Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/27/2005 8:36:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 9:40:18 PM EDT by Bostonterrier97]
from:www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20685
Hate-America Professor: Tom Mayer
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 27, 2005

After Colorado University (CU) professor Ward Churchill came under fire for his 2001 essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens (wherein he alleged that America’s long history of injustice and oppression had sown the seeds of foreign rage that eventually manifested itself in the 9/11 attacks), one of the most ardent supporters to rush to his defense was fellow CU faculty member Tom Mayer. A professor of sociology, Mayer shares Churchill’s belief that the United States is a nation whose history is an uninterrupted narrative of bigotry and imperialistic aggression. And like Churchill, Mayer too loathes capitalism, which he (as a Marxist) deems an exploitative system that causes immense human suffering. During Churchill’s ordeal, Mayer depicted his beleaguered colleague as an eloquent voice of truth capable of rallying resistance against America’s purportedly intransigent evil.


Thomas F. Mayer
Professor
Office Address:


5.) Posting of someone else's personal contact information -- Information removed -- Defcon


(Edited to Add: It seems that I have violated a conduct rule. My apologies...)
Herr Goebbels ...I mean Perfessor Mayer's Official Website is at:osiris.colorado.edu/SOC/People/Faculty/mayer.html

Once there...by clicking on a rather small link called Tom's Vitae..you can pull up additional
information that Herr Mayer has voluntarily published....should you need to discuss a social topic with him or maybe invite yourself to his house for dinner...)


In a piece titled “The Vendetta Against Ward Churchill,” Mayer wrote: “Ward Churchill is a politically committed intellectual in the mold of Rosa Luxemburg, W.E.B. DuBois, Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, Edward Said, and Noam Chomsky. Churchill has influenced how we think about indigenous people. In particular he has compelled us to entertain three interrelated propositions: (1) The genocide of indigenous people is not just a regrettable episode of bygone times, but an ongoing political and ecological reality. (2) The principal force behind this ongoing genocide is the voracious appetite of advanced capitalist societies for both profit and consumption. (3) Most Americans have, in one way or another, collaborated in the destruction of indigenous peoples and cultures. Thus Americans are likely to be targeted when forceful resistance movements emerge.”

This last statement is strikingly reminiscent of Churchill’s “little Eichmanns” reference, wherein he characterized the nearly 3,000 victims of 9/11 as, by definition, guilty players in the drama of American tyranny.



On another occasion Mayer wrote, “Ward Churchill is . . . a unique and essential asset to the University of Colorado. Ward's writing and lectures illuminate the social conditions that made possible the genocide of the Native American people. His work also reveals the enduring influence of this genocide on American political culture. One such influence is the deep-seated conviction that Americans are better than other people, and that the United States is thus entitled to intervene economically or militarily virtually anywhere. Another belief at least partially traceable to the genocide of Native Americans is the idea that only American lives matter, and that death or destruction of foreign people is of no moral consequence. The insidious power of these prejudices in today's world is entirely obvious. The value of having Ward Churchill on the CU faculty should be equally apparent.”

In short, Mayer cast Churchill as precisely the kind of social critic – one who could point out America’s uniquely corrupt and villainous role in world affairs – whose excoriation of America might spur the country to mend its evil ways and recoup some lost affection from its aggrieved and righteously indignant enemies around the globe.

From his belief that the U.S. had brought the world’s wrath upon itself, it was but a short logical leap for Mayer to assert that the 9/11 al Qaeda attacks were not offensive in nature, but rather were defensive countermeasures against American aggression and exploitation. “The underlying source of the attack upon the World Trade Center is not Islamic fundamentalism but imperialist domination,” he explained. This remarkable statement casually turns a blind eye toward radical Islam’s well-documented history of violence and conquest long predating not only America’s alleged “imperialism,” but America’s very existence. So intense is Mayer’s desire to bludgeon America’s reputation with rhetorical blows, that he does not see – or he chooses not to see – that it is not America but radical Islam, rather, that strives (like communism and Nazism before it) to expand its empire across the globe, and to create a worldwide caliphate over which it can exercise unbridled dominion.

So convinced is Mayer that Muslim rage (and terrorism) against America is rooted in legitimate grievances over U.S. misdeeds, that he deems it unnecessary to pass even the barest shred of moral judgment on the many centuries of discrimination, persecution, and wholesale slaughters suffered by “infidels” at the hands of Muslim jihadists. He does not address the fact that, as the scholar Bat Ye'or explains, for non-Muslims through history jihad has quite clearly meant “war, dispossession, . . . slavery and death.” “The fate of Jews in Arabia,” Ye'or adds, “foreshadowed that of all the peoples subsequently conquered by the Arabs. The primary guiding principle was to summon the non-Muslims to convert or accept Muslim supremacy, and, if faced with refusal, to attack them until they submitted to Muslim domination. . . .The jihad developed into a war of conquest whose chief aim was the conversion of infidels. Truces were allowed, but never a lasting peace.” “The jihad,” writes Ye'or, “is a global conception that divides the peoples of the world into two irreconcilable camps. . . . [It] is the normal and permanent state of war between the Muslims and the [infidels], a war that can only end with the final domination over unbelievers and the absolute supremacy of Islam throughout the world.”

Notwithstanding radical Islam’s ugly and enduring legacy of hatred and conquest, Mayer can bring himself only to condemn the United States – ascribing to it responsibility for the creation of an Islamist supremacist mindset that preceded America’s nationhood by more than a thousand years. In his view, foreign grievances against the U.S. are invariably justified; by contrast, he does not hold the actions of America’s enemies – however barbaric those actions may be – to even the slightest moral scrutiny.

“The bombing of the World Trade Center emerges from more than five decades of history,” Mayer proclaims, “a history which most Americans do not know about or would prefer to forget. During the last twenty years alone, the United States bombed Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. These direct applications of American military force are only the tip of the interventionist iceberg. . . . The basic causes of the September 11 bombing are clear enough. A huge number of people in a band of countries from Morocco to Afghanistan are furious at the United States and have been for a long time.. . . the policies of the United States towards the Middle East since World War Two have provoked more than the usual anger among many Middle Eastern people. These policies include ruthless preoccupation with oil, almost carte blanche support of Israel, indifference to the welfare of Arab people, hostility towards and overthrow of truly nationalist governments, backing of reactionary rulers (e.g. shah of Iran, emir of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban) whenever it serves American purposes, and liberal use of military force to obtain these objectives. . . . To millions of people in the region from Morocco to Afghanistan, the perpetrators of [the 9/11] massacre were not conscienceless fanatics, but brave soldiers trying to avenge the humiliation of Middle Eastern societies.”

When he examines America’s foreign policy and international relations, Mayer sees only a country determined to exploit and oppress vulnerable peoples – particularly Muslims – all over the world. He does not mention the fact that the U.S. effectively rescued the Islamic nation of Egypt by forcing a cease-fire agreement upon Israel when the 1973 Arab-Israeli War ended. Neither does he bother to note that nine years later in Beirut, the U.S. saved Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from Israel, arranging safe passage for him and pressuring Tunisia to give him sanctuary. Nor does he observe that the U.S. has worked tirelessly on behalf of a peace process whose ultimate goal is the creation of a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem. He chooses not to credit America for having earmarked, in very recent years, military and financial resources for the tasks of saving Afghan Muslims from Soviet invaders, saving Kuwaiti and Saudi Muslims from Iraqi invaders, and saving Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia. He is similarly unmoved by the fact that in other conflicts, the U.S. has sided with Muslim Pakistan against India, and with Muslim Turkey against Greece. He is presumably unimpressed by America’s leadership in Somalia during the 1990s, where our country led the world in providing humanitarian aid to a Muslim population that was defenseless against the unbridled violence of competing warlords. As Barry Rubin recently pointed out in Foreign Affairs, “During the last half-century, in 11 of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the United States has sided with the former group. One U.S. backing for Israel has been the sole significant exception to this rule.”

But in Professor Mayer’s moral calculus, America’s dealings with the Muslim world have been marked exclusively by injustice and exploitation – the alleged seeds of Muslim anti-Americanism and the animating force behind 9/11.

Because Mayer viewed 9/11 as an entirely logical response to America’s persistent depredations, he opposed military retribution against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime which for years had harbored al Qaeda leaders and the terrorist training camps they oversaw. Moreover, he was of the opinion that military actions could produce no lasting beneficial outcomes. In a September 17, 2001 article titled “An Appropriate Response,” he wrote, “Violence alone will not prevent any large collectivity from committing violence.” But Mayer’s implication – that the Bush administration viewed military retribution as the sole and sufficient means of reacting to the 9/11 attacks – bore no resemblance to reality. Indeed, President Bush made it clear that his multi-pronged approach would include also diplomacy, education, improved intelligence, and the erection of barriers to the funding of terror networks worldwide.

More significantly, Mayer ignored the lesson of World War II, wherein the military efforts of the U.S. and its Allies saved the free world from falling under the shadow of totalitarian darkness, and forced the Axis Powers to abandon their aspirations for conquest and join the civilized world. In short, Mayer is free today to pontificate about the evils of military measures only because of the Allies’ military response to the aggression of Nazi Germany and Japan. But now, from the lofty, sheltered perch secured for him by the sacrifices of American soldiers, Mayer lectures: “If violence prevented violence, the history of the last century would have been entirely different. On the contrary, the use of violence without addressing grievances typically deepens the resolve to commit yet further violence.”


In “An Appropriate Response,” Mayer outlined his belief that 9/11 should be dealt with as a criminal-justice, rather than a military, matter; as a violation of law rather than an act of war. Consequently, he suggested that the correct course of action would include “apprehending the living persons directly responsible for the World Trade Center atrocity (likely a small group)”; “reevaluating – and hopefully changing – the policies that systematically antagonize people of the Middle East”; and “retreating from the arrogant unilateralism characteristic of America’s international role in the recent past.” The theme was most familiar: It’s all America’s fault, and the sooner we acknowledge our moral failings, the sooner we might persuade our righteous foes to magnanimously grant us a measure of forgiveness – however undeserving we may be.

Mayer opposes not only U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq. In February 2003, the month preceding Saddam’s overthrow and the fall of Baghdad, Mayer participated in a “Books, Not Bombs” teach-in with a number of fellow Colorado faculty and staff who spoke against the war and U.S. foreign policy generally. A member of North Boulder Progressives, in September 2005 Mayer co-organized a petition drive calling for the removal of the U.S. military from Iraq within six months. “We are hoping to get 10,000 signatures and then present it to the City Council, local civic organizations and maybe even get a committee to go to Washington,” he said. “We are going to be handing out the petition in public places, presenting it to local organizations, going door-to-door, and it’s online.”

On the domestic front, Mayer views the United States as a nation rife with racism, a perspective he makes clear to his students at CU. “I have spoken to my classes about the concept of white privilege, by which I mean the automatic advantages a white person gets by being white. Some of my students are highly skeptical about this concept. They think ‘white privilege’ is a verbal trick to instill undeserved guilt in well meaning white students.”

In a November 2005 article titled “White Privilege Is Real, So Come Learn About It,” Mayer elaborates: “Consider an example of white privilege, the privilege of staying alive. According to the most recently available statistics, a white baby born in the United States can expect to live 5.5 years longer than a black baby. . . . Most of the health and mortality gaps between white and black people apparently result from the stress imposed upon African Americans by living in a society saturated with racism.” Yet Mayer does not address the fact that other ethnic groups actually outlive whites in this land where nonwhites allegedly suffer the life-shortening effects of persistent, virulent racism. For example, in 1999 life expectancy for Americans of Hispanic origin was 77.1 years among men and 83.7 years among women, exceeding the corresponding figures for white men and white women by 2.4 years and 3.6 years, respectively. Meanwhile, Asian American men and women outlived their white counterparts by 6 years and 6.5 years, respectively.

Mayer’s ploy is to focus solely upon those statistics that seem to buttress his predetermined conclusion: that white racism is omnipresent and its effects are far-reaching. Thus does the professor lament “the blissful ignorance of my students about the very existence of white privilege probably increases the health-related (and other) burdens endured by black students on the CU campus.” “Conservatively estimated,” Mayer adds with confidence, “white privilege in the realm of health that is the longevity bonus merely for being white amounts to about three years of extra living.”

Mayer further informs his readers that “[a] black male is about two-thirds more likely to die between the ages of 18 and 22 than a white male.” Presumably we are to react with gasps of horror. But what Mayer does not mention is that this statistic is quite unrelated to racism’s purported effects on people’s physical well being. Among young black American males, homicide is now the leading cause of death, and of all black homicide victims in the United States, some 94 percent are slain by other blacks. But Professor Mayer’s calculus does not compel him to let anything as mundane as a fact interfere with his self-satisfied indulgence in moral preening and conspicuous racial humility.

Quite plainly, Mayer finds it all but impossible to say anything positive about the allegedly imperialistic, violent, unjust, and racist nation where he resides. Thus we may reasonably conclude that his contempt for America was on display again in April 2002 when he hosted, in his home, a fundraising reception for the Rosenberg Fund for Children (RFC), a foundation headed by Robert Meeropol, the youngest son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Meeropol had come to Colorado, as his press release put it, to “warn that similarities between the anti-communist fervor of the 1950’s, and today’s crackdown on civil liberties amidst the war on terrorism, could spawn more miscarriages of justice.”

Meeropol’s foundation professes a commitment “to provide for the educational and emotional needs of children whose parents have suffered because of their progressive activities and who therefore are no longer able to provide fully for their children.” The implication of this mission statement, like that of Meeropol’s press release in the preceding paragraph, is that the Rosenbergs were unjustifiably punished for nothing more sinister than their participation in “progressive activities.” But in fact they were, beyond any doubt, traitors who broke American laws against espionage. In the 53 years since their execution, the evidence of their guilt has become ever-clearer.

The foundation that bears the Rosenbergs’ name features Leonard Peltier, the American Indian Movement activist who murdered two FBI agents in 1975, on its Advisory Board. The RFC website refers to Peltier, who is currently serving two consecutive life terms in federal prison, as a “political prisoner.” The RFC also claims close relationships with convicted terrorists Linda Evans and Tom Manning. Peltier, Evans, and Manning – who all promote themselves as artists as well as revolutionaries – have periodically donated such items as sketches, paintings and handmade quilts to RFC fundraising events.

Such is the nature of the foundation that Professor Mayer so avidly supports. And such are the values of a professor entrusted with educating young men and women at Colorado University.

*

Born September 27, 1937 in Frankfurt, Germany, Mayer earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Oberlin College in 1959, and a Ph.D. in sociology from Stanford University in 1964. He has taught sociology ever since (from 1964-1969 at the University of Michigan, and from 1969 to the present at UC Boulder. Mayer has authored the books Mathematical Models of Group Structure (1975), and Analytical Marxism (1994). He also co-edited two books: Changes in the State: Causes and Consequences (1990), and War and Its Consequences: Lessons from the Persian Gulf Conflict (1994).
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:38:22 PM EDT
Marxism worked well in the Eastern Block countries.


Aviator
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:40:36 PM EDT
from 12th generation American " get the fuck out!"
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 8:42:52 PM EDT
Boulder is Colorado's answer to California's Berkley.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:00:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 9:09:40 PM EDT by Defcon]
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:08:58 PM EDT
CU is pretty far to the left. From what I have observed at CU versus KSU football games they have a lot to learn about sportsmanship also.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:41:14 PM EDT
Born September 27, 1937 in Frankfurt, Germany, Mayer earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from


This little $#!+ is just PO'd because our Dad's kicked the crap out of their Dads in WWII. I supposed he is angry that he doesn't have a chance to gas anyone.


I think Colorado University has serious problems with their hiring practices.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 9:46:23 PM EDT


Ward Churchill has his own entry in Wikpedia:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill


Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:02:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 10:03:05 PM EDT by Master_Blaster]
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach lie.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:06:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 10:07:10 PM EDT

Churchill has influenced how we think about indigenous people.


This is true - I now know that claiming to be indigenous (even though you aren't) can get you a cushy faculty job.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 7:24:29 AM EDT
Churchill only has an MA yet he was granted Tenure as a Full Professor.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 7:29:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
CU is pretty far to the left. From what I have observed at CU versus KSU anybody football games they have a lot to learn about sportsmanship also.



Fixed that for you. Evidently you didn't see the CU vs. Nebraska game the day after Thanksgiving did you? The one section of students was pathetic. BTW, I'm a Cornhusker through and through. But there's no excuse for how those damn kids acted.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 7:39:30 AM EDT
the guy is a fuck up, what else can I say
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 7:45:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
CU is pretty far to the left. From what I have observed at CU versus KSU anybody football games they have a lot to learn about sportsmanship also.



Fixed that for you. Evidently you didn't see the CU vs. Nebraska game the day after Thanksgiving did you? The one section of students was pathetic. BTW, I'm a Cornhusker through and through. But there's no excuse for how those damn kids acted.



+1. Crap like that has been going on for years. I had friends who went to the NU v. CU games in the late 80s and you always ran the risk of your car getting keyed and beer poured on you. This was merely the first time they did it so blatantly.

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 7:51:27 AM EDT
These types make me sick. Think of the hypocracy here.
This shithead would never have freedom of speech under Marxism.
Can I throw the switch on this asshole...Please
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:00:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MTUSA:
These types make me sick. Think of the hypocracy here.
This shithead would never have freedom of speech under Marxism.
Can I throw the switch on this asshole...Please



Not only would this waste of O2 not have freedom of speech under a Marxist government, his kind (teachers) are one of the first type of people put up against the wall and shot when a Marxist government takes over. Makes me wonder, sometimes, what guys like this are thinking, when the ideology they espouse would ultimitely lead to their own death.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:04:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Unknown1Sailor:

Originally Posted By MTUSA:
These types make me sick. Think of the hypocracy here.
This shithead would never have freedom of speech under Marxism.
Can I throw the switch on this asshole...Please



Not only would this waste of O2 not have freedom of speech under a Marxist government, his kind (teachers) are one of the first type of people put up against the wall and shot when a Marxist government takes over. Makes me wonder, sometimes, what guys like this are thinking, when the ideology they espouse would ultimitely lead to their own death.





Exactly. Be careful what you wish for. Ignorance certainly is bliss with this clown.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:06:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
Churchill only has an MA yet he was granted Tenure as a Full Professor.




and appearantly it only took one year as an assistant professor to get tenure . Hmmm something stinks.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:09:21 AM EDT
SO does this mean he and Ward Churchill are also fair game for the Jihadists?

Oh, I forget, they have special elite status as leftist intellectuals -- they aren't little Eichmanns like the rest of us rabble.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:15:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wump:
from 12th generation American " get the fuck out!"



As a first-generation American, I say AMEN!
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:25:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
CU is pretty far to the left. From what I have observed at CU versus KSU anybody football games they have a lot to learn about sportsmanship also.



Fixed that for you. Evidently you didn't see the CU vs. Nebraska game the day after Thanksgiving did you? The one section of students was pathetic. BTW, I'm a Cornhusker through and through. But there's no excuse for how those damn kids acted.



Didn't see that one, and I'm not a real big football fan anyway. But reading this thread makes me enjoy the Colorado - Texas game just a little bit more.

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:27:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 8:29:30 AM EDT by 7KOPPER]

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:
Boulder is Colorado's answer to California's Berkley.


or....Berekely East as I've heard it called! But seriously. I lived in Oakland (borders Berekely) for four years and Boulder is MUCH more conservitive than their sister city in Cali. Don't get me wrong, can't stand the liberal mindset.

CU is a breading ground for tree hugging, bedwetting, bleeding heart tards. To bad that a lot of them are smoking hot co-eds!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:36:29 AM EDT
Truly it is like this, some people just wanna relive their glory days of the 60's. They are still stuck in the vietnam mentality and they are in a intellectual rut they can't get out of. They think all of history is one big reapeat of Vietnam and it's the poor oppressed Vietnamese and Black panthers or whatever striking back at mighty whitey, who deserves it. Like somehow Osama Bin Laden has legitimate greivances! Maybe they should learn Arabic then listen to the speeches these guys make!!! One of their main motivations is to continue a war started 1400 years ago! When Spain was bombed guess what their first greivance was? support for US? nope. They were pissed that in 1492 the last of the "moorish"(Muslim) kingdoms in Spain was defeated and Christians took back their land!! So now all Muslims think they have a "right of return" to Spain to rebuild "el-Andalus"!?! They are crazy fucks. One of the Main "regrets" Osama has is that Europeans ended the Ottoman Caliphate in 1918! He wants Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and the Balkans restored under a Muslim Empire! To their way of thinking if at any time a Muslim ruler owned a land that land is forever Muslim even if they are kicked out for hundreds of years. You think the Chechen war is about Independance? Nope, they are motivated by the idea that one day all the Muslim areas will be united under one Caucaus Caliphate! And who encourages them in these ideas? Why our friends the Saudi Wahabbi clerics who go into those regions bringing back the "true" Islam. If this truly was about Third world oppression then there would have been Christian Africans and Latin Americans on those 9-11 planes as well.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 8:42:54 AM EDT
***Breaking News*** there's another liberal, America-hating college professor on the loose!!!

I could only stomach reading a few lines of the article.

I guess it is true that those who can't "do," teach. I can't imagine any of these knuckleheads doing any thing that required them to accomplish anything other than an academic exercise.

Reminds me of my brother-in-law who spent 11 years at GA Tech and earned 4 degrees (2 bachelors, 2 masters). He worked as a EE for a few years, but it didn't really work out for him...something about being put on a "work improvement plan." He day traded and went bankrupt. Now he's teaching at a junior college and aspiring to be a professional poker player.

Some people need Big Brother Gov't to take care of them. Since they are unaccomplished they presume everyone else is as worthless as them and needs help too. Those mean old capitalists actually expect people to complete projects and reach/exceed my goals.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:08:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 10:01:41 AM EDT by nightstalker]
this professor has not updated his vitae since 2001. He must be in a coma.


ETA, I will agree that "white privilege" got him his job as a professor. There is no other logical explanantion
Top Top