NationStates Jolt Archive

This guy drives me nuts. Why does he think he should 'represent' natives, when he isn't a part of any tribe, or accepted into any native group? This is a quick description of him, pre-9/11 speech fallout:

"Ward Churchill (Keetoowah Band Cherokee) is one of the most outspoken of Native American activists and scholars in North America and a leading analyst of indigenous issues. He is a Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado."

Scary...can anyone say they are native now? There are all sort of issues here...I'm not even full native myself, and people who have NO native blood can be adopted into a band, but this guy is neither. It's like someone running around saying, "Hey, I'm African American", when they are 1/16 black.


Just in case you don't know who Ward Churchill is:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3530404,00.html

This is a great article, explaining why (besides the obvious) it is so damaging to the native community to have people who claim to speak for natives:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340861/posts?page=18

Edit: this thread has kind of turned into another pro-con on his more recent comments, but I would ask people to stick to the idea of people trying to claim status as Natives...why would they do it, and what are the consequences?

I'm a little upset to find that he has a webpage hosted on Znet, which I kind of like, though it does get a little dogmatic around there...

I also hate being labelled as a supporter of him just because I'm left. I don't support his lies, though I DO support his right to free speech...as long as he isn't grading kids on whether or not they agree with him.

at his speech yesturday at U. of Hawaii he finally came clean and admitted that he is NOT of native american decent. there has been a lot of scrutinizing of his past recently due to his dubious claims of being native american.

here is the link from some paper in hawaii:

http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/23/news/index2.html

at his speech yesturday at U. of Hawaii he finally came clean and admitted that he is NOT of native american decent. there has been a lot of scrutinizing of his past recently due to his dubious claims of being native american.

Finally!

"Is he an Indian? Do we really care?" he said, quoting those he called his "white Republican" critics.

"Let's cut to the chase; I am not," he said.

It was important, since he was presenting himself as such...writing articles as such, teaching as such. Grrr...

As for what he said though...uncouth yes, but I support free speech, even stupid speech.

Him posing as a native American is the smallest problem...it's his brainwashing and hate speech that really gets to me. Teachers should not be allowed to give their opinions to students, and the whole ethnic studies department should be banned. All it does it condemn the 'evil white man,' and forces students to adhere to the ideaology of the teacher.

This guy drives me nuts. Why does he think he should 'represent' natives, when he isn't a part of any tribe, or accepted into any native group? This is a quick description of him, pre-9/11 speech fallout:

"Ward Churchill (Keetoowah Band Cherokee) is one of the most outspoken of Native American activists and scholars in North America and a leading analyst of indigenous issues. He is a Professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado."

Scary...can anyone say they are native now? There are all sort of issues here...I'm not even full native myself, and people who have NO native blood can be adopted into a band, but this guy is neither. It's like someone running around saying, "Hey, I'm African American", when they are 1/16 black.


Just in case you don't know who Ward Churchill is:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3530404,00.html

This is a great article, explaining why (besides the obvious) it is so damaging to the native community to have people who claim to speak for natives:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340861/posts?page=18
1/16th is the legal limit to native america heritage. If you are 1/16th native american, you can legally be counted native american. Over that - forget you.

I think there's some confusion as to exactly why Churchill's heritage matters... in reality, it has very little to do with what he writes. I live in Colorado, where we seem to have a Churchill headline at the top of every daily newspaper, so I would consider myself reasonably informed...

The University of Colorado hired Churchill because they needed more minority professors. Essentially, the University is attempting to take a cheap shot at Churchill by saying he lied on his resume... which he did. However, I personally question the prospective removal of Churchill if it is merely justified by his claims on a rather unimportant document...

As for Churchill's views, I cannot claim to be in complete agreement, however, I know that he was merely giving his personally response to Sept. 11th, not the response of the entire Native American populace. The collective guilt theory he advocates has been around for centuries, and punishing Churchill for advocating it is absurd and preposterous. Are not Academics the free thinkers of the United States? To me, a leftist American, it appears that any criticism of our rightist military and foreign policy leads merely to persecution and the curbing of our freedom of speech.

