posted on February 10, 2005 12:08:12 PM new
Ward Churchill stepped over the line. He likened the people murdered on 911 to the architect of Nazi euthanasia death camps. This is comparable to calling civilians killed in any UN sanctioned bombings Islamofascist fig-puckers. It is ludicrous, outrageous, and a slap in the face to the families left behind. Ward Churchill admits, Michael Albert admits, that the essay was hasty and some wording questionable. Rather than humbly apologizing to those you have insulted, you are defiantly arrogant in defending your flawed portrayals?
posted on February 10, 2005 02:05:53 PM new
Parklane, you are really confusing me today..LOL.. in your last post, your comment was" I don't think so"..
You don't think he needs to apologize?
You don't think he made this speech in haste without thinking?
If Ward Churchill loses his job teaching at the University of Colorado, he could end up giving Howard Dean a real run for his money to head the Democratic National Committee.
Churchill already has a phony lineage and phony war record – just like John Kerry! (Someone should also check out Churchill's claim that he spent Christmas 1968 at Wounded Knee.) In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, "has not requested arms from the Libyan government." In 1997, he was one of the "witnesses" who spoke at a "Free Mumia" event in Philadelphia on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Come to think of it, Churchill could give Hillary a run for her money. All that's left for Churchill to do now is meet with Al Sharpton and kiss Suha Arafat.
Churchill's claim that he is an Indian isn't an incidental boast, like John Kerry pretending to be Irish. It is central to his career, his writing, his political activism. Churchill has been the co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, the vice chairperson of the American Indian "Anti-Defamation" Council, and an associate professor and coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.
By Churchill's own account, a crucial factor in his political development was "being an American Indian referred to as 'chief' in a combat unit" in Vietnam, which made him sad. This is known to con men everywhere as a "two-fer."
In addition to an absence of evidence about his Indian heritage, there is an absence of evidence that he was in combat in Vietnam. After the POW Network revealed that Churchill had never seen combat, he countered with this powerful argument: "They can say whatever the hell they want. That's confidential information, and I've never ordered its release from the Department of Defense. End of story." Maybe we should ask John Kerry to help Churchill fill out a form 180.
In one of his books, "Struggle for the Land," Churchill advances the argument that one-third of America is the legal property of Indians. And if you believe Churchill is a real Indian, he also happens to be part owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.
In his most famous oeuvre, the famed 9-11 essay calling the 9-11 World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," he said "Arab terrorists" – his quotes – had simply "responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq" by giving Americans "a tiny dose of their own medicine."
Having blurted out "Iraq" in connection with 9-11 in a moment of pique, Churchill had to backpedal when the anti-war movement needed to argue that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Arab terrorism. He later attached an "Addendum" to the essay saying that the 9-11 attack was not only payback for Iraq, but also for various other of this country's depredations especially against "real Indians" (of which he is not one).
In light of the fact that Churchill's entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he's an Indian, it's rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are "absolutely indefensible."
Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee," to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he's not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) A recent investigation by the Denver Post revealed that Tyner's father was indeed married to a Cherokee. But that was only after Joshua's mother – and Churchill's relative – was scalped by Indians.
By now, all that's left of Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry is his assertion: "It is just something that was common knowledge in my family." (That, and his souvenir foam-rubber "tommyhawk" he bought at Turner Field in Atlanta.)
Over the years, there were other subtle clues the university might have noticed.
Churchill is not in the tribal registries kept since the 1800s by the federal government.
No tribe will enroll him – a verification process Churchill dismisses as "poodle papers" for Indians.
In 1990, Churchill was forced to stop selling his art as "Indian art" under federal legislation sponsored by then-representative – and actual Indian! – Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that required Indian artists to establish that they are accepted members of a federally recognized tribe. Churchill responded by denouncing the Indian artist who had exposed him. (Hey, does anybody need 200 velvet paintings of Elvis playing poker with Crazy Horse?)
In the early '90s, he hoodwinked an impecunious Cherokee tribe into granting him an "associate membership" by telling them he "wrote some books and was a big-time author." A tribal spokeswoman explained: He "convinced us he could help our people." They never heard from him again – yet another treaty with the Indians broken by the white man. Soon thereafter, the tribe stopped offering "associate memberships."
A decade ago, Churchill was written up in an article in News From Indian Country, titled, "Sovereignty and Its Spokesmen: The Making of an Indian." The article noted that Churchill had claimed membership in a scrolling series of Indian tribes, but over "the course of two years, NFIC hasn't been able to confirm a single living Indian relative, let alone one real relative that can vouch for his tribal descent claim."
When real Indians complained to Colorado University in 1994 that a fake Indian was running their Indian Studies program, a spokeswoman for the CU president said the university needed "to determine if the position was designated for a Native American. And I can't answer that right now." Apparently it was answered in Churchill's favor since he's still teaching.
If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university. In his book, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present," Churchill denounces Jews for presuming to imagine the Holocaust was unique. In the chapter titled "Lie for Lie: Linkages between Holocaust Deniers and Proponents of the Uniqueness of the Jewish Experience in World War II," Churchill calls the Third Reich merely "a crystallization" of Christopher Columbus' ravages of his people (if he were an Indian).
His research apparently consisted of watching the Disney movie "Pocahontas," which showed that the Indians meant the European settlers no harm. (That's if you don't count the frequent scalpings.)
Even the credulous Nation magazine – always on red alert for tales of government oppression – dismissed Churchill's 1988 book "Agents of Repression" about Cointelpro-type operations against the American Indian Movement, saying the book "does not give much new information" and "even a reader who is inclined to believe their allegations will want more evidence than they provide." If The Nation won't buy your anti-U.S. government conspiracy theories, Kemosabe, it's probably time to pack up the old teepee and hit the trail of tears.
In response to the repeated complaints from Indians that a phony Indian was running CU's Indian Studies program, Churchill imperiously responded: "Guess what that means, guys? I'm not taking anyone's job, there wouldn't be an Indian Studies program if I wasn't coordinating it ... They won't give you a job just because you have the paper." This white man of English and Swiss-German descent apparently believes there are no actual Indians deserving of his position at CU. (No wonder the Indians aren't crazy about him.)
As long as we're all agreed that there are some people who don't deserve jobs at universities, why isn't Churchill one of them?
posted on February 10, 2005 08:10:20 PM new
Ann Coulter is a self-professed whore......read any of her articles and it bears that out. Plus she herself has admitted to getting sex where ever she can. If Clinton has no morals and can't be believed because of the intern "scandal" why do the stupid neocons in here tout the well-used Ann.
I'll answer that....because she's a hate mongering NAME CALLING piece of crap who says what they like to hear.....like their heroes Rush(the criminal druggie) Limbaugh, Bill (Family Values Start with Phone Sex) O'Riley and DICK(F--You!) Cheney....just to name a few.....the kind of people that they adore.
posted on February 10, 2005 08:32:40 PM new
bear - Once again Ann calls it as many see it. She cut this imposter[??] down to size and summed him up very well.
--------
Ward Churchill admits, Michael Albert admits, that the essay was hasty and some wording questionable. Rather than humbly apologizing to those you have insulted, you are defiantly arrogant in defending your flawed portrayals?
I don't think so.
maggie - I took his statement to mean Churchill could have chosen to apologize to the 9-11 families for his statements SINCE HE ADMITTED TO writing it in haste - like he was trying to claim he really didn't mean it as it was being taken. But then he didn't choose to do so [apologize]...but rather chose to defend his flawed portrayals with great vigor.
The 'I don't think so' I took to mean that he doesn't think that's the way one acts when they really feel they've been misunderstood. Defending themselves rather than maybe apologizing to the families.
We'll see when he responds if I took it correctly or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 11, 2005 11:12:20 AM new
"maggie - I took his statement to mean Churchill could have chosen to apologize to the 9-11 families for his statements SINCE HE ADMITTED TO writing it in haste - like he was trying to claim he really didn't mean it as it was being taken. But then he didn't choose to do so [apologize]...but rather chose to defend his flawed portrayals with great vigor."
Linda-how many times have we heard this before??? EVERYTIME a sports figure or any celebrity says something they later regret,they ALWAYS say "It was taken out of context"
Well you said something, I heard it,I understand English...how the hell can I take it out of context??? hello???
posted on February 11, 2005 12:58:40 PM new
classic - I think we're on the same page.
Yes, I agree that when this story broke, Churchill initally started 'backpeddling' on what his essay had stated/what he had actually meant when he wrote xxx. He appeared to me to be trying to convince others THEY were taking his words in the wrong manner.
But he offered no apology to the 9-11 families who, imo, he had victimized again.
Then the ACLU came to his defense...then he decided he meant what he'd written after all...and has continued to get bolder in his 'blame innocent American's for the actions of the terrorists'.
The guy's a slimeball...a snake...and it appears they're beginning to make a case for him being a fraud too. I only hope they're successful in doing so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 11, 2005 06:05:39 PM new
Just another peice of crap who has no life looking for publicity.My wife,who is a democrat,saw this story and went ballastic-she lost her cousin in tower two.I cant even print what she said here.
The University of Colorado professor under fire for calling victims of the 9-11 attacks "Little Eichmans," reportedly trained a domestic terror group.
Ward Churchill taught the revolutionary group the Weathermen how to make bombs and fire weapons, according to a Fox News report citing the Jan. 18, 1987 issue of the Denver Post.
The revelation is among many reported since Churchill prompted a national furor with publicity of an essay he wrote titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."
Written shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, it describes the thousands of American victims who died in the World Trade Center inferno as "little Eichmanns" -- a reference to notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann -- who were perpetuating America's "mighty engine of profit." They were destroyed, he added, thanks to the "gallant sacrifices" of "combat teams" that successfully targeted the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.
Churchill resigned his position as head of the Colorado University ethnic studies program but kept his $96,000 per year teaching post. He has steadfastly refused to apologize for his comments.
Meanwhile, the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater said it will allow Churchill to speak next month, a decision that sparked outrage among state lawmakers, the Associated Press reported.
Chancellor Jack Miller said in a statement he finds the professor's views repugnant but believes it's necessary to permit him to speak under First Amendment principles.
A former student of Churchill's says she heard him justify the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing during a class lecture.
Kimberly Hickel said the professor "actually stood in front of our class and said how the FBI got what they deserved. It was awful."
In an interview last April with the left-leaning Brooklyn-based magazine Satya, Churchill was quoted saying the United States should "cease to exist" and that "more 9-11s may be necessary."
