Author Topic: Ward Churchill  (Read 42680 times)

frederica

  • Guest
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #15 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.

apukjij

  • Guest
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #16 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!

Offline ska

  • Posts: 143
Re: Steve Russell casts doubt on Andrea Smith's Cherokee heritage
« Reply #17 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
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 11:15:31 pm by ska »

Offline ska

  • Posts: 143
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #18 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
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 11:17:31 pm by ska »

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #19 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.

Offline bls926

  • Posts: 655
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #20 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.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2008, 05:20:44 pm by bls926 »

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #21 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. 

frederica

  • Guest
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #22 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.

Offline educatedindian

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4783
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #23 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.
 

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #24 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.

Offline bls926

  • Posts: 655
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #25 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.



Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #26 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.

nighthawk

  • Guest
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2008, 07:56:09 pm »
- removed by author -
« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 08:14:39 am by nighthawk »

Offline Defend the Sacred

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3495
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #28 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".

Offline Rattlebone

  • Posts: 257
Re: Ward Churchill
« Reply #29 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?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 05:43:58 pm by Kathryn »