Thanks for the comments Michael. I expect to take some heat for having the gall to put out this story, many on the left would surely rather not know about it since they have an image of Churchill as one of the great representatives of the left and more particularly Native American issues. This I believe is a probematic assumption due to the well known history of Churchill's alliance with Russel Means and the support that Means and Churchill showed for the Contras in Nicaragua during the 1980's. Many excuses for this alliance have been offered, but I have yet to hear a justification for that move.
In this instance I made known to those on a number of public left lists the recent reaction of a organizers to Churchill's comments and the fact that those remarks essentially undercut their ability to establish greater credibility for the anti-war movement. The heart of the matter, in my book, comes down to this, to borrow from a post I sent to the SR list earlier today: "Are activists in Burlington that unable to think ahead? That unaware of the past links between Churchill, Means, and the Contras? Why not, instead, with the money they wasted on flying him out to Burlington, not fly up a few family members who lost family due to WTC and are now opposing Bush's "war on terror"? Why not have them give speeches at the rally? Admittedly they are not celebrities like Churchill or Means, but they might have something more valuable to offer the movement at the moment." The responses that have (falsely) accused me of siding with the Burlington Free Press's attempt to restrict free speech (which they didn't actually, the columnist who called Churchill on his remarks actually supported his right to make the remarks). I ask a different question for the left. We know that the media will try to associate the anti-war movement with support for the attacks. Why, knowing that, would left activists want to bring a person to speak at a rally knowing that his public on line remarks can be expected to be used to malign the movement? It is one thing when the press maligns Chomsky or Zinn, dedicated leftists who not only don't make inaccurate assessments of the significance of 9/11 (can you imagine Chomsky or Zinn saying something so bizarre as calling the survivors "eichmanns"? Even in private? Let alone could we imagine a Chomsky or Zinn alligning themselves with a Russel Means? Helping him to make trips to Nicaragua to support the contras...? Nota bene, I have on this list and others defended Chomsky against the distortion of his comments on 9/11 by persons like Leo Casey. That was, however, because Chomsky's remarks were defendable. Steve
