Ward Churchill's Ghost Dance

One thing (the only thing?)I share with Ward is contempt for "peace" protestors who actually think their marches and sit-ins and giant puppets and chicken hats can change society. Ward knows better.



Unfortunately, Ward's preferred alternative, violence—at least, violence committed by others—is the only one he offers. And sooner or later one of the chicken-hatted, not too stable to begin with, will take him up on it.

  — jgm () (URL) - 08 June '05 - 15:20

Excellent piece. Succinct, clear, thoughtful. I wish I could write so well!

  — Crimsonfisted () - 09 June '05 - 07:49

Great site, and excellent essay on the Ghost Dance and its spiritual importance for those who believed, as opposed to those who pose. I suspect that you lean to the right in much of your outlook, I don't know. I myself lean fairly to the left, but as someone whose grandfather really was Native American, I consider Churchill to be a fraud in almost all aspects, and your site ably and impressively is shedding light upon this whole situation.

  — Frank Rodman () (URL) - 10 June '05 - 11:22

Great item but alas there will be no gnashing of teeth or wailing in the churchill tent, only the chuckling of the morally depraved and quiet rustle of the counting of stacks of cash.

  — Van der Leun () (URL) - 10 June '05 - 11:29

This just gets better and better. This is your primary critique of Churchill, I take it. Unsurprisingly, you seem to have no interest in his work. Certainly not in taking on his sense of history, his discourse on genocide in both international law and its original formulation by Lemkin, his work on COINTELPRO, or his critiques of mainstream depictions of American Indians in both film and literature. You're not even interested in parsing those four or five controversial paragraphs the RMN has become obsessed with. Those courses, I take it, though they would be an interesting and valuable part of the public discourse that could result from this issue, would entail something like actual research on your part.



Instead, you start with a half-formed metaphor stretched to its breaking point, and devolve immediately into old-fashioned name-calling, ironically castigating Churchill followers for being, among other things, lazy.



Hemingway characterized those like you as "men who watch the battle from a high place and then come down to shoot the survivors." At least you're well rounded, I suppose. What you lack in intellectual honesty, you more than make up for in outright stupidity.

  — [Kern] () - 15 June '05 - 08:38

Kern, that would be your version of "old-fashioned namecalling"?



There are several posts on Paine's site that discuss Ward Churchill's fraudulent "work". Ward Churchill's "sense of history" and genocide is fraudulent. I've noticed you've made no attempt at defending Churchill's actual "work".

  — SPQR () (URL) - 15 June '05 - 10:54

When in Rome . . .



Anyway, point me to it. I've noticed some snide asides and those four or five paragraphs the RMN is after, ad nauseum, but I haven't seen anyone here take on anything like the bulk of Churchill's work. I would defend much of it. I think his work on COINTELPRO is absolutely essential, for instance, and well documented using original sources obtained via the Freedom of Information act. Likewise, I think his analysis of genocide as a historical concept, using the lens of the term's coiner, Raphaël Lemkin, as outlined in his _Axis Rule in Occupied Europe_, is equally important.



I'm new to this site. If there's anything more substantial here, please throw me a link.

  — [Kern] () - 15 June '05 - 11:23

Kern:

PirateBallerina does not exist to refute Churchill's work, although for illustrative purposes, we've fisked a few of the fundamental assertions he uses to support his arguments. We leave the dissection of his work to scholars within his own discipline.



Our goal is to get a demonstrated fraud and plagiarizer off the State's payroll. Once off the public teat, Churchill is free to say and write whatever he pleases.



And as far as Lemkin is concerned, his far-too-broad definition of genocide (it is not unreasonable to conclude, from Lemkin's definition, that telling a "pollack joke" is a genocidal act) is useless to all but ideologues who would use that definition as a weapon.

  — jwpaine () - 15 June '05 - 12:07

Highly doubtful that "a pollack joke" could be used in Lemkin's coinage of the term to constitute genocide. I'd like to see you make the case using his writing, however. I could be wrong. You might want to note, though, and I will try to do so again, that Lemkin's role in genocide studies is not as a guy with an "overly broad" definition of the term - he's the guy who coined it. Get the distinction? If the term is overly broad by your definition, that's kind of your tough luck. There are plenty of terms in the dictionary that I'd like to see redefined, but my desire doesn't make it so.



Likewise, it should also be noted that Churchill generally doesn't attempt to enforce anything like Lemkin's strict definition of the term. That's why I said he uses "the lens of term's coiner," not he relies solely on the term's coiner. From what I've read, Churchill relies primarily on the Genocide Convention, which from reading the posts around this site, it seems your readership is stunningly unfamiliar with.



Also, you haven't fisked a few "fundamental assertions." You've repeated the assertions of two scholars (one of which, to date, has provided all of an unfinished, unpublished seven-page paper proposal on the subject) and the RMN. If you break those charges down, almost all of which stem from one 15-year-old book edited by someone else, you come up with the sum total of some poorly documented ghost-writing, some sloppy footnotes, and about two paragraphs of contestable historical interpretation. Far less serious allegations than leveled at, say, the likes of Stephen Ambrose (who I do tend to enjoy sometimes, by the way, but not after that last abomination - lousy way to go out . . .).



As far as I can tell, the point of your website is ad hominem attack and the repetition of the few charges you can come with, because you dislike his world-view. Hey, it's your website. It's a lot easier to throw up a newspaper column now and then and Google info than it is to actually form a coherent argument of your own.

  — [Kern] () - 15 June '05 - 12:38

"[W]e must see to it that the Hague Regulations are so amended as expressly to prohibit genocide in any war which may occur in the future. De lege ferenda, the definition of genocide in the Hague Regulations thus amended should consist of two essential parts, in the first should be included every action infringing upon the life, liberty, health, corporal integrity, economic existence, and the honor of the inhabitants when committed because they belong to a national, religious, or racial group; and in the second, every policy aiming at the destruction or the aggrandizement of one of such groups to the prejudice or detriment of another."

--from Lemkin's Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Analysis, Proposals for Redress

as quoted on this webpage: http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/AxisRule1944-3.htm

  — jwpaine () - 15 June '05 - 13:00

Kern, your off-hand dismissal of the problems with Ward Churchill's work is quite hilarious. Key elements of Churchill's oft-repeated allegations of intentional infection with smallpox and his oft-repeated false claims of the provisions of the Dawes Act appear over and over again in Churchill's writings - not merely once 15 years ago. These claims were fundamental to Churchill's accusations of genocide.



As far as I can tell, you are completely ignorant of these issues.

  — SPQR () (URL) - 15 June '05 - 13:21

jwpaine,



That's exactly my point. In the first instance a joke wouldn't apply, as I don't think you could argue it could conceivably threaten the "life, liberty, health, corporal integrity, economic existence" or even "honor" of an entire "national, religious, or racial group." In the second, even less so, as it couldn't possibly be considered a "policy aiming at the destruction or the aggrandizement" of any of the above.



But again, he coined the term. It's not open to redefinition by bloggers.

  — [Kern] () - 15 June '05 - 13:26

SPQR,



Yeah, you're a little on target. The Dawes Act bit and the Mandan smallpox epidemic both appear as one paragraph each in his Genocide book, which I just finished (might be two, but I don't have the book in front of me). But they're hardly fundamental to his argument vis-a-vis genocide, simply two cited instances out of a couple hundred or thousand. It's one thing to contest them, another to claim them as foundational to his work. They're not. Clearly not. Not only am I aware of the issues, I've actually read most of the work to which the issues pertain. Which doesn't seem to be a position I share with anyone around here.

  — [Kern] () - 15 June '05 - 13:33

Sigh. If a pollack joke doesn't threaten the honor of an entire national group, then you obviously haven't heard any of the good ones.



btw: Why would I bother to redefine genocide when Lemkin's definition already covers any possible use to which I'd like to apply it? It's as exclusive as a rain storm.



Also btw: I'll grant you one point (though you haven't made it): Churchill uses the accusation of genocide properly--given Lemkin's far-too-broad definition of the term.

  — jwpaine () - 15 June '05 - 13:42

Ha! Maybe I haven't heard the good ones. The ones I have heard, though they might threaten the honor of an individual (and that's doubtful) wouldn't hit hard enough to take on even a neighborhood, let alone an entire national group.



btw - I believe I made the point about Churchill not using genocide strictly per Lemkin in the long post above.



Now, see, isn't this more fun and fruitful than trying to find out whether he did or did not steal office supplies twenty years ago?

  — [Kern] () - 15 June '05 - 13:48

I don't overestimate the importance of whether Churchill "did or did not steal office supplies" nor even the more substantial charge I actually did make--that he used university facilities and services to serve his own private and/or political agenda. I merely recall that what they finally got Al Capone for was tax evasion.

  — jwpaine () - 15 June '05 - 14:05

Okay, then my question would be, what makes him Al Capone? That's serious question. I'm not a 19-year-old Churchill fan. I've read widely in his field, including people who don't seem to like him a whole lot, such as Russell Thornton, and what I see is a huge discrepancy between the public outcry and the actual allegations against him. Again, you boil down the charges and they're fairly slight. That's not to excuse them if confirmed - and remember, we've yet to see his defense - but compared to charges leveled at other, much better known scholars, they're miniscule. They certainly don't warrant round-the-clock newspaper coverage, combined with non-stop commentary from a half-dozen talk show hosts.



Especially given the tenor of the media coverage. I don't mean to sleight your genealogical skills, Mr. Ballerina, but I almost died laughing when I saw that the sum total of experts the RMN brought to its piece on Churchill's heritage consisted of two bloggers and a New Jersey cop. The fact that the RMN didn't even bother with a professional, relying instead on decidedly anti-Churchill amateurs, speaks volumes to the way local coverage has played out (not to mention the RMN's entire lack of journalistic ethics). You couldn't find a better example of tabloid journalism in the pulp-crime novels of James Ellroy.



So what is it that's got you folks so up in arms? His general demeanor? The identity thing? The original essay?



I'm stone-cold serious. I just don't get it. Again, it looks to me like y'all don't like his world-view, but you don't want to do the serious work to try and dispute it, so you go after ancillary matters.

  — [Kern] () - 15 June '05 - 16:32

I'm not going to bother repeating what I've already published on PirateBallerina. I will defend the RMN's genealogy, however, because I know that it was an extension of the work of a professional genealogist, whose genealogy originally appeared in the Denver Post.



And one last comment, then you can post unsupported declaratives without interference: I've given you the respect of addressing your points here without once resorting to sarcasm or ad hominem slurs. Give me the same respect.

  — jwpaine () - 15 June '05 - 17:35

Kern, you have steadfastly ignored Churchill's repeated theft of the Dam the Dams pamphlet. To dismiss Churchill's recidivist plagiarism as trivial shows that you're not familiar with the ethical rules that govern academia.



Second, defenders of Churchill should avoid talking about his writings on the COINTELPRO book because there are whoppers in that one too. Like, Churchill says he was investigated by the FBI for bombing Camp McCoy. The FBI's Weather Underground report never mentions Churchill at all. The report names hundreds of people they suspected of associating with the WU but not Churchill. If FBI suspected him of being a bomber, he would be in that report. Churchill invented this aspect of his past to create his "radical" persona, the same way he invented so many other parts of his persona. And that's just one example of Churchill's fraud in the COINTELPRO book.

  — Bart - 15 June '05 - 18:03

I don't like frauds. Kern is impressed by them. I am comfortable that you don't "get it" Kern.

  — SPQR () (URL) - 15 June '05 - 18:07

jwpaine,



I find it hard to stomach you don't engage in sarcasm or ad hominem attacks, that being the point of this site, but I'll try to do better.



By the way, are you saying that wasn't your work in the RMN?



Worth investigating, sir, if you're trying to pawn someone else's work off as your own.



Bart,



I haven't seen Churchill's response to the Dam of Dams bit. Also and again, this is minor to the point of insignificance - a matter of a couple paragraphs out of a couple dozen books. It was one of those four or five paragraphs I was talking about earlier. The case looks to me like sloppy citation. Hardly the kind of thing that gets an author’s entire body of work dismissed.



As to your other contention, you’ve got an if/then conclusion in there that I’d be uncomfortable putting forth. He could very well have been mentioned in ancillary memos or documents. Again, I don’t know. But if you’re going to make that kind of allegation, you might want to be able to back it up a little better than you just did. Again, this seems ancillary. You don’t like the guy, so you’re grasping at every straw you can. Why not make the argument you actually want to make?



SPQR,



That’s not an argument, that’s an abbreviated temper tantrum. Keep trying.

  — Kern () - 15 June '05 - 20:28

Kern:



Nice misinterpretation of my statement, but it won't wash. I said I showed respect in addressing your points.



Also won't wash: Your attempt to cast a pall of suspicion on the work a number of people, including myself, did on the genealogy that was published last week in the RMN. We all received credit, and if you actually read any of this website, you'd see we've always given credit where it is due. I don't claim to be a genealogist; I can, however, work ancestry.com as well as anyone. Even the guy who drives the honeywagon gets end-credits.



As far as refuting everything Churchill has ever written in order to convince his apologists that he may indeed have fudged on some facts here and there, that is a life's work, and a sacrifice I'm not interested in pursuing. I do find it interesting, though, that Churchill has yet to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Go ahead. I see by your post under my essay today that you know how: Google these two phrases together: "Ward Churchill" "peer-reviewed journal"



I found 94 listings, each and every one of which linked to a story criticizing Churchill's conspicuous absence from said journals, none of which linked to an actual peer-reviewed article by Churchill.



Perhaps he is simply peerless, but it's more likely that he greatly prefers the uncritical company of his fans and those few sad, deluded academic Marxists who find him worthy of doe-eyed hero-worship.

  — jwpaine () - 16 June '05 - 00:18

Ha! No pall of suspicion necessary, sir. Just being a bit facetious. My original point was, and remains, that the RMN was exercising pure tabloid journalism in its article on Churchill's genealogy. Only amateurs were chosen, and they were decidedly anti-Churchill amateurs. If, as you say, the primary source was ancestry.com, that pretty much confirms what I said. Most real newspapers go into stories a little further than what they can pull up on the internet. But, hey, the RMN is a backwater joke as newspapers go, from the editorials on down to the book reviews. You live here, you know that. That's not a criticism of it's politics, there are plenty of good conservative newspapers, but the RMN sticks to sensationalism and half-formed stories.



You're right, I suppose, not a whole lot of peer-reviewed journals. So? His works certainly get reviewed, ad nauseum, after the fact. Even before this scandal, there were people going over them with a fine tooth comb, contesting every point they could bring up. That's a good thing, all in all. It's called academic discourse, and leads to the production of knowledge. By the way, can name for me an American Indian Studies peer-reviewed journal? I haven't checked that, but I'm guessing the "peer-reviewed" journals you speak of are few and far between, there being only about 30 people in academia who care about these issues at all.



Lastly, quit with calling Churchill a Marxist. It just makes you look a little under-informed, as you can break that one down with nothing more involved then an amazon.com search. One of the guy's books, after all, is entirely devoted to blasting Marxism as applied to American Indians. That's part of what the AIM split was about in the 80s and early 90s. Any follower of his who happened to be a Marxist would have to be a rather confused individual as a result.

  — [Kern] () - 16 June '05 - 07:29

I've got no problem with the internet. I think it can be a wonderful place to begin researching an issue. It's when that research never progresses past the point of Google that I get suspicious.



The example I'll give comes from the RMN and Caplis and Silverman, and I've already touched on it. At some point they Googled the "American Indian Movement" and pulled up what they call "National AIM," an incorporated entity resulting from a split in AIM in the early 90s and headed by a convicted drug dealer and couple of guys who're allegedly complicit in a murder. They contacted said folks, interviewed a bunch of them, and immediately began running stories as to Colorado-AIM being a separate splinter group, expelled by National AIM's, ahem, "grand governing council" (I mean you gotta laugh . . .).



Had they done the slightest bit of research - hell, had they even gone down the Google list a few lines - they'd have noticed there are two separate AIMs, both national, one of which Colorado-AIM is very much a part. They might even have noticed the charges of financial fraud and murder being leveled at "National AIM" from a number of American Indian groups.



Of course, I have the feeling they did. I can't imagine you could investigate this stuff to any degree and not run across this information. My guess is they chose to ignore it, as it was inconvenient to a couple of their favorite narrative arcs. Either way, it ain't journalism and it ain't research.



As to whether blogger tactics are effective, that has nothing to do with anything. Hate to break it you, but lots of unethical, intellectually dishonest tactics are effective. In fact, that kind of thing is usually more effective than actual research, analysis and critique. Those take a lot of time and don't have the advantage of frenzying half-wits whose sole contact with book-learnin' comes from Al Franken or Bill O'Reilly.



That's not a criticism solely of the right, either. The left does their best at it. If they're not as effective, that has nothing to do with ethics.

  — [Kern] () - 16 June '05 - 09:25

Of course the internet is most useful (in many cases) for the initial stages of an investigation. The "Churchill-Means letter" we used to show possible misuse of university facilities is a case in point. I doubt Churchill is much worried about that particular letter; it shows a single instance of possible misuse, and I doubt in itself represents a fireable offense. I'd imagine Churchill would be much more concerned about additional letters coming from other sources that show the same university address used for CO-AIM purposes.



You'll note that PB has indicated on numerous ocassions the enormously rancorous rift between National AIM and CO-AIM (and the other "autonomous chapters" of which CO-AIM is part); we've even declined to use some of the evidence presented by National AIM, since it consists of unsupported allegations (which both versions of AIM seem quite capable of making). Having read all of the documents I can find, both those on the internet and those on real pieces of paper, I'd venture the opinion that both sides have some legitimate gripes, and both sides have engaged in "bending the narrative." That's inconsequential to PirateBallerina, the sole purpose of which is weaning Churchill from the public teat. The "off topic" and ancillary links we point to for our own amusement and that of our readership, e.g., Tom Mayer's obescient defense of Churchill.

  — jwpaine () - 16 June '05 - 10:08

Fair enough. I'll concede you've been much better about the AIM split then the local media. Which seems rather ironic, as you're under no obligation to possess any sense of journalistic ethics, unlike, say, the RMN and KHOW.



I would have liked to see a little more from you on the connection between Bellecourt and a lot of those names we kept seeing in the local media, like Carole Standing Elk, Dennis Banks, Suzanne Harjo, etc., who were claiming Churchill ain't a real Indian, and who KHOW was running continual interviews and clips from. Not to mention a cartoon and a jingle which were quoting Bellecourt verbatim. Kind of interesting, as I recall, that he was Indian enough to represent AIM to the United Nations in Geneva before the split.



But, anyway, I can understand that being outside of your bailiwick. In my mind, though, it creates some pretty strong credibility gaps in those initial charges of identity fraud that had Boyles, Carroll, Caplis and Silverman slavering all over each other.



Anyway, point taken. I still have the following question: since, as you said, you're not interested in proving Churchill "fudged facts," what is it you're after him for? Why so dedicated to getting him off the "public teat" as you put it?

  — [Kern] () - 16 June '05 - 11:39

Kern:

I'm not interested in making the fisking of Churchill my life's work. That's different for wanting him off the public teat for those "fudged facts" I and others have uncovered.



As far as Harjo, et al, are concerned, it is precisely their lack of "disinterested party" status that keeps me from quoting them or using their unsubstantiated complaints about Churchill. They may be correct, but hearsay makes for poor evidence, and in Churchill's case would merely muddy the waters.



To be honest, I have found that both AIMs contain their fair share of charlatans and criminals. The big loser is the Native American. Once Churchill is back in the private sector hawking his books and reminding anyone who will listen that he used to be somebody, I may take another look at what the constant bickering between the AIMs has accomplished. As they say: Qui bono?



BTW: You seem to be conversant with Churchill's work; I'd be happy to publish your defense of him or of a single instance where he has been truthful, provided you showed substantive arguments with all sources cited, not simple gainsaying of his detractors. Naturally, I'd reserve the right to examine (and refute, as necessary) your defense. To keep it fair, let's limit your cites to online sources, for the benefit of PB readers who don't possess a complete collection of Churchill's work. One caveat: I'd stay clear of defending his assertion of "500,000 dead Iraqi children" as a motive for the 9/11 attack.

  — jwpaine () - 16 June '05 - 12:12

I'm not sure what I'd defend. I haven't seen his response to the few specific charges against him, so I can't say as to what his argument would be. I can take apart the RMN news using internet citations in conjunction with his work until hell freezes over, but not sticking solely to the internet. Likewise, one of the neat things about all the coverage is, that given the attention paid to his work, it has been effectively vetted. Meaning, since several scholars and journalists - no matter how mediocre - have gone over, say, A Little Matter of Genocide, with a fine tooth comb and have found only two to three contestable paragraphs, I think we can assume the other 300+ pages are pretty sound. I could hunt down footnotes and ensure they backup the original, but again, not sticking to internet links - in case you haven't noticed, American Indian Studies isn't exactly a huge priority for the American public. Besides which, if your readership is too lazy to head to a library, God forbid, to do a little fact checking, perhaps they ought to stick to the kind of issues covered by Oprah.



Also, why not with the 500,000 children? It may not be the number currently accepted, but it was good enough for Madeliene Albright. And as I recall, Bin Laden released a statement specifically pointing to that number as part of his reasoning for declaring open season on American citizens in 1998. If later it turned out to be incorrect, that doesn't impact Churchill's argument in the least.

  — [Kern] () - 16 June '05 - 13:17

Just pick one of the allegations made against Churchill, and prove it false. Go ahead and use offline sources; I'll find your citations and reproduce them for my "lazy" readers. And I'm not asking for Churchill's defense, I'm looking for yours.



And you're right; the online "American Indian" data is comprised entirely of partisan screed abysmally devoid of any acquaintance with evidence.



But I won't accept the claim that since "two to three contestable paragraphs, I think we can assume the other 300+ pages are pretty sound" is a correct deduction. It may be the fine-tooth-combers were exhausted after finding those two to three contestable paragraphs, and decided that was enough to show misrepresentation, plagiarism, or fraud. You dig up two dead bodies in somebody's pasture, do you really need to dig up the other 80 acres to see whether that somebody is a murderer?



One last thing: Dragging out that tired Albright quote doesn't cut any ice with me. In that interview, she didn't make the "500,000" assertion, she simply didn't dispute it--which still makes her a prime example of idiocy in government (a position for which she has many competitors).

  — jwpaine () - 16 June '05 - 14:23

Kern,

I have been following the Churchill situation by reading the Colorado newspapers and this blog. I am willing to consider both sides of any argument, but I am starting to think that Churchill is guilty, especially in light of the Rocky Mountain News articles. Churchill seems to be arguing that the media is biased against him, but if he has evidence of his historical and genealogical claims, I wonder why he doesn't just bring it forward and show everybody?

I have seen the messages posted by Churchill's wife on this blog and they seem solely composed of personal attacks. What kind of man sends his wife out to defend himself, anyways? It makes me think he is a coward who uses women to hide behind. I don't have much respect for any man who does that.

I am willing to believe that Churchill's responses are being incorrectly reported by the media, but I still am wondering why he doesn't make his case directly, by putting up a website with proof that his critics are wrong. I keep thinking maybe the emperor doesn't have any clothes after all. I wonder why no scholars have been quoted who support Churchill's disputed works. If there are some experts who agree with Churchill, why aren't they being quoted? Perhaps Churchill could provide statements from those academics who support the disputed works on his website. Churchill should be doing something to get his message out.

You argue that the Dam the Dams is "minor to the point of insignificance" and along with the other charges, should not mean that Churchill's body of work be dismissed. But Churchill is a college professor, what would he do if one of his students turned in a paper written by someone else? How many mistakes should Churchill be allowed? For example, the Rocky Mountain News story about the blood quantum thing and the Dawes act, said that Churchill had repeated this assertation in print almost 20 times, even after Churchill's intepretation had been debunked. I can understand Churchill making a mistake, but I can't understand why he would continue to say something that had been disproven. I also notice that Churchill has yet to provide any explanation for the Dams articles or for the other articles he reprinted without the authors' permission. Instead he has refused to talk about it, which makes me think he is guilty.

Do you think that Churchill has done anything wrong at all? Should he be punished by the university? And if so, what should his punishment be, if any?

Also, I don't understand your objection to ancestry.com. I know people into genealogy, who unfortunately talk on and on about looking for their ancestors by using ancestry, who have told me all about the scanned images, such as census records, etc. on that website. You also say that the RMN genealogy is laughable. Do you know about genealogy and can point out some mistakes? Do you think it is wrong solely because the people who worked on it were anti-Churchill? Once again, I would be interested in seeing Churchill show that the newspaper genealogy was wrong.

You are the only Churchill defender that I have seen on this blog, so I would be interested in hearing more of your opinion.

Open mindedly yours,

Frieda

  — Frieda () - 16 June '05 - 16:43

jwpaine,



As to the charges made, I'll let Churchill make his own defense. Again, in those few paragraphs, I don't know the answers - I'm as curious as you. My contention is (1) we haven't heard his defense and (2) what's on the table is hardly enough to call anyone an academic fraud. I've heard no such calls from your corner for the head of Stephen Ambrose, Bill O'Relly, Rush Limbaugh (or for that matter, though unsurprisingly, Al Franken) when their books have contain stupendous factual inaccuracies. Leading me to believe you're after something else.



Nice try on the body metaphor, but if you've ever read anything by John LaVelle, and I'm assuming you have, you'd know this obsessive little freak would hunt down every sloppy citation under the sun to get Churchill on the end of his harpoon. I ain't arguing that a couple more paragraphs might be contested; I'm arguing the books are being a much more thorough peer review than I've ever seen. To be honest, I'd really like to see it happen to a couple other folks I can think of. Like Patty Limereck, for instance.



Albright was asked about it on 60 Minutes, by Leslie Stahl. She didn't just dispute the number, she conceded it, and stated that she considered that specific number worth the price of containing Hussein. And did so again on Meet the Press. I'm with you she's an idiot. She believed the number to be credible enough she didn't even try to argue it. More importantly, and more germaine to Churchill's argument, Bin Ladin believed her wholeheartedly. Most germaine to Churchill's argument, I don't remember any movement of American citizens to determine whether the number was accurate and/or any attempt to stop it. You can call that tired, but it's hardly up for debate.



Frieda,



I'll be with you shortly.

  — [Kern] () - 16 June '05 - 17:03

Stephen Ambrose, Bill O’Relly, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken



Ambrose is a proven plagiarist, and my personal respect for his work has been reduced to zero. I'd imagine others feel the same. Like a spouse who cheats, how can you ever trust them again? Unfortunately, we can't do anything about Ambrose, since he's rather dead. In any case, he and the others you mention share among themselves one distinct difference viz Churchill: They are not on the state's payroll. If they were, perhaps I'd have much more fodder upon which to ruminate here. And I will say that Churchill is today's low-hanging fruit; there are others with their heads buried in the public trough to whom PB will turn its attention--once Churchill has boxed up his personal effects and been escorted from CU property by two rent-a-cops.

  — jwpaine () - 16 June '05 - 17:27

Frieda,

I obviously can’t speak for Ward Churchill, so:

(1) I don’t know his genealogy. That’s the point. I have no problem with ancestry.com and/or bloggers and police officers doing family trees. If jwpaine wants to run his version of Churchill’s genealogy on his website, fine. But when a newspaper that pretends to standards of journalistic ethics publishes the results of an internet search and the word of three decidedly biased amateurs as journalism, I have a problem. It’s a lot of things, but journalism it ain’t. It begs the question why they didn’t even bother with a professional. I’m not necessarily saying a professional would have reached different conclusions, but the fact they didn’t bother means they were a whole lot less interested in getting to the truth of the matter than in making sure they could skewer Churchill.

It also should be noted that this whole blood-line/blood-quantum bit is a really hairy issue for indigenous peoples. Frankly, I don’t think he could address the issue publically without getting absolutely ravaged by American Indian traditional community. For him to address it would validate the worth of the charges, and invalidate a couple cornerstones of his world-view.

Besides which, as I recall, 9 News and the Denver Post both saw video of the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee discussing his application and distinctly referencing two professional genealogical studies backing him up as 1/16th Cherokee - not enough blood for a full membership, but enough for the associate membership he was given. I’ll take two studies commissioned by the Keetoowah over the word of three amateurs. Odds are they’re pretty good at this sort of thing, as it’s a requirement for enrolling in their tribe.

Most importantly to me though, who cares? It’s none of my business and I’ll let him and other American Indians hash this out. It has absolutely zero bearing on anything in mind. The only part that could have been problematic was whether he knowingly misrepresented himself, and even the RMN conceded he didn’t. So again, who cares?

(2) I don’t care what kind of man he is. A coward who hides behind his wife, or a gentle soul with a love for small animals. That’s of no interest to me. I’ve heard William Faulkner and Thomas Jefferson were real jerks, but they’re individual characters are irrelevant when I’m reading their books. Also, it should be noted his wife was sending those emails out to friends of the family. That our Mr. Ballerina got copies of them and considered them worthy of public consumption speaks to his character, not hers or Churchills.

(3) Again, I haven’t heard his defense regarding the academic fraud charges. Nor, in the case of the Dawes Act, have I seen exactly what he said those 20 times in print. It may be that other documents directly relating to the Dawes Act made the case for a blood quantum that he felt they would be necessarily inseperable. Again, I don’t know. I have a postgraduate degree and have spent some time in academia, and I can tell you that even if every charge is true, in a 25 book body of work it’s better than most.

That’s not a slam on academia. It’s hard to write a book and mistakes happen. You can put any book you want through the wringer, troll for any error no matter how big or small, and make any scholar look like a raving idiot. It’s done all the time. Al Franken does it to Bill O’Reilly, Bill O’Reilly returns to do it to Al Franken. That’s not to excuse errors, they should be corrected, but what’s on the table here seems awfully small.

Likewise with the ghostwriting. Remember that for the majority of the plagiarism charges, LaVelle who originally spotted them didn’t even accuse Churchill of plagiarism, he accused him of writing other peoples work. Again, hate to break it to you but that’s an unspoken norm of academia, and the way a lot of scholars at the beginning of their careers take off (particularly graduate students, but enough said there).

There are plenty of scholars who support his work. Yes, they are leftists, but in the scholarly world these things break along political lines. Some scholars off the top of my head would include Winona LaDuke, Russell Means (obviously), George Tinker, Glenn Morris (you guessed it, obviously), Noam Chomsky, David Stannard, all those folks listed on the sidebar of Pirate Ballerina’s website, and a goodly portion of the 5,000 signature petition Colorado AIM had up on their website. It’s not that they’re not speaking out, they’re just not getting quoted in the RMN. Which might raise a couple questions on its own.

  — [Kern] () - 16 June '05 - 17:54

jwpaine,



I'm actually willing to believe Ambrose got notes mixed up. It ain't hard to do, and given his standing it would be pretty silly to plagiarize what he did.

  — [Kern] () - 16 June '05 - 17:56

Believe what you want about the "amateur genealogy"--it was compared and adjusted accordingly to one prepared by a professional genealogist. I misspoke yesterday: that professionally prepared genealogy was not the foundation of PB's (and RMN's) genealogy; I found the professional's genealogy while we were working on ours, and it was used extensively to ensure ours was complete. I'm happy to say that our genealogy stacked up well against the pro's, with only two minor errors (immediately corrected) that in any case would not have affected our conclusion. And the final version of our genealogy was vetted by that same professional genealogist before it was published. So start including "a professional genealogist" in your litany of "two amateurs and a New Jersey cop."



I'll take the word of "a professional genealogist, two amateurs, and a New Jersey cop" over an unsubstantiated claim by Churchill that he's got Indian blood. BTW: if Churchill knows of "two professional genealogical studies" that show he has Indian heritage, why not produce them? A videotape purportedly showing people talking about "two professional genealogical studies" is scant proof of anything. And quite frankly, I'd believe anybody over the reportage of Amy Herdy. She's completely overdrawn her credibility account.



In any case, of course it doesn't matter whether or not Churchill has Indian heritage. What matters is that Churchill used that heritage (real or imagined) to help himself to a tenured professorship at a state university. The RMN article points out (and common sense compels agreement) that Churchill may have believed he had Indian blood, and so may be innocent off the charge of knowingly lying on an affirmative action form. It's certainly raises reasonable doubt.



One last thing on the Affirmative Action issue: CU is far more culpable that Churchill in this aspect of the current debacle. Nothing is so risible—or so dangerous—as an intellectual with good intentions. And CU's uncritical acceptance of "self-identification" proves that.

  — jwpaine () - 17 June '05 - 09:13

Alright, last couple comments. First, Churchill's claim is substantiated. Again, the videotape, as I understand it, was shown to two different media sources. Both stated the same thing. Likewise, this is the Keetoowah band of Cherokee's tribal council determining whether or not to enroll the guy. It's only "people talking" in the sense that, say, US congressional meetings can be considered "people talking." Hell, I don't know why he doesn't show the studies. I'm not the guy's mother or wife. Maybe he doesn't have them - it seems that he, after all, didn't commission them. Maybe he understands this as an asinine non-issue, which it certainly is. I'll say this for the hundredth time, if you think the guy should be ousted, go after him for the reasons you think he should be ousted. Going after all this ancillary stuff makes you look petty and more than a little absurd.



By the way, why don't you throw out that the name of that professional genealogist you keep bandying about? I, for one, would like to hear it, along with some credentials. I'd also like to know why their name didn't appear in the RMN article, if he was involved in the process.



No offense, but given what I've seen on this site, there's not much I'm buying from your camp on face value.

  — [Kern] () - 17 June '05 - 09:54

Alright ladies and gentlemen,



I have to bow out and return to reading things that have, y'know, pages and covers. Continue as you were.



Mr. Ballerina, though your essays are rather clumsy, often painfully obvious, and your sense of metaphor is hopeless, you have the abilitate to be articulate in flashes. Hopefully you'll someday muster the intellectual honesty and intestinal fortitude to take on something with a little more heft than running a character assassination blog aimed at the most hated man in the state.



But I'll bet not.



I'll check back in a couple weeks.

  — [Kern] () - 17 June '05 - 10:05

Kern:



The professional genealogist wishes to remain anonymous. Period.



Buy what you like. For the skeptic, no proof is possible; for the believer, no proof is necessary. Me, I believe what I can see. I have ample proof (by anyone standards but yours and Churchill's) that he has no Indian ancestors back to the 17th century. Whether he knew that fact when he hired on as a professor at CU is still unanswered. And, as you say, it is an ancillary matter.



As far as Churchill's other "sins," I think PB has covered each and every new revelation of plagiarism, academic fraud, and prevarication with more than the degree of zealousness we have covered the "Indian heritage" issue.



But like Churchill, you are of course entitled to your own opinion. Just not to your own facts.

  — jwpaine () - 17 June '05 - 10:15

jwpaine,



Please, sir. I've wasted too much time here and have to get some actual work done! Quit throwing out things I can't help but respond to!



Your professional genealogist is to remain anonymous. Class move. Y'know, for someone who likes to pontificate on the importance of not inventing one's own facts, your camp seems to get real dodgy when asked to verify yours. It's one thing to throw out a study, it's another to request the only person qualified to verify the thing remain anonymous. (Come to think, I've got a couple "facts" I'd like to pass off in that manner . . .)



Very rich, sir. I actually expected a little better from you. This is the kind of thing one couldn't make up if they tried.

  — [Kern] () - 17 June '05 - 10:43

Kern:



You may be gone, but you're not forgotten. In a previous post you wrote: "There are plenty of scholars who support his work. ... Some scholars off the top of my head would include Winona LaDuke, Russell Means (obviously), George Tinker, Glenn Morris (you guessed it, obviously),..." I humbly disagree with your characterization of Russell Means and Glenn Morris as scholars. These men are known provocatuers without apparent academic or scholarly credentials. The Russell Means website lists an "education" link that connects to a non-existent page. He has also attempted to operate in the political world by claiming, fraudulently, I believe, to be a Libertarian. Mr. Morris holds an academic position at CU-Denver by virtue of a law degree. So far, I have only been able to find an article or 2 by Mr. Morris published in a journal for which he served as editor. Hardly peer reviewed. Further, according to the Colorado Supreme Court web site, Mr. Morris has had his license to practice law suspended since, at least 1994. That sure doesn't inspire confidence in any support he may have shown for Churchill's legal claims. BTW, Churchill isn't a lawyer, so any of his legal claims are somewhat suspect.



As for the 5000 signature petition: who knows why those people signed. My guess is that most of them signed before the fraud and deception charges were adequately reported. Another guess: their signing had nothing to do with support of academic arguments and honesty--it was all political.



BTW: I am a retired academic with peer reviewed articles. On one occasion I spent several years working with editors and reviewers to get an article into print. It would have been nice to have the luxury, as WC has, of sychophant publishers willing to print my every word. An no, Kern, I'm not a Republican.

  — Bill () - 17 June '05 - 11:03

Please stop. Russell Means has a doctorate, Glenn Morris teaches at an accredited university. You may not like their scholarship, but they're scholars by every definition I can find. No one, for instance, would dispute that they're "experts in their field." You may not think much of that field, but that's your business.



Moreover, Churchill's books are required reading in more than 100 university classes as we speak. That's 100 more scholars who, assumedly, respect his scholarship, at least enough to teach it and/or interrogate it. Yes, it may be political - as are the general interests of those who attack his scholarship - but to say there aren't any scholars out there who support him is idiotic. Frankly, if this is any indication of your reasoning abilities, it's little wonder you had trouble publishing.



American Indian Studies, like the Humanities, is an interdisciplinary program. Professors draw from a variety of fields to try and address issues that span knowledge bases. No, he's not a lawyer. By your standard, a History professor couldn't discuss, say, the 14th amendment, and a Literature professor couldn't use the works of Freud or Heidegger to analyze a text. It makes no sense. If you disagree with his interpretation of the way a law applies to American Indians, fine. That kind of discourse is what this thing is supposed to be all about. Claiming that because he doesn't have a law degree he shouldn't reference anything legal is ditch-water stupid.

  — [Kern] () - 17 June '05 - 11:47

Kern:



I tried to be nice in pointing out a few things. I guess you don't like playing nice.



Apparently DR. Means has just neglected to list his academic credentials on his web site, preferring instead to list movie and television credits (Nash Bridges, Walker, Texas Ranger, etc.) to bolster his reputation as a scholar. Or maybe it's the T-shirts, artwork, and autobiography that he peddles that cement his academic credentials. Might you know from where he got his degree and the title of his dissertation? Mr. Morris may teach at an accredited university, but that doesn't make him a scholar. I would think that any definition of a scholar would include scholarly publications in peer reviewed venues. The only fields that these two seem to be experts in are Victimology and Bullying. And one of them may not even be an Indian. I know of lots of teachers at accredited schools who aren't necessarily considered scholars. You might start by checking the lists of adjunct faculty members.



I don't care if WC writes about the law. I merely suggest that without a law degree and training in the law that his legal interpretations might not pass legal muster. Is this "ditch-water stupid?" It was just an observation.



My, my, my. Because I took the time to respond to editorial comments concerning a technical manuscript, my reasoning abilities are now in question. Guess that's one way to dismiss my comments--diminished capacity. I didn't say I had trouble publishing, I said one manuscript took considerable time to get in print. Since the journal serves a very large national organization, and is highly respected, it is not unreasonable to take one's time to please the editors. I believe you claimed to have a graduate degree, but apparently know nothing of the timeline of legitimate publishing. There are basically two speeds in the process: slow and slower. I haven't found it unrealistic to expect up to 6 months waiting for editorial comments with considerable time necessary for a thoughtful rewrite. If only I had access to the Marxist rags where WC publishes, I could recycle the same stuff over and over and never have to worry about its accuracy or its literary qualities.



I hate to say it, Kern, but you sound a lot like Wardo. Maybe you are him. Ward seems to think that no one is qualified to judge his work unless they agree with him. Stuff and nonsense (That's from Through The Looking Glass if you need the citation). True academics disagree and debate. Sychophants try to divert attention from the real issues in the WC case: Fraud, misrepresentation, theft, ...



I really didn't expect the negativity in the response to my comments. Let's be nice and keep to the real question:Is Ward Churchill a fraud, plaigarist, etc?

  — Bill () - 17 June '05 - 13:20

Russell Means has a doctorate? Really? In what field of study? From which college? I find only one reference to him possessing a doctorate—and that is from the lips of Emma Perez (Churchill's successor as CU Ethnic Studies chair, and staunch Churchill defender—not that there's anything wrong with that). In introducing Means, Perez says that Means is a lawyer, and practices as one. But oddly, neither Martindale-Hubbell nor the ABA show a sign that anyone named "Russell Means" is a practicing attorney.



Seems odd that a man who would list on his website everything he's ever done, from caddying to artist to getting above-the-title credits on a movie, would neglect to mention—if only in passing—that he was also a practicing attorney.



Does Alfred University also hand out honorary law degrees?

  — jwpaine () - 17 June '05 - 14:03

Kern, there is no mystery on the Dawes Act. Its text is a matter of public record, and it simply does not contain the provisions Ward claims for it. Further, this simple fact has been pointed out to him, and he continues to make the claim. The lack of academic integrity is obvious.



As for who is qualified to judge Ward's claims on the Dawes Act, any second year law student is more qualified than Churchill in this regard. I saw that as a fact, not an insult. Second year law students verify citations in law review articles, and Churchill's work would not pass such a review.



The poor quality of Churchill's scholarship is endemic to the ethnic studies field. Its probably the only valid defense Churchill has - that his work is on a par with the rest of the nonexistant scholarship in his field.

  — Robin Roberts () (URL) - 17 June '05 - 14:21

Jim, I suppose you've linked to Emma Perez' essay defending Ward Churchill? Its an astonishingly incoherent screed that I think well illustrates the low quality of thought and exposition in that department.

  — Robin Roberts () (URL) - 17 June '05 - 14:24

Robin:

I read it when it first appeared, and I thought I had linked to it here on PB, but I don't find it in the archives.



So here's the link to Emma Perez' defense of Churchill:

http://www.counterpunch.org/perez02282005.html

  — jwpaine () - 17 June '05 - 15:09

Kern:



Still waiting for the school where Russell Means earned a doctorate. You must be searching very carefully. Possibly the proof of this degree is, in WC's words, a "slam dunk," and as such is not even necessary to produce. A search of dissertation databases has failed to reveal any such document for MR. Means.

  — Bill () - 18 June '05 - 17:30

Bill,



You let him lead you down the garden path of diversion. Kern goes to arguing on credentials because he loses on evidence.



Kern names Churchill buttboy Means and leftist friends of WC who give each other mutual slobjobs in their book prefaces. He will name no list of legit lawyers who agree to WC's Allotment act fakery and historians who agree to smallpox fakery. No ethicists who agree to the plagiarism. A list of friends of Churchill, that's all it is.

  — Hansen - 18 June '05 - 17:59

Good God, peek in and what do I find. Okay, I really have to be done with y'all, so:



Bill, jwpaine - I'd heard Means had a doctorate from somebody I thought should know. If it's untrue, I'm happy to concede it, but I'm not going to spend the day Googling on it. It has no bearing on whether or not there are scholars that take Churchill's work seriously. There are. Again, if there are more than 100 university classes that assign his works, somebody's taking his work seriously. You guys don't like that, fine, but stick to what we actually know. Likewise, there's a long list of folks in this field who cite his books. Anecdotal, but the last one I read was from a Maori anthropologist who lives and works in New Zealand. I suppose they could have met but it seems unlikely to me.



Yeah, they're probably people who share his world-view. That's not surprising. That's the way academics work, on both sides of the fence. Scholars an academic agrees with get held up as a model of scholarship, ones the academic disagrees with get accused of shoddy work. Take Robin's comments, for example. Happens on both sides, doesn't mean a thing, but its easier than actually launching a point by point scholarly critique of someone you don't happen to agree with. It's as dull as it comes, in every sense of the word.



So, yeah, Robin, I've read the Dawes Allotment Act. I understand it's no mystery. That wasn't what was in my post. As to Churchill not citing law correctly, go nuts. Perhaps before this is over, we can get down to points of sloppy punctuation and his table etiquette. You folks are a little more dedicated than I am.



I'm really out of here this time. Ten minutes on this site and I always start to feel like I've wandered into a frathouse gangrape. So, back to work, bottomfeeders. Recommence with the Choksondik and buttboy comments. Back to mocking the guy's dead wife. You do a better job of discrediting yourselves than I ever could.

  — Kern () - 19 June '05 - 06:56

Kern, Ward Churchill isn't paid to teach table etiquette and his table etiquette didn't get him tenure. Do try to pay attention to the subject rather than engage in your hobby of attempting as many logical fallacies in one post.

  — Robin Roberts () (URL) - 19 June '05 - 15:34

No trackbacks:

Trackback link: