NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's my sticking point with him...not necessarily his politics, though I don't agree with all of them...but that he claimed for so long to be indigenous. Why? Why do that? I know that this was a way the right could dig at him...and the left says, 'don't abandon him for that alone'...but personally, it bothers me very much. Go ahead and talk about aboriginal issues...you don't have to be aboriginal to do that. But don't pretend to BE aboriginal in order to give your words more 'validity'. As a lefty, and an aboriginal, I find myself often in opposition with other leftists over Ward Churchill, because I truly resent it when people try to speak FOR us instead of in solidarity WITH us.

Edit: Free Soviets has provided me with enough information to determine that he has in fact been accepted as an indigenous person by a native community, so I'm going to take that at face value, since one of the principles of native sovereignty is the ability to determine membership.

Why? Why do that?

Beats me. Perhaps he felt it could help his causes. People do strange things in the name of politics. The Left, as well as the Right, have their share of "do whatever it takes" style Machiavelli when trying to get something accomplished.

A sincere written public apology would go a long way - I'm not sure if he's done that or not. On that one thing, I really can't defend him until that apology is issued. Once he does that, I can defend him because I know that one mistake does not an entire lifetime invalidate.

Beats me. Perhaps he felt it could help his causes. People do strange things in the name of politics. The Left, as well as the Right, have their share of "do whatever it takes" style Machiavelli when trying to get something accomplished.

A sincere written public apology would go a long way - I'm not sure if he's done that or not. On that one thing, I really can't defend him until that apology is issued. Once he does that, I can defend him because I know that one mistake does not an entire lifetime invalidate.
That's the thing...I disagree with a number of things he's said...but some of the flaws he's pointed out in native governance are quite valid...but it's insulting that he has been representing himself as something he's not. He married a native woman. Does that make him native? NO...but he can speak as someone with a good understanding of native culture and be fine. I'm married to a Chilean...can I speak for Chileans as a Chilean?

Do I HAVE to defend him? I mean, I don't feel any particular need to defend everyone just because they claim to have political views in the same direction as mine. Affilliation does not imply competence after all.

But..... ummmm ....... OK, here's my official statemet on Churchill's action vis-a-vis native issues.


"Hey! It worked for Grey Owl!"


Other than that, I got nothin'.....

:D

I used to think that he made this claim solely to impress the squishy heads of academia, and add a blush of legitimacy to his more outre theories. I was also sure it helped him a tenure time too. Though I myself could never see why that would be important to what he said, I am aware that University campuses are very political places, and often claiming your something or from group X &c. can help your career.

However, I later found out that in addition to defrauding the academic world (which is actually pretty easy, because those people aren't too smart), he is also has a sideline defrauding art collectors and I am fairly sure the half native story actually springs from that. For some reason, there are a group of art collectors that value - in dollars - "authentic" works by minority artists more than they would otherwise. So when Ward was making his knock off western landscapes, it would only have been good financial sense to claim he was cherokee, or whatever. I am sure that was really the reason.

Anyway, he's gone now. Though I still laugh at those who defended him.

Anyway, he's gone now. Though I still laugh at those who defended him.
He's gone from his position...but he's not gone. And plenty of lefties consider him to be a sort of authority on native issues. I get into arguments about this a lot and people think I'm just dancing to the 'tune of the rightwing neocons who want to discredit' him.:rolleyes:

At the very least, even the toughest identity police among us will have to admit that, as a United States citizen, Churchill has the right to ethnically self-identify in any way he wants, as is the official policy of the U.S. Census Bureau.
This is what people have said to me too about Churchill...but they miss the point that in the struggle for native sovereignty, one of the things we have fought very hard for is the right to determine our own membership...not to have it determined FOR us.

Has anyone on this forum defended him? I can't. But I do find that the situation raises some interesting questions:

Can someone be adopted by a culture? and if so, how is it illegitimate to adopt a culture yourself?

Aren't immigrants encouraged to adopt the culture of the nation they move to? Does adopting a culture imply more than just an interest in or empathy with a culture?

At what point does this interest/empathy allow you to write about a culture? Does it, at any point, allow you to speak for a culture? Where do you draw the line between speaking/writing about, and speaking/writing on behalf of?

Do letters to the editor supporting native rights by non-aboriginals count as writing about or writing on behalf of? How do they differ in substance from what Ward Churchill does? Is Churchill's behaviour bad because he is adopting an identity that isn't outwardly his (and how does this differ from people adopting different gender roles and identifying as the opposite sex?) or because he is speaking on behalf of native cultures (even though his comments are unsolicited), or because he is combing both of those things?

Please note that I am not trying to defend him with these questions; I'm just trying to explore the situation a bit more.

has something changed recently? like did he recently abandon his claim to indigenous heritage and i missed it?

He's gone from his position...but he's not gone. And plenty of lefties consider him to be a sort of authority on native issues. I get into arguments about this a lot and people think I'm just dancing to the 'tune of the rightwing neocons who want to discredit' him.:rolleyes:

What these people fail to realize is that despite what he may say in public, the fact of the matter is that Churchill has been plagariazing other artists work and then passing it off as his own "native" art. In other words, not only has he been passing himself of as a native, he has been actively defrauding the whole culture (BTW some of the art he plagiarized is by a white, so he is not only defrauding, he is polluting the culture too. Well done ward! Finishing the job that colombus started!). Sure he might have a few good ideas, but a stopped clock is right twice a day as well.

Has anyone on this forum defended him?

i have

i have

Why? He obviously hates people in lower income bracket and working poor.

Why? He obviously hates people in lower income bracket and working poor.

how so?

how so?

Look what he said about the people in the WTC.

That's the thing...I disagree with a number of things he's said...but some of the flaws he's pointed out in native governance are quite valid...but it's insulting that he has been representing himself as something he's not. He married a native woman. Does that make him native? NO...but he can speak as someone with a good understanding of native culture and be fine. I'm married to a Chilean...can I speak for Chileans as a Chilean?

Are you asking us to defend him as a person, his politics, or whether or not he can speak on Native issues? Yes, it is insulting that he's been representing himself as something he's not - I'm a leftist and a Native myself, ya know.

As for his wife, maybe he should speech write for her. Maybe she should also make him apologise. No, I don't think you could speak for Chileans as a Chilean, but I do think you are probably closer in touch with Chilean issues than, say, I am (I don't think I've ever even met a Chilean), so your words would carry more weight by association.

Ward Churchill has been in trouble for several reasons:

plagarism-you can't say that you painted this thing if you really didn't paint it. You can't copy art without permission from the artist.

He lied. He lied about being a Native American when he really wasn't. He did it to get the job. He did it to get some validity. I am mostly white(1/16th Native American+15/16th European American). If I adopt the African American culture, does that make me an African American? If I adopt the Japanese culture as my own, am I Japanese? If I adopt the martian lifestyle and culture, am I a martian? If I adopt the dog lifestyle as my own, am I a dog? Hell no. I will still be a European American. I will still be an English American, a French American, a Swiss American. You can become an American, but you can't BECOME a Native American. You were either always a NA or never a NA. You are either always an African American or never an African American. You can't suddenly become one. You can adopt the culture, but you can't adopt the ethnicity.

What these people fail to realize is that despite what he may say in public, the fact of the matter is that Churchill has been plagariazing other artists work and then passing it off as his own "native" art. In other words, not only has he been passing himself of as a native, he has been actively defrauding the whole culture (BTW some of the art he plagiarized is by a white, so he is not only defrauding, he is polluting the culture too. Well done ward! Finishing the job that colombus started!). Sure he might have a few good ideas, but a stopped clock is right twice a day as well.Yeah, that's just plain fraud and goes beyond the "adopting a culture" questions I raised earlier.

Look what he said about the people in the WTC.

which was that the technocratic corps at the heart of american imperialism are not exactly innocent, even if they are 'just doing their jobs' and too busy with their stock transactions to pay attention to the harm they cause. and that,

I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

maybe it's because the "little eichmanns" line has been used a couple times previously in the circles both churchill and i inhabit (i think zerzan used it in an article in "anarchy: a journal of desire armed" in the mid 90s), but i got the reference right away and understood what he intended.

At the very least, even the toughest identity police among us will have to admit that, as a United States citizen, Churchill has the right to ethnically self-identify in any way he wants, as is the official policy of the U.S. Census Bureau.

That's true! Surprisingly very true. I think I'll be Chinese for a couple of years and see where that gets me. :D It is interesting that in the US we have personal liberties so deep that we can adopt an ethnicity at will.

I feel very strongly about such personal liberties. For example, I adopted Islam. I embraced the Muslim way of life. Some could argue that since I spent 32 years of my life as a non-Muslim, that I have no right to speak as a Muslim or on issues concerning Muslims in the US. Conversly, some have argued that I can no longer identify myself as Jewish since I embraced Islam - though none of those people saying that have been Jewish, so I hold very little sway on their opinion. I've even had some Natives say that I'm "not Native enough" because I didn't grow up in squallor on reservation lands and that my tribe isn't Federally recognised, but only State recognised (as if we should give a rat's ass what the US Federal Government thinks of our people).

It happens to people of mixed blood. There are always the Puritans putting you down because of your birth.

HOWEVER! (and that's a huge however)

Churchill may not have a single drop of Native blood in him, but he has the right to adopt, and be adopted by, Native culture and Native peoples. If that is the case, I'd like to see an official statement from the adopting tribe. Otherwise, the second he profitted from his claims, it became fraud. Nothing more or less. Fraud.

which was that the technocratic corps at the heart of american imperialism are not exactly innocent, even if they are 'just doing their jobs' and too busy with their stock transactions to pay attention to the harm they cause. and that,


But the WTC wasn't the technocratic corps. It was a shit address, full of state offices, tiny personal injury firms, state offices, backoffice operations &c. There was one branch of a merchant bank (cantor fitzgerald) I think, and a few other high profile operations. But mostly the workforce was middle income schlubs and much lower. Not really a centre of stock transactions. Hell it had a chronic vacancy problem because no-one wanted to be there.

90 Park Avenue, it was not.

Anyone who bothered to actually look at the facts for a moment would know this, and know that the people who were killed largely had no involvement whatsoever in the technocratic corps. (Especially the immigrants who worked there).

You can't copy art without permission from the artist.

unless you are refering to a case i don't know about, he claims to have gotten it, and the artist in question is dead now.

But the WTC wasn't the technocratic corps. It was a shit address, full of state offices, tiny personal injury firms, state offices, backoffice operations &c. There was one branch of a merchant bank (cantor fitzgerald) I think, and a few other high profile operations. But mostly the workforce was middle income schlubs and much lower. Not really a centre of stock transactions. Hell it had a chronic vacancy problem because no-one wanted to be there.

90 Park Avenue, it was not.

Anyone who bothered to actually look at the facts for a moment would know this, and know that the people who were killed largely had no involvement whatsoever in the technocratic corps. (Especially the immigrants who worked there).

I think that if Ward Churchill's defense of his statements is really true and really convincing, he should be glad to go make his statements before a crowd of New York Fire Department fire and rescue personnel, their families, and the people who survived those who were killed at the WTC.

I'm sure that he could hold forth with no bodyguard, no weapons, and no body armor in front of a crowd of thousands of those people, and if his defenders here think he's so right and so persuasive and so caring, he'll be able to go home alive after spewing his ideas.

I'm sure that he could hold forth with no bodyguard, no weapons, and no body armor in front of a crowd of thousands of those people, and if his defenders here think he's so right and so persuasive and so caring, he'll be able to go home alive after spewing his ideas.

He'd be afforded police protection, just like the KKK and the RNC. If you don't like it, repeal the First Amendment.

He'd be afforded police protection, just like the KKK and the RNC. If you don't like it, repeal the First Amendment.
We're not testing the First Amendment - we're testing to see if his ideas are as convincing, true, and well-meaning as his supporters indicate they are. Either the survivors of 9-11 and the families of the dead would believe him or they would rip him limb from limb.

Here's my sticking point with him...not necessarily his politics, though I don't agree with all of them...but that he claimed for so long to be indigenous. Why? Why do that? I know that this was a way the right could dig at him...and the left says, 'don't abandon him for that alone'...but personally, it bothers me very much. Go ahead and talk about aboriginal issues...you don't have to be aboriginal to do that. But don't pretend to BE aboriginal in order to give your words more 'validity'. As a lefty, and an aboriginal, I find myself often in opposition with other leftists over Ward Churchill, because I truly resent it when people try to speak FOR us instead of in solidarity WITH us.

It should bother you. A lot! It is a scam that has been going on for years, especially in our institutions of lower living. It is called Affirmative Action fraud. An angry white male marxist, con artist is not going far in any line of work, but an angry male Indian impersonator goes to the head of the hire list with no questions asked. All he has to do is check the box that says minority status, and spew hate america bullshit and he becomes immediately enlightened.

Here's my sticking point with him...not necessarily his politics, though I don't agree with all of them...but that he claimed for so long to be indigenous. Why? Why do that? I know that this was a way the right could dig at him...and the left says, 'don't abandon him for that alone'...but personally, it bothers me very much. Go ahead and talk about aboriginal issues...you don't have to be aboriginal to do that. But don't pretend to BE aboriginal in order to give your words more 'validity'. As a lefty, and an aboriginal, I find myself often in opposition with other leftists over Ward Churchill, because I truly resent it when people try to speak FOR us instead of in solidarity WITH us.
I agree with you. People should just be themselves. Claiming an ancestry or honor or other status that one is not entitled to seems very low and insulting to those who honestly deserve that status.

We're not testing the First Amendment - we're testing to see if his ideas are as convincing, true, and well-meaning as his supporters indicate they are. Either the survivors of 9-11 and the families of the dead would believe him or they would rip him limb from limb.

That's not a convincing argument towards the validity of his statements. Just because an angry mob of people who disagree with him would rend him limb from limb doesn't mean his words are false.

An angry mob of Romans did a nasty number on Jesus, does that mean Jesus was wrong?

He'd be afforded police protection, just like the KKK and the RNC. If you don't like it, repeal the First Amendment.

Only if he applied for a permit to speak. If he just starts holding forth (which is legal in NYC), he'll be on his own.

Only if he applied for a permit to speak. If he just starts holding forth (which is legal in NYC), he'll be on his own.

I'm reasonably sure there would be police involvement if people started assaulting him, even if he didn't have the proper permits.

That's not a convincing argument towards the validity of his statements. Just because an angry mob of people who disagree with him would rend him limb from limb doesn't mean his words are false.

An angry mob of Romans did a nasty number on Jesus, does that mean Jesus was wrong?
I can't find anything valid about his statements. He seems to make them primarily to piss people off so he can continue his self-aggrandizing shameless self-promotion career.

BTW, it wasn't an angry mob of Romans - it was a mob of Judeans - who were not Roman citizens. Roman soldiers carried out the execution, but they could hardly be described as a mob.

I'm reasonably sure there would be police involvement if people started assaulting him, even if he didn't have the proper permits.
I'm not sure the NYPD wouldn't join in. Plenty of NYPD were killed there too.

It should bother you. A lot! It is a scam that has been going on for years, especially in our institutions of lower living. It is called Affirmative Action fraud. An angry white male marxist, con artist is not going far in any line of work, but an angry male Indian impersonator goes to the head of the hire list with no questions asked. All he has to do is check the box that says minority status, and spew hate america bullshit and he becomes immediately enlightened.

churchill was not hired on the basis of affirmative action

churchill was not hired on the basis of affirmative action

Then you need to read his job application, because he most certainly was too.

I'm not sure the NYPD wouldn't join in. Plenty of NYPD were killed there too.

It depends on how well they do their job, doesn't it? Their job is to protect the safety and security of the people of NYC as well as uphold the rights of the citizenry and the Constitutions of both the State of New York and the United States of America without prejudice or emotion.

Any NYPD officer who turned their back while Churchill got mobbed should be hanged in Time's Square as a traitor.

I'm reasonably sure there would be police involvement if people started assaulting him, even if he didn't have the proper permits.

Maybe. But only if they were in the area. Which means he would have had to announce his plans, which means getting a permit, which almost certainly would be denied, so he'd be arrested and thrown in the chokey at Rikers for a little hot man-loving before he even opened his big pie-hole.

It depends on how well they do their job, doesn't it? Their job is to protect the safety and security of the people of NYC as well as uphold the rights of the citizenry and the Constitutions of both the State of New York and the United States of America without prejudice or emotion.

Any NYPD officer who turned their back while Churchill got mobbed should be hanged in Time's Square as a traitor.

Doesn't fit the definition of traitor, although you could argue that in some cases, Churchill strongly advocates sedition.

churchill was not hired on the basis of affirmative action

True that. Had they had an affirmative action program, they probably could have found a decent art instructor instead of churchill.

I can't find anything valid about his statements. He seems to make them primarily to piss people off so he can continue his self-aggrandizing shameless self-promotion career.

Aye ... and you may be right. It is, after all, exactly what every politician does. Or need I remind you of the billionaire President's son who puts on some cowboy boots and claims to be in touch with the common man. *coff*

BTW, it wasn't an angry mob of Romans - it was a mob of Judeans - who were not Roman citizens. Roman soldiers carried out the execution, but they could hardly be described as a mob.

Incidental, really. Fact is, you claimed that if a person gets mobbed by their detractors when making a public statement, then that proves their argument invalid. Hence, by your claim, Jesus's words are now invalidated. The Church isn't going to be happy.

Fact is, you claimed that if a person gets mobbed by their detractors when making a public statement, then that proves their argument invalid. Hence, by your claim, Jesus's words are now invalidated. The Church isn't going to be happy.

I have an out. It was part of the plan that He would be killed for what he said.

I'm still waiting for Ward Churchill to morph himself yet again, and this time say he's the Second Coming of Christ.

It depends on how well they do their job, doesn't it? Their job is to protect the safety and security of the people of NYC as well as uphold the rights of the citizenry and the Constitutions of both the State of New York and the United States of America without prejudice or emotion.

Actually it's not. Motto aside, their job is actually to arrest criminals mostly, not protect people.

Hell, they don't even have to respond to you 911 call if they have something else going on.

Doesn't fit the definition of traitor, although you could argue that in some cases, Churchill strongly advocates sedition.

Sedition is not traitorous nor treasonous.

Ok maybe being hanged in public is a tad strong, but I would expect severe disciplinary action and removal from the force of any policeman who turned their backs while a citizen was brutalized. It goes against the very nature of "Protect and Serve".

Actually it's not. Motto aside, their job is actually to arrest criminals mostly, not protect people.

Hell, they don't even have to respond to you 911 call if they have something else going on.


Warren vs. District of Columbia, if I recall correctly. You can call all you like, and they can never be held responsible for never showing up.

I'm still waiting for Ward Churchill to morph himself yet again, and this time say he's the Second Coming of Christ.

I wouldn't be surprised.

I would expect severe disciplinary action and removal from the force of any policeman who turned their backs while a citizen was brutalized. It goes against the very nature of "Protect and Serve".

See Warren vs. District of Columbia.

All a policeman has to say is, "I was busy serving the public in another way".

Actually it's not. Motto aside, their job is actually to arrest criminals mostly, not protect people.

Aye ... and a bunch of people beating up a guy for speaking his opinion becomes a bunch of criminals.

If not, then I have a nail studded baseball bat with Jerry Falwell's name on it.