Whether or not Churchill has a native American background is irrelevant- it's obvious that this guy is a leftist lunatic. I mean, to disagree with the policies of the government is one thing, but to call the September 1th victims nazis? I hope to God no one supports what this man says...

I think there's some confusion as to exactly why Churchill's heritage matters... in reality, it has very little to do with what he writes. I live in Colorado, where we seem to have a Churchill headline at the top of every daily newspaper, so I would consider myself reasonably informed...

The University of Colorado hired Churchill because they needed more minority professors. Essentially, the University is attempting to take a cheap shot at Churchill by saying he lied on his resume... which he did. However, I personally question the prospective removal of Churchill if it is merely justified by his claims on a rather unimportant document...

As for Churchill's views, I cannot claim to be in complete agreement, however, I know that he was merely giving his personally response to Sept. 11th, not the response of the entire Native American populace. The collective guilt theory he advocates has been around for centuries, and punishing Churchill for advocating it is absurd and preposterous. Are not Academics the free thinkers of the United States? To me, a leftist American, it appears that any criticism of our rightist military and foreign policy leads merely to persecution and the curbing of our freedom of speech.

Doesn't matter. By most regulations, teachers are not allowed to impose their beliefs upon students. A teacher was fired for sharing a fact about the efficacy of treatment with adult stem cells as opposed to embryonic stem cells.

Just imagine what would happen if a teacher were to try to 'understand' the holocaust or KKK through the eyes of the klansmen or Hitler. He would be fired before he could say 'but.'

i attend uw whitewater, where churchill is supposed to speak on the first of the month. there has been a huge controversy, as could be expected, but he is still being allowed to speak. but you need to look beyond what he says about the 9/11 victims being like little eichmanns or whatever. that was a very bad comment, and nobody deserved to die. but he also makes the point that the US cant expect to run things the way they are going, and not expect retaliation. with the way we treat other countries sometimes, and with our bombings of other countries, of course they are going to be upset and want retaliation. just as many innocent people died when we bombed their countries trying to make a point. like i said, i dont agree that anyone should have died, but people need to understand both sides of a subject, and have an open mind. sometimes a little controversy is good, it gives life an interesting twist. i am just sorry i couldnt get tickets to go see him, even if i were to disagree with what he said. so thats my opinion, feel free to comment if you would like.

i attend uw whitewater, where churchill is supposed to speak on the first of the month. there has been a huge controversy, as could be expected, but he is still being allowed to speak. but you need to look beyond what he says about the 9/11 victims being like little eichmanns or whatever. that was a very bad comment, and nobody deserved to die. but he also makes the point that the US cant expect to run things the way they are going, and not expect retaliation. with the way we treat other countries sometimes, and with our bombings of other countries, of course they are going to be upset and want retaliation. just as many innocent people died when we bombed their countries trying to make a point. like i said, i dont agree that anyone should have died, but people need to understand both sides of a subject, and have an open mind. sometimes a little controversy is good, it gives life an interesting twist. i am just sorry i couldnt get tickets to go see him, even if i were to disagree with what he said. so thats my opinion, feel free to comment if you would like.

I agree with him if he blames Sept 11 on American Imperialism and America sticking its nose in other peoples business, but to call the victims of 9.11 nazis is stupid imo.

So the islamo-fascists were right to kill 3,000 innocent people because they hate America due to the fact that we protect Israel and Kuwait and freedom in those areas, and want to ensure that no acts of terror affect innocents?

How can somebody think like this? How can you simply explain away any act of terror against America as justified? They will ALWAYS hate us, regardless if we retaliate or not, and will ALWAYS try to destroy us.

Was Hitler justified in killing millions of innocent citizens because foreign countries countered their expansionism?

