Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him. by AURaptor

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How close is the analogy? Close enough to be instructive?

Yep. The analogy is pretty clear. Not only are you surprisingly ignorant of history, but you condone the intentional murder of thousands of innocent civilians in much the same way that Hitler did. The only difference is the number, and I’m sure that not even Hitler knew just how many he and his Nazi minions would actually end up killing in the end. If this is really the kind of idiotic ideals you subscribe to, then you are as much a fruitcake as Churchill.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 4:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm not condoning it, I'm trying to prevent it. Like the Germans who were stampeded by fear when the Reichstag was burned, we were stampeded by fear when the Twin Towers came down. And look what happened- we "pre-emptively" invaded Iraq. And what were we preventing? Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, didn't have WMD, didn't even have a delivery system- in other words, posed no threat to us or to its neighbors. Nonetheless, we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in an entirely preventable war.

Mass fear is a tool of the powerful. If a people believe that they are facing life or death, they will round up and gas the "conspirators" en masse, machete their neighbors, bomb and invade irrelevant nations.

I listened to the makers of "Downfall" yesterday. Their point is that Hitler was nothing special- just a man. The phenomenon of Nazi Germany is quite ordinary and can occur anywhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 5:30 AM

Intelligent people can disagree on whether going to war with Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do. I don’t have any problem with you not agreeing with the war in Iraq, and if that is what we were talking about then I might even be willing to concede that you may be right about some of that.

However, regardless of what you claim now, you have been defending Churchill’s comments. And Churchill clearly said that the intentional murder of 3000 innocent civilians was “befitting” based on some hand-waiving about the evils of “technocrats” and “stock brokers.” It is interesting to note that one of the common ethnic slurs used to justify the hatred and subsequent murder of Jews by Nazis during the holocaust was to dismiss Jews as a bunch of corrupt bankers and lawyers. Effectively the exact same bullshit that Churchill is spewing. Your position only now has changed to the war in Iraq; your position previously was defending Churchill’s logic.

Furthermore your analogy between the US and Nazi Germany is completely fallacious. Regardless of one’s position on the issue of Iraq, it is impossible to draw the conclusion that the US is hording civilians into concentration camps and committing genocide. Claiming so, without solid evidence is a lie, and there is no evidence. It’s irresponsible and I would even say idiotic to make those kinds of fabricated analogies.

So effectively, you have been defending comments by a man who claimed that the intentional murder of 3000 innocent people was “befitting” while concocting lies about US foreign policy in an attempt to cultivate justification for a position you know is nothing short of condoning murder. Not only are you defending Churchill, but you are doing so under a deceitful pretense.

The “phenomenon of Nazi Germany” was that people like Churchill were in power. People who believed that targeting and murdering innocent people to achieve a political goal was completely justifiable. Fortunately, no one like Churchill is in power in the US today. But considering how people dismiss and justify fruitcakey comments, and how willing we seem to be to put a person like Churchill in a position where he can implant fruitcakey ideas in impressionable minds, maybe someday you’ll get your analogy.

Hitler was just a fruitcake who happened to be in power.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 7:35 AM

America loves a winner!

Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9-11. I'll buy that. Since 9-11 wasn't the primary reason for attacking Iraq in the 1st place.

...didn't have WMD Umm..., yeah it did. Zero doubt about that. Did we 'find' stockpiles like we were told Saddam likely had? Nope. Doesn't mean Iraq hasn't buried them, or moved them across the border to Syria, like so many of Saddams henchmen and relatives.

.., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War. No delivery systems ?

Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination.

Oh, and did you forget that we invaded Afghanistan a full YEAR before engaging Iraq ? Did you even remember al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and was the guest of the Taliban Gov't ? Sure seems like you did. .......................

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 5:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.

And then these good folks here started baying that it wasn't b/c of what he said but because of how he got his job. Why, it was outrageous I tell you! It DESERVES punishment!

But this is what you DIDN'T see when the hotmilitarystud boy-toy entered the White House press room ...

AUraptor: Never mind issues of 'free speech', this clown seems to have used fraud and deception to attain a position that wasn't ever meant for him. ... Did he get his positon on false pretenses ? Yes or no? ... any favoritism he might have received which he didn't deserve warrents investigating.
Finn: Considering the idiotic things this clown has said, I find it hard to believe that he could have made it through the system without considerable hand waiving. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. I don’t need to be intimately familiar with this man’s work in order to draw the conclusion that he is a fruitcake. I only need to be familiar enough, which I am.

ttp:// www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/

Quote:
Gannongate: It's worse than you think
Feb. 23, 2005 | When the press first raised questions about why Jim Guckert had been awarded access to the White House press room for two years running while he worked for Talon News, critics charged that Talon, with its amateurish standards and close working ties to Republican activists, did not qualify as a legitimate news organization. It turns out the truth is even stranger: Guckert was waved into the White House while working for an even more blatantly partisan organization, GOPUSA.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan originally told reporters that Guckert was properly allowed into press briefings because he worked for an outlet that "published regularly." But that's when the questions were about Talon. More recently McClellan offered up a new rationale. Asked by Editor and Publisher magazine how the decision was made to allow a GOPUSA correspondent in, McClellan said, "The staff assistant went to verify that the news organization existed." (Emphasis added.)
That, apparently, was the lone criterion the press office used when Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) approached it in February 2003 seeking a pass for White House briefings. Not yet working for Republican-friendly Talon News, which came into existence in April 2003, Guckert, using an alias and with no journalism experience whatsoever, was writing on a voluntary basis for a Web site dedicated to promoting Republican issues. To determine whether Guckert would gain entrance to the press room, normally reserved for professional journalists working for legitimate, recognized and independent news organizations, the press office simply logged on to the Internet and confirmed that GOPUSA "existed," and then quickly approved Guckert's access. In a White House obsessed, at least publicly, with security and where journalists cannot even move between the White House and the nearby Old Executive Building without a personal escort, Guckert's lenient treatment was likely unprecedented.
....
Unlike Guckert, though, Kinsolving has an authentic background in journalism, having worked for the San Francisco Chronicle and the Indianapolis Star. Talon's defenders suggest that it too is a legitimate news outlet. But providing some insight into how it operates, Eberle told the New York Times last week that he rarely monitored Guckert's White House work. "Jeff did his thing. I did my thing," Eberle said. In other words, it appears that Guckert, who often cut and pasted White House press releases and posted them on Talon as "news," did not even have an editor. As Media Matters for America noted, Talon "apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers."
Just how blatantly the White House press office looked the other way in regard to Guckert and his dubious status as a legitimate reporter comes into stark relief when examining his attempt to secure a similar press pass to cover Capitol Hill. Guckert submitted his application in December 2003 to the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a press group in charge of handing out credentials. In April 2004, the committee denied Guckert's request. Writing to Guckert, committee chairman Jim Drinkard outlined three clear deficiencies in Guckert's application:
1) "Committee guidelines require that on-line publications 'must charge a market rate fee for subscription or access, or carry paid advertising at current market rates.' You have not demonstrated to the committee's satisfaction that Talon News has any paid subscribers, that paid client newspapers publish Talon News stories, or that it is supported by advertising."
2) "The application for accreditation to the press galleries states that 'members of the press shall not engage in lobbying or paid advertising, publicity, promotion, work for any individual, political party, corporation, organization, or agency of the Federal Government.' Talon News has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that there is a separation from GOPUSA."
3) "Gallery rules and the application state that the principal income of correspondents must be obtained from news correspondence intended for publication in newspapers or news services. The committee feels that paying a single reporter a 'stipend' does not meet the intent of the rule."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 1:16 AM

America loves a winner!

rue -

Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere. Tonto now has more troubles, as he's been copying art work from other artist, reversing the images, and then selling the pieces as originals......that HE made! This guy is a wall to wall con artist, and nothing less.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 3:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.

Yep. That's probably the way you understand it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 10:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Been busy- quick replies:

"...didn't have WMD. Auraptor:Umm..., yeah it did"

No, it didn't. The UN inspection teams said it didn't, the post-war inpsection teams (David Kay et al) said it didn't, but you have what is called an idee fixe and there's nothing I can do about it except chalk it up to paranoia.

".., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War."

The Scud missles were dismantled. The "illegal" rockets could ahve reached 120 miles instead of the allowed 90 miles (or something like). We OTOH are about... oh... 12,000 miles away. Another idee fixe.

"Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination."

Apparently you have attempted the comparison bass ackwards. I'm not trying to compare 1930's Jews to radical Islamists, so I fail to see your point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 2:19 PM

America loves a winner!

Originally posted by SignyM:
Been busy- quick replies:

"...didn't have WMD. Auraptor:Umm..., yeah it did"

No, it didn't. The UN inspection teams said it didn't, the post-war inpsection teams (David Kay et al) said it didn't, but you have what is called an idee fixe and there's nothing I can do about it except chalk it up to paranoia. - The UN inspectors ( those not on the take ) said they didn't FIND any WMD. Doesn't mean there wasn't any. HUGE difference. Remember all those pesky U.N. Resolutions ? Yeah, sure you do. Iraq had the burden of proof to come clean on the WMD's THEY THEMSELVES said they had. They could not account for where their WMD went, nor how they 'disposed' of them or the facilities.

".., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War."

The Scud missles were dismantled. The "illegal" rockets could ahve reached 120 miles instead of the allowed 90 miles (or something like). We OTOH are about... oh... 12,000 miles away. Another idee fixe. - Iraq had illegal delivery systems. Now you're pushing back the goal post to fit your definition. How quaint. Sorry, but the U.N. didn't buy it, nor did the rest of the world.

"Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination."

Apparently you have attempted the comparison bass ackwards. I'm not trying to compare 1930's Jews to radical Islamists, so I fail to see your point. - Heh heh heh....figured you come up w/ some lame ass attempt to weasle out of your silly analogy. Blame ME for taking you to task, when your comparison was so inept. Classic.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 2:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My point was that Iraq was not a threat to us or to its neighbors. My point still stands, yours doesn't. But just like Bush, you will dance to evade responsibility. Typical. (sigh)

As far as the YOUR analogy goes... What are you trying to say? That Jews were innocent but that Iraqis deserve to die? Unless you tell me otherwise, seems to be your logic. Is it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 5:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AURaptor,

Quote:
Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere.

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

This WAS the title of this thread, wasn't it?
Didn't you then go on to make a bunch of statements repeated over many days about getting jobs under false pretenses? (see below) How is my Guckert posting NOT relevant? You do know he got his 'in' to the press room without being a journalist, don't you?

Just wondering how far you are willing to carry on with an absurdly obvious double standard, that's all.

Quote:
Never mind issues of 'free speech', this clown seems to have used fraud and deception to attain a position that wasn't ever meant for him. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 12:08
Did he get his positon on false pretenses ? Yes or no? It doesn't have to be solely on his minority status, but any favoritism he might have received which he didn't deserve warrents investigating. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 13:20
He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position. Not bad work, if you can find it. Friday, February 25, 2005 - 04:58
That IF WC lied about his heritage , and because of that lie, his classification as a minority in any way helped him obtain his position, then it's well with in C.U. right to fire this guy. Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 05:06
People go to jail for lying, Presidents get impeached for lying, and football coaches at Notre Dame lose their job for lying. Thats what. Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 14:57

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 5:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, Finn, Finn,

I see you've abandoned your statements. Didn't even address them when you should have defended them. Assuming of course you posted something you believed in.

So here is a selection of these double-duty statements:

Quote:
Considering the idiotic things this clown has said, I find it hard to believe that he could have made it through the system without considerable hand waiving. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 20:42
He's a fruitcake. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 22:12
I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 23:06

But, it's apparent that your REAL issue is not with how he got his job - that was just a throw-away position of nominal support for the baying vigilante breeds. You're issue is with what Churchill says. You have a problem with free speech.

And, you do want to distract from that Guckert em-'bare*ss'-ment.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 6:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn,

I see you've abandoned your statements. Didn't even address them when you should have defended them. Assuming of course you posted something you believed in..

What reason do I have to defend those statements? I meant every word of them; that’s all you need to know.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But, it's apparent that your REAL issue is not with how he got his job - that was just a throw-away position of nominal support for the baying vigilante breeds. You're issue is with what Churchill says. You have a problem with free speech.

Yeah. My issue is with what Churchill said. You’ve managed to deduce through tricky logic and slight of hand what I’ve already told you. Good deduction, Einstein.

Maybe instead of deriving the obvious you might try a little critical analysis of your own thoughts. You could start with, what exactly about disagreeing with what someone says means I “have a problem with free speech.” Condonation of murder is generally something I do tend to disagree with, call me crazy. You seem to disagree with me; does that mean you have a problem with free speech? Or does that little loophole only apply to me? If you believe disagreeing with what someone says is against the axiom of free speech, then the only way anyone could have free speech is if everyone agreed, which seems rather self-defeating logic.

Although I do want to thank you for good laugh.

And your Guckert hang up is your story not mine.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.
Yep. That's probably the way you understand it.

Me too

. That's the way I understand it. If Churchill isn't who he is, then his statements aren't greeted with the same response.

I honestly think we as a country are too close (temporally) to the tragic events of September 11th to discuss them dispassionately.

On an unrelated note, I do see the similarities Rue pointed out between AURaptor's original post and some of the commentary I've read on the James Guckert story. I was actually hoping someone would start a Guckert thread. If I needed additional proof that the mainstream media in this country is not liberal, the fact that this story has not gained traction over the past month would be it. I mean, just imagine the same events playing out eight years ago. The press would've had a field day.

In terms of Ward Churchill, I also see similarities to the Lawrence Summers thing (although, granted, there is a difference between calling for somone to step down from an academic administrative position and calling for someone to lose tenure). I'm not sure the Summers case qualifies as a witch hunt but some of the rhetoric I've been reading makes me nervous. I much prefer the point of view that Dean (now Chancellor) Denton presented in a piece for the UC Santa Cruz paper where she talks about using this as an opportunity (a little background - Denice Denton was attending the conference where Summers made his remarks. At the time she was Dean of Engineering at UW. Now she is the Chancellor of UC Santa Cruz. I've had the pleasure of listening to her speak on a couple of occasions on the topic of minority issues in engineering education and she's one of my personal academic heroes.).
http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/02-07/opinion-denton.asp

Once again, I think I'm all over the map on this one...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 3, 2005 8:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

You have rigorous 'job' standards outrage over their violation for Churchill, but not for Guckert. You expressed no perception that Guckert might be a, let's see ...

Quote:
fruitcake

or that

Quote:
if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately.

If hiring-fraud is SO abhorrent to you, where's your outrage and hyperbole over Guckert's fraud? Or are your standards merely ones of convenience?

Regarding the free speech issue, you did a pretty good job of hand-washing. It's not that YOU want to do anything to Churchill PERSONALLY because of his publicly expressed opinions.
But you did call for dismantling colleges b/c of his statements.

Quote:
Higher education in this country is pretty damn Left-wing, but I can’t believe it’s this stupid. Although I could be wrong, but if this clown is a fair representation of American Academia, we just need to shut down the colleges and start over from scratch. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 20:42

And then you posited his removal by third parties b/c of what he said.

Quote:
Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children. Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 23:06

Then you characterized his comments as 'hate speech', a designation I'm sure you know has legal, criminal implications.

Quote:
In fact, I believe it no different from hate speech. Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 06:55

And then you implied that Churchill shouldn't be allowed free speech b/c it would implant Nazism in the US.

Quote:
But considering how people dismiss and justify fruitcakey comments, and how willing we seem to be to put a person like Churchill in a position where he can implant fruitcakey ideas in impressionable minds ...

OTOH, maybe you did leave a good trail for your position that only some opinions should be heard in this land of free speech.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,

You have rigorous 'job' standards outrage over their violation for Churchill, but not for Guckert. You expressed no perception that Guckert might be a, let's see ...
Quote:
fruitcake
or that
Quote:
if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately.
If hiring-fraud is SO abhorrent to you, where's your outrage and hyperbole over Guckert's fraud? Or are your standards merely ones of convenience?

This discussion is about Churchill. This Guckert thing is something unrelated that you dragged in, apparently out of the blue. How do you know what I think about Guckert? You’re kind of conceited to simply assume that I think about something.

Also I never said or in any way implied that Churchill shouldn’t be allowed free speech. That’s some story you made up. Here’s an idea, let’s examine something I said without running through the rue-filter first.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know who all is calling for his dismissal. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Other then that, I’m not going to call for his dismissal based on the kinds of comments he’s made. Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children.

Huh, that does throw a monkey wrench in your little story. Funny, how with all the comments of mine you took out of context, this one seemed to be missed.

So let me see, I openly and quite fervidly disagree with statements made by Churchill condoning the murder of innocent people, and you throw a fit because I don’t agree with him? What exactly do you have against me disagreeing with Churchill?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 4:03 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My point was that Iraq was not a threat to us or to its neighbors. My point still stands, yours doesn't. But just like Bush, you will dance to evade responsibility. Typical. (sigh)

As far as the YOUR analogy goes... What are you trying to say? That Jews were innocent but that Iraqis deserve to die? Unless you tell me otherwise, seems to be your logic. Is it?

Not a threat to its neighbors ? Oh dear lord!! Did you munch on lead paint as a child ? Iraq attacked 4 of its neighbors under Saddam, and wasn't complying to U.N. or cease fire agreements. Geee, sounds pretty stable to me. Your point is only on top of your head, and no where else. There is no evasion going on here except from you, which seems to be your s.o.p.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 4:20 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
RUE
"You can see anything, if you use the right filters ..."

Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 21:35

AURaptor,

Quote:
Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere.

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

This WAS the title of this thread, wasn't it?
Didn't you then go on to make a bunch of statements repeated over many days about getting jobs under false pretenses? (see below) How is my Guckert posting NOT relevant? You do know he got his 'in' to the press room without being a journalist, don't you?

Just wondering how far you are willing to carry on with an absurdly obvious double standard, that's all.

Does Guckert have tenure? Does Guckert make a living off of the very people he ridicules and compares to NAZIs ? I susppose if you want to compare the tenured position of a University prof to that of merely asking the President some valid questions ...sure, you may have a point. But so what ? By bringing Guckert into this discussion, you draw attention away from the orginal issue of Tonto (aka Ward Churchill ). Guckert's situation has no bearing on Tonto's in the least, but to serve as a red herring.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Me too . That's the way I understand it. If Churchill isn't who he is, then his statements aren't greeted with the same response.

It is true that Churchill’s position as an instructor of peoples’ children is definitely likely to make aforementioned peoples rather uneasy. But in general, if one is labeled a “right-wing vigilante” for not agreeing with someone who condones the intentional murder of 3000 innocent people, then there is something terribly wrong with the Left.

It is likely that I will disagree with some of the more Left-wing types on this board, just as I am likely to disagree with some of the more Right-wing types, what I can’t understand is why I can’t come to this thread and find unanimous agreement on the absurdity of what Churchill has said. Why there is a discussion at all on the ‘befittingness’ of the murder of 3000 people is unconscionable. One should not need be labeled “too close” to 9/ll in order to realize that there was nothing befitting about it.

But I come to this board and what I find is right the opposite. You’re trying to deflect the argument away from Churchill with some thin ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ argument. SignyN is outwardly defending Churchill, and Rue is trying to deflect the issue to some Guckert thing while giving me some Orwellian crap about not disagreeing with what Churchill says. Now I don’t believe that any of you actually believe that condoning murder is a good thing(an assumption on my part), so why is it such a difficult thing for us to agree on this matter?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But I come to this board and what I find is right the opposite. You’re trying to deflect the argument away from Churchill with some thin ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ argument. SignyN is outwardly defending Churchill, and Rue is trying to deflect the issue to some Guckert thing while giving me some Orwellian crap about not disagreeing with what Churchill says. Now I don’t believe that any of you actually believe that condoning murder is a good thing(an assumption on my part), so why is it such a difficult thing for us to agree on this matter?

You're absolutely right that I have avoided making any judgement on Ward Churchill's statements. This is intentional on my part. I hinted at part of the reasoning in my last post but I'll try to go into more detail. There are certain topics that I personally think are extremely difficult to discuss (not argue, discuss - I love a good argument as much as the next fireflyfan

) in the message board format and so I just opt out. September 11th is one of them.

I come from a culture (by way of training) that encourages brainstorming. One of the trilogy of "rules" is to withhold judgement - lay anything out on the table, whether it's offensive, stupid, or whatever. This is the hardest thing to get used to if you have never done it before (and something that I have to continually work at). It's hard enough to do when all we're talking about is generating ideas for redesigning a mechanism. And this absolutely doesn't work (and shouldn't) for arguments - which is mostly what we do in this area of the board (which is a good thing - in my opinion).

Couple that with the problems of asynchronous communication that are present in a message board and I just don't want to go down that road. How many of our discussions devolve into a back and forth based on one sentence? (I'm guilty as charged).

I'd love to brainstorm on reasons why the hijackers did what they did. The simple, "they hate America and our freedom" just doesn't go far enough for me. But I'm not going to do it on a message board. If we were sitting down having a beer, it would be a different story.

So...

I wouldn't have said what Churchill did. That's about as far as I'll go.

This probably doesn't hang together well. I just wanted to quickly get back to you because you're absolutely right that I haven't addressed Churchill's statements. I'm not sure I would classify it as a deflection since I do think that there are organizations out there dedicated to identifying liberal academics and working to change, or bypass, the tenure process. I don't know if this qualifies as a vast right-wing conspiracy or not...

editted to add: There is no way in hell, in my mind, to justify the terrorists' actions on September 11th. Nobody deserves to die for any reason in my book. I just don't understand how they could justify it to themselves. And when I don't understand something I want to change that state.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 10:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Trying to make a rational point here...

I don't have the full text of what Churchill said, so I can't either defend or castigate it. It may be that what he said was "This is how THEY see it."

I personally don't condone the murder of innocent or even complicit civilians. If I did, then I would be calling for the execution of all Sunnis, since they benefitted from Saddam's rule whether they actively participated or not. But whatever ill we have done around the world has evoked a sense of emnity and outrage. And since we are a democracy, and the government does this with our tacit or explicit approval, we are therefore complicit with its actions and that was my point.

Does this mean we all deserve death? No. Does this mean we are innocent? No.

However, Auraptor is demonstrating a pretty obvious double standard here that is typical of the far right. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth told some pretty damnable lies. So did Bush. So did Guckert. It just doesn't seem to ring any bells with Auraptor that those are consequential lies because THAT'S DIFFERENT (somehow). His emotions are clouding his reason.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 11:35 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth told some pretty damnable lies. So did Bush. So did Guckert. It just doesn't seem to ring any bells with Auraptor that those are consequential lies because THAT'S DIFFERENT (somehow). His emotions are clouding his reason.

Cite some lies, please. I'm all eyes.

(wonders what Bush or Guckert has to do w/ the issue of Tonto )

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 12:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I and others already did. You blew past them because they were "irrelevant" or something. Please read previous posts to find the info you requested.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 8:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

Don't be childish. You use words like: but, although, however, yet, still etc to negate what you said earlier.

A simple example: "Yes, but ... " translates as "No."

Most haven't formalized their perception of this use, but they understand it when they use it, and when it's used on them.

So the statement "I don’t know who all is calling for his dismissal. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. Other then that, I’m not going to call for his dismissal based on the kinds of comments he’s made. Although, given the lunacy of some of his statements I can certainly understand if the tax payers of Colorado don’t want to pay this guy to teach their children."

Let's see, what else .... Actually, if you go back and, you know, READ what I read, I said the baying right-wing vigilantes were calling for Churchill's dismissal NOT b/c of what he said, but b/c of how he got his job. Certainly you are part of that group.

But don't worry about your postings, or mine. I think most people here have well-founded ideas about you and what you stand for. There's not too much either of us could say to change them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 4, 2005 9:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I and others already did. You blew past them because they were "irrelevant" or something. Please read previous posts to find the info you requested.

Not one has ever been posted. I'm beyond tired of this game, as well as this thread. I'm done w/ it.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 5, 2005 5:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Trying to make a rational point here...

I don't have the full text of what Churchill said, so I can't either defend or castigate it. It may be that what he said was "This is how THEY see it."

It's right here.

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

I had not read the entire thing either, until now. I don't believe that it could possibly be described as anything other than a "Rant". If this is a sample of Mr. Churchill's normal point of view, he makes even you and Rue look like knuckle-dragging ultra-rightwing neo-cons.

While I firmly respect Mr. Churchill's right to say whatever he wants, anyone with half an ounce of sense would have to know that such a screed would draw a negative response from a large portion of the public, not just the Right. My cynical side suggests that this was the plan, and that he wondered why it took so long.

I am having a hard time finding Mr. Churchill's curriculum vitae anywhere, although it is exhaustively discussed. Just google "ward churchill" "curriculum vitae" for a load of opinions. The American Indian Movement doesn't think much of him. http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 5, 2005 5:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor- Since your vision is selective to the point where you (apparently) literally can't even see printed words, how can you possibly respond to discussion in a meaningful way? All I can say is-

Don't let the door bump you on the way out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 5, 2005 6:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- Hi.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 5, 2005 11:30 PM

Hey Geezer! Good to see you around. Thanks for the link, I had only read excerpts before that.

I've been reading through it (in bits and pieces) and I have to say it does sound like a polemic. I wonder if Churchill might be projecting Indian-American relations onto current affairs a bit much.

It doesn't surprise me that AIM is not a fan of Churchill's. He's definitely one of those people who do not tone down their rhetoric for political expediency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 6, 2005 6:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
...I've been reading through it (in bits and pieces) and I have to say it does sound like a polemic. I wonder if Churchill might be projecting Indian-American relations onto current affairs a bit much.

It doesn't surprise me that AIM is not a fan of Churchill's. He's definitely one of those people who do not tone down their rhetoric for political expediency.

Yep. Most of his publications I can find are pretty much takes on the "Evil White Man" theme. Not much on the traditional ethnic studies front. I'd be tempted to classify him as a one-note poseur who is intentionally provocative so he can gain the admiration of like-minded haters. A final determination requires more study.

Apparently several tribes and Native American organizations have been complaining to UC-Boulder for the past ten years or so about Churchill donning the mantle of noble defender of his oppressed kinsmen while not being able to provide any evidence that he is Indian at all.

I doubt he'll lose his job over this unless his resume was horribly padded. after all, the university wanted him so much that they hired him as a department head without the normal prerequisite of a doctorate.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 7, 2005 2:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.

What I wonder is how this thread - which was speculation about what should be done to Churchill, based on speculation about CU hiring practices, based on speculation of Churchill's ancestry - could be seriously posted. There was not one ounce of fact about Churchill's heritage, and not one ounce of fact about how he got his position, and yet people (you know who you are) leapt to uncalled-for conclusions.

More interesting, substantiated and consequential, is the Guckert humiliation.

It's true he was NOT a journalist when he interviewed Ari Fleischer. How does something like that happen, when real journalists, even those who covered the WH for over 10 years, couldn't get an entry? And why was Guckert called-on so frequently? Of course Guckert should have resigned (he did). In addition, the speculation of how he got there and how he knew so many details ahead of time, is ample, and rightly so. And now he's under investigation about Plame, too. It just keeps getting better.

As to Churchill, the item below is interesting, if true. I'm willing to wait to see if this proves out.
http://nativenationsnet.net/

Quote:
Ward Churchill tests positive for Indigenous genetic markers.
Posted by: Admin on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 02:21 PM
by Ernesto Cienfuegos
La Voz de Aztlan
Los Angeles, Alta California - February 7, 2005 - (ACN) The results of a much awaited ancestry genetic test of embattled American Indian scholar Ward Churchill conclusively proves that the professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder is in fact of both Creek and Cherokee descent. Professor Churchill has recently been the victim of a campaign of disinformation claiming that he was not a Native American.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:16 PM

I'm shocked, shocked to see that no one from the right side of the aisle wants to talk about James Guckert.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2005 12:05 PM

Churchill admits he's not a Native American, and now it comes out he was accused of plagiarism

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7156384/

I promised myself I would'nt post in political threads anymore, but Churchill is such a D*ckhead, I could'nt resist.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2005 10:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Churchill admits he's not a Native American

Actually, what Churchill said was

Quote:
"I'm not a Native American, I'm an Indian."

Very different from your twisted half-*ssed version, you may have noticed.

And despite everything we know about Guckert, somehow, you can't bring yourself to call him a D*ckhead, though the idiom is refreshingly appropriate in his case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2005 7:21 AM

You know, until I read your post, I had'nt heard that he was misquoted in Hawaii. My bad.

I read the retraction in the paper posted, so
what he did say was he was less than 1/4 Indian.
Zero is less than 1/4 isnt it?

All these real Indian groups seem to agree he is not an indian.....and have been petitioning CU to dump him for years. Mmmmmm.

How come you did'nt comment about the plagiarism Rue. Just curious mind you.

It's apparently not the first time he has done it, and not the first time he's threatened violence either.

It looks like he may lose his golden tenure parachute from CU due to the Plagiarism and threatening of the female Nova Scotia professor.
Not to mention his physical attack of the Journalist who dared to ask him about the Native American artwork he copied and passed off as his own. Or the female CU professor who was physically threatened by him on campus.

Why do you defend this Turd Rue?

By the way, what does Guckert have to do with the subject of this thread?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2005 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oooh, let me answer for Barstormer.

Because Guckert's lies, which gained him a professional position (White House reporter) is nothing like Churchill's lie, which MIGHT HAVE gained him a professional postion (professor). Because that's DIFFERENT. Guckert is cleaner. Guckert has an upstanding personal history. Guckert is clearly unbiased.

Actually, the interesting thing about Guckert is that he apparently knew things MONTHS in advance of White House annoucements, even months in adavcne of becoming a so-called White House reporter. Nothing like benefitting from a little pillow-talk, eh?

So, who in the WH like boy toys, hmmmm? I think that's why the right doesn't want to talk about him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2005 10:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oooh, let me answer for Barstormer.

Because Guckert's lies, which gained him a professional position (White House reporter) is nothing like Churchill's lie, which MIGHT HAVE gained him a professional postion (professor). Because that's DIFFERENT. Guckert is cleaner. Guckert has an upstanding personal history. Guckert is clearly unbiased.

Actually, the interesting thing about Guckert is that he apparently knew things MONTHS in advance of White House annoucements, even months in adavcne of becoming a so-called White House reporter. Nothing like benefitting from a little pillow-talk, eh? So, who in the WH like boy toys, hmmmm? I think that's why the right doesn't want to talk about him.

Wow SignyM,

Thats alot of innuendo you put in that post. Pillow talk? Boy toy?

You know, I really have'nt been following the Guckert deal closely at all. You make it sound very "Peyton Placeish". Maybe you should start your own internet rumor, call it "Faggot-gate" or something.

For some reason I just can't do the visual on Guckert and Condi.

How come no one will comment on the Churchill Plagarism deal? I mean after all, it included both written essays and works of art. Coupled with threats of violence if his accusers don't keep their mouths shut?

Never mind the 9/11 essay or the dubious ancestry, this turd is disgrace to his supposed profession.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2005 4:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CONDI???? Perhaps you haven't heard of Guckert's...er... predelictions? I was picturing Karl Rove; it's much more interesting that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CONDI???? Perhaps you haven't heard of Guckert's...er... predelictions? I was picturing Karl Rove; it's much more interesting that way.

Hah!

I could'nt do a visual with Condi.....
but I don't WANT to do a Visual of Karl Rove..
Yech

Oh, God.....The Horror....The Horror...

I've heard of Guckerts "Predelictions". It seems to me that's his business, not mine.

But again, what about the plagiarism??????
Last I heard, that was real reason for dismissal from an educational post.

So, what do you think?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
How come no one will comment on the Churchill Plagarism deal? I mean after all, it included both written essays and works of art. Coupled with threats of violence if his accusers don't keep their mouths shut?

Never mind the 9/11 essay or the dubious ancestry, this turd is disgrace to his supposed profession.

Sort of telling isn’t? :D

It really puts things into perspective to see where some people’s priorities lie. Here we have the pedantic ramblings of a man who condones the intentional murder of thousands of innocent civilians based on some misguided fantasy of nationalistic pride. The psychosis of Hitler almost to the letter and some people can’t bring themselves to denounce this guy, apparently because he’s a fellow Left-winger. Instead they try to deflect the issue to the Right. The latest story is to try to bring up some journalist who snuck into the Whitehouse. During a discussion about the ‘befittingness’ of mass murder we are supposed to be outraged over some weirdo web blogger as if there is any equivalency at all. It's telling. It's very telling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:27 AM

Yes, it is very telling is'nt it.

Of course they should be given the benefit of the doubt. They could be researching their responses after all.

Maybe....

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"The latest story is to try to bring up some journalist who snuck into the Whitehouse. During a discussion about the ‘befittingness’ of mass murder we are supposed to be outraged over some weirdo web blogger as if there is any equivalency at all."

He didn't "sneak" into the White House, he was given clearance as a White House reporter even before he started working for the so-called news publication Talon (which itself is a front for the Republican Party).

As far as Churchill is concerned, you really just want to go after this guy because of WHAT HE SAID, not because of plagarism, or because he said he was an Indian, don't you? Conversely, it doesn't matter HOW hypocritical the whole Guckert situation is, the guy gets a pass because he's pro-Bush, right? It's called "conflating" issues- a favorite word of the right, look it up.

If you want to talk about what Churchill said, and you feel he should be nailed for it, fine. But in the meantime, stop presenting this as a plagarism horror story because we all KNOW what your agenda is, and bitching about plagarism just makes you look stupid. Try to disentangle your hidden agendas from your rationalizations and bring some intellectual rigor to the table. Or maybe just some rigor, or maybe rigor mortis. Whatever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"The latest story is to try to bring up some journalist who snuck into the Whitehouse. During a discussion about the ‘befittingness’ of mass murder we are supposed to be outraged over some weirdo web blogger as if there is any equivalency at all."

He didn't "sneak" into the White House, he was given clearance as a White House reporter even before he started working for the so-called news publication Talon (which itself is a front for the Republican Party).

As far as Churchill is concerned, you really just want to go after this guy because of WHAT HE SAID, not because of plagarism, or because he said he was an Indian, don't you? You just want to nail this guy for ANY reason. Conversely, it doesn't matter HOW hypocritical the whole Guckert situation is, the guy gets a pass because he's pro-Bush, right? It's called "conlfating" issues- a favorite word of the right, look it up.

If you want to talk about what Churchill said, and you feel he should be nailed for it, fine. But in the meantime, stop presenting this as a plagarism horror story because we all KNOW what your agenda is, and bitching about plagarism just makes you look stupid. Try to disentangle your hidden agendas from your rationalizations and bring some intellectual rigor to the table. Or maybe just some rigor, or maybe rigor mortis. Whatever.

Whoa SygnyM, Whoa

Temper now, watch the Temper. Did I twang a sensitive nerve there?

I never did present this as a "Plagiarism Horror story" as you put it. I was merely pointing out some additional facts about Ward Churchill that I felt were a good barometer of his character (meaning he has no character).

I've not tried to keep it a secret that I think Ward Churchill is a "Turd". Here, I'll say it again, under oath:

"I Barnstormer, do fully believe with all my heart that Ward Churchill is truly a TURD"

There, see, no secret agenda there.

I think it is really curious that it was 10 posts ago when I linked to the plagiarism/threats story and since then it's only now that I get a response from either you or Rue that even mentions it. And when YOU do, it's to lash out and call me stupid, and accuse me of having a hidden agenda.

************************************************
SygnyM wrote:

But in the meantime, stop presenting this as a plagarism horror story because we all KNOW what your agenda is, and bitching about plagarism just makes you look stupid. Try to disentangle your hidden agendas from your rationalizations and bring some intellectual rigor to the table. Or maybe just some rigor, or maybe rigor mortis.
********************************************

You don't have an agenda????????

I'm not the one who tried to sidetrack the discussion by insinuating that Karl Rove was having a homosexual relationship with Guckert in order to get WH press passes.

If anyone could use some "Intellectual Rigor", you might want to look in the mirror to see who that might be.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nah, you didn't touch a nerve. Actually, I'm taking a crack at right-wing-style argumentation. I find it strangely freeing to be able to dish out innuendo, red-herrings, and ad hominem arguments with abandon. After you stooped to calling Churchill a "turd" (a laser-like perception which opens up all kinds of avenues for thoughful debate) hearing you complain about my lack of rigor is pretty funny. So, to reply in kind- Bush is JERK. Nyah nyah nyah.

Did you look up "conflate"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:37 AM

SygnyM,

You keep dodging the question....
Dodging to the left I might add.

After finding out about Wards other transgressions, what do you think of his professional integrity now????????????

That was after all the entire point of MY post.
So far, your responses have been nothing but raging adolescent innuendo, insults, and defiance of answering a simple question.

How old are you by the way? I hope I'm not having this inane discussion with a junior high school student. It would however explain alot about the way you chose to post.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:29 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
I read the retraction in the paper posted, so what he did say was he was less than 1/4 Indian. All these real Indian groups seem to agree he is not an indian.....and have been petitioning CU to dump him for years. Mmmmmm.

Quote:
It is not unusual for Americans who have some Native American blood, but whose families live within the mainstream community and who know their heritage only from family tradition, to encounter difficulty proving their ethnicity to the satisfaction of administrators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

It used to be that 1/4 Indian was the federal rule for being considered Indian (1/8 for females), but I believe the tribes now decide who is and isn't Indian.
As an example - there are many people with majority Indian blood - the freed slaves who went to live with the Seminoles way back when around the Civil War, if I remember correctly - who have lived with and intermarried with the Indians, and lived on the reservation with the Indians for the last ~140 yrs, who are not now considered Indian. (I think it was an effort to cut them out of the Indian gaming bonanza.)
But Churchill didn't claim to be a blood member. He was an 'enrolled' Indian - at one point he was admitted to the Cherokee tribe as a non-blood member, but that program was later terminated.
I personally know two people (one of whom appears Black, the other Hispanic) with substantial Indian blood, who nevertheless are not members of any Indian tribe.
Finally, I posted a story (above) which indicated Churchill has Indian genetic markers from both sides of the family tree. If it is true, he does have Indian ancestry.

Quote:
How come you did'nt comment about the plagiarism Rue. Just curious mind you.

Because, like a lot of things said about Churchill, at this point it's only an allegation. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about things that may not be true. I'm willing to wait to see if they prove out.

Of all the things said about Churchill and CU - not qualified, not an Indian, plagary, threats, corrupt hiring etc, I haven't seen any proof. Perhaps you could point the way?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Of course he can't point the way- because he deals in allegations and innuendo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 11:41 AM

I’ll take another stab at this and try a different approach (and jump into the middle of things since, by the time I finished working on this entry, more posts accumulated).

Before the brouhaha erupted, if you would’ve asked me to name some authors associated with Native American ethnic studies I could’ve only come up with three names off the top of my head: Ward Churchill, Vine Deloria, and Sherman Alexie (and Alexie, as an author of fiction, is more along the lines of Native American literature). I haven’t read any of these authors extensively (and Churchill, not at all). Their names are imprinted in my head through conversations with people who are more conversant with Native American ethnic studies. I’m more interested in Chicano/Chicana studies myself, specifically of the California variety (call me self-centered

). This is more self-educational reading on my part completely unrelated to my field of study and endeavor in mechanical engineering design.

Ethnic studies work, in general, is not valued by the majority of Americans (bold sweeping generalization). We tend to like our history neat – black hats and white hats and to the victor go the spoils. By presenting a point of view sometimes in contradiction to our accepted historical narrative (manifest destiny, bringing the light of civilization to the savages, the only good Indian is a dead Indian, etc.- to focus more on Native American studies for the purpose of this discussion) scholars are walking into cultural minefields. Many people see no need to learn anything about the multiple points of view of minority groups and actually feel threatened when those views are discussed. There is resistance because that’s not the way these people learned their history. I personally think this is a close-minded approach. It’s like saying that the British narrative is the only valid point of view for all things related to Northern Ireland. (And that’s assuming that there is a coherent monolithic British narrative).

A common complaint of those who dislike ethnic studies in general is that their point of view (the majority historical narrative) is not given equal treatment. Hence, the push for the misleadingly named Academic Bill of Rights (which is an attack, not just on Ethnic Studies, but a large number of other fields of study). They want to force those who teach in this field to give equal time to the majority viewpoint. This is the height of arrogance. The whole point of ethnic studies is to provide a counter, a space where minority viewpoints are discussed. It reminds me of an old joke that I was reminded of recently. A kid asks their parent, “There’s a Mother’s day and a Father’s day. How come there’s no Children’s day?” The parent responds, “Because every day is Children’s day.”

So that’s one push against those doing research in Ethnic Studies. Another push comes from groups who want to change the nature of academia in general. A belief from many on the right is that universities are hotbeds of liberalism. I concede that the percentage of liberals found in academia is probably higher than the percentage of liberals found in the overall population but I also think these people are overstating the case. They see this rampant liberalism as a threat and are trying to change what they see as an undesirable situation. So we see groups, such as Lynn Cheney’s, identifying those academics they see as too liberal.

All of this is background. This is where I’m coming from at the start of this conversation. I’m skeptical in general of any attack against an academic in the field of ethnic studies and tend to see it as part of a larger narrative of coordinated effort among various conservative groups to remove people they deem as a threat. I’ve mentioned previously that none of this furor from the right erupts if Ward Churchill is not who he is. He was already a target. The goal is to remove him from his position. So it doesn’t matter what rationale is used, as long as one works. And he’s provided a lot of good ammunition to his enemies. That’s why I said that he’s a perfect target for those on the right and a difficult person for those on the left to defend.

Basically, in my mind, it’s just a matter of throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. The first charge in this thread, that he wasn’t a Native American, had all sorts of problematic assumptions and is based on willful deception (I’ll give AURaptor the benefit of the doubt and assume they were only passing along misinformation, not creating it). Okay. Reload. Try again. Then we have Churchill’s statements regarding September 11. About the strongest condemnation I’ll offer is what I’ve already stated, I wouldn’t have made those statements (and this doesn’t really work in written format. My actual reaction is: “Wow.” *raised eyebrows “I wouldn’t have said that.”). Okay. Reload. Let’s try another approach. Various Native American groups disagree with Churchill. I guess I don’t find this too surprising. To expect, given the number of nations present just in the US, a coherent point of view on Native American ethnic studies is naïve, IMHO. Okay. Round four. Accusations of plagiarism. This one has potential. The big question is whether or not these are valid accusations or just more of the shotgun approach to going after this particular target. I don’t know. I also don’t know what CU’s policy is. And if this one doesn’t stick, keep digging and throw some more shit at the wall.

At some point I fully expect Ward Churchill to lose tenure at his institution. There will be some patting on the back, some raising of wineglasses, some “We bagged us an academic” and then the next target will be identified. But I won’t be a part of it. I’m not going to check out a torch and pitchfork and join the party.

I’m reminded of the CBS memo fiasco. The immediate decision was that these memos were forgeries. Turns out they actually were fakes. But most of the earlier rationales given turned out to be inaccurate. The conclusion was decided on and then there was a search for evidence to support that conclusion. This is similar. Ward Churchill is identified as someone who needs to be fired. Then the search for evidence commences and he is placed under a microscope. Turns out there may be potentially valid criticisms and he sure hasn’t done his defenders any favors. But, if he does lose tenure, it will not be because of his statements or yet to be proven plagiarism. It will be because he is a liberal academic. To think anything differently would be to engage in post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking.

I hope that clears up anyone’s confusion regarding my point of view.

Now, the Guckert note. Will someone please start a separate thread for this? (Someone not me

). I see the comparison Rue originally made as valid but I also see the confusion from those who think it is simply a bait and switch (although I think they are purposefully pushing for a one to one correspondence between examples and not thinking about higher level comparisons). I’ve read some statements of those who think Guckert did nothing wrong and am just dying to challenge them but I don’t want to move down that road in this particular thread.

---------------------
Just because it's a witch hunt doesn't mean the target isn't a witch. But should we be engaging in witch hunts in the first place?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:13 PM