Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 03:59
VIEWED: 16391
PAGE 11 of 16
Hey SoupCatcher -
You know, once you get going you are eloquent.
I didn't think to use the analogy of throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks, but it seems applicable. For myself, I was thinking more along the line of White Water - just keep digging and digging and digging, so's you can hang 'em.
What tipped me off about this is how far back the paper goes - all the way to 2001. There was no outcry at the time, no call for an accounting. But there is now. It's obviously a manufactured issue, dredged up from the past for political purposes.
Perhaps the right is out to 'get' Churchill because of his views, but I see something colder, and less personally directed. I draw a connection between Churchill and Guckert in that the outcry over Churchill seems to have started after Guckert was 'outed' - in every sense. I read a lot of right-wing rags, and they pointed to Churchill shortly after Guckert was indisputably made as a sleazy right-wing flack, and painted with suspicion of being Bush's plant in the press corps.
And true to form, the baying right-wing vigilantes like those on this board only have to be given the scent, and they are off, running down the master's victim.
IMHO
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, Soup-
I enjoy your writings tremendously. They can't be beaten for insight and factual information, and I've learned a lot just reading them. Please, don't stop because of what I'm about to say, but let me know if you think I'm being reasonable.
Quite frankly, when it comes to people like barstomer, auraptor, hero (so-called) and the like, you're wasting your time. Not only are they ignorant, they're uneducable. Just look at barstomer's latest response... insight, even-handedness, self-reflection... definitely NOT in their repertoire. Consequently, they can be "played" over and over again, and they never "get it".
You may have noticed that my responses have taken a hostile turn. To be quite blunt, I'm not interested in exchanging views with morons. I've decided that I'm either going to respond in kind or not respond at all. I'm "consequating" stupidity. When- or if- the baying vigilantes decide that exchanging nasty names, scurrilous allegations, and unsupported opinion is too boring for words, then perhaps we can have a rational discussion.
BTW- Rue, looking at the timing, I think you're prolly correct about the genesis of the outcry. This Admin uses dictraction like parents of toddlers.... but what does that say about the right-wingers who fall for it each time? I honestly think that Guckert had something going with one of the top ppl in the Administration, because they are working so DAMN hard to erase the story. And of course, I picked Karl Rove because every thime I think of him, I think of the quote from Toy Story- "You are a sad, strange little man". heh heh heh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the compliment, Rue. I've been trying to get back in writing shape recently (dissertation on the horizon and all that) after many years of neglect and it's good to feel the rust sluff off. I thoroughly enjoyed writing classes in high school and undergrad but then moved on to technical subjects where writing papers was not required. Aside from the odd conference paper here and there I haven't written much and so I use these posts as mini-training exercises to improve my written communication skills.
You raise an excellent point about the timing of this furor. That's one detail that has been bothering me on a semi-conscious level. Why now? To distract from the Guckert story seems like a logical reason. (Although, since the mainstream press pretty much passed on anything Guckert related - don't want to lose access - there probably wasn't much of a need for a distraction).
In doing surfing on Churchill a few weeks ago, the names that kept popping up were people from the Academic Bill of Rights and anti-liberal academics communities. So one thing that might have happened is that, in an attempt to deflect attention from Guckert, the right wing blogging community glommed onto a pet project of various conservative organizations and Churchill was a likely target. A perfect storm type thing. Once the idea was implanted, it spread like wildfire (hence, the scattershot nature of the attacks).
So, short answer, your explanation works for me.
SignyM: I hear what you're saying. Sometimes I'm sorely tempted to just give in and start posting ad hominem unsupported appeal to authority made up statements. There have been times where I was just too lazy to put my thoughts into a coherent form and opted for the easy approach. But, as a rule, I try to extend at least some level of courtesy to everyone in the discussions and arguments (even if it's just taking the time to clearly spell out my position). One reason is that we're all fireflyfans engaged in the goal of making the BDM a success. But I am frustrated, on occasion, by some of the bullshit. I remember reading one paragraph in another thread and identifying six statements that were just completely unsupported by reality but there was no way I was going to respond because I could've easily spent half an hour on each point and to only respond to one point would tacitly signal that I approved of everything else in that paragraph.
As I mentioned above, I have an ulterior motive in posting - to thicken myelin sheathes that have shrunk over the past many years (at least, it sure feels like they've atrophied). So I'll keep posting and I'll continue to learn from the posts of others. I've also found that writing about a topic helps me formulate my own position, so there is that as well. But it sure would be liberating to respond to every post I disagreed with by saying, "That's wrong you idiot" and leaving it at that. Of course, it's a good thing only my girlfriend can hear the things I say in the privacy of our home when I read some entries. 
.
*editted to add: (Okay. Since there's no Guckert thread I might as well post this here) SignyM, I think you might be right that somone in the administration was a client of Guckert's. That's one part of the whole business that bothered me. The Jeff Gannon identity was created by Guckert as part of his business as a prostitute (all of the paperwork for the web hosting and registration of his sites that advetised his services as an escort were in this name). Why in the hell would he continue to use this name to pretend he was a reporter? Wouldn't it be smarter to either use his real name or create a new identity. Either option would be viable given how easy it was for him to get clearance to the White House using the Gannon pseudonym. But he stuck with his professional name that he used to solicit clients. Why? One explanation that makes sense is that he was introduced to other people in the administration by his client (whether this was a $200/hr contract or a $2000/wknd contract is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
Quote:I snickered, tittered, and finally, guffawed. That quote is the perfect caption for Rove.
"You are a sad, strange little man".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SoupCatcher,
Quote:DUH to me. I never thought of that. No one that I've talked with has thought of that (and I talk with very smart people). But I think it's a vital observation. Why go in as a fake reporter under a fake ID linked to porn? It does seem to unravel innocuous explanations.
The Jeff Gannon identity was created by Guckert as part of his business as a prostitute (all of the paperwork for the web hosting and registration of his sites that advertised his services as an escort were in this name).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BarnStormer,
Here is a quote from the article:
Quote:This is an old issue. As has been mentioned in other stories, permission to copy or use a painting can be granted in a phone call or face to face conversation. We may never know if permission was granted BY THE ARTIST. All we have are claims by the son that he doesn't think his father would have done so.
When contacted at his home in North Carolina, Ryan Mails, the son of the late Thomas Mails said the family still retained the copyrights to the drawings of the Mystic Warriors book, and that his father fiercely defended the copyrights.
So are you officially switching your issues on Churchill to his treatment of the media? Is that because it's the only thing you actually have a record of?
Let me tally how many you all have gone through so far ... how he got his job, how he got his tenure, was it heritage or other favoritism, what IS his heritage, professional competence, CU hiring practices, general educational quality, the evils of lying (if you are Ward Chruchill, but not Bush), why being a prof is such an influential position (all those virgin young minds just waiting to be abused) ... but wait! There's more! ... unproven speculation and general BS.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
I can think of at least three possibilities for why James Guckert stuck with the invented name: arrogance (he thought no one would ever trace Jeff Gannon the reporter back to Jeff Gannon the web advertising prostitute), stupidity (it never crossed his mind that this might become a problem), or he had no choice (he'd already been introduced using that name and couldn't change it without raising questions). Or maybe a combination. The surprising thing is that he was able to get access to the White House, which should have some of the most aware security personnel on the planet, for a period of two years using a false name. No way, IMHO, that he didn't have inside help getting that day pass.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the whole reporter angle was just way to get Guckert in for a post-session session. The reason why I think Guckert came in as a party favor first was because he got a reporter's pass BEFORE Talon even existed. Did you notice that dubya called on Guckert as "Jeff"? Since when did dubya get to know him on a first-name basis? In any case, Guckert's role as a propagandist was pretty minor. Aside from tossing softballs to Bush he didn't break any stories although he DID claim to have seen a confidential memo about Valerie Plame. (If he did, one wonders on what circumstances).
MY hat's off to you and Rue. You both see more angles than a geometer!
edited to add: Just passing along the funniest comment on the topic. "It's not just that Jeff Gannon is a prostitute... although that's an insult to people who would do anything for money..." (Air America)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ward Churchill:
"Indian-ness"
Quote:So Ward Churchill does have mixed Indian ancestry. In the public record, his family tree consists of those labelled 'Caucasian' and 'Unknown'. Now I know some may find this hard to believe, but there was a time when Indians who left the res to live in the White world didn't advertise their background. So, though he can't prove himself an Indian according to birth records, it's also true no one can prove he isn't. (But, to put the birth records in context, the old saying 'blood will tell' now has a new, scientific meaning.) He has been active in AIM (the American Indian Movement) since 1982. And at one point he was one of two people enrolled in the Cherokee Nation as a non-blood Indian. (Bill Clinton was the other.) From what I read, the tribal leader who got this program going was voted-out some time later, the program closed and membership in the nation rescinded. I haven't looked up the timeline of Churchill's hiring and/or tenure, but it is conceivable that he was a bona-fide Cherokee Indian during his hiring and/or tenure review, or reasonably thought he was. Perhaps one of the baying right-wing vigilantes could look this up since it is a topic of great interest to them.
Genetic material belonging to Professor Ward Churchill underwent the following three testing protocols:
1)The mtDNA Test: A test of female lineage. mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is passed down from mother to child. Men have their mother’s mtDNA, but do not pass it on to their children. The mtDNA test can tell a man or a woman about their maternal lineage and the geographic origin of that lineage.
2) Y Tests: Only men carry the y-chromosome, which is inherited through the paternal line. Analysis of the DNA on the y-chromosome tells a man his paternal lineage and the likely geographic origin of that lineage.
3) Genome-wide Test: Is essentially an analysis of autosomal DNA that gives you a general idea of your ancestry among broad groups (ie. African, Asian, European, Native American).
The laboratory that performed the tests on Professor Churchill's genetic material specializes on American Indian "Gene Genealogy" and has one of the most extensive Native American mtDNA and y-chromosome databases. The human race consists of approximately 30 major maternal lineages (haplogroups) and Native Americans belong to one of five major maternal lineages (haplogroups). Also, the human population consists of approximately 18 major paternal lineages (haplogroups) and Native Americans belong to one of two major paternal lineages (haplogroups).
The genetic test results of Professor Ward Churchill show that he is a descendant of Creeks through his father and of Cherokees through his mother. http://www.aztlan.net/churchill_creek_cherokee.htm
Credentials
Churchill has multiple publications to his credit. As a counter to those publications, no one has come up with any information substantiating that he is unqualified for the position.
CU hiring practices
No one has come up with any information substantiating favoritism claims.
Plagiarism
No one has come up with proof of plagiarism. It looks questionable, but until there is a trial and verdict, 'innocent until proven guilty' should be the by-word of all freedom-loving Americans.
Have I missed any angles you all care to discuss? Other than the fact that you disagree with what he said?
Lastly, as AURaptor so eloquently said
Quote:
Never mind issues of 'free speech'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
University of Colorado held a news conference today on this topic. TalkLeft has the summary (along with some live blogging of the conference itself in the comments):
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010141.html#010141
There's also a link from the comments to the actual report by CU:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html
I'm guessing the story has served its purpose in distraction and the current outrage of the day is Schiavo. But I'm still expecting Churchill to be offered up anyway and lose his position.
* As a side note, TalkLeft is one of my daily stopping off places. She is on top of so many issues and does great work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME