These two men pictured below would kick De Genova's arse, for that statement, if they didn't have 100 times the class that the professor has.
"De Genova,
Your response to the patriotic outcry over your remarks is worse than the remarks themselves. Now that you have put them in context, they are even MORE anti-American. As long as you remain in the United States, suckling at the teat of the country you so despise, you are a hypocrite and a coward. I challenge you to stand up for what you believe and LEAVE THE U.S. NOW!
And Mr. Foner: a whole "teach-in" bashing American foreign policy does not automatically equivocate with "presentations of high intellectual caliber". You are covering your exposed butt hoping you do not lose your departments funding, that much is obvious. (by the way, until De Genova finds his cojones and leaves this country, I would avoid the use of words like "caliber". It could give some real, honest, Americans some rather radical ideas! Please do not construe that as any kind of threat by me. To do so would be remarkably decontextualized and inflammatory)."
Ignatz Kleistershtroven
Indianapolis, Indiana
I am sooooooooo tired of this myth. The Iraqis were a Soviet client state for decades. Who made most of the armament we're seeing them use?
Marxist alert
1,000 Somalis died in Mogadishu, to 19 Americans. Is deGenova wishing for the death of a billion third world people?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
If he's passing this off as factual to his students, Columbia can dispense with him for a lack of academic rigor, without any need to even address the offensiveness of his remarks.
To the Editor:
Spectator, now for the second time in less than a year, has succeeded to quote me in a remarkably decontextualized and inflammatory manner.
We don't have access to the "other" instance DeGenova refers to. What we do have access to shows that decontextualization was probably a gift in this instance.
In Margaret Hunt Gram's report on the faculty teach-in against the war in Iraq (March 27, 2003), I am quoted as wishing for a million Mogadishus but with no indication whatsoever of the perspective that framed that remark.
Another words Mr. DeGenova in esence says, "Yes I made that remark, but there was a really really good reason." Ah, no there wasn't Mr. DeGenova.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that your Staff Editorial in the same issue, denouncing the teach-in for "dogmatism," situates me in particular as the premier example of an academic "launching tirades against anything and everything American."
Well lets read on. I always thought it was the duty of the media to reveal truth. Did they?
In my brief presentation, I outlined a long history of U.S. invasions, wars of conquest, military occupations, and colonization in order to establish that imperialism and
white supremacy have been constitutive of U.S. nation-state formation and U.S. nationalism. In that context, I stressed the necessity of repudiating all forms of U.S.
patriotism.
Well I don't think you came out against everything American by listing them, but you did come out against everything. What you did come out against was just about every military effort the nation has launched. Nevermind those efforts made this nation safer or rescued other nations citizens. In that context "as you refer to it" you stress repudiation of all forms of U.S. patriotism. Now while you didn't list everything American to be against, you non the less demanded people "repudiate all forms of U.S. patriotism, thus that leaves nothing in this nation to be proud of, or be for. If you're not for it, that leaves only one option, you're against everything in this nation.
Colonization? What nation have we taken over, made them a colony of ours (owned by the United States) and demanded cash payments from on a regular basis? The answer is, there aren't any.
Since we haven't taken over other nations, the use of the word imperialism is simply disinformation, something your sort are known for.
Here racism is introduced to your tirade. According to you, our nation-state formation and U.S. nationalism is a byproduct of "white supremacy". Could it possibly be that our goals for entering other nations is to see their leadership be answerable to their citizens, and become peaceful trading partners with other nations in their region? The answer is yes. What has this to do with the color of any policy maker's skin? Are you attempting to make the case for Colin Powell and Dr. Condoleza Rice being white racists? The driving force behind this, is your retention of other goals, ones diametrically opposed to capitalist republics springing up around the planet.
I also emphasized that the disproportionate majority of U.S. troops come from racially subordinated and working-class backgrounds and are in the military largely as a consequence of a treacherous lack of prospects for a decent life.
There's the old fraud again. We have a large middle class in this nation. We have a small poverty class in this nation. Both "volunteer" for the military, some out of economic considerations, others out of patriotism and a sense of adventure. Some of the most well healed homes in the United States, have sons and daughters in the military. Are the members of the military mostly represented by these folks? No! That would be impossible. The middle-income and poverty income segments of our society far outnumber the extreme-wealth class. But then you know this. Which race sees more of it's members than any other race die in these efforts? Blacks? Those of Mexican ancestry? No, the answer is the very whites you seek to portray as supremacists. If they truly were supremacists, none of their numbers would return home in body bags. As it is, they fill most of the body bags returning home.
Nonetheless, I emphasized that U.S. troops are indeed confronted with a choice--to perpetrate this war against the Iraqi people or to refuse to fight and contribute toward the defeat of the U.S. war machine.
The choices are not as you represented them. Perpetrate this war or refuse to fight? The choices are these. You can leave a brutal genocidal tyrant in power who is responsible for the deaths of at least 1.1 million humans (both his citizens and the citizens of other nations), has attacked three different nations in the last 15 years, and aided those who have attacked several others, or you can remove him and help install a self-governing republic. The former will see Iraqis subject to the senseless slaughter they have put up with for decades. The later will see Iraqis vote on their own leadership and live in peace and developing prosperity.
Those are the choices.
I also affirmed that Iraqi liberation can only be effected by the Iraqi people themselves, both by resisting and defeating the U.S. invasion as well as overthrowing a
regime whose brutality was long sustained by none other than the U.S. Such an anti-colonial struggle for self-determination might involve a million Mogadishus now
but would ultimately have to become something more like another Vietnam. Vietnam was a stunning defeat for U.S. imperialism; as such, it was also a victory for the
cause of human self-determination.
This is more typical liberal nonsense. The Iraqis have had their weapons taken away. The only people with weapons are Husseins goons. How does DeGenova propose Iraqis remove Hussein, with dirtballs?
Vietnam is the mecca of socialist liberal nonsense. The two million deaths in Cambodia, once the U.S. pulled out of the area, doesn't even register on their radar. The deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Vietnamese after we left doesn't register either. To a liberal socialist, "self-determination" consists of having every detractor of the government executed. Those left have chosen the new government. Ah Democracy in action is a beautiful thing isn't it?
Is this a tirade against "anything and everything American"? Far from it. First, I hasten to remind you that "American" refers to all of the Americas, not merely to the
United States, as U.S. imperial chauvinism would have it. More importantly, my rejection of U.S. nationalism is an appeal to liberate our own political imaginations
such that we might usher in a radically different world in which we will not remain the prisoners of U.S. global domination.
There you go my fellow forum participants. Do you begin to understand why I prefer to refer to our citizens has "United States' citizens", not "Americans"? This was the only thing this man had right. And he'll be more than happy to beat you over the head with it in perpetuity if you "imperial chauvinists" let him. LOL, "imperial chauvinists", oh the mindset and catch phrases of the left.
Of course he doesn't want the U.S. to dominate the globe. This man detests the treasures the United States can bestow on the planet. Socialism is his only goal.
Nicholas De Genova
March 21, 2003
The author is an assistant professor of anthropology and latina/o studies.
Of course he is. Even in his title, this man cannot refrain from gender/(read that class) warfare. This is a man on a mission. I say we defund that mission. Fire his ass. He has every right to hate everything we stand for, and attempt to destroy it. He does not have a right for us to fund him in that effort.
The Spectator was right on. The contextual revelations by DeGenova himself reveal him to be unfit to hold professor status. This man has a right to his personal thoughts. He does not have a right to work to destroy this nation from within, on our dollar. He can take his biases to the nearest nation that fits with his mindset. He can go there with my blessing.
Proctoscope off:
The United States is the single nation on the planet that can preserve the peace and promote prosperity on a global scale. When you read my comments on this forum they are always going to address issues in that context. Anything that could possibly weaken our sovereignty, anything that could strengthen a hostile entity, anything that might possibly see our nation not able to continue to perform in this role, is going to be opposed by me vociferously!
TC
This guy should be thrown out of the country if he's not a citizen and is here on a Visa.
If not, then he ought to be forced to run a night window at Wendy's from 10:00 p.m. to like, 2:30 a.m., or the night manager at a bowling alley.
These two men pictured below would kick De Genova's arse, for that statement, if they didn't have 100 times the class that the professor has.
Excuse me, Dr. DeGenova, but did you, or did you not, utter the statement about wishing "a million Mogadishus" on the US military?
Could you please explain in exactly which context that is even minimally f***ing acceptable discourse? OUTSIDE of Islamofascist political theology, that is?
F*** WORLD PEACE, VISUALIZE TRAITORS DANGLING FROM LAMPPOSTS!