Dear James,
I received your letter yesterday. If you sent or intended to send Harpers Monthly regularly, I do not think we have received it all. It is surely a welcome visitor among us, but we are tempted to read it at all times until it is exhausted, instead of keeping it to beguile long winter evenings, neglecting our work meanwhile or only slighting performing it. I pity you, slogging through the streets in the rain, but more especially because of your business at such times, for it is as unpleasant to give as to receive such calls. I have some experience and can sympathize with you.
I am sure I do not know whether we will stay here after next spring or not. I think we will, for it seems as though Homer is our destiny, so I try to on a smiling face and be contented, but it is hard work at some times. I do not think you need to be fearful of being in contact with "John Brownism" (by which I suppose you mean "abolitionism" and "opposition to southern interests") for the ... which which -- I did not mean to write "which" twice -- are our companions are remarkably silent on the subject, and I will try not to say a word on the subject, if you will only come ... and by the way, if you keep my mouth well stuffed ... I believe I might consent to become dumb while .... Oh ho, but the prairie chickens might croak ... might they? Well, I shouldn't wonder.
I am not surprised that you cannot bear to hear opinions expressed, opposite to your own; for it is the inevitable result of slavery to produce a domineering spirit which is exercised against all who differ with its supporters, but ah me! ah me! You won't come home if I talk in this strain.
Although we differ so widely, you letters never jar our feelings very seriously, and at most provoke a smile and a musing, "I wonder how he could have changed so."
By the way how came you to see any thing pretty in Lizzy coming from the north as she did?
"'Twas strange 'twas passing strange
and wondrous pitiful."
But I don't mean the last line and wish I had not written it.
There is no sign of the snow going off yet, and it has lain a month.
I had a fine sleigh ride today to Bell... about seven miles distant.
Give my love to Lizzy and Good bye for 'tis late.
Bella
I "shot off" a gun for the first time day before yesterday and am quite proud of my exploit.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Friday, February 4, 2005
University of Colorado Professor on 9/11
There has been great excitement here in Colorado about an article written by University of Colorado (CU) Professor Ward Churchill, which describes the victims of 9/11 as "little Eichmanns" who "formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire."
I have been trying to find the original article, since the press only quotes a few words from it, usually just "little Eichmanns." It appears several places on the web, including this one and this one. It originally appeared in something called "POCKETS of RESISTANCE no. 11, A supplement of Dark Night field notes." I can't tell if this is published in hard copy or just on the web. Churchill apparently expanded this essay into book form. The book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens : Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality is available on Amazon. I haven't read it.
I would like to know whether the current public outrage is due to the fact that Churchill rants against the US government for bombing Iraq prior to 9/11, or that he criticized the people who died on 9/11, or that he used the word "Eichmann" to describe them. We had better be able to criticize our government, if the First Amendment and tenure mean anything. To me the most significant thing is that he criticized the victims of 9/11, but I think this is something that Americans at least need to think about. These people may not have been any worse than their neighbors on Wall Street, but they worked in prominent buildings that symbolized American financial might. It's not surprising that people could resent this might. Terrorists tried to destroy the World Trade Center earlier, in 1993, by planting a bomb in a van in the parking lot. Obviously there was something about the symbol of the World Trade Center that got Osama bin Laden's attention and that he didn't like.
I worry that the main thing that set off the current furor was Churchill's use of the word "Eichmann," which was unjustified in describing the WTC victims, but obviously effective in getting attention. I think that's unfortunate, because it indicates that it's impossible to discuss the Holocaust in a rational way. The WTC victims were not genocidal, but in more general terms, what about Rwanda, the killing fields of Cambodia, Darfur? Do we weep for those victims as bitterly as we do for the victims of the German Holocaust? Do we weep for Gypsies and other minorities who died in the Holocaust as bitterly as we weep for Jews? Did Indians undergo a Holocaust at the hands of white pioneers in America? Or, apropos of this web site, was there anything good about slavery? Is it possible to discuss these questions rationally?
Although Churchill appears to be a crackpot who did not write in dispassionate, academic style, the attacks on him are attacks on academic freedom. CU has been under heavy criticism for its football program, and now this. It no doubt feels under siege, but it needs to defend itself as a university, an institution of higher learning. Why it hired Churchill and gave him tenure as an Indian affairs specialist when he apparently lied about being part Indian is now water over the dam. It can dump him later, but it should not give in while he is under attack by a lynch mob.
I have been trying to find the original article, since the press only quotes a few words from it, usually just "little Eichmanns." It appears several places on the web, including this one and this one. It originally appeared in something called "POCKETS of RESISTANCE no. 11, A supplement of Dark Night field notes." I can't tell if this is published in hard copy or just on the web. Churchill apparently expanded this essay into book form. The book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens : Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality is available on Amazon. I haven't read it.
I would like to know whether the current public outrage is due to the fact that Churchill rants against the US government for bombing Iraq prior to 9/11, or that he criticized the people who died on 9/11, or that he used the word "Eichmann" to describe them. We had better be able to criticize our government, if the First Amendment and tenure mean anything. To me the most significant thing is that he criticized the victims of 9/11, but I think this is something that Americans at least need to think about. These people may not have been any worse than their neighbors on Wall Street, but they worked in prominent buildings that symbolized American financial might. It's not surprising that people could resent this might. Terrorists tried to destroy the World Trade Center earlier, in 1993, by planting a bomb in a van in the parking lot. Obviously there was something about the symbol of the World Trade Center that got Osama bin Laden's attention and that he didn't like.
I worry that the main thing that set off the current furor was Churchill's use of the word "Eichmann," which was unjustified in describing the WTC victims, but obviously effective in getting attention. I think that's unfortunate, because it indicates that it's impossible to discuss the Holocaust in a rational way. The WTC victims were not genocidal, but in more general terms, what about Rwanda, the killing fields of Cambodia, Darfur? Do we weep for those victims as bitterly as we do for the victims of the German Holocaust? Do we weep for Gypsies and other minorities who died in the Holocaust as bitterly as we weep for Jews? Did Indians undergo a Holocaust at the hands of white pioneers in America? Or, apropos of this web site, was there anything good about slavery? Is it possible to discuss these questions rationally?
Although Churchill appears to be a crackpot who did not write in dispassionate, academic style, the attacks on him are attacks on academic freedom. CU has been under heavy criticism for its football program, and now this. It no doubt feels under siege, but it needs to defend itself as a university, an institution of higher learning. Why it hired Churchill and gave him tenure as an Indian affairs specialist when he apparently lied about being part Indian is now water over the dam. It can dump him later, but it should not give in while he is under attack by a lynch mob.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)