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

This rule of duty owed to the public at large has been most frequently applied in cases involving complaints of inadequate protection during urban riots or mob violence. Many of these cases challenge the preparedness of the police to handle such situations, while others, such as Westminster Investing Corp. v. G. C. Murphy Co., supra, challenge the tactical decisions made to curtail or remove police protection from the riot areas. In Westminster, officials of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia had decided to limit police presence in the area of the Murphy Company's store during the firey 1968 riots. Murphy's store was destroyed and the company filed a claim against the District of Columbia contending that the police department had deliberately or negligently abandoned its policing obligations during the riots and thereby permitted rioters to destroy Murphy's property. In affirming the dismissal of Murphy's claim against the District, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the District of Columbia had no direct legal obligation to Murphy and that Murphy, therefore, had "no substantive right to recover the damages resulting from failure of [the] government or its officers to keep the peace." Id. at 252, 434 F.2d at 526, quoting Turner v. United States, supra [248 U.S.] at 358 [39 S.Ct. at 110].

Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Ramses the Clark...

I love 'em all...it throws the Leftists into such sharp contrast with the average Joe.;)

has something changed recently? like did he recently abandon his claim to indigenous heritage and i missed it?
Depends on who you talk to...it's hard to get a bead on this, but he's changed his claims a couple of times, and I did hear something about him saying that he wasn't native...

Look what he said about the people in the WTC.
Oh come on now.

Churchill may not have a single drop of Native blood in him, but he has the right to adopt, and be adopted by, Native culture and Native peoples. If that is the case, I'd like to see an official statement from the adopting tribe. Otherwise, the second he profitted from his claims, it became fraud. Nothing more or less. Fraud.

well, there was this (http://unitedkeetoowahband.org/newsarchive.htm):

Final Statement from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Regarding Ward Churchill

May 19, 2005

Ward Churchill received an “Associate Membership” from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) council in May, 1994. He was not eligible for tribal membership due to the fact that he does not possess a “Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood” (CDIB) which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Interior / Bureau of Indian Affairs. Because Mr. Churchill had genealogical information regarding his alleged ancestry, and his willingness to assist the UKB in promoting the tribe and its causes, he was awarded an ‘Associate Membership’ as an honor. However, Mr. Churchill may possess eligibility status for Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, since he claims 1/16 Cherokee...



and then there is this (http://www.coloradoaim.org/blog/2005/02/colorado-aim-press-release.html):

1 FEBRUARY 2005

Denver, CO

THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT (AIM) OF COLORADO CONFIRMS ITS SUPPORT OF WARD CHURCHILL AS A MEMBER OF OUR LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

COLORADO AIM CONDEMNS RACIST ATTACKS AGAINST CHURCHILL

The Elder’s Council and the Leadership Council of the American Indian Movement (AIM) of Colorado confirm our support for Ward Churchill as a member of our chapter, and as a member of the Leadership Council of Colorado AIM. Colorado AIM further condemns the transparent, racist attacks against Churchill by those who seek to silence alternative voices. While Churchill’s particular statements about events of September 11, 2001 were his personal views, his broader critical analysis of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is consistent with Colorado AIM’s perspective.

Colorado AIM is one of the largest and most active AIM chapters in the United States. Our strength, power and authority springs from our spirituality, from the example of our ancestors, and from the members of our community who embrace our principles.

We neither recognize, nor do we accept, the dictates of any person or persons who pretend to speak for us. Any person or entity that purports to speak on behalf of Colorado AIM other than our Elder’s Council or the Leadership Council, is being dishonest. Each AIM chapter is independent and autonomous, and our authority emerges from the voice of the people in our community, and we support Ward Churchill.

Ward Churchill has been an important member and leader of the American Indian Movement (AIM) of Colorado since at least 1984. His analysis of U.S. law and policy has been an essential tool in educating both indigenous and non-indigenous people on the history and the current circumstances of native peoples in the Americas. Ward has been tireless in his defense of indigenous peoples’ aspirations for freedom and justice around the world, and we applaud him for his numerous contributions.

Colorado AIM is painfully familiar with racist attacks against our movement, and against individuals in our movement, of which this is simply the most recent. We do not have to agree with every statement, or with every position that members of our chapter take in order to rally to their support when they are subject to an unprincipled, anti-Indian lynch mobs.

Churchill is not under attack because of a couple of statements that he made about the events of September 11, 2001. He is under attack because he has exposed the pain and the suffering caused by U.S. domestic and foreign policy. He does so without apology, and from the perspective of an indigenous scholar. He is under attack by racists who would prefer to silence indigenous voices altogether, and who would erase the history of indigenous peoples from the memory of the Western Hemisphere.

Our view of Ward Churchill is not through the lens of a few sentences taken out of context for calculated purposes. Our view is of an indigenous man who has devoted decades of his life to the defense of indigenous peoples’ self-determination and freedom.

