Colleges ban peace pipe, invite Churchill

LA colleges ban ‘peace pipe’ but invite fake Indian to campus event

By Charles C. JohnsonKowtowing to pressure from left-wing groups, liberal arts colleges in Southern California have banned a tradition of passing a peace pipe at homecoming football games—at the same time that the schools brought fake Indian and mass-murder supporter Ward Churchill to campus.

Pomona and Claremont McKenna College in eastern Los Angeles County have exchanged a Native American peace pipe every football game since 1959, but Mike Sutton, director of athletic and physical education, announced an end to the tradition last week.

“The issue of the inappropriate use of the Peace Pipe as a trophy was not a topic of conversation until October when members of the CMS (Claremont McKenna-Mudd-Scripps) and PP (Pomona-Pitzer) Athletic leadership met with students who are members of our Indigenous Student Alliance (ISA),” Sutton said in an email.

“The Peace Pipe’s retirement rests on the spiritual context of this religious tradition,” Sutton wrote. “If a group holds an object as sacred whether a pipe, a cross or a menorah, our values here at the college and the other colleges as well lead us to respect that object.”

But while the colleges maintain a position of honoring Native Americans by removing the tradition, they didn’t object to having Ward Churchill on campus Nov. 14 to denounce U.S. “colonialism.”

Churchill is described as an “American Indian scholar/activist,” though in fact the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in 2005 announced that it had no record indicating his tribal affiliation was genuine.Comment:  Peace pipes weren't a tradition among Southern California's Indians. And neither college has an Indian mascot to provide a rationale for the ritual. So yes, it should go.

Johnson says the colleges bowed to "pressure from left-wing groups." Two paragraphs later he identifies only one source of pressure: the Indigenous Student Alliance (ISA).

As usual with conservative idiots, Johnson tries to smear opposition to racism and stereotyping as liberal hand-wringing and "political correctness." Then he demolishes his own claim by admitting that Native students are behind the protest.

Johnson might have a point about the schools' inconsistency, but he ignores a key factor. The Claremont Colleges consist of five campuses, not one. They must have thousands of school officials and faculty members, and tens of thousands of students.

An athletic department's decision has little or nothing to do with a speakers' bureau decision. Expecting them to be consistent would like expecting the US Congress, the Maryland state legislature, and the DC city council to be consistent. Sure, it would be nice, but they're different bodies with different processes and priorities.

I agree that Churchill's identification as an "American Indian scholar/activist" is problematical, but is that really what bothers Johnson? I doubt it.

Judging by his comments, Johnson objects to Churchill primarily because of his "little Eichmanns" speech. If Churchill was identified correctly as a "scholar/activist involved in American Indian issues," would Johnson still care? I think he would, which would make him, like so many other conservatives, a free-speech hypocrite.

Churchill's Supreme Court appeal denied

Our long national nightmare is finally over!

Supreme Court Rejects Ward Churchill Appeal Without Comment

By Carol BerrySome civil libertarians may be upset—but likely won’t be surprised—at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision April 1 to decline, without comment, former University of Colorado-Boulder (CU) professor Ward Churchill’s final and determined attempt at recompense for what he insists was his 2007 firing for exercising constitutionally protected speech.

The petition to the Supreme Court asked whether a “bad faith investigation” of a professor’s work undertaken “with the stated purpose of finding grounds for termination” violates the constitution and whether “absolute, quasi-judicial immunity” should prevail even when a jury determines protected officials fired a tenured professor in retaliation for constitutionally protected free speech and would not otherwise have fired him.

The justices’ decision not to hear Churchill’s petition allows to stand rulings by the Colorado Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court that Churchill’s termination and CU’s refusal to reinstate him do not stem from actions inconsistent with civil rights law. The high court’s determination upholds “quasi-judicial immunity” for the CU Regents who fired Churchill and lets stand the contention that CU’s detailed investigation of his scholarship, which led to his dismissal for “research misconduct,” was not inherently an adverse employment action.Comment:  I didn't mind his Eichmann comment or his questionable scholarship. But I have zero tolerance for people who claim to be Indians without evidence.

For more on Ward Churchill, see Churchill Loses in Colorado Supreme Court and Peltier Calls Churchill a "Phony."

Churchill loses in Colorado Supreme Court

Ward Churchill loses appeal to win back CU job

By Steven K. PaulsonThe attorney for a former University of Colorado professor who lost his appeal to get his job back after he compared some Sept. 11 victims with a Nazi said Monday he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled university officials qualified for immunity.

Churchill attorney David Lane said the appeal will be over claims that Ward Churchill's free speech rights were violated.

"The court never said his First Amendment rights were not violated. They simply said the regents are above the law, which is a dangerous precedent," Lane said.Churchill Loses in State Supreme Court

By Carol BerryEmbattled former professor Ward Churchill failed what may be his last chance in a five-year civil rights lawsuit against the University of Colorado-Boulder (CU). The Colorado Supreme Court ruled September 10 that university officials enjoyed immunity from legal action when they fired him.

The state’s high court affirmed the Colorado Court of Appeals and the state trial court, “both of which held that Professor Ward Churchill was not entitled to any of the remedies he sought,” and said the state Supreme Court “holds that the Regents’ termination proceeding was a quasi-judicial proceeding and the Regents are entitled to absolute immunity.”

The state’s high court also upheld the trial court’s ruling that denied the former tenured professor’s reinstatement or front pay in lieu of regaining his position.Comment:  For more on Ward Churchill, see Peltier Calls Churchill a "Phony" and Churchill Loses Firing Appeal.

Is Elizabeth Warren Native?

Finally, we get to the core question in the Elizabeth Warren controversy: Is she really Native?

First, Warren explains herself, sort of:

Warren explains minority listing, talks of grandfather's "high cheekbones"

By Lucy MadisonWarren said she was "very proud" of her heritage and "very proud of the stories that my grandparents told me that my grandparents told my parents and my parents told my brothers and me."

"Being Native American is part of who our family is and I'm glad to tell anyone about that. I am just very proud of it," Warren said.

The candidate said Wednesday that she had never asked her relatives for documentation of her lineage, but when questioned by reporters if she regretted self-identifying as Native American, she recounted a story about her family's history with the culture.

"No, as I said, these are my family stories. I have lived in a family that has talked about Native Americans, talked about tribes since I had been a little girl," she said. "I still have a picture on my mantel and it is a picture my mother had before that--a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he--her father, my Papaw--had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do. Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She that thought was the bad deal she had gotten in life."

"Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born," Warren continued.Is self-identification enough?

Since the controversy began, people have weighed in on the question of whether she's Native. Some key opinions:

Elizabeth Warren says she’s Native American. So she is.

By David TreuerAn Indian identity is something someone claims for oneself; it is a matter of choice. It is not legally defined and entails no legal benefits. Being an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe, however, is a legal status that has nothing to do with identity and everything to do with blood quantum. Members must meet requirements set by the tribe in consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. (Elizabeth Warren is not enrolled in a tribe and doesn’t seem to have sought such status. She doesn’t claim an Indian identity, just Indian ancestry.) Indians who are not enrolled in a tribe aren’t eligible for the aforementioned programs and benefits, including casino profits, education assistance, hunting privileges and housing.

Indians make up a spectrum—for some, not claiming an Indian identity would be positively strange; for others, the claim is hard to accept since there is so little blood and possibly no cultural connection behind it. Most Indians exist between these two poles. Claimed or not, to be Indian and to grow up in a tribal community often meant that what you inherited was a lack of adequate health care, education and opportunity.Good news for millions of New Agers, wannabes, and other pretenders. They're Native because they say they are.

Like the British poseurs who dress up in ugly wigs and facepaint and call themselves Apache, I'm feeling like an Indian today. I think I'll declare myself one so I can get some government checks and a casino.

Actually, Treuer mostly provides background on being Native. Despite the bold headline, he admits she hasn't claimed an Indian identity. Nor did she grow up in a tribal community.

Therefore, the headline is misleading. Treuer doesn't give us a reason to label Warren Native.

Is one drop of blood enough?

Native Americans defend Warren over heritage issue

By Chris CamireTom "Eagle Rising" Libby, chief of the Greater Lowell Indian Cultural Association, said Warren is being treated unfairly by critics who think her blond hair, fair skin and blue eyes should disqualify her from labeling herself as a minority.

"When people look at me and see freckles, they think I'm Irish," said Libby, 38, of Lowell, who is a member of the Mi'kmaq tribe. "One of the things I stress is to ignore the stereotypes. When you hear Indian, the first thing you think of is big nose and dark, long hair. Well, that's not always the case."

Libby is a Republican and plans to vote for U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in the November election. He estimates his heritage to be about 10 perent to 15 percent Mi'kmaq and said he checks off "American Indian" on the U.S. Census and on job applications when given the opportunity do so.

"Our philosophy is, whether you're full-blooded or have one drop in your body, we consider you native," said Libby, who works in marketing. "It's not about the percentages. Our philosophies come from a way of life, a way of thinking, a spirituality. It's not about the amount of blood."Libby might want to check his thinking. Actually, he's saying it is about the amount of blood. If your blood quantum is more than zero, you're Native.

It doesn't matter if you have the "way of life, a way of thinking, a spirituality"--none of which Warren had. According to Libby, a few DNA particles in her blood make her Native.

Again, millions of wannabes and New Agers will be glad to hear it. Suddenly the Native population in the US has increased from 5 million to perhaps 100 million. One of every couple of Americans is eligible for Native jobs, Native scholarships, etc.

For starters, practically every Latino has more Native "blood" than Warren. So move over, Indians. You're now a minority in your own minority. Latinos will take most of the opportunities you used to get...sorry.

A comment from someone on Facebook:That article could have been written by the Chief of the Wannabe Nation. Damn near said it's what is in your heart that counts. No one I know has this opinion. Most have called Warren out as a fraud.I think opinion on Warren is divided in Indian country. But I haven't seen anyone provide clearcut answers yet. Does the one-drop rule make you Native? (No.) Is it enough to self-identify as Native? (No.) Do secondhand stories you heard as a child make you Native? (No.)

Which also rules out Ward Churchill, Johnny Depp, and the Kardashian sisters. Sorry, peeps!

Note: The Kardashian sisters claim to have 3% Native DNA. That's about the same blood quantum as Elizabeth Warren (‎1/32 = 3.125%). If she's Native, so are they.

More on the subject:

Elizabeth Warren’s Native American roots no surprise in Oklahoma

Is 'one-drop' rule overruled?

Native or "of Native heritage"?

Elizabeth Warren and the Politics of Being Indian

By Lindsey Catherine CornumThe scam seems to lie in the fact that the amount of Cherokee blood Warren has coursing through her veins has been quantified as a mere 1/32nd. This constitutes “cheating” in many people’s minds because anyone who has only 1/32 Indian blood couldn’t possibly be a real Cherokee; they are obviously just a ruthless schemer using a flawed system to fuel their own twisted ambition. “CherokeeGate” has thus not only opened the old arguments against affirmative action, it has re-opened the even older debates about what makes a real Indian. As with most cases of Indians in the news, the loudest voices in this controversy have been patently misguided and often racist.

To begin with, anyone who still believes blood quantum is a true measure of identity is living in the 19th century. Blood quantum, the measure by which the government determines one’s degree of Indian ancestry, has got to be one of the most plainly hypocritical logics the American government has ever used to disenfranchise people. At the same time America was using the “one drop” rule to categorize as many people with African ancestry as slaves as possible, they were using a reverse “one drop” rule on Indians in order to categorize them as white in the hopes this would loosen ties to the communally held land settlers desperately wanted.

Yet, if Warren claimed 1/32nd Cherokee heritage and was dark-skinned, I bet the conversation would be a lot different. The problem is Warren just doesn’t look Cherokee enough. Because of her physical appearance, many believe she has not had a genuine minority experience and does not deserve to claim minority status. To some degree, that is correct. As a light-skinned woman whom most people read as of Western-European descent, Warren has probably never experienced outright racism first-hand. Because she is granted white privilege based on her white appearance, however, does not necessarily mean she is just white—this applies not only to Elizabeth Warren but to all light-skinned people with non-European heritage. Though they must be held accountable for their conditional privilege and to the communities they purport to belong to, their decision to connect to their heritage is theirs alone. Nobody gets to decide that for them but their ancestors.

Unfortunately, in defending herself and her choice to list herself as minority professor, Warren has relied on her own reductionist interpretations of Indianness. While she did give a sincere account about the family history she was told and raised on, she has also tried to confirm her Cherokee ancestry by pointing to the high cheekbones of her grandfather. I mean, a part of me gets it. For those of us who do not look Indian enough (which these days requires full-blown regalia or being dead) or those of us who are cut off from our tribal communities, there is a struggle to identify what exactly is Indian about us. That sometimes comes out in misguided generalizations that we know will be understood by the ignorant, Hollywood-fed American public. In many cases those ignorant, Hollywood-based images are some of the only ways we know ourselves what constitutes an authentic Indian.

For me, being Navajo is a political identity based on the fact that I have ancestors that inhabited this land with alternative systems of governance that were then completely destroyed by the settlement of Americans. For Warren, it seems, being Cherokee is not just about her grandfather’s handsome bone structure but a sense of place (from her Oklahoma upbringing) and a family tradition carried down through orally-transmitted stories. Though this is only conjecture on my part and though I do wish Warren had a history of serving and being accountable to the Cherokee people she is so proud to be tied to, I have few problems with somebody who self-identifies as part Indian based on oral history and a connection to land.These are all good points, but Cornum avoids the key question. Being part Native and connecting to one's heritage isn't the same as being Native and getting a job because of it.

Cornum argues that Warren isn't "just white." Okay, but the question is whether she qualifies as "just Native." Do you count her as a minority rather than as a white person, as at least two universities did in their diversity reports? I say no.

Debating Warren's identity

A debate on the subject occurred after I posted the following on Facebook:

There's absolutely no truth to the rumor that Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill have the same great-grandparents. #wannabesinacademia

Being proud of your 1/32 Native heritage is one thing. But unless you're tribally enrolled, you have no business claiming to be Native on an application, in a directory, or anywhere. The subject never should come up except as background info.

On the other hand, there's no evidence (yet) that Warren used her heritage to get a job. And unlike Churchill, she isn't a professor of Native studies, where you'd expect to see a Native.Yeah, I think you're off track here. Heritage is heritage. We really don't want to be the "Who's an Indian?" Police, do we? Besides, Warren is awesome in every way and Scott Brown is a reprehensible piece of human crap. I hope she stomps his guts out his mouth, NDN or no.A little bit of heritage isn't the same as a lot of heritage. Ward Churchill, Johnny Depp, and others of their ilk are taking jobs from real Natives, and that's a problem.

Tribes and government agencies do police who's Native to help weed out frauds and wannabes. If they can do it, so can we.Sorry, but I think you're wrong. Blood Quantum is racist bullshit designed to destroy us a race of people. Does she tribally identify? Does she have any connection to the tribe? Were her parents or grandparents enrolled? If so, I'm not casting aspersions.Does she tribally identify? No. Does she have any connection to the tribe? No. Were her parents or grandparents enrolled? No.

Does that change your position any? Shouldn't you have known the answers before you said I was wrong? Yes, obviously.

Sounds like you're talking about people who are well-connected with their Native heritage, which does not include Warren. She didn't know anything more than the family rumors before a genealogist tracked down her great-great-great-grandmother. A tenuous oral history isn't much of a peg to hang an identity on.

I guess you're okay with Johnny Depp playing a Native, then. Indeed, you'd be okay if Elizabeth Warren took up a career in acting and played Pocahontas or Sacagawea. But most Hollywood Natives would not accept that outcome. And I'm with them.

For more on the subject, see Warren Explains Directory Listings and Did Warren Check "Native" to Get Job?

Peltier calls Churchill a "phony"

Some little-known facts about the continuing controversy that is Ward Churchill:

Why is U of T Listening to Ward Churchill’s Nonsense?

By Peter WorthingtonBorn in 1947, in Urbana, Illinois, Churchill has claimed to have been drafted in 1966 and have taken parachute training before spending nearly a year in Vietnam on Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol in enemy territory. Supposedly, this combat experience radicalized him to work with the Weather Underground on return to civilian life, where he taught the art of bomb-making.

Impressive to some, perhaps, except that none of it is true.

Churchill might have been in army public information, and/or as a truck driver. Ranger regiments say there’s no record on him ever doing Long Range Patrols in Vietnam.

Ward Churchill also presents himself as having Indian blood--another of his wannabe traits. The leadership of the American Indian Movement (AIM) has denounced him--even suggested he was working undercover for the FBI--and the Cherokees have said there is no record of him having Indian blood. (Churchill has variously claimed one-sixteenth to three-sixteenth Cherokee blood, one-eighth Creek blood).

When I visited Leonard Peltier in Leavenworth prison (three times), on each occasion he had harsh things to say about Ward Churchill, and wanted no part of “this phony.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Churchill Loses Firing Appeal and Tim Wise on Ward Churchill.

Churchill loses firing appeal

Ward Churchill loses appeal of his firing

By Christopher N. OsherThe Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court decision denying University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's effort to get his job back.

The court ruled that Denver District Judge Larry Naves was right to direct a verdict in favor of the university and to find that the university was entitled to "quasi-judicial immunity."

"We conclude that the nature of the decision reached by the university and its regents, and the process by which that decision was reached, shared enough characteristics with the judicial process to warrant absolute immunity from liability," states the opinion from Judge Dennis Graham, who was writing for the Court of Appeals.

Churchill's lawyer, David Lane, said he will try to convince the Colorado Supreme Court to take up the case. He predicted the case could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Churchill has vowed that he will teach again at the university.Comment:  Hahaha! I don't like the university's attempt to silence Churchill, but I like it whenever he loses at anything.

For more on the subject, see ACLU Backs Ward Churchill and Cook-Lynn:  Don't Rehire Churchill.

Below:  "Ward Churchill testifies during his reinstatement hearing at the Denver City and County Building in Denver, Wednesday, July 1, 2009." (The Daily Camera/Mark Leffingwell)

Tim Wise on Ward Churchill

Author Tim Wise's take on Ward Churchill's infamous 9/11 essay:

Reflections on Empire and Uppity Indians

By Tim WiseWhile Churchill’s essay was indelicate in places, it paled in comparison to the truly bloodthirsty things being said by representatives of the state or the denizens of talk radio around that same time–folks who were itching to level Afghanistan, turn the Arab world into a parking lot, or, as Bill O’Reilly put it, put a bullet to the heads of any Afghans who weren’t sufficiently supportive of our ousting the Taliban for them.

I remember reading Ward’s missive at the time, and being bothered by the “little Eichmanns” reference (for those who worked in the World Trade Center), not because I thought Churchill actually believed these folks deserved to die, but because I knew the statement would be taken out of context and used to smear not only him, but the larger left of which we are both a part. In other words, Ward was perhaps guilty of naivete, assuming that people are far more capable of discerning nuance and irony than they really are.

But to the two men in the World Club, he was guilty of a lot more than that. To them, Churchill’s most egregious crime was not having died, “like all the other Indians.”

I shit you not. One of the men, fuming about the article that now has Ward facing down the barrel of a Board of Trustees looking for any reason to fire him, despite tenure, turned to the other and said: “Just when you thought we’d killed all the Indians, one pops up talkin’ some shit like this, and reminds you that we didn’t finish the job after all.”And:Dead people of color, the world over, or right here in the U.S., whose ashes they step over every time they walk out the door of their homes, mean nothing to them. Their deaths are cause for no tears, no contrition, no recompense, and certainly have never served to disqualify those responsible (or those who applaud the carnage) from positions of authority, in colleges, or government. Nor will schools now move to block dear Madame Albright from speaking on their campuses, as happened to Ward; nor will Ann Coulter find herself a pariah for fantasizing about the incineration of folks whose only crime was to be born North Korean.

But Ward Churchill, who has merely laid out the facts about America’s murderous ways around the globe is to be silenced. Those who do the deed are cheered, re-elected and get buildings named after them. Those who merely tell of their exploits and suggest that perhaps there may be consequences, get crushed.

This is what happens, in a nation built on lies from the beginning; whose empire has been constructed on the sands of self-delusion; whose inability to tell the truth about itself has now become the stuff of farce. Our lack of self-awareness, not to mention the way in which Americans pride ourselves on how little we know about the world, and how reflexively patriotic we can be, would all be funny were it not so miserably pathetic, and ultimately so dangerous.Comment:  Wise notes the basic hypocrisy of many Americans. If Ward Churchill was wrong to call the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" who deserved what they got, why were right-wing pundits cheered for wanting to destroy entire (Muslim) nations? Why haven't we shamed and shunned these maniacs the way we did Churchill? How is it that advocates for Nazi-style genocide--the real little Eichmanns--still walk among us untainted?

Moreover, our hypocrisy about Muslims is tied to our hypocrisy about Indians. Countless Americans think Indians deserved what they got because they were primitive savages akin to rabid dogs. We had to clear the native flora and fauna (including Indians) out of the way before we could settle and civilize the land.

We hear this constantly. If you claim Americans killed Indians, you can practically guarantee how many Americans will respond. "The Indians killed each other before the Europeans arrived. They scalped, tortured, and mutilated people. We had to treat them like the animals they were."

Which is basically what we've said about Muslims the last few years. "They're savage, barbaric, evil. They have no sense of decency or humanity. They want only to conquer, kill, and destroy us."

Which is why it's fair to say many Americans are little Eichmanns. They don't mind that we killed most of the Indians. And they wouldn't mind if we killed most of the Muslims. As long as white Christian Americans remain at the center of the universe, everyone else can die.

For more on Ward Churchill, see ACLU Backs Ward Churchill and Churchill's Role in Native Studies. For more on the similarities between Indians and Muslims, see Muslim "Tribes" = Indian Tribes?! and Yesterday's Cherokees = Today's Muslims. For some typical defenses of America's genocide against Indians, see:

Were Indians "colonists" too?
Educating Tony about genocide
Europeans taught Natives "discipline, order"?
Europeans and Indians equally evil?
"Something you never hear" about Indians?

Etc.

Movies convey "America's master narrative"

The infamous Ward Churchill deconstructs the movie Indian. I particularly like how he links the "noble savages" in recent movies with the "savages" in earlier movies. One way or another, these movies attempted to excuse our genocidal actions toward Indians.

Smoke Signals: A History of Native Americans in Cinema

By Ward ChurchillWhile most of what was produced consisted of squalid potboilers in which Indians served, as Oneida comic Charlie Hill puts it, as "pop-up targets to give the cowboys and the cavalry something to shoot at," some of the films at issue must be considered as serious cinema. In this sense, they must also be assessed as conveying as deeply virulent a message of racial triumphalism as anything ever produced by Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda during Germany's Nazi era.

One can debate whether John Ford's The Searchers (1956) was really the most racist anti-Indian movie ever made, or whether that dubious distinction more rightly belongs to Robert Mulligan's The Stalking Moon (1969) or John Huston's Unforgiven (1960), but the fact is that there are a vast number of contenders. And, as Indians were systematically converted onscreen to America's equivalent of untermensch, the herrenvolk most directly responsible for perpetrating genocide against us were just as systematically heroicized, a matter which remained true from Errol Flynn's portrayal of George Armstrong Custer in They Died With Their Boots On (1941) to Robert Shaw's in Custer of the West (1969).

Being perfected was what Cherokee aesthetician Jimmie Durham terms "America's Master Narrative"—Gramsci might have called it "hegemony"—that is, indoctrination of the populace with a mythic (mis)understanding that nothing really wrong had transpired in the course of U.S, history. On the contrary, it had all been a noble undertaking, carried out by a combination of gallant leaders and brave settlers forging a better future. If anyone had gotten hurt along the way, namely Indians, it was because they'd "brought it on themselves" by being essentially subhuman in the first place and then compounding the defect with persistent and aggressive attempts to prevent whites from making things "work out for the best."

The "Good" Indians

Not all Indians were so bad, of course. Some were even depicted as being noble, too. These were the ones who perceived a "tragic inevitability" in being overrun by a self-anointedly superior race or culture, and who therefore evidenced the good taste to "simply vanish" with dignity rather than complaining about it. Even better were those who not only accepted the innateness of white supremacy, but who used their insights to provide actual service to Euroamerica, helping the invaders get on with it. Such notions are not unfamiliar to colonial literature, as even the most cursory reading of Joseph Conrad will reveal. The Lone Ranger's Tonto is, after all, simply Rudyard Kipling's Gunga Din recast in feathers, as is Chingachgook in Last of the Mohicans.

Once "revisionist" films like Little Big Man and Soldier Blue began to appear in 1970, mainly as a sop to mounting protest of the Vietnam War, previously glorified martial figures like Custer began to lose their allure. The Master Narrative was consequently reworked to admit that unconscionable atrocities had been committed against Indians over the years, just as they were being committed against Indochinese at the time. Such "historical excesses" were then attributed, however, quickly and quite uniformly, to "anomalous" Custer-like characters.

Always, these highly personalized embodiments of evil were counterbalanced by the centrality of sympathetic white characters—Candice Bergen's Christa Marybelle Lee and Peter Strauss's Honis Gant in Soldier Blue, as examples, or Dustin Hoffman's Jack Crabbe in Little Big Man—with whom Euroamerican viewers might identify. Always, the Indians in such films serve as mere plot devices intended mainly to validate the main white characters' alleged sensitivities, and to convey forgiveness to "good" (i.e., most) whites for the misdeeds of their "bad" (i.e., atypical or "deviant") peers.Comment: Regular readers know I basically agree with the views expressed here. Indeed, I've said similar things in my analyses of The Lone Ranger and Winnetou, various old Western movies, and Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.

For more on the subject, see Valenti: Movies Are Merely Movies and Ups and Downs of Hollywood Indians.

ACLU backs Ward Churchill

ACLU supports reinstatement for Ward Churchill

By Carol BerryThe American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that former professor Ward Churchill should be reinstated by the University of Colorado because he was wrongly fired for exercising his right to free speech.

The national ACLU, ACLU of Colorado, American Association of University Professors, and National Coalition Against Censorship filed a friend-of-the-court brief Feb. 18 with the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Churchill’s case has been pending in the appeals court since a jury’s verdict supporting his retaliatory firing lawsuit was thrown out in July by a District Court judge who said CU regents had immunity from lawsuit.

“The First Amendment prohibits government officials from suppressing lawful speech or retaliating against those who engage in such speech, no matter how unpopular or offensive the speech may be to some,” the organizations stated in a 53-page filing. “That is especially the case in the university setting, where the Supreme Court has made clear that First Amendment freedoms must be vigilantly protected.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Judge Naves's Shaky Ruling and Judge Upholds Churchill's Dismissal.

Below:  "Ward Churchill’s opening brief and those of the American Civil Liberties Union and other supporters were filed Feb. 18 with the Colorado Court of Appeals, where the former University of Colorado ethnic studies professor hopes for reinstatement or compensation." (Photo by Carol Berry)

Churchill discredits oral history

Jeopardizing scholarshipAs a high school teacher and a collector of oral history for my tribe, I find it troubling that professor Michael Yellow Bird of The University of Kansas would jeopardize the validity of oral history in his support of Ward Churchill. Ward Churchill’s scholarship is factual on many levels but his “identity theft” as an indigenous person only serves to place that scholarship and real history in serious doubt in the minds of the general population.

I’m not sure if American Indians are aware of the landmark Canadian Supreme Court decision, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997), which ruled tribal oral history was just as valid as European written history in a court of law involving land claims. A neo-con journalist up here in Canada picked up the story on Churchill’s defense that oral history supported his assertions that smallpox was intentionally introduced to the Mandan Nation by the American army. The Canadian journalist used this as an example that tribal oral history was based on “vague claims.”

My fear is lawyers will quickly use the Churchill saga as proof that oral history can be manipulated or fabricated.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Judge Upholds Churchill's Dismissal and Historical Truth Helps Minorities.

Churchill's role in Native studies

Churchill's identity revealed in wake of Nazi commentThe nature of Churchill's decidedly offensive remarks, however, forces us to critique in general the injurious approach to scholarship and basic human decency. We defend the right to broadcast and publish, but propose it is reprehensible to excoriate innocent human beings who have suffered great loss by rubbing salt in deep wounds simply to prove a political point and simply to strike (one more time) a political posture on behalf of the far left and under the guise of American Indian sentiment. Wrapped intimately with American Indian themes in his writings and lectures, and shielded apparently by his own American Indian Movement (AIM) security team, Churchill projects the image of the quintessential American Indian activist and/or warrior--angry, defiant, insulting, forceful and accusatory. Churchill sometimes captures the historical truth of a thing, but only to load it like deadly ammunition into his ideological machine gun.

In the Native Studies field, Churchill has been one of those scholar-spokesmen who lead with the idea that Indian peoples are best served by constantly pushing the button of contradiction and the memory of every ill that has ever been inflicted against the tribes. To endlessly cite the misdeeds of the American Empire--while layering the legend of Nazi Germany over it--has the constant method of the Churchill scholarship. Producing a stream of abundant texts all wrapped around his brand of anti-colonialist rhetoric, Churchill has been--by far--the loudest and most obvious remonstrator against the Euro-American Empire's historical (and contemporary) evils inflicted on Native peoples. One can argue Churchill has projected the image of an angry Indian who became notorious for being in the face of non-Indians as much as possible--even though the evidence builds that he is, himself, non-Indian.Comment:  I'd say these passages describe Churchill's position in Native studies well. They also suggest why it's worth spending time on him and his battles. He's the "loudest and most obvious remonstrator against the Euro-American Empire's historical (and contemporary) evils," and he "projects the image of the quintessential American Indian activist and/or warrior." Through his scholarship and activism, he's an important figure in shaping the image of Indians--for better or worse.

I don't have a problems with many of Churchill's positions. I do have a problem with his over-the-top rhetoric and pro-Indian propaganda. For instance, his claims about smallpox-laden blankets and the lack of prejudice among Indians. My position is like historian John Hope Franklin's: historical truth helps minorities.

Of course, I attack Euro-American evils almost as much as Churchill. But I hope I'm not as bad as he is.

Today's postings are pretty typical. We have some specific critiques of Native stereotypes that are designed to educate people, not anger them. We also have some celebrations of Native arts, which Indians are using to spread their message in positive and innovative ways. And unlike Churchill, I often explain myself and justify my positions. I trust my postings are leavened with honesty and humor.

Also, I don't claim to be an Indian and then lie about it. I'm happy to be a typical WASP.

I conclude my approach is better than Churchill's. It uses some of Churchill's methodologies but improves on them. If Churchill were more like me, he'd be a more effective communicator.

For more on the subject, see Judge Upholds Churchill's Dismissal and Cook-Lynn:  Don't Rehire Churchill.

Judge Naves's shaky ruling

Robinson:  Churchill ruling nowhere near the final resolution

By Scott RobinsonThe ruling by Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves that set aside the jury's $1 verdict in ex-professor Ward Churchill's civil rights wrongful-termination lawsuit sets the stage for the inevitable appeal, an appeal that presents complicated and difficult legal issues that could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The unusual post-verdict dismissal of the case is based on Naves' legal determination that in terminating Churchill, the regents of the University of Colorado were serving a judicial function, acting as judges are called upon to act, and, consequently, are entitled to "quasi-judicial immunity" as a matter of law.

What is quasi-judicial immunity, you ask?

It's an emerging doctrine eliminating liability for individuals and entities serving in judicial-like capacities, such as an administrative agency hearing officer or a member of a regulatory agency like the Board of Medical Examiners, which oversees physicians.

The idea is that, as a society, we cannot permit judges to be sued for their actions as judges, or the entire legal system would collapse.Judge Larry J. Naves Denies Churchill Even a Pyrrhic Victory

By Kevin O'BrienIn effect, Judge Naves has, unless reversed on appeal, sanitized CU of the taint of the jury’s decision that CU terminated him not for research misconduct, but for expressing his first amendment rights in violation of the Constitution. Thus, not only is Churchill not entitled to the $1 jury award and the vindication the award represented, but his attorneys cannot seek reimbursement of their attorney fees conjectured to be over $1,000,000 since Churchill did not prevail in his Section 1983 first amendment claim. Most of this cost would never have been incurred by Churchill and his attorneys (or, for that matter, the jury’s time in sitting through a month long trial) had the issue of quasi-judicial immunity been determined before trial by Judge Naves through a motion for summary judgment that as a matter of law CU would prevail.

What is remarkable about the judge’s decision is that it adopted almost every argument proffered by CU’s legal briefs. Reading today’s trial decision felt like I was re-reading the CU briefs. For example, by not awarding even front pay in lieu of reinstatement, Judge Naves effectively blocked an award of attorney fees to Churchill on the basis that the $1 award represents a Pyrrhic victory invalidating the award of attorney fees under existing case law (in the event his quasi-judicial immunity ruling in favor of CU is overturned and the reinstatement and front-pay issues are no longer moot).CU billing Churchill for out-of-pocket legal expenses

Churchill attorney:  ‘I don’t know how many schools would hire him’

Comment:  Naves's "reasoning" seems bogus to me. He decided that the university fired Churchill for misconduct even though the jury decided it didn't. That $1 was all Churchill deserved even though the jury was limited to considering past damages, not future damages. That the dubious doctrine of "quasi-judicial immunity" applied to a situation it hadn't applied to before. And more.

If you ask me, we need more situations where we can sue officials for malfeasance, not fewer. Too many people--politicians, corporate executives, government bureaucrats, law enforcement officers, et al.--are protected by law from being sued for their misconduct. If they can't stand the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen.

In addition, Naves is a CU law school alumnus, which means he had a huge incentive to maintain the prestige of his school and his fellow alumni. Most rulings don't have much chance of being overturned on appeal, but this ruling seems shakier than most. As Robinson said, I'll bet this case "is nowhere near final resolution."

Judge upholds Churchill's dismissal

No job, no money for Churchill

By Tom McGheeIn a 42-page decision issued today, Naves agreed with the university that Churchill's presence on the Boulder campus would suggest that the university tolerated academic misconduct.

"The evidence was credible that professor Churchill will not only be the most visible member of the department of ethnic studies if reinstated, but that reinstatement will create the perception in the broader academic community that the department of ethnic studies tolerates research misconduct," Naves wrote.

"In addition, this negative perception has great potential to hinder students graduating from the department of ethnic studies in their efforts to obtain placement in graduate programs," he wrote.

Naves also refused to order CU to provide front pay, saying there were no actual damages that the money would remedy. And he said that Churchill didn't seek to mitigate his losses by getting another job.

"Professor Churchill's own statements during the trial established that he has not seriously pursued any efforts to gain comparable employment but has, instead, chosen to give lectures and other presentations as a means of supplementing his income. Reportedly, he even 'received a few job offers' that he declined to pursue. Under these circumstances, I do not believe an award of front pay is appropriate," Naves wrote.Court Upholds Dismissal of Colorado ProfessorMr. Churchill’s lawyer, David Lane, said he would appeal the decision.

“To me, this is judicial activism in its worst form,” Mr. Lane said. “What is really a shame here is that a jury said Ward Churchill’s free speech was violated, and yet Judge Naves goes on for almost 50 pages, saying in so many words, ‘Too bad.’”Comment:  If I were Churchill, I'd be annoyed at this ruling. Naves's positions seem to consist mainly of unsubstantiated opinions, not hard facts.

But it feel like a fitting ending for Churchill's career at the University of Colorado. Anyone as arrogant as he is deserves to be taken down a peg.

But at least Churchill still has the court victory and the $1 the jury gave him. Since he said he wasn't in it for the money, that should be enough to satisfy him.

For more on the subject, see Indians Oppose Churchill's Rehiring and Cook-Lynn:  Don't Rehire Churchill.

More violence = less power

An article on Obama's speech in Cairo is a good rebuttal to Ward Churchill's argument that pacifism is pathological:

Three More Advantages to the Cairo SpeechFinally, and amazingly, Obama said not just that "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." He went on to say that "For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."

Here is what I argued here in April, in a column citing Gorenberg and Schell: "Morally as well as physically, violence in people's wars as well as by military machines is usually a dead end. As Albert Camus understood but Jean-Paul Sartre and Franz Fanon did not, those who lack the courage to think their way through this become, by default, apostles of murder.

"Schell's rendering of coercive non-violence draws not just from Gandhi but also from the even less-pacifist Hannah Arendt's understanding of the inverse relationship between violence and power: The more of the former, the less of the latter, and much sooner than many zealous young fighters of the left or the right ever seem to realize, until it's too late.

"Real power grows from voluntary consent, or it is doomed by its violent imposition, even by people's liberation movements. This is what people who get swept up in moralism aren't strong enough to understand, or brave enough to deliver on. They're not equal to practitioners of coercive non-violence who have brought down vast-national security states in India, South Africa, American Dixie, and Eastern Europe."Comment:  Perhaps Americans were right to fear the Ghost Dance movement--though they weren't right to ban it and kill its practitioners. This peaceful resistance might've led to a better outcome than violent resistance did.

Of course, when people are invading your land and threatening to trample you underfoot, you have the right to respond as violently as possible. But that isn't the case in Israel's occupied territories. These places are relatively stable; the Palestinians aren't in danger of disappearing. In fact, it's the kind of situation where nonviolent protests a la Gandhi and King could work wonders.

For more on the Cairo speech, see Obama's Nine Hard Truths. This explains why Obama is a moral and intellectual giant compared to Bush. For more on the subject of nonviolence, see Diplomacy Works, Violence Doesn't and Winning Through Nonviolence.

Russell on self-identification

Russell:  Fighting the Ferengi ClanWard Churchill’s case brings it up in our collective face, but most Indians in academia have had the problem of persons who “self-identify” as Indian without anything to back up the identity beyond alleged family oral history.

I have always wondered what difference it makes if the proverbial Cherokee grandmother exists? In what sense is somebody Indian who has to hire a genealogist to find an ancestor? I’m not saying that an adult onset Indian cannot belatedly form tribal ties, but connection to a tribe for such people is the exception rather than the rule.

My own position is that Indian identity is not about what you claim, but rather about who claims you. This is diametrically opposed to Churchill’s idea that self-identification is what counts.

I will leave the question with a gentle suggestion for non-Indians who wish to employ Indians. Few Indians are offended by being asked if they are enrolled in connection with a non-tribal employment application. If they are in fact enrolled, that should shift the burden to anybody who claims they are not Indian. If they are not enrolled, the burden should be on them to prove they are Indian by reference to some existing Indian community. Is this rocket science?Reminder:  If Churchill is an Indian by means of self-identification, so am I.

For more on the subject, see Martin Says "Throw the Bums Out!" and Churchill Lies on Camera.

Martin says "Throw the bums out!"

Correspondent Melvin Martin responds to a recent posting on Ward Churchill:My Response to “Self-Identification as an Indian”
Subtitle: “Throw the bums out!”

By Melvin Martin, Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota

As an enrolled member of a U.S. federally recognized tribe, I have high, high hopes that Ward Churchill will not be reinstated at the University of Colorado as I have read eight of the nine affidavits from the various Indian professionals and experts who are contesting Churchill's return to his former position. I am both thrilled as well as extremely proud that we have such intelligent, talented, conscientious people working diligently on behalf of our communities.

Churchill is just one of many hundreds of thousands of non-Indians who in the heyday of affirmative action (from 1975 to 1990) simply claimed to be Indian, minus any valid documentation to that effect, for personal advancement. How many fraudulent miscreants were hired for well-paying jobs in both the public and private sectors then? How many of these quasi-criminal liars were awarded lucrative government contracts (at all levels of government) as “Indian-owned, minority/historically-disadvantaged” businesses?

It's interesting to note that I have been rejected for various jobs or denied a promotion in favor of a CDIB-less wannabe that the company or program liked in much the same way that Hollyweird casts non-Indians in Indian roles. Maybe they (both men and women) were pretty. Maybe the casting couch was involved in the hiring process with these self-identifying "Indians" (many of whom were black as well as white or in some cases even strongly Hispanic or Asian-looking). I don’t know.

I do know a few things though given my experiences “back in the day” when I hit the bricks answering job ads that specifically mentioned “Native Americans strongly encouraged to apply.” One, a giant turkey feather tucked into the huge Afro hairdo of a very, very black man wearing a choker and turquoise jewelry who simply said he’s Choctaw was no laughing matter: he was hired over me. Two, if a statuesque Anna Nicole Smith look-alike who claimed 4/4ths Cherokee, and who worked in the same department as I did doing the same exact job, is made supervisor one month after I applied for the position, what was a "lame" like me to think?

Then there was the light-blond, blue-eyed, Aryan Nation poster boy with the Tab Hunter smile and the glow-in-the-sunlight arm hairs, the “Comanche from Arkansas.” He was the Native American Equal Employment Opportunity officer at one company that I saw (unknown to him) furiously rip up my application with a copy of my CDIB--and quickly bury it in the trash. Ahh! Such were the golden days of affirmative action and its assorted policies designed to redress inequality in America.

What counterbalanced the despicable wannabe overload at the height of affirmative action was the sheer number of non-Indians who were racist and who viewed Indians as dirty, morally debased, illiterate, grunting subhumans. The last thing this crowd wanted was to “self-identify” as American Indian or Alaskan Native. If not for these hordes, I would have lost all my faith in the integrity of humanity.

To Angryindian, a little ditty:

“Oh, where-where were you? When I needed you?
“You-a-who-who, might be Cherokee or Sioux?”

But I digress....

I predict that Ward Churchill will soon be exposed as the fraud that he is, gotten rid of by CU, and that this action will initiate similar actions throughout Indian Country where I know for a fact that "fraud exposure" is gaining in both interest as well as momentum.Comment:  Good essay, Melvin, but I wouldn't put any money on Churchill's being "exposed." One, it's hard to prove a negative: that Churchill isn't an Indian. Two, Churchill is an expert at stonewalling questions about his heritage. Three, when he does speak, he keeps shifting his explanations. Four, he has enough support among academics, activists, and Indians to derail investigations.

As I said in Cook-Lynn:  Don't Rehire Churchill, the University of Colorado could try to sue him over his identity claims. A court proceeding is about the only thing that would force Churchill to explain himself to everyone's satisfaction. Failing that I don't see how the university can ignore the jury verdict that said it wrongly fired Churchill. About all it can do is coax Churchill to take a big monetary settlement in lieu of rehiring.

For more on the subject, see Jodi Rave on Ward Churchill and Blogging About Churchill.

Pacifism is pathological?

Russell:  Churchill’s third juryIn keeping with my normal practice of revealing my biases, I admit to being most offended by Churchill’s “Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America” (1998). It is, perhaps, his justification for that famous photograph of the learned professor with an assault rifle. My complaint comes from having worked with Cesar Chavez, admired Martin Luther King Jr., and spent no small amount of my life urging young Indians to train as “briefcase warriors.” American Indians are oppressed peoples, now as well as historically, but the way out for us is community organizing rather than gunplay.

This fundamental disagreement about the role of an American Indian university professor colors my views of Churchill. Eichmann, Arendt famously observed, was not a particularly bright cog in a genocidal machine. Assuming everyone agrees that capitalism is a genocidal machine (although I, for one, do not), the idea that one who happens to be present in the World Trade Center is a cog in that machine is preposterous.More on the book in question:

Pacifism as Pathology"This extraordinarily important book cuts to the heart of one of the central reasons movements to bring about social and environmental justice always fail. The fundamental question here is: is violence ever an acceptable tool to help bring about social change? This is probably the most important question of our time, yet so often discussions around it fall into clichés and magical thinking: that somehow if we are merely good and nice enough people, the state will stop using its violence to exploit us all. Would that this were true." --Derrick Jensen, author of Endgame, from the introduction.

Pacifism, the ideology of nonviolent political resistance, has been the norm among mainstream North American progressive groups for decades. But to what end? Ward Churchill challenges the pacifist movement's heralded victories--Gandhi in India, 1960s antiwar activists, even Martin Luther King's civil rights movement--suggesting that their success was in spite of, rather than because of, their nonviolent tactics. Pacifism as Pathology was written as a response not only to Churchill's frustration with his own activist experience, but also to a debate raging in the activist and academic communities. He argues that pacifism is in many ways counterrevolutionary; that it defends the status quo, and doesn't lead to social change.Comment:  In the wake of 9/11, I posted Diplomacy Works, Violence Doesn't--a response to those who wanted to launch a "crusade" against Muslims. I'm glad to see history has proved me right again. We haven't captured Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda has regrouped, Afghanistan is still a failed state, Pakistan is still supporting terrorists, and we've wasted countless resources fighting a nonexistent threat in Iraq.

Anyway, I agree with Russell on this issue. I can't think of many cases where armed revolution has led to a democracy that improved the lives of the masses. No doubt I'd kick Churchill's butt if we debated the issue.

Indians oppose Churchill's rehiring

Court affidavits filed in protest of CU rehiring Ward ChurchillAffidavits were filed last week by several prominent Native people and scholars in objection to the possible rehiring of former professor Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado-Boulder.Comment:  Follow the link to read the actual affidavits.

The Indians filing affidavits include Chief Chad Smith, Elizabeth Lynn-Cook, and Suzan Shown Harjo. So much for Churchill's claim that there's no controversy about him among Indians.

For more on the subject, see Churchill from Beginning to End and Churchill Wins His Case.

Churchill lies on camera

Comment:  Three lies caught on video:

1) Churchill claims there's no controversy about his being Indian among Indians. Wrong...there's a huge controversy about it among everyone, including Indians.

2) Churchill says "self-evidently, I am [an Indian]." There's nothing self-evident about it. Most people would guess him to be a white hippie leftist.

3) Churchill cites his associate membership in the United Keetoowah Band. Here's what the tribe had to say about that:

Tribe snubs prof

Cherokee band says Churchill's claim of membership a fraud

By Charlie BrennanWard Churchill's claim of membership in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians is fraudulent, according to a scathing statement released by the tribal office.

The statement, issued May 9 in the name of the tribal leader, Chief George Wickliffe, and posted on its Web site Tuesday, does not mince words:

"The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990s because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry."

The tribe said that all of Churchill's "past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment,' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band."For more on the subject, see Angryindian vs. Melvin Martin and Only "Vichy Indians" Criticize Churchill?

Cook-Lynn: Don't rehire Churchill

Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, Professor Emerita of English and Indian studies at Eastern Washington University, gives two somewhat related reasons why Ward Churchill should not be reinstated:Actually, the case that should have been tried against Mr. Churchill was a case of fraud, identity theft and scholarly misconduct which Native scholars (who were largely absent from the court as witnesses during the free speech case) have understood from the beginning. The spectacle of Churchill’s claim to Indian heritage has been an ongoing scandal, unfortunately an unchecked plague in the field of Indian studies for which there seems to be no remedy.

Such identity fraud is nothing new since the emergence of Native American Studies at Western universities some four decades ago, when such federal measures as affirmative action tried to bring American Indians, citizens of Indian nations with appropriate scholarly credentials, into the scholarly academies of the country. Since that time, a large number of non-Native academics have claimed Indian identity over the years to get appointments, grant money, Native authority and publications in the field, and they are assisted by universities like CU which generally refuse to go to the Indian agencies for authentification of an applicant’s citizenship.And:Churchill is one of the most aggressive and successful opportunistic individuals who has weakened the major purpose of Native studies, the effort to spearhead an anti-colonial movement to represent the interests of all peoples of a colonized country. The defense of indigenous-ness and sovereignty are two of the major concepts to which the discipline is committed. The irony of how Churchill has compromised and exploited these essential concepts escapes no one who knows anything about how hard fought these ideals have been.

Indeed, when Churchill was hired in his position, several Native American scholars spoke against his hiring during the vetting process, to no avail. It is not only inappropriate, it is another example of colonial domination to allow Churchill to further damage an emerging discipline like Indian studies, which has already been complicated by the ideological grounding of White America’s values and supremacy.
Comment:  Let's look at these two rationales:

Churchill the phony Indian

1) I believe the hiring laws say that you can't hire someone solely because he's an Indian. Even if the job is teaching Indian studies. In theory, a white person could do as good a teaching job as an Indian and should be considered for the job.

But if Churchill got and kept the job under false pretenses, that would be a different matter. Then he'd be guilty of fraud or misrepresentation or lying on a job application. That would seem to be enough to prevent Churchill from resuming his old job.

It's funny that the University of Colorado is trying desperately to keep Churchill out, but won't play the "race card." Why not?

I don't know what the proper procedure would be, but surely there must be one. Maybe students have to file a grievance saying Churchill misled them. Maybe the school has to sue him on the grounds of misrepresentation. Whatever.

If he lied about being an Indian, as most people seem to think, prove it in the proper forum. Force him to explain and defend his so-called Indian heritage. If you can't win this case, then give up and rehire him. But not until you've pursued this avenue.

Incidentally, this is where I laugh once again at people like Kalisetsi and Angryindian for saying white folks shouldn't judge Indians. As usual, I'm not making the determination, people. I'm merely repeating and reflecting what most Indians think. They're the ones who believe Churchill is a phony.

Churchill's pro-Indian rhetoric

2) Cook-Lynn's second charge is that Churchill has hurt the "indigenous-ness and sovereignty" causes, weakened the "anti-colonial movement." How, by being more rabidly pro-Indian than most Indians? By adamantly promoting an indigenous worldview and denouncing America's colonialist government whenever he can? I don't quite see it.

He may have hurt these pro-Indian causes by fabricating evidence to support his radical positions. As I've said before, historical truth is the ideal and Churchill is a propagandist. But that's what the trial was about, and he won. He convinced a jury of his peers that his academic transgressions were minor, not major.

The point Cook-Lynn doesn't quite address is that Churchill has spent most of his career writing books, giving speeches, and drawing attention to a hard-core indigenous agenda. I don't think his alleged sins necessarily contradict or outweigh that. The agenda may be legitimate even if the author isn't.

Sure, Churchill's sloppy citations may lead some to question the Native position in general. But how many people will focus on his handful of misleading citations and how many on his many pro-Indian books and speeches? Except for his "little Eichmanns" essay and the resulting furor--a controversy he didn't start--the latter would be his legacy.

Sure, Churchill's dubious heritage may rob the limelight from genuine Native scholars. But if he's as pro-Indian as they are, does that disqualify him? He may be profiting off his alleged Indian-ness at their expense, taking away their career opportunities, but that's a personal or personnel matter. It's not the same as saying he's hurting the "anti-colonial movement" overall.

All the old AIM people--Russell Means, Dennis Banks, John Trudell, et al.--have publicized themselves to publicize their causes, and they're genuine Indians. If Churchill is doing roughly the same thing, are they all guilty of hurting the cause? Should people stick to writing op-eds like this one and not draw attention to themselves? I don't think so.

Conclusion

Summing up the charges against Churchill:

Academic transgressions--probably true but deemed inconsequential by a jury.

Phony Indian heritage--probably true but not proved in an official proceeding.

Self-promotion and self-aggrandizement at others' expense--undoubtedly true but not necessarily harmful overall.

Rabidly pro-Indian, anti-American rhetoric--undoubtedly true but no different from the rhetoric of many Native scholars.

If Cook-Lynn objects to this rhetoric, as many people do, she should make a case against it. She hasn't done that here. Pointing out Churchill's faults--minor academic transgressions, phony Indian heritage, self-aggrandizement--does nothing to challenge his underlying positions. Again, these issues are separate matters.

For more on the subject, see Churchill from Beginning to End and Churchill:  Manifest Destiny = Holocaust.