Is Ward Churchill really an Indian?

First of all, look at him. 100% western european people with long hair don't look like that.

You know how radical groups often splinter?
And, there has been this long conflict between the Russell Means/Ward Churchill/Glenn Morris group of AIM, and the Vernon/Clyde Bellecourt group who are associated with Indian Country today.
In this article, they are saying that the Bellecourts are 1/16 indian and also tha they did bad things like drug sales and being aware of who killed some people in the Lakota area, and the Bellecourts have been criticizing the other side for racial purity too. It's kind of dumb. I took an indian art course from a euro-american lady. Nobody ever makes me present my pedigree.

This explains a lot here- and is more verifiable and footnoted
http://www.coloradoaim.org/why.html
"He's not Indian!"

The substantial effort to discredit Churchill' Native American identity buys into several of the dominant culture's racist assumptions and policies, ironically on the part of those who least stand to be served well by them. As in the attempts to link him to mainstream, right-wing or governmental agencies or organizations, the effort to destroy his credibility by playing the red race card is not only in itself racist but based on lies. The leader of the pack in this connection has always been Tim Giago, a notoriously anti-AIM South Dakota publisher who made his mark as chief propagandist and apologist for the lethally repressive COINTELPRO-supported Dickie Wilson régime on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the 70s.39 As early as 1988, trying to counter Churchill's exposés of what transpired on Pine Ridge during the 70s, Giago used his Republican-backed newspaper Lakota Times (now Indian Country Today), to announce that Churchill was an "ethnic fraud" and "impostor" who "changes his tribal identity like some people change socks."40

In point of fact, there are five criteria by which native people are normally identified in the US-self-identification, genealogy, tribal enrollment, blood quantum and community recognition.41 Churchill qualifies by all five standards. Let's start with self-identification and genealogy. Contrary to Tim Giago's claim that Churchill has identified himself as being of different peoples at different times, the record is absolutely clear that he has always identified as Cherokee (his mother's lineage). The first conclusive evidence of this dates from a 1970 article on the Alcatraz occupation.42 By 1975, having met his father for the first and only time in the interim, he added Creek, as in the identification he gave for an art show he mounted at the Sioux Indian Museum that year.43 Thereafter, he added Métis -meaning one of mixed ancestry and culture - to accomplish what he called "truth in advertising."44 From 1979 onward, his self-descriptor was always "Creek/Cherokee Métis," nothing else. Churchill has publicly challenged Giago to produce evidence of any other self-identification.45 Giago has not responded.

Meanwhile, Paul DeMain has repeatedly printed that his "investigations" (what these are is never made clear) into Churchill's genealogy reveal that because Churchill is not of American Indian descent, he "hides" his family history. Churchill responds that his family is as entitled to privacy as anyone else's: "I don't accept that these guys have any prerogative to hassle my 90-year-old grandmother, or my mother for that matter, and I don't recognize their right to inspect these personal records any more than I would if they demanded my credit history or medical file." Moreover, he has already published the relevant general information.46 According to AIM leader Russell Means, a long-term friend with whom Churchill once shared his family documents, "Not only does Ward have Indian ancestry, he has more proof of it than I do."47

As to community recognition, Churchill has been active in several. In Boulder, where he has lived the last twenty years, Churchill's record speaks for itself. He was hired as an Indian by the 'committee of the Boulder Valley School District's Title-IV Indian Education Project in 1977. He was hired as an Indian by the all-native staff of the American Indian Educational Opportunity Program at the University of Colorado Boulder campus in 1978.48 "He has always been accepted as an Indian by the Indians in this town," says Norbert S. Hill, Jr., an Oneida and former director of the Educational Opportunity Program, now head of the Boulder-based American Indian Science and Engineering Society. Hill cites that Churchill has been repeatedly honored by the Oyate Indian Student Organization at University of Colorado over the years. "I don't agree with him on a lot of things," Hill concludes, "but I've never known anybody who worked harder for Indian rights."49

In the Denver area, the story is the same. Bellecourtian accusations in the local press in 1993 provoked an outpouring of letters to the editor from Indians and others supporting Churchill, including one signed by the entirety of the Elders and leadership Councils of Colorado AIM.50 Both Churchill and Glenn Morris, another Bellecourt target, offered to resign their positions as codirectors of the chapter if the membership felt the publicity blitz was detrimental to Indian interests or were in any way uncomfortable about either of their identities. They unanimously reaffirmed both men's leadership.51

Enrollment in a federally-recognized tribe is the point the Bellecourts, Standing Elk and others most fuss about. Their animus against Churchill outweighs any consideration of whether they should support a criterion consisting of certification from a non-Indian government æ the United States æ involving bureaucratic extinction of indigenous peoples, like the Abenaki of Vermont. Instead, NAIMI insists that maintaining "tribal rolls" based upon criteria set by a non-Indian government is an important aspect of native self-determination. To be a "real" Indian, you must be enrolled. The procedure essentially deeds to the US government the privilege of determining who is or is not an Indian. There is a certain perverse logic to this argument in the baleful light of the assimilationist nature of US Indian policy since as early as 1880.52 But the Bellecourts' application of the rule is anything but consistent. For instance, they never suggest that imprisoned Chippewa/Sioux activist Leonard Peltier is not an Indian because he remains unenrolled, or denounce former AIM national spokesperson John Trudell, an unenrolled Santee, as an "impostor." Their behavior exempts IITC's Antonio Gonzales, a self-identified Seri, and Andrea Carmen, who claims to be a Yaqui.53 Hogwash washes both sides of the hog.

Yet in Churchill's case, federal certification isn't enough. Instead, the Bellecourts first trotted out David Cornsilk, a supposed "genealogist for the Cherokee Nation" to question Churchill's ancestry before the council of the Tahlequah, Oklahoma-based United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees (in which his roll number is R7627). The Keetoowah Band's refusal to impugn Churchill's status laid them open to bitter sniping.54 Cherokee Nation officials emphatically deny ever having employed Cornsilk as a genealogist.55 "David never had access to the material he'd need to form a legitimate opinion on Churchill's genealogy," says Cherokee artist Murv Jacobs. "He's just a guy who doesn't like Ward Churchill. As to the Bellecourt brothers, I wasn't aware that Chippewas had standing to decide who is and isn't Cherokee. Cherokee rolls are Cherokee business and nobody else's."56

The Keetoowah Band have their own genealogists. According to Band Chief John Ross, "When Ward applied for enrollment, and it should be pointed out that we invited him to do so, he had to provide documentation just like anybody else. We checked it out. He's who he says he is. End of story."57 The punchline is that the Keetoowahs formally verified that Churchill is "at least 3/16 Cherokee Indian by blood." This quantum accrues strictly from his lineage through his mother. "I was asked if I wanted to try to document my father's [Creek] side of things," Churchill recalls, "because he was at least as much Indian as Mom. But he's dead now. I never knew him, and I don't know my relatives on that side. So I just let it go. I make the reference in my self-identification out of respect, but I've never claimed the quantum because I don't believe in [quantum]. To me, it's no different whether I'm 3/16 or 3/8. You don't measure identity by either pounds or percentage points unless you're some kind of Nazi."58

The Bellecourts support blood quantum when it comes to Churchill, but not apparently when it comes to themselves. According to Joe Geshick writing for the Ojibwe News (published in the heart of Bellecourt "territory"), tribal records reveal that the brothers themselves are "essentially Frenchmen, possessing only 1/32 degree of Indian blood," information that never finds its way into News From Indian Country.59 Despite Chief Ross and others' repeated corrections of his intentional error, Paul DeMain continues to refer to Churchill as an "honorary Keetoowah, like Bill Clinton," editorially overriding the band's own determination as to his status.60 The blood quantum criterion, as historically tainted as tribal enrollment, is the pseudoscientific negative of the kind of racist thinking that created the one drop rule whereby one drop of negro blood makes you a negro. Blood quantum erases indigenous people by making Indians technically not Indian. Bellecourt-style identity policing, ignoring logic, history, and his movement's supposed ends, does anything but reinforce native sovereignty.61

At the risk of further muddying the already murky waters, I want to add something to this hideous mix.

Indian Country Today is a notoriously conservative, pro-development mouthpiece of assimilationist Tom Giago. I believe he was the person who came up with the nasty parody of AIM to mean "Assholes In Mocassins." The tensions between the conservative assimilationist part of Indian culture and the more radical (in Churchill's case, one needs to remember his previous Weatherman affiliation) nationalist part are continually being played out, just like the same tensions in the African American community. Without having a part in those communities, I think it's wiser to stay out of those particular fights.

That said, it is clear that Churchill is not an Indian. In an old (10 or 11 years) issue of the San Francisco Weekly he mentioned that he is perhaps 1/32 Native. That means he is "less" of an Indian than most people who've had family in the Midwest for more than two generations. His position at Boulder is as a token (both because of his supposed Indian blood, and because he has no PhD); wouldn't it be more just to have an actual Indian as a token instead of someone who pretends to be one to further his career?

Back about 15 years ago, Churchill wrote a scathing essay condemning the whole blood quantum scheme for tribal enrollment as a scam. The history of who came up with it and why is intricately tied in with at attempt at a final expropriation of Indian land, and Churchill correctly pointed this out and bashed the hell out of those who continue to promote that agenda. In those days, Ward called himself "Metis" (the French-Canadian term for "mixed breed"); then gradually, he started to fabricate a difficult-to-disprove Indian heritage, finally settling on the honorary enrollment in the Keetowah band of the Cherokee. That's like getting an honorary degree--you needn't have done anything (or been born anything) in order to get some wispy benefit. The Cherokee have a deservedly bad reputation for easy enrollment among all Indian activists and defenders--even Giago thinks little of them--but the Keetowah band is thought of even less. So something changed in Churchill's thinking on the whole blood question. To me it looks like pure opportunism to establish a credential that is historically lacking.

In any event, none of this is particularly relevant to the stupid comments he made about the destruction of the World Trade Center. Those should be judged on their relative merits and accuracy. Calling into question Churchill's fake lineage and the conflicts inside AIM (and let's not forget that he was expelled from the International Indian Treaty Council as well) although interesting in and of themselves, are less germane.

Is it relevant to the really intelligent comments that he *also* made?

wah wah wah You people are just angry at what the guys said.

Anybody ever heard the expression

"sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt

me"?

So quit you belly aching, If you dont like what someone says

DONT LISTEN, DONT READ, DONT WATCH.

simple right? but alot of people havent figured that out.

are doing it because they hate the entire concept of an academic discipline that emphasizes any aspect of American and world history other than the simplistic, Eurocentric truimphalist one

in other words, no ethnic studies, no labor history, no colonial and post-colonial studies, and some of the critics have been quite explicit about this agenda

and, now we have a group like AIM offering up its own to sacrifice to the right wing, failing to recognize that those want to crucify Churchill have no intention of stopping with him

I have no idea whether Churchill is a credible scholar or not, but I am reminded of a story one of my Asian American journalist friends told me years ago, when one of her friends complained that another Asian American journalist was pretty mediocre: "Why do we always have to be perfect? They aren't." (alluding to numerous Caucasians of average ability on staff)

I don't agree with Churchill's "little Eichmanns" comment, but it shouldn't be forgotten that he wrote the article in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a very emotional time, and other aspects of his analysis, even within the article in question, does have merit (for example, no matter how horrific their actions, the 9/11 attackers most definitely weren't cowards as he noted)

so, for this, he should be thrown over the side? engage him on his work, with appropriate criticism, but firing him is ridiculous

personally, I don't care whether Churchill is Native American or not, but I do care about the survival of an alternative perspective in academia, and the failure to defend Churchill will invariably lead to a chilling of speech and scholarship in that realm


--Richard

" alternative perspective in academia,"

Hey, maybe Ward could get a job at an alternative Arab/nazis school..he could pretend he's an Indian, and they could pretend that they're victims of the white men along with him...

[" alternative perspective in academia,"
Hey, maybe Ward could get a job at an alternative Arab/nazis school..he could pretend he's an Indian, and they could pretend that they're victims of the white men along with him...]

CU Regents assigned someone to review Churchill's "writings and speeches" before deciding whether to discharge him

perhaps, that rings a bell

it's exactly what the Nazis did when they purged the society of Jews and leftists

they also did something similar with artists as a way of deciding which books and paintings were destroyed

so, it appears that Churchill was a couple of years premature

turns out, the faceless bureaucratic "little Eichmanns" weren't in the WTC, instead, they are currently serving on the CU Board of Regents

--Richard Estes

"it's exactly what the Nazis did when they purged the society of Jews and leftists"

No it's not...Jews were purged simply because they were Jews..it had nothing to do with what they said...
Chruchill isn't being "purged" because he's an "Indian" he's being purged because he's an idiot...
It's time for Idiots to organize!!!

He's being purged because he expressed politically incorrect opinions.

[it's exactly what the Nazis did when they purged the society of Jews and leftists"

No it's not...Jews were purged simply because they were Jews..it had nothing to do with what they said...
Chruchill isn't being "purged" because he's an "Indian" he's being purged because he's an idiot...
It's time for Idiots to organize!!!]

Jews were purged as a result of a process of classification that deemed them to be a "degenerate" people by the Reich

Yes, they were purged "simply because they were Jews", but there was an entire ideological construct of cultural and pseudo-scientific analysis that transpired before this action was taken

and, don't forget, it wasn't always obvious even in the case of Jews, and investigations were undertaken to determine if someone was Jewish because of some distant relation, much in the way that people in the Deep South were considered black because they were determined to be 1/8 or 1/16 African American through their family tree

just as the books, paintings, films and writings of people, Jews, gays, lesbians and leftists were scrutinized for any sign of what the Reich considered deviant thought

which is exactly what the CU Board of Regents is doing to Ward Churchill, they would have felt right at home in the Nazi legal system, conducting investigations and developing justifications for why someone like him ought to be purged and/or arrested

for an interesting artistic presentation of this phenomenom, see the recent post-minimalist opera, "Finding Goya", by Nyman and Hardie

one wonders how Churchill would have scored through the application of the Lomborosian examination of his physical appearance emphasized in the first half of the work

would he have been considered a burglar like Goya, resulting in his burning of his paintings by the Nazis?

and, finally, the comparison becomes even more compelling when you contrast the treatment of Churchill with the laxity with which the CU Board has treated the athletic department in regard to a scandal in which sex has been used to recruit football players, with several alleged instances of sexual assault, with one complainant discouraged from going to the police by the football coach, Gary Barnett

of course, the Nazis revered the perfect body image, and the idea of national identity and achievement through sporting competition, so they would have been equally understanding of the special needs of the athletic department, so, again, the "little Eichmanns" comment is an apt description of the Board and it members

--Richard

Churchill has committed Cultural "Indentity Theft" against the Indian people for his own ego and for profit. He gets over $100,000 in teaching and speaking fees a year. Pretty steep pay for a anti-capitalist.

He was tenured in 1991 at UC by falsfying a resume. Then in 1993 he started looking for a tribe to belong to.

By lying he got a high paying teaching postion that should've gone to a qualified Native American teacher. A deserving Native American should have held that position not a cultural thief and fraud.

The ancestor he claims his "Indianess" from was actually a Indian Killer and fighter who killed Creeks. The same tribe he said he was from the start of his lies.
see story below

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3525487,00.html

Ward should be judged on his work not on his ancestry but I do wonder if he is supportive of the identity politics trend within some activist communities. The whole idea of POC only groups has always seemed problematic since it causes people to try to hype thing that have little to do with themselves to be accepted in to exclusive activist clubs. Racism is a real problem but when calling one's self a POC (even when one looks white) gives one extra status in an activist group it leads to all sorts of irritating behavior and negative power relationships.

another thing to think about with blood quantum (for instance, does anyone challenge a 'latino' based on racial purity? no. People are just latino as a fact, regardless of their white, indian, black race (or asian with my ecuadorian chinese housemate)) is the fact that this easily could drive tribes out of existence.
And... there is quite a bit of value in just keeping diverse national languages and cultures alive, just like there is with endangered species. Do we want just a monoculture of people in the future U.S. just instant messaging each other all day, but no variation left, thus nothing left to blog about because so much went extinct from 1950-2050?

All minority cultures face this problem, and that is why you hear criticism of secular jewish people marrying out of culture.
Let's say there is a minority group of 2% and majority of 98%. If one in 50 marriages of the majority group is to the minority group, then that is 1% o the minority- so half the minority is marrying out, while only 1/50 of the majority. Clearly, that minority is going to cease to exist at that rate. That is why gypsies, jewish people, amish, mormons have strong cultural rules to stay within the group... otherwise they wouldn't be here any more. Indians often don't have such a strong cultural rule... and then you end up with situations like this where people act like they're a fraud for being mixed race... then the whole culture will disappear as the people are absorbed into the mass corporate culture.

look at this story in the Seattle Times today.

The picture of that 81 year old woman who is the last fluent speaker of the language shows someone who could be interpreted as looking whiter than Ward Churchill. Does it matter? Only to a racist. With a lot of those little nations on the coast of washington, where they survived because it rains so much so the farmer settlers failed in agriculture, they were reduced to fewer than 100, or fewer than 1000 people. Why is everyone so intent to legislate these other nations out of existence by imposing a racial law. My friend's roommate is a german with korean ancestors.. but he's still german.
The constitution specifically excluded indians as separate nations, to be engaged with treaties with. So those nations can define citizenship as they'd like. The Declartion of Independence calls them 'savages'.


read this
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002173798_muckleshoot08m.html

So Ward Churchill is finally getting "called out" for his claim of Indian heritage. Unfortunately, people from both the right and left are using this story to further their own political propaganda. Leftist white people don't want to think that "their Indian" might not be authentic and right-wing morons don't care about Indians one way or other - they just don't like any statements that challenge the McStatus Quo. Personally, I don't care if he offended the fascists on the right. He has a constitutional right to free speech, and you can take his opinion or leave it. However, to my left-leaning friends, I suggest that you look into this guy's background a little more closely before you raise the fist for this blue-eyed, white-skinned "Indian" activist. *Note: Freedom of Speech rant follows:

I've actually been following this guy for years and I've always found it interesting to see what tribal affilitation he was claiming at any given time - sometimes it was "Creek," sometimes "Cherokee" then "Keetoowah Cherokee." His blood quantum claims were always fluctuating too, yet it was never up to the 1/4 degree Indian blood requirement to be an enrolled member of the Keetoowah Cherokee tribe. Then it is reported that he is an "associate" member and was never a recognized Keetoowah tribal member. However, look at the cover of any of his recent books and there it is, "enrolled member, Keetoowah." If that is somehow seen as legitimate tribal affiliation, then I suppose former Pres. Clinton would be eligible to take Churchills place at the U of Colorado (if he is fired). After all, Clinton is himself an associate member of the Keetoowah Cherokee Tribe. So, I recognize that some readers would claim that the process of measuring blood quantum by the federal government is racist by it's very nature. I can respect that, and even agree up to a point. After all, I have "un-recognized" Indian blood along with my "recognized" or enrolled tribal heritage. But, you have to understand that it's not an issue of the white man's government defining who is or isn't an Indian. It's a lot more complicated than that. Personally, I think it has to do with a phenomenon that people don't want to talk about - and the biggest joke in Indian country today: Most white people claim, or THINK, they have Indian blood. It's to the point in this country that your average White person, whose family has been in this country for generations, just assumes that they have Indian blood. Ward Churchill is one of them. That's the whole story, right there. It may seem like an oversimplification, but, sadly... it's not. The guy is very protective about his roots. That is uncharacteristic of most Indians. See, Indians are tribally oriented. Think of it as a group of closely related families. To be a member of a tribe you have to be able to establish kinship ties. It's not some kind of geneology club. What makes someone an Indian? Answer: kinship. If you grow up in the Mid-West like Ward Churchill, in a white family that simply had family traditions of 'Indian blood." What makes him an Indian? His claim of being an Indian is exactly like any other white person's claim of having "Cherokee blood." Ask a legitimate Indian (without regard to blood quantum) and they can cite their particular blood line. Even, most legitimate "un-registered" Indians can give family ties - they just don't care to waste their time with the enrollment process because they are too busy just BEING an Indian. That is most definitely not the case with Ward Churchill.He is busy PRETENDING to be an Indian. This is a guy that grows up in your average white home and decides that he is going to emphasize his SUPPOSED Indian roots. The trouble is that he can never proove his lineage, because, like most white people who pursue the family "myth", it turns out to be an exercize in futility. For the majority, there is no Indian blood at all. It usually turns out that their ancestor had a relative that married an Indian, or maybe had some dealing with an Indian, or perhaps saw or talked to an Indian. But actually having Indian blood? Nope...usually not. (note: usually)

Now, don't get me wrong. He is really good at pretending to be an Indian. I think he TRULY believes he is an Indian. The thing I have a problem with, though, is that he is a white man in every sense of the word and he brings this mentality to his writing - yet he is known as an "Indian" writer/activist, etc. Even though he has been claiming a native heritage for the last thirty-some years and writing as though he was a native, he cannot change the fact that his roots are white. It doesn't matter that he has developed an "identity" as an Indian later in life. It doesn't matter if he was one of the founders of AIM. It doesn't matter if he "feels Indian." It doesn't even matter if, over the years, he has picked up some Indian ways of thinking or behaving. The fact is, he has no tribal affiliation. He is a white American who needs to be "called out."

Finally: "100% European people don't look like him"...now, come on...you're kidding right? If you cut his hair and dropped him off in Ireland he'd fit right in...like most "cherokees" I might add. (*Ani-Yunwiyah note the parenths).

"Does it matter? Only to a racist."

Identity politics does make sense in terms of epowering people who grew up oppressed by a racist culture, but in Ward's case one cant treat his Indian identity as cultural since he grew up as white in Illinois, had white parents and only later in his life did he attempt to find Indian heritage (which may or may not exist). When Ward is under attack by the right its not a great time to get intoa discussion of the dangers of identity politics in the formation of abusive power structures but it seems like some of those issues may be forced on us ifthis is used as the reason for Ward getting fired. Listening to some of Ward's talks in the past I agreed with a lot of what he said but knowing that he grew up white in the midwest I'm a little bothered by some of the race baiting and anti-immigrant rhetoric he used when when talking about a Native American right to take the country back (its really a largely hyperbolic portion of his talks with "US out of North America" slogan type stuff) If a lot of the stuff he says wasnt so tongue in cheek I would find a white boy who grew up in Illinois almost talking down to white actvists (including people from some oppressed groups) as offensive. But he does do a lot of good work thats not focused around identity politics which is why I'm not too bothered by the act; although I do think that the reason assuming a minority identity gives someone more power in certain circles is something much of the left has to deal with since its not only patronizing but also dangerous in terms of groups getting manipulated.

Ward Churchill's identity isn't the only area where his honesty is being called into question. Thomas Brown at Lamar University (http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm) is saying that Churchill has not only distorted the work of at least one Native historian, but that he has outright fabricated material that is not found in any primary sources. If this is true, it's very uncool on Churchill's part. Countering lies with lies isn't exactly speaking truth to power. And, it would be a legitimate reason for him to be fired entirely apart from either his writings on 9/11 or his claims to Indianness.

I have been following this controversy for the past few weeks. KHOW in Denver through the efforts of Dan Caplis & Craig Silverman have been documenting Ward Churchill's exploits. They have concluded that he advocates terrorism, and should be suspended w/o pay.
Their claim is that one of the requisites for the professorship was to be a native american. While one can debate the merits of such a requisite, Ward signed that he was a native american. That is the legal issue.
My readings and research have led me to conclude the following: he advocates the dismantling of the US through any means, he is too cowardly to act and he propogandizes others through his teachings, he is a horrible scholar making numerous errors of fact in his scholarship, and was not competent for the professorship.
He has been accussed of spitting on an Indian grandmother and AIM activist, gloating about the Oklahoma City bombings, bullying students and opponents, and numerous other "high crimes and misdemeanors". For the evidence, go to http://www.khow.com/hosts/caplis-silverman.html

Ward is correct when he says that his, "little Eichmanns" comment s does not include children, fireman, janitors, etc. that are not part of the "US global business system" although to be consistent with his logic, they should be included as guilty through their indirect contributions. From his essay, he does not understand what Eichmann's role was (Eichmann did have first-hand knowledge of what was being done, he was the conduit. He even ignored "Do not gas" orders from Himmler towards the end of WW II).

I must thank Ward for finally giving me the motivation to investigate the "smallpox blanket" myth. It turns out that there is no historical evidence, either written or oral, that validates his claim. The Iraqi children controversy is problematic: how many children have prematurely died, and as a result of the economic sanctions? Who shares responsibility? He has also been challenged on his, "General Allotment" info, that there is no blood quantum requirement.

I keep finding what I believe to be, "spins" to Churchill's scholarship. He seems to be interested in making the evidence fit his beliefs, rather than shaping his beliefs from the evidence. The danger is that if more of his "evidence" is discreditable, then perhaps the who issue of injustices to American Indians comes into doubt.

