Prof's Indian roots disputed (Churchill Lies About Indian Heritage)

Rocky Mountain News ^ | 2/4/05

[mbennett203]

"If you think we should perpetuate this backwards image, by all means."

Well, since you want to be so helpful, why not visit the leftist websites, and try to disabuse them of that image. I even included the sarcasm tag. Also, let them know that a bunch of atheists on the right side of the coin voted for Bush, so frankly, red states are not "Jesusland."

"I think we share some of the same ideals...less government, more individual freedoms, more living our lives as we see fit within the bounds of common decency. If I come at that outcome in a different way, so be it."

Socialism in any form doesn't aid in the acheivement of any of that as I see it.

" I just happen to read radical leftist books."

For serious study? Or the same way one might watch monkeys smearing their own excrement on things on a slow day?

[revoltingilm]

For serious study? Or the same way one might watch monkeys smearing their own excrement on things on a slow day?

Maybe since you appear to be seven years old and hooked on television I will let that slide. I'm sure I will now be booted from this website now that I have admitted that I read books that aren't at B&N. Oh well...more time to grow your food.

[elli1]

Chuchill's mistake was lying.

Double ditto. Now I 'get it'...unforgiveable in academia. Even on a run-of-the-mill research paper, this is what would earn a student a big fat F.

[Godzilla]

I would have to READ his position in order to agree or disagree. I have not read the book which gave life to this controversy, so I have no comment on his position.

That is a cop-out. You obviously have a position. Do you or do you not agree with his views regarding those killed on 911 and the removal of the US from the face of the earth? These opinions of his are well enough documented and reflect who he is.

The book I mentioned has nothing to say about 9/11. It was written prior to that. It addresses the love affair that the new left has with pacifism and how pacifism's contributions to social change are minimal.

Again, you are missing the point. I didn't infer if those points were in that book, I wanted to know if you agreed with his current beliefs and attitudes. So answer the question.

[Godzilla]

How legit of an author is one who plagerizes and falsifed his academic background?? Follow the link so you can 'read' and form an opinion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1338679/posts

[revoltingilm]

That is a cop-out. You obviously have a position. Do you or do you not agree with his views regarding those killed on 911 and the removal of the US from the face of the earth? These opinions of his are well enough documented and reflect who he is.

Okay, I found the book and read the essay. Although it does not mention "the removal of the US from the face of the earth", I do agree that Churchill's view on the victims of 9/11 is incorrect.

I didn't infer if those points were in that book, I wanted to know if you agreed with his current beliefs and attitudes. So answer the question.

You did infer. You asked me which 50% I agreed with when I said I agreed with 50% of "Pacifism as Pathology", so I answered. Semantics may be what brings on civil war. Anyway, I just read forum rules about staying on topic, so maybe we should quit?

[Godzilla]

Okay, I found the book and read the essay. Although it does not mention "the removal of the US from the face of the earth",

That is a more recent statement associated with Churchill, search some of the other threads for more details.