»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Freedom Of Speech: Under Attack Or On Fire?
| The Alley |
|
Freedom Of Speech: Under Attack Or On Fire? |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
This week has certainly been a controversial week as far as freedom of speech vs. crossing the line is concerned. This past week we have seen a lot of news and debate in our media that argues what is American or un-American. Two such examples I speak of are the following: * ***********Exhibit A*********** http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&c=recent&view=9&long=1 Ward Churchill, the professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, my former college I attended, after responses to his controversial essay following the attacks on September 11th. In the essay, Churchill cites victims of the terrorist attacks "little Eichmanns," in a direct comparison To Hitler henchman and Holocaust engineer Adolf Eichmann. He also cites Pentagon victims as quote, "military targets, pure and simple." and characterized some of the World Trade Center victims not as innocent but as quote, "braying, self-importantly into their cell phones arranging power lunches and stock transactions." This essay has been generating mixed interpretations, including those of Bill O'Reilly, among many free speech activists as well. Though the essay was written over two years ago, Hamilton College, a small liberal arts college in upstate New York, had contracted with Ward Churchill to speak. Several students, among them Matthew Coppo, who lost his father in the 9/11 attacks on the WTC, mounted an on-campus protest, citing the essay linked above as reason to cancel Prof. Churchill's lecture. The President of the College, Joan Hinde Stewart, refused. In light of the controversy, Churchill waived his usual $3500 speakers' fee. On Friday O'Reilly told his viewers to send letters of protest to the College. This morning, Hamilton College announced it was canceling the lecture, citing DEATH THREATS against Ms. Stewart. She has been accompanied by bodyguard for several days. Fox News's Bill O'Reilly has since picked up on this story, insisting he believes Churchill should be fired from the University of Colorado, who has also said the following in a Friday segment: "Yes. You know what this is all about? This is about political correctness once again. That's what this is about. This guy is a native American. He feels that genocide was perpetuated on his race. And therefore, he can hate his country and say anything he wants." Ward Churchill responded to the controversy with this response: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/ward_churchill_responds.html Free speech activists are coming to the defense of Churchill upon the University of Colorado campus and elsewhere, claiming even if most do not agree with his opinion, the Bill of Rights values the protection of unpopular or minority viewpoints. * **********Exhibit B********** http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/general.shoot/ Lt. General James Mattis, who commanded Marine expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, is under controversy of his own for saying in a panel discussion in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror the following, "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." General Mike Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, said in response, "Lt. Gen. Mattis often speaks with a great deal of candor. I have counseled him concerning his remarks and he agrees he should have chosen his words more carefully." He also added there will not be any discipline taken toward the comment. However some news program hosts like Joe Scarborough have criticized his words and believe words like that would send a negative message to the rest of the world in depicting the U.S military at large as blood-thirsty and didn't rule out suggestion that Mattis, himself, should be fired. * Thoughts and opinions on these two controversial stories? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
My feel on these hot topics is this. First of all, I don't agree with either one of these individual's bold, extreme comments. In fact both their opinions disturb me. But, I absolutely believe in Voltaire's notion that "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." First, as far as Churchill is concerned, let me say that I went to the University of Colorado for two years before moving to Portland. And, in my experience, I can tell you this. There's no doubt that the University of Colorado is a very liberal university. The whole city of Boulder is considered "the liberal eye of Colorado". Denver also leans to the left, but otherwise, the rest of Colorado leans right, especially Colorado Springs, where Fort Carson is. I recall many times having lunch on the University Memorial Center grounds, where often some form of activist project was happening, most of the time environmentally-related. I co-headed the project "180 Degree Shift At The Eleventh Hour" in a move to ask the university to stop accepting grants and donations from corporations with troubling or abysmal records on human rights, the environment and economic justice. Coors, Lockheed Martin and Peabody Coal were the big three. Since learning about the Ward Churchill incident, I phoned some of my ex-180 colleagues this week and wanted to get the scoop. And here's what one of them said to me, "Professor Churchill is not a rabble-rouser seeking a larger audience. In fact no one here seemed to know who he is and his name was "not on the radar" until this whole thing was showcased by the Fox News Channel." I asked other colleagues if they had known Ward and had the same sort of response. So I feel if opponents of Ward feel that the whole university is cursed by this sort of thinking, that certainly isn't true, and I believe my experience there speaks that well. No doubt the college is influenced by strong liberal ideals politically and culturally, but Churchill's opinions are no metonymy for the university at large. * As far as Mattis is concerned, like Churchill, I'm troubled by what he said, but I don't believe he should be fired either. I believe he should self-discipline himself and be very careful in understanding how such words like those can automatically jump the gun and saturize the mainstream media and send misinterpretations and negative vibes across as with Churchill, but he has the right to say what he wants to say. This is just some form of extremism on both sides we must accept. We must also take to heart a vast majority of those on the left would disagree with how Churchill depicted 9/11 and a vast majority on the right would disagree that shooting people is fun. And in the end, it's these examples of views that make up the fullest promise of democracy and our right to address our views. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Churchill and others can say whatever they damn well please to say. But not on the taxpayers dime. Let him go voice his opinions at a private university. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Hey, thanks for adding your voice, Denise. You have also brought about a very important angle to this argument as well that has been discussed on some cable news programs, regarding taxpayer dollars/education. When I look at it from that perspective, I sympathize and respect what is being meant. I felt this exact same way when the war in Iraq began. Much of our own tax-paying money is being directed to the war, and I cried out, "No, I will have no part in this, I don't want to fund any penny into the sad realization some innocent person may be killed" because I just don't believe in it in my heart and gut. Like O'Reilly and Hannity and those on the right may be feeling now toward this controversy, I wanted to find a way around the war, in paying my taxes as every true American should without also contributing to the war. I found some good advice and solace here: (link removed - Alicat) I welcome those who want to find such a way like Peace Tax Fund has done in paying your taxes without feeling you're chipping away nickels into the salary of a professor whose views are the antipole of yours. I would respect and support such an endeavor in reforming the tax funding rules. But I don't believe Churchill should be fired from the University of Colorado. The source of all this tension came from an opinion not expressed in public, but in an essay originally published on-line. It's been around for over three years now, and Churchill also has a strong resume behind him which seems to indicate despite a few controversial essays on that and that non-violent protests do absolutely nothing, Churchill is a distinguished and serious educator. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 [This message has been edited by Alicat (02-09-2005 09:59 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Churchill and Mattis have every right to say what they will, and I would be adamantly opposed to any legislative censorship. However, I have every right to react as I will, and to encourage others to react similarly. Would I take a class from Churchill or server under Mattis? No, and I would argue passionately in hopes of convincing others they shouldn't either. There's a huge difference between trying to silence others and holding them responsible for what they say. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Actually, Noah, O'Reilley didn't believe Churchhill should have been fired unless there was conclusive evidence that he was teaching his students the same material as what was in his essay. So far, there has been no evidence of that. Newt Gingrinch was all for having him dismissed, using the 'tax-payer dime' argument. Personally, though I'm conservative, traditional and Republican, I think he should retain his position, even if he used hate speech as part of his curriculum. There are laws protecting freedom of speech, so long as that speech does not endanger the lives of others (like Fire and Bomb in airports and theaters), and professors shouldn't just educate, but should also challenge students, make them think, cause them to scrutinize why they feel a certain way about a given topic. The university is of course feeling pressure from those who were shocked and appalled by Churchhill's essay. I thought it was straight out of Al-Jezzera myself. But that is not a good enough reason to fire the man for speaking his mind. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Noah, did you ever take a class with the guy or talk to him personally? What's he really like? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Couldn't agree with you more, Ron. If Churchill decided to become a professor at Portland State University and I could take a class in which he taught and lectured, I wouldn't, because his views would be too extreme for me. I imagine most, knowing what they know now, probably wouldn't want a class with Churchill, except for those who are from the far left with borderline radical views, or for those who are just curious of Churchill. Still, there is that small population, and besides that, Churchill has a long resume behind him, and probably has quite an influential role on ethnic studies. And I believe the same case applies to Mattis. I imagine a vast majority disagreed with what he said, and believe he should remain in service. But a majority would probably be offended or shy away from him if he asked to have a cup of coffee with someone in saying what he said in a conversation. We hear these things happen time and time again. Jerry Falwell was so incredibly controversial when he blamed 9/11 on gays and abortion doctors, or the 700 Club when they've blamed different groups for natural disasters like hurricanes and tsunamis. In either case, I hope we can all learn from this experience, in that we all have the freedom of speech, but you should always think before you speak and understand the scenarios when it comes to something as seriously as political topics like this. Not just by your own terms, but how others may misinterpret and misunderstand you and the trouble and confusion it could cause. In the end, it could just abuse both others and yourself. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Nope, I never took a class with Churchill, nor ever knew him in my brief time in Boulder. I did take a couple Native American religious study classes, though. Not one lesson strayed away from the teachings and studies of the Lakota, Cheyenne, Hopi, etc. I've done a little research on Churchill these last few days and have learned he has taught ethnic studies at CU for some time, and just resigned actually as the chair of the department of ethnic studies. There has been some controversy for some time regarding if Ward is a real Creek/Cherokee tribe member or not. I am one-quarter Cherokee. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Churchill cites victims of the terrorist attacks "little Eichmanns," in a direct comparison To Hitler henchman and Holocaust engineer Adolf Eichmann.” This is what will get Churchill fired. I thought his ignoring Saddam’s role in the death of children during sanctions interesting. Lt. General James Mattis needs to understand how unpopular the United States is already for its attitudes regarding women; to suggest that men who slap women around are without manhood and fun to shoot can only cause further animosity; he should hang his head. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I really doubt he'll change his ways, as he's an old Marine, tough as nails, as sharp as the tip and blunt as the head. Highly decorated for during combat and peace and highly respected among the military and military retirees. Yeah, his words weren't Politically Correct and that's fine with me. I may not agree with him totally, but he has just as much right to speak his mind as does Churchill, though they come from radically different worlds: one the embodiment of conservative military, the other of liberal intelligensia. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Yes, Alicat, and I am glad you noticed the distinction here I set, in providing an example from each extreme frame. I've heard others discussing both these issues this week and I've noticed sometimes how one person says one should be fired but not the other, and in some ways I find that hypocritical. Both these men's views from each side have extreme views which I disagree with both, but I believe both men shouldn't be fired for expressing their views. And I don't think Churchill will be fired for the example John provided, by the way. Martiff is indeed very respected and honored among the military and I think few would want him to go even if many more found his comment tasteless. Finally, I found sense in putting these two men together in one thread because they both insist no matter what happens, neither one wants to change themselves and their attitude. Churchill said that in an interview with Paula Zahn, and I'm sure, like Alicat said, Matiff won't. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And what does Rush do? Feminazis? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Rush does not hold himself out as a bastion of freedom of thought and diversity of ideas. The problem with institutions of higher learning is that the moats are a bit deep around their ivory towers. Professor is not synonymous with intellectual. Much more telling than the prof from Colorado is the furor over the remarks of the President of Harvard. Freedom of speech is welcomed and fervently defended in academia if the speech is politically correct. Heaven forbid if the the thought does not comport to the accepted views of the left. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200502070737.asp |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT GRAND GOVERNING COUNCIL MINISTRY FOR INFORMATION P.O. Box 13521 Minneapolis MN 55414 612/ 721-3914 . fax 612/ 721-7826 Email: aimggc@worldnet.att.net Web Address: www.aimovement.org Ward Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York on February 3, 2005. His appearance was canceled by the college after he caused a public furor over his loathsome remarks about the 9-11 tragedy in New York. AIM's Grand Governing Council has been dealing with Churchill's hateful attitude and rip-off of Indian people for years. The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives. Churchill’s statement that these people deserved what happened to them, and calling them little Eichmanns, comparing them to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who implemented Adolf Hitler’s plan to exterminate European Jews and others, should be condemned by all. The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns. Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement. New York’s Hamilton College Kirklands Project should be aware that in their search for truth and justice, the idea that they have hired a fraud to speak on Indian activism is in itself a betrayal of their goals. Dennis J. Banks, Ojibwa Nation Chairman of the Board American Indian Movement Phone: 218-654-5885 |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Mike, How . . .? Between academic freedom and artistic license he’s covered. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, i suppose he is, John, unless a Professor of American Indian Studies is required to be at least part Indian, which I don't know. At any rate he lied about his credentials and uses that lie in his books and lectures....that's something people may want to know. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: No kidding. But it's clear that it's okay to use Nazi metaphors if you're on the Right. quote: quote: No, it's not. But let's be honest here. Churchill is, presumably, not an expert in international terrorism or even recent American history. Why should his remark cause such a stir? quote: I don't know, I haven't followed this thing very closely, but it strikes me that this is another example of a Right wing ruse. Summers ruffles feathers because he's not skilled socially and wants to shake things up at Harvard. That may be a good thing, I don't know. But put the two together and it's a recipe for disaster regardless of how politically incorrect he is. quote: To be honest, the last time I was at an American university, Freedom of speech wasn't the issue. Avoiding controversy was. quote: Are you kidding? Do you need more hay for that Strawman you're building?  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: No, it's not or shouldn't be a requirment. There's a great story about this concerning a poetry book a few years back. I'll try to dig it up if later. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"No kidding. But it's clear that it's okay to use Nazi metaphors if you're on the Right." You have a tendency to criticize when anyone else attempts to shift the argument in such a fashion, but yet you are adept at the tactic. I won't defend the right, you try and defend the left. "No, it's not. But let's be honest here. Churchill is, presumably, not an expert in international terrorism or even recent American history. Why should his remark cause such a stir?" The flip answer would be to ask to a surviving relative of a 911 victim. I would agree about his areas of expertise. The problem is he holds himself out as an expert and makes presentations as such. Not atypical of professors to hold themselves out as experts in fields other than than their areas of expertise. "don't know, I haven't followed this thing very closely, but it strikes me that this is another example of a Right wing ruse. Summers ruffles feathers because he's not skilled socially and wants to shake things up at Harvard." his social faux pas was to make a politically incorrect hypothesis and nearly caused a politically correct female professor to faint and one to walk out on the discussion. He has fallen over himself to apologize for what most non-academic types would consider intellectual discourse. You appear to have "right wing" on the mind. "That may be a good thing, I don't know. But put the two together and it's a recipe for disaster regardless of how politically incorrect he is." If he wanted to have open discussions is shaking things up, I concur, but lack of open discussions on college campuses would appear to be the problem. "To be honest, the last time I was at an American university, Freedom of speech wasn't the issue. Avoiding controversy was." That would appear to be the point; perhaps freedom of speech ought to be the issue. You avoid controversy on an American University by not making a politically incorrect statement. "Are you kidding? Do you need more hay for that Strawman you're building?" No, I can assure you I am quite serious. The reason academia is held in such low regard is the total failure of Universities to recognize and deal with the problem. |
||
|
Capricious Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 89California, USA |
Without reading the original essay, I can't comment too much on Churchill ... but from what I gather from the article, what he said was essentially in bad taste BUT his right to say it is protected under the Constitution. Noah's Voltaire quote certainly applies; we are guaranteed free speech, not free speech when everyone (or anyone) agrees with what we're saying. Mattis' quote is at once more serious and less incriminating. He's talking about killing people, but he's a soldier - that's what he does. Although on the surface it might appear horrific to admit to enjoying killing another human being, there are probably many Americans who would secretly nod their heads and think "right on, brother!" when they consider the "liberation" of a woman who has suffered cultural, emotional and physical oppression. It matters very little whether the woman herself felt oppressed; it's all about the eye of the beholder. Those same people would likely agree with similar if not equally severe punishments for American men and women who batter their spouse and/or children, so at least they're generally consistent. I am in agreement with Ron on this one. Let the censure, if any, come from the public, not the government. Freedom of speech can be a double-edged sword; it can wound the wielder just as easily if used carelessly. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I'm sure Churchill has an impressive resume. Most works of fiction are rather impressive. He claims to be a Native American, yet that is a lie. Honorary isn't the same as Genetic. So what if he falsified his resume and creditials, or even sold books claiming to be a Native American? He should be treated the same way that other professors who lied on their resumes have been treated: fired and banned. Hell, I have a chunk of Comanche in me, on my mother's side, but I don't go around claiming to be Comanche just to get Affirmative Action or other special dispensation, and I fiercely love my country. Yet here he is, claiming to be a Native American, using that as his selling point for books, lectures, and engagements. Then he goes off and lectures against America, against Capitalism, against everything but the far Left, Socialists, Communists...even Hitler, teaching that the Nazis did not have a program to exterminate the Jews but America did commit genocide of Native Americans by smallpox infested blankets. What kind of history professor is that? Answered my own question: revisionistic, aka any lie so long as it sells. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Alicat, you bring about some valuable points here. I would like to make one clarification, if I may. Ward Churchill is not a history professor, he's an ethnic studies professor. His resume, in fact, is 38 pages long. Quite an impressive resume indeed. I think the main issue that is at stake here is not so much that he lied about his heritage or being Native American, but...where next? After all, it's been known for over a decade, and certainly not vaguely known either, that the ethnic identity of Ward Churchill has been proven fradulent to some degree, as cited in this official 1994 letter from Susan Shawn Harjo of the Morning Star Institute and a 1993 National American Indian Movement letter expelling him: http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/DeMain_Harjoletter.php http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Churchill/churchill_belle_11_24_93_02.jpg But Churchill has remained an educator despite all of this. And it seems he is indeed a distinguished, respected and serious educator even when he's a non-Indian. One of the two Native American Religious Studies teachers I had at the University of Colorado was a young non-Indian. He may not have been an Indian, but it didn't mean he was well-educated and understanding of various native cultures. I drew my own Cherokee heritage knowledge to the class and found reverence to the class. Alicat, I agree that I am troubled by the views expressed in his essay. I lean to the left, and his opinions don't represent mine, and his books would rank among the least likely to find their way onto my wishlist, which otherwise means I won't ever buy them. But it doesn't seem that he's ever let his rhetoric as professed in "Some People Push Back" leak into his own classes he instructs, or his own teaching methods. Thus I don't see that as a justification to fire him. Besides, his lecture yesterday at the University of Colorado drew an enthusiastic crowd of over a thousand people, so he still is of interest to a considerable number of individuals. Even David Horowitz has said firing Churchill would violate his First Amendment rights and set a bad precedent. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think one has to be Indian to be distinguished and respected. I would hope, however, one has to be honest and honorable, which clearly would leave Churchill out of the running. I don't think he should be fired. I think he should be ignored. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
I am trying to find, in a speech or statement, where Ward Churchill says that he is affiliated with or is sanctioned by A.I.M. Or that he claims to be full or part native American. I have read much about this man in the last couple days, and can find no admission or claim from him that states so. I did hear his speech, aired tonight on c-span, which was quite invigorating to say the least. ____________ice ><> |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ice, with all due respect, you are not looking too well. I could wallpaper my house with comments by Churchill describing himself as part Indian....if you would like, I'll put several of them here. In the meantime... "At various times, according to press reports, Churchill has described himself as Cherokee, Keetoowah Cherokee, Muskogee, Creek and most recently Meti. In a note in the online magazine Socialism and Democracy he wrote, ''Although I'm best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my wife's uncle.'' In biographical blurbs, he is identified as an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. But a senior member of the band with access to tribal enrollment records told Indian Country Today that Churchill is not listed. George Mauldin, tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla., told the Rocky Mountain News, ''He's not in the data base at all.'' |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
But, that's just it Ron. Both the corporate news (Fox News generally) and a number of students at the University of Colorado don't want him to be ignored. His presentation Tuesday night in promoting the new publication got quite enthusiastic applause and drew over a thousand people. In my short time at the University of Colorado in Boulder, I saw enough special speakers to say that the average auditorium there seats aout 500-750. And all those seats weren't filled by journalists or bloggists either. A majority of them were Churchill supporters. Meanwhile, those like Hannity and O'Reilly want Churchill to be fired, and not because of the possibility he lied on his 1980 resume about his ancestry ot tribe, but because he's anti-American in their views and believe someone with opinions like that don't belong in any such profession, period. I think, in fact, the last thing both his supporters and opponens want is for him to be ignored right now. I agree with you it's time to move on, but I imagine many others would disagree right now. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
In case some forget, falsifying your resume is fraud, which is illegal. So is falsifying government documents, like his University application. Free speech and free press are all well and good, but fraud is still illegal, and other professors have been fired for falsifying their resumes, credintials and government applications. What makes Churchill so special as to not have to pay the consequences of his deceit? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Alicat, wasn't it you who said in Comment #5 in this thread that even though you were on the opposite side of the political spectrum he is that he shouldn't be fired? I'm assuming if that's the case, that was probably before the whole ethnicity thing was formed in the discussion by me and Balladeer. It's probably likely he has lied multiple times about his background. Nevertheless, no one had a problem with it in 1993 when the American Indian Movement fired him. No one had a problem with it in 1994 when that Morning Star Institute letter cited acts of fraud brought about by Churchill, both of which I shared yesterday in this thread. So, my impression here is that many are actually taking his essay as the main excuse in firing him, and it would be silly eleven years after it was made rather clear he wasn't the Cherokee/Creek Indian many believed him before to be. There's probably a lot we don't know about his past yet. I actually agree with David Horowitz, someone I generally disagree with over 95% of the time, that he shouldn't be fired but there should be an investigation behind how he climbed the ladder in the University of Colorado even beyond 1993 to understand and come to terms how we can prevent such things from repeating themselves in the submission and appointing process. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Yep, that was me earlier in this thread, and at that time I firmly believed he should not be fired for espousing his right to free speech. That was before fraud and lies entered the discussion, and the change in viewpoint was not just from you and Balladeer, but also from outside sources, including my own reading. I have an enormous issue with those who willingly lie for their own benefit, which is one of the main issues of conflict between me and the 15 year old here. And before you go off on President Bush, I don't think he lied intentionally, but that he went with what he knew to be true at the time. Anyhow, back on topic. I find it incongruous that Churchill was not reprimanded nor dismissed for those actions you cited, Noah, since during that time several other professors were fired and banned from public teaching for falsifying their resumes, credentials, and applications. And for someone who hates America as much as Churchill's lifetime of public speaking, lectures, classes and book publications would espouse, he sure does relish in the liberties won by others as well as the multi-thousand dollar fee for his speaking tours, his 100k salary as a professor, and the funds he made off book sales. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://slate.com/id/2113358/ I'll be back. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Balladeer: ""At various times, according to press reports, Churchill has described himself as Cherokee, Keetoowah Cherokee, Muskogee, Creek and most recently Meti." "Press reports" , Do they include the O'Reily report?...if they do, then I find the king of spins view as credible as they most always are...unproveable and improbable, fantasy. I would rather believe what the man himself has said instead of the spin.. "I have never been confirmed as having one-quarter blood, and never said I was," Churchill said. "And even if (the critics) are absolutely right (about his lack of Indian ancestry), what does that have to do with this issue? I have never claimed to be goddamned Sitting Bull." Interview-Ward Churchill Rocky Mountain News February 5, 2005 " In biographical blurbs, he is identified as an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. But a senior member of the band with access to tribal enrollment records told Indian Country Today that Churchill is not listed. George Mauldin, tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla., told the Rocky Mountain News, ''He's not in the data base at all.'' " I cannot find this claim in anything (biographical) I have read...Perhaps the "blurbs" were also made up by the right leaning media to add further spin? If they keep digging perhaps they will come up with some real human mistake this man has made, other than raise questions about his supposed claim that he is part Indian, which to me is a mute issue in light of the controversy...sorta like George Bushes grade scores in college or John Kerrys views on gun control. ___________ice ><> |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Ice, that wasn't from the O'Reilly report but from an independant newspaper... I'll be back.. btw, I'm sure he hasn't claimed to be Sitting Bull but I wouldn't rule out Lotta Bull  |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Perhaps it is Churchill's challenge to long held views that capitalism, and an ever expanding economy, are the saving graces of the world...is that the real issue here? As far as "hating" America, I don't see proof of it in his speeches and essays...They expound disgust, true...but hard topics make thinkers passionate sometimes. The catch phrase (hate) is far overused and seems used only to incite hate itself, in my opinion. Churchill is an academic thinker, that alone makes him an oddity...His paper of 9/11/01 was written in strong metaphors...something I guess is odd in itself in this day and age...Everyone in this thread is a poet, I believe we all have studied the use of metaphors, and perhaps have misused them ourselves. These metaphors are strong indeed, but no stronger than the metaphors of Mark Twain whose papers and books were often put on the banned list...(not comparing him to Twain, pointing out similarities) and are protected by the first amendment, and more importantly in my mind, the ninth amendment. What he exposes here is the history of colonial expansion by force, the overpowering of weaker groups by strong force...example- the history of expansionism of Europeans settlers in the new world at the cost of wiping out an entire indigenous people and the continuing suppression and ethnic cleansing of that same people, still going on today. In other words, he exposes and attacks American (and other) domestic and foreign policies, historically and in the modern sense. He has spent his life studying the misuse of indigenous people, worldwide, and it seems to have made an indelible mark on his soul. What he has found as the root cause of indigenous persecution is money, and has concluded that it represents (metaphor again) the root of the evil perpetrated, or at least, that greed advances proportionately as coffers grow. His is a point of view that is bound to ruffle feathers, especially in countries, as I have stated, who have relied on ever expanding economies as the saving grace of democracy ...It is not a new concept. The natural world and many of its people have suffered greatly from this philosophy, still do...and so some are fighting back. I believe that he is trying to explain the earths position, as well as that of the suffering people, in a crude, but direct way, placing blame on everyone of us, and we don't won't to hear it. _________ice ><> |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Alicat, I seriously doubt Churchill hates America. After all, why would he probably have lied about being a Native American? But seriously, like I said, I didn't ever know this guy until this made the news last week, but what I can say is that reading the transcript from his Tuesday evening lecture at the University of Colorado, I think the whole claim he "hates" America is just another spin Fox News and others have developed. I remain in staunch disagreement with his arguments, and I'm not theilled with the comparisons he makes to another sensitive and troubling time of world history, but I believe what he's really been arguing is that it wasn't suprising 9/11 happened because of how certain repressive U.S policies may have affected others around the world and influenced these negative vibes. He said Tuesday to the Associated Press before his presentation that he mourns for everyone killed on 9/11 and could have explained himself better, and was referring to what he calls "technocrats" or those who support or influence these repressive systems of immoral policy as the "little Eichmanns". Though I hate to see him make comparisons like that in which are too extreme to agree with, I believe he's accurate otherwise at this point. He also said during his presentation that his essay did not refer to children, firefighters, janitors or people passing by the World Trade Center who were killed during the attacks. I believe that too. It made total sense when he said, "Let's begin with the children. Yes, they were innocent. And I mourn them. But they were not more innocent than those half-million Iraqi children." I do not disagree with him there. What offends me and seperates me from Churchill in particular is his use of comparisons in his language, and his opinion, according to this source, that "more terror attacks may be necessary to radicalize Americans to fight the misuse of U.S power." That particular statement is what nauseates me most of all. In saying that, I don't believe he's actually praying for more attacks, but it's still sickening and faithless to hear that, for there have been administrations here in recent years that still are negligent to the basic needs and qualities of all Americans such as instating a living wage for all Americans, universal health care, etc. because we're so stuck on foreign policy, but I believe with all my heart America is a very decent country despite the problems we still deal with and most Americans do care and are interested in holding who they elect, or maybe not, accountable and responsible. I believe that statement derogatizes and takes that away from those majority of Americans who do care. That's stupidity, that's unnerving, but it's also not a firing offense, and though I believe some of his opinions are quite offensive, I don't feel it as "hate speech" to America, and at least only to those in the government who abuse their power. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I could really care less about his writings, to be perfectly honest. And his backpedalling is very typical when someone gets hard questions about what they're on the record for saying, irrespective of political colors. Again, I could care less about that. What does bug me is that he was given multiple passes for fraud and deceit while many other professors and teachers have been fired for the same offenses. He kept a high paying, ultra secure job despite his lies, despite his erroneus claims, despite a long history of deceit and fraud. By the by, how well can one teach ethnic studies when one repeatedly lies about their own ethnicity? That'd be like someone teaching higher math who also cheated on their SAT's. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
He is indeed an interesting fellow. Here's an article he posted protesting the use of the Indian symbols of his "heritage".. First, as a counterpart to the Redskins, we need an NFL team called "Niggers" to honor Afro-Americans. Half-time festivities for fans might include a simulated stewing of the opposing coach in a large pot while players and cheerleaders dance around it, garbed in leopard skins and wearing fake bones in their noses. This concept obviously goes along with the kind of gaiety attending the Chop, but also with the actions of the Kansas Chiefs, whose team members - prominently including black members - lately appeared on a poster ,looking "fierce" and "savage" by way of wearing Indian regalia. Just a bit of harmless "morale boosting," says the Chief's front office. You bet. So that the newly-formed Niggers sports club won't end up too out of sync while expressing the "spirit" and "identity" of Afro-Americans in the above fashion, a baseball franchise - let's call this one the "Sambos" - should be formed. How about a basketball team called the "spearchuckers/" A hockey team called the "Jungle Bunnies/" Maybe the "essence of these teams could be depicted by images of tiny black faces adorned with huge pairs of lips. The players could appear on TV every week or so gnawing on chicken legs and spitting watermelon seeds at one another. Catchy, eh? Well, there's "nothing to be upset about," according to those who love wearing "war bonnets" to the Super Bowl or having "Chief Illiniwik" dance around the sports arenas of Urbana, Illinois. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
All I can say in response to that, is I'm in full support of this inquiry into the university's hiring and promotion procedures David Horowitz is proposing to "see how Ward Churchill could get to the pinnacle of the faculty, to be the chair of an entire department." But as far as his ethnic teaching skills is concerned, I believe we're just going to have to hear from some of his graduate students themselves and get their opinion, their impression. Education is the pursuit of truth, and surely the educated were persued that in their own experiences with Churchill. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A little more from the academic superfellow.. February 06, 2005 Ward Churchill strikes again Ward Churchill says that more 9/11s may be necessary. In fact, he considers the necessity of such attacks on our homeland a "no-brainer." This is what he told a publication called Satya: One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary. This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness. ‘Hey those brown-skinned folks dying in the millions in order to maintain this way of life, they can wait forever for those who purport to be the opposition here to find some personally comfortable and pure manner of affecting the kind of transformation that brings not just lethal but genocidal processes to a halt.’ They have no obligation—moral, ethical, legal or otherwise—to sit on their thumbs while the opposition here dithers about doing anything to change the system. So it’s removing the sense of—and right to—impunity from the American opposition. Translated into English, this statement means that since the U.S. protest movement isn't transforming American politics, we need to have brown-skinned foreigners perpetrate more 9/11s. Further translated, and stripped of its leftist jargon, Churchill is saying, "kill Whitey." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By the way, Ice, here is just one of many instances I've run across where he claims to be Indian.. Perversions of Justice Indigenous Peoples and Angloamerican Law by Ward Churchill. Published by City Lights Books, San Francisco, March 2003 Talk by Ward Churchill to mark the book release, 22 February 2003 Speaking at First Congregational Church of Oakland, California I bring you greetings from the Elders of the Keetoowah band of Cherokee, my mother's people. I'm from the Pizju, or the Lynx's Clan of the Ojibwe of Onigamena Kutaching, my wife's peoples. And from the Colorado chapter of the American Indian Movement, of which I'm a part. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Hey, that is a very interesting tidbit you've found, Balladeer. I think that sort of opinion and debate could trigger a whole new seperate thread here, somewhere along the lines of "Mascot Symbols: Reflective or Deceptive?" With that said, let me, if I may, digress for just a second here and briefly express my feel toward this, like with the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians, for example. I've really never had a problem with those sports names in general. I'm vague on why anyone would name a major league sports feanchise under a name like that, but then again I know virtually nothing about the NFL or MLB or major league sports in general so I guess I couldn't care less how teams are named. Of course I believe most would never stand for a team being named the N word. It is offensive in my opinion and most would agree there. It's there that I put myself in the sandals of a tribal chief and wonder how they feel about their cultural pride formed as a sports slogan in general. I cannot say, but we must understand that too. The concern in general here, I believe, is how our culture has long falsely stereotyped Native Americans, misinterpreting them since the days of the Lone Ranger and Hollywood westerns. We love western movies, of course, and I admit my own liking of Kemosabe and Clint Eastwood. But nevertheless, most Americans know little about Native American culture, beliefs, tradition, etc. and are dangerously mislead by these stereotypes that, in result, they're represented and perceived incorrectly and there is also a lack of Native American Appreciation classes out there for all to acknowledge the true significance and character of Native Americans in general. In addition, it's important to note out that many of the major or most popular publications on Native American culture were not written by tribal members themselves, but by white observers. You've got a few exceptions, such as Luther Standing Bear's "Land of the Spotted Eagle" which is an excellent publication that explains all about the Lakota Sioux, but a majority are publicated based on observation or interpretation. I believe the concern here is that you have to be careful or understand the response of symbols before you use them. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
He has also made claims in several areas that one of the major reasons of chickens coming home to roost with respect to 9/11 was the "systematic starving of 500,000 Iraqi children created by the U.N sanctions. Somehow he failed to mention that there was money for Hussein to continue building multi-million dollar mansions during that period or anything about the backdoor shennanigans of payoffs and bribes between menbers of the UN and Hussein, They made it possible for Hussein to hoard billions instead of feeding his people and Churchill claims that 9/11 was our comeuppance for the starvation deaths....very selective in his finger-pointing, isn't he? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Balladeer, "Kill Whitey!" is not what he's saying. That's simply just putting words into his mouth. Ward Churchill actually published another controversial essay before in where he believes peaceful protests do jack squat, titled "Pacifism as Pathology". Heck, he even said that it wasn’t pacifism that won the Civil Rights struggle, but rather the threat of violence that gave credence to the only "responsible black leader." And that is bologna when you consider the impact of Martin Luther King Jrs' "I Have A Dream" speech, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that's where I absolutely disagree with Churchill again. He discredits virtually the entire Civil Rights Movement for not shaping American politics in any degree, and even said it was the Black Panthers threat of violence that gave credence to the only "responsible black leader" as he put it. And there I believe Churchill has his history distorted again, because the Black Panthers didn't even form until 1966. Anyway, my heart is saddened that his cynical mind believes only more attacks can influence the nation to stand up and protest against governmental irresponsibility and such. That's how Churchill disturbs me. There is an anti-war movement out there, and it's strong and it's building. Most Americans, even if they support the war in Iraq, do care about responsibility and accountability. And for Churchill to deny that is incredible. But he NEVER said it in "Kill Whitey" terms, and that is a false interpretation of his controversial words. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Check the latest |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Noun 1. serigraph - a print made using a stencil process in which an image or design is superimposed on a very fine mesh screen and printing ink is squeegeed onto the printing surface through the area of the screen that is not covered by the stencil |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Noah... this is indeed an interesting thread. Thank you for starting it. I intentionally didn't read any of the responses yet so I might not be influenced in words, or thoughts before giving my views. That being said: I do not agree with most of what was said about the 9/11 attacks. I do however agree that the Pentagon is a stictly military target. When the bombing campaign started on Iraq v2.0, we dusted the Ministry of Defense and left it looking like a hardcore metal flop house. There were civilians that died in that bombing and we called it a military strike. There were civilians killed in the bombing raid on German petrolium factories during WWII, and we told the world that they held military significance. To claim that the Pentagon, which is the center of our war making machine, and which is in the business of of directing our military operations around the world, and which houses the top-level military leaders (except for the Commandant of Marines) is NOT military in nature is being self-centered and hypocritical. I do not advocate, in any way, the killing of non-military personnel... I am simply stating the facts as I see them. Since he actually spoke the facts on that particular manner, and since the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that there shall be no laws banning a person from speaking his thoughts (with the exception of overthrowing the government, or causing harm to another, obviously), then he should not be stopped in any manner from expressing those thoughts... especially since he is doing it in a lawful and peaceful manner. By the same token, the people who disagree with him have the right to assemble peacefully (also a First Amendment right). I would actually celebrate it as the free exchange of ideas that it is. Those that have lowered themselves to offering death threats are beneath the contempt that most would hold them in. That is NOT in the interest of freely exchanging ideas. They are no better than the animal rights activists who threatened to kill Ted Nugent's kids because he like to hunt for his food. They are no better than Rikki Lake, who screamed at the top of her lungs about the violence against animals in the fur trade, and to prove her point attacked someone wearing a fur (and it was fake at that). As for Lt. General Mattis... The easy answer is, "Well... he's a Marine." While NO ONE (no one sane, anyhow) likes to be in combat, and to kill people, he is actually verbalizing for the public those words which have been said by more people than will admit. How many times have you heard someone (perhaps yourself) state that "if those And as for no punishment being given to him?? Keep an eye on the papers... You will never read of him getting his fourth star, and he will never be Commandant. THAT is the worst punishment he could receive beyond being offered to retire, or being relieved of his command. Just my thoughts, though. In the wooden chair |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Brad, we know what a serigraph is. This strict definition, however, does not mention the universally accepted other traits of a serigraph. It is a high quality print, or reproduction, usually made by the artist but certainly authorized by the artist. To make any kind of print of another's art and pass it off as your own is simply stealing. It is the identical crime we sometimes experience when we find our own writings on web page, credited to some plagarist. The man is a scoundrel, pure and simple! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I didn't know. But what's next? Is he a bad tipper? Does he wash his shorts everyday? Since you brought it up? What are the implications of restricting speech based on person's character? Should Burroughs be banned because he killed his wife? Thomas should be banned because he used to recite poetry while drunk? Pound because he was a fascist or crazy or a fascist and crazy? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! The gattling gun response, revisited. Interesting response, Brad. I feel the same way when democrats come out every other day with something ridiculous about Bush which, more times than not, winds up making them look foolish. Anyway, if you feel bad tipping and unclean shorts would be on an equal level with what's being discussed then I guess your comment has validity. But, really - Indians wearing shorts????  |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
So let's see here. He's an educator that dismisses other's views. Writer that steals artistic creations from others, and sells them. Head of an ethnic studies department after proclaiming his birthright, which turned out to be a fiction. I still have no idea why he wasn't canned earlier as other professors were for similar antics, crimes, and felonies. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Hey Ringo, thanks for adding your thoughts! Even though we often have disagreed in the past a majority of the time, I really have missed you and admire that we can talk of these issues heart to heart! And I actually must say I absolutely agree with so much of what you've said here. I defend Churchill just as you've said above. I do not agree with many of his extreme views, as most liberals wouldn't, (I do understand the argument he's trying to address in his essay in that 9/11 was no suprise because our own foreign policies encouraged that behavior and I agree with that, though I am offended by his use of comparisons to Nazi Germany and that he believes more 9/11's have to be carried out in order to make people rise up against the repressive foreign policy) but to punish him for speaking out thse extreme views would be far more extreme and unconstitutional, not to mention McCarthy-esque. And if people are really that disturbed by what Churchill says, just don't take his classes, read his books or give him the cold shoulder. You don't have to give someone the right to be heard, and to do that you just have to be natural about it. I also don't believe Matiff should be punished by any means. I too do not agree with his extreme comments, as most conservatives wouldn't, but I do agree that I know what he was trying to say and he meant well. Let's say he was quite clumsy and should understand the shock the way he chose to organize his words can cause! And I ABSOLUTELY agree that him not getting attention for earning another star or what not is the ideal punishment. Once again, going back to the closing notion in how we should move on regarding Churchill. As for the whole serigraph controversy, well, I already said before Churchill would certainly be one of the last guys on my list I'd share a peace pipe with. It seems he is in need of some anger management for something, that I don't deny, but that's on a more personal note. I'm disturbed by the fact it appears as though he was swinging an arm at the cameraman, so indeed he's got some personal issues, some bitterness in him, to work out. And I'm all for seeing him getting sued for plagiarizing art if that is indeed the case, and that he pays the price for that. However, if those digging up that golden nugget are trying to parallel this with justifying getting him kicked out of CU, that is just embarrassing. And getting to where Balladeer just said about this is no better than Democrats digging up dirt on Bush every other day, or in my mind, Republicans digging up dirt on Kofi Annan and the U.N every other day, where I also find most of it embarrassing, though they have every right in their heart to do so because, after all, this is a democracy, and debate and discussion are what make this nation great, I think it's important that we're discussing and noting out these issues. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: What is being discussed here? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
