid, stupid . . .") His parents appeared to be white supremacists. Anyway, after she rebuked him in class once for his antisemitism, he said the following:
"Do you ever think about commiting suicide, Ms. King? Because if you do, I've got a lot of money, and I could pay for your funeral."
She went to the principal, lodged a complaint, and went home.
The next day, at Columbine in Colorado, Klebold and Harris unleashed hell.
The following Monday Catherine returned to the principal's office, and ran into a brick wall. Even in the light of Columbine, they would not support her. Not long after, she quit, joining the ranks of so many ex-teachers who will no longer live among the Rebarbarians.
See also:
The Indian Giver
Another Note About Ward Churchill Of The Hyena-Vulture Tribe
Flying With Ward Churchill On The Astral Plane
To Ward Churchill And John Jota Leaños: You Gotta Face Your Face When The Race Fad Fades
Ward "The Cleaver" Churchill Wants To Watch You Bleed
Technorati tag: Ward Churchill