The fact is not lost on us that the attacks on Churchill began immediately after the acquittal of him and others in the Columbus Day trials in Denver. Colorado AIM is proud of the actions of Churchill and the other Columbus Day resisters. We will continue our efforts to remove the slave-trading, Indian killer Columbus as a national hero, and we will continue with our numerous other initiatives to promote indigenous peoples’ freedom...

and (http://www.coloradoaim.org/history/1994RobideauslettertoPaulDemain.htm):
Open Letter to Paul DeMain
by Bob Robideau, Spokesperson for New Mexico AIM (reprinted with Permission from Dark Night Field Notes Summer, 1994)

I read with consternation and disgust what editor Paul DeMain claims is his "balanced and objective" assessment of the recent AIM Tribunal conducted in San Raphael, CA, and related matters ("Aim Supporters Convene in Minneapolis for Ceremony," News From Indian Country, April 8, 1994). In response, I would say that if DeMain's article is what passes for balance and objectivity not to mention accuracy in Indian Country, then the quality of native journalism has gone astray.

The truth is that Paul didn't bother to adhere to even the most minimal standards of professional even-handedness in writing his story. For example, he provides Vernon Bellecourt with ample space to make all sorts of ridiculous accusations Colorado AIM leader Ward Churchill, without so much as contacting Churchill to see whether there might be another side to the story. This obvious bias translates itself into a number of inaccuracies. One example is that Bellecourt is allowed once again to repeat as "truth" the blatant falsehood that Churchill is a Non-Indian. The truth is that Churchill's genealogy has been checked out by two separate Cherokee researchers, both of whom have concluded that he is indeed of Cherokee descent. Further, Ward has been formally and repeatedly recognized as an Indian by significant sectors of the Denver and Boulder Indian communities. The last I heard, naming your relatives and community recognition were still respectable ways of verifying Indianness...or are things done differently up there in Great Lakes country?

Actually, if Paul had done the sort of homework he requires of his reporters when it came time to write his own "analysis," he would have known that there was something seriously wrong with Vernon's story, right from the start. In the first place, Ward and Vernon have had strong political differences since 1985. During that whole period, Vernon has been trying to discredit Ward as being everything from an FBI Agent to a CIA Agent. But never once during the 1980s and early 90's did Vernon claim Ward was not an Indian.

It's only been within the past couple of years that he began saying that. There's something definitely rotten in Vernon's actions here. More evidence can be found in how he keeps going on about how Ward and Glenn Morris (also of Colorado AIM, and another target of Vernon's "white man" charges) were expelled from the International Indian Treaty Council. He seems to have forgotten that in order for them to have become IITC delegates in the first place, they had to have been accepted as Indians. At one point in 1982 or '83, Bill Means even went to Harvard, where Glenn was in law school, and asked him to take over as Director of IITC.

For Churchill's part, he says he was originally recruited into AIM by Clyde Bellecourt way back in 1973, during one of Clyde's speaking tours. So, since when did Clyde start recruiting "white men" as AIM members? I remember Ward from Yellow Thunder Camp during the early '80s (when I was LPDC director and we had a camp in support of the effort), where he was accepted by all the AIM members there as Indian...

None of Churchill's later remarks, nor anything anyone has posted, has yet justified his description of the victims of the WTC attacks as "little Eichmanns".

[QUOTE=http://www.counterpunch.org/lyons02192005.html
At the very least, even the toughest identity police among us will have to admit that, as a United States citizen, Churchill has the right to ethnically self-identify in any way he wants, as is the official policy of the U.S. Census BureauThis is what people have said to me too about Churchill...but they miss the point that in the struggle for native sovereignty, one of the things we have fought very hard for is the right to determine our own membership...not to have it determined FOR us.[/QUOTE]

I don't feel the need to defend Ward Churchill, nor have I ever thought he was a particular authority on native issues.

By saying some outlandish things, he made himself a sort of celebrity and that might be why, in some circles, he is given authority. For some, celebrity = expert.

Nonetheless, that website you quote is accurate. The official policy of the U.S. Census Bureau does allow Churchill to claim he is a Native American.

Whether he is an Indian as defined by other US law, I have no idea. I personally haven't paid that much attention to him or his attackers.

Can someone be adopted by a culture? and if so, how is it illegitimate to adopt a culture yourself? Yes, you can be adopted into a culture...but you will still retain a certain degree of 'outsiderness' unless you've been raised in that culture. As for adopting a culture yourself...well, speaking in terms of most native groups, the group you want to become a part of needs to accept you as well. And culture is often tangled up in ethnicity...you can perhaps adopt aspects of a culture, but not necessarily an ethnicity.

Aren't immigrants encouraged to adopt the culture of the nation they move to? Does adopting a culture imply more than just an interest in or empathy with a culture? But generally, nationality is not ethnicity.

At what point does this interest/empathy allow you to write about a culture? Does it, at any point, allow you to speak for a culture? Where do you draw the line between speaking/writing about, and speaking/writing on behalf of? It's been common throughout history to speak FOR people...for slaves, for women, for these people or those people...but more and more, people are choosing to speak for themselves. I can speak as a native person, but I can not speak as a Mapuche or Mayan indian, or even a Salish or Inuit. I may have some insight, and I often do speak as 'an aboriginal' instead of specifically 'a Cree', but not about culturally-specific issues we may not have in common. And the Inuit, Mapuche, Mayan, and Salish peoples have voices of their own. I'll raise mine in solidarity with them, but never FOR them when it comes to their personal issues.

Do letters to the editor supporting native rights by non-aboriginals count as writing about or writing on behalf of? How do they differ in substance from what Ward Churchill does? Because they aren't identifying as belonging to a particular ethnicity.


Good questions...I hate that I'm rushed...meeting...I'll get back to this!

None of Churchill's later remarks, nor anything anyone has posted, has yet justified his description of the victims of the WTC attacks as "little Eichmanns".

That isn't even the subject of this discussion.

That isn't even the subject of this discussion.
I beg to differ. Sinuhue wants people to defend Ward Churchill.

There's so much you can attack him on - better get started defending him.

Depends on who you talk to...it's hard to get a bead on this, but he's changed his claims a couple of times, and I did hear something about him saying that he wasn't native...

the claim that he admitted he wasn't native was a bit of shoddy journalism on the part of the honolulu star-bulletin that they retracted the next day, iirc. unless there was another instance.

That isn't even the subject of this discussion.
Thanks Cat. No offense folks, but I specifically addressed this threads to leftists because I don't want to get into that one tiny blip in a long career of political activism and debate it to death. That's been done. I want to keep the focus on the issue of speaking for people as a member of that group...and whether that has validity. Please leave the WTC speech out of it.

Then you need to read his job application, because he most certainly was too.

Prove it.

Even thing else I have seen is to the contrary.

the claim that he admitted he wasn't native was a bit of shoddy journalism on the part of the honolulu star-bulletin that they retracted the next day, iirc. unless there was another instance.
Hmmm...wouldn't suprise me...I'm coming back in two hours...you're actually one of the ones I specifically wanted to talk about this to...see you in a while:)

I beg to differ. Sinuhue wants people to defend Ward Churchill.

There's so much you can attack him on - better get started defending him.

You know better than that.

She asked for a defense of Churchill's claim to Native American heritage, as this relates to the role some have given him as a spokesman on Native American views.

There is no need for the left to defend Ward Churchill's remarks anymore than you must defend all the remarks ever made by anyone on the right. For example, do you want to defend Pat Robertson?

Whether he is an Indian as defined by other US law, I have no idea.

the technical answer is 'not proven indian enough to be eligible for any specific programs'

the claim that he admitted he wasn't native was a bit of shoddy journalism on the part of the honolulu star-bulletin that they retracted the next day, iirc. unless there was another instance.


found the retraction (http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/24/news/story3.html):

Churchill misquoted in article on UH speech

Star-Bulletin staff

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in an article yesterday, incorrectly quoted University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill as admitting that he was not American Indian.

The story about Churchill's Tuesday night speech at the University of Hawaii-Manoa said the professor noted that his "white Republican" critics were asking, "Is he an Indian? Do we really care?"

"Let's cut to the chase, I'm not," the quote in yesterday's paper continued.

But a review of video and audio tapes of the speech shows that Churchill actually said: "Is he an Indian?

"We really care. We're trying to protect the rights of Indians to divine for themselves, say this circle of flies in the form of white reporters circling a manure pile like it's of all consequential importance.

"Cut to the chase on that."

Churchill went on to say that he is an associate member of the Keetoowah tribe and that associates are enrolled in the band after their genealogy has been vetted by the enrollment office. He said that he is less than one-quarter Indian, so he does not qualify to be a full member.

The issue of whether Churchill has Indian blood is part of the national debate over the controversial professor who gained notoriety for comparing some Sept. 11, 2001, victims to Nazis.

actually, i seem to remember guessing they'd have to issue a retraction in one of the threads here on the basis of it not being reported in the honolulu advertiser too. stupid honolulu s-b. their apartment listings suck too.

found the retraction (http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/24/news/story3.html):



actually, i seem to remember guessing they'd have to issue a retraction in one of the threads here on the basis of it not being reported in the honolulu advertiser too. stupid honolulu s-b. their apartment listings suck too.

Nice work. Your posts should settle the issue.

Nice work. Your posts should settle the issue.

the real issue is rather larger than just ward churchill - he's just a good flash point by being such an 'in your face' sort of guy. it really comes out the wake of the destruction left by the fibbies cointelpro operations against the american indian movement a couple decades back. they got people so factionalized and paranoid (with pretty good reason, considering) that there is all sorts of bad blood still fueling some bitter accusations between lots of the old key players - the ones that didn't wind up dead or serving long jail sentences anyway. it's all been very well played by the state, assuming you dig the machiavellian shit.

some of the related accusations are along the lines of "x is a cia agent", "y turned informant to get a lighter sentence for their drug dealing conviction", "z was involved in the murder of ____", "group w sold out various indigenous groups to the commies/rightwingers/corporations", etc. nasty, nasty stuff.

Nice work. Your posts should settle the issue.

You're forgetting the fingers-in-ears-la-la-la crowd whose sole argument against Michael Moore is because he's fat. I'm sure they'll be around shortly - school's letting out - to try in desperate circles to argue that Free Soviet's sources are liberal bias perpetuated by Bill Clinton's lower GI tract and World Wide Jewish Domination (WWJD).

the real issue is rather larger than just ward churchill - he's just a good flash point by being such an 'in your face' sort of guy. it really comes out the wake of the destruction left by the fibbies cointelpro operations against the american indian movement a couple decades back. they got people so factionalized and paranoid (with pretty good reason, considering) that there is all sorts of bad blood still fueling some bitter accusations between lots of the old key players - the ones that didn't wind up dead or serving long jail sentences anyway. it's all been very well played by the state, assuming you dig the machiavellian shit.

some of the related accusations are along the lines of "x is a cia agent", "y turned informant to get a lighter sentence for their drug dealing conviction", "z was involved in the murder of ____", "group w sold out various indigenous groups to the commies/rightwingers/corporations", etc. nasty, nasty stuff.
Snitch-jacketing...Peltier and whether the bullets fit the gun...who killed Annie Mae...yeah, it's been a long run of playing natives off one another. And there has been much written about Churchill being a CIA fink:rolleyes: ...or at least someone being paid to tar the image of natives. So it's been hard to find reliable information on the issue of whether he really is native and so on...because so many claims from both right and left are flying around...the second I bring it up with people on the left, they tell me not to buy into the right's hype...but that's not my issue. If there are people out there, activists, pretending to be something they are not, and speaking FOR my people, I want them to stop. And I have no doubt there are those doing exactly that. None of them, however, are getting the mediat attention of Churchill...even pre-WTC speech. Then again...that's politics for you...it's the loud mouths who get the press:)

In any case, I am still a bit unclear on the issue of his ethnicity. Do you have more links?

Edit...never mind...I see them on the previous page...thank you!

Alright, thank you very much, Free Soviets, for providing the links you have...if a native community is accepting him as one of them, that's enough for me. The whole issue of who gets to say who is Indian or not is a tough one...in Canada, the Métis people have more control over determining their membership than First Nations and Inuit groups do, and it doesn't have anything to do with blood quantum. I'd like to see these principles be adopted by all native communities:

“Métis means a person who self-identifies as a Métis, is distinct from other aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation ancestry, and is accepted by the Métis Nation.”

Change Métis for First Nations, Inuit, or even the tribal name, and it makes sense as well. It should not only be about blood.

Alright, thank you very much, Free Soviets, for providing the links you have...if a native community is accepting him as one of them, that's enough for me.

no problem.

the whole thing is really a mess - especially since he's never claimed very much native ancestry, which pushes things into a nebulous grey area. but he's not just some guy with no ties to the community at all claiming to be the real deal. as long as the native communities he associates with accept him, that's good enough. especially since he's paid his dues, so to speak, with decades of work on behalf of those communities.

no problem.

the whole thing is really a mess - especially since he's never claimed very much native ancestry, which pushes things into a nebulous grey area. but he's not just some guy with no ties to the community at all claiming to be the real deal. as long as the native communities he associates with accept him, that's good enough. especially since he's paid his dues, so to speak, with decades of work on behalf of those communities.Yes...but you're the first 'lefty':) who has actually even touched the issue, and had any real information on it instead of just dismissing it as lies off hand. So thanks!

Yes...but you're the first 'lefty':) who has actually even touched the issue, and had any real information on it instead of just dismissing it as lies off hand. So thanks!

heh.

that's cause instead of the usual "i must always be right, so i won't listen to a word you say" thing that lots of people have, i go for a more "i must always be right, and therefore i should try to make sure that i actually am before making an ass of myself" thing.

heh.

that's cause instead of the usual "i must always be right, so i won't listen to a word you say" thing that lots of people have, i go for a more "i must always be right, and therefore i should try to make sure that i actually am before making an ass of myself" thing.
Yes...well I'm transitioning right now back into active...um...activism:p, and I'm trying to do so in a way that won't force me to strangle the people I work with. I've learned a lot about tolerance on NS, and a lot about backing up your statements with proof...which is both good and bad...it's good, because I tend to give people a chance to get out of the hole they dig themselves into, and bad, because I find myself screaming things like, "SOURCE!":eek:

And why is it that I'm more at the throats of my fellow lefties (and visa versa) than I am at the right-wingers? I hate that. I'd forgotten how annoying it is.

I've learned a lot about tolerance on NS, and a lot about backing up your statements with proof...which is both good and bad...it's good, because I tend to give people a chance to get out of the hole they dig themselves into, and bad, because I find myself screaming things like, "SOURCE!":eek:

the horrors of open minded skepticism!