PDA

View Full Version : Ward Churchill -- Questionable identity and questionable scholarship



BigBadBrian
02-26-2005, 10:36 PM
Patti Jo King
Indian Country Today
Feb. 24, 2005

Ward Churchill has convinced many people that he is the ultimate expert on Indian affairs, yet he has neither the character nor the eloquence to lead.

Throughout history, dynamic Indian leaders have honed their skills on the experience of loss, devastation, and a sincere desire to find paths to survival for future generations. Shunning pretension or self-aggrandizement, they excelled as leaders because they had a common stake in the affairs of Indian country.

As members of tribes, communities and extended families, they stood to benefit or lose as a direct result of their leadership. They were respected because their people knew they did their best to make a positive contribution.

Churchill, a postmodernist, lacks a believable Native identity and family history. He can't empathize with Indians because he has nothing at stake. Having appropriated his Indian identity, he is unaffected by the commotion he causes when he behaves outrageously. He utilizes postmodern techniques, plunging into Indian matters he does not fully understand and attempting to represent them. Sadly, the Indian community will suffer the consequences of his recklessness again.

Churchill does not now, nor has he ever, represented Indians. His complex, overly-academic rhetoric clarifies how little he has in common with Native people. His acid tongue, dirty-mouthed sarcasm, self-important posturing, and preachy fanaticism contribute nothing to the challenge Indians face to establish a satisfying position in contemporary society.

Churchill portrays Indians as hapless victims, repressed and demoralized by the crafty American government. These characterizations only serve to impede Indian social progress. He combines hackneyed stereotypes, postmodern gibberish, and radical buzzwords to coax naive individuals to accept his authenticity. Such characterizations are the antithesis of empowerment.

Now Churchill is trying to convince the unwitting public that his current troubles stem from an infringement on his right to free speech. He also says that he is being targeted by racist Indians because he is not enrolled.

Claiming to be ''one-sixteenth Cherokee,'' he has opposed the 1990 Indian Arts and Crafts Act, a law protecting Indian artists from unfair counterfeit competition. His Indian claim further enabled him to secure his lucrative teaching position (over $94,000 annually) at the University of Colorado, where he beat out several fine Indian scholars for the coveted job.

He claims to be Cherokee and Creek, although the Okmulgee Creek Agency, the Muscogee Creek Nation and the Cherokee Nation contend he is not a member and is not known among their people.

Nevertheless, non-Indian educators pay handsomely to hear him speak. If placed in the same position, would other ethnic communities accept an imposing white radical as their representative? Would they remain silent while he misrepresented their people?

Identity theft is only the tip of the problematic iceberg. Free speech is not the issue either. The issue is questionable scholarship.

Churchill's historiography is neither fair nor objective. It is extreme revisionism designed to promote his suspicious agenda through academic fraud. Academic fraud is more than simple error: it encompasses false attribution and fabrication of facts.

A 1992 essay, ''Federal Indian Identification Policy,'' co-authored with his former wife, Marie Annette Jaimes, has long concerned Indian legal scholars. It asserts the 1887 Dawes Allotment Act required individuals to be one-half or more Indian to be eligible for land allotment. Jaimes chastises tribes for adopting Dawes blood quantum requirements for tribal membership. Churchill has continuously berated tribes and enrolled Indians, viciously referring to them as ''ethnic cleansers'' and ''racists'' for participating in blood-based tribal enrollment. He repeatedly attributes his theories to Jaimes' blood quantum/Dawes Act claim in ''Federal Indian Identification Policy.''

Blood quantum, however, is never mentioned in the Dawes Act.

Such shoddy scholarship immediately raises a red flag. Are we to believe that a man who has written dozens of books and nearly 100 essays - a foremost authority on Indians - has never read the Dawes Allotment Act? The act is one of the most prevalent and important documents of American Indian legal history and is brief and easy to read.

Numerous other examples of his questionable scholarship have been exposed by historians, political scientists, and Native scholars over the years.

Churchill's lack of authenticity, sensitivity, and manipulative rhetoric became apparent some 13 years ago. In retaliation against those who criticized him, he hurled insults and accusations, often against Indian women.

The University of Colorado was contacted on more than one occasion after his erratic behavior became dangerously volatile. Yet Indian concerns fell on deaf ears. One department head said, ''What Mr. Churchill does off-campus on his own time is his own business.''

Churchill's goal is the disempowerment of American Indians. What better way to achieve this objective than to masquerade as a member-advocate of the very group he seeks to enfeeble?

His motivation remains a matter of speculation. Some believe he is a ''wannabe'' - a man of generic ethnicity striving for authentication through the theft of a more ''exotic'' Indian identity.

Others believe he is an opportunist who astutely positioned himself as a ''specialist'' in a field with few experts and sketchy criteria for determining expertise.

Needles to say, if the University of Colorado had heeded past Indian concerns, they would not be in the uncomfortable position they are in today. They must move decisively to correct the situation.

Churchill does not belong in a classroom. American civil liberties will continue to ensure his right to publish his extreme revisionist rhetoric, but his essays and books should never be considered acceptable texts for state-sponsored educational programs. Maintaining impeccable standards of scholarship, particularly in the field of American Indian studies, is critical to the protection of our history, rights and future.

University of Colorado, terminate this deplorable imposter.

Patti Jo King is a journalist and historian. She holds an extended bachelor's of Science degree in History and a master's degree in History of the American West.

Cathedral
02-27-2005, 12:03 AM
I saw him on TV yesterday, or was it today?

Anyway, he was being hounded by a reporter and he wasn't happy.
I didn't get a chance to hear what was going on, but it sure looked interesting.

The guy doesn't bother me at all, I'm not an audience for him and those who are, well, what can be said about them that hasn't already been said?

sylvia73
02-27-2005, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
I saw him on TV yesterday, or was it today?

Anyway, he was being hounded by a reporter and he wasn't happy.
I didn't get a chance to hear what was going on, but it sure looked interesting.

The guy doesn't bother me at all, I'm not an audience for him and those who are, well, what can be said about them that hasn't already been said?
Yesterday or today. Why can't you make up your silly mind?

Cathedral
02-27-2005, 12:13 AM
I dunno, maybe because i have a lot on my mind and it wasn't really important?

Nickdfresh
02-27-2005, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
I saw him on TV yesterday, or was it today?

Anyway, he was being hounded by a reporter and he wasn't happy.
I didn't get a chance to hear what was going on, but it sure looked interesting.

The guy doesn't bother me at all, I'm not an audience for him and those who are, well, what can be said about them that hasn't already been said?

Ward Churchill is an asshole, and speaking from a so-called "leftist" point of view, his essay is fraught with faulty logic and is a piece of shit. But he is an interesting, if creepy, dude.



But Brian, how many threads are we gonna have on this douche that question his 'Native' credentials, and even his academic scholarship? Who gives a shit? this guys 'essay' was being ignored until Republican fools made him famous.

FORD
02-27-2005, 02:06 AM
Yeah, I was wondering why Brian is so obsessed with this guy myself. This thread is a virtual carbon copy of the one he posted 2 or three weeks ago.

Besides, whether the man can prove his Native blood or not doesn't mean what he says about things taking place in this country are wrong.

Junior lies about being a Texan. His publicity machine lies about everything from his academic record (**cough** legacy enrollment **cough**) to the yet unexplained gaps in his Vietnam draft dodging National Guard stint.

Yet the Busheep never hold any of that against anything the Chimp says or does.

BigBadBrian
02-28-2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Ward Churchill is an asshole, and speaking from a so-called "leftist" point of view, his essay is fraught with faulty logic and is a piece of shit. But he is an interesting, if creepy, dude.



But Brian, how many threads are we gonna have on this douche that question his 'Native' credentials, and even his academic scholarship? Who gives a shit? this guys 'essay' was being ignored until Republican fools made him famous.

What he says really doesn't bother me, it's how he got to his professorship and continues to deceive his employers to maintain that employment in the guise of being a Native American is what intrigues me. Just amazing. If he is an American Indian (Yes Angel, INDIAN is a term recognized by those of that ethnicity here in the States) he should be allowed to maintain his employment. If not, he should be terminated.

Nickdfresh
02-28-2005, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
What he says really doesn't bother me, it's how he got to his professorship and continues to deceive his employers to maintain that employment in the guise of being a Native American is what intrigues me. Just amazing. If he is an American Indian (Yes Angel, INDIAN is a term recognized by those of that ethnicity here in the States) he should be allowed to maintain his employment. If not, he should be terminated.

Why do I smell bullshit?
http://ken-gilbert.com/images/newfunny/smells_like_bullshit.jpg

BigBadBrian
03-01-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why do I smell bullshit?


Bullshit can usually be smelled when Nick the Hick has posted in a thread and has nothing worthy to say, as is usually the case. :gulp:

Nickdfresh
03-01-2005, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Bullshit can usually be smelled when Nick the Hick has posted in a thread and has nothing worthy to say, as is usually the case. :gulp:

You're the crap master BigBlunderBrie.

BigBadBrian
03-01-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You're the crap master BigBlunderBrie.

Point proven. I rest my case. ;) :gulp:

Nickdfresh
03-01-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Point proven. I rest my case. ;) :gulp:

What was your case? Did you have a case of crabs?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/3973/liarliar1.jpg

Warham
03-01-2005, 03:23 PM
He's a liberal cunt.

End of discussion.

Nickdfresh
03-01-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Warham
He's a liberal cunt.

End of discussion.

At least I'm not a Neo CUNTservative!

Warham
03-01-2005, 03:44 PM
Although George W. Bush is often called a Neoconservative by his critics, the truth is that this accusation is more one of rhetoric than reality. While Neocons may actively support him, by background and belief he's much more of a traditional Republican than any kind of Neocon, but because of the negative perception of Neocons his opponents do everything they can to paint him as one.

The standard definition of a Neocon is someone who subscribes to the tenets of 'New Conservatism', the more extreme social agenda favored by groups like the Christian Coalition. This differs from traditional conservatism and traditional Republicanism in a number of significant ways. Conservative beliefs come in two basic flavors, social and fiscal. Social conservatives believe in traditional values. Fiscal conservatives believe in limited government and free trade. Until the 1960s the Republican party was socially liberal and fiscally conservative and the Democratic party was socially conservative and fiscally liberal. The Republicans liked business and liked individual rights, while the Democrats liked big-government and traditional religious values. The Republicans were the party that freed the slaves and free trade and the Democrats were the party of the KKK and the massive government expansion of FDR.

In the 1960s the Democratic party changed, largely as a result of the politics of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson who took the party from being a socially conservative southern party to one which embraced the civil rights movement and other progressive social policies while still favoring big government. This created a problem for traditional Republicans because the Democrats began to cut into their support base in the northeastern states. The Republicans responded by courting traditionally Democratic southerners who were opposed to large government but were also more socially conservative than the northern wing of their party. This started a process of change in the Republican party which eventually led to taking over the Democratic base in the south, and with that acquiring as adherents the most reactionary elements in southern politics, religiously motivated extremists who promoted a radical faith-based social agenda with only limited interest in issues of economic policy.

These new Republicans are the Neocons and George W. Bush really isn't one of them. He's not really from Texas and he's not really a southern rancher or oilman. His family is from Connecticut and their background is in banking. They're the essence of traditional New England Republican businessmen. They're patricians who have a long history of political involvement in the Republican party, not the party of the Neocons, but the party of William McKinley and Andrew Mellon. Their ancestors came to America in the colonial period and they have long-established family wealth. They go to private prep schools and then Yale, belong to private clubs, own summer houses in Maine and have all the trappings of the priveleged classes of the northeast and are not given to extreme religious fervor. Bush's grandfather Prescott was in banking before he went into politics and he was a standard business-oriented Republican of his era. Bush's father was one of the most liberal Republicans in congress and had a great deal of trouble finding support and acceptance within his own party as it became more socially conservative in the 1970s and 80s. Part of his problem when seeking a second term was erosion of support among southerners who preferred to vote for a moderate southern democrat than someone they saw as a northeastern elitist.

So, what's the deal with GW? He followed his father to Texas and went into business. He bought a ranch, worked the oil fields, and generally distanced himself in every possible way from his northeastern aristocratic background. Whether he did this for personal or political reasons is unclear, but apparently the Texas lifestyle suited him and he found it easy enough to fit in, remaking himself into something much more politically marketable than his father was, combining the old Republican and the new, with something to offer everyone. He's the good-ole-boy from Yale, with a silver spoon in his mouth and cowboy boots on his feet. As a fellow northeastern aristo who moved to Texas I rather identify with him and suspect I actually understand him better than most.

Politics is all about compromise and building coalitions of support. This is one thing that GWB has proven quite adept at. Despite his background he has remade himself on an acceptably southern model. With a background of alcoholism he's adopted the popular mantle of born-again 12-step survivor. This effectively counters his background as a wastrel while also pleasing fundamentalists on the extreme right of the Republican party. It's a perfect scenario where the white patrician from the north goes through hell and redemption and emerges a changed man in Texas, with new values and a relationship with God. Very appealing in the heartland and a way to overcome the weakness his father had with the growing Neocon faction in the party.

The problem for Bush is that while he made himself attractive to the Neocons and won their support, that also means that he has to keep them on board by actually doing something to serve their agenda. Remember, these are fanatics, they're not like the rest of us who are willing to support Bush as the lesser of two evils. If they think he's not on their side they'll turn against him without mercy. But Bush is still the product of his background and family. At heart he remains a traditional Republican. In the economic arena this isn't much of an issue. The Neocons don't much care about issues like tax and social security reform or free trade. They'll support him in those areas so long as he supports them on 'moral values' issues. That's where Bush has had to walk a very, very fine line. I suspect he doesn't really care a great deal either way about issues like abortion and gay marriage, so when faced with a choice on those kinds of issues he listens to the Neocons. Or at least he does as much for them as he absolutely has to.

In reality Bush hasn't actually done much of substance to fulfill their agenda. Yes, he talks about banning abortion and stem cell research and gay marriage, but he can say whatever he thinks they want to hear when he doesn't really have to come through for them. On each of those issues there are half way measures which he can offer to placate the Neocons without really doing anything of substance for them. For example, he hasn't really done much to shut down abortion. All he did was ban Partial Birth Abortion which 80% of the public including a majority of Democrats oppose. Beyond that he hasn't pushed hard at all on the issue. As far as stem cell research all he did - even though even that little irritated a lot of liberals - was to cut federal funding for certain cell lines. He didn't do anything to stop privately funded research and didn't even cut funding to all the established research. As for gay marriage, it's a relatively bogus issue which no one but the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum cares strongly about. Bush can come out four-square against it and yet support partnership rights and have the best of both worlds. He pleases the Neocons with symbolic opposition while giving liberals everything they want in all but name. A perfect compromise. Plus, if he gets desperate he can always give in to their most extreme demands - like a constitutional amendment against abortion - confident in the knowledge that the congress and the senate will stop anything too wacky.

Bush is an enigma in many ways, but he certainly isn't stupid. It takes great craft to play the complex game he's playing and get away with it and even win reelection. He's been able to at least marginally satisfy radically opposed elements within his own party and win over enough independents to keep playing the game through until the end. Bush can be a Neocon for the Neocons and a reform Republican for the rest of us and so far the party hasn't been torn apart by the contradiction. The ultimate outcome looks promising. Most of the Neocon issues got as far as they are likely to get before the election and there's not much more that can be done with them no matter how Bush tries. Back in office with a quasi-mandate Bush seems to be turning his attention to the economic reforms he kept hinting at but kept on the back burner until now. It's often the case that in their second term we find out who a President really is because the shackles are off and he only has 4 years to do what it took him a lifetime to get to. For some presidents that's been a disaster, but for all of them it's a chance to either sink or swim on their own merits. Bush like his predecessors now has 4 years to prove if he has greatness in him by turning the nation from a disastrous economic course to a new era of better government and true prosperity.

Dave

Take Back the Right: How the Neocons and the Religious Right Have Hijacked the Conservative Movement
Philip Gold
Book from Carroll & Graf Publishers
Release date: 10 June, 2004

Nickdfresh
03-01-2005, 03:50 PM
He's not a Neo Con? Funny how he followed all of the policies.

Warham
03-01-2005, 03:55 PM
I think you need to read that again.

BigBadBrian
03-01-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I think you need to read that again.

Good post. The Left has been blinded by the light and all the usual bells and whistles. :gulp:

Angel
03-01-2005, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
If he is an American Indian (Yes Angel, INDIAN is a term recognized by those of that ethnicity here in the States)

Hmmm... up here SOME will kill you for less. ;) I suppose down there you probably still refer to East Indians as Packies as well?

Cathedral
03-01-2005, 06:33 PM
My two cents are worth this comment as follows.

If the families of the victims of 9-11 are offended by his remarks/attitude, then lets here them cut the man to pieces because i don't see it being a reason for everyone else to go at each others throats.

99.5% of Americans have this dying need to stick their noses where it doesn't belong.
This goes for the government as well, Republican and Democrat alike.

I sit here today with the attitude that all politicians are scum, they don't represent anyone but themselves and if a person is going to attack one side of the isle they had better be prepared to point out and attack their own side as well...or else none of it is fair and never will be.

I'm an American citizen, and i refuse to ever again allow myself to be grouped with any organization that doesn't hold my values 100%.

Choosing between two losers should never have been a valid option for any of us, ya dig?

BigBadBrian
03-01-2005, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Angel
[B]Hmmm... up here SOME will kill you for less. ;)

Irefer you to the website of the original article.

Indian Country Today (http://www.indiancountry.com/)



I suppose down there you probably still refer to East Indians as Packies as well?

Pakkie is a derogatory term to Indians (from India) because the nations of Pakistan and India are bitter enemies. :gulp:

Warham
03-01-2005, 06:51 PM
No person on this Earth holds 100% of the values of any other person.

Cath, with all due respect, I think you are looking for perfection where you will find none. If you hold the position that you will never be grouped with an organization or group that doesn't hold 100% of your values, you are going to be by yourself the rest of your life.

Cathedral
03-01-2005, 07:09 PM
No i won't, there just isn't enough of us to ever win an elected office, lol.
Perfection is such a stern word, I know better than to seek that from anyone or anything except one of my paint jobs.

I just have hope that someday a true underdog will win and make a difference.
But not in this lifetime given how ultimately divided this country is.

It ain't gonna get any better ya know, but it will get plenty worse.

FORD
03-01-2005, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Cathedral
No i won't, there just isn't enough of us to ever win an elected office, lol.
Perfection is such a stern word, I know better than to seek that from anyone or anything except one of my paint jobs.

I just have hope that someday a true underdog will win and make a difference.
But not in this lifetime given how ultimately divided this country is.

It ain't gonna get any better ya know, but it will get plenty worse.

So why don't you support the true underdog from your own state, Dennis Kucinich?

Now that Dean has effectively eliminated himself from the 2008 race ( :( ) Dennis is the only candidate I would trust, at least out of those who ran last year. Definitely not a corporatist, which is a great start. He's not the media darling candidate, but who gives a fuck, if the people support him. and after 4 more years of Bush damage, enabled by sellouts like Hillary and IsKerryot, the people just might do that.

Angel
03-02-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Pakkie is a derogatory term to Indians (from India) because the nations of Pakistan and India are bitter enemies. :gulp:

I'm surprised you know that! I tip my hat to you, you're more knowledgeable than I expected. :D