Captain's Quarters -

He also committed plagiarism and manufactured research (such as his claim that Indians were deliberately targeted by the US Army with smallpox-infected blankets).

This wasn't simply an issue of "inflating his resume" or falsely claiming to be an Indian.

well said Captain...

agreed.

however, in this day and age, with a public increasingly seeing little justice, it is nice to know this liar doesn't have his old job.

will he still get a tenure's pension?

will the school be forced to appease his departure?

justice is important for any society, and his foolery may sway some other minds to play it real.

who knows...

of course, Hillary, Nancy, Harry, Chuck, will continue to lie, slander, vilify, etc., but one fool was nailed.

another victory for some PJ wearing computer users, who aided the study and call to rebuke another dishonest hate filled fool.

He was accused of plagiarism, falsifying research and of writing papers under other people’s names so he could use them in supporting footnotes (in effect, he created literary sock puppets). In the PC world of academia, he falsified his heritage, in order to get a job not normally opened to him. If he wasn't fired, then the entire concept of being fired for cause is obsolete.

Good riddance to Ward Churchill! I can't believe it took so long to get rid of this guy! I also have heard on Kaplas and Silverman, a popular radio talk show in Denver, that Ward Churchill has plagiarized works, although I can personally not cite specific examples. (I hope other people who comment on this blog can cite such examples).

The guy was a phony that for too long was defended by many misguided students at CU Boulder, and he certainly did not help the city's reputation for rampant far-left liberalism.

Painfully, this guy isn't gone, but merely pushed aside.

It's worth it.

Any time we can get a lying leftist fraud out of our "institutions of higher learning," it's a plus.

One down, 30,000 or so to go . . .

I am thinking a cindy for Pres. Ward for V.P. ticket would be a vote getter.

Ah. but his termination removes him from the faculty. That has to be worth it.

He even copied real Native American's artwork and passed it off as his own.

His termination is showing that academia is finally starting to restore standards for scholarship. The damage wrought by the boomers won't be fully fixed until they leave, but this is one more step towards a future where history departments engage in actual historical scholarship instead of partisan advocacy.

Some other college will pick him up. Just give it a few weeks.

Of coarse his firing is worth it... It's called "accountability" for one's behavior. Without accountability, this country would have no integrity.

It doesn't matter is some other college will pick the slime bag up or not; his firing is a positive move in the direction opposite from radicalism.

Now, what are we going to do about Rosie O'Donnell?

Comments from board members following the decision....

"This case was an example not of mistakes, but an effort to falsify history and fabricate history and in the final analysis, this individual did not express regret or apologize," said Brown. "This is a faculty that has an outstanding reputation and this move today protects that reputation."

"At the end of the day we had to look at what these three committees had presented to us and what 25 tenured faculty had said and that was really important to all the board members," said Hayes.

CU released a statement on Tuesday evening saying, "The board's decision to dismiss is final. Professor Churchill will receive one year's salary as a tenured professor, but will be immediately relieved of his faculty post and responsibilities."

Where are our Lefty Troll friends on this issue? Any defense for your pal Ward? Hmmm?

LOL

Antioch College (which had a taped Mumia Abu-Jamal commencement speech) closed and now Ward Churchill is held accountable for his dishonest scholarship. Are these mere aberrations or finally the start of trend. I hope the latter.

Capt.

See your post above with regards to BBC and honesty and compare your position to this one on Ward.

Firing is exactly right. Shouldn't have taken this long. BBC should do likewaise.

CE,

Is this really 15 minutes of fame? I don't think so... I see this as having been a very good lesson to those who would follow Wards example. This man is admired by a small percentage of the population, while being despised by millions upon millions. Everywhere this man goes, this 15 minutes of fame will follow him; the looks of disgust will fill his vision in every city, in every plane, in every airport...

Life has a way of being the ultimate Judge in human character... Inner peace comes not from fame or fortune, but from ones behavior. This man has been an example for all; some will move in his direction, millions will use this as an example as to the results of being a phony; a lier; a hater; and so on...

This man