Churchill, Freedom of Speech, and Fuck
We were watching an audience at the University of Colorado, in attendance for a speech by Ward Churchill on C-SPAN. I was in Ohio. She was in Mississippi. She asked me what I thought about Ward Churchill, and my first instinct was to hesitate – how was I going to word my answer. Shape it and make it fit in a nice way – but better yet, not get into an argument.
That was when I realized that talking about your beliefs, frankly, was more difficult than it used to be. You either fall into a category that believes that the country has gone to shit, and it is your God-given responsibility to inform the public about the deep evil that is the government, or you fall into the group that believes that the government has finally come around and it is up to you to protect the establishment against communist-esque, unpatriotic, liberals that are too self-righteous to understand the greater good at hand.
We take turns yelling at each other – hating someone for hating the President. Hating someone for supporting the president. And even our voices get horse, so we put on bumper stickers, patches, and t-shirts to do our talking when we are asleep. Enemies with labels – it’s easier to know which direction to hate. When we’re driving. When we’re silent. But still, hating and arguing, listening is just too passive – leave that for those MLK fuckers – with their candles and kumbaya.
And because of this, I think we’ve lost the ability to have a conversation, which is defined as: the use of speech for informal exchange of views or ideas or information.
I don’t think I’ve had a good conversation about politics in a long time. I’ve had yelling matches and stalemates instigated by my exhaustion, instead of an impasse.
You’re stupid.
No you’re stupid.
We’re 7-year olds with a larger vocabulary in a pissing match over who is right.
I read the Ward Churchill Essay. You see a few words. German, Holocaust, American Government, Ignorance, and September 9, 2001. You call the man unpatriotic because he paints a picture about America that isn’t flattering. You don’t challenge the facts, you just call the man a villain. You call him Michael Moore’s fuck-buddy. Call him a traitor and ask for a charge of sedition, and ask then you ask for his career to be terminated because you think what he has to say is dangerous. Kids with guns in school. Michael Jackson raping children. Soldiers dodging bullets and suicide bombings. Landslides and earthquakes. Bird flu even, and somehow this man’s essay is dangerous. What would the terrorists do with these words – tape a bomb onto his typewriter, put a stick of dynamite on his dangling participle.
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but Ward Churchill’s Essay will kill me?
He can say whatever he wants to say, and I don’t look down on the man because he said things that challenge the government. Everything should be challenged. Every circle should have their own John Bender [Judd Nelson from The Breakfast Club] in their midst. It’s the basis for us, isn’t it? All great ideas are questioned – the Socratic Method asks us to simply ask why. Scientific Method asks for proof to substantiate the answer. Art, music, and literature – all are dissected by critics and fans – but the government can’t be?
I think after the ten pages, Ward is asking for one thing and that is for the government to answer for itself, and he asks only one thing in return – justify it, and use something less trivial than the name of God and Liberty. Hugh Grant admitted that he got a blowjob from an ugly black hooker. Pete Rose admitted to gambling on baseball. Jose Canseco admitted to using steroids. The least the government can do is say – “yeah, my bad.”
Addendum: And yeah, Kristalyn agreed with me on Churchill. My bad - see Government, take some notes. It's easy.
You neglect to mention that I am emphatically in favor of Ward Churchill's freedom of speech.
9:36 AM
thanks for the comments on my blog. interesting topics on ur page to.
» Post a Comment