Churchill needs his dubious claims of evidence to support his, "genocide" theory. His inability to support the "smallpox" and "blood quantum requirement" knocks out two major planks of his genocide claim. Without it, the rest of his rhetoric falls apart.

Churchill attacks
essay’s critics

CORRECTION


By Craig Gima
cgima [at] starbulletin.com
Ward Churchill, the outspoken Colorado professor who created a national uproar by comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis, told an overflow crowd at the University of Hawaii last night that he is the target of a right-wing strategy to attack academia.

"I was targeted because they thought I would be an easy target," Churchill told the crowd of about 800. "That was a mistake.

"It's not just an attempt to purge me," he said. "It's a purge of the academy."

The crowd was mostly sympathetic to Churchill, a University of Colorado ethnic studies professor. He was applauded more than a dozen times and was greeted at least three times with standing ovations.

Before the speech began, about a dozen members of a UH college Republican group protested.

"I never wanted to be a poster boy for academic freedom," Churchill said. "You can't give an inch. If you let this one down, you've lost it all."

Much of Churchill's speech was devoted to explaining and expanding on his essay written on Sept. 11, 2001, that called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/23/news/index2.html

I have no idea about this Ward Chruchill guy But The Smallpox blankets were not a myth.

This link has the actual letters Lord Amherst wrote.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

6th paragraph

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/November2001/PreparingPatZero.htm
Pox Americana
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0304/49.html

Still need more sources? just ask!
I think the people who deny that the American and Canadian Governments didnt distribute Small Pox blankets are ignorant and just mad because they dont want to pay the Native Americans what they owe them.

So go ahead Deny the Genocide all you want, it just makes you look as stupid as the people deny the Holocaust took place.

This much better essay by Diane Pearson totally backs up the idea that the U.S. government in the 1830s slated the Mandan tribe specifically for death by smallpox. There was a vaccine, which is why people in the cities weren't dying in high numbers, and they allocated money for vaccinating some eastern tribes that they considered to be compliant, such as some cherokees who were removed in 1838, but their documents show that the Secretary of War Lewis Cass in 1832 made it clear that the mandan would not receive the vaccine because he considered them unfriendly due to conflicts where they wanted to be trade partners but didn't want company trappers coming out and removing fur animals.

read here
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wicazo_sa_review/v018/18.2pearson01.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1722426.php

One of the other problems with the Indian Vaccination Act that has been overlooked centers around Secretary of War Lewis Cass and the political agendas and consequences of his decision to exclude Mandan Indians and other Upper Missouri River tribes from the vaccination program. At times, scholars have sought to explain or justify Cass's decision by centering on historical anomalies, economic development, or justification based on circumstance. Nothing has been said of the political motives and implications that were at the core of Cass's decision-making processes. Nor has anyone seriously addressed the idea that Cass's decisions not only denied vaccinations to the Mandans and their northern neighbors, the Hidatsas (and by inference, their other neighbors, the Arikaras), but purposely excluded many thousands of Cree, Blackfeet, and Assiniboin Indians who inhabited the northern regions of the Upper Missouri River.

Early scholars E. Wagner Stearn and Allen E. Stearn asserted that Cass intentionally denied Mandans and Arikaras vaccination protection. When they published their seminal work on American Indians and epidemic smallpox in 1945, the Stearns printed a portion of Lewis Cass's order to Indian agent John Dougherty. 33 Inherent to their scholarship, and in Cass's order to Dougherty, was the idea that Mandan and Arikara Indians had been deliberately denied federal smallpox vaccinations in 1832. In effect, the Stearns suggested that denial of vaccinations to the tribes of the Upper Missouri River region had been a political decision that segregated them from federal concerns. The Stearns' implications were not seriously reexamined, however, until historian David Ferch began to question the Cass decision in 1983. 34

Ferch argued that Cass's decision to deny vaccination to Upper Missouri River tribes was economically motivated and that Cass "more likely" had realized that the fur trade on the Upper Missouri River was no longer profitable due to increasing costs and incidents of violence. Ferch also held that the $12,000 allocated for the Indian Vaccination Act was sufficient to have extended the vaccination program to Upper Missouri River groups. 35 Though not directly addressing the Cass decision, John Ewers also supported the idea that by 1831 the "importance of the Mandan villages as a trading center had waned." Ewers likewise [End Page 18] advocated the idea that by 1831 Missouri River Valley groups (who were vaccinated) were considered economically preferential to other groups located on the Upper Missouri River. 36 Though Ewers did not comment on Cass's decision or on smallpox vaccinations, his work supports Ferch's concerns that Upper Missouri River tribes were not considered economically viable trading partners by the United States.

There is also little doubt that by 1832 federal politicians perceived differing economic potentials and preferences for Indian nations located along the Missouri River. As early as 1806, fur trader Truteau had informed Thomas Jefferson and members of the Lewis and Clark expedition that the Sioux could bring the greatest economic advantages to the United States. Truteau remarked that the Sioux were preeminent beaver hunters who were capable of supplying the United States with more beaver pelts than any other Indian nation located along the Missouri River. 37 It was by no mistake that in 1832-33 and 1838-39 members of the various Sioux nations were heavily vaccinated under the Indian Vaccination Act. Ferch was certainly correct when he noted that Indian nations that were not considered economically viable trading partners of the United States, such as the Mandans, Arikaras, and Hidatsas, were not vaccinated under the act.

relevant paragraph
:

As the article above says, $12,000 was enuff to innoculate all the indians. Can we say that the U.S. guv is off the hook?
What Cass did, or presumed did, is all that was shown and by that logic we can assume all Americans today are exactly like TimothyMcVeigh, or is there more there?

It is clear from all evidence that Ward Churchill is a certified member of the Wannabe Tribe.

I have done a bit of research regarding Ward. This is what I have.
Son of Jack and Maralyn nee Allen
Gson of Ward & Ethyl Janes, Phillip and Minnie Billington
GGson of Albert Churchill (from NY) and Emma L. Arthur (from NY)
Carrie Janes & ? [unreadable but from Canada,Scotch desent]
Edward Allen & Eliza May Glotfelty
William Perry Billington & Addeem 'Addie' Baker
GGGson of Dan Churchill (NY)& Caroline ? (OH)
Charles Allen (NJ) & Mary N. (VT)
Henry Glotfelty (PA)& Eliz North ILL
Mrs, Jane Janes (Canada) & ?
Lawson E Billington & Francis Roberts
GGGGson of Benjamin Churchill (CT) born 1796, both parents also born in CT, unknown names/dates, census becomes vague before 1850.
Allen Guilliam & Martha Billington
All were listed as white and there are official documents to back each name up (census images)
There are some blank spots in this so far so his claims are not refuted at this point, but I see no relation with him and Joshua Tyner as he states in several interviews.

But... what is missing here is the fairly well reported fact that they ONLY CREATED a MULTIRACIAL CATEGORY TWO YEARS ago.
Do you remember the articles in the paper about this subject? Everyone was talking about how now, people could check two boxes, and what would happen if people were checking both black and white if they ethnically identified as african-american, but racially were 3/4 black and 1/4 white.

What did happen was that the total census number of indians shot up by several million.

Did it ever occur to genealogists (where did you get that, the Salt Lake City Library? I wouldn't know where to start researching that) that there was this concept known as the 'one drop rule' in the south, and all of the U.S. African americans were only given the right to vote in 1964 in many places, and as a much smaller minority, southern indians such as Cherokees and Creeks who had half indian/half white ancestry had a very clear incentive to check 'white', given the lack of multiracial understanding, and the bad consequences of identifying as nonwhite. This can't be so difficult to understand.
read here:
http://www.natives.de/Census.htm
http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11703

The images are available anywhere census images are available, libraries, LDS sites, familysearch.org etc. They can also be purchased as well as places like ancestry.com.
The race box on the census is just that, a box, where the letter was entered i.e. W,B,M,I etc [white,black,mulatto,indian] and they also list the places of birth of the parents and it is noted that when a parent is born someplace other than a US state, it is articulated, i.e. Canada, Cherokee nation etc.

To clarify, years ago, census workers paid a visit to every household in their district, unlike now where many are mailed in. The census taker, theoretically, would interview every head of household and record that info into the rolls. They would obtain all their info, name,age,relation to head of household, race,sex and occupation were the bare minimum.