'Egregious Falsehoods'

by Jim Paine


A website apparently dedicated to smearing various people, including myself, has posted an attack on PB's "Ward Churchill's Life - A Chronology of Events." The author of the attack, the pseudonymous "Charley Arthur," attempts at great length to eviscerate the chronology—to the point of actually making up "facts," which he then proceeds to attack as though I'd actually made the remarks or assertions he attributes to me. In the past, I've mostly ignored the website's puerile profanity-laced insult, but "Charley Arthur's" claims that the chronology contains "egregious falsehoods" requires response.

Follows that response. "Arthur's" post is in italics, my comments (and any supporting quotations) are in bold.


Jim Paine's recent, and defensive, posting of his complete e-mail correspondence with Ward Churchill has opened up some excellent opportunities to assess his much-touted—albeit, mostly by himself—"factual veracity" (a term sometimes used by Paine as a synonym for "journalistic" or "professional integrity," at other times as a synonym for "personal honesty").

A quick search of PB reveals few occurrences of "veracity" when not in reference to Churchill's lack of same; I find only one occurrence of "factual veracity," in a reprint of a John LaVelle review of Churchill's Indians Are Us?:

By researching those copious endnotes, however, the discerning reader will discover that, notwithstanding all the provocative sound and fury rumbling through his essays, Churchill's analysis overall is sorely lacking in historical/factual veracity and scholarly integrity.

Additionally, in the preface to the chronology, I make it very clear that it is a work in progress, and that all sources should be checked.

In this connection, we noted with interest an exchange in which Churchill pointed out several specific factual inaccuracies in the Pony Pimp's presumptuously-titled "Ward Churchill's Life—A Chronology of Events." Interestingly, Churchill provided him with accurate information on several such matters. So, I checked out the version of the "Chronology" current lodged on Pirate Ballerina—it was "last updated December 11, 2005," several months after Churchill provided everything he needed to correct the more glaring untruths—just to see what, if anything, had been changed.

First off, props to the Pimp for deleting the bit about Churchill "training the South Dakota State Police in riot tactics" from 1973-75 (information he lifted without further ado—or attribution—right off the Bellecourts' "National AIM" website, where it will still be found; would this be an example of what you're talking about when you wax indignant about "plagiarism," Jim?).

Perhaps this was due [sic] Paine's belated discovery, when Churchill finally prodded him into looking at it, that the the [sic] National AIM site—which he'd described as a "credible source"—was actually something else again. Like, if the NAIMers swill is credible, then Churchill has been working these past 30 years or more for both the CIA and the FBI, among other things supporting "the contras in Nigeria" and undermining their version of "The Movement" (which, according to N-AIM's 1993 incorporation papers, holds its "annual membership meeting" in Vernon Bellecourt's living room).

Assuming what [sic] his "credible source" was true, Paine would be hard-pressed on ideological grounds to explain why he had established a website for the sole purpose of discrediting a long-term and, according to his source, highly effective federal police operative. Were it true, moreover, his "credible source" would in all likelihood be guilty of violating the Intelligense [sic] Identities Protection Act, a demonstrably subversive crime.

Fortunately for Paine, he—unlike his "credible source"—knows enough geography to discern between Nicaragua and Nigeria. And even HIS (noncombatant) military service was sufficient to make him aware that Churchill's having briefly served as a "public information specialist" towards the end of his 1968 tour of duty in Vietnam—i.e., writing press releases for hometown newspapers on the "accomplishments" of the soldiers in his unit—had/has no connection at all to "Army Counterintelligence" (as the Bellecourt site still claims).

As if all this weren't potentially embarrassing enough, Paine discovered—complements [sic] of Churchill—that he'd rather mindlessly "borrowed" the transparent idiocy embodied in N-AIM's placing Churchill BOTH in South Dakota (training tac squads) AND in Illinois finishing his BA in 1973.

Really vetted your source in this case, eh Jimbo?

I don't claim to be anything other than a compiler of information; the only individual touting me to be a credible source is Churchill himself (albeit tongue-in-cheek):

"[...]I consider PirateBallerina to be the most credible news source in the Denver area."

Churchill was right about AIM's allegations of his being some sort of undercover Federal agent; the allegation could not be independently verified (and quite frankly, seemed outlandish), and so I removed the item. On the other hand, the Jodi Rave interview is a third-party source of information that just happens to be posted on the AIM site. Unless "Charley Arthur" (or anyone else) has proof that the interview is a fake, I'll stand by my citing of Churchill's own words about his past.

The Pimp has sought to redeem the situation by publicly disassociating himself and PB from the Bellecourts and N-AIM, stating that he no longer viewed them as "credible" and would no longer rely on their stuff. We note, however, that he offered no explanation with regard to the former—less still a well-deserved "thanks" to Churchill—and that the latter is demonstrably untrue.

I'm uncertain as to where "Arthur" gets the idea that I publicly dissociated myself from AIM (never having been associated with AIM, I've never felt the need to sever said association), or where he thinks I stated that I "would no longer rely on their stuff." I find no such statements on PB; "Arthur" is welcome to provide links to prove the truth of his allegations, but until that time I prefer to believe he has merely put words in my mouth so as not to detract from the majesty of his tirade.

Click on Paine's "references" for 1973 and 1975, for example, and up come pages lifted directly from the N-AIM website, complete with hand-written notes. In these cases, there is not only no attribution to N-AIM (a la Bernie Morson's plagiarism of John LaVelle's research in the Rocky Mountain News back in February), but the Pony Pimp has actively denied that he uses their material at all. That's Plagiarism with a capital "P."

I'm also not certain why "Arthur" claims I'm plagiarizing or failing to attribute information that I've directly linked to at the AIM site. I've linked to numerous newspaper articles in a wide variety of venues without "attribution." I would assume most readers would realize from the off-site link that the material presented there belonged to that site (in this case, AIM) rather than PB. Also, I challenge "Arthur" to show any instance where I have "actively denied using [AIM's] material at all."

Click now on the first reference Paine offers for 1993. What comes up is a supposed interview with Churchill conducted by a woman named Jodi Rave in 1993. Well, not the interview, exactly, but what the Pimp claims is a TYPESCRIPT of about half of a taped interview. He makes no claim to have heard, or even asked to hear, the original tape. In fact, there is no indication that he would, if the need arose, be able to demonstrate that there IS a tape or, for that matter, the ostensible interview ever occurred.

Following THESE "standards," I could start cranking out typescripts of alleged interviews with Jim Paine, with no obligation to actually conduct an interview at all. And, shit, even the Try-Works readers are going to be amazed at what "he" is going to be saying (as in, "he'll" obviously "say" whatever I want).

I suspect any reader can decide for themselves whether the interview is a fake.

Final straw on this score? Look at the source listed right at the beginning of the "Rave Interview" (which, by the way, can still be clicked to bring the site up for Pirate Ballerina readers): http://www.aimovement.org/csi/Scans/Raveinter11_93-01.jpg.

Now, if that ain't the "National AIM" website, I'll kiss my own ass.

Again, "Arthur" seems convinced that I've publicly proclaimed that I would not rely on any information found on the AIM website. I don't recall making such a statement, and I don't find any such statement on PB. Having cut this "public proclamation" out of whole cloth, "Arthur" appears to have convinced himself of its actual existence a mere three paragraphs later.

The Pimp's not only still relying on their garbage without verifying it at all—in this case, he admits in an "editor's note" offered right off the bat, that he's even altered the text as he received it (for purposes of "clarity," of course; this gets further and further removed from whatever Churchill might actually have said to Ms. Rave)—he's still linking readers to their site.

PB thus remain DIRECTLY linked to N-AIM and the Bellecourts, and Jim Paine's claims to the contrary are outright lies. So much for his "factual veracity," "journalistic integrity" and "personal honesty."

Factual veracity, journalistic integrity, and personal honesty are not subjects about which I defend myself. I leave it to the reader and researcher to determine those qualities—and "Arthur" appears to be neither a particularly adept reader, nor a researcher of any skill. I will say that I have never consciously lied or misstated facts. As I've pointed out to Churchill and many times on PB, if there are factual errors in any of the reportage on PB, I will correct them (and I have). As far as my editing of the transcript, I provide links to the scanned pages themselves, so that interested readers can verify for themselves that my transcription is faithful to the faxed pages.  

Still have questions about the "facts" this self-revealed liar posts with regard to "All Things Churchill"? Consider these relatively straightforward inaccuracies/untruths accruing from the "Churchill Chronology" alone.

ITEM: In their e-mail exchange, Churchill came right out and told Paine that the Boulder School District doesn't [sic] has never had an "EOP" (Educational Opportunity Program), and that, correspondingly, he'd never had a job running one for it. Nonetheless, as of today, the "Chronology" entry for 1978 reads as follows: "Begins employment running Indian EOP for school district. Begins employment as a lecturer, American Indian studies, film studies and sociology, University of Colorado system." Thereafter, for the years 1979-89, it is indicated that Churchill "continues employment running Indian EOP for school district." That's 12 repetitions of the same inacccuracy [sic], even after the Pimp was provided the correct information.

Let's unscramble this mess, shall we?

As all of Churchill's various CVs clearly state—and Paine claims to have several iterations, beginning with the one submitted as part of his CU job application in 1978—he was hired by Boulder Valley School District Re2J in 1977 (not 1978) to direct its TITLE IV Indian Education Program. He resigned in 1978, when he accepted a position with the University of Colorado at Boulder's American Indian EOP (this was specific to the Boulder campus; nobody but those working in the central administration are employed by the "University of Colorado system"). His initial position was NOT as a "lecturer"—actually, he has NEVER been employed as a lecturer by the University of Colorado—and has never taught for the Film Studies Department. Although he did begin to teach sociology courses sponsored by then-Associate Professor of Sociology George Rivera in 1981 (not 1978), there is no evidence that he did so for any reason other than a desire to teach (in other words, he was not "employed" by the university to do so). As to American Indian Studies, it did not exist at CU until the late 1980s.

Churchill's own words: 

Well I had a third job on top of that.... where the school district needed a coordinator ok.... and I got that, well thats where they kept me and later on Norbert Hill came in the the school district and asked me if I'd be willing to take over for him at the University working a ________ program there. Indian EOP, Educational Opportunity Program as they called it. That was in 78.

In any case, here we have the first, and up to this point, only, error "Arthur" has found in the chronology. Since I was unable to find a source notation at the time showing Churchill had left the school district's employ, I made an (incorrect, as it turns out) assumption that that employment continued. The chronology has been corrected accordingly.

As far as "Arthur's" claim that Churchill's "initial position was NOT as a "lecturer"—actually, he has NEVER been employed as a lecturer by the University of Colorado—and has never taught for the Film Studies Department" is concerned, the chronology does not assert that Churchill taught for the Film Studies Department. Furthermore, Churchill's latest CV (circa 2005) states: "From 1978-1990, I served as a Lecturer in American Indian Studies, Film Studies and Sociology with the UC system (primarily Boulder and Denver campuses)."

ITEM: The entry for 1986 includes the "fact" that Churchill was "expelled from the International Indian Treaty Council." This, again, is taken directly from the "National AIM" website. It is, however, a matter of record that both Churchill and his fellow professor and Colorado AIM colleague Glenn Morris—who was purportedly expelled along with him—had resigned from IITC a year earlier. Similarly, the entry for 1993 indicates that Churchill was "expelled from [the] American Indian Movement." The
reference here is actually to the so-called "National AIM"—and linked, as always, to its website—a corporate entity to which Churchill never belonged in the first place.

Just to underscore the absurdity of what you are presenting as "fact" in this connection, Pony Pimp, I hereby expell [sic] you from the Try-Works blog crew and the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. There. You're notified, and the notification has been duly posted on the web. So, it must be true. Right?

The argument of whether Churchill quit or was expelled is tedious and beside the point. Was he expelled from IITC? Obviously. Did he resign a year previous? Perhaps, although "Arthur" presents no documentation to support this. And claiming Churchill never belonged to the incorporated version of AIM is disingenuous. He belonged to AIM; that the organization incorporated after he was expelled/quit is inconsequential.

ITEM: The entry for 1989 states that Churchill took "leave from running Indian EOP to serve as Visiting Professor of American Indian Studies at Alfred University." Actually, Indian EOP was dissolved in 1985, along with all the other EOPs at CU/Boulder. In 1989, Churchill was directing the University Learning Center (ULC). He did take leave from his position to teach at Alfred, but in 1990, not 1989. His title there was Distinguished Visiting Scholar of the Humanities—the grandiose title was bestowed by Lynne Chenet's [sic] National Endowment of [sic] the Humanities, which funded his stay—NOT "Visiting Professor of American Indian Studies" (this, too, is in his CV, Jimmie).

Again, "Arthur" beats on the EOP error, this time noting the second actual error found in the chronology—that Churchill was at Alfred University in 1990 rather than 1989. Then "Arthur" himself errs in claiming I erred in stating that Churchill was 'Visiting Professor of American Indian Studies' (as the Rocky Mountain News also stated) rather than 'Distinguished Visiting Scholar of the Humanities.' Compounding the confusion is what Churchill himself (in his most recent CV) says: He was at Alfred as "Distinguished Scholar of the Humanities in American Indian Studies." 

ITEM: The entry for 1990 reads: "Helps start (and hires on as ULC director for) CERA (Center for the Studies of Ethnicity and Race in America). June: Hired as associate professor by the University of Colorado at Boulder; his department is Communications; two other departments had declined to accept him. Shortly, thereafter, granted tenure."

Oi vey. Another factual quagmire (but delivered with such a nifty tone of authority).

To unscramble, let's start with the fact that Churchill was not "hired on" as ULC director in 1990. Quite the opposite: he left said position in that year (he'd held the job since 1987). Next, the ULC had/has nothing to do with "CERA" (actually CSERA, and there is no "the" before the "S"); the former fell under Student Support Services, the latter under Academic Affairs. Churchill, who was at Alfred in 1990, was not hired as an associate professor at CU until 1991, and tenure was not granted tenure "shortly thereafter." Tenure was one of his non-negotiable conditions for accepting a faculty position at CU, it was included in the letter of offer transmitted by the Dean of Arts and Sciences, and been part of his contract from the outset (most of this was even reported in the Rocky Mountain News, dummie).

While I'll admit to this error, the confusion of hire/employment dates is at least partially of Churchill's own manufacture. In the Rave interview, Churchill says:

Ya, there was no Indian faculty to do it, so I was in that as CERA ULC director, ok so in the spring of 91, which was when I came back from Alfred I taught there, alright and interviewed for a position.

Also, according to this "Faculty Position Authorization Form" Churchill was made Associate Professor with tenure 8-30-90 (final sign-off date), not 1991, as "Arthur" claims.

Finally, the rostering issues you try, along with the rest of the Denver media, to spin in such a way as to impugn Churchill's scholarly qualifications, had to do with bureaucratic rather than academic concerns. Churchill was hired to teach American Indian Studies (explicitly so), but his actually parent unit, CSERA, was not yet a department. Consequently, he could not be formally rostered there (there's a university rule requiring that each faculty must be rostered in an actual department; look it up, hotshot, it's available on line). Neither Sociology nor Political Science "declined to accept" Churchill on his scholarly merits; he was not, after all, neither [sic] applying to for a position with them, nor to be a sociologist or political scientist. Rather, both departments declined to become involved the awkwardness of a situation in which a faculty member rostered to their ranks would neither teach for them nor be otherwise involved with them. Communications simply accommodated this rather bizarre circumstance until the Department of Ethnic Studies was approved in 1995, whereupon Churchill immediately and formally transfered his position and tenure from Communications to DES.

If simply reporting the reluctance (to which even "Arthur" admits) of the Sociology and Political Science departments to accept Churchill on their respective faculties is spin, then make the most of it. In any case, I see no accusation (or commission) of error.

ITEM(S): The entry for 1992 indicates that Churchill's FANTASIES OF THE MASTER RACE was published in that year by "South End Press." FANTASIES was published by Common Courage Press. Similarly, the entry for 1993 indicates that Churchill's INDIANS ARE US? was published in that year, although its publication date is 1994. Worse still, the entry for 1996 has both THE COINTELPRO PAPERS and A LITTLE MATTER OF GENOCIDE coming out in that year although the former was actually published in 1990, the latter in 1997. The entry for 1997 indicates publication of ISLANDS IN CAPTIVITY in that year, although it was not published until 2004. The entry for 1998 has a City Lights edition of STRUGGLE FOR THE LAND coming out, although it was not actually published in 2003 (you missed the original Common Courage edition altogether, Pimp; it was published in 1993). Now, the best of the lot: The entry for 2002 indicates that Churchill's MARXISM AND NATIVE AMERICANS was published in that year; it was actually published in 1983.

It's here in the publications section that "Arthur" hits pay dirt—he actually finds a number of errors in the publishers and years of publication. You'll excuse me if in many cases, I share Churchill's own confusion over his publishers and publications dates¹.

For instance, the attribution of Fantasies of the Master Race to South End Press rather than Common Courage Press is the third error "Arthur" appears to discover—except that Churchill seems to be in agreement with me; his own CU webpage lists South End Press as the 1992 publisher of Fantasies.

Another error "Arthur" finds is the misstatement that The COINTEL Papers was published in 1997, when in fact, it  was published in 1990—and Churchill's CU webpage lists its publication as 1991.

Yet another error might be the year the chronology cites (1997) for publication of Islands in Captivity rather than "Arthur's" cited 2004, except that both amazon.com and South End Press agree that Islands in Captivity was released in early 2005, despite Churchill's CV citation of a 2004 publication.

And amazon.com lists Struggle for the Land as a 2002 publication (City Lights), and also lists a 1994 revised edition Arbeiter Ring put out (although Churchill's CV says the Arbeiter Ring version came out in 1998), and neither amazon nor Common Courage Press make any mention of the 1993 publication—both Churchill's CU webpage and his CV list Struggle as a 1993 Common Courage Press publication).

Churchill's CV says Marxism and Native Americans was, in fact, published in 1983 (except amazon notes that it was January 1984).

"Arthur" thinks he's found yet another error in the chronology's publication date of Indians Are Us? He claims it was published in 1994, although amazon.com lists it as published in December 1993, and Churchill himself implies the same thing in the November 1993 Rave interview, wherein he notes the book is "coming out next month" although Churchill's own CU webpage lists that book as a 1994 publication.

If my dates were in error, perhaps it might be owing at least partially to the fact that the author himself is uncertain when his books were published, or by whom. In any case, I've corrected those publications listed in the chronology where I was able to determine real dates.

All of which raises the question, Pony Pimp, as to whether—for all your lofty pronouncements "summing up" the quality of Churchill's scholarship—you've even so much as SEEN one of his books (much less read it). For that matter, do you REALLY have copies of his CVs, as you claim (I mean, really, the publication dates of every book are correctly listed therein, so how did you manage to fuck up the basic facts so dramatically?).

Oh yeah, and BTW—that is your trademark abbreviation of "by the way," isn't it—how might we ask [sic] did a guy who purports to be THE source for "all things Churchill" manage to omit his CULTURE VERSUS ECONOMISM, both volumes of CRITICAL ISSUES IN NATIVE NORTH AMERICA, and CAGES OF STEEL??? Also, if you were going to list one book chapter, why not the rest? Ditto, the CDs.

The inclusion of Churchill's publications is meant to be informative rather than exhaustive. I don't even see this as an error of omission.

ITEM: The 1994 entry informs us of an "altercation involving Churchill, [Churchill's then wife, M. Annette] Jaimes, and Carole Standing Elk...at an Autonomous AIM press conference [resulting] in abrasions and a broken wrist for Standing Elk." Once again the Pony Pimp is simply regurgitating a posting on the "National AIM" website, absent any corroborating evidence at all. So here's the deal, Mr. Essense [sic] of Journalistic Integrity: The incident in question was reportedthe [sic] following morning in the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. Pull the piece and show us where it mentions Ward Churchill. Show us where it mentions Carole Standing Elk suffering any injuries whatsoever. Since it clearly states that the police were present in some force, show us where it says Jaimes was arrested for assault (or anything else).

Ain't gonna happen, Mr. Factual Veracity. We've got a copy, and what it says is that Carole Standing Elk initiated the "altercation" by pitching a cup of hot coffee in Jaimes's face. The cops quickly broke up the ensuing scuffle and told the Standing Elk crew to leave, which they did. To all appearances, Churchill was not involved, and there's some indication that he may not have even been on the scene (BTW: this conforms to the police report, a copy of which we also have in hand).

Once again, this is why we vet our sources, Pony Pimp. And do our homework to corroborate what they say BEFORE posting their "facts" as our own.

At least two versions (now three, with the addition of "Arthur's" concoction) of the altercation exist. One is noted in this AIM press release, and another is described in this News from Indian Country article. I included links to both articles (in His History rather than the chronology; I had yet to add them to the chronology—as I say in the preface, the chronology is a work in progress) so that readers may draw their own conclusions (even if that conclusion is that the truth may never be known about the altercation). And as far as there being "some indication [Churchill] may not have even been on the scene" is concerned, an Indian Country Today (Lakota Times) 1994 article (registration and fee may be required) quotes Churchill extensively about the altercation (and events preceding it), and notes that following the altercation, Churchill was among those detained by police on the scene. 

FINAL ITEM: In their e-mail exchange, Churchill clearly informed Paine that his foster daughter is very much alive. Nonetheless, in the 1993 entry in Paine's "Chronology," she is still indicated as having "died (no reason given)." This, again, came straight out of the "Jodi Rave Interview" posted on the "National AIM " website (but this time without attribution).

All this in just one piece, folks.

The "daughter" to which "Arthur" mistakenly refers as "foster" is apparently Churchill's current wife's daughter, who I've never claimed was deceased. The foster daughter to which the chronology refers is one of Churchill's own citation in the Rave interview. If "Charley Arthur" wishes to challenge the authenticity of the Rave interview, he should do so directly, to AIM and to Jodi Rave. Until then, I may be excused for believing a journalist's records over an attacker who slings invective, insult, and a gamut of sleazy ad hominem attacks from behind a cloak of anonymity.

BTW: I count a total of two non-publication-related errors "Arthur's" piece reveals: Churchill's EOP employment period, and a misstatement of the year Churchill visited (in a teaching capacity) Alfred University. Are these really what "Arthur" considers "egregious falsehoods"? If Churchill were being challenged on his claims of publishing certain books at certain times and with certain publishers, then a willful misrepresentation of those publication dates and publishers might be in the realm of egregious falsehoods. But the errors are innocent of malice or misrepresentation; they represent, if anything, my reluctance to spend more time re-checking dates of publication—particularly when not even Churchill himself can be counted on to present the facts concerning those dates.




1. The confusion is at least partly due to conflicting understanding of "publication date." As rex, one of PB's readers, points out:

The vast majority of academic publications are published by small press operations running on extremely tight budgets. These budget considerations often lead to production and shipping delays with academic titles. While the publisher gives each publication it issues a publication date, that date may not coincide with the release date retailers use concerning the work’s initial availability to the consumer. Additionally there is a copyright date which is the date the work is listed by the United States Copyright Office. The copyright is held either by the publisher or author (sometimes through an LLC or other incorporated entity). The copyright date often precedes the publication date set by the publisher by a year. The publication date set by the publisher in turn may differ from the release date used by retailers (including e-retailers). This is quite common for those works with an end of year publication date (say Dec.) but a beginning of the year release date (say Jan.). So it is possible to have up to three different “dates” for a single academic work based on which date one is referring to: Copyright date, publication date (publisher), or release date (retailer). For academics, the standard is to cite the publisher’s publication date when listing a work on one’s c.vita. It is also a good idea to keep physical copies of the published work for future reference regarding the work’s publication history. Of course with re-issues, and later editions the problem of a work’s “date” becomes even more problematic.