I agree with him if he blames Sept 11 on American Imperialism and America sticking its nose in other peoples business, but to call the victims of 9.11 nazis is stupid imo.
It is unquestionably stupid. But to be fair he said that he wasn't referring to the lowly workers, the janitors, cooks, busboys, security guards etc but only those wielding power and running corporations and shit like that.

Dreso, I think you're buying into the absolute evil vs. American goodness line a little too fully. I'm not defending what the 9/11 hijackers did, but they had very deliberate goals in their attack. The route they took to meet those goals was monstrous, but their motive was not simply "because they're evil." It was a reaction to two very specific areas of U.S. foreign policy, namely bases in Saudi Arabia and policy toward Isreal. These "islamo-fascists" will always hate us so long as our policies and goals are at odds with theirs.

Anyway, that said, Churchill is a piece of human waste. "Little Eichens," my ass.

I agree with him if he blames Sept 11 on American Imperialism and America sticking its nose in other peoples business, but to call the victims of 9.11 nazis is stupid imo.
9/11 was not a reaction to "imperialism". It was that lunatic Bin Laden's attempt to weaken the US economically in order to gain power for himself and his whacko followers in the islamic world and use that to impose sharia on as many people as possible.

So are there alot of non-native people claiming Native American ancestry?

Three sixteenths Cheroke!! WOW! Let the liberal guilt commence!

Dreso, I think you're buying into the absolute evil vs. American goodness line a little too fully. I'm not defending what the 9/11 hijackers did, but they had very deliberate goals in their attack. The route they took to meet those goals was monstrous, but their motive was not simply "because they're evil." It was a reaction to two very specific areas of U.S. foreign policy, namely bases in Saudi Arabia and policy toward Isreal. These "islamo-fascists" will always hate us so long as our policies and goals are at odds with theirs.

Anyway, that said, Churchill is a piece of human waste. "Little Eichens," my ass.
The islamofascist will always hate us until we convert to their style of islam or agree to live as third class citizens under sharia law.

So are there alot of non-native people claiming Native American ancestry?
There are a fair amount...lots of people who have discovered 1/16 of them is native and want some sort of rights...especially in Canada where you can be considered as a Metis even if you have 1/16th Metis blood. Let me explain...a Metis is a mixed race person to begin with...usually French and Native...by that accounts I would be considered Metis. However, I am registered as Cree, not Metis. So, a person with 1/32 native blood can be considered Metis. Of course, the Metis don't have any particular rights to land or anything...yet....

This guy posed as a Native for a long time. Irrespective of his more recent noteriety, he made all sorts of speeches and wrote articles and books about Native peoples as though he himself were native. He did not support a group, he claimed to be part of that group. It is offensive, and ridiculous, especially considering that some people are arguing he has 1/16th blood, and somehow that should make him able to call himself Indian. No native community accepts him as one of theirs...he is not on any band roster.

It's the Grey Owl syndrome...I'd prefer people who support native issues to support them as who they really are; native or non. Don't pretend to be what you are not so that you can claim to be a minority, or so you can get a position at a University.

don't buy into the hype. the dispute about his indian-ness is part of a dispute between a couple of factions that split out of aim. it is the side being run by the guy who went to jail for selling drugs to native youth that claims that ward and a whole bunch of other people are not really natives, and in fact are working for the government, etc.

http://www.coloradoaim.org/history/1994RobideauslettertoPaulDemain.htm

i attend uw whitewater, where churchill is supposed to speak on the first of the month. there has been a huge controversy, as could be expected, but he is still being allowed to speak. but you need to look beyond what he says about the 9/11 victims being like little eichmanns or whatever. that was a very bad comment, and nobody deserved to die. but he also makes the point that the US cant expect to run things the way they are going, and not expect retaliation. with the way we treat other countries sometimes, and with our bombings of other countries, of course they are going to be upset and want retaliation. just as many innocent people died when we bombed their countries trying to make a point. like i said, i dont agree that anyone should have died, but people need to understand both sides of a subject, and have an open mind. sometimes a little controversy is good, it gives life an interesting twist. i am just sorry i couldnt get tickets to go see him, even if i were to disagree with what he said. so thats my opinion, feel free to comment if you would like.


