More about Churchill at pirateballerina.com
|firstname.lastname@example.org||5/18/2005 10:55||video tape|
I'll keep this brief; I imagine you have plenty of email to wade through. One of my readers has noted that while your attorney says the video tape submitted with your response to the standing committee on research misconduct is of "an initiation ceremony," the Denver Post is saying it is a tape of UKB council meeting. I'm confused; were two tapes submitted? Is David Lane incorrect? Is the Denver Post?
One other thing: is there any possibility your response to the committee will be made public?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/18/2005 15:22||Re: video tape|
My attorney erred, about submitting the (1) tape. It is referenced in my
response, but was not submitted.
It is of the relevant Band Council meeting, start to finish.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/18/2005 15:23||Re: video tape|
Oops, sorry for forgetting to say, in response to your query, that, no, I'll
not be making it public at present.
|email@example.com||5/18/2005 15:55||Re: video tape|
for clearing that up, and for your speedy response. I had guessed that
Lane had erred (my second guess was that the Post's reporters had it
If I can ask another question (two-parter), I see that the UKB's current chief has rather vehemently repudiated your claim to associate membership to the band. Will this change the way you identify yourself at your various speaking engagements, and more importantly, how do you think this will affect your current situation vis-a-vis the misconduct committee and CU?
Again, thanks for your speedy response on both my earlier questions.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/19/2005 8:19||Re: video tape|
Actually, it could as easily have been Brennan as David Lane. I don't really
know which. Doesn't really matter in a certain sense. It was an error, not a
deliberate misrepresentation, in my estimation.
As to Wycliffe's denial -- he's really in no position to "repudiate" anything
on this score, having himself been a UKB member for only 3-4 years -- it's
flatly contradicted by the "smoking gun" of the tape, the on-record statements
of Chief John Ross in 1994 (AFTER my membership was supposedly "rescinded," I
might add), and on-record statements of persons on the Band membership
committee in February 2005 (the accuracy of which were reaffirmed to the press
as recently as yesterday, as I understand it).
There's a whiff of "fraud" in the air at the moment, but it ain't coming from
Look, the Keetoowahs are a sovereign people. As such, they have a right to
disenroll me or anyone else they want. What they do NOT have a right to do is
rewrite history, even as a means of trying to get out from under the weight of
reporters calling continuously -- as they have since January -- and/or the
orchestated e-mail onslaught to which they are currently being subjected
by "concerned" white folks.
I'd not really blame them for disenrolling me at this point, but, since they
never have, I remain an enrolled associate -- NOT "honorary" -- member.
The fact is that I'd have no hesitation at resigning my membership to spare
them the increasing heat they're taking -- all they ever had to do is ask,
which they haven't -- that and stop pretending that the opposite of everything
is true with respect to what my having been enrolled as an associate member
Bottom line with regard to how I identify myself is, yeah, this will change
it, but I can't say exactly how just yet. I am who I am, however, and that
I've located a bio (or excerpts from a bio) that appears to be one used to accompany your artwork. According to the source, the bio is 24 years old. The relevant portion of the bio follows:
Now, much has been made of records released that appear to show you were a truck driver in Vietnam, or perhaps a PR writer, etc.
One other fact: In his book Strong Hearts, Wounded Souls, Native American Veterans of the Vietnam War, Tom Holm quotes an anonymous "Creek/Cherokee veteran" who says remarkably similar things as you have said (e.g. the Jodi Rave interview).
My questions are:
1. Does the military service noted above appear on any biographies you've submitted along with your art--or for that matter, submitted anywhere?
2. Did you, in fact, serve with the 101st airborne, the 4th Infantry Division, and/or do service on Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols?
3. Are you, in fact, the "Creek/Cherokee veteran" Holm quotes in his book? (and yes, I'm aware that Holm himself is a "Creek/Cherokee veteran")
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/26/2005 9:03||Re: Vietnam|
All in due time, Jim.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||5/26/2005 18:00||Re: Vietnam|
I can appreciate that.
Just remember me when you do decide to talk about it.
|email@example.com||5/26/2005 19:04||A different subject|
By the way, you didn't happen to "ghostwrite" Jaimes' dissertation, did you?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/27/2005 5:37||Re: A different subject|
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/27/2005 5:42||Re: Vietnam|
But who, exactly, is it that I'm "remembering"?
You seem to know a lot about me, or think you do, but you're something of a
blank slate. Fill me in a bit.
Start with what you find relevant about yourself. I may have a couple of
resulting questions, but, then again, maybe not. We'll see.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||5/27/2005 5:50||Re: Vietnam|
can read all I care to say about myself in this interview: http://thedrunkablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/drunkablog-interview-pirate-ballerinas.html
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/27/2005 6:12||Re: Vietnam|
10-4. I'll have a look, but it'll be a couple of days before I get a chance.
|email@example.com||5/28/2005 12:20||Genealogist issues challenge|
[ courtesy www.pirateballerina.com]
Genealogist Issues Challenge to Ward Churchill
Our colleague Jack Ott, who we mentioned in an earlier post had posted a well-researched Ward Churchill genealogy, has sent us an intriguing response to some comments made on our geneology post):
So how 'bout it, Ward? Would you be willing to take a simple DNA test that could put to rest all the hubub about your heritage? PirateBallerina would even spring for the $219. Naturally, we'll need a volunteer from the medical profession to draw the sample to--you know--ensure the sample doesn't come accidentally from someone else.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/31/2005 14:23||Re: Genealogist issues challenge|
You're kidding, right?
If not, you're in genuine need of psychiatric assistance.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||5/31/2005 14:31||Re: Genealogist issues challenge|
I'm not kidding. Wouldn't the results of the DNA test--if in your
favor--put to rest a great deal of superfluous debate? Actually, even if
the results were not in your favor, they would still put to rest all this
distracting debate over your ancestry.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||5/31/2005 14:47||Re: Genealogist issues challenge|
Would it? How so?
|email@example.com||5/31/2005 15:08||Re: Genealogist issues challenge|
the test showed Native American heritage, I, for one, would consider that
the final word on the matter--regardless of the percentage. If it did not,
then, well, you'd have to agree that you don't have Native American
heritage. I suppose you could still self-identify as a Native American,
but I suspect it would be harder to get intellectuals to buy it. On the
other hand, I suspect intellectuals will buy anything. Wasn't it the
Amazing Kreskin who said "For the believer, no proof is necessary.
For the skeptic, no proof is possible."
On a personal note, I do confess to some confusion as to your motives for much of what you do. You're obviously bright and educated (whether self- or formally-), and I can't help but wonder what you think of the various anarchists, socialists, communists, and (here's that word again) "intellectuals" who have accepted everything you've said as gospel without bothering to check on the facts (I even felt a moment of sympathy for you when you were being interviewed by that cow-puppet in SF). Had I gotten the aforementioned groups to show their asses so blatantly, I believe I'd never stop laughing.
If you don't mind my asking, were you paid an honorarium by the Central Colorado Humanists for speaking in Salida today? I ask because even if they gave you their entire gate, I counted only 170 people there, which would mean a gross of $1700--less than half of what I've read you normally get for a speaking engagement.
Also, how would you rate the audience reception, as well as the Q&A period? It seemed to me that there were more people there eager to share their own private versions of the revolution and its root causes than those interested in either confronting you or supporting you (the student who "supports you, but didn't understand a word you were saying" notwithstanding).
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/6/2005 7:02||Re: Salida|
You were there?
Why didn't you come up and say hello before/after the talk?
Anyway, yeah, they paid me a pre-agreed honorarium, which I'd adjusted to
A note on my "normal" fee: It's been reported in the press with about the same
accuracy is everything else (I'm actually enjoying watching them parse my
footnotes, sometimes in the most tedious fashion, all the way back to my
college days, while they themselves can't even get little things like the
YEARS of my Vietnam service, hires in the state system, promotion to full
professor, etc., etc., correct; the chapter(s) dealing with press coverage in
the book I'll eventually release on all this has already started to shift from
a tone of ideological engagement to one of high comedy).
The "normal" fee is an institutional rate. Where community groups are
concerned, I adjust all over the place, depending on who they are, the nature
of the event, and so on, and so on, in combination with my own availability,
state of fatigue, etc.
It would be complicated to try laying it all out out in print, but it reduces
to this: I am my own product, and therefore do what/when I want. And that
includes doing what I consider political work for any rate I choose (including
Bottom line? Don't believe the press-fostered image of my incurring a vast
wealth as a result of speaking in a lot of venues. I do well enough that one
piece underwrites the other, with some to spare, but I ain't really in it for
the money. Never was.
Don't know whether I've clarified or further confused things for you.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/6/2005 7:13||Re: Salida|
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I concur with you that the self-
described "space cadet" was a sad (and all too representative) example.
But he was offset -- maybe more than -- by the high school girl who seemed
more on top of the substance than most of the adults in the room. She's the
As to the overall self-congratulatory tone of the crowd, yeah, and I said so
in radio interview right after the event (don't think that set too well, but
that's the way it goes).
Here's the bottom line on this one, though: public sentiment is WAY different
than the RMN -- and maybe you, too -- would have it. The more so at a really
grassroots level than among the "enlightened" sector of the mountain
communities assembled yesterday.
The response to me/what I say/do is not nearly as negative as the self-
styled "right" would have it, especially when people get a chance to see/hear
me say/do it.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/6/2005 7:21||Re: Salida|
for getting back to me. I fully intended to meet you in person, but a
head-on collision that clogged US 24 for six miles delayed my arrival, and
you disappeared at the end. I looked around outside, figuring you were out
there smoking and joking, but couldn't find you; instead I got grabbed by
a guy who is convinced you aren't railing against the right enemies. When
he started talking about Hegelian dialectic, I excused myself and fled.
I kind of figured that you hadn't received the same fee they're reporting. It makes sense to adjust your fee to the event. I never figured you were in it for the money, though I'm not sure what you are in it for, since "US off the planet" isn't going to happen anytime soon.
BTW: what were the years of your Vietnam service? I have 1966 to 1968, from the National Archives FOIA document circulating around the internet, I believe most other articles cite those same years. Was your term of service actually different? And more importantly, was your type of service different? A lot has been made of the light vehicle and projectionist training noted on that document; was your service actually something different?
|email@example.com||6/6/2005 7:34||Re: Salida|
agree. A kid like that can make you actually proud of your culture.
I hadn't expected the crowd to be in your corner, and I wasn't disappointed, but I also hadn't expected the few who stood and supported you (the long-haired Vet comes to mind). I've listened to enough of your speeches and interviews to know much of what you do is not unlike an extended Dennis Miller riff, and that at least some of the audience's response to you is in their self-congratulatory recognition of those references. That didn't play so well with Salida, where it seemed to me that many of your allusions met with silence borne of ignorance (not stupidity; the people who spoke--the space cadet notwithstanding--had good questions, though not particularly novel ones).
One question I wish you had answered more completely had to do with "collateral damage." If one should disdain the Pentagon's consideration of civilian deaths as "collateral damage" shouldn't that same disdain and approbation apply to the deaths of the dishwashers and floorsweepers who died on 9-11?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/6/2005 15:14||Re: Salida|
I was around at the sidem avoiding the Hegelian dialectic. In view of that, I
guess I can't blame you for fleeing.
On "US Off the Planet," yeah, but perhaps "soon" isn't the relevant framing. I
was always struck by Stokely's adage about being obliged to speak the truth,
even if you can't practice it. The object, always, is to make people look at
things in another way.
Anyhow, I'm most eager to hear what you're posing as an alternative (Go ahead
and pitch it. Who knows? You might just sell me.)
Nice try on coming through the side door on the military angle. Like I told
you last week, "in due time." Right now, with 5 RMN reporters working
my "file" full time, etc., I need wings to stay above the rather amazing
horseshit they're already shovling my way.
Believe it or not, the Vietnam stuff actually does have deep personal meaning
to me, and I'm not going to open it up to the same gaggle of nattering nabobs
of negativity -- to steal a line from Pat Buchanan via Spiro Agnew -- so ill
versed in military matters that they're unaware that NOBODY got "trained" as
a "jeep driver" (all you needed for that was a civilian driver's licence).
I was, however, trained as a projectionist. It took 2 afternoons, as I recall,
during the spring of 1967. It was done so that some of us could watch movies
at night -- cable TV and such not being an option in those days -- thus
alleviating a significant amount of boredom.
No, I was not in Vietnam when that happened, and no, I was never assigned as a
projectionist. Was never assigned as a jeep driver, either, for that matter
(which is not to say I never drove a jeep).
So, yes, my assignment was "different." Actually, "assignments were" would be
the more accurate way of putting it, given that I didn't do the same thing all
the way through (a lot of us didn't in those days, maybe still).
You are correct about my service dates running from 1966-1968. But that's NOT
the same as the dating of my Vietnam tour, which was Jan.-Nov. 68 (11 months
only; I ETSed in country and declined to extend).
Bottom line is that, contrary to the RMN on Saturday, I never set foot in
Southeast Asia in 1967, never said I did, and so far as I know there's not a
shred of paper suggesting anything other than 1968.(A clear case
of "journalistic fraud" and "fabrication of the facts," eh?)
Beyond that, I'm not going until I'm finished dealing with some of this other
When I'm ready, I'll fill you in. Meanwile, have another look at the FOIA
sheet and see if you don't catch something rather incongruous thereon (Hint:
they actually mentioned it in that first "bio-feature" on my run by the Post;
that was on Saturday -- on Sunday, the same piece ran, but that particular bit
of information had been deleted, and reporter's ever mentioned it again).
Shifting fronts before closing, who is this guy Jim Ott? He does really good
work (perhaps in spite of himself). He actually provided the last piece of a
puzzle concerning Joshua Tyner into place for me, and I'd like to home him in
on a couple of other mysteries, if you think he'd be game.
Let me know.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/6/2005 18:51||Re: Salida|
When I was a little kid and did something hurtful to others, my grampa would
sometimes say "Here, see how you like it," and do something similar to me. The
point being, if you don't want something done to you, don't do it to other
people. If you do, you've really no complaint when they respond in kind.
Collateral damage? The term is not only degrading, it's utterly dehumanizing.
AND it's been standard jargon at DoD press briefings "explaining" the mass
death of Others since at least as far back as 1990.
I've not detected a groundswell of public outrage about it, have you?
So I thought maybe the "public" might benefit from seeing how it felt to have
a few of its own discribed -- dismissed? -- in the same fashion.
I never figured they'd like it. But, again, that's exactly the point: Neither
does anyone else.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/6/2005 19:34||Re: Salida|
see your point. But is there no case wherein a war is justified despite
the accidental deaths of innocents?
|email@example.com||6/6/2005 19:57||Jack Ott|
heard back from Jack (not "Jim") Ott, the genealogist you were
interested in talking to. He's declining any correspondence with you. He
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/7/2005 7:37||Re: Jack Ott|
No, it wasn't.
And this isn't either, but it strikes me as peculiar that Ott isn't more
interested in Eliza Jane and what the "family feud" was about that resulted in
her/her daughter's death. Suppose he's afraid of what he'd find?
In any event, I'm interested in more recent stuff.
Who are the other genealogists?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/7/2005 7:45||Re: Salida|
Yeah, probably. But that would first of all presume that such deaths are
genuinely accidental. And you can't make a case for accidental deaths in a
context where the perpetrators are actually sitting down and computing the
anticipated extent of "collateral damage" resulting from their actions (as the
Pentagon does on a routine basis), much less studying ways/means of INCREASING
it a U.S. strategic bombing theorists did vis-a-vis Japan clear back in World
Then there was the matter of Hell Roarin' Jake Smith in the Philippines, eh?
The question is ultimately a mere abstraction, don't you think?
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/7/2005 9:01||Re: Salida|
Re: Jake Smith, et al
I think a scorched earth policy can have a legitimate purpose. For one thing, it's proven to be far more effective than trying "to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony." Your remarks in what everyone now calls "the infamous essay" capitalize on the guilt some feel for the inevitable results of enforcing national policy ( I won't go into how legitimate your numbers are; I've dealt with those already). I don't feel that guilt.
Re: Jack Ott, other genealogists
I should have said "genealogist (singular). He's a cop whose integrity I trust; we worked together on the first version of PB's genealogy, at which time we both agreed that it was possible that we might actually uncover Indian heritage for you--and we both also agreed that that was just as newsworthy--perhaps more so. If we had an agenda, we understood and agreed that the truth was more important. I say this so you understand that I trust this genealogist's integrity.
Re: Alternative to US off the planet
I don't have one, unless it is this: Move on. Nothing can repay the Native Americans who are dead thanks to governmental ignorance, fraud, deception, well-meant intentions that went horribly awry, and intentional belligerence. Reparations of any kind to the grandchildren of those dead Indians won't bring a single one of them back to life. Calling for the US out of North America is--if that is your honest goal--tilting at windmills and--if your goal is to capitalize on "white guilt"--eventually self-defeating. The gaggle of idiots you attracted during your SF visit should have convinced you of that.
|email@example.com||6/7/2005 9:51||Re: Salida|
I don't denigrate your Vietnam service, nor the epiphany you say you had
there. I am a Vietnam Era vet (US Navy; the closest I ever got to Vietnam
was on a destroyer 20 miles off the coast, plane-guarding for the USS
Enterprise). Anyone who put their life on the line for their country
(regardless of their doubts about the legitimacy of the risk), whether
drafted or volunteer, has my respect.
My question has always been the nature of your service, not the value of it.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/7/2005 11:42||Professor Saiko's defense|
I've found a posting on the internet of a new "update" letter from your wife to "friends and colleagues." I'm assuming it is, in fact, her update, but it is missing attachments the update mentions, and there are a couple of typos that lead me to believe it may have been re-typed rather than cut-and-pasted.
Is there any chance I might be able to get a full copy of that Update, including attachments?
BTW: She states your case better than you do.
|email@example.com||6/7/2005 12:41||Professor SaiTo's defense|
Sorry for the misspelling. It was most certainly not intentional.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/7/2005 15:27||Re: Professor Saiko's defense|
I'll ask her, by way of forwarding your e-mail.
You'll get no argument from me on the quality of her statements, although she
may disagree with the more subjective aspect of your assessment.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/7/2005 15:31||Re: Salida|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/7/2005 15:33||Re: Professor Saiko's defense|
I figured you'd agree with my assessment of the quality of her argument.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/7/2005 15:40||Re: Jack Ott|
One other point on this one: you're overlooking the fact that Richard's
paternity of Joshua is -- indeed, has always been -- in dispute.
Let me mull on the cop for a bit.
Any chance I could get a copy of the academic charges you filed with Lamar University against Brown?
And thanks again for forwarding my request to your wife for the email she sent out. She was kind enough to send it to me; I have the complete text with the accompanying attachments posted on PB.
|email@example.com||6/14/2005 14:03||Thanks, and new stuff|
Thanks again for forwarding my request to your wife for an "original" copy of the Update email she sent out.
On another subject: It appears you used your CU office (way back in 1986) as the CO-AIM office (my article on it is here). Any comments? Did you use your CU office to conduct CO-AIM business?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/14/2005 18:32||Re: Thanks, and new stuff|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/14/2005 19:24||Re: Thanks, and new stuff|
Guess I deserved that.
What do you think of DiStefano's addition of the RMN's allegations to the SCRM review?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/16/2005 17:54||Re: DiStefano|
Look up "trial by news media" under the heading "Trials" in Black's Law
Dictionary, and you'll see where this is headed. I mean, really. Wanting
to "get" me is one thing, sheer stupidity is another. And it won't take me 50
pages to rebut this tinker-toy nonsense.
I tend to prefer worthier opponents.
Now, for something a tad more interesting, assuming you're inclined to focus
on something besides -- or in addition to -- yours truly, for a bit. Concerns
my pals, Nightmare Campbell and Suzie Harjo, and the nature of
What say you, oh seeker of truth?
|email@example.com||6/16/2005 18:43||Re: DiStefano|
if I quote you on DiStefano?
As far as Campbell and Harjo are concerned, while I imagine their pedigrees might contain interesting and perhaps even embarrassing revelations, I have to decline for the moment; I was surprised and a bit dismayed at the amount of time I and others spent looking into your genealogy, and I don't see where I could find that kind of time to pursue two genealogies. Besides, I have no dog in that hunt. Your Indian blood or lack of it has always been a side issue for me, anyway; it was only important in its connection to CU's ill-conceived and foolishly administered hiring practices. I believe you called it "shooting from the hip"?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/17/2005 6:45||Re: DiStefano|
What is it you want to quote? My reference to "stupidity," my preference
for "worthier opponents," the new allegations being of the "tinker toy"
variety, or all three?
Whatever. If I said it, you can quote it, unless I specifically declare
something to be off-record. Fair enough?
As concerns time expenditures vis-a-vis Campbell and Harjo, yeah, I can
appreciate the problem. These are rather easier cases than my own, however,
and you won't end up making their case for them, as y'all in substantial part
did for me.
E.g., how did Campbell end up being "3/8 blood quantum," as was stated in the
RMN last week, when 5 years ago his office staff was stating that he "didn't
know" his quantum? Bit of a problem, wouldn't you say, since he was already
enrolled at North Cheyenne, which requires verification of a minimum 1/4
quantum for enrollment? The more so, since it says in Viola's authorized
biography that he traces his "Cheyenne" lineage to a baby girl who may -- or
may not -- have survived Sand Creek?
No deep searching required here, Jim.
On Harjo, either.
Bottom line: Aren't you casting your net a little narrowly here? And aren't
you a little concerned -- in terms of integrity -- about the credibility of
some of the sources you're relying on (don't even get me started on the
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/17/2005 7:36||Re: DiStefano|
for the quote.
On Campbell and Harjo, really, I'm not disputing what you say, since I know virtually nothing about their "pedigrees." You may very well have something; I'd even consider hosting a website wherein said pedigrees could be vetted I'd start out with a list you provided. But PB is very specific in its purpose, and getting distracted from that purpose, while entertaining, would be counter-productive.
Even should you "leave CU to seek other opportunities" PB will continue to look closely only at other state-supported academics"...Jihad Jane" comes to mind. btw: if you can name a rightwing example of state-paid academia showing his/her ass (as "Jihad Jane" is doing), I'd be happy to add that academic to my list, and to start looking at them now.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/17/2005 10:23||Re: DiStefano|
Okay. I get the drift. And I might even sign on to some extent.
At the moment, you've left me feeling really uninformed, however. Who the hell
is "Jihad Jane"???
Meanwhile, here's a news flash you can feed into your collective calculator: I
was actually considering retirement before y'all commenced your own "jihad"
(yeah, to avail myself of "other opportunities," none of which I really have
to "seek"). But there's no way I'd even think about leaving under pressure,
especially the kind of horsepoop that's at issue now.
If you actually wanted me to leave, you've played it exactly backwards. The
best way to keep me in place in Boulder is to do what you're -- or, more
accurately, the News, Clear Channel, Bill Owens, the BoR and DeiStefano are --
That's what I meant about "stupidity."
I've sort of set you/PB to the side on that, partly because I've sensed you
had bigger fish to fry -- hence, my fishing on Campbell and Harjo -- and that
it probably served your purpose for me to be in the picture (just wasn't sure
how). Now I get it.
Thanks for clarifying.
|email@example.com||6/17/2005 10:43||Re: DiStefano|
PB's link from April 27 to a story on her:
OT: Tenured professor 'Jihad Jane' getting some unwelcome attention
and our link to another story on her April 4:
Mike Adams at Frontpagemag takes a look at North Carolina's own troublesome professor: "Jihad Jane"
Quite frankly, she makes you look like a Rotarian.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/17/2005 16:45||Re: DiStefano|
A Rotarian, eh? I'm gonna have to try harder.
Thanks for the links.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/17/2005 16:51||Re: DiStefano|
Is this for real? Or just the usual Frontpagemag spew (they did a piece on me
a while back that had the most basic facts wrong)?
In any event, no contest. I'll stick with the Rotarians on this round.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/17/2005 17:05||Re: DiStefano|
you haven't already visited her website, here's a link:
Top of the page is a photo purporting to be her among her cohorts. Can't tell if it is her, though, since they're all wearing ski masks (and totin' guns; it's what all well-dressed college professors are wearing this year. Ahem.).
She is a parody of a caricature of joke.
I'm looking forward to eating her lunch.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/17/2005 21:00||Re: DiStefano|
Holy moly, Batman.
Holocaust denial? Since when was that a leftie pastime? Sounds more like a
rewrapped nazi to me, but, hey, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
(And, yeah, I just plagiarized Dennis Miller (so sue me)).
Think I'll stick with my own crowd, thanks.
Shifting gears, though: You suddenly develop some sort of aversion to guns?
And there I was, thinking you might just be some sort of libertarian. Silly me.
|email@example.com||6/17/2005 21:10||Re: DiStefano|
to guns? Ha. Love of guns and smoking (though not necessarily
simultaneously) are (so far) the only two things you and I agree on.
If I'd been able to catch you in Salida, I planned to offer you a cigar. Me, I smoke 3-4 a day. They beat the hell out of coughing up a lung every morning from cigarettes, which I used to do. You should think about switching. Clear your lungs, and change your image from chain-smoking lunatic to cigar-smoking power-broker. Look what it's done for Fidel. Hollywood blows him regularly.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/18/2005 6:28||Re: DiStefano|
Methinks it likely that we agree on a few other things as well (you just don't
know it yet). As to those we don't, well...
You seem like a bright enough guy, despite your occasional efforts to
incarnate some weird combination of Leonid Breznev and Bomber Harris, so I
figure you can still catch up.
With regard to cigars, yeah, I like them just fine. Were we free enough that I
could smoke Cubans at the rate they're enjoyed by Castro, I might actually
make the switch.
Or not: I'd probably be cast more along the lines of Al Capone than Fidel (in
Besides, my "image as a chain-smoking lunatic" has served me pretty well thus
far. Wanna play Kissinger to my Nixon? Or would it be better to just stick to
the standard Bogart routine?
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/18/2005 9:07||Re: DiStefano|
it a fundamental contempt for the type of person who responds favorably to
your words that makes you so casual in your treatment of historical facts?
Naturally, I favor the contempt explanation, since I feel that same
Your pattern of misdirections, fabrications, and outright lies is too broad and obvious and endemic for me to mistake it for sloppiness or self-delusion. I think everyone has made that mistake--I know I did, initially. But after reading much of what you've written, and after listening to your pep-talks to the pitiful idiots who attend your speeches and hang on every other word, I'm convinced there is some other agenda at work. I have my theories, but none of them fully satisfy the facts I know to-date; perhaps I'll learn either new facts, or new theories, and the pieces will all fall into place.
An aside: You really are a honeypot for the denizens of the fringe. Watching Emma Perez defend you is similar in effect to listening to a streetwalker defend Heidi Fleiss. "Queer Ethnic Studies" indeed.
I'm not a big enough fan of realpolitick to relate to Kissinger; I favor using whatever force is necessary to advance national interest (there's something else upon which I believe we agree). Roosevelt (the first one, not his Babbitt cousin) had the right idea; the only way to deal with the world is to have a bigger stick. As with the only appropriate response to rudeness--more rudeness--violence in answer to violence is invariably the most expedient and productive response. In any case, I prefer the image of a Javert to a Kissinger. A conceit, perhaps, but it suits me.
Conceits aside, I'll continue to play my chosen role in this game--and game I am convinced it is. I initially believed that your professional future was at stake, that this was serious and grave and deserving of cautious deliberation. I think both of us know that your future financial security is assured regardless of the outcome; oh, you'll remain odious to those opposed to you, but you'll also remain irresistible (an "attractive nuisance" I think the lawyers call it) to the chickenhats, the Perezes, and the Mayers--and you'll never miss a meal.
BTW: If Cuba were free enough to encourage an end to the US embargo, I'd smoke cuban cigars, too. Until then, dominicans are a suitable substitute.
Also BTW: You make the same (willful, I believe) misinterpretation of my Capone analogy as "Kern" (ahem) made. I very obviously meant to show with the analogy that catching someone "stealing office supplies" might not be as glamorous as a "Top o'the world, Ma!" climax, but it results in the same denouement. At least in my movie.
One other thing: I think The RMN's hammering of possible "factual errors" in your intro to Leah Kelly's posthumously published book is beneath them, and vastly inappropriate. Perhaps there are factual errors, but your intro does not pretend to be a scholarly work--and the RMN should have considered it off-limits. (Yes, I know, I've provided links on PB to the RMN articles about it. I consider the RMN's coverage of the story to be news. That may be too subtle a distinction, but it's enough to unburden my conscience .)
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/19/2005 7:21||Re: DiStefano|
Do I detect ire?
Stand down, swabbie. It's never going to fit the sort of simplistic script you
keep trying to impose. And the Breznev line was supposed to provoke inquiry,
In any event, assuming you're mean Fort Clark and the Allotment Act stuff when
you refer to "fabrications," you need to be aware that I'm actually correct on
both and am currently working up essays demonstrating that.
I'll leave "misdirection" as a matter of perception -- you want specific
results, which I don't believe obtain, based on specific information, which
I'm either unprepared to provide at this juncture (or which doesn't exist) and
yes, I've been playing a game with you as a result (thought it was both
mutual, and mutually enjoyable) -- but you'll need to provide me an example of
what you're terming an "outright lie."
We can either engage in banter, or not. Your call.
As to the RMN and the slime about Leah, I do appreciate your statement. It
seems to me that you err in only respect in your assessment: Nothing
is "beneath" them. The only constraints they observe, collectively, devolve
upon their desire to foster the illusion that they're something they aren't.
I had the impression that you were/are different in that regard. Hence, my
will willingness to engage you, at least to some extent (something denied the
Denver press corps at this point, pretty much across the board).
Final tip for the day, pal: Don't be confusing apples and oranges on a regular
basis. Fair enough?
PS: Hondurans ain't bad, but no replacement for Habanas, and you know it.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/19/2005 7:25||Re: DiStefano|
Oops. Rereading your second paragraph, I think I may have initially misread
your missive to some extent (as occasionally happens when I'm still on my
first cup of coffee).
Okay. Think Abbie Hoffman.
|email@example.com||6/19/2005 8:35||Re: DiStefano|
not at all. I should have made a prefatory statement so you'd not
interpret my first 'graph that way, which I see now could be seen as curt
The Breznev reference I attributed to prankish obfuscation and so ignored it. The Kissinger/Nixon reference was more interesting.
Speaking of references, I'm missing your point. Abbie Hoffman used clever, outrageous stunts to draw attention to his cause (whether he was right or wrong is of course debatable). If you have done similar "stunts" I'm afraid I'm missing the joke. While I doubt Hoffman had better material to work with during his protests, I see nothing in the chickenhats to indicate they'd be capable of understanding, let alone committing, a Hoffman-like event. As useful idiots, they're somewhat useless. In any case, I don't see the comparison. Perhaps I'm being precipitous; maybe you just haven't delivered the punchline yet.
"Outright lies..." The "500,000 dead Iraqi kids" comes to mind, although you may be innocent of actually lying, but only of accepting bad data as true. Your representation of the Dawes Act as establishing a "blood quantum" is a more clear example. Mo-Nah-Se-Tah's teeth, again, is--if not an outright lie--then at least a disingenuous mischaracterization that you knew would resonate with your audience. Your contradictory statements about what you did in Vietnam. Since I don't know what you did there, I have to look at the evidence I do have, and that evidence says you couldn't have been all those things--one of them must be a lie--but which one? I will admit that you've not been foolish enough to oblige your detractors with an obvious "smoking gun." You have, on the other hand and over the years, left a trail of contradictory statements that, when taken as a whole, argue against the occasional lapse in scholarship but rather point to a concerted, conscious effort to mislead.
Perhaps I've made a mistake in theorizing that you might have some unrevealed purpose for what you've been doing all these years. Could it be that you are exactly what one sees, and nothing more?
OT: I've heard that your father was also a teacher or professor. I haven't seen this in any news reports--is it true? If so, what did he teach?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/19/2005 17:31||Re: DiStefano|
You'll have to do better. 565,000 needless child deaths in Iraq by 1996 was as
I recall, UN data, acknowledged as being "worth the price" by Madeline
Albright on 60 Minutes. That's a matter of record on both counts.
You are, of course, free to dispute the accuracy of the data, but to call it
a "lie" on my part would be saying a lot more about your veracity than mine.
Same with the Allotment Act stuff. There's a reason why no native scholar --
indeed, no legal scholar other than Carole Goldberg -- has sided with LaVelle
on that steaming pile of crap (or hadn't you noticed?).
Maybe you'd better go back and take another run though LaVelle's piece, Jim;
particularly the part where he forecloses upon anyone interpreting the Act via
subsequent legislation or judicial opinion, even as he himself interprets it
via subsequent legislation (assuming the CFR can be properly described as
Goldberg is even worse, citing late 20th century Supreme Court doctrine as if
it illuminated late 19th century policy. Naughty-naughty.
I'll 'fess up to gladhanding the annotation on this one, mainly because I --
along with a lot of other folks, apparently -- stole a chop from Jefferson by
considering this particular truth to be "self-evident."
Wrong call. Mea culpa.
But, like I told you earlier, I'm fixin' to bury LaVelle in his own bullshit.
And, if you genuinely think I won't, you're lying not to me, but to yourself.
As to Monaseetah's teeth, get a grip. It was the owner of Rickenbacker's, not
me, who posted the little sign explaining that the teeth were those
of "Custer's squaw." You have someone besides Monaseetah in mind who'd fit the
description? If so, I'm all ears (or -- ahem -- eyes, as the case may be).
Or, if you want to call him a liar, have at it. That might even be accurate.
Meanwhile, check the tapes of my SF talks, or the ones at Claremont and
Monterrey Bay, for that matter. I said straight up that I had no idea whether
the teeth were actually hers, but that the mere fact that the guy at
Rickenbacker's thought it cool to claim they were -- and that his clientele
felt comfortable in the environment thus created -- said all that needed
saying about their mentality as far as I'm concerned.
I'll stand by that, and if you have a problem with it, maybe we better call it
a day, 'cause you ain't who I thought you might be.
Shifting to safer terrain: Breznev was actually in ways the more interesting
point, but you seem to have missed it. Understandable, given that it, as well
as the reference to Harris, dated back to comments you made a few e-mails
earlier. I should've been clearer.
Now, to the Abbie connection. Again, you'll have to do better. Yeah, his dada
schtick was brilliant and often effective, but you seem to have ignored, or
been unaware of, the other facets of his political inventory (which were
ascendant, often as not).
On the other hand -- and I'm deeply wounded by this -- you seem to have
completely overlooked such things as my having managed to be the only person
ever officially declared a "venerated object" by the Denver Police (Russell
Means was criminally charged with "desecrating" me in 1989; true story).
Instead of taking things so freaking literally, try reframing them in terms of
theater. Maybe then you'll see the connection(s) you're missing. But only if
you wrap your mind around the fact that theater is neither a "game" nor the
whole show (either for Hoffman or for me).
The relevant questions go to audience and objective, and these bear upon the
agenda you sense is there, but haven't quite figured out. That's only because
you keep insisting on viewing things from the wrong angle (not quite
backwards, but almost).
Am I what people see? Good question, the answer to which depends on who's
looking and, more importantly, what they're looking for.
There. You just got a glimpse of my ass.
That's more than enough.
How are you on muscle cars? Street racer, were you (once upon a time)?
And you never responded to the query on libertarianism.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||6/20/2005 11:25||Re: DiStefano|
Perhaps you're right; maybe I'm not who you think I might be.
I suspect this may mark the end of our (more amusing for you than useful to me) correspondence. If so, I can't imagine what I can glean in understanding from your side of the conversation; I am satisfied that I have revealed as little of myself.
In any case, in regard to your last email, I'm ignoring your consistent misinterpretation or misapprehension of my statements. You can stir that shit 'til it wears out the spoon, but it gets your case nowhere. I lost my patience for that sort of Monty Python tail-chasing back in college, and my attitude hasn't improved in the meantime.
I couldn't care less about NASCAR or muscle cars; they're so far off my radar I can't even begin to imagine what significance you think they might hold.
I'll turn Libertarian when the LP removes its head from its ass on any number of subjects, not a moment sooner.
In your mention of Breznev, I hear the whistle of moral equivalency blowing somewhere down around the bend. If you have a different reason for bringing up his name, spell it out. Same for Abbie Hoffman; I can think of nothing drearier than dredging through his various works to find whatever you think might pertain. No, wait, yes I can: Reading Pacifism As Pathology a second time.
BTW: I haven't seen the newspaper articles for the 1990 event, but unless you yourself were the "Columbus statue" how does that make you the "venerated object" upon which Russell Means poured the fake blood?
And you didn't answer my question: Was your real father a teacher or professor? If so, what did he teach?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||6/20/2005 17:38||Re: DiStefano|
10-4 and adios. It's been real.
|email@example.com||7/1/2005 21:51||Colorado professor spoofs detractors|
Results 1 - 10 of about 32 for Colorado-professor-spoofs-detractors. (0.02 seconds)
Colorado professor spoofs detractors
Charlotte Observer, NC - 42 minutes ago
BOULDER, Colo. - In a swipe at his critics, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said Friday he has filed a formal complaint against ...
Colorado professor spoofs detractors
Duluth News Tribune, MN - 52 minutes ago
BOULDER, Colo. - In a swipe at his critics, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said Friday he has filed a formal complaint against ...
Colorado professor spoofs detractors
San Jose Mercury News, CA - 57 minutes ago
BOULDER, Colo. - In a swipe at his critics, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said Friday he has filed a formal complaint against ...
Colorado professor spoofs detractors
philly.com, PA - 57 minutes ago
BOULDER, Colo. - In a swipe at his critics, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said Friday he has filed a formal complaint against ...
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||7/2/2005 7:26||Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors|
BTW, if you'd given some thought to my question about muscle cars, you
might've had a better handle on the matter of traction this week. Maybe you
need to expand your horizons a bit?
Just a thought.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||7/2/2005 8:12||Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors|
This has gone from outrage to anger to bemusement to satire to farce to
burlesque--without a single stop at reality.
Sorry, that muscle car reference was way too allusive for me; I'm dense that way. If this is all political theater, then It's too much Fellini and not enough special effects for me.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||7/3/2005 8:19||Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors|
Care to fill me in on what, exactly, THAT's supposed to be? I'm sure you've
got a unique handle on it, given your devotion to special effects and
dedication to the habitation of cyberspace.
Perhaps you were referring to some "virtual" form of reality?
|email@example.com||7/3/2005 8:32||Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors|
Interesting choice of subject.
In any case, what's with the love affair the Maoist International Movement has with you? Shouldn't they be re-educating enemies of the people and writing more plays for the next Cultural Revolution?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||7/4/2005 7:19||Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors|
Fascinating, ain't it?
I haven't a clue as to why they've chosen this particular version of the Long
March but, hey, you've gotta give 'em high marks for persistence.
The more interesting thing, for me at least, is the recent upsurge in
supportive intervention coming from the right (the real right, that is, not
the canned variety of know-nothing "patriots" whose 1-line e-mails you guys
keep unleashing on me (maybe that's a little unfair... "generating" is
probabbly more accurate)).
Seems to be a hub of of right-wingers for Churchill sentiment in New Mexico;
whether they're in any sense organized, I can't say, but it makes for some
interesting reading and the occasional good point.
BTW, I'm thinking of having that "Worst Professor in America" title bestowed
upon me by the Weakly Standard converted into an actual award so that I can
claim it as vita fodder. Being labled thus by the neo-cons is, after all,
quite an honor in its way...
|firstname.lastname@example.org||7/4/2005 9:06||Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors|
is truly fascinating, as a case study in self-delusion. But it's hardly
unique in that regard.
You've got me on the right-wing support in New Mexico; I can find no instance of it on the internet, which is too bad, since I'd be interested in seeing it and reporting on it. I'd especially like to see a right-wing argument in your favor. I don't think it would make any more sense than the MIM folks, but I've been surprised before.
I doubt I get as many as you do, but don't think the one-line-email folks are only targeting you; you'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of wild theories and accusations I get almost daily (from the Right and the Left--neither extreme has exclusivity on emptyheadedness). Unlike you, who can ignore the blather, I have to track down each of these to make sure they don't contain even a germ of truth--which they invariably don't. What people are willing to believe without a shred of evidence is truly amazing. Ah well, enough self-pity.
Having long ago considered transferring to San Diego State just to get their "underwater basket-weaving" course on my transcript (I eventually decided to forego the move), I can appreciate the value of "Worst Professor in America" on your CV, though I have to say in an actual competition Jihad Jane would easily win on points. Still, there is a certain cache to being considered the worst professor in America, and not merely one of the worst. I'd be pleased to publish news of the addition.
BTW: I see this whole thing turning into a story about CU's egregiously retarded policies (and its continued defense of same) rather than about you. For me, that's a good thing, but for you...?
|email@example.com||7/8/2005 7:37||London bombings|
Everybody's already convinced of what you will say about the London bombings, and are already editorializing on your imagined remarks.
What is your take on the bombings?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||7/11/2005 15:59||Re: London bombings|
Frankly, I'm rather enjoying all the editorializing about what the
PirateBallerina demographic imagines I'd have said, had I said anything.
At this point, my very silence apparently speaks volumes in some circles.
So I think I'll just smile, sit back and smoke a cigar -- a Churchill, of
course, from Habana -- instead of composing a statement of any sort.
BTW, the flow of e-mail has abated a lot over the last month. So, if you get a
chance, please tell your guys to step it up a bit.
We're assembling a book composed of about 500 such missives. I've got roughly
4,000 to work with, which is plenty, but can always use a few more choice
selections to cap things off.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||8/16/2005 13:58||class schedule...?|
I understand you're only teaching one class, American Holocaust (ETHNO 3100-800) this fall, and that the class is a seminar, with attendance requiring your approval given to each student after a personal interview. Also, I've heard that you'll be taking a sabbatical in the Spring. Is any of this true? If so, which parts? and of any of this is not true, which parts?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/17/2005 9:23||Re: class schedule...?|
No "news" with regard to my fall schedule, I'm afraid, although I was unaware
that the Regents were unaware of my upcoming sabbatical, which was approved in
writing at the college level last fall -- late November, as I recall,
although I've not yet bothered to pull the letter from my files -- and duly
scheduled in the departmental teaching rotation for the past 6 months or more.
The sabbatical approval itself obviously predates "the controversy" by at
least 60 days, so there's no connection between one and the other.
Bad day for news on the Churchill front, I guess.
Well, maybe one glimmer: It appears that the Regents are as mystified as I am
about why they've never received the relevant forms for sign-off (even Tom
Lucero has indicated -- or so I'm told -- that there's no reason it wouldn't
have been approved, had it been put before them).
As of last night, Pauline Hale was professing to be unable to clarify why the
paperwork was not sent up in a timely fashion.
At the very least, you appear to have been catalyzed the clearing some sort of
bureaucratic log-jam for me (I've no reason at this point to believe it's
Thanks for the assist.
By way of reciprocation, I will explain the fall stuff to you, if you want.
But, I promise that you'll be just as bored as I am with the details (worse,
they will, if anything, put me in a pretty good light).
|email@example.com||8/17/2005 9:30||Re: class schedule...?|
for getting back to me. Yes, please explain the fall stuff.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/17/2005 19:41||Re: class schedule...?|
I taught 300% overloads the entire time I was chair -- a chair is contracted
to teach 1 course per semester; I taught 3 per -- with the result that I have
I'm simply withdrawing one this fall (another way of looking at it is that
I've already taught the 2nd course I'd ordinarily teach).
Told you it would be boring.
Unless, of course, you want to get into all the revenue I generated over the
past 3 years by teaching large course sections for which I've yet to be
compensated in any way at all.
Funny thing: I never got so much as a thank you from the guv or "the
taxpayers" on that one, although it seems to me to have been a fairly
significant fiscal contribution.
Other possible questions:
Why is my course for fall capped at such a low number? Because it's a seminar.
They're small by definition. Actually, my cap is high; the average is more
like 15 and I'm admitting 20 (assuming there are enough qualified applicants).
Why the controlled admission? Again, standard stuff. The "interview" is so I
can assess whether they're qualified, i.e., whether their already sufficiently
grounded in the subject matter to engage in advanced discussion/analysis of it
(that's the purpose of upper division seminars, after all).
That do it?
|firstname.lastname@example.org||8/18/2005 12:19||Re: class schedule...?|
One of PB's readers has raised some questions about your explanation of the capped seminar....
"A couple of points regarding Ward Churchill’s explanation regarding his “interviewing” of students. All course sections have a “cap”. The “cap” refers to the capacity of the section, the maximum number of students who can take a particular section of a given course. The cap has no relation to whether a student is “qualified” or not to take the course. The “Cap” number is the reason students at nearly every college and university scramble to register for their classes on the first day of registration every semester so they do not find a course they need for graduation or a popular elective closed to them. Secondly, the course Ward Churchill is teaching is a “Seminar” course not a RESEARCH SEMINAR nor a SELECTED READINGS course. Any requirements for such a junior-level seminar are pre-requisites courses and can be checked administratively without an “interview” by the section instructor. There is absolutely NO reason for Ward Churchill to be interviewing students in order for them to take this course. Professors are not allowed to add their own requirements for taking a course. Pre-requisites must be listed in the course catalog."
Any comments? Is he incorrect?
BTW: Thanks for getting back to me earlier. Anytime I can scoop the Post I'm happy (even if the "scoop" was merely a product of the Post's press schedule).
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/18/2005 16:05||Re: class schedule...?|
Your reader's simply wrong, Jim.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/18/2005 16:24||Re: class schedule...?|
BTW, both you and the Post scooped the RMN, which pleases me no end. So now
we're both happy, eh?
|email@example.com||8/19/2005 14:34||sabbatical on hold?|
What's with this?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/22/2005 10:11||Re: sabbatical on hold?|
Beats me. I really did think it had been approved all the way up the line,
since I'd never heard a word to the contrary (which ain't all that unusual,
unless there's a glitch).
Facts are these: I was notified in writing that I'd been approved at the
college level back in October 2004 (my recall was November), and have never
heard another word -- not one -- since. This, despite the fact that course
scheduling, etc., for spring 2006, proceeded in a normal fashion at the
departmental level, and I reminded the dean of that fact in June.
As I told you, my first inclination was to view what was going on as just the
usual bureaucratic SNAFU.
It's become plain over the past few days that there's more to it than that,
At the very least, Susan Avery, Phil DiStefano and a few others now owe
everybody -- not just me, but "the taxpayers" (who, after all, are ultimately
liable) -- how it is that they somehow "forgot" to notify me or anybody else
(apparently) that they were "delaying" anything.
The best you can say, is that it is an example of utterly irresponsible
As for the worst...
I'm gonna hold that for a bit, given the distinct possibility that there'll be
federal court action on this one -- actually a couple of matters -- unless
they want to change their position rather rickety-tick.
Either way, you've got a field to run in. Have fun (and be assurred that, in
terms of having anything concrete from me to report, you just scooped the RMN
|firstname.lastname@example.org||8/23/2005 8:44||the news....|
Excellent spin on the inquiry subcommittee story. If this was Lane's doing, you're not paying him enough.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/23/2005 9:25||Re: the news....|
The best things in life are free, buddy.
|email@example.com||8/25/2005 12:20||Re: the news....|
Any chance I could get a copy of the inquiry subcommittee's letter to you, along with your comments re: same? I would not, of course, publish, share, or release any part of the letter without your approval (or SRCM's public release of the letter).
I have to say that the dropping of the "ethnic fraud" allegations were a win-win for you and CU, since CU would have been hard-pressed to prove you knew you had no Indian blood, and your detractors are now deprived of one of the most emotionally-charged, if not the most career-threatening, accusations.
BTW: How's your seminar shaping up, student-body wise?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 14:54||Re: the news....|
Can't do the documents.
Can, however, tip you off to the fact that there's an odds-on possibility that
at least one more allegation will never make it to the investigation stage. It
shouldn't, since there's no way of sustaining it, but we'll see.
Meanwhile, were you aware that Kevin Flynn, no less, is trying to take credit
for the ethnic fraud allegation being dropped. Got an e-mail from him to that
effect -- which I'll be happy to forward -- a couple days ago.
What a giggle.
Actually, he, like Jack Ott, did provide me some rather useful information (I
mean, really, I'd never spoken with my 5th-cousins-thrice-removed). And he
produced a veritable textbook illustration of how seasoned reporters go about
manipulating information in order to create the appearance the opposite of
And all he did, once his piece is peeled of subterfuge, is confirm rather
conclusively that I am in fact of Cherokee descent.
I'm in the process of taking his "expose" apart, point by point -- showing
what he highlighted, what he suppressed, and why -- right down to his
culminating lie about "white Tyners versus the Cherokee Tiners" (with which,
all he managed to do was piss off a bunch of the latter; look at the Dawes
Roll and you'll immediately see why).
It's fun, and I've already got a publisher lined up. You'll be free to post it
on PirateBallerina once it's appeared in print, however (I suspect you might
have a slightly different readership).
Okay. Enough prattle. I'm not sure I understand you question about the seminar.
You looking for a demographic break-out, or what?
Clarify, and I'll try to provide.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||8/25/2005 15:07||Re: the news....|
to see the Flynn email. And likewise any real proof that you have Indian
heritage, as well as Flynn's spin on your genealogy. As I told my fellow
researchers (pre-Flynn) when we were exploring your family tree, we had to
be prepared to publish that you were, in fact, of Indian heritage. I'm
still prepared for that eventuality, however remote it seems to me now.
I'd like to know more about the allegation you think will be dropped. Which one would that be? And why would it be dropped? And more importantly (to me) can I publish the information as "from an anonymous source"?
On your seminar, I was just curious as to your impression of the type of students you got applying for the seminar. Any shills, plants, etc? Or just the usual percentage of boneheads, idiots and hangers-on, with maybe one intelligent student to make it seem worthwhile.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 16:02||Fwd: RE: Committee question|
----- Forwarded message from "Flynn, Kevin" <email@example.com> ----
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:56:50 -0600
From: "Flynn, Kevin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reply-To: "Flynn, Kevin" <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: Committee question
To: "'Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu'" <Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu>
You do realize that by my finding distant relatives of yours -- ones that
you didn't know you had and who weren't aware of their connection to you --
who had also been told about the Joshua Tyner myth and had good-faith belief
in it regardless of lack of evidence, my story established that there was
little likelihood of the standing committee being able to make a case that
you had knowingly misrepresented yourself as an Indian for purposes of
enhancing the acceptance of your work?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu [mailto:Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 7:19 PM
> To: Flynn, Kevin
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Committee question
> During a speech delivered UC Boulder's Glenn Miller Ballroom
> on Feb. 9, 2005,
> Ward Churchill stated that "A bunch of white punk journalists
> in the Denver
> press corps have NOTHING to say about whether or not I'm an
> American Indian."
> Get the message now?
> Quoting "Flynn, Kevin" <email@example.com>:
> > Ward,
> > My editor tells me that David Lane was on the radio this
> afternoon saying
> > the committee investigating you has decided to drop the
> claim related to
> > using ethnic heritage claims to bolster your scholarship
> acceptance, but to
> > continue with the other issues.
> > Can you comment on this for me? I am filling in today for
> Charlie, who is
> > off on something else.
> > Kevin Flynn
----- End forwarded message -----
|firstname.lastname@example.org||8/25/2005 16:20||Re: Fwd: RE: Committee question|
have to admit Flynn makes a long stretch of the facts to--what appears to
me--get into your good graces. He piss you off or something? I mean more
than the RMN has done generally...?
Frankly there was always "little likelihood" of making the case you knowingly misrepresented yourself as an Indian.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 17:51||Re: the news....|
Let's start with what y'all acknowledge as being "evidence," Jim.
A family's history and resulting conception of itself is in fact evidence,
although it may not add up to conclusive "proof." In my case, it comes pretty
close, however, given that those Flynn calls the "Cherokee Tiners" -- despite
the fact that the undisputed Cherokee quoted in his article spells his name
TYNER (as do almost all of them) -- believe the same thing we "white Tyners"
Against that body of oral (i.e., traditional indigenous) history, which Flynn
routinely disparages as "myth" and "legend," he posits a demand for
documentary (i.e., euroderivative) evidence, as if it were inherently more
Typical honkey ploy, all in all.
Seems to me that you and your colleagues share Flynn's rather glaring bias in
this regard, BUT...
What he's done that you guys haven't is play sly little games with the paper
itself, e.g.: Flynn's bald assertion that Reubin Tiner's name does not appear
on the 1817 Cherokee Emigration Roll (with the attendant implication that I
lied when I said it was).
Well, have a look at p. 15 of Jack Baker's easily accessible Cherokee
Emigration Rolls, 1817-1835. If that's not Reubin's name, 2nd from the top,
I'll confess to the Kennedy assassination. While you're at it, see the index
at p. 65 for rather conclusive evidence that, contra Flynn, Reubin also
spelled his name "Tyner."
Suppose that's why, on the Dawes Roll, there are 3 people listed as "Tiners"
and 85 listed as "Tyners"?
Am I to believe that Flynn never looked at something as basic as the Dawes
Roll in the course of doing all that detailed research?
Yeah. Me too.
That's why I'm more inclined to believe he was lying through his teeth, for
effect, when he set forth his little "Cherokee Tiners versus white Tyners"
How 'bout you?
Okay. Let's run the record in reverse for a moment. Flynn makes much of Joshua
Tyner being listed as "White" on his pension records. He carefully neglects to
mention, however, that his last name is spelled "Tiner" therein.
Let me give you one for PirateBallerina. Flynn asserts categorically that
Joshua and Reubin Tyner were not first cousins. Jack Ott, on the other hand,
notes -- correctly -- that several reached an opposite conclusion.
That may not be "proof" as you guys deploy the term, but it's
certainly "evidence," and Ott had the integrity to acknowledge it as such.
Not so, Flynn, who, if I understood him correctly, was in possession of Ott's
material. That being true, it seems fair to say that he rather flagrantly
misrepresented what he downloaded from PirateBallerina.
It is, of course, possible that Reubin and Joshua weren't as closely related
as others have concluded they were, but Flynn has by no means "proven" it.
I've got LOTS more, but that should be more than enough to give you the drift.
Like I said, you can have the whole thing, once it's been published in the
appropriately scholarly journal that's already spoken for it.
True confession time: I'm gleeful. Flynn's performance was EXACTLY what I was
trying to goad one or more of these clowns into doing when, back on February
8, I announced to that crowd in the ballroom that "white punk journalists in
the Denver press corps have nothing to say about whether or not I'm an
It's racism 101: Tell a white racist that s/he won't be permitted to impose
his or her definition on you, and s/he will be helpless as a fly drawn to
manure: s/he'll just HAVE to try. That's how white supremacism works, and why
racism itself is clinically defined in part as being a "neurotic-compulsive
I'm truly having fun at this point.
One last bit. I don't care a whit whether I've proven -- or ever prove -- the
obvious to you. The truth, Jim, is that the burden of proof ain't on me, no
matter how hard you try to place it there.
It's on you to prove I'm not who I say I am. And the fact is that you can't,
as I knew all along you couldn't. Why (or how)? Because I am.
(Not trying to goad you into anything with that, so don't take it that way. At
this point I'm simply stating what I see -- and have always seen -- as the
facts of the matter. Put another way: My grandmother was neither a liar nor
deluded, and t`212hat's bedrock truth).
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 18:03||Re: the news....|
Anonymous source says: "[deleted by JP]."
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 18:10||Re: the news....|
Actually -- and this is an honest assessment, albeit tentative (I've only
had 'em for one afternoon, fer chrissake!) -- the intellectual quality seems
to be higher than usual. We'll see.
Hangers-on? Only two possible (one probable). No shills that I'm aware of. One
possible plant, but, hey, so long as he can actually do the work, I don't mind
at all. 10-4?
|email@example.com||8/25/2005 18:16||Re: the news....|
If there is a plant, it's not one of my sources--unfortunately--although
they may just not have let me know about it yet.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||8/25/2005 18:18||Re: the news....|
have the Blankenship Cherokee Roots rather than the Jack Baker
list, but "Ruebin Tiner" appears in Blankenship's book, as
well--as an emigre of Arkansas, not Tennessee, as you told Jodi Rave. And
am I to understand that you misspoke when you told Rave about a
"Joshua Tyner"? As far as I can remember, we all (though I don't
speak for Flynn) looked for Joshua, not Ruebin.
And honkey ploy or no, proof is proof. And not to defend Flynn, but oral tradition is very often misleading, and contradictory, albeit earnestly believed. In any case, I've come to the conclusion that you almost certainly are being truthful when you say you've always thought of yourself as having Indian blood. My grandmother told me the same thing. I chose to think of it as a mildly interesting possibility, while it appears to have defined your life. Your possession of --or lack of--Indian blood only becomes important (to me, anyway) when it appears to have gotten you preferential employment consideration from a publicly-supported institution. And my argument is against the institutional policies that allowed that to happen, not you. I have no complaint about racial self-identification, just it's EEOP implementations.
|email@example.com||8/25/2005 18:21||Re: the news....|
deleted "anonymous quote" is p]robably
a good assessment of the allegation, but this quote is opinion. Any
evidence exist that the allegation will be dropped because of this
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 18:26||Re: Fwd: RE: Committee question|
Especially since the weight of evidence indicates that I am.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 18:30||Re: the news....|
None that I can provide. None of it's hard in any event, and, like I said
earlier, it's by no means a sure thing; just an odds-on possibilty.
No problem if you don't want to use the quote.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||8/25/2005 18:41||Re: the news....|
I'm gonna pass on this one. If you had a reason (beyond deduction) to
believe the allegation(s) will be dropped, it'd be different.
You going to refute Flynn in Counterpunch, or on zmag?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 19:04||Re: the news....|
Yeah, it's Joshua Tyner I'm decended from.
Reubin came up because I said I was related to -- not descended from -- him.
Reubin emigrated TO Arkansas from North Carolina (at least that's where he was
raised and signed the 1817 Roll), not Tennessee. Don't think he arrived until
Joshua went to southern Illinois from Tennessee in 1817, if memory serves;
Rave seems to have confused the year I said he did so with the year I said he
died (1838), but perhaps it was me who misspoke. My recall ain't perfect.
In any event, he spent the last years of his life in a Shawnee town -- a fair
number of Cherokees lived there, too -- along the Big Muddy River. Word is
that he was buried in a traditional rock cairn.
Flynn consigns that to the realm of "legend" as well. But then, he can't point
to Joshua's "actual" grave or explain why he's not buried alongside his wife,
As to oral history, yeah, it's imperfect, but hardly less so than your the
documents you so strongly prefer.
As "proof," let's get together some time and I'll introduce you to a young and
rather obviously black woman whose birth certificate was filled in at birth
indicating her race as "White." This was in 1980, not 1780.
"Proof being proof," as you put it, I guess you'll be stuck with "knowing"
she's "really" white, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.
Kind of awkward, doncha think?
As for me -- and on this I know I can speak for her as well -- there's no need
to have documentary evidence of the obvious. She's black, and thus she will be
recorded in our family's oral history.
Now, tell me, Jim, and tell me with a straight face, that all those documents
saying "White" really signify a pure-blooded white man (or woman).
Context counts, pal.
BTW: I'm not really taking this all that personally. Just enjoying the
exchange (Flynn's another matter altogether, and your read of what he was
doing is... well, beneath you).
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 19:10||Re: the news....|
You want a giggle?
I told 'em ALL to feel free to serve as sources for you, since I consider
PirateBallerina to be the most credible news source in the Denver area.
I swear I'm not making it up.
Don't let it go too far to your head, however. Like I said in an earlier e-
mail, "context is important."
|email@example.com||8/25/2005 19:26||Re: the news....|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||8/25/2005 19:27||Re: the news....|
don't recall who said it, but someone defined "black race" as
possessing skin pigment ranging from light-pink to dark near-black. That
person provided the identical definition for "white race."
You're barking up the wrong tree on racial purity. Call it a particularly
devious honky ploy, but I couldn't care less about someone's race--I
dislike most people regardles of race, creed or national origin. I
certainly don't care what race you or anyone else claims--as long as
claiming that race doesn't give you or anyone else a claim to my wallet.
My tolerance and your rights end there.
And I'll agree that paper records can be almost as misleading as oral history. That's why I haven't been thumping the tub on the subject; once I found no recorded Indian ancestors in your family tree, I lost interest, knowing that children often only resemble one of their married parents, and often it's not the one who gave them their surname. So that's a dead issue with me, though I understand that it's a bit more personal for you.
To be honest, I hedged on Flynn because I haven't read his later stuff thoroughly. What I did read seemed to reiterate what I've already discovered, so I skimmed the rest. I'll remedy that oversight tomorrow. I do recall a vague feeling of uneasiness while reading one of his pieces, but I don't recall what instigated that unease. I'll keep you posted, and if I find inconsistencies or what it was that gave me the uneasy feeling, I'll let you know.
In the meantime, I'm looking forward to reading your refutation, and picking it apart if I can.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 19:50||Re: the news....|
Neither (although some of it's covered in a Counterpunch interview in process
I wasn't kidding about it appearing in a scholarly journal.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||8/25/2005 20:00||Re: the news....|
Well, Jim, let's just say she ain't exactly "light pink."
10-4 on the rest.
Any indication of what you'll be speaking on at Shoreline CC? The usual, or is there a special topic? And why Shoreline?
And how's the seminar going? And any news on that refutation of Brown you said was going to be published....?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||9/7/2005 13:52||Re: Shoreline....|
Shoreline? Because they asked. I've inquired as to whether they've any special
focus in mind. As yet, no response on that score.
As to the Brown piece, yeah: It's due in January -- academic publishing is a
tad slower process that blogging, y'know -- and should be out this time next
year. Ditto the stuff on LaVelle.
I'll be using drafts of both, however, per chance either of those items ends up
being subject to SCRM investigation (as I expect -- indeed, hope -- they will).
Interested in a copy of the letter officially deep-sixing the last round of
allegations forwarded by DiStefano to SCRM (it's the Kelly family stuff,
engineered by that great and objective "journalist," Charlie Brennan)?
|email@example.com||9/7/2005 14:12||Re: Shoreline....|
Thanks for the update. And of course, I'd certainly like to see the letter
BTW: Have to say that you scored another win with this recent dropping of the "factual error" stuff in the Kelly book intro. Don't know why DiStefano forwarded those allegations to SCRM in the first place; seems as though he doesn't know what SCRM stands for.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||9/8/2005 10:58||Re: Shoreline....|
Gimme a fax # and I'll send the letter. Also a complete summary of all my FCQ
scores, semester by semester, back as far as 1988 (it arrived via campus mail
yesterday, for reasons unbeknownst to me).
Agreed on the "win," although I suspect you'll concur with my view that I
should never have had an opportunity to register it (meaning, the allegations
should never have been forwarded; which, in turn, means that our views on
DiStefano are quite similar).
A more important win, I think, will be found in the much diluted nature of the
remaining allegations, as reported out by the subcommittee (e.g., we're
talking about adherence to conventions of citation at this point -- assuming
the investigation goes forward -- rather than "plagiarism" and the like).
They're definitely lowering the bar on what they have to "prove" in any given
instance, but, by the same token, they're lowering the level of penalty they
can reasonably impose on the basis of an adverse finding in that same
Not to worry, however. I'm not inclined to "plea bargain" for a slap on the
wrist. I've said all along that I'd stand on the quality of my scholarship,
and I will.
PS: Forgot to respond yesterday to your query regarding my seminar. Hard to
answer, given that I keep picking up students: 1 of the Tulane kids (who seems
very good) and 2 PhD students from UCD (both Indians)as of yesterday.
I's hoped to hold at 15, but am now at 19, including the newbies. That should
be it, but we'll see; some of the New Orleans refugees are still in-processing.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||9/8/2005 12:24||Re: Shoreline....|
I take it this is the letter Brennan and Herdy are both saying Lane won't release....?
BTW: You expect to have more than one Tulane student in your seminar? And is the Tulane student you have now a "refugee" from Katrina? And when you say "UCD" you mean UC Davis? or what...?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||9/8/2005 13:00||Re: Shoreline....|
Not sure which letter David's talking about (there are several).
In any event, nothing will ever be released to Brennan -- or anyone else from
the RMN -- by anyone on my team (the same will apply to news sources who I
find have shared material with them... hint, hint).
The RMN is of course free to file an Open Records Act request for any document
I choose to release to another news source, or to quote whatever the other
source says about what I've released.
On the other matter: I've presently accepted one student from Tulane, and yes,
of course, he's a "refugee." Whether there end up being another 1 or 2 remains
to be seen (as in, I don't know yet, one way or the other; will know by next
UCD is University of Colorado at Denver.
|email@example.com||9/8/2005 13:08||Re: Shoreline....|
for the info. Let me know when you've faxed the letter & other info,
and I'll go pick it up.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||9/8/2005 13:11||Re: Shoreline....|
I haven't shared material with Brennan, as yet, though I have worked with
Kevin Flynn on the genealogical stuff, as you already know. In any case,
should I infer that you are only providing me with a copy of this letter
as "background" and that it cannot be published?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||9/8/2005 17:48||Re: Shoreline....|
Correct (re: the letter being background).
You're free, however, to post the FCQ summary, if you like.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||9/8/2005 18:01||Re: Shoreline....|
My fax machine tells me that all 6 pages, including cover sheet (which reads
simply "Jim Paine") have gone through. Sorry for the delay, but collect at
|email@example.com||10/3/2005 7:05||Re: Shoreline....|
I've heard a rumor that you're not going to be around for Denver's Columbus Day festivities, but rather, will be visiting with (of all people) Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Any truth to this rumor?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||10/4/2005 14:11||Re: Shoreline....|
Where did you get that?
And why "of all people"? Makes more sense than my meeting with Elliot Abrams
again, wouldn't you say? (Missed that one, didn't you?)
In any event, while I'll not deny that there's a basis to the rumor, I can
neither confirm nor deny the timing.
PS: Student evaluations of my famous 2005 Maymester class -- you know, the one
where I actually gave people a chance to read something before we "discussed"
it -- are finally in. A+ course rating; A+ instructor rating. Want a copy of
the summary sheet to complete your collection? (you did ultimately get the
fax, didn't you?)
|firstname.lastname@example.org||10/4/2005 14:17||Re: Shoreline....|
I got the fax. I'll have to check on Abrams... I certainly missed it.
An article in The American Thinker this morning (by Jonathan Cohen, a professor of mathematics at DePaul) contained a number of questions you might be able to answer. Obviously, some of the questions are better put to DePaul administrators (which I will do), but could you answer those you can?
1. Why was Churchill invited?
2. Why was the Human Rights Workshop open only to Cultural Center-funded student groups?
3. Why shouldn’t the College Republicans be resentful of the fact that they have been effectively excluded from being funded by the Cultural Center?
4. Why was no media allowed to attend Churchill’s talk?
5. Why were no recording devices allowed in the room?
6. Who is funding this event?
7. How much was the speaker paid?
8. Why should the students at DePaul who are white have their tuition dollars used to pay to have a demagogue like Ward Churchill incite hostility towards them simply because they are white.
9. Why are students being given extra credit for attending?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||10/27/2005 13:09||Re: DePaul....|
Well now, there then, you're right -- as in "correct," not politically (I'm
still convinced you're a closet leftie) -- there's almost nothing on the list
that I'm in much of a position to answer.
As a newly-minted Republican myself -- that's right, I've decided that the
Grand Old Party could do with a little truth in advertising about itself, and
have already announced my joining up to provide whatever assistance I can
along those lines -- I'll take a stab at the one about my younger colleagues,
The Young Republics SHOULD feel resentful about not being funded -- as
a "cultural group," no less -- by those typically much less affluent and
emphatically more marginalized than themselves. After all, that's what makes
As to who underwrote my fee -- which,I'll have to admit, while hefty enough by
any reasonable standard, didn't quite measure up to that by such really
discrimated-against Republican types as Ann Coulter (of course, I've not yet
figured out the secret of how she manages to deliver a glazed glare out both
sides of her head at once while delivering lines about what a blessing it was
for humanity that Chivington and friends exterminated all the barriers to
civilization littering up the Colorado landscape a while back, so I guess I've
got a way to go before I deserve to be on her pay scale, eh?).
As to who underwrote my tab, I've really got no idea, other that it had
nothing to do with tuition. I was told simply that it was money dedicated to
that purpose by an "anonymous private donor."
Scuttlebutt has it, however, that it was actually a fat cat Republican alumnus
of DePaul who hoped to drum up an "issue" that stood to give his guys on
campus could focus on and thus piggy-back a bit of visibility for themselves.
Combine that with there being a rightwing faculty member at DePaul in rather
desperate need of being able to claim he'd actually published something -- you
know, "scholarly production," and all that -- and the fact that The American
Thinker had been so remiss as to have not yet dedicated a piece to me...
Well, you see his point. A lot of birds with one check, doncha think?
Recording? Not my call. But, then, it was a genuine pleasure to see that
younger folk still possess the rudimentary skills necessary to take notes
rather than merely push a button.
I did a sort of informal evaluation while I was speaking and -- guess what? --
the blond kid who is was told heads up the YR was far and away the most
proficient -- or at least the most frenetic -- of the lot.
That's about it.
My back channels tell me, however, that i
|email@example.com||11/2/2005 13:02||Committee named.....|
You have got to be kvelling over the make-up of the final investigating committee.
Any specific comments about the individual members, or general comments about the committee itself?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/2/2005 14:36||Re: Committee named.....|
You're kidding, right?
|firstname.lastname@example.org||11/2/2005 14:40||Re: Committee named.....|
guess I was. Certainly didn't expect any specific comments on the
committee. Still, if you don't ask, it's an automatic no. I've been
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/2/2005 17:39||Re: Committee named.....|
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/3/2005 16:59||Re: Committee named.....|
Thought you were big on getting your facts straight.
I just stumbled across your "chronology" of my life. Talk about off-base. The
number/extent/type of inaccuracy -- really basic stuff, nothing contentious --
would be embarrassing for a cub reporter (or even Charlie Brennan).
|email@example.com||11/3/2005 17:02||Re: Committee named.....|
to enlighten? That was all taken from either jpegs of resumes or other
websites I trusted. I'd be more than happy to get the facts straight.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/3/2005 17:59||Re: Committee named.....|
Well, we could start with your peculiar idea that EOP was part of the Boulder
School District. That's what I mean about basic.
Just read your "history" of me, and am still giggling. Let me pose the reason -
- or one of them --as a riddle. How, exactly, is it that even such an
admittedly flash cat as myself could be attending Sangamon State University in
central Illinois AND holding down a job with the South Dakota State Police,
both at the same time (i.e., 1973-75)???
Let me give you a little hint: I never worked for the Rapid City PD, either
(what I DID do was teach a Saturday morning extension course in art history
for Black Hills State College which was attended by a bunch of cops trying to
finish their degrees so they could get promoted).
The nature of the last pair of inaccuracies reveals your source to an absolute
certainty. And I have to admit to being a tad surpised.
I never took you for an idiot -- quite the contrary -- but "trusting" a
Bellecourt-sponsored website for anything at all, much less information about
me, IS idiotic (how come you didn't add the parts about my being a "former
Green Beret," a "former member of Army counterintelligence," a "CIA deep-cover
operative," an "FBI infiltrator," a "SWAT team trainer," a "member of the Ku
Klux Klan," and "a supporter of the contras in Nigeria [sic] during the mid-
80s? They've said all that as well).
I must say that, in view of the sources upon which you plainly rely (at least
occasionally), you must have a genuine pair of brass balls to waxed so
pontifical about mine. Eh?
You got the part about the shot fired by Mark Clark wrong as well.
Oh hell, there's a BUNCH of stuff.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||11/3/2005 18:04||Re: Committee named.....|
like I'll have to re-check my sources. BTW: what odds are you giving that
by this time next week the Five Stooges will be intact?
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/3/2005 19:54||Re: Committee named.....|
Aside from the Big Three at Clear Channel -- Caplis, Silverman and Boyles --
do you mean Gunny Bob and John Caldera? Now THERE'S a "balanced" crew.
Sorry, Jim, but "get Churchill" ain't gonna make it as the qualification for
being on the panel.
You might just have to be content with a few folks who actually know what
they're taling about. Horrifying thought, ain't it?
|email@example.com||11/6/2005 13:54||Re: Committee named.....|
I just heard your talk at the University of Winnipeg Friday was cancelled. Any truth to that? And if so, any idea why it was cancelled?
BTW: I don't think Brer Johansen is destined for a long career on the Investigating Committee.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/6/2005 16:20||Re: Committee named.....|
Any objections if I publish your bio and "chronology" of me as examples of the
sort of "accuracy" some of the more sanctimonious critics of my work are
capable of producing?
Figured I'd add it in with that interesting little "quote" in American Thinker
and a couple of other such things.
Re, Johansen: I couldn't invent better ammo for a suit than y'all are
providing. Please do keep it up.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||11/6/2005 17:14||Re: Committee named.....|
a share of royalties, I'd consider it.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/6/2005 18:42||Re: Committee named.....|
Done (although I was just being polite; methinks your hangin' it out there on
PB put it in the public domain. What say you?).
Actually, I kinda figured you'd refuse to stand on the quality of your work,
what with that statement about your "sources" being other blogs -- albeit,
ones you "trust" -- an' all.
I mean, this is near-perfect stuff, James, especially when juxtaposed to the
piety larding your commentary on MY sources (yes, yes, I'll need to use your
piece "debunking" my scholarship as well as the other two).
Oi vey, as they say, I truly AM kvelling now!
So much so that I'm not even sure how to go about properly expressing my
At the very least, when at last we meet, I owe you a really good cigar -- in
addition to your now expanded cut of the royalties, of course -- and perhaps a
snifter of top shelf cognac.
You da MAN, baby...
|email@example.com||11/6/2005 19:19||Re: Committee named.....|
the risk of being misquoted, I'll point out the one fallacy in your plan:
I'm not an academic. Okay, I'll point to another: I correct my errors when
I learn I'm in error. How long do you plan to beat the "500,000 dead
Iraqi children" drum?
Quite frankly, I'm kinda disappointed that you can be fisked with little more than a laptop and Google. Speaks reams about the sophistication of your scholarship, wouldn't you say?
In any case, I stand by my research (you may have already noticed that I have put your "Personal History" back online, with very minor changes), as long as any caveats I have posted along with it are understood. And "public domain" is a foggy area when applied to the internet; might be interesting to see what the courts make of it. As for PirateBallarina, its copyright notice has been and is posted on the main page. It's written in clear, unequivocal language. If you see any loopholes in it, I'd naturally be happy to hear about them.
BTW: You never answered my question about the Winnipeg engagement. Was it cancelled, and if so, why? Not like you owe me or anything, but I am curious.
One other thing: Ever checked out the Try-Works blog? You have me.... and it turns out I have Try-Works. Their opinion of me makes my opinion of you seem positively brotherly.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/7/2005 9:06||Re: Committee named.....|
You mean you DON'T view me with brotherly affection, my brother?
Care to enlighten us to what you'd consider to be the proper characterization
of your feelings in that regard?
BTW: The link you sent doesn't link. There I was, all trusting and avid to see
it, and all it did was crash my computer. Had to run an 8-hour virus scan
before sending this e-mail.
In any event, yeas, I forgot to mention Winnipeg. Twas indeed "cancelled" at
the last minute, per unilateral intervention of the v.p. for something-or-
other, who'd been buttonholed by a little delegation led by my former sister
in law. So I guess you could say the reason comes down to a family dispute
fueld by Charlie Brennan (kudos to Chuck, I guess).
I don't want you to worry, though. I've already banked the check. Actually,
I've banked the checks on every cancellation thus far, the last two being the
ones from Hamilton (remember them?) and Eastern Washington.
I'm thinking of running copies of Hamilton's "stop payment" in juxtaposition
to the one paying me the full rate as a magazine cover. Full color, and with
credit given to the many e-mailers who made it possible. I could run the EW
check as an interior illustration.
And, of course, there now being a bunch of seriously pissed off people in
Winnipeg as the result of what's happened, I'll end up speaking there anyway
(soon enough, but not till after doing the magazine interiew the "incident"
I could get used to this business of administrators/rightwingers/assorted bats
ensuring that I get paid not to speak -- I really do detest airports/planes --
and simultaneously solidifying my support base.
Gonna have to hold on responding to your interesting little premise about
being qualified to deliver substantive critiques of scholarship but
simultaneously so lacking in scholarly qualifications as to be exempt from
same (I think you see where that one leads, however).
Ditto the copyright stuff (which is actually interesting).
Meanwhile, off to Seattle.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||11/7/2005 9:17||Re: Committee named.....|
don't traffick in viruses. the link was http://tryworks.blogspot.com/
Just type it in rather than click on the link. Don't know why your comp crashed, but I've checked the email I sent you, and it had nothing attached, and the link to try-works is simply that--a link. In any case, the link was provided for your amusement, nothing of great import. Sorry it seems to have caused computer problems.
Thanks for the clarification on the Winnipeg cancellation. I'll update my rather sketchy report on it.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/10/2005 14:07||Re: Committee named.....|
Alright, I'm back, I've typed in the address, read the screed, and am more
than slightly pissed that you'd have the audacity to try to pass off that crap
about my being "Mordock" (or whatever the moniker at issue).
I was prepared to accept your claim that you don't traffic in viruses -- even
if you can't spell it -- but far better you do that than resort to petty
insults. Let's get a couple of things straight right now:
1. I don't hide behind pseudonyms. I own my positions, straight up, and am
damn sure more than willing to put my name to anything I have to say about you.
2. Were I to be contributing to/running a blog, it would by no means be as
cordial and reserved in characterizing you/your cohorts as the tryworks crew
has been thus far.
3. I don't contribute to blogs in any direct sense -- unless CounterPunch and
Dissident Voice qualify as such (and then only by way of my ongoing interview
with Joshua Frank) -- much less run one.
Now, on another front. I'd appreciate your sending me the link to whatever
report was posted by your guy -- SF, served in III Corps -- in attendance at
Olympia. I bothered to tape the session, so I can fact check whatever it is he
says I said in response to his query on who I served with in Vietnam (and I'm
by no means ruling out the prospect of his/your being accurate).
Relatedly, since you were reported in the Colorado Daily today as being only
51, I've got to pose the obvious query: is this correct? (I'm bearing in mind
that it might very well not be; AP had me as being only 53 last week).
If so, however, there's a couple more even more obvious questions: 1) What
boat was it you said you were on? and 2) Which years were you aboard when it
was patroling off the Indochina coast?
I'll get back to you on the academic stuff.
|email@example.com||11/10/2005 14:50||Re: Committee named.....|
I figured there couldn't be two people who despised me and the RMN,
et al, that much. Sorry to find that I was wrong.
I'm unclear about who you mean when you say "my guy--SF, served in III Corps". I have no "guys" in Olympia or otherwise. Here are the links to the two independent blogs (both of which I was blissfully unaware until yesterday) that have reported on the Shoreline talk. You'll note that on PB I do not quote the blog that "promises tape" because the raw "paraphrased" quotes they have from you seem sadly lacking in context--and I don't want to repeat American Thinker's foolish error. I'll just wait for the audio tape to be posted, and then (sigh) listen to yet another of your speeches. Can't wait to learn if Leonard Peltier is still in a cage.
In any case, the blogs are:
catchy name, eh?
I just checked, and that second link no longer works, but "the bosun" cross-posted his report here:
Hope that answers your request. Rather than embed the links I've just cut & pasted them from PB so you can hack them in rather than risk trafficking in viruses.
BTW: any comment on Professor Johansen's departure from the Investigating Committee?
Speaking of quid pro quo, I'll be happy to share stories of my navy days when you give me the full story on your Vietnam service.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/10/2005 20:00||Re: Committee named.....|
Is your age also classified data?
|firstname.lastname@example.org||11/10/2005 21:07||Re: Committee named.....|
born in 1953.
And you're right about reporters not being the most dependable as far as facts are concerned. The Colorado Daily quoted me more or less okay, but the article was pretty much a rough draft of a first draft of an article; I almost prefer it had been a hatchet job. Instead, it was a limp washrag of an article. Had a reporter brought such an article to me as their editor, I would have sent them back to rewrite it. Ah well. Fame ain't all it's cracked up to be.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/10/2005 22:20||Re: Committee named.....|
As to the "paleoconservative" cretin you linked me to, my advice is that you
wait until one of two things happens: 1) He sends you his bootleg tape, or 2)
he learns to spell "Hegel" (damn, it's a hoot being critiqued by the quasi-
Actually, this guy is just dim, rather than outright fraudulent like the
clowns in the American Clinker (I mean, taking two seperate quotes, fusing
parts of each into one, and adding a nonexistent word which reverses the
meaning of all three isn't something that happens "inadvertantly").
The present doofus has some vague conception of what he heard -- other than
the bit about Christianity; I'm not at all sure what he's on about there --
but it's a long way from being quotes (or even adequate representations of
what I actually said).
BTW: Nobody was "frisked" at the door.
And the beanie in Olympia wasn't your guy, eh? I'll be damned (again). But
maybe his cordial little exchange with me was sincere, after all. Anyhow, now
he -- and everybody there -- knows more about how I spent my time in Nam than
you, so maybe he/they will start a blog.
On that topic, no soap on your military info exchange proposition. I've
already given you rather more than vice versa. Even the score, and maybe I'll
hand you some more, but not before. (Sorry, it's the Bonnie Parker in me).
Finally, sorry, old sport, but you don't get to have it both ways. Your self-
description as not being an academic, while accurate enough in its own right,
doesn't accomplish the desired result. Any time you presume to advance
yourself as being qualified to critique scholarship -- as you have with mine --
you automatically open your own work up to being assessed by the same
Didn't that occur to you?
And, with the two pieces I've indicated, your material doesn't even meet
minimal journalistic standards of accuracy, never mind the scholarly variety.
I'd come to expect so much more from you that I was truly disappointed.
Another hint: maybe I'll have my foster daughter explain a few more of the
things -- apart from her having been killed at some unspecified point in time -
- that you were a tad bit off about.
Ah, yes (this really IS the last thing), please do provide me a link to a
credible source discrediting the estimate of Iraqi child fatalities. I've had
other right-wingers say that, but, as yet, none of them have been able to
point me to a source. I'm assuming you can.
Who knows? Maybe when I see whatever your basing your own view on, I'll change
my own. Stranger things have happened.
|email@example.com||11/10/2005 22:53||Re: Committee named.....|
late to respond at length, so I'll just point you at the 500,000 link
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/11/2005 17:39||Re: Committee named.....|
First of all, thanks for the link. I'll follow up with some of the items your
guy is citing.
Second of all, however, THIS is your big deal? That "only" 350,000 kids under
5 are likely to have died in the described manner by the end of 2001 rather
Kind of like arguing that the Holocaust wasn't such a big deal because only 5
million Jews were exterminated rather than 6, doncha think?
Fact is, Jim, apart from tweaking the numbers a bit, the link does far more to
support my argument than to discredit it. But, then, you're "not an academic,"
so I guess you missed that part, eh?
I'll walk you through it, if you like.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||11/11/2005 17:49||Re: Committee named.....|
like I made a mistake thinking a factual evisceration of a Big Lie would
sway you. Imagine my chagrin when I discover you've refashioned those
facts into a paper hat.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/12/2005 10:17||Re: Committee named.....|
In what sense? The number is right there (attributed to the updated 1999
study/report your boy describes as "much more credible" than the earlier
stuff), along with the observation that the systematic bombing of water
purification, sewage treatment and other such facilities, etc., during the
1st "war" had to be factored in along with the sanctions themselves in order
to account for the deaths, and that the rate of child deaths fell off
appreciably once the sanctions regime was eased in 1997 (that is, after
None of this is inconsistent with what I've been arguing all along (see
esp. "To Judge Them by the Standards of Their Time" in PERVERSIONS OF JUSTICE).
But, I'll play: What is it you're hanging your hat on, James? Enlighten me.
And, just for fun, does your guy's bedrock "more than 100,000" deaths
(whatever that's supposed to mean) -- posited in his final paragraph -- make
all this okay in your mind?
If so, my characterization of your attitude as being analogous to that of a
neonazi Holocaust denier -- or Jihad Jane, for that matter -- stands
confirmed. Even your boy describes the numbers, whichever set you prefer, as
reflecting a major human rights catastrophe (or words to that effect).
|email@example.com||11/12/2005 18:03||Re: Committee named.....|
Keep hammering that half-a-million dead Iraqi kids nail. It just occurred
to me that convincing you of the error of your ways is not my job, so you
can write/say Jim Paine capitulated and gave up.
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/13/2005 9:49||Re: Committee named.....|
I can write and say, quite accurately, that Jim Paine has, as always, dodged
the issue altogether. Or, alternately, that he's playing a neonazi -- oops, I
meant to say neoCON (as in con man) -- denier's numbers game with the reality.
Best of all, I've got the whole string of e-mails we've exchanged to punctuate
the point(s). They should fit in rather well with a few of your earlier
comments, all of which I've saved.
One last time: Wanna take a stab at actually addressing the questions posed
for a change?
"Jim Paine in His Own Words" will be forthcoming either way.
|firstname.lastname@example.org||11/13/2005 9:53||Re: Committee named.....|
|Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu||11/13/2005 10:36||Re: Committee named.....|
will do, good buddy.