Ward Churchill confesses - Comments Page 2

Well now, this should be it for Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado. From his talk at the University of Hawaii Tuesday night (2-22-2005):…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 26 - Shawn

    Feb 24, 2005 at 2:57 am

    THANK YOU Charlie Brennan of Rocky Mountain News! "Hawaiian newspaper misquotes Churchill"

    JEANNETTE J. LEE should be fired for exacerbating the Honolulu Star-Bulletin's "mistake."

  • 27 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 24, 2005 at 4:02 am

    >>So for example, if my mother was only 90% Indian by known lineage, and my father was 0% Indian by known lineage, my "blood" would be less than 50% Indian, but I would NOT be a liar to say I was an Indian if I was culturally an Indian and developed an identity as an Indian.<<

    Not to pick nits, but it's impossible to be 90% Indian. The closest you can get to that is 87.5%.

    That out of the way, many Indian tribes made a regular practice of adoption of people who were not genetically related to them, including white and black children. Down here in Texas we've got loads of Black Cherokee and Black Seminoles.

    The problem with Ward Churchill is not whether or not he's an Indian, it's whether or not he's an idiot.

    Dave

  • 28 - yoman

    Feb 24, 2005 at 5:15 am

    The Star Bulletin has printed a retraction. Churchill never said that he is not Native American. The reporter got the quote wrong.

    You rightwing knee-jerks really need to chill out.

  • 29 - yoman

    Feb 24, 2005 at 5:28 am

    Dave Nalle says:

    Not to pick nits, but it's impossible to be 90% Indian. The closest you can get to that is 87.5%.

    Not to pick nits, but you are wrong.

    You can be as close to 90% as you like. Eg, pretend all your ancesters are 100% Native American except for one Great x 2, one Great x 3, and one Great x 5 grandparent, and you get 89.84%.

    Now, please return to your regularly scheduled rightwing ignorance.

  • 30 - yoman

    Feb 24, 2005 at 5:37 am

    Btw, I find it quite ironic that the charge against Churchill that he is not Native American, and that has been swallowed in full by the rightwing hate brigades, originated with an AIM splinter group which also accuses Churchill of being a CIA agent.

    Do the rightwing hate brigades also swallow that charge, or are they picking and choosing between the various charges that various leftie groups make against each other in their idiotic internecine wars?

    That's a rhetorical question.

  • 31 - Eric Olsen

    Feb 24, 2005 at 10:17 am

    Temple is right: Churchill's genetic background is of incidental interest (unless he used false claims of that background to gain something, like employment) - the central issue is that he is a reprehensible, stupid, disingenuous buttplug

  • 32 - Sean

    Feb 24, 2005 at 10:28 am

    I just saw that the Star Bulletin has issued a correction of its article and is admitting that it misquoted Churchill. It now appears that Churchill is claiming indian ancestry, which of course renders my arguments about his ancestry moot.

  • 33 - andy marsh

    Feb 24, 2005 at 10:33 am

    Shawn - can you explain to me WTF culturally an indian means?

  • 34 - Eric Olsen

    Feb 24, 2005 at 10:35 am

    it means you get to eat peyote on the sidewalk in front of the police station as longas you wear your illegally-obtained eagle feather headdress

  • 35 - andy marsh

    Feb 24, 2005 at 10:38 am

    Cool, can I be "culturally an indian?"

  • 36 - RJ

    Feb 24, 2005 at 10:45 am

    Sadly, WC seems to have misquoted in the article...

  • 37 - Eric Olsen

    Feb 24, 2005 at 10:47 am

    I'll meet you on the sidewalk Andy - there was just an eagle kill in Canada so the feathers should be available

  • 38 - RJ

    Feb 24, 2005 at 10:55 am

    Misquoted or not, this clown is a full-fledged cretin. In saner times, he would be publicly beaten about the face and crotch with a piece of wet rope.

  • 39 - bhw

    Feb 24, 2005 at 11:00 am

    Yes, RJ, it's "saner" to assault people who say things you don't like.

    THAT's the spririt of American freedom for ya!

  • 40 - sean

    Feb 24, 2005 at 1:37 pm

    I have no idea what the background of this website is, but the article seems balanced.

  • 41 - Eric Olsen

    Feb 24, 2005 at 1:40 pm

    please make all URL references actual HTML links, thanks

  • 42 - sean

    Feb 24, 2005 at 1:53 pm

    As I have noted the correction the Star Bulletin, and further noted that such correction renders my arguments moot, will someone please withdraw the "right wing knee jerk" charge which was levelled against me?

  • 43 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 24, 2005 at 2:09 pm

    That's an excellent article from a pretty appropriate source. And what it tells us more than anything else is that Indians aren't too fond of Churchill either.

    Dave

  • 44 - Temple Stark

    Feb 24, 2005 at 3:14 pm

    Don't be such a crybaby sean. I'm sure the label will apply again shortly.

  • 45 - Shawn

    Feb 24, 2005 at 5:19 pm

    > That's an excellent article from a pretty appropriate source. And what it tells us more than anything else is that Indians aren't too fond of Churchill either.

    So what do you say to this? Scott Richard Lyons' article: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410377

    Even on the Indian Country web site, it's easy to find two American Indians who disagree with each other over Churchill in a big way.

  • 46 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 24, 2005 at 5:33 pm

    Well, it's a well written article, anyway. Full of factual errors (the good old 500,000 dead Iraqi children) and distortions, but it does at least make the good point that the argument over Churchill's status as an indian is pretty irrelevant.

    Dave

  • 47 - sydney

    Feb 24, 2005 at 6:49 pm

    "The good old 500,000 dead Iraqi children"

    Dave, I think its time you give that shit up an admit that the figure is accurate. I've read that number in national newspapers. Regardless, i don't know the real number, nor do you, but lets just say it's half that amount. Fine, 250,000 women and children dead.

  • 48 - Al Barger

    Feb 24, 2005 at 7:03 pm

    Those numbers cited of Iraqis who died "because" of US sanctions always looked to me like they were pretty well pulled out of the air. I've never seen any even half reasonable documentation for any of these numbers.

    I'm not saying that those sanctions were a good idea, nor would I claim that they didn't hurt anyone. We might never have any good numbers for that debacle though, and I'm pretty sure we don't have any good numbers now.

  • 49 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 24, 2005 at 9:58 pm

    This number comes from ridiculous methodology where every death in the society is counted and then ascribed to one cause even when there's no evidence linking the deaths to that or any specific cause. What's more, Iraq currently has a huge population under the age of 25. These are the kids who would have died in the 90s, yet somehow they're alive and they actually make up a larger percentage of the Iraqi population than they do in most other societies around the world.

    In addition, it's all blamed on the US because somehow they're our sanctions, even though they were actually UN sanctions. In addition, the oil for food program was supposed to make sure that people got fed, but Saddam and his confederates at the UN syphoned off money that was supposed to be allocated to food, so if people were starving it lays at the feet of Saddam and Kofi Annan and the oil for food scamsters.

    Dave

  • 50 - Shawn

    Feb 25, 2005 at 3:30 am

    Al, again I would like to see your source for your claim that Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry is only through a stepmother. This looks like just a blog rumor.

    Also, are you prepared to argue that the Keetoowah Band geneaologists who attributed the 3/16 Cherokee blood quantum to Churchill were liars, too? That there was some kind of conspiracy by Churchill to get a fake Indian blood quantum of such size when he only needed 1/16 to obtain FULL enrollment in another Cherokee band?

    I want to see you put that in writing.

  • 51 - Dave Nalle

    Feb 25, 2005 at 8:47 am

    Sydney: "I've read the number in national newspapers"

    I missed this at first. Hold on a sec, cramp...laughing so hard...can't get my breath... typing from the floor. OMG.