I have heard few headlines on this, so i dont claim to be an expert.. but from what i gathered from excerpts of his writing, he goes much farther then to say America should expect to be attacked.. but to the point at which we deserved it, and the people who died in the twin towers deserved it, and were looking for it. That coupled with the little eichmanns comment is clearly hate speech and has no place in an achedemic institution... If professor claimed Jews during the holocost where asking for their termination, that it was their fault and they were all zionists corrupting society... it could be seen as nothing other then hate speech, and his termination would have been hece forth.

This should be seen as nothing other then hate speech .. not because we did not perpetuate the circumstances which led to 911.. maybe we did.. but to go so far as to say we deserved the attacks, we deserved death and comparing us to Nazis is in no way constructive and only ment to inflame and provoke controversy..

There are a fair amount...lots of people who have discovered 1/16 of them is native and want some sort of rights...especially in Canada where you can be considered as a Metis even if you have 1/16th Metis blood. Let me explain...a Metis is a mixed race person to begin with...usually French and Native...by that accounts I would be considered Metis. However, I am registered as Cree, not Metis. So, a person with 1/32 native blood can be considered Metis. Of course, the Metis don't have any particular rights to land or anything...yet....

This guy posed as a Native for a long time. Irrespective of his more recent noteriety, he made all sorts of speeches and wrote articles and books about Native peoples as though he himself were native. He did not support a group, he claimed to be part of that group. It is offensive, and ridiculous, especially considering that some people are arguing he has 1/16th blood, and somehow that should make him able to call himself Indian. No native community accepts him as one of theirs...he is not on any band roster.

It's the Grey Owl syndrome...I'd prefer people who support native issues to support them as who they really are; native or non. Don't pretend to be what you are not so that you can claim to be a minority, or so you can get a position at a University.
In New Jersey we have a whole "tribe" called the Ramapo mountain people who's Native ancestry is disputed. Some people accept them as a real tribe, some beleive that they are descendants of British and Hessian deserters, and escaped slaves with a touch of Native blood tossed into the mix.

I'm not even full native myself, and people who have NO native blood can be adopted into a band...

Really? How do you go about that? I'm between 30 and 60% native, although from a long time ago and don't speak any of the languages. Or follow any of the customs, but that's mostly because I'm an atheist and most of the customs revolve around religion.

As far as I'm concerned he is yet another waste of flesh looking for his 15 minutes of fame to sell books. And he will get it.. as they all do in our capitalist society.. but after that he will disapear, and will be hard pressed to ever find another placement in any educational institution again.. and thank god for that

don't buy into the hype. the dispute about his indian-ness is part of a dispute between a couple of factions that split out of aim. it is the side being run by the guy who went to jail for selling drugs to native youth that claims that ward and a whole bunch of other people are not really natives, and in fact are working for the government, etc.

http://www.coloradoaim.org/history/1994RobideauslettertoPaulDemain.htm

I don't give two shits about his pedigree, falsified or not. It's one thing to discuss the roots and potential causes of 9/11 (as I would do right now by replying to Drunk Commies, except it's quitting time and I'm outs). It's an entirely different thing to call the victims Nazis.

It's attempting to build a career on a few outrageous statements, which is bad enough, but what's worse in Churchill's case is that those statements are the verbal equivalent of pissing on graves. He'd be as despicable whether native or a vanilla white guy.

EDIT: He's like a real-world troll. Though Jesussaves is still funnier and less offensive.

To anybody supporting Churchill (horrible shame on a good name by the way):

How long would it take to fire (and definately sue) a college professor who tries to explain away the holocaust or KKK or massacres of Indians, as being the fault of each respective minority. (I know that much more non-minorities died in WWII and the holocaust, but most people seem to exclude those millions of deaths for some reason.)

I agree with him if he blames Sept 11 on American Imperialism and America sticking its nose in other peoples business, but to call the victims of 9.11 nazis is stupid imo.

I agree whole heartedly.

The only thing worse than what he says about 911 victims being nazis is the rights reaction to it.

Since "sex" is between the legs and "gender" is between the ears, perhaps Ward Churchill can say that "ethnicity" is merely a "social construct;" another tool of the white, patriarchy used to subjugate women and minorities. Hey! I might use that when applying for a "minority-owned-business" loan. :)

To anybody supporting Churchill (horrible shame on a good name by the way):

How long would it take to fire (and definately sue) a college professor who tries to explain away the holocaust or KKK or massacres of Indians, as being the fault of each respective minority. (I know that much more non-minorities died in WWII and the holocaust, but most people seem to exclude those millions of deaths for some reason.)
If he has tenure you can't fire him for anything short of criminal activity, incompetance, or just plain not doing his job. His opinions are protected. As they should be. Although the opinions of people who think he's an asshole and their right to boycott his classes, speaking engagements and books is also protected.

HA! Give the ACLU enough funds and BS and they'll bypass tenure before you can blink again.

Churchill does have a right to his own opinions, as we all do, but he has no right to force these opinions upon students, because they are extremely biased, and unjustly laid on students that are already being forced to take the class.

If he has tenure you can't fire him for anything short of criminal activity, incompetance, or just plain not doing his job. His opinions are protected. As they should be. Although the opinions of people who think he's an asshole and their right to boycott his classes, speaking engagements and books is also protected.

That really depends on what gross incompetance is considered.. I can garantee any professor or educator teaching to his students the ideals of the Nazi party glorifying them and proclaiming the fault of the jews and how they desereved death would be terminated, tenur or not. There is a fine line between free speech, and hate speech.... and simply said, hate speech is not and should not be tolerated in educational enviornments

I have heard few headlines on this, so i dont claim to be an expert.. but from what i gathered from excerpts of his writing, he goes much farther then to say America should expect to be attacked.. but to the point at which we deserved it, and the people who died in the twin towers deserved it, and were looking for it. That coupled with the little eichmanns comment is clearly hate speech and has no place in an achedemic institution... If professor claimed Jews during the holocost where asking for their termination, that it was their fault and they were all zionists corrupting society... it could be seen as nothing other then hate speech, and his termination would have been hece forth.

This should be seen as nothing other then hate speech .. not because we did not perpetuate the circumstances which led to 911.. maybe we did.. but to go so far as to say we deserved the attacks, we deserved death and comparing us to Nazis is in no way constructive and only ment to inflame and provoke controversy..

please, check your grammar. and he has said he was not talking about everyone, just the high up heads of the corporations and that type of thing. i dont believe he is trying to "inflame and provoke controversy", he is just stating his opinions. and you cannot form your own opinions from "excerpts" of his writing, because you cannot see the entire context things are said in. i did not get how he compared the high corporations and people to "little eichmanns" until i actually read the essay. it is not hate speech, just his view of a historical comparison of the people whom this attack was based against. probably not the best choice, but whats done is done. i have to respect him at least a little for standing behind what he said, no matter how misguided it was, even when it sparked all this controversy. if you dont like it, you dont have to listen. but please dont jump to conclusions before knowing the whole story.

It's an entirely different thing to call the victims Nazis.

little known fact: the 'little eichmanns' remark is actually by john zerzan (its cited as such in the essay).
other little known fact: both uses are actually refering to the work of hanah arendt, and what she termed 'the banality of evil'

the point of eichmann isn't that he was a nazi monster, but that he was an otherwise ordinary paper pusher, whose paper pushing happened to be aimed at the efficient deportation and execution of various people the nazi party didn't like. he wasn't a raging anti-semite or anything. he didn't personally kill anyone at all. he was a guy doing his job, and doing it well. if his job had been something else, we never would have heard of him - but he surely would have been quite good at it. and there is certainly a case to be made that the people churchill identifies as the 'technicians of empire' occupy a similar space. certainly in the eyes of their victims, at least.

at his speech yesturday at U. of Hawaii he finally came clean and admitted that he is NOT of native american decent. there has been a lot of scrutinizing of his past recently due to his dubious claims of being native american.

here is the link from some paper in hawaii:

http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/23/news/index2.html

personally, i want to see the rest of the context on that remark. because it did not make the honolulu advertiser (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/23/ln/ln21p.html) - which is the bigger of the two.

nor does it appear to have made the kitv 4 (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/education/4225066/detail.html) report.

which makes me tend to believe that th star-bulletin took it out of context.

How long would it take to fire (and definately sue) a college professor who tries to explain away the holocaust or KKK or massacres of Indians, as being the fault of each respective minority.

quite a long time actually.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/02/noxious-academics.html has some links about a number of rather scary professors - including a couple white supremacists, holocaust deniers, and a guy who said that the problem with the film "birth of a nation" is that it is a bit too favorable towards lincoln.

and i'm sure you are aware that the idea that the native americans got what was coming to them was the unquestioned academic orthodoxy up until just a few decades ago.

please, check your grammar. and he has said he was not talking about everyone, just the high up heads of the corporations and that type of thing. i dont believe he is trying to "inflame and provoke controversy", he is just stating his opinions. and you cannot form your own opinions from "excerpts" of his writing, because you cannot see the entire context things are said in. i did not get how he compared the high corporations and people to "little eichmanns" until i actually read the essay. it is not hate speech, just his view of a historical comparison of the people whom this attack was based against. probably not the best choice, but whats done is done. i have to respect him at least a little for standing behind what he said, no matter how misguided it was, even when it sparked all this controversy. if you dont like it, you dont have to listen. but please dont jump to conclusions before knowing the whole story.

It is one thing to voice an opinion.. it is entirely another thing to preach it in an educational setting. I may not have to listen, but the students he is charged to educate do. And it is EXTREMELY troubling when someone of his influential stature spreads hate speech in this manner.. I can imagin no context in which calling victims of 911 natzi's not considered hate speech... and i may not have read his essay, but i heard his own words... and he made clear yes the poor blue colar workers were not to be considered little eichmanns, but those working for the companies not just management but the white colar workers for the insurance companies and such were at fault and did deserve it. I have friends who worked in those buildings, who work for those companies and while some may see some of the acitons of their companies questionable... it is unthinkable to smear blame in this manner on such a debatable issue. Quite frankly HE deserves everything he gets, and i repeat MY opinion.. he is but another waste of flesh who will hopefully never hold such influence in an educational enviornment again! and i dont give a damn about my grammer on a forum

As far as I'm concerned he is yet another waste of flesh looking for his 15 minutes of fame to sell books. And he will get it.. as they all do in our capitalist society.. but after that he will disapear, and will be hard pressed to ever find another placement in any educational institution again.. and thank god for that

see, but here's the thing:

he was already relatively famous

the controversy wasn't started by him

the essay that people are complaining about is several years old (though the book it eventually grew into is relatively new)

his analysis is pretty much just a more biting version of that put forward by a whole pile of people (look up 'blowback')

and he ain't losing his job because he's got tenure (and with his level of publication, he'd have a hard time not getting another academic position somewhere should he want one)

I can imagin no context in which calling victims of 911 natzi's not considered hate speech...

would you prefer he called them 'good germans'?

would you prefer he called them 'good germans'?

No connection between nazi's and the 911 victims could possibly be justified or spinned for that matter to anything other then blatently hateful and inflaming

would you prefer he called them 'good germans'?
Nazis aimed to commit genocide. "Good Germans" either knowingly or unknowingly aided the Nazis. The people in the towers on 9/11 didn't participate in any genocide, either with or without their knowledge.

see, but here's the thing:

he was already relatively famous

the controversy wasn't started by him

the essay that people are complaining about is several years old (though the book it eventually grew into is relatively new)

his analysis is pretty much just a more biting version of that put forward by a whole pile of people (look up 'blowback')

and he ain't losing his job because he's got tenure (and with his level of publication, he'd have a hard time not getting another academic position somewhere should he want one)

thats the real point isn't it.. his essay little known before it publication once becomming widly known has been attacked rightfully so for its inflaming material. And in fact I do belive the school has quite a case if he lied on his resume to begin with, and could be grounds for termination as he misrepresented who he was to the school when first employed.

And i doubt he would have such a hard time getting another position no matter what level of publication he has seeing how he is engrossed in controversy and scandel.

Churchill was supposed to speak at my campus (Eastern Washington University), but the university President cancelled the event, citing "security risks." So, of course, the campus erupted into a huge protest over the violation of Churchill's free speech rights...never mind the irony that he would have been a paid speaker (so much for free) and the fact that the lecture by porn actor/producer Ron Jeremy went on as scheduled...much to the dismay of campus Christians and Republicans.

another thing.. this whole paper was to perpetuate the idea that retribution was being taken for the hundreds of thousands of children killed in Iraq with the blame of course being squarely laid on the United STates. Never mind the fact that the UN imposed those sanctions. But whose fault was their deaths to begin with... ? to Suggest America is to blame is obsurd and inconcievable at best. The oil for Food Program given by the UN was ment to alieviate hardships on the populous of Iraq and had the funds actually met their desinations it is not so infesabile to think most of those childrens lives would have been saved. Instead Saddam horded those funds and simply recycled them to bribe UN and French officals.

Remind me again how blame can by any measure be squarely placed on Americas door step ? It is one thing to acknolwedge this is what terrorists may belive, but to pass it off as truth ignoring blatent facts is irrisponsible and inflamitory

I'm not sure, but I remember reading somewhere that he doesn't even have a doctorate...

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not totally sure.

9/11 was not a reaction to "imperialism". It was that lunatic Bin Laden's attempt to weaken the US economically in order to gain power for himself and his whacko followers in the islamic world and use that to impose sharia on as many people as possible.

I disagree I think the 9.11 attacks were fueled by America's foreign policy but that is just my opinion.

No connection between nazi's and the 911 victims could possibly be justified or spinned for that matter to anything other then blatently hateful and inflaming

he didn't call them nazis. stop using that as the generalized term for what he was talking about. he really called people bureaucrats in the imperialist military-industrial complex. eichmann serves as the stand in for those people who were 'just doing their jobs', even when the result of that job is massive death and destruction and suffering.

1/16th is the legal limit to native america heritage. If you are 1/16th native american, you can legally be counted native american. Over that - forget you.

The US Fed Gov. set the blood quantum at 1/4 per cent for all tribes many years ago, less than that they would not recognise your tribal affilation. But individual Indian governments can set lower blood limits and in fact many do.

The US Fed Gov. set the blood quantum at 1/4 per cent for all tribes many years ago, less than that they would not recognise your tribal affilation. But individual Indian governments can set lower blood limits and in fact many do.

"We are the only ethnic group in the world that has to prove our blood like the dogs and the horses" - Russell Means

"We are the only ethnic group in the world that has to prove our blood like the dogs and the horses" - Russell Means

Yes, but if you didn't every wacko, nut case from ten states would be knocking on your door looking for a eagle feather to put in their hair, a pipe to smoke and a buffalo to eat.

Really? How do you go about that? I'm between 30 and 60% native, although from a long time ago and don't speak any of the languages. Or follow any of the customs, but that's mostly because I'm an atheist and most of the customs revolve around religion.
Hey, I'm an atheist too, and have no problem with my native heritage:)

To answer your question...being native is not determined solely by blood, but also by being part of the native community. Blood is a very contraverial topic...for a while, unless you were 100% native you weren't considered indian. This policy was seen as a slow genocide...either keep only to your own, or breed yourself out of existence by all legal definitions. However, new policies that say 'this percentage of blood makes you an indian' are ridiculous too! You have more native blood than Ward Churchill...do you consider yourself to be an indian?

Now say you had NO native blood, but you were adopted by a native family. You would be considered native, just as a white family adopting a chinese child would make that child a part of their family culture.

I again bring it back to this: if someone was 1/16 African American, would that person be able to call themselves black? If they were part of the black community, perhaps, but certainly not if he just declared to be part of that community despite no evidence to proove it. You can't 'make yourself Indian'.

Yes, but if you didn't every wacko, nut case from ten states would be knocking on your door looking for a eagle feather to put in their hair, a pipe to smoke and a buffalo to eat.
I find that kind of funny...do you have people knocking down the doors of other cultural groups wanting to join? I think there is this big misconception about the 'benefits' of being native, and people want to cash in on that. (Let's forget the drawbacks of a high suicide rate, propensity for diabetes, shattered family ties due to Residential schooling and a dislocation from mainstream society) For instance...if you live on reserve, you may be entitled to certain tax breaks, and a percentage of band money...IF you can prove blood relationship to that band (which is determined by the band itself, not the government). However, if you are off-reserve, as I am you are non-status and receive no monetary benefits. Granted, I could hunt out of season, but why the hell would I? Moose is only good to hunt for eating one month out of the year...any time outside of that they taste terrible!

I think in the Ward Churchill case (and this is purely my take on it), he claimed to be Native to give himself a sort of authority to speak about issues he was really interested in. Who would have listened to some white guy talking about native issues? Kind of like Grey Owl (who, however, WAS accepted by many native communities). I could care less about the current controversy...I just don't want people thinking they should speak for us when they have no idea how we live, or the problems we face. We have our own voices.

personally, i want to see the rest of the context on that remark. because it did not make the honolulu advertiser (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/23/ln/ln21p.html) - which is the bigger of the two.

nor does it appear to have made the kitv 4 (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/education/4225066/detail.html) report.

which makes me tend to believe that the star-bulletin took it out of context.


who called it?

Churchill misquoted in article on UH speech (http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/24/news/story3.html)

its even worse than just out of context. it was two parts taken out of context, combined with a wishful thinking made up part that doesn't fit in with the rest of what he said at all, and actually was directly contradicted by what he said before, in between, and after.

nice job star-bulletin.

I suppose perhaps no one would have cared that he was masquerading as native until he went and put his foot in his mouth so publicly...so I guess all the other 'fakes' out there using their 'status' to get jobs, or get into school or whatever are safe as long as they shut up?

I think in the Ward Churchill case (and this is purely my take on it), he claimed to be Native to give himself a sort of authority to speak about issues he was really interested in.

the problem with this is that it is at odds with churchill's actual history of involement in native issues. he didn't grant himself authority - any authority he has held has been granted to him (for example, by the elders and general membership of colorado aim to serve on its leadership council, or by leonard peltier to serve as his spokesman, etc.)

the problem with this is that it is at odds with churchill's actual history of involement in native issues. he didn't grant himself authority - any authority he has held has been granted to him (for example, by the elders and general membership of colorado aim to serve on its leadership council, or by leonard peltier to serve as his spokesman, etc.)
As a spokesperson...not as a member of the tribe he claims to be a member of. One shows solidarity with a group, the other is claiming to be PART of that group.

for a fairly in-depth background (with footnotes!) to the whole 'not a real indian' thing - and the fight between the autonomous aim and national aim inc. that it is actually a part of, check out this article (http://www.coloradoaim.org/why.html).

for a fairly in-depth background (with footnotes!) to the whole 'not a real indian' thing - and the fight between the autonomous aim and national aim inc. that it is actually a part of, check out this article (http://www.coloradoaim.org/why.html).
Thanks for the article. That was pretty good.