NAFPS Forum

Odds and Ends => Etcetera => Topic started by: Kevin on March 27, 2008, 04:23:19 pm

Title: Ward Churchill
Post by: Kevin on March 27, 2008, 04:23:19 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

"Churchill has stated, "I am myself of Muscogee and Creek descent on my father's side, Cherokee on my mother's, and am an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians."[11][12] He wrote elsewhere that he is one-eighth Creek and one-sixteenth Cherokee.[13] In 1993, Churchill told the Colorado Daily that, “he was one-sixteenth Creek and Cherokee???.[14] Churchill told the Denver Post in February 2005 that he is three-sixteenths Cherokee.[6] The United Keetoowah Band clarified that Churchill was never an enrolled member, but was awarded an honorary associate membership in 1994, as were Bill Clinton and others;[15][16] honorary membership is not an indication of ethnicity.[17] The Keetoowah Band states that Churchill still holds the associate membership, that it hasn't been rescinded, and that the Keetoowah Band stopped recognizing such "honorary" memberships in 1994.[17][18][19]

The Rocky Mountain News, in 2005, published a genealogy of Churchill, and reported "no evidence of a single Indian ancestor" [of Churchill's]. The News reports that both of Churchill's birth parents are listed as white on the 1930 census, as are all of his other known ancestors on previous censuses and other official documents.[20] The Denver Post's genealogical investigation resulted in the same conclusion."

Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: earthw7 on March 27, 2008, 05:43:22 pm
Sorry but just finishing the research on the small pox
and ward stole them.

he is a fake
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Tsisqua on March 27, 2008, 06:25:06 pm
AIM's take on Churchill....

Quote
AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT GRAND GOVERNING COUNCIL


MINISTRY FOR INFORMATION
P.O. Box 13521
Minneapolis MN 55414
612/ 721-3914 . fax 612/ 721-7826
Email: aimggc@worldnet.att.net
Web Address: www.aimovement.org

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

Ward Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York on February 3, 2005. His appearance was canceled by the college after he caused a public furor over his loathsome remarks about the 9-11 tragedy in New York. AIM's Grand Governing Council has been dealing with Churchill's hateful attitude and rip-off of Indian people for years.

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


The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.

Churchill’s statement that these people deserved what happened to them, and calling them little Eichmanns, comparing them to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who implemented Adolf Hitler’s plan to exterminate European Jews and others, should be condemned by all.

The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns.

Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband. He waves around an honorary membership card that at one time was issued to anyone by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. Former President Bill Clinton and many others received these cards, but these cards do not qualify the holder a member of any tribe. He has deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naïve Indian community members in Denver, Colorado, as well as many other people worldwide. Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of the American Indian Movement.

New York’s Hamilton College Kirklands Project should be aware that in their search for truth and justice, the idea that they have hired a fraud to speak on Indian activism is in itself a betrayal of their goals.

Dennis J. Banks, Ojibwa Nation
Chairman of the Board
American Indian Movement
Phone: 218-654-5885


Nee Gon Nway Wee Dung, aka, Clyde H. Bellecourt, Ojibwa Nation
National Executive Director
American Indian Movement
Cell: 612-251-5836
Office: 612-724-3129


Press Contact:
WaBun-Inini, aka, Vernon Bellecourt, Ojibwa Nation
Executive Committee Member
Director Council on Foreign Relations
American Indian Movement
Office: 612-721-3914
Cell: 612-889-0796


See the following:

Us vs AIM

Us vs AIM Backgound

Indian Country Today: Editors' Report

Keetoowah Tribe Response

The Public's Response

Churchill Cartoon

For more information regarding Churchill’s fraudulent enrollment:

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma
Enrollment officer: 918-431-0385 or 918-456-8698


http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html


Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: wolfhawaii on March 27, 2008, 08:08:33 pm
Sorry but just finishing the research on the small pox
and ward stole them.

he is a fake

Not sure about the plagiarism charges; I have read a couple of his books and they are heavily footnoted. Academic literature tends to be highly derivative and as long as the proper sources are given, it works out......apparently until a major controversy erupts in another area in which the writer becomes an embarrassment to the institution he is associated with. I understand some of his more controversial contentions, but have to agree they were in bad form for someone who claims Cherokee.  Most enrolled Cherokee folks don't appreciate minimally connected people who go around waving a card as if it entitled them to be sogwili ukshojaneda (jackass). People I know at the United Keetoowah Band told me that Churchill was supposed to have helped the UKB write a history of the Band which he is said not to have done. He spoke at University of Hawaii some years ago when the furor first erupted but i was unable to approach him to ask questions. Overall his tone and demeanor were very unCherokee which is the clincher for me, not his skin tone or his family's racial listing on the census.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: LittleOldMan on March 27, 2008, 09:57:50 pm
While I am sure there are many professors of all races that would be qualified to fill a post a s professor of Native American studies.  It seems to me that in all fairness the post should go to a qualified Native American who was raised in the culture.  His/Her insights would be so much more Germaine to the subject don't you think.  "LOM"
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Kevin on March 28, 2008, 12:16:00 am
I guess they figured anyone being 3/16th Cherokee would do a splendid job......and I thought it was a crime to lie on applications and accept state and federal money under false pretenses.....

more from Wikpedia:

"According to Thomas Brown, one of Churchill's critics in the academy, support for Churchill has dwindled. Brown states that in February 2005, 199 CU faculty members signed a newspaper article supporting Churchill, but in July 2007, only four CU faculty signed another letter protesting his imminent firing. [55]"  - see what happens when you don't have a full tank of Cherokee blood in your  veins? 3/16th just didn't cut it for these folks one could surmise.

A rumor:
(from an anonymous source)
Churchill and Little Soldier are going to start " a Indian school" somewhere in the Appalachia mountains.

Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: frederica on March 28, 2008, 01:06:23 am
I don't think his Blood quantum had anything to do with his being fired. That is if he even had one.  His behavior did him in.  I not sure how many people an individual can intimidate, spit on, break their arm, among other things can get by with without eventually having some repercussions. As far as the plagiarism, I'm not sure if the people he plagiarize followed through, I know two did contact the University about the situtation, not only plagiarized but misquoted. And I not sure the painter followed through on the infringement. In other words, I don't think it went to Court.  Loose cannons might be interesting for a while, but doesn't last forever.  Wikipedia in my opinion is not the most reliable source. It's pretty loose. People I know in Colorado were sick of hearing about it, and just wondered why they didn't get him out. But the University didn't exactly have clean hands in this deal, and didn't want a backfire law suit.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Kevin on March 28, 2008, 11:44:09 am
Given the extreme minority status of NAs with accompanying lack of economic and political clout, they slid by pretty easily hiring a leftist wannabe with no bona fides for his purported heritage, when among the applicants I have no doubt were at least a couple of 'real deal' NAs qualified for the position. Typical arrogance of Academia and their foisting of the White Man's Burden on students who apparently have no critical thinking ability. He had no blood quantum, it's a moot point and I really wonder what the good professors thought of someone being 3/16th of any race.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: wolfhawaii on April 04, 2008, 05:52:49 am
. He had no blood quantum, it's a moot point and I really wonder what the good professors thought of someone being 3/16th of any race.
Maybe he had an ancestor who was an amputee ???......mathematically 3/16 doesn't work out as a BQ (no offense intended to any disabled persons)
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Kevin on April 08, 2008, 05:33:34 pm
I like what Steve Russell, columnist for Indian Country today had to say:

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416968

Russell: When does ethnic fraud matter?   
Posted: April 04, 2008
by: Steve Russell
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: A.H. on April 14, 2008, 01:07:59 pm
I think there is too much simple media sparked gossip in this topic. 

Just read this report:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf

Yes, he is guilty of superficial scholarship and errors..

but..

Reply by him on 911 controversy:

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

He speaks like an intelligent man with quite radical opinions that are (mis)understood very simple-mindedly by the general public and right wing politicians..

But as that serious report shows - he is apparently guilty of superficial scholarship in some cases. Not all black & white though.

 

Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Kevin on April 15, 2008, 03:13:40 pm
I distinguish between his 9/11 proclamation(s) and his academic offenses. The former brought scrutiny upon him,  which in turn prompted some tenured professors to be empowered by law to investigate and they found reason to have him fired, a wee bit more serious than mere " superficial shcolarship and errors".  I would expect nothing less from the academic community. What will remain forever unknown is the extent to which his false claims of Indian heritage influenced his hiring. That false claim of heritage is every bit as serious as his academic 'sins' IMO.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: apukjij on May 11, 2008, 04:50:05 pm
i have met this man, i think i have read almost every bit of prose he has ever composed, he claimed to be Native, this makes him a liar, or at the very least delusional.
However i was grateful with what he shared when i asked him about Annie-Mae.
And his books fueled a whole generation of youthful Wapana'ki Warriors here in maritime kkkanada, in fact some of what he published are the finest treatises on the white people that have ever been written.
i asked the Chair of Native Studies what she thought of the ancestry controversy, her only response was she was troubled because as far as she knows, "we the People are to the final arbitrator as to who is one of us".
Title: Re: Ward Churchill/ what about Andrea Smith?
Post by: ska on May 11, 2008, 05:31:17 pm
Sorry to piggy-back this question on the Churchill thread.

In a previous post on this thread, Kevin mentioned an article by Steve Russell in which Russell seems to suggest that Andrea Smith is not Cherokee.

Can anyone please fill me in on this?  I have used her books in my classes, including Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide and The Color of Violence.

Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Kevin on May 13, 2008, 12:12:19 pm
Ward should  be the first person on the boat back to Europe, Apukjij. I can't imagine any group that gets fired up by the words of Ward Churchill ever accomplishing much, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: frederica on May 13, 2008, 09:35:35 pm
Ska, there is some kind of tenure war going on at Michigan, and she is involved. I don't know much about it. But she is being attack on one side, and supported on the other.  It's been going on a few months now, but not too much said about it.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: apukjij on May 13, 2008, 10:19:33 pm
kevin have ya read "fantasies of the master race" or the "pathology of pacifism"? they some of the best examinations of the western people i ever read all by churchill!
Title: Re: Steve Russell casts doubt on Andrea Smith's Cherokee heritage
Post by: ska on May 13, 2008, 11:01:57 pm
Ska, there is some kind of tenure war going on at Michigan, and she is involved. I don't know much about it. But she is being attack on one side, and supported on the other.  It's been going on a few months now, but not too much said about it.

Thanks frederica,

I'm aware of the tenure issue.  Smith has a joint appointment at U of Michigan between women's studies and cultural studies.  The women's studies dept refused to recommend her for tenure.

However, what I'm wondering about is this line from a recent op-ed piece by Steve Russell, which was posted on Indianz.com and reposted here by Kevin the other day.  In his article, Russell says this regarding Smith: "My position is that even though not Cherokee, [my emphasis] she cannot be a fraud of Churchill's stature. "

This idea that Andrea Smith is NOT Cherokee is what is new to me.  It was my understanding that she is a well-respected scholar and Cherokee woman.

I was wondering if anyone might have any information to confirm or deny Russell's assertion.

cheers, ska
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: ska on May 13, 2008, 11:10:04 pm
Apukjij,

I used to like Churchill, until I read the book "pathology of pacifism".  It is clear that Churchill does not have a clue about eastern philosophy, nor does he seem to think that such understanding is even necessary.  His discussion of Ghandi's ideas completely misses the boat, but that is to be expected when one is trying to build strawmen to blow up, as Churchill is in this book.  Perhaps, because I am Indian (ie. from India), I am over-sensitive to his misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

I do agree with you that Fantasies of the Master Race is a bit of a rollicking good read.

Best, ska
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 25, 2008, 12:11:42 am

 There are entire tribes on the east coast that have been listed as "black" on official documents, and any proof of who they really are destroyed.

 So I hate to break it to a lot of people on here but just because somebody does not show up on "official documentation" as Indian, it does mean their claims to be such are lies.

 This is not to say that I am supporting those with a "gggggg grandmother was a cherokee princess" stories, or other wanna be's.

What I am saying is that the so called "official documentation," or somebody showing up on the genealogy things are not completely right by any means.

  Also as a people who argue with whites so much trying to make them believe in our "oral traditions;" Why do we yet demand "paper proof" as the absolute proof of who somebody is? That does not make much sense to me. Being Indian or not in my opinion and from my experience is something that is often that comes from being recognized as such from the NDN community.

 Furthermore what  Churchill has written about in his books, and what he has spoken about is the truth. All one has to do is read it to know that.

 I laugh at any NDN who gets all pissy about what he wrote about 911 after what this country has done to our own people. If anyone reads what WC said in that essay, and is familiar with attitudes of people from the middle east they would find he was dead on correct.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: bls926 on June 25, 2008, 05:18:46 pm

 There are entire tribes on the east coast that have been listed as "black" on official documents, and any proof of who they really are destroyed.

 So I hate to break it to a lot of people on here but just because somebody does not show up on "official documentation" as Indian, it does mean their claims to be such are lies.

 This is not to say that I am supporting those with a "gggggg grandmother was a cherokee princess" stories, or other wanna be's.

What I am saying is that the so called "official documentation," or somebody showing up on the genealogy things are not completely right by any means.

  Also as a people who argue with whites so much trying to make them believe in our "oral traditions;" Why do we yet demand "paper proof" as the absolute proof of who somebody is? That does not make much sense to me. Being Indian or not in my opinion and from my experience is something that is often that comes from being recognized as such from the NDN community.

 Furthermore what  Churchill has written about in his books, and what he has spoken about is the truth. All one has to do is read it to know that.

 I laugh at any NDN who gets all pissy about what he wrote about 911 after what this country has done to our own people. If anyone reads what WC said in that essay, and is familiar with attitudes of people from the middle east they would find he was dead on correct.

I'm having a hard time believing you are serious here. Didn't think there was anyone left who supported and/or defended Ward Churchill. Time to face the facts.

While I agree with what you've said about some of the Eastern Nations, the Cherokee are probably the most documented, censused people around. The Dawes Roll and the Baker Roll were not the first time the government counted Cherokee people. Even if you aren't enrolled today, you can find an ancestor on one of the many rolls. And if you can't, there's a problem. Can't explain it away by your folks hid out in the mountains or left the Trail. Your family should have been listed on one of the censuses taken years before the 1900's. Something to think about for all those claiming, without any documentation, a long-ago Cherokee ancestor. Plus, even if you had an ancestor on one of those rolls but you weren't raised Cherokee, you really can't start claiming it now. Guess that's for all the PODIA's trying to be recognized. You're right Rattlebone when you said, "Being Indian or not in my opinion and from my experience is something that is often that comes from being recognized as such from the NDN community." Same holds true if you aren't recognized by the people.

Not only did Churchill lie about his ethnicity, he stole from others, both in his books and his art.

As for Churchill's hateful remark after 9/11, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, how you think, feel, and express yourself says a whole lot about your character. This, added to many other things, shows Churchill has no character.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 25, 2008, 08:19:04 pm

 There are entire tribes on the east coast that have been listed as "black" on official documents, and any proof of who they really are destroyed.

 So I hate to break it to a lot of people on here but just because somebody does not show up on "official documentation" as Indian, it does mean their claims to be such are lies.

 This is not to say that I am supporting those with a "gggggg grandmother was a cherokee princess" stories, or other wanna be's.

What I am saying is that the so called "official documentation," or somebody showing up on the genealogy things are not completely right by any means.

  Also as a people who argue with whites so much trying to make them believe in our "oral traditions;" Why do we yet demand "paper proof" as the absolute proof of who somebody is? That does not make much sense to me. Being Indian or not in my opinion and from my experience is something that is often that comes from being recognized as such from the NDN community.

 Furthermore what  Churchill has written about in his books, and what he has spoken about is the truth. All one has to do is read it to know that.

 I laugh at any NDN who gets all pissy about what he wrote about 911 after what this country has done to our own people. If anyone reads what WC said in that essay, and is familiar with attitudes of people from the middle east they would find he was dead on correct.



"While I agree with what you've said about some of the Eastern Nations, the Cherokee are probably the most documented, censused people around. The Dawes Roll and the Baker Roll were not the first time the government counted Cherokee people. Even if you aren't enrolled today, you can find an ancestor on one of the many rolls."



As for Churchill's hateful remark after 9/11, everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, how you think, feel, and express yourself says a whole lot about your character. This, added to many other things, shows Churchill has no character.


 On the first section of your reply I left there in quotes I would have to point out that there is always exceptions to every rule.

 First of all there was a frontier society in the southeast in which mixed bloods were literally going back and forth between worlds. I read of one person saying how if the trail of tears/removal act had not occurred, that certain parts of the south would have began to resemble Mexico to a degree due to the intermixing.

 Also there is always fact to fiction. Though I don't want to give support to the whole "gggg grandmother" theory; knowing that women often had ties to their people broken with intermarriage gives some fact to the fiction.  At least this was often true when native women married into non Native society. This would often also  prevent any kind of paper trail leading anyone searching for proof from existing. This would be especially true if they were persons who changed names often, or went from a traditional name to a so called "Christian one."

 I suppose it this were to be the case of any of Churchill's family, that would make him a "Podia" as you would say. That would be taking off the label of wanna be, pretendian etc, and thus acknowledging that his claim to having native ancestry would be in fact possibly true. Then by that acknowledgment wouldn't not be un traditional to condemn somebody as a "Podia" since when they cross over their ancestors would not view them in terms we in the living would use in such ways such as BQ etc.

 Though I do respect your opinion and am not trying to be rude I do find the word Podia to be one of quite a paradox. It is in itself as I pointed out, acknowledging native ancestry to some degree; yet condemning them for it being distant. That would as I have also pointed out be untraditional, and almost Euro in concept.

 I say this because when I hear various words for "whites" in native languages, often time they are referred to by their actions rather then the color of their skin. I notice the same thing when we used words to identify other tribes in a negative fashion. It has brought me to the conclusion that we did things the right way and chose to view people by their actions and actions towards us and our people rather then some physical characteristic. With that in mind I think our peoples had a better mindset in the white man in such ways I don't think many realize past the usual.

I think I would have less objection of you or anyone else using words like wanna be etc since they are actually referring to an action instead of a physical condition or appearance brought on by things the living has no control over. It to me is much like BQ, as I often question people; will the ancestors of somebody who passes on only recognize part of them as is done in the living?

 The persecution of somebody is mixed is by default persecuting them for the various ills that have been brought on by colonization. To a large degree mixed blood is the fault of the non Indian, and with all of his policies such as relocation it seems to me that he is doing it on purpose. This is  just another reason why I feel they want conditions on reservations and other Native communities to be bad. Not only will having people move away give them more of a chance to take what is left, but it will also continue to create mixed blood all the way down to statistical extermination.


 As far as agreeing on about being Indian, and how it is often something someone is recognized as such. I do think the man still has a lot of support from the Indian community. Though I concede he has a lot that dislike him and feel he is a fake. To each his own I guess. It is of really of no importance to me other then a conversation and discussion about different view points. I do enjoy a lot of what he has written regardless of whatever the stories are because he does speak a lot of truth.

 Things could be worse.....he could be claiming to be just white and burning crosses down in people's yards. 
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: frederica on June 26, 2008, 05:11:54 am
I think the word PODIA has been stretched to mean something bad. It's not. It is simply a person of distant Indian ancestry. And I believe no one finds anything wrong with that. Most are simply interested in checking it out. Some wish to learn more and join organizations or groups like social clubs. Some make connections with the Indian community or Nation  to establish ties. One of the problems I see that arises is the ones that as an example claim to be Cherokee, have no ties to the community, then start a Tribe, decide to become a Lakota Pipe Carrier as they read about it, then declare themself Chief, start teaching the Cherokee are desended from mushrooms and Altantis. Then throw in a little Newage practices on top of that and become a Shaman and start selling ceremonies.  It's the behavior that causes distress and gets these people into problems. It's not the individual or their heritage it what they do with this.                                                                                                                                                                              As far as WC I think what he has done over the past 30 years, just came back and bit him. Again his behavior did him in. I think some of the "shock-jock" mentality he used along with some of the rhetoric he used caused the fire-storm. It made him insensitive to the victims and thieir families. There were others at fault, including the University. But he wasn't squeeky clean.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: educatedindian on June 26, 2008, 03:18:32 pm

I do find the word Podia to be one of quite a paradox. It is in itself as I pointed out, acknowledging native ancestry to some degree; yet condemning them for it being distant. That would as I have also pointed out be untraditional, and almost Euro in concept.

...The persecution of somebody is mixed is by default persecuting them for the various ills that have been brought on by colonization.

...I do think the man still has a lot of support from the Indian community. Though I concede he has a lot that dislike him and feel he is a fake. 

Since I was the first one in here to start using PODIA, I guess I should explain further.

It continues to amaze me how incredibly sensitve PODIAs are and how quick they are to claim "prejudice" "racism" and even "persecution" for things which are nothing of the kind.

Does using the term PODIA cause anyone to get lynched?

To be confined on a reservation with no choice?

To get rounded up in concentration camps and gassed?

No, no, and no. I challenge you to point out any harm of any kind that's been done by the term.

I actually started using the term because some other super sensitve PODIAs were oh-so-offended by the far more widely used term for them, thinbloods.

Both thinblood and PODIA simply reflect what the connection of some to their NDN ancestors is, thin or distant. There's not even a sense of mild dislike from those using the terms, just a noting that, after all, someone claiming a great-grandmother was NDN and wanting to know more is often reaching across a great distance (both in time and culture) with some difficulty.

To me both terms sound pretty darn sympathetic, and yes, traditional. Elaborate terms to denote your relations and the degree of those relations are very traditional.

I've avoided getting bogged down in talking about Churchill because I'm pretty bored with him, and frankly, discussing someone whose mostly concerned with getting attention rather than the causes he claims to favor seems like playing into his hands.

But just like with Yeagley, the fact is that regardless of his ancestry actually being NDN or not, he's not culturally NDN, not culturally Cherokee or any other tribe. His views are about as untraditional as you can get, revelling in the deaths of others.
And he doesn't have the support of hardly any NDNs outside of some in the Denver urban NDN community.
 
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 26, 2008, 06:09:43 pm


I actually started using the term because some other super sensitve PODIAs were oh-so-offended by the far more widely used term for them, thinbloods.
 






 
[/quote]

 Do you call everyone that does not agree with something you say to be a PODIA?

I do not meant to be rude, but your usage of the word "other" in that sentence would indicate to me that you would be accusing me of such.

 If so that is strange considering you do not know me or anything about me other then I disliked the word PODIA and pointed out as to why.

 If this is what you are in fact saying, I must inform you that you are incorrect.

 I know exactly who I am, and the names of my relations that I come from, as well as many of their stories.

I am by no means a PODIA, regardless if I agree with such words or not.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: bls926 on June 26, 2008, 06:11:04 pm
On the first section of your reply I left there in quotes I would have to point out that there is always exceptions to every rule.

 First of all there was a frontier society in the southeast in which mixed bloods were literally going back and forth between worlds. I read of one person saying how if the trail of tears/removal act had not occurred, that certain parts of the south would have began to resemble Mexico to a degree due to the intermixing.

 Also there is always fact to fiction. Though I don't want to give support to the whole "gggg grandmother" theory; knowing that women often had ties to their people broken with intermarriage gives some fact to the fiction.  At least this was often true when native women married into non Native society. This would often also  prevent any kind of paper trail leading anyone searching for proof from existing. This would be especially true if they were persons who changed names often, or went from a traditional name to a so called "Christian one."

 I suppose it this were to be the case of any of Churchill's family, that would make him a "Podia" as you would say. That would be taking off the label of wanna be, pretendian etc, and thus acknowledging that his claim to having native ancestry would be in fact possibly true. Then by that acknowledgment wouldn't not be un traditional to condemn somebody as a "Podia" since when they cross over their ancestors would not view them in terms we in the living would use in such ways such as BQ etc.

 Though I do respect your opinion and am not trying to be rude I do find the word Podia to be one of quite a paradox. It is in itself as I pointed out, acknowledging native ancestry to some degree; yet condemning them for it being distant. That would as I have also pointed out be untraditional, and almost Euro in concept.
 


Rattlebone, I think you've missed the whole point of my previous post. As far as PODIA's, I wasn't criticizing their heritage, only their actions. If you haven't been raised in the culture, you cannot claim it. Exceptions made for children adopted out; they can't help their circumstances. The point is, if your family has lived as white for generations, you are white. You cannot expect anyone to recognize you as Indian. As for Churchill, I'm not sure he's even a PODIA.

Your comments about mixed-bloods in the southeast, while true to a certain extent, does not explain why some cannot find any documentation at all. The government started counting the Cherokee in the 1700's. The families of these mixed-bloods would have appeared on some census at some time; those with mixed heritage were even counted.


Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 26, 2008, 07:13:38 pm
On the first section of your reply I left there in quotes I would have to point out that there is always exceptions to every rule.

 First of all there was a frontier society in the southeast in which mixed bloods were literally going back and forth between worlds. I read of one person saying how if the trail of tears/removal act had not occurred, that certain parts of the south would have began to resemble Mexico to a degree due to the intermixing.

 Also there is always fact to fiction. Though I don't want to give support to the whole "gggg grandmother" theory; knowing that women often had ties to their people broken with intermarriage gives some fact to the fiction.  At least this was often true when native women married into non Native society. This would often also  prevent any kind of paper trail leading anyone searching for proof from existing. This would be especially true if they were persons who changed names often, or went from a traditional name to a so called "Christian one."

 I suppose it this were to be the case of any of Churchill's family, that would make him a "Podia" as you would say. That would be taking off the label of wanna be, pretendian etc, and thus acknowledging that his claim to having native ancestry would be in fact possibly true. Then by that acknowledgment wouldn't not be un traditional to condemn somebody as a "Podia" since when they cross over their ancestors would not view them in terms we in the living would use in such ways such as BQ etc.

 Though I do respect your opinion and am not trying to be rude I do find the word Podia to be one of quite a paradox. It is in itself as I pointed out, acknowledging native ancestry to some degree; yet condemning them for it being distant. That would as I have also pointed out be untraditional, and almost Euro in concept.
 


Rattlebone, I think you've missed the whole point of my previous post. As far as PODIA's, I wasn't criticizing their heritage, only their actions. If you haven't been raised in the culture, you cannot claim it. Exceptions made for children adopted out; they can't help their circumstances. The point is, if your family has lived as white for generations, you are white. You cannot expect anyone to recognize you as Indian. As for Churchill, I'm not sure he's even a PODIA.

Your comments about mixed-bloods in the southeast, while true to a certain extent, does not explain why some cannot find any documentation at all. The government started counting the Cherokee in the 1700's. The families of these mixed-bloods would have appeared on some census at some time; those with mixed heritage were even counted.




 I do agree with you as far as people who have lived as whites for generations should not be claiming to be Native, and expect to be seen as such. Most people of Euro descent fall into this trap because they often times as an example are part French, Dutch, English etc all at the same time. They almost always have no clue about those people they claim, and have no ties to them. So when they find they have Native ancestry they do the exact same thing with it, and find no harm in it because of their ability to claim the rest in the same manner.

 Their ancestors came to the United States and even stopped being whatever they were for the sake of being "white." In the days of the past "white" had more of a social class meaning more so then it did an actual race. To gain status in that white racial class they often sold out their actual ethnicity to become just "white." All in the scheme of assimilation and the whole "melting pot" thing I guess.

 So at any rate they often claim Native, or the infamous "part native" thing which I most often find annoying. I had a woman proclaim to me the other day she was "part Native" because I am Native. I was just like "ooookay," smiled and walked away. They don't understand that there is no such thing as being "part Native," and that you either are or you are not regardless of any kind of BQ.

 As far as the if they are not on paper then there is a problem thing. I must still disagree with you there.

 I will concede that if somebody has such lost connections to their ancestry that they are having to look way back, then they are not Native and should not try to claim to be as such. For the most part they should just remain and be happy to be who they have always been since there would be no shame in it. However I would not treat them badly, or turn them away if they came into the community in a good way and actually wanted to learn the culture they claim to be from. I don't feel it is for me to judge as long as they are not coming in bad way to do bad things.

 Still as I said above not everyone was always on paper.  I am Choctaw from my mother's side of the family. However my father's side is listed as black all the way into the 1700's. My grandmother Liz was listed as black until the early 1900's, when they finally listed her as Native. I am guessing her father was white for being the reason she shows up on nothing else as Native.

 I don't consider her people as mine because I was not raised up to be as such, and she was too far back for me to ever know personally. I just find a great deal of interest in her life. She was born in 1869 and died in 1950. Her life is interesting to me because I think about all of the big changes in the world she seen going from days of wagons to the age of nuclear weapons. I also wonder how she managed to live as a single mother raising 6 kids as Native woman in Texas back in the late 1800's and early 1900's considering all of the violent racism of those days. I also enjoy my grandmother tellling me she was raised by my grandmother Liz, and how Liz would complain about all the babies in the family being born with light hair and eyes. She was happy once when somebody had a dark skinned child.

 Now again keep in mind this comes from my father's family and I do consider them white. Thing is I know that people don't always show up on paper the way you say they do. I know this from personal experience because I have family that way, but I know their names and even have pictures of them that show they were clearly native. I just would not go running around claiming I was from those people because I don't know anything about them past my family.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on June 26, 2008, 07:56:09 pm
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Defend the Sacred on June 26, 2008, 08:51:44 pm
I think PODIA is only an insult to people who don't understand cultural differences. It's just an abbreviation;  one that highlights the difference between cultural immersion and cultural distance.

In general, I think mainstream white Americans really don't understand about traditional cultures. Growing up in a solid ethnic community, of any ethnicity, is very different from being raised in the American homogenized mainstream. It's about the music and language you hear growing up, the songs you know, the food you ate, the customs you kept, the beliefs you lived with, ingrained as a part of your being. This is totally different from reading these things in a book or hearing about them for the first time as an adult. To think that pointing this difference out is an insult is a red flag that someone hasn't been around traditional people enough to know there are huge differences.

Hell, I've thought of also using PODIA for People of Distant Irish Ancestry - like the American ones who think "blood" is enough, but don't speak the language, don't know the music or history, or where their people are from, let alone any of the spiritual traditions. And, funnily enough, who also don't know that "Celtic" or "Gaelic" identity is based on language and culture, not "blood".
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 26, 2008, 09:02:57 pm
I think PODIA is only an insult to people who don't understand cultural differences. It's just an abbreviation;  one that highlights the difference between cultural immersion and cultural distance.

In general, I think mainstream white Americans really don't understand about traditional cultures. Growing up in a solid ethnic community, of any ethnicity, is very different from being raised in the American homogenized mainstream. It's about the music and language you hear growing up, the songs you know, the food you ate, the customs you kept, the beliefs you lived with, ingrained as a part of your being. This is totally different from reading these things in a book or hearing about them for the first time as an adult. To think that pointing this difference out is an insult is a red flag that someone hasn't been around traditional people enough to know there are huge differences.

Hell, I've thought of also using PODIA for People of Distant Irish Ancestry - like the American ones who think "blood" is enough, but don't speak the language, don't know the music or history, or where their people are from, let alone any of the spiritual traditions. And, funnily enough, who also don't know that "Celtic" or "Gaelic" identity is based on language and culture, not "blood".


 You live in the States or Ireland?
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Defend the Sacred on June 26, 2008, 11:18:43 pm
You live in the States or Ireland?

In the States. My mother's family was somewhat isolated along with other Irish and Scottish immigrant families in rural Indiana, so we have more traditions/customs surviving than many immigrant families, but I've also had to find my way back to a large extent. For instance I did not grow up speaking Gaelic. There was a smattering spoken in the communities where I lived in Illinois and Massachusetts, but that's not the same as growing up thinking in the language.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 27, 2008, 12:46:36 am
I think PODIA is only an insult to people who don't understand cultural differences. It's just an abbreviation;  one that highlights the difference between cultural immersion and cultural distance.

In general, I think mainstream white Americans really don't understand about traditional cultures. Growing up in a solid ethnic community, of any ethnicity, is very different from being raised in the American homogenized mainstream. It's about the music and language you hear growing up, the songs you know, the food you ate, the customs you kept, the beliefs you lived with, ingrained as a part of your being. This is totally different from reading these things in a book or hearing about them for the first time as an adult. To think that pointing this difference out is an insult is a red flag that someone hasn't been around traditional people enough to know there are huge differences.

Hell, I've thought of also using PODIA for People of Distant Irish Ancestry - like the American ones who think "blood" is enough, but don't speak the language, don't know the music or history, or where their people are from, let alone any of the spiritual traditions. And, funnily enough, who also don't know that "Celtic" or "Gaelic" identity is based on language and culture, not "blood".

 Though you're not a Native, you claim to have knowledge of our people. So that in mind what is your opinion or if tribes on the east coast are still Natives or not?

 Most of these people such as the Pequot were devastated by disease and warfare. So today most look black, and lack very little of their original culture.

 One thing I see a lot of Native complain about is how the non Native world expects us to "be more like them," and yet at the same time still judges us on how we were in the past.   

 This is much like the federal government itself. In many present day law suits concerning land claims etc they largely continue to swindle us due to the passage of time etc. Now at the same time in let's say recognition issues; they still base it on conditions of the past. They for one condition expect proof that a tribe has governed itself from the past, yet they themselves  made that impossible.

 Also your Irish and Scottish relations went through a lot of similar things as the peoples here did. The English did in fact try to obliterate the culture of your own people. That would be I am sure one of reasons your own family would be here on top of many others. This I feel would make your hard stance against some people almost hypocritical because you seem to be a little condemning of them for not being as fortunate as your  own family.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Defend the Sacred on June 27, 2008, 01:15:38 am
I'm not here to "judge" whether a group of people, or an individual, is "Native or not."  Nor am I here to "condemn" someone for what percentage of their ancestry hails from which ancestors. This thread is about Ward Churchill, and perhaps the PODIA issue should be split off from it.

I think the questions about the PODIA thing have already been answered, and well, by a number of people in this thread. Most of what I would say about this would be redundant at this point.

I guess the only other point I'd reiterate is that what culture someone is part of isn't about distant ancestry - it's about how they were raised. Distant Native ancestry doesn't mean someone is a member of a traditional culture. Many outsiders to traditional cultures are confused by this. I think it becomes an issue when people of any culture who are not recognized traditional leaders in that culture presume to speak for a group, and not just as an individual. The problem is compounded by white nuagers because they're always looking for tokens to make them feel non-racist, but it seems they only want to listen to those who are saying what they expect to hear.

Well, OK, a couple thoughts on the Eastern Nations, though I'm not sure my two cents really matter on the issue, as I don't have that heritage: The Eastern Woodlands Nations have a somewhat different legacy than those whose contact with the white invaders came later. I have some friends and acquaintances with Pequot, Abenaki, Mic Mac, Wampanoag, Narragansett, etc ancestry, but most of them were raised in white communities, or their ancestors intermarried with white people so long ago that their family cultures are rather mainstream white at this point. The ones who have wanted to find their way back to their "Native roots" have had to find what remains of their traditional ways, through reconnecting with what remains of the living communities. Some, so used to the white idea that you can learn from books, have even been taken in by frauds or become frauds themselves (I'm only speaking about some of the people I know, not people in general).

But again, I see the traditional culture, cultural representatives and spiritual leader issues as separate from the "Who is Indian?" question.  Despite any assumptions to the contrary, in my years of participating in the NAFPS communities, I don't think "Who is Indian?" is really the debate.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on June 27, 2008, 01:41:13 am
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 27, 2008, 01:45:40 am
I'm not here to "judge" whether a group of people, or an individual, is "Native or not."  Nor am I here to "condemn" someone for what percentage of their ancestry hails from which ancestors. This thread is about Ward Churchill, and perhaps the PODIA issue should be split off from it.

I think the questions about the PODIA thing have already been answered, and well, by a number of people in this thread. Most of what I would say about this would be redundant at this point.

I guess the only other point I'd reiterate is that what culture someone is part of isn't about distant ancestry - it's about how they were raised. Distant Native ancestry doesn't mean someone is a member of a traditional culture. Many outsiders to traditional cultures are confused by this. I think it becomes an issue when people of any culture who are not recognized traditional leaders in that culture presume to speak for a group, and not just as an individual. The problem is compounded by white nuagers because they're always looking for tokens to make them feel non-racist, but it seems they only want to listen to those who are saying what they expect to hear.

Well, OK, a couple thoughts on the Eastern Nations, though I'm not sure my two cents really matter on the issue, as I don't have that heritage: The Eastern Woodlands Nations have a somewhat different legacy than those whose contact with the white invaders came later. I have some friends with Pequot, Abenaki, etc ancestry, but most of them were raised in white communities, or their ancestors intermarried with white people so long ago that their family cultures are rather mainstream white at this point. The ones who have wanted to find their way back to their "Native roots" have had to find what remains of their traditional ways, through reconnecting with what remains of the living communities. Some, so used to the white idea that you can learn from books, have even been taken in by frauds or become frauds themselves (I'm only speaking for some of the people I know, not people in general).

But again, I see the traditional culture, cultural representatives and spiritual leader issues as separate from the "Who is Indian?" question.  Despite any assumptions to the contrary, in my years of reading and participating in the NAFPS communities, I don't think "Who is Indian?" is really the debate.

Well I know for sure I am not Indian, have never visited Bombay or Calcutta, nor do I have any ancestors there. j/k

Since you brought up the point about Native Americans use of the word, when I hear people using that word to describe themselves, I kind of wince, but if nothing else it's an indication that they are Status Indians (in "Canada") or whatever it's called with the BIA (enrolled? registered? I honestly don't know) in the USA.

Most Indigenous people I know refer to themselves by their Nation and location, i.e. James Bay Cree, Mi'kmaq from Listiguj, etc.

And by the way, not all Indigenous peoples (Native North Americans) became dependant wards of colonial states as it were, and agreed to be labelled "Indians" by said colonial states, the Anishnaabek and the Haudenosaunee come to mind.

 To be completely proper yea we should identify by our tribal names. Thing is sometimes I get to lazy to spell Native American, and so I just use Indian, or NDN.  Just saying Native works too.

 I don't usually mind being called Indian though as long as it is not done in a bad way. Most my friends in the Native community around here call themselves Indians so I don't really have a problem with it.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on June 27, 2008, 01:55:10 am
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on June 27, 2008, 02:07:29 am
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 27, 2008, 02:18:49 am
The Haudenosaunee, and the Anishnaabek to this day refuse to vote in federal elections, and refuse to be counted in the "Canadian" census (these facts are for people who aren't aware of this). There are estimates that seventy-five percent of North American Natives in "Canada" are non-Status.

I believe that because I have an Odawa friend up in Canada that works for the census. She always says how the Natives won't cooperate.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on June 27, 2008, 03:08:26 am
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Moma_porcupine on June 27, 2008, 05:05:02 am
I also have seen families recorded as some other race than what they were, and I think it is a mistake to take one record and say "See this record says your ancestor was ( whatever the paper says )" 

Probably every family occaisionaly got recorded wrong. But in most areas if you look at ALL the records left by parents, aunts, uncles , siblings and how native people were normally recorded in the area,  it seems the true picture usually emerges.

As for all those supposed Cherokees who intermarried but weren't recorded - I also thought there was a lot more intermarrige in the early days than ever got written on paper , but looking at mtDNA research results i was really suprised to see almost no reports of people being surprised to find a indigenous mtDNA from some long forgottten intermarriage , and for every mtDNA result that confirmed the story grgrgrandma was Cherokee , there seems to be 9 people saying they were told their matrilineal line was Native - and the evidence is most of them are not.  So, it seems a lot of those stories were just stories.

Some of those mtDNA results are discussed in the thread below ...

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1375.0

I personally have seen thinblooded people who grew up with a strong cultural influence > They seem to me to be primarily Native people with a lot of non native blood. I also know equally thin blooded people who consider themselves to be entirely non native except for some distant ancestry which means little to them. Personally I don't think there is a blanket statement that can be applied to all PODIAs or all Native communities. It's too complex to conform to some simple formula. But I am always amazed when someone who's family hasn't lived in a a Native community for a couple generations or more says they are Ndn. As i know many slightly mixed blood people who are not Ndns by any stretch of the imagination , when people do that it just seems silly.  I saw Ward Churchill's family tree and even if there had been some Native ancestry in the branch of his family tree where his relatives mtDNA test showed there was none, just that he would claim a Native identity for himself on the basis of such a distant connection amazed me.  That sort of claim to a Native identity based on such a distant connection usually just seems exploitive to me.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on June 27, 2008, 06:54:07 am
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: educatedindian on June 27, 2008, 06:17:03 pm

 Do you call everyone that does not agree with something you say to be a PODIA?

I do not meant to be rude, but your usage of the word "other" in that sentence would indicate to me that you would be accusing me of such.


Both of us were talking in the third person. And I don't see how PODIA could even be an "accusation" since it's not a bad thing.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: MikePutfus on June 27, 2008, 07:18:04 pm
A drop of blood only makes the person human. Not of a race or culture. Having Served in the Army for more than twenty years I often ran into persons that claimed to be part this and that. My standard answer was to say which part of your body is that part? Just because someone said your Great GrandMother was bedded by a Native man doesn't make a person a NDN. Or a member of any Nation or Tribe.
Because I live or have lived off my reservation does not make me a Anglo or as a few say an Apple. We live in many worlds to include our  families, and in most cases have to just to survive.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 27, 2008, 07:30:46 pm

 Do you call everyone that does not agree with something you say to be a PODIA?

I do not meant to be rude, but your usage of the word "other" in that sentence would indicate to me that you would be accusing me of such.


Both of us were talking in the third person. And I don't see how PODIA could even be an "accusation" since it's not a bad thing.

 Okay then I apologize for my remarks there.

 I respected since I first started reading your posts in this group, and I like what this group is about.

 I hope to move on and away from this and help contribute to this group.

 Personally I see a lot of words like that as some bi- product of colonialism. Cause like the issue of BQ such things are often used for people to "Indian up" on each other regardless of back grounds, or how they were raised.

 The whole " I am more Indian then you thing," which I think is just another colonial tool to cause division.

 Of course if your not using it in a bad way then I guess will have no objections to it.

I think words like that also put me on edge at times being a mixed blood cause people always seem to be judging you, with hatred coming from both sides cause you are t oo this to be that, and at the same time too much of that to be this.

 I have had my own relations get drunk and want to fight me because I am Native, and at the same times get the poor treatment from more full blooded people for being mixed.

 It is a hard road to walk sometimes, and I often see some that try to some how hide who they are. I often refer to that as "the cowards road." I am not ashamed to be a mixed blood, and often times being as such allows me to help promote understanding between NDN's and NON's. Since I am in between they feel it's easier to speak with me. Then often times I hear things people say and I explain why they are that way if the cultural barriers they have prevent them from knowing.

 I suppose that using a word like PODIA is not a bad thing, and explains things in simple to relations as well.

 I am sorry for any misunderstandings here.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Moma_porcupine on June 27, 2008, 11:30:44 pm
Hi Nighthawk

You have some intersting ideas- and i agree with some of what you are saying but I also disagree with some of it.

I don't like name calling. I read people get called things like "nosebleed" or "pin prick" and I agree when those names get used to describe someones connection with their Native ancestors that is really disrespectful. But i have never seen anyone use thse derogatory names on this message board, which is one of the reasons i like participating here.

It seems there is an identity somewhere in between being European colonist and being fully indigenous to this continent, and the rights , responsibilities and perimeters of this identity are not well defined.

My own belief is that a small amount of native blood can, in some circumstances bestow a sensitivity to ones ancestors, the traditions of those people, and a connection with the lands where they lived.

But that sensitivity does not , in itself, create entitlements. It seems it would be a good thing if this "connection" created obligations to treat this part of ones heritage with respect - and IMO , that starts by treating the Native communities that have managed to retain their culture, with respect.

How I see it is kind of like if there was a farm house that was built by your gr gr grandfather that your greatgrandma moved out of. In this sort of situation , it is the descendents who have maintained it and continuosly occupied it up to the present, who have a right to continue to maintain that house as they see fit. As a descendant of a family member that left , you might feel a connection with the farm and even contribute to it's up keep - but to expect an equal share of the harvest, or to move in and have refigerator rights, just because you are as much a genetic descendant of yor gr gr grandfather as the present occupants would make you wear out your welcome real fast.

Nighthawk
Quote
All descendants of other Native American people are expected to terminate themselves toute suite, disappear, and shut up and pretend they don't exist. Why is that? Isn't that European supremacy disguised......

I've thought about this and come to the conclusion that it is for the Native communities which are strong enough to have been recognized , to recognize and define who is an Ndn and who is not, and what their relationship with distant relations will be.

If this definition is not left in the hands of the strong continuosly existing indigenous Nation, it get placed in the hands of either non natives or people who's background is predominantly non native. And i do not agree that is where ths power to make these defintions belongs.

I understand the definition upheld by many Nations is not perfect and some deserving people fall through the cracks, but the alternative-  that non native or mainly non native people should have a right to define this is something I absolutely oppose as i see it as one more form of colonization- only this time it is the colonization of Ndn identity.

And this definition of identity is important, because it is only through properly defining who is a native person, that the rightful owners of Native culture and property will be recognized, and with owneship comes the right to  protect and maintain land, culture, and resources. 

Nighthawk
 
Quote
The registered or Status NDNs won't ever accept them, for one reason, they are not members of sovereign Nations, they are members of tribes .....


Actually , from what I have seen most native people are extremely generous about supporting distant realtions. What makes me crabby is I also see an extreme caution, as so many PODIAs come and don't just want a peice of the pie, they want the whole darn thing... for themself , and they don't care how this might affect the longterm soverienty or culture of the Nation they want to claim - which is so typically NON native ...

And it means the next PODIA who trys to reconnect with their People  have to deal with whatever mistrust and anger was left by the last grabby person that came through, feeling entitled,  claiming an ndn ancestor.

Some of the issues were previously discussed in the threads below... 

People Of Distant Indian Ancestry
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1111.0 (http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1111.0)

questionable ndn idenities & tribes
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=846.0 (http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=846.0)

I notice this does seem to be a deeply felt issue for a lot of people and some people feel offended to be told a bit of ancestry does not entitle them to claim they are an Ndn, so maybe it would be something people would like to talk about in more detail, in one of the links above .

(it's a bit off the topic of Ward Churchill )

Or maybe a new thread could be started to discuss how it is defined who is a Native person and who isn't . It is a complicated topic and I know it is absolutely wrong to ever deny these indigenous ancestors. But I also think it's wrong to deny if people are mainly of European descent.  and both sides of peoples heritage come with duties, obligations, past debts , and some rights.   There needs to be a way to work with both , and to find a balance that realisticly acknowledges all parts of our heritage. The parts we like and the parts we'd rather forget....

Just mt opinion... but I do find the subject interesting...
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on June 28, 2008, 02:43:06 am
 That last post was awesome Moma Porcupine. I agreed with everything you said.

 I also agreed with much of what you said in the threads provided by your links.

 Once again very nice posts :)
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on June 28, 2008, 05:48:48 am
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Moma_porcupine on June 30, 2008, 01:50:48 pm
Well first of all, when it comes to Ward Churchill, we seem to be talking about a rather extreme example of a  Person of Distant Ancestry ( maybe ) with what is in my opinion , a truely grandious sense of entitlement .

Below is a website with some information on his family background
http://home.comcast.net/~jackott2/ahnentafel2.htm

 
Quote
EDITOR'S NOTE:The author of the following apparently shares the opinion of Ward CHURCHILL that the source of his Indian heritage was the TYNER family. The author here cites Richard TYNER as the possible source, while Churchill cites Richard's son Joshua TYNER.  In all censuses in which either could be found, both were listed as "white". If Joshua TYNER was 1/2 Indian by birth, and barring any other unknown interventions in subsequent generations, Ward Churchill would be 1/128 Indian.


I guess Churchill's attitude is interesting though...It seems some people seem to think if they get angry about "their" mistreatment as Native peoples, playing that role will entitle them to an Ndn identity even if their actual genealogy barely justifies calling themselves a person of distant descent.
   
I don't mean to suggest that everybody's situation is the same or this can rightly be defined by BQ - in itself -So in between Churchill and people who are enrolled , there seems to be a wide spectrum of varying circumstances.

I think most would agree a persons personal life experience also counts for a lot. If a person is only 1/16 but they grew up around greatgrandparents, a bunch of aunts , uncles great aunts and uncles and cousins who all married back into a Native community, I can see that such people may have a substantially stronger right to claim an indigenous identity than someone who is 1/4 who hasn't had any family connection with Native people in 3 generations. 
   
However, it also seems to me that it is more than a little dishonest to suddenly decide you only inherited 1/8 or 1/128 of your actual heritage and only to acknowledge that part of your heritage that comes from your ancestors who were wronged. I don't understand how these people manage to just forget any debts incured and inherited by the other 7/8 or 127/ 128  of their ancestors who perpetrated these wrongs.

Nighthawk
Quote
If my ancestors were robbed, cheated, and driven out at the point of a bayonetted rifle, it does not mean that they consented to the theft
.

Night hawk, i don't know your families personal circumstance,  but it seems to me that once families have been living outside of a Native community for a couple generations, it is usually the case that most of these peoples ancestors were involved in doing the robbing cheating and driving out , and not the other way around as you are telling it.

Within all of our family backgrounds no matter what our nation there is wrong doers and people who were the victim of wrong doing.

How can it be right or honest to just forget what is in fact usually the largest part of most PODIAs real heritage?

It seems to me that if PODIAs really care about begining to shift the pressure away from assimilation and colonization, the way to go about this would be to first try to protect the people most directly affected , who have the most to loose, by making sure no outside interests ever pressured or coherce a tribe into disenfranchizing it's own children .  Once those outside presures are reduced as much as possible,  it might make sense to begin to reassimilate distant relations - with the first priority being the people disconnected most recently ,and possibly gradually expanding this to in some way include those disconnected for many generations.

I don't like to sound cynical, but I notice most PODIA's focus is geared towards insisting that whatever Native people managed to hang on to in the way of their identity , should now also belong to people who are almost entirely European. Which doesn't seem honest to me.

Nighthawk
Quote
And yet Euro-Americans and their descendants were all right with this when not so long ago the "one drop rule of hypodescent" applied, if a person had a single African American or Native American ancestor (with the exception of being a direct descendant of Matoaka, Rebecca Rolfe) no matter how distant that ancestor was, one was considered to be coloured and could be enslaved.

I don't know your own family situation and for some people of susbstantial Native heritage who have been wrongly forced into assimilating i would agree with what you are saying. But if we are talking about people like Ward Churchill, or anyone less than 1/8 who's families have lived in what is a mainly non native community for more than a couple generations , you sound like you are saying that one drop of indigenous blood can still confer the right of Euorpean dominence . But this time it is the right of people who are mainly European to own and use Native identity.

Nighthawk
Quote
And it is the colonial "divide and conquer" system that has resulted in what we sometimes see on message boards, the "I'm more NDN than you" game, which seems to me to basically be between those who have a card to carry around saying they are "all that" and those who don't.


I believe a lot of this problem comes from European people who may have some small amount of native descent making outrageously grandious claims of entitlement. These people create a situation where an obvious line has to be drawn somewhere . Surely you don't actually believe that people like Churchill should have the same right to claim an indigenous identity as a  person who's direct acestors have always live in a recognizable Native community ? So if you don't draw the line at enrollment , where do you draw it ? ( and BTW I don't see enrollment as " just a piece of paper" as some like to dismiss it , it's usually someting which shows what the tribe has decided about who it is , and who it is not willing to include ) 

Nighthawk
Quote
To me a tribe is a group that is related by blood, like a large extended family. A Nation is something else again. Some families retained parts of their culture that the people who experienced the diaspora have completely lost. One of these things would be familiarity with the wild foods and medicines of the region. People who left the land for other regions would have forgotten what these were after a very few generations. My personal belief is that to fully experience the culture, one must return to the traditional diet as far as possible. It's about what goes into a person, not what is put onto a person that counts, that's just the way I feel about it, others are free to disagree.


I agree that in order to be a tribe one of the requirements is a common relationship through blood, but that doesn't make every group of cousins who's grandparents lived off the land to some degree a tribe. That description would fit almost any European descended family 100 years ago.

I also agree that food and how we get it is one of the most fundamentle aspects of culture . Finding ways to get food which respects the integrity of our enviroment and the other plants and animals that rely on this is an indigenous value which we urgently need to find ways to integrate into our curent societies. But i think it's also important to remember that socieites that depend on agriculture for their food tend to have much larger populations and a very different social structure. I think it is unrealistic to think all these people who have a drop of Native blood can suddenly be sustained by hunting and gathering , or that these people should have a right to sustain their so called culture, through the same rights to hunting and fishing as the enrolled or status Ndns in the area.
 
Quoting myself
Quote
It seems there is an identity somewhere in between being European colonist and being fully indigenous to this continent, and the rights , responsibilities and perimeters of this identity are not well defined.

Quoting Nighthawks response
Quote
Most definitely. A sovereign people of a sovereign Nation define themselves. There seems to be, but shouldn't be in my  opinion, a divide between the people who want things to continue as they are, and others who believe it is time for Indigenous peoples, the Original people, of North America to stand up and be who they are.

I was not meaning that I was thinking that within the perimeters of this definition there is room for a sperate soverign Nation of PODIAs, and as you will probably gathered from some of my earlier comments, I don't support these ambitions at all, but there is something slightly different that I do support.

As I see it, a truely soveriegn Nation consitiutes the true underlying social fabric where upon we live out our lives. A soveriegn Nation or Tribe is much more enduring than our individual selves, and if it is something that is functional and if it is something we are proud of , it has the capacity to lift us out of ourselves into something greater than our tiny limited frame  of individuality and immediate personal concern.
 
If you want to be a sovergien nation of PODIAs , why turn you back on your more European descended neighbors if the majority of your own descent and culture is in fact European? If you are really looking at the big picture , and you are willing to wait a few generations for this to mature, most of your European neighbors great grandkids will be PODIAs or they will be married to one .

So if you are willing to look at the big picture, and be pateint there already is a soveriegn Nation of up and coming PODIAs. It is called America and Canada.   If you have no Nation which claims you, why not work from within the real soveriegn Nation most PODIAs already live in, to make it better able to accomadate sustainable indigenous values into what will be our shared collective future?

In my opinion one of the very imporant parts of doing this is to safe guard the right to protect and control , land , resources , identity and culture that are still left to the recognizable indigenous communities that managed to survive as a People . I see these indigenous communities which many Americans and Canadians descend from somewhere back there , as being like the North Star which provides a stable point of reference, and I believe it is really important to insure existing indigenous nations have what they need to keep this strong. Allowing them to be overwhelmed with distant relatives with a list of demands , entitlements and changing delusions of self importance is not what I think will help maintain this refferece point for future generations.

Obviously I do have opinions which are different than the many people advocting for recognition of PODIAs as ndns...But i do think it's a good discussion to have and i really appreciate that Nighthawk is willing to  explain a different point of view insuch an articulate way....

Sorry to be straying from the topic of this thread which is Ward Churchill
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on July 01, 2008, 07:17:08 am
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on July 01, 2008, 06:03:48 pm
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Rattlebone on July 01, 2008, 06:19:08 pm
Wasn't Ward Churchill's claim made originally so he could take advantage of some sort of "affirmative action" hiring program? If that's not the case, correct me if I'm wrong.

There's some similar but not the same program in "Canada" but it's fairly new:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_%28Canada%29

I find that Robert Lovelace is somewhat similar to Ward Churchill, but things have not worked out quite the same way for him in "Canada".

He is (according to him) an American draft dodger, who claimed to be "Cherokee", became a University professor, when people started researching him, he seems to have changed his claim to that of having been adopted by an Algonquin. He also claimed to be a member of AIM, but when that was checked out no one had heard of him. I think he's what I would call a "political pretendian" like Ward Churchill, meaning the main reason for him making such a claim has to do with politics.

All the same objectionable, because both of them in my view are misrepresenting the people.

Anyway as Chief of the Ardoch Algonquins, he organised a protest against uranium mining which resulted in six months in jail for disobeying an injunction, and has been touted internationally as a political prisoner. And he could be considered that by some, but that does not make him NDN.

Many stories about Lovelace on the 'net, here's just one:

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1754

As to his claim to be Chief of the Ardoch Algonquins, according to MNN he was involved in negotiating the sale of unceded Haudenosaunee land for large sums of money to "Canada" and the province of "Ontario" (NB: much  of "Canada" is on unceded, never sold or transferred, never under any treaty at all, Indigenous land).   That was before he got involved in protesting against uranium mining, I think.

http://tinyurl.com/4znj6s

Because of the alleged land sales to "Canada" and "Ontario", I wonder if jailing him actually had to do with giving him some sort of credibility as an NDN activist internationally or something, because a whole lot of people read the name now and think he actually is Native; the facts are somewhat buried, as is the research into his background (the claim to having been an AIM member and "Cherokee" primarily).



 I am not really familiar with him besides that I know Indian Country today did an article on him a few weeks back in which they interviewed him over his jail time and the reasons behind it.

Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: nighthawk on July 01, 2008, 06:21:33 pm
- removed by author -
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Raven2 on July 01, 2008, 08:30:35 pm

I think words like that also put me on edge at times being a mixed blood cause people always seem to be judging you, with hatred coming from both sides cause you are t oo this to be that, and at the same time too much of that to be this.

 I have had my own relations get drunk and want to fight me because I am Native, and at the same times get the poor treatment from more full blooded people for being mixed.

 It is a hard road to walk sometimes, and I often see some that try to some how hide who they are. I often refer to that as "the cowards road." I am not ashamed to be a mixed blood, and often times being as such allows me to help promote understanding between NDN's and NON's. Since I am in between they feel it's easier to speak with me. Then often times I hear things people say and I explain why they are that way if the cultural barriers they have prevent them from knowing.

 I suppose that using a word like PODIA is not a bad thing, and explains things in simple to relations as well.

 I am sorry for any misunderstandings here.

(snipped some from the top, agreeing with you on it causing divisions when words are meant in a bad way, put down others, etc.)

i'm mixed ancestry too (euro [not too sure of this one], l'nu [mi'kmaq], smattering of iiyu [cree]) and i get the same thing from both sides. i know exactly what you're talking about. even down to the NONs coming up to me and talking to me instead of a browner cousin 'cause they see the mix, and figure i walk that middle, lonely, road. same goes for the NDN side, they go, "hey you're ok, talk to them", and i do. that part makes it a little less lonely, and a little less hard. the nasty bits i could do without, of course ;).

i don't need to say that i don't like racism of any sort, not only because i think it's wrong, but also because i've experienced it, and i don't want it to spread. it bugs me to hear my friends, relatives, some community members say ignorant things. i let them know by not laughing, or saying "that's not cool bro/sis".

anyway, this PODIA acronym i don't see it mean, at least used here in that way. my own cultural background i got it mostly from my dad's ma, my gran'ma, since she kept that alive, to a certain extent. i didn't get enough of it, but enough to influence me growing up.

thanks for listening
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: ganonsononh on July 03, 2008, 12:08:48 am
Well despite his ancestry, obviously someone whose experience in relation to indigenous issues consists purely of academic knowledge as opposed to lived experiential knowledge will be questioned by the indigenous community as to whether that person is justified in speaking for/about the issues that they experience day to day. 

I always respected his work, cited his work in university and used his theories to expand my own way of speaking about the political and social issues that are central to indigenous communities.

This was until I met him last fall and witnessed the outright disrespect and despicable behaviour he exhibited to the  native community where I live in Vancouver BC.

Not only did he advocate for the FBI to investigate themselves in the death of Anna Mae, which as many know the FBI is implicated in her death and to those of us who have the experiential knowledge, understand the role that the security apparatus of the state plays in the continuing genocide of our people.  This is done through manipulation of data, criminalization of our own people and in the case of many people...murder.  So considering an organization such as this is capable of such means, how could a person who speaks so "radically" possibly support them in their further involvement as the investigators of any case having to do with native freedom fighters such as anna mae!

Ward also denied documented and recorded statements he had made while sitting on a panel with Russell Means and also within one of his own books...when confronted by native activists defending the case of John Graham who is being implicated with AMs murder based on coerced statements (FBI tortured a statement out of Orlo Looking Cloud to implicate John) and evidence classified merely as reasonable doubt...Ward refused to acknowledge what he said and proceeded to get the primarily "white" audience to laugh at the ONLY native people who were actually present.  Basically outright denial of his own words and then publicly attempting to humiliate and belittle the native activist community here in Vancouver.

After the confrontation, I witnessed when a friend of mine spoke to him very calmly asking him about the issue, he proceeded to swear at her, myself and another young woman, told us we were not "Real Indians" and said that you cannot treat a guest like this on the territory, that it is not traditional.

I then asked him, "I am a guest on this territory as well, and have been formally welcomed by the coast salish, can I ask whom invited you here?" I knew full well he was invited by a non-native white activist group who had no affiliation to the native community and ignored the concerns raised about this event.  He replied "A mixed group of people", I then said "Well if you are unaware of who invited you here, how can you impose traditional protocol onto any of us if you yourself did not follow it while entering this territory yourself?"

He then began shouting obscenities, calling us "fake Indians" and it was at that point I calmly turned around and walked away.  My comrades followed and as we walked away from him he continued to yell foul statements and insults.

I also might add, this was the only interaction he had at this event with ANY native person attending, and there were native attendants who were not involved with the confrontation including myself...he seemed only concerned with the non-native academics that were present.  I witnessed it, but was not apart of the confrontation which was not only native activists, but also the daughters of John Graham who recently was ILLEGALLY extradited to the states from kkkanada.  He basically insulted and attempted to intimidate young women who are directly connected to the struggle, unlike himself who is merely a theorist and academic and has very little actual experience with the hands on struggle.

He also had brought up the Oka crisis as though he were there, used it to support his lecture and my partner who was in Oka had knowledge that in the past Ward offered little support and was not indeed present during the crisis.

So all in all, I feel it is fair to acknkowledge he is a container of theories...a library for language to talk about the struggle, but no means is what he says meant to reflect his actions, his integrity or who he is as a person.

It has been my experience that when I meet the great academics I once admired (Taiaiake Alfred, Vine Deloria Jr., John Mohawk) they did not live up to my expectations that just because they write things I admire, they as people will be ones I wish to admire.  No disrespect to John Mohawk, he has passed, he by no means was nearly as bad as the others, but contradicted much of what he wrote about when you spoke to him in person....Taiaiake to a much greater degree (especially with his comments about those who blockade deserving of kkkanadian criminal punishment)

So IMO it must be understood that academia is not the most trustworthy source of knowledge for those of us who are indigenous.  Regardless of your blood quantum, to be indigenous is to be truly human.  We all have indigenous roots, all across this globe...it is the values you practice, the sense of community you build around you wherever you go, it is seeing the land as no different then yourself and respecting those whose ancestors are buried on the ground you walk no matter where you travel.  It is how your culture connects you to the earth and the ability to honor that earth in your struggle to protect it.  Regardless of "how" we speak about this in our lives, regardless of our ancestry...our expectations of one another to direct, lead or steer the course FOR us is misled.  We can choose what information we choose to use as our medicine, we can be inspired by whatever we want...but don't assume that those who exhibit that inspiration are where the inspiration comes from...

Ultimately you are the one who creates your knowledge and you are the one responsible for what you express...can't make others understand that or fit into some idealism that we would love to believe of them.

Ward unfortunately proved himself to be less then idealistic, so why would it surprise you that others might feel the same if this is an ongoing pattern with him?  And what does it matter really...to me he comes off unintegrous and undignified and for that reason he lost any support I may have been willing to give him in the past...someone else may feel different...not going to change how I feel or what I do.


Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Raven2 on July 03, 2008, 07:25:32 am
well said about "So IMO it must be understood that academia is not the most trustworthy source of knowledge ... [snip] ... can't make others understand that or fit into some idealism that we would love to believe of them."

it is ourselves who gather our own knowledge, and our own understanding of it, and what we learn from it. having grown up in the city, i know all too well what sort of disconnect can happen. even in the greyest of places, i'm always looking for something green (when the season's right) around me. i find it important to be aware of where your are, who are the people the land's caretakers are where i am, and what's happening to it. to me that's just basic, and too often i'll see other people not even be aware of other humans around, never mind the little plant poking through a crack in the sidewalk, fighting to be alive.

as for ward churchill, all i can say is that his behaviour and actions speak louder than his dozens of books.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: educatedindian on July 03, 2008, 02:28:28 pm
Churchill came to ASU at the invite of some white leftists for a conference, and that's who made up, almost the entire audience. The conference had a free concert the night before. I went and spotted Churchill. He saw me and took off the other way, then suddenly reversed himself and walked right by me without saying a word and refusing to look at me.

I can only guess I look like someone he had problems with in the past.

I've never heard any bad accounts of Deloria. He spent his entire life using his academic training in the service of NDN people, and the most dramatic evidence of that is the Bering Strait Theory is being widely challenged within academia as well as outside. In ten years I'd bet you won't hear the BS Theory mentioned in textbooks except as one possible theory that looks increasingly unlikely. One person whose also never disappointed when I've seen her speak is Devon Mihesuah.

A major reason I chose ASU for my grad school was that ASU always emphasized that any NDN history research be done solely for the benefit of NDN communities. And that includes works by white historians. A lot of the work that's come out of there has been community histories or works done to support NDN communities in legal struggles.

That's also why I enjoy where I teach now (except for the pay, which is typically very low all over Texas). St. Phillip's started out as a freedmen's college, and it still serves people who need it the most, mostly nontraditional students like I was.
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Soma on December 29, 2011, 01:35:01 pm
Lol

"Before we start the interview, Reporters, Do not ask Ward Churchill if he is a American Indian!"

http://youtu.be/9AtbGOBC1zU
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Sparks on October 23, 2020, 03:59:57 pm
Ward Churchill was asked about today in the thread about Jimmie Durham. I quote my full reply:

Didn't Ward Churchill write an essay or book chapter defending Jimmie Durham as "Nobody's Pet Poodle" and championing him for being a Cherokee "Indian artist" while not proving he has an ancestor on the rolls?

He certainly did! Here are bibliographic references: Churchill, Ward: "Nobody’s Pet Poodle. Jimmie Durham: an artist for Native North America." Pages 483-499. [In the book] From a Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism 1985 (1995). With an introduction by Howard Zinn. Boston, Mass.: South End Press, ©1996. xix, 588 p.: ill., maps; 23 cm. — Also published here: "Nobody's Pet Poodle: Jimmie Durham, An Artist for Native North America," in American Indian Quarterly 20 (Winter 1996): 109-118. — My search indicates it was also printed a couple of other times and places (perhaps in differing versions).

About the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_a_Native_Son

https://www.worldcat.org/title/from-a-native-son-selected-essays-in-indigenism-1985-1995/oclc/34984190

The whole book is freely available for download here:

https://azinelibrary.org/other/Churchill_-_From_a_Native_Son_-_Selected_Essays_on_Indigenism_1985-1995.pdf

Please note: That essay/chapter is discussed in this 2011 PDF [Allegation B: Misrepresentation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990]:

https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ConferenceReport.pdf [REPORT ON THE TERMINATION OF WARD CHURCHILL]
Title: Re: Steve Russell casts doubt on Andrea Smith's Cherokee heritage
Post by: Sparks on June 14, 2021, 12:10:29 am
In a previous post on this thread, Kevin mentioned an article by Steve Russell in which Russell seems to suggest that Andrea Smith is not Cherokee.

Can anyone please fill me in on this?  I have used her books in my classes, including Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide and The Color of Violence.

However, what I'm wondering about is this line from a recent op-ed piece by Steve Russell, which was posted on Indianz.com and reposted here by Kevin the other day.  In his article, Russell says this regarding Smith: "My position is that even though not Cherokee, [my emphasis] she cannot be a fraud of Churchill's stature. "

This idea that Andrea Smith is NOT Cherokee is what is new to me.  It was my understanding that she is a well-respected scholar and Cherokee woman.

I was wondering if anyone might have any information to confirm or deny Russell's assertion.

A thread about Andrea Smith was started in 2012; still active:

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=3681.0 [Andrea Smith]
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: milehighsalute on June 23, 2021, 05:51:38 am
true story

ward churchill tried to hit on my aunt....she wasnt interested

he gave her a painting

she gave it to me

i never checked to see if he plagiarized this picture like many of his other paintings....maybe one day ill post it here no one has seen this one its an original not a print

i hope one day its worth alot as a NOVELTY painted by the guy that tried to fool (and in some cases did) the ndn community in denver lol 
Title: Re: Ward Churchill
Post by: Sparks on July 20, 2021, 05:05:50 am
I like what Steve Russell, columnist for Indian Country today had to say:
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096416968
Russell: When does ethnic fraud matter?   Posted: April 04, 2008 by: Steve Russell

UPDATED: SEP 12, 2018 ORIGINAL:APR 4, 2008 — and moved to this URL:

https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/russell-when-does-ethnic-fraud-matter

Comparing Ward Churchill to Andrea Smith (http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=3681.0).