In
Another Fraud Like Churchill, an anonymous coward who's too afraid to sign his name castigated me for quoting Ward Churchill. Here are his comments and my responses:
[Y]ou made the idiotic claim that he's an Indian.Wrong, doofus. I've never claimed Churchill was an Indian. If you disagree, quote the alleged claim. Put up or shut up.
[N]ow you might say that you didn't know about his lies but the pic you posted of him clearly shows that he's Caucasian.In case you're as ignorant as you seem, a lot of enrolled tribal members are less than half Indian by "blood" and look white or black. I don't discriminate against Indians because of their looks. If we were going by Churchill's appearance--which we're not--he might well qualify as as an Indian.
I listed the criteria I and others use to determine who's an
actual Indian. Churchill claimed to meet all three standards: Native ancestry, tribal membership, and acceptance by other Indians. He's never proved the first, the second was revoked or denied, and he's lost the third. If people used to classify him as Indian, they've changed their minds.
Churchill a "terrorist wannabe"?Not to mention you claim to be against violence right? Well wardo's a bit of an armchair terrorist wannabe, do some googling for his stomach churning comments.Yep, I claim to be
against violence. If you want me to consider something Churchill has said, cite and quote it and then we'll discuss it. I'm not wasting a second Googling something that's irrelevant to my work.
I don't particularly care what Churchill has said said other than what I've quoted. I don't play "guilt by association" games and neither should you. In case you haven't heard, guilt by association is generally considered wrong.
Seriously why are you so easy on this scumbag?For every time I've quoted Churchill on the
genocide of Indians, I've quoted critics lambasting his
scholarship or his claims of being Native. If you think I'm a Churchill supporter, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Get a clue, stupid, because the facts prove you wrong.
But then I guess you have something in common with him what with your inane bigoted anti-American blanket statements.Yes, we both have our careful, nuanced critiques of US history and culture. So what?
I guess you're too inane to disprove any of my "inane" statements, because you haven't done it yet. Let me know the first time you can demonstrate I have an anti-American "bias" that isn't grounded in hard facts. In other words, let me know when you can challenge my claims that America has documented flaws and shortcomings.
For more on the subject, see
America's Cultural Mindset.
Below: Churchill the self-proclaimed Indian.
12 comments:
"In Another Fraud Like Churchill, an anonymous coward who's too afraid to sign his name castigated me for quoting Ward Churchill. Here are his comments and my responses."
So I'm a coward for not posting under my real name? Hahahaha, that's hilarious, yes Rob you're a brave man for posting under your real name, please note the sarcasm. I don't have a blogger account so I don't see the reason to go the trouble of using my real name.
"Wrong, doofus. I've never claimed Churchill was an Indian. If you disagree, quote the alleged claim. Put up or shut up."
Ah insults; the cornerstone of any mature argument. I was referring to how in one of your articles on terrorism you called Churchill an Indian and an activist (he once led a columbus day protest were the participants called Italian-Americans 'wops' and 'sopranos') so that's his style of activism, what a great way to win hearts and minds.
Here's the article btw:
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/terror12.htm
Also here's how his bogus defense (which you quoted on your site) is bull****:
http://www.pirateballerina.com/files/debunking_churchill.htm
So 'grats on supporting a lie (which was what led me to think that you're a Churchill supporter).
"In case you're as ignorant as you seem, a lot of enrolled tribal members are less than half Indian by "blood" and look white or black. I don't discriminate against Indians because of their looks. If we were going by Churchill's appearance--which we're not--he might well qualify as as an Indian."
True but originally he only claimed to be 1/15th and his honorary membership card is not exactly the same as tribal enrollment.
"I listed the criteria I and others use to determine who's an actual Indian. Churchill claimed to meet all three standards: Native ancestry, tribal membership, and acceptance by other Indians. He's never proved the first, the second was revoked or denied, and he's lost the third. If people used to classify him as Indian, they've changed their minds."
He had an honory membership card which is not the real deal.
"For every time I've quoted Churchill on the genocide of Indians, I've quoted critics lambasting his scholarship or his claims of being Native. If you think I'm a Churchill supporter, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Get a clue, stupid, because the facts prove you wrong."
I admit that was wrong, my apologies.
"I guess you're too inane to disprove any of my "inane" statements, because you haven't done it yet. Let me know the first time you can demonstrate I have an anti-American "bias" that isn't grounded in hard facts. In other words, let me know when you can challenge my claims that America has documented flaws and shortcomings."
I was referring to statements like this:
"He confirms that Americans are ignorant or shortsighted about the world around them."
Now for the record I don't consider critiquing the US government to be anti-American; that's just common sense. But that statement is a bigoted insult to millions not to mention Indians.
Oh and some more info on this:
"I listed the criteria I and others use to determine who's an actual Indian. Churchill claimed to meet all three standards: Native ancestry, tribal membership, and acceptance by other Indians. He's never proved the first, the second was revoked or denied, and he's lost the third. If people used to classify him as Indian, they've changed their minds."
http://www.pirateballerina.com/files/Is_he_or_isnt_he.htm
"He confirms that Americans are ignorant or shortsighted about the world around them."
I think that Churchill too often has proven this by his own example.
Which reminds of churchill's anti-American comments such as:
"Either way, it's a kind of "reality therapy" approach, designed to afford the American people a chance to finally "do the right thing" on their own, without further coaxing."
Of course it's also an insult to Indians and given the way how ward's exploited Native cultures and beat his Indian wife I'd say it's safe to label him anti-Indian. Oh and he claimed that his wife's an alcoholic because of 'the white man' however her family say that she didn't start drinking until one particular white man started beating her.
I wonder if Rob'll ever reply.... *Consults the Iching.*
Churchill is a GENIUS he is brilliant and a HERO to American Indians all across the counrty and world. Read one of his books or better yet write a book and get it published all over the world . . or just hate and write a blog and only post the comments you wish being the all mighty blog master. lol.
Yes, you're a coward, Anonymous. Even if you're too lazy to create an Blogger account, you can type your name at the end of your "anonymous" comments. Why don't you do that, yellow belly?
Re "Ah insults; the cornerstone of any mature argument": I guess you'd know about that, wouldn't you? Every time you mistakenly think you've found an error in my postings, you claim I'm ignorant of history. So you're a hypocrite as well as a coward--no surprise there.
I posted my response to Churchill's "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" on Sept. 24, 2001. That was long before the controversy about his ancestry broke out. Basically he was an Indian then because Indians accepted him as one.
I've updated the page to reflect the latest information. But it's ridiculous to assert that one old posting reflects my position rather than a myriad of current postings. It suggests how intellectually (dis)honest you are.
What exactly do you think the title Another Fraud Like Churchill means? That I think Churchill isn't a fraud? If you're too stupid to understand the words "another," "fraud," and "like," let me know and I'll try to simplify them for you.
"Yes, you're a coward, Anonymous. Even if you're too lazy to create an Blogger account, you can type your name at the end of your "anonymous" comments. Why don't you do that, yellow belly?"
The main reason I don't have a blogger account is because I don't particularly enjoy keeping a diary. Also how exactly would using my real name change anything? Debates are fought on facts, not name calling and accusing people of cowardice. Also it's 'net 101 to post anonymously or use a handle; so I'm no more guilty of cowardice than anyone else with a modem.
Re "Ah insults; the cornerstone of any mature argument": I guess you'd know about that, wouldn't you? Every time you mistakenly think you've found an error in my postings, you claim I'm ignorant of history. So you're a hypocrite as well as a coward--no surprise there."
I never once called you a name and yes you've shown ignorance about history before; your piece on hitler leaves out how the armenian genocide influenced him and you always repeated lies about the Irish famine/genocide.
I posted my response to Churchill's "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" on Sept. 24, 2001. That was long before the controversy about his ancestry broke out. Basically he was an Indian then because Indians accepted him as one."
I'm fully aware of that and I believe I mentioned that; however even then it was clear that his claims were bogus, all he had was an honorary membership card (not the same as enrollment) and typical 'I'm 1/15th cherokee' claims. Also he was mainly accepted by a certain domestic terrorist group called AIM (which isn't to say that I consider them to be terrorists now) who did more harm than good, he wasn't accepted by a actual tribe (and no I'm not talking about federally recognized tribes).
"I've updated the page to reflect the latest information. But it's ridiculous to assert that one old posting reflects my position rather than a myriad of current postings. It suggests how intellectually (dis)honest you are."
The point is that you made the claim without doing your homework and I'm not just talking about his ethnicity as I pointed out his 'activism' is particularly harmful. How exactly is calling Italian-Americans 'wops' and telling them to return to Sicily going to educate them about what Columbus day is really about?
"What exactly do you think the title Another Fraud Like Churchill means? That I think Churchill isn't a fraud? If you're too stupid to understand the words "another," "fraud," and "like," let me know and I'll try to simplify them for you."
Where did I post here that you don't consider him a fraud?
So you admit that creating a Blogger account isn't the real reason you post anonymously? What a shocking surprise...not.
And you admit that you're as cowardly as every other "anonymous" with a modem? Okay, if you say so.
Since you're too afraid to use your real name, make up a phony one. That way we can distinguish your comments from all the other anonymous comments out there. Which is a key benefit of naming oneself, of course.
In fact, make up a name before I officially designate you "Coward" with a capital C. Your choice whether you use that name or another, but stop your transparent hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
Alas, you haven't found a single historical mistake in any of my postings. Rather, you've claimed I've made mistakes without proving it. In case you don't know it, there's a huge difference between the two.
In Another Fraud Like Churchill? you wrote, "Also you made the idiotic claim that he's an Indian." Did you forget this idiotic claim? Despite knowing that I had characterized Churchill as a "fraud" in the title, you implied I was some sort of dupe.
As with your "idiotic" Churchill claim, saying I don't know history is also a gratuitous personal attack. Since you're ignorant about my background, your assertions are malicious as well as false. When you know exactly how educated I am, then you can cast aspersions on my education if you think it's insufficient.
People can be enrolled Indians with 1/16th or less of Indian "blood," you know. But Churchill claimed he had an unspecified amount of Creek/Cherokee blood and that his "honorary" membership made him a full-fledged tribal member. Neither claim was widely contested until after he wrote his 9/11 essay.
Using ethnic slurs such as "wops" is wrong. But as I said, I'm not debating the universe of Churchill's comments here. If you want to e-mail me something, I'll consider whether it deserves to be posted.
Meanwhile, I suggest you stick to the subject of each posting and stop trying to attack me. FYI, this blog exists for my purposes, not for yours. If you don't like it, start your own "Rob's Idiotic Claims" blog and criticize me there.
P.S. For more on what Churchill meant in his 9/11 essay, see Another Fraud Like Churchill? For more on the "Americans are ignorant" debate, see No Discrimination if Indians Happy?
"o you admit that creating a Blogger account isn't the real reason you post anonymously? What a shocking surprise...not."
I don't enjoy blogging or keeping a journal, never have, never willm that's why.
"And you admit that you're as cowardly as every other "anonymous" with a modem? Okay, if you say so."
My point was that a high percentage of net users use handle and post anonymously so I was guilty of nothing more than standard procedure. Not to mentin the idea that it's somehow brave to use your real name is idiotic. Also I wasn't the only anon poster here; I didn't see you accuse the anons that agreed with you of cowardice.
"Since you're too afraid to use your real name, make up a phony one. That way we can distinguish your comments from all the other anonymous comments out there. Which is a key benefit of naming oneself, of course."
For the last fkn time I didn't use my real name because I didn't see a reason to. You see in addition to being lazy I don't really do a lot of online chatting stuff, no lj, no fb etc. And like I posted before my bravery has nothing to do with this debate; try debating like a grown up.
"In fact, make up a name before I officially designate you "Coward" with a capital C. Your choice whether you use that name or another, but stop your transparent hiding behind the veil of anonymity."
Already did it.
"Alas, you haven't found a single historical mistake in any of my postings. Rather, you've claimed I've made mistakes without proving it. In case you don't know it, there's a huge difference between the two."
In the whole mascots thing about the Fighting Irish you repeat lies about the Irish genocide; which is an blatant case of being 'in the dark' about the history of Eire.
"In Another Fraud Like Churchill? you wrote, "Also you made the idiotic claim that he's an Indian." Did you forget this idiotic claim? Despite knowing that I had characterized Churchill as a "fraud" in the title, you implied I was some sort of dupe."
You failed to do your homework on wardo's claims; even before the 9/11 essay shite storm it was easy to see that it was nonsense, plus the keyword there is 'implied' I didn't call you a name and you're projecting just a tad.
"As with your "idiotic" Churchill claim, saying I don't know history is also a gratuitous personal attack."
First off I didn't say you were ignorant about history in general just that you had made historically ignorant statements, at least you don't buy the myths about that scum lincoln. It's not a personal attack simply a factual statement, a personal would be 'rob you ignorant (censored) don't you know anything?' See the difference? I'll get a flow chart for you.
"Since you're ignorant about my background, your assertions are malicious as well as false. When you know exactly how educated I am, then you can cast aspersions on my education if you think it's insufficient."
How is it malicious to state the facts about an ignorant statement or two and to debate someone? Plus you've insulted me repeatedly so whining about this (I wonder what happened to that internet tough guy I was arguing with) is a wee bit hypocritical.
"People can be enrolled Indians with 1/16th or less of Indian "blood," you know."
True very true but for the zillionth time an honorary membership card ain't the real deal.
"But Churchill claimed he had an unspecified amount of Creek/Cherokee blood and that his "honorary" membership made him a full-fledged tribal member. Neither claim was widely contested until after he wrote his 9/11 essay."
It was still bullshit and he had stated his claims before, so a few minutes of research would have proven that he wasn't an Indian.
"Using ethnic slurs such as "wops" is wrong. But as I said, I'm not debating the universe of Churchill's comments here. If you want to e-mail me something, I'll consider whether it deserves to be posted."
Fair enough.
"Meanwhile, I suggest you stick to the subject of each posting and stop trying to attack me. FYI, this blog exists for my purposes, not for yours. If you don't like it, start your own "Rob's Idiotic Claims" blog and criticize me there."
Attack you? All I did was state facts and debate you, I didn't call you a 'doofus' (seriously if you're going to cuss pick a better insult), accuse you of cowardice, insult your intelligence or call you names, unlike you I argue like *gasp* an adult. Can we please keep your hurt feelings out of this?
My point was that when you post multiple attacks on someone, you have an obligation to identify yourself and where you're coming from. You weren't willing to do that until I coaxed you to.
Re "I didn't see you accuse the anons that agreed with you of cowardice": You're the only person who has posted multiple attacks anonymously. If someone else did the same, I'd call him a coward also.
Re "like I posted before my bravery has nothing to do with this debate": Your anonymity has a lot to do with your credibility. Are you a 75-year-old professor or a 25-year-old punk who wasn't born when I first studied history? Who knows unless you start identifying yourself?
Re "try debating like a grown
up": Trying signing your name like a grown-up.
Re "In the whole mascots thing about the Fighting Irish you repeat lies about the Irish genocide": What lies? This is another worthless opinion that you can't or won't document. Put up or shut up, mouth.
Re "You failed to do your homework on wardo's claims; even before the 9/11 essay shite storm it was easy to see that it was nonsense": The question isn't whether it was "easy to see" in theory. The question is whether anyone had any reason to question Churchill's background. And if they'd done so already.
In other words, the question is whether the questions about his background were common knowledge. I say they weren't. If you disagree, show us the evidence that the doubts about Churchill were well-known before 9/11. Do the "homework" you think I should've done and prove your case.
Re "First off I didn't say you were ignorant about history in general just that you had made historically ignorant statements": I can't tell whether you're trying to deceive us or yourself. A typical comment from you is, "Wow more ignorance from Robby; what a shocker. For a self proclaimed expert on Indians you don't seem to be aware of the fact...." This isn't a criticism of "historically ignorant statements," it's a personal attack on my knowledge and credibility.
Nice try to cover up your tracks, but no sale. Next time, just admit you were wrong about attacking me. Don't try to bluff us when I can find and post every comment you've ever made.
Re "How is it malicious to state the facts about an ignorant statement or two and to debate someone?" That's just the point. You rarely if ever state facts. You assert that I'm ignorant about something without citing or quoting my postings. If you actually stated a fact, I wouldn't have to chastise you for your asinine personal attacks.
Re "Plus you've insulted me repeatedly so whining about this ... is a wee bit hypocritical": I've never said I wouldn't respond in kind to an ad hominem attack. I'm happy to call a liar a liar and a coward a coward. Unlike you, though, I don't instigate attacks for no reason.
Re "Attack you? All I did was state facts and debate you": Yes, and no. See above for an example of a personal attack.
Again, the next time you tell me I'm ignorant or haven't taken a history class without documenting your claims to the letter, I'll feel free to delete your comments. My readers don't want to read your attacks and neither do I. No way are you cluttering my blog with your childish attempts to belittle me.
Post a Comment