    Yeah, Sydney, I believe EVERYTHING I read in national newspapers too. They do such a find job vetting their info.

    Dave

  • 52 - RJ

    Feb 25, 2005 at 10:18 am

    bhw, I wasn't being entirely serious, ya know?

  • 53 - bhw

    Feb 25, 2005 at 10:21 am

    Sorry if I misread you, RJ. But you made a similar comment in the recent past about people handling opinions they don't like by smacking around the people who express those opinions, so I wasn't sure that you weren't serious.

  • 54 - andy marsh

    Feb 25, 2005 at 10:23 am

    a good slap in the back of the head never hurt anybody! well...at least it never hurt me!

  • 55 - Sean

    Feb 25, 2005 at 10:40 am

    Hey Templestark, I was being sarcastic, but in all fairness I did note that new information rendered my arguments obsolete, which is more than anybody else here has done, and my egomania sought a little credit for that, you left wing moonbat.

  • 56 - sean

    Feb 25, 2005 at 11:11 am

    Just when I was cutting the guy some slack, this surfaces

  • 57 - Eric Olsen

    Feb 25, 2005 at 11:15 am

    PLEASE, make your URLs actual links so they will not skew the page all to hell - thanks.

  • 58 - DrPat

    Feb 25, 2005 at 11:32 am

    Thanks, Sean! I knew this citation would come up in the BlogCritics discussion. Just more grist for the media mill. Maybe Duke Prentup will be able to get a better price for his Churchill "original" now.

  • 59 - So What!

    Feb 26, 2005 at 4:52 pm

    So What!

    Signed...

    So What!

    http://my-heart-pumps-peanut-butter.blogspot.com

  • 60 - jesus is my homeboy

    Feb 28, 2005 at 8:05 pm

    "Injun"?? talk about offensive... dont act like you care when you so obviously dont.

    You may have heard the saying, fighting for peace is like fukking for virginity. In the same way, using racist language to try to make an idealistic point is pure hypocrisy.

    you lost.

  • 61 - Temple Stark

    Feb 28, 2005 at 9:15 pm

    Sean - I did a no-no and mde a wise-ass comment above about labels without reading the thread completely. You are one of the few who does / did acknowledge a mistake. Clearly and without reservation. How refreshing. And I'm sorry I was an idiot in my reply.

    OKKK? (joKe joKe joKe).

    Thnaks Sean.

  • 62 - Ted Bagg

    Mar 03, 2005 at 11:12 am

    Churchill has been entirely consistent in his statements. Check out the article

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

    around which the original ruckus centers, and the Democracy Now interview referenced from that page. The repeated juxtaposition above of out-of-context quotes bespeaks either ignorance of the complete statements or an intent to mislead others who have not read them. I suggest that anyone fooled by the name-calling above actually read some of Churchill's work, starting with the piece above. Or check out Agents of Repression, a book he co-wrote which I prize, about COINTELPRO operations against the American Indian Movement and the Black Panthers. Churchill's many works have earned him the respect of colleagues, students, and activists around the world. His writing is uncompromising, not only in tone, but in its clear and well-referenced logic. It is precisely his enormous competence that makes him the first target of the new McCarthyites. More than a fierce advocate, he is the kind of effective political historian that the criminals controlling Fox News want other professors not to be.

  • 63 - Eric Olsen

    Mar 03, 2005 at 11:20 am

    ah Ted, you actually had me going there until you got to this: "criminals controlling Fox News"

    too bad, so sad

  • 64 - ward churchill

    Mar 06, 2005 at 11:50 am

    I am sick and tired of you people calling me names. I am not a gay lesbian on steroids. I am a full blooded indun. My mother was a full blooded indian princess. You little eichmans make me sick. I will bitch slap all of you in a heartbeat. I am the indian of all indians. I make the rules and you people are just nazi vermin. I say so, and so it is. I am not a cowardly jackass, nor am I a foll. I am the greatest.

  • 65 - ward churchill

    Mar 06, 2005 at 11:59 am

    I do not have a puny mind. OK, so maybe I am a sniveling milsop and a cowardly punebod. So what. I am Ward, do you hear me? I am Ward. Ward. I am not the Beaver Cleaver of the American Indian Movement. I am better than Beaver Cleaver. You are all Nazi's. I have an official indian id from the Y indian guides, and just because I look like a white man, that doesn't mean I am a white man. Michael Jackson almost looks white, but he is a black man. Yes. I say that I am an Indian, a proud Indian, one who rides the plains, so you whitemen cannot attack me. Not now. Not ever. I may look like a homosexual, but I am not really a homosexual. Just becase you look like an aging hippie or a lesbian on steroids does not make you one. I am a genius. I am the last and best authority on the illuminati conspiracy to take over AIM. I am AIM's man. A full blooded injun. Yep, that's right. I am part jewish so you all hate me. I sound like an idiot, so you think I am one. I am not lesbian. I am not gay. I am jewish and you nazi's hate me. I am a genius. I am full-blooded. I am injun watch me roar. I stand tall, as Ward. That's right. Ward.

  • 66 - SittingBull

    Mar 06, 2005 at 12:05 pm

    Ward, I am writing from the asylum. I thought I was indian, too. But when they put me in here, they said I needed to face reality before I could get out. I am going to help the white people.

  • 67 - Eric Olsen

    Mar 06, 2005 at 2:22 pm

    where is Sasheen Littlefeather when you need her?

  • 68 - Ted Bagg

    Mar 08, 2005 at 8:59 am

    Eric O: If you doubt that Fox is criminal, check this out:
    http://www.outfoxed.org/Clips.php

  • 69 - Eric Olsen

    Mar 08, 2005 at 9:12 am

    yes Ted, totally unbiased source: a "documentary" screed against Fox News

  • 70 - Dave Nalle

    Mar 08, 2005 at 9:18 am

    I like the way 'Outfoxed' uses totally out of context quotes and manipulates audio to create a kind of hip montage of totally unrepresentative sound snippets. It's like Micheal Moore on crystal meth - excep that meth would make him lose some weight.

    dave

  • 71 - Crazy Horse

    Mar 08, 2005 at 10:59 am

    Ugh! When is white man gonna learn...engine bad...injun good.

  • 72 - Sasheen Littlefeather

    Mar 08, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    Ward Churchill has asked me to tell you, in a very long speech which I cannot share with you presently"because of time"but I will be glad to share with the press afterward, that he must... very regretfully cannot withdraw his remarks about terrorists being the victims on 9/11. And the reason for this being... are the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry... excuse me... and on television in movie re-runs, and also the recent happenings in Fallujah. I beg at this time that I have not intruded upon this evening and that we will, in the future... our hearts and our understanding will meet with love and generosity. Thank you on behalf of The Professor-Indian Ward Churchill.

  • 73 - Eric Olsen

    Mar 08, 2005 at 3:08 pm

    thanks for stopping by Sasheen - see you in Playboy!

  • 74 - jwpaine

    Mar 08, 2005 at 9:01 pm

    The reason Churchill's Indian ancestry IS important is because he made it an issue when he checked that little box next to "Indian" on his Affirmative Action Form, which was part of his employment application at CU. With that little checkmark, he asked for (and apparently received) preferential treatment in employment.

    He has also made his alleged tribal affiliation part and parcel of every speech he's given, noting within his first few statements at each his membership with one tribe or another (it has changed over the years).

    I personally couldn't care less if he's an Indian or not. It is his reaping privileges because of his lie, and his continuing assertions that he is in the face of overwhelming evidence that he is not that make it an issue.

    btw: I didn't care whether Clinton was geting some on the side, either; what I cared about was him lying under oath about it.

  • 75 - Eric Olsen

    Mar 08, 2005 at 9:31 pm

    lying under oath can have consequences, just ask Martha; or not, ask Bill

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 11, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs