On PointVincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Carroll: Churchill's latest defenders
Seven University of Colorado professors have issued a warning to their colleagues who were brave enough to serve on a committee that condemned a plagiarist and fraud. If that committee’s report on Ward Churchill isn’t retracted, the seven promise, they’ll consider “filing charges of research misconduct against the authors.”
This ominous pledge is also signed by two non-CU professors, one from Cornell and the other from Kansas, and alleges five specific “violations” of scholarly norms in the anti-Churchill report.
A last-ditch attempt to turn the tables? Of course, and from professors who in at least some cases share Churchill’s political outlook. But fear not: Even if the committee’s report were as rotten as this gaggle of Churchill defenders contends, it would still provide more than enough basis for the professor’s eventual, much-delayed firing. Indeed, the committee’s conclusion that Churchill is a serial plagiarist is not even challenged. Apparently that is now conceded by all sides.
To fairly assess all five allegations against the committee, I’d have to return to every source cited by each side; that wasn’t possible for this column. But I was nonetheless able to review the source that is the basis for one of the pro-Churchill group's claims. The verdict: It’s a trumped-up charge.
The pro-Churchill professors accuse the investigating committee of “suppressing text from a cited source that contradicts the report’s argument” in discussing an epidemic among the Mandan Indians in the 1830s.
As you might recall, the committee last year concluded that Churchill misled readers in footnoting his baseless claim that “the U.S. Army distributed smallpox-laden blankets as gifts among the Mandan.” In inventing this tale, Churchill pointed to pages 94-96 of Russell Thornton’s book American Indian Holocaust and Survival.
As the committee noted, “Thornton says something quite different about the Fort Clark situation. ... he does not mention blankets or suggest deliberate infection on the part of the U.S. Army or the American Fur Company. Professor Churchill therefore misrepresents what Thornton says.”
So what’s the problem? According to the Churchill apologists, “the Thornton text in this very same section does contain extensive mention of deliberate infection when Thornton cites the speech by Mandan leader Four Bears on p. 98-99.”
Talk about a ridiculous argument. In fact, Thornton offers only three possible ways the Indians could have been infected. None involves the Army, blankets or deliberate infection.
Two pages later he recounts a speech allegedly given by Four Bears after he’d contracted smallpox himself. Four Bears is furious with white men and urges his fellow Indians to kill them all. But he too does not mention the Army or blankets. Nor is it clear from this passage that he believes he was deliberately infected, contrary to what the Churchill defenders insist.
In issuing a report of 124 pages, the committee investigating Churchill undoubtedly made a few mistakes. We can safely say, however, that “suppressing text from a cited source that contradicts the report’s argument” wasn’t one of them.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountain
Don't you people ever get tired of whining and beating a dead horse?Posted by TJ on April 26, 2007 07:26 AM
With all the cr*p going on, Vince is still on Churchill? I thought that was fired already.Posted by on April 26, 2007 08:28 AM
I had no idea Churchill was still at CU? Haven't they run him out on a rail yet?Posted by on April 26, 2007 08:31 AM
Check out the further discussion of this matter at pirateballerina.com (and be sure to click on the comments link!).
As it turns out, one of the sources -- a book by Circe Sturm -- that the Investigative Committee was chided for not citing as a "reputable independent source" for Churchill's lies about the General Allotment Act appears to have copied those lies directly from an earlier essay by Churchill, which he wrote under cover of the name of his ex-wife, Annette Jaimes.
In attempting to defend Churchill's multiple fabrications and misrepresentations, these Churchill cronies have produced a document riddled with same problems. Moral of the story: If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas
and from professors who in at least some cases share Churchill’s political outlook. ..now there's a real cutting edge almost statementPosted by on April 26, 2007 09:56 AM
The idiots at pirateballerina.com are liars. Get the facts at www.tryworks.org.Posted by Mad Knitter on April 26, 2007 10:18 AM
This was a political witch hunt, pure and simple. You can try to dress it up any way you want but Churchill was fired ONLY for what he said about 9/11. Either all the work of all the professors at CO universities are put under the same spotlight as Chruchill's body of work, if not then Churchhill is getting fired for his point of view. I bet most the professors at CU would have some similiar mistakes in their citations if their work was analyzed to the same degree as Churchills. The work of the authors of the report that invented the BS reasons to fire Churchill can't even stand up to the light of day!Posted by frankie on April 26, 2007 10:48 AM
Better yet, consider the arguments at BOTH tryworks (Churchill's own blogsite) and pirateballerina.com (Churchills' critics' blogsite).
Judge for yourself who's lying and who's not.Posted by on April 26, 2007 10:57 AM
You guys prove my points for me......lying idiots. Tryworks.org is the blogsite of Benjamin Whitmer.Posted by Mad Knitter on April 26, 2007 11:28 AM
Thanks for confirming that, Knitter, since--thanks to comments posted by "Charley Arthur"--Benjie's bent over backwards trying to diminish his own proprietary role at tryworks. Good to know that Benjie is, in fact, responsible.Posted by jwpaine on April 26, 2007 12:38 PM
For all those people who are calling this a political witch hunt, get a clue! Maybe his political beliefs did cause people to look closer at his academic body but that does not qualify this as a witch hunt. Anytime one causes attention to be focused on themselves, they had better make sure their i's are dotted and t's are crossed. It happens to all of us who are in the working world. Why teachers feel they are above others (I know, it's all about arrogance) is a mystery to me. If his scholarship would have been up to par then CU wouldn't have had anything to go after him about. Since he is a proven fraud he is getting his just desserts...Posted by Mike on April 26, 2007 12:57 PM
I started the blog. I'm responsible for what I say on the blog. I don't edit Charley Arthur, nor the Mad Knitter, nor you and/or any of your clones.
But any way you look at it, it ain't Churchill's blog.
