Don Hockaday, Re: REALLY COFFEE

Would anyone care to respond to what I said?

“I am not arguing for Churchill's opinions, but what he said is worth saying and discussing. If someone in Germany had published something similar as a wake-up call on German aggression, he would have been disgraced and executed. Here, they only try to have you disgraced and fired.”

The German-related references, in Churchill’s essay, followed (apparently too far):

“There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed - nay, empowered - their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.”

The “little Eichmanns” reference alludes to that context.   None of the attacks on Churchill I have seen so far pay much attention to that, or:

One [UN official], former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening [Gulf War era] as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." ...  Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright ... [when] Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

          Besides  Don Hockaday trolled through using such nice bait. 

            "Even if you support bigotry..."

In context:

Even if you support bigotry, you have to give some credit to "best writing."

My reply was not about bigotry.  The Myers Center supports the study of bigotry and human rights -- smelling strongly of a liberal slant. So, it followed in my mind to at least beg credit for an award for 'good writing' even if one 'considers the source' of the award and/or even supports bigotry.

Maybe it is not nice for a professor of ethnic studies to claim significant Native American ancestry without accreditation of the requisite degree of sanguinity from appropriate tribal officials, but the essay was not about genealogy.

Eland's and Churchill's articles are related, but with different thrusts. Churchill claims we should not individually hold ourselves innocent when enemies "push back" against actions we sanction. Eland in 1998 mainly stated we should revise our foreign policy to "reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks" {like 9/11?), documenting what the Pentagon had essentially already said.

"... - finding this to be "offensive and odious," as did his professional collegues, is not bigotry.  Nor was the Chancelor of his University engaging in bigotry when he said, "his essay on 9/11 has outraged and appalled us and the general public."

I also found the essay offensive, outraging and appalling. Throughout its aftermath, I note a dearth of discussion concerning whether the offensive charges are also reasonable. It is difficult to read the offensive, outraging and appalling essay. However, it was read -- at least scanned for ammunition. The Ivan Eland article (on the Cato site) was hardly read. Maybe Mr. Eland should have been more offensive in today's light that was once shadow of towers.

Are we all lily-white innocent lambs carried uncontrollably by the flock and attacked without provocation by crazed terrorists who want to destroy us only because they hate our democracy and wealth?   Fine, if you like -- but they are trying to destroy is anyway. Should we work to understand it, or continue to cowboy our way through "We'll just kick their asses" until we are all gone?

This was not, however, the point of my reply.  I am not arguing for Churchill's opinions, but what he said is worth saying and discussing.

Discussing 'what he said' appears infeasible.

It might be worth noting that the theme of the Hamilton College forum Churchill was to speak at was "Limits of Dissent?" [question mark theirs].

--

Sam Swank

Don,

Look, I know the essay brings up some valid points, but nuanced discussion of complex issues with regard to the war on terrorism, Social Security, or the World Trade Organization, among others, are not fashionable in the thirty-second sound bite (and attention span) media culture that we currently live in. And simple, bumper-sticker explanations are the current administration's stock-in-trade. Once someone draws a comparison between a victim of 9-11 and a Nazi, then whatever else he says has no merit, even if it might. He effectively chummed the waters for Fox News, and gave the conservatives plenty of ammo to lump liberals into a big America-hating blob. It's not a matter of political correctness, it's common sense.

For me, it's a bit like listening to Louis Farrakhan. He makes many valid points about the struggles of African Americans, prays five times a day, and seems to be a reasoned, intelligent man until he starts mentioning "white devils" and "bloodsucking Jews", at which point I go, "O.K, the guy's a nut." Does this mean that there is no redeeming social value in anything he says? Of course not. Do I take him seriously? Not very much.
+++