That, as the Mad Knitter points out, is just another example of your clones flat-out lying.Posted by Benjamin Whitmer on April 26, 2007 01:01 PM
Liars! One and all! Universities are STACKED with conservatives! The media is not biased! And Ward never spit on an old woman.Posted by Bruno on April 26, 2007 01:27 PM
Thanks for the agreement that this is only a political witch hunt due only to Churchill's non politicially correct speech about 9/11. So basically he should be 100% perfect before he dares to have an opinion that differs from Carroll and the rest of the right wing slime machine. That isn't the way this country should work. If CU wants to review the work of ALL their professors and fire ALL the ones who have tripped up their cititations then fine but to single out only Churchill for scrunitny is wrong and cowardly. Churchill will win in court (selective prosocution) and we'll be paying him with a fat check from our tax funds.Posted by frankie on April 26, 2007 01:40 PM
That's the truth, Bruno. The lady in question is Carole Standing Elk. She's a long-time nutcase and Churchill stalker, trumped up by the local media. You can find the breakdown on her on www.tryworks.org in the "He's Not Indian Enough To Say It" page in "The Churchill Smear" section.Posted by Benjamin Whitmer on April 26, 2007 01:45 PM
Um, Frankie, I never said this was a witch hunt. If you read correctly I said it was about him causing attention to be cast on himself and then his scholarship not being able to stand the heat that came w/ it. You may think it not a big deal when a professor of a major university copies pretty much word for word from another group (Damn the Dams I believe it was) and then tries to pass it off as his own but I think this is blatant plagiarism. How can you justify this? For another example, do you think it is OK to ghost write one article, write another article under your own name and then reference the ghost article to back up your claims? Please tell me you find these actions appalling and if not at least tell me you don't work at CU as this would make the university even more suspect in who they hire!Posted by Mike on April 26, 2007 02:05 PM
Let's see....Ward Churchill has lied about his ethnicity, military service, and involvement with the Weather Underground. No big deal. The committee investigating his work found him guilty of falsification, fabrication, plagarism, ghost writing, etc. No problem. I don't see any reason for removing him from his position. As Frankie says, most of the professors at CU do the same. Churchill obviously is the victim of a right wing witch hunt. We all should rally to his cause.
Sorry, Mike, the Dam the Dams bit couldn't be a clearer example of Churchill forgetting a footnote, with no intentional wrong-doing. He used that information on a few occasions, citing it correctly -- or at least as correctly as he could: they'd given him the wrong address -- but on the last occasion, forgot the footnote. Big deal. Oh, and ghost-writing is fairly standard. As is citing yourself, if you've already written on a particular subject and are touching on it.
No scholar at CU could withstand that kind of scrutiny. It's a joke. Even if one were to concede every charge laid at his feet -- and I ain't about to -- there's no way a handful of footnote errors can cause one to get fired. This is about politics, and you know it. Hell, Carroll makes the point above, right? He's more than willing to dismiss the SCRM report's rampant errors, because he agrees with them. "In issuing a report of 124 pages, the committee investigating Churchill undoubtedly made a few mistakes," as he put it.
Well, Churchill's written somewhere around 25 books. Yep, there's probably been some sloppy footnotes. But in this case, I wonder why Carroll's tune is so different?
The answer's easy. He's the worst kind of hypocrite, and he's about censoring Churchill for his free speech.Posted by Benjamin Whitmer on April 26, 2007 02:18 PM
Your contention that Churchill forgot to footnote when he actually plagiarized an entire article is absolutely laughable. According to your bizarre logic, if a student turned in a published article written by someone else with a footnote to the original article, then they would not be guilty of plagiarism. You pro-Churchill folks either have a very poor understanding of scholarly ethics or think that the normal rules of scholarship don't apply to Churchill. Just for making up the smallpox blankets story, Churchill should be fired.
If one of your students turned in a paper that "borrowed" from an obscure piece of literature w/o footnoting (and just by chance you happened to read the same article) how would you react as a teacher? Would you just give that student a pass or would you take him to task for this? I'm asking as a serious question because I cannot understand how you defend this man so adamantly. As for the Damn the Dams article, I believe you are trying to rewrite history. If I remember correctly, the first time he referenced this literature he did credit the DTD organization AND his own research institute. However, in his 2nd and 3rd revisions of the essay he had taken DTD out of credits and only included himself. Does this seem like he 'forgot' a footnote or does it seem he removed an entity in the credits from the original essay to the final version?
Churchill was exposed as a fraud by the Indian lawyer and scholar John LaVelle in 1996, but CU did nothing.
Many Indian people and others have complained about Churchill's frauds over the years.
Churchill's case only seems political now because CU didn't act on earlier complaints until 2005.
They didn't do it when ethics required an investigation. They waited until the media and public became aware of Churchill.
Please visit my blog about Ward Churchill.
You might go to the first few posts where other of Churchill's fabrications are noted, as well as Churchill's abuse of his late wife, a young Indian woman named Leah Kelly.
Cheyfitz does not dispute that Churchill is a plagiarist. Why didn't Cheyfitz testify during the investigation? Why is he only coming forward now?
Cheyfitz teaches Indians Studies. I wonder if he quoted Churchill in his books.
I am sick of these corrupt professors lying about Churchill's critics being right wingers.
Thomas Brown, who exposed Churchill's lies about smallpox is a liberal and a member of the ACLU.
Churchill is not a liberal. He is a vicious, violent, con-man.
There is TONS more known about Churchill and anyone who defends him is going to have to hide his face for the rest of his life.
Posted by Snapple on April 26, 2007 02:47 PM
1) I don't work, nor have I ever taken a class at CU
2) I never said that most professors at CU do shoddy research, the truth is I have no idea since only Churchill has been investigated (only due to right wing pressure about his non politically correct 9/11 essay). If Churchill's work is put under review let's do so for all the professors at CU. I'm sure almost all of them are stellar researchers but I'm uncomfortable with only Churchill getting looked at in this way.
3) I agree that professors that who do shoddy research or falsify any work should be removed from their position. But this type of investigation of a professor's research work needs to be done for ALL professors and ALL who have falsified work need to be removed, not just Churchill.
4) If Churchill's research is so shoddy and false then what are these 7 professors who are supporting him talking about? It sounds like they are saying that the research into Churchill's research is shoddy and the claims that are being used to fire Churchill are not as bulletproof as y'all want to claim.
Well, I'll tell you what, Leah and Mike, we'll let it play out in court and see what a jury has to say in the inevitable lawsuit. I'm feeling pretty good about the outcome.
Oh, and don't hold back Snapple, you lunatic, tell them how Churchill killed JonBenet Ramsey.Posted by Benjamin Whitmer on April 26, 2007 02:53 PM
Sorry for asking for a straight answer. I guess we will play it out in court. Just hope you realize you are hitching your wagon to a hobbled horse...Posted by Mike on April 26, 2007 03:00 PM
Confidential to Ben Whitmer--
When you find me saying that explicitly on my blog, I know you'll post it with a link,
Go to my blog and search JonBenet in the top left search feature. You might learn something if you are not terminally stupid.
You know, like you claimed---without sourcing it-- that I dedicated my life to ruining Wardo.
Actually, Wardo's works came to my attention in the course of research on the manipulation of media in the Ramsey murder because AIM activist Lee Hill was claiming that the Boulder authorities were protecting a ring of pedophiles who had killed JonBenet.
You know, just like Wardo claims that the FBI baced death squads that murdered 342 AIM activists on Pine Ridge---and somehow managed to miss Wardo,
who claims he was AIM security in the early 1970s.
(See a recent post about this.)
Speaking of Churchill's moronic "research,"
if you go to Ward Churchill's famous 9-11 essay, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," Wardo divines that in 1996 Madeline Albright "responded" to the 1998 remarks of a UN official named Denis Halliday!.....Odd.....How did Albright ever manage to respond to Halliday two years before he made his remarks? He didn't even have that job in 1996.
Wardo is a friggin' idiot!
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/03/atlanta-child-murders-and-radical.htmlPosted by on April 26, 2007 03:11 PM
"If Churchill's research is so shoddy and false then what are these 7 professors who are supporting him talking about?"
7 pompous twits out of the whole CU Boulder faculty? Impressive.
Here's something that was posted at pirateballerina.com. People over there are digging up a lot of important stuff:
Consider the following two quotes:
"Each Indian, identified as being those documentably of one-half or more Indian blood, was entitled to receive title in fee of such a parcel; all others were simply disenfranchised altogether."
"Native Americans living on reservations who were documentably of one-half or more Indian blood received allotments, while those who did not meet this standard were simply excluded."
The first is from Jaimes/Churchill's "Federal Indian Identification Policy," pg. 126 in The State of Native America, while the second is from Sturm, pg. 78 of "Blood Politics."
So yes, Sturm does not cite Jaimes/ Churchill (why this means she is an independent source bolstering the half-blood "hoax" is unclear, as presumably citation to a primary source should be necessary to count as such independent source), but she clearly used Jaimes/ Churchill as that source, unless the use of "documentably" and "simply" are just coincidences. Further, Sturm uses the term "eugenic" on the same page to describe the use of blood quantum; Jaimes uses the term "eugenics mechanism" on the same page to also describe the use of blood quantum.Posted by on April 26, 2007 04:54 PM
That post at pirateballerina.com ends this way:
Hmmmmmm. Is Sturm indeed an independent source wrongly ignored by the committee? I do not mean to suggest that Sturm is not a good scholar, but only that she is not the independent source claimed by Cheyfitz, et al.
Draw your own conclusions.
Who Cares!!! And what the hell is Ethnic Studies and how much money can you make with a degree in that?Posted by Ron on April 26, 2007 05:40 PM
Gee, another so called expert that wants to help us on down the road to fascism.
The only thing Prof. Chruchill did was to speak the truth. We got what we asked for by using our economic prowess, along with our guns, to exploit others around the world. They finally got tired of it and hit back. And now we want to cry about it.
America is getting the fruits of her works, and I am afraid there is much more, and much worse to come.Posted by R. Conners on April 26, 2007 07:10 PM
Except for calling the editor "right wing slime" Frankie's arguments are right on point. Churchill is being railroaded for his opinion, not for his academic work.
It's difficult for us non-academics to follow much less judge Churchill's scholarship, but even if it's not up to snuff, it's very clear he's been subject to a witch hunt. The evidence is overwhelming including, among other things, the Gov's call that Churchill be fired right after his 9-11 essay was "discovered" three years after the fact--before any investigations had occurred. It's very clear from the on-going negative media attention.
I remember the very week, the Rocky Mtn News did a series examining every dot and tiddle of Churchill's academic work, they also published an nearly incomprehensible, and poorly supported essay by Paul Campos claiming that obesity was not a health hazard (yes, that's what he said). The incongruity in the different standards each was held to was nauseating.
Witch hunt. Railroaded. Whatever you want to call it, it suggests we are perhaps not as civilized as we would like to see ourselves. The Churchill witch hunt is a smear on Colorado's reputation.Posted by anderson on April 26, 2007 08:44 PM
The reporter who led the Churchill witchhunt flamed out and was fired from the story for bias (he had an e-affair with a woman not his wife and was writing to her about Churchill). The letters are here:
Charlie Brennan not only tried to pass himself off as a journalist, but also as a pacifist Quaker liberal. He now works for neo-conservative Fox News 31 in Denver.Posted by Fire Witch on April 27, 2007 09:37 AM
Churchill has the right to make offensive speech, but he doesn't have the right to plagiarize other people's work or fabricate historical events or invent sources to support his falsifications.
CU decided two years ago that Churchill's offensive remarks about 9/11 were protected by the 1st Amendment. But they also found many examples of academic dishonesty that are NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.
This is NOT a witch hunt over Churchill's offensive statements about 9/11. To believe that, you'd have to believe that all the liberal professors and deans who served on the committees that found Churchill guilty of academic misconduct were involved in a hidden plan to issue false reports while secretly conspiring to get rid of Churchill because of his 9/11 comments. How likely is that?
If Churchill is really guilty of all the terrible acts of dishonesty they're accusing him of, he should be fired. How else could CU preserve its high reputation as a first-class research and teaching institution?Posted by on April 27, 2007 09:54 AM
Why don't we just read the University's reports against Churchill and decide for ourselves?
Here are the links.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdfPosted by on April 27, 2007 10:05 AM
"This is NOT a witch hunt over Churchill's offensive statements about 9/11."
Which part of the media hanging did you miss?
"To believe that, you'd have to believe that..."
No, no, no. As I pointed out before, the academic investigation is only part of the larger picture. If you had a mob of men and a pack of hound dogs chasing a raccoon, and finally had him treed, you would presumably argue the coon was up there only because he climbed that tree.
Posted by anderson on April 27, 2007 10:27 AM
Churchill's research misconduct has been an issue for years. CU just ignored people who complained about Churchill and never investigated him when Indians complained.
He lies about what other scholars write and attributes false view to them to make it look like these famous scholars agree with him.
All this screaming about the right wing is a lot of baloney.
"There is no escaping the conclusion that...Ward Churchill misrepresents the writings of both Russell Thornton and Patricia Nelson Limerick in order to create a false appearance that these acclaimed scholars corroborate and partake of Churchill's hostility toward Indian tribes..."
---Professor of Law, John Lavelle, 1996, page 112
[See also Lavelle's related 1999 article: The General Allotment Act "Eligability" Hoax]
"Churchill's hostility towards Indian tribes"
On it's face, that sounds like a pretty bogus assertion.
Are you an Indian scholar, Snapple, or just another pitchfork in the crowd?Posted by anderson on April 27, 2007 02:14 PM
John LaVelle is an Indian.
Churchill pretends to be for Indians. tha't part of his disguise.Posted by Snapple on April 27, 2007 02:17 PM
Churchill is not an Indian scholar.
He's a con-man who pretends to quote real scholars with expertise in Indian history and law. Then he mischaracterizes what they actually said.
Anyone who can read can look up his footnotes and see that his sources don't say what he claims they say.Posted by Snapple on April 27, 2007 02:21 PM
Ward Churchill is on his fourth wife.
Charlie Brennan stuck up for the Indian women Leah and Rhonda Kelly.
Leah, a young Indian student, was Ward Churchill's third wife. Ward Claims she ran out in the street and got run over by a car while drunk because of her family's history of white opression.
Really she started drinking after she met Churchill, according to Rhonda. Also, Rhonda says that Leah told her that Ward tried to push Leah out of a moving car.
Leah was reportedly on the verge of leaving Wardo when she got run over late at night by a motorist.
Ward's first wife, Dora Lee Larson, says he tried to push her out of a moving car, too.
I have a lot of articles about Leah and Rhonda on my blog. Churchill's friends try to trash Rhonda and tell everyone not to listen to her because she is just a drunk Indian. That's just a racist stereotype.
Churchill exploits Indians. Mr. Brennan tried to help them get some justice.
He's a great journalist for standing up to Wardo.
I think that this supposed e-mail woman was some stooge for Wardo, but I don't know much about it.
All you gals who love Wardo so much---take the cure by getting married to him.
Even wardo admits he threw Leah into a wall in the bedroom.Posted by Snapple on April 27, 2007 02:38 PM
"John LaVelle is an Indian."
It sounds like you're obsessed with Churchill. Imagine if you put that energy into something positive?Posted by anderson on April 27, 2007 02:59 PM
I read the full "summary and documentary evidence packet", and I had to laugh out loud when I got to the part about the Wampanoags.
It turns out that the committee didn't know that the Pokanoket were a tribe of the Wampanoags. In their ignorance, the committee accused Churchill of fabricating evidence! The CU committee made false charges of Churchill fabricating evidence due to THEIR OWN ignorance of the Pokanoket and Wampanoags!
How do you think that will play out in court? Is it too late for the buy-out?
Damn CU really screwed up by not taking the deal to buy out Churchill's contract. Maybe it isn't too late to resolve this before this gets sent to some out of state (California?) federal court after a change in venue.
If just a simple majority of the out-of-state jury feels like sticking it to Colorado Conservatives, Churchill wins his court case. He goes back to teaching with a few million in his back pocket.
The only clean way out of this is a buy-out. Anything else is another few more years of bad publicity for CU.Posted by Pablo B on April 27, 2007 03:25 PM
The joke is on you. The committe said that it made a MISTAKE about the Indian names in the Salisbury book. But if Ward Churchill's own testimony to the committe is to be believed, this mistake is irrelevant to Churchill's guilt.
Churchill told the committee that he made a MISTAKE and didn't mean to cite the Salisbury book in the first place. If this is true, the committee's error is irrelevant, isn't it.
Professor Wesson says that Churchill, who cited Salisbury to document his claim that John Smith gave the Indians smallpox on purpose, may have claimed that he cited Salisburry by MISTAKE after he noticed that Salisbury wrote that Smith left New England in 1614.
Churchill had claimed that Smith caused the smallpox in 1616, two years after Smith left the area.
Here is what Professor Wesson said about the committee's mistake:
"Churchill's response to the committee's questions concerning his use of Salisbury as a source for his claims was not to make the points now argued by Professor Cheyfitz (who did not appear as a witness before the committee), but to disclaim any reliance on Salisbury, saying that the reference to Salisbury's work had been a mistake caused by hasty writing. Possibly he made this choice of response because Salisbury makes clear that Smith left New England in June of 1614, never to return, and that the epidemic did not begin until sometime in 1616. I encourage those who would see this error as an important factor in our findings to read the report with care. "
I am laughing at you.
Cheyfitz' talking points in the evidence packet you say you read address what Salisbury's book says--- a book Wardo told the committee he did NOT mean to cite. Wardo says he was making a MISTAKE when he cited Salisbury.
So if Wardo says he never cited Salisbury, why is Cheyfitz pointing out the small mistake the committee made about the Salisbury book?
Rather, Cheyfitz should focus on why Wardo told the committee he cited Salisbury by MISTAKE.
Professor Wesson believes that Wardo probably noticed that he had claimed--using Salisbury as a source--that John Smith caused a smallpox epidemic in 1616.
But Salisbury said that Smith left New England in 1614, two years before Wardo said Smith deliberately caused the smallpox epidemic.
Oops!Posted by Snapple on April 27, 2007 04:25 PM
At 9:54 AM someone wrote :
"This is NOT a witch hunt over Churchill's offensive statements about 9/11. To believe that, you'd have to believe that all the liberal professors and deans who served on the committees that found Churchill guilty of academic misconduct were involved in a hidden plan to issue false reports while secretly conspiring to get rid of Churchill because of his 9/11 comments. How likely is that?"
I agree completely! There is no way there is a conspiracy!
You would have to believe that the Chair of the committee (Law School Prof. Mimi Wesson) was a friend and business partner with some right-wing journalist calling for Ward's head, like Rocky Mountain News writer Paul Campos. And that she reports to a very outspoken critic of Churchill, the law school's Dean Getches who controls her future in the law school.
Oh wait, that's true.
Well, then you would have to believe that the committee was stacked with more anti-Churchill members than pro-Churchill members. And that anyone who ever said anything even slightly positive about Churchill would have been drummed off the committee!
Oh wait, that's true also.
Well, then you would have to believe that the person who decides if Churchill gets fired (Republican ex-Senator Hank Brown) is a political ally of the Republican ex-Governor Bill Owens who originally called for Churchill to be fired.
Oh wait, also true.
Sorry, my bad.
This really does stink like crazy with conflicts of intrests from one end to the other. That all should play out well in an out-of-state court.
Colorado will come out looking like a bunch of backwards cow-town bumpkins. Nothing like having one of our top educational facilities enforce a bad cliche that Colorado has been trying to shake for decades.Posted by Pablo B on April 27, 2007 04:33 PM
You admit that the committee failed in their research, then try to obfuscate the issue by attempting to change the topic from what the committee did to what Ward did.
The last time I heard that argument was when my 4 year old got caught eating candy before dinner. Her defense was to say her brother was watching a TV when he should have been doing chores. Post again once you graduate from pre-school level debate tactics.
Bottom line: This is one of many examples that have been brought forward of the committee's failures.
It doesn't matter if the committee then comes back and tries to correct their mistakes later. Each failure will serve to undermine CU's court case.Posted by Pablo B on April 27, 2007 04:52 PM
Scholars and Indians have been trying to get CU to listen for years.
Many scholars have been unhappy about how Churchill "quotes" them when he makes up his fairy tales.
Churchill says he is for free speech, but he constantly lies about what other professors say. Churchill gives his own ridiculous ideas, but he makes it seem that his ideas are supported by other famous professors' ideas.
Professor Thomas Brown is a liberal and a member of the ACLU.
Brown showed that Churchill mischaracterized what other scholars wrotet when Churchill claimed that the US Army deliberately infected the Mandan Indians with smallpox.
Churchill claimed this happened at an Army fort, but really it was a fur-trading fort called Fort Clark. The Indians had a business relationship with the white traders. And the white traders were married to Indian women and had multi-racial children.
Why would fur traders kill their business partners--the Indians who brought them furs?
The committe made an honest error and owned up to it. That is not research misconduct. That is a mistake.
Wardo's is a dishonest scholar, not a mistaken one.
In any case, the mistake is irrelevant if Wardo is to be believed because he claims he cited Salisbury by MISTAKE.
If Wardo never meant to cite Salisbury, then what the committee says about Salisbury is beside the point.
Wardo pretends to "quote" people and then says something different than what the cited scholar wrote.
Sometimes Wardo writes articles and has a collaborator sign them. Then Wardo writes a second article and "quotes" the first article that he wrote that his collaborator took credit for.
Wardo does this so he can give the false impression that other people back up his goofy ideas.
Wardo is nothing but a huge con-man.
He will probably be in the Guinness Book of Records for being the most famous con-man who ever impersonated a scholar.Posted by Snapple on April 27, 2007 05:07 PM
You are mischaracterizing my research when you CLAIM FALSELY that I "admit that the committee failed in their research..."
I do NOT ADMIT the committee failed at all. They did a great job. They made a small error. Everyone makes small errors.
Wardo, however, intentionally falsifies what other people have written in order to give crack-pot propaganda the credibility it would otherwise lack.
Don't mischaracterize what I say.
I say the committe made a small honest error and that Wardo lies.Posted by Snapple on April 27, 2007 05:16 PM
You're such a joke that even the anti-Churchill lying idiots over at Pirateballerina have banned you from leaving comments. Get back on your meds!Posted by Mad Knitter on April 27, 2007 05:17 PM
Whatever floats your boat...heh!Posted by Snapple on April 27, 2007 05:24 PM
Well, we know what floats yours:
http://tryworks.org/blog/the-churchill-smear/ward-churchill-killed-jonbenet-ramsey/Posted by Mad Knitter on April 27, 2007 05:27 PM
Snapple - keep digging yourself deeper.
"The committe made an honest error and owned up to it. That is not research misconduct. That is a mistake.
Wardo's is a dishonest scholar, not a mistaken one.
In any case, the mistake is irrelevant if Wardo is to be believed because he claims he cited Salisbury by MISTAKE."
According to you, if Churchill makes a "MISTAKE" quoting Salisbury, he is a "dishonest scholar". If the committee makes a mistake it is just an "honest error".
Nice double standard.
This is the same double standard that strikes directly at the core credibility of the report.
First off, mistakes by the committee whether they are honest or not damages the credibility of the committee's qualifications to conduct a scholarly review of Churchill's work. The committee's lack of knowledge about the tribes involved is just one piece of trial evidence towards proving the committee was not qualified to review books about Indian Tribal history.
Second off, you hit the nail on the head when you differentiated between honest mistakes and acedemic dishonesty. The proof that Churchill went beyond a "MISTAKE" in footnotes as you aptly point out, just isn't there.
Thank you for your help with my arguments. I couldn't have set the logical trap any better even if I would have written your posts for you!Posted by Pablo B on April 27, 2007 05:31 PM
Snapple - you asked me "Why would fur traders kill their business partners--the Indians who brought them furs?"
If you are asking me (PABLO) what would motivate a bunch of White guys to kill minorities, you're asking the wrong guy. I do know that a whole lot of White guys killed a whole lot of Indians, HENCE there was abundant motivation to kill Indians back then.
But for the situation in question, I defer to the opinion of the Mandan leader Four Bears who on his death bed blamed the "White Man" for the plague that killed him:
"Thornton cites the speech by Mandan leader Four Bears on p98-99:
My Friends one and all, Listen to what I have to say— Ever since I can remember, I have loved the Whites, I have lived With them ever since I was a Boy, and to the best of my Knowledge, I have never Wronged a White Man, on the Contrary, I have always Protected them from the insults of Others, Which they cannot deny. The 4 Bears never saw a White Man hungry, but what he gave him to eat, Drink, and a Buffaloe skin to sleep on, in time of Need. I was always ready to die for them, Which they cannot deny. I have done every thing that a red Skin could do for them, and how have they repaid it! With ingratitude! I have Never Called a White Man a Dog, but to day, I do Pronounce them to be a set of Black harted Dogs, they have deceived Me, them that I always considered as Brothers, has turned Out to be My Worst enemies. I have been in Many Battles, and often Wounded, but the Wounds of My enemies I exhalt in, but to day I am Wounded, and by Whom, by those same White Dogs that I have always Considered, and treated as Brothers. I do not fear Death my friends. You Know it, but to die with my face rotten, that even the Wolves will shrink with horror at seeing Me, and say to themselves, that is the 4 Bears the Friend of the Whites—
Listen well what I have to say, as it will be the last time you will hear Me. think of your Wives, Children, Brothers, Sisters, Friends, and in fact all that you hold dear, are all Dead, or Dying, with their faces all rotten, caused by those dogs the whites, think of all that My friends, and rise all together and Not leave one of them alive. The 4 Bears will act his Part—.
The Report’s suppression of this speech in Thornton is made worse by the fact that Four Bears’ speech is known [sic] the writers since the Report itself cites the speech on pp49-50."
This shows that both Ward Churchill, and Thornton both had reason to believe Whites played a role in their deaths.
HENCE the answer to your question is I believe it is possible for Whites to kill their business partners, even if it hurts their profits.
I also believe it is possible to have an honest scholarly debate about what actually happened years ago without calling anyone a "liar" or "con-man" or firing anyone (as long as you aren't involved with the debate).
Having a scholarly debate degradate into a firing demolishes the playing field for honest debate and puts a chill on honest discussion.Posted by Pablo B on April 27, 2007 06:19 PM
You are the one spouting the logical fallacies.
You are equating small, irrelevant, and corrected mistakes with serial fraud.
You sound a LOT like Ward Churchill.
Give it up; nobody is fooled anymore.
Ward Churchill will have to sit in the dock, not at his computer. And he won't be able to let his flunkies defend him in absentia.
Wardo looked like a dumb and dumber liar to the committee and he will look like a dumb and dumber liar to a jury, too.
Wardo's sophomoric frauds are not too complicated to figure out.
Snapple cracked: "You sound a LOT like Ward Churchill."
Was it my use of the word "HENCE" that made me sound like Churchill?
You accused Ward Churchill of murdering Jon Bonet because of his use of the word "HENCE".
Perhaps you are deluded into believing that like Churchill, my writings include the word "HENCE", hence I must have killed Jon Bonet?
I think you just fell into another trap....
Snapple, you snap that I am "the one spouting the logical fallacies".
I am open to your claims of fallacies. I am happy to debate any mistakes in logic I may have made. Everything I have written is off the cuff and could contain plenty of fallacies.
It would be helpful if you stated where my logic has failed me. Then we could have a logical debate.
Instead you have simply re-doubled you name calling, without presenting any arguments against what I have said.
Your inability to argue against my point with anything other than name calling leaves me with only one possible response. I have no other option than to quote the movie Star Trek IV:
"Disgruntled guy in car: 'Watch where you're going, ya dumb @ss.'
Kirk: 'Well, a double dumb @ss on you.'"
Churchill's account of the apocryphal Mandan genocide claims that the US Army gave the Mandans smallpox-infected blankets.
I don't see where the stricken Four Bears supports Ward Churchill's claim that the US Army gave the Indians smallpox-infected blankets.
In any case, it would be unlikely for the smallpox to be transmitted by a blanket.
"Smallpox is transmitted from an infected person once a rash appears. Transmission does not occur during the prodromal period that precedes the rash. Infection is transmitted by large droplet nuclei and only rarely has airborne transmission been documented. Epidemiologic studies have shown that smallpox has a lower rate of transmission than diseases such as measles, pertussis, and influenza. The greatest risk of infection occurs among household members and close contacts of persons with smallpox, especially those with prolonged face-to-face exposure."
Here are several passages in various books where Churchill wrote about the Mandan smallpox outbreak.
Churchill claims that the US Army gave the Indians smallpox-laden blankets from a military infirmary in Saint Louis.
Churchill claims he got this information about smallpox-laden blankets from Russell Thornton on pages 94-96.
Thornton doesn't say anything about this on pages 94-96.
Churchill misrepresented what Thornton wrote on pages 94-96.Posted by Snapple on April 27, 2007 09:59 PM
It is interesting that you are arguing against even the possibility of smallpox being transmitted by blankets.
Not only is it likely that infected blankets will transmit smallpox, it has been well documented to happen.
Not only well documeted to happen, it has been well documented that infected blankets were used as a method of primitive Germ Warfare against Indians by General Jeffery Amherst.
The CU review committee states this on page 39 of their full report.
"Further, the belief that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox to Indians by means of infected blankets is widely held. In some cases that idea may stem from the well-documented attempt involving British General Jeffery Amherst and soldiers at Fort Pitt in 1763, before the United States became independent. Professor Churchill’s descriptions of the Fort Clark episode in 1837, if well founded, would provide support for the claim that the U.S. Army followed a similar course of action in the nineteenth century."
The CU committee doesn't even agree with your analysis. Pages 67-68 of their report refutes your position, saying
"1. Our investigation has found that there is some evidence in written accounts of Indian reactions in 1837 and in native oral traditions that would allow a reasonable scholar who relies heavily on such sources to reach Professor Churchill’s interpretation that smallpox was introduced deliberately among Mandan Indians near Fort Clark by the U.S. Army, using infected blankets.181 We therefore do not conclude that he fabricated his account."
Snapple, you are out there all alone with your beliefs about the blankets.
The interesting thing is that you and I can have this rational discussion, with each exchanging evidence and supporting our points without the threat of anyone being fired. Churchill isn't afforded that because he is subject to a witch hunt.
If you were subject to a witch hunt, you could easliy be fired for your poorly researched statements you have made today.Posted by Pablo B on April 27, 2007 11:16 PM
You are mischaracterizing what I said when you write that I am "arguing against EVEN THE POSSIBILITY of smallpox being transmitted by blankets."
I actually said " it would be UNLIKELY for the smallpox to be transmitted by a blanket. "
I did not argue "against the possibility."
I have read about how smallpox is transmitted. It is mostly spread by close person-to-person contact over a period of time.
It is possible to contract smallpox from objects, but not likely.
In any case Ward Churchill is in trouble because he mischaracterized Thornton's research, not because he thinks that the Mandans were deliberately infected.
Even if Ward Churchill's claim about smallpox blankets turned out to be right, it wouldn't matter. He still mischaracterized what Thornton wrote.
Ward Churchill wrote that smallpox-infected blankets were taken from an Army hospital in St Louis and distributed to the Mandans. Churchill attributed this information to Russell Thornton.
Thornton doesn't mention blankets from an Army hospital at all. He says the Indians got smallpox from sick passengers on a boat.
Ward Churchill mischaracterized what Thornton wrote when he claimed that Thornton said the Indians got smallpox from infected blankets brought from an Army hospital in Saint Louis.
I don't think I will be fired for poor research. And if I ever have any problems from witch hunts, I won't be depending on back-bench lawyers and professors.
You talk about "exchanging evidence and supporting out points of view," but that is not what Churchill does. Churchill mischaracterizes other people's points of view.
Just like you mischaracterize what I say.
This shows that you are not able to argue with what I actually say.Posted by Snapple on April 28, 2007 06:21 AM
Ward Churchill claimed that Thornton said blankets brought from an Army hostital in Saint Louis spread smallpox. Thornton didn't say anything close to that, which is why Churchill is in trouble.
Churchill is in trouble because he lies about what other people say--like you are doing to me.
This shows that Churchill does not allow others to argue by "exchanging evidence and supporting our points of view."
Churchill blatently and fantastically mischaracterizes other people's points of view and then has the nerve to footnote their work.
Churchill has zero respect for real scholars.
That's why only nine professors signed that ridiculous letter. Most professors who have really studied the CU Comittee's evidence are probably amazed that Churchill had the nerve to disrespect other scholars the way he did.
How is smallpox spread?
Smallpox normally spreads from contact with infected persons. Generally, direct and fairly prolonged face-to-face contact is required to spread smallpox from one person to another. Smallpox also can be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects such as bedding or clothing. Indirect spread is less common. Rarely, smallpox has been spread by virus carried in the air in enclosed settings such as buildings, buses, and trains. Smallpox is not spread by insects or animals.
If smallpox is released in aerosol form, how long does the virus survive?
The smallpox virus is fragile. In laboratory experiments, 90% of aerosolized smallpox virus dies within 24 hours. In the presence of ultraviolet (UV) light, this percentage is even greater. Therefore, if an aerosol release of smallpox were to occur, most of the smallpox virus matter would be inactivated or dissipated within 24 hours.
Re: Amherst's smallpox plot
It is reported in books that letters exist between the British General Amherst and a subordinate.
One recent researcher wrote that he went to the archive where these letters are kept but could not locate one of the letters that has been cited in older books.
Maybe he couldn't locate it, or maybe it was lost.
According to scholars, the plot to kill indians with infected blankets is discussed in postscripts--after the writer's signature.
One researcher felt that this showed that the decision to kill Indians was taken so casually that it was relegated to a post-script. That is one possible explanation, of course.
But there might be another explanation.
I have never seen this correspondance in the original, but it seems slightly suspect that a general's plan to infect enemy Indians with smallpox was relegated to an afterthought in a postscript.
Perhaps this discussion was relegated to a postscript, but it would be interesting for an expert to study the post-scripts to see if the documents earlier scholars have referenced were tampered with.
I read that these Amherst documents were orignially in England but were moved to the US during WWII.
I find it a little troubling that Amherst's plot was tacked-on to a letter as an afterthought.
This might be an interesting issue for study and discussion if the correspondance that earlier scholars have cited can be produced and examined by experts.
However, Churchill's problem is very simple-- he mischaracterized what Thornton wrote.
The evidence can be seen right in this pdf
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/pdf/WC4WEBblanketa.pdfPosted by Snapple on April 28, 2007 07:24 AM
A 2004 article about Ward Churchill in an Indian publication claims that Ward Churchill was "a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) security team at the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota in the early 1970's."
In 1985,Wardo claimed in a Soviet-Cuban propaganda mouthpiece, the Covert Action Information Bulletin, that "at least 342 AIM members and supporters were killed by roving death squads [at Pine Ridge] aligned with and supported by the FBI." Churchill claimed in the CAIB. that the killings happened "between 1973 and 1976..."
Funny that these FBI-aligned roving death squads managed to miss an important AIM security minister like Wardo.
I don't think that the FBI is behind the mass murders of AIM activists. The best proof of this is that Wardo has been shooting off his stupid mouth for 30 years.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/04/was-churchill-member-of-aim-security-in.htmlPosted by Snapple on April 28, 2007 08:27 AM
Snapple, thanks for screwing up this blog, ostensibly a forum for a variety of views, and turning it into a platform for your anti-Churchill diatribes. I thought your linking to your blog was plenty sufficient.
I was recently reading a book about Colorado: "The Utes Must Go" by Peter Decker, who I believe is a respected historian, and ran across a passage where he said the Indians were given smallpox by Army blankets--which suggests this story is widely accepted and not something that Ward Churchill made up (as his critics would have us believe).Posted by anderson on April 28, 2007 01:12 PM
Maybe you should just stick to badgering kids by leaving crazed comments in their livejournals:
http://smilingeyes79.livejournal.com/3363.htmlPosted by Mad Knitter on April 28, 2007 02:03 PM
Churchill's false footnotes are the reason he was found guilty of dishonest research.
Churchill must conform to CU's published research standards to keep his job, which means that he is NOT free to FALSELY CLAIM that Thornton is his source for Churchill's undocumented claim that the Army gave the Indians blankets from a military hospital in St. Louis.
Thornton says the Indians got smallpox from people--not blankets.
Churchill is in trouble for giving his undocumented theories credibility by falsely quoting scholars who do not share his views.
Churchill is the one who can't stand different viewpoints. He claims that other people think what he thinks when they don't.
That is really disrespectful of the other professors he pretends to quote.
Churchill could have said that the blankets idea was his own hypothesis. Instead he falsely attributed his blanket thesis of the Ft Clark smallox outbreak to Thornton's account. And Thornton didn't say what Churchill says he did.
He is in trouble for lying about what Thornton wrote.Posted by Snapple on April 28, 2007 02:17 PM
Kids? College students are young adults. If their teachers are teaching them correctly, college students should be able to understand that a researcher can't falsely attribute his own undocumented opinions to other professors.
Here is the first post on my blog. It should be an eye-opener.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2006/02/342-indians.htmlPosted by Snapple on April 28, 2007 02:31 PM
Professor Brown, who also exposed Churchill's frauds, writes:
"one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them."
One book Churchill "quoted" to give credibility to his genocide thesis was titled "The Effect of Smallpox on the Amerindian." I bought this book and read it. It actually said this at the end of the book:
If, in the foregoing pages, some facts have been stated which incriminated the white conquerers and settlers, the history is replete with instances of great heroism and devotion of large numbers of white men throughout the centuries, who labored to alleviate the sufferings of, and finally brought the protection to, the conquered people through vaccination at their own trouble and expense (139).
Posted by Snapple on April 28, 2007 03:05 PM
College kids are kids. Ask any one of them if they wouldn't be creeped out by being stalked by an old lady.
And here's any eye-opener for you: If your daughter was assaulted by a black bloc anarchist whose favorite authors were William S. Burroughs and Ward Churchill, you should have seeked therapy rather than displacing your anger onto Ward Churchill. If you think there is any connection between your daughter being assaulted and Ward Churchill, then you belong in a bughouse.Posted by Mad Knitter on April 28, 2007 05:45 PM
I don't have a daughter. Where did you get that idea?
If I did have a daughter, however, I would ask her not to go near Ward Churchill.
I hope you will be careful. I mean that.
Perhaps you should read my blog.
It is stranger than fiction.
Posted by Snapple on April 28, 2007 06:40 PM
If I had a young daughter, I would want her to read about Leah on my site. I have a lot about her.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/01/surprise-benjamin-whitmer-uncritically.htmlPosted by Snapple on April 28, 2007 06:50 PM
Unfortunately, it is Churchill who stalks people.
Churchill's first wife, Dora Lee Larson, says that Churchill tried to push her out of a moving car.,
When she divorced Churchill, Larson asked that her address be kept secret because of "violence and threats" from Churchill.
Even Churchill admits abusing his young Indian wife, Leah Kelly:
"I broke and slammed [my wife] back against our bedroom wall, telling her that if she kept it up, she’d be apt to land in a hospital."
Leah was killed when she was run over by a car, but her sister says that Leah confided to her that Churchill tried to push her out of a moving car, too.
So you take care Mad Knitter.Posted by Snapple on April 29, 2007 12:15 AM
Some people defend Churchill by claiming that all scholars make occcasional mistakes in writing and sourcing. This is true, but Ward Churchill's footnoting "mistakes" seem to happen when he is claiming that the American Army deliberately gave Indians smallpox.
Posted by Snapple on April 29, 2007 07:45 AM
Here are Ward Churchill's own hypocrical words about honest footnotes:
"I ...believe that it is a matter not just of courtesy, but of ethics, to make proper attribution to those upon whose ideas and research one relies. "
I think that he is just cynically mouthing these words because he makes these "mistakes" when his is claiming that other scholars said the US Army deliberately gave Indians smallpox-infected blankets.
I don't think these scholars are very happy that Churchill falsifies what they said to give himself credibility.
Churchill disrespects the other scholars he cites.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2007/04/ward-churchill-mouths-empty-words-about.htmlPosted by Snapple on April 29, 2007 07:55 AM
I guess Vince and his supporters haven't heard about the Tenet tell all...or the deadliest month in Iraq this year...or the Condi subpoenas...or the slowest economic growth in a year...etc...etc...etc...
Posted by jay on April 30, 2007 11:04 AM
Hey...whatever takes the collective mind of the Republican mistakes, right vince?
I'd sure like to see Vince put as much energy into researching Bush and the Neocons and how they started the war. That issue is far more important and relevant than some old has been hippie professor. Too much like a real journalist for Vince.Posted by Obvious on April 30, 2007 03:25 PM
Ward Churchill is the one who lies to college students. He is a very dishonest "scholar."
Where's That Apocryphal Document from the
In November 2005, Ward Churchill TWICE told the Winnipeg University student newspaper "The Uniter" (pages 10-11) that he NEVER DEVELOPED his idea that the U.S. Army deliberately infected the Mandan with smallpox "IN ANY DEPTH," but according to the University of Colorado investigation, Ward Churchill has made this claim in SIX articles he published between 1994 and 2003. These articles are listed in the CU Report on pages 40-41.
In 2005, Ward Churchill told Winnipeg University's student paper "The Uniter" that he had evidence that the apocryphal Mandan genocide was "an actual war department policy;" but it is now 2007, and he has never produced the evidence.
Links to sources:
Ward Churchill is such a dope that he condemns himself out of his own mouth!Posted by Snapple on May 13, 2007 06:23 AM
I have read "The Effect of Smallpox on the Amerindian" (1945) by E. Wagner Stearn, Ph.D. and Allen E. Stearn, Ph.D. This is one of the books that Churchill "quotes" to make his case that the American Army committed genocide.
Churchill is really disrespectful of the Stearns' work. When he claims that proper attribution is an ethical imperative, Churchill is just mouthing cynical platitudes.
I don't think that the Stearns would be happy if they knew that Churchill claimed that their 1945 book provided evidence that the American Army committed genocide by giving Indians smallpox-infected blankets at Fort Clark, because this is what they actually said at the close of their book:
If, in the foregoing pages, some facts have been stated which incriminated the white conquerers and settlers, the history is replete with instances of great heroism and devotion of large numbers of white men throughout the centuries, who labored to alleviate the sufferings of, and finally brought the protection to, the conquered people through vaccination at their own trouble and expense (Stearn and Stearn pg.139).
Links to sources here:
It would be a grevious error to link the incredible scholarship exhibited by Circe Sturm, in her book "Blood Politics", in any manner with Ward Churchill. One only has to read her book to recognize it is an amazing gifted contribution to scholarly research.
Many are beginning to recognize that this young scholar may be our next great female anthropologist, in the mold of the great Margaret Mead. But, sadly, there seems to be no way to protect her from the easy media access of ill informed attention seekers.
Equally sad is how easy it might be to discourage a second great book even before it can reach the press. I am neither an academic, nor an anthrpologist. Just an Architect who recognizes carefully crafted research and the unique insight and skill required to present it in a completely fresh and often daring approach.
We should be busy encouraging Professor Sturm to write. Its easy to imagine that hundreds, maybe thousands are anxious to hear her fresh, balanced and original approach to what normally lacks the courage required to shed light in such a delicate and unique manner. The book takes you there in the third person. You feel the painful reality, and share the rich culture she found amidst both anger and dispair. You walk with her spirit as if you were there together. The American indian, so proud, so patient and so enduring, can be proud to have Professor Sturm so honestly, objectively and concisely exploring the ongoing social crisis and unresolved dilemmas that are still forced upon the American Indian, while even in that light, Professor did not let the Indian off the hook for their own shortcomings.
Most of all, Professor Sturm, do not be discouraged by the picayunish clutter that surrounds your work. We need your bravery. We need the clarity of your academic light. There will always be shallow and troublesome people, even in the face of brillance. Perhaps even more so for the obviously gifted.
God speed your next great book. I am confident it, also, will become another standard academic reference resource.Posted by Dioun, Massoud on May 21, 2007 04:02 PM
viagra online online pharmacy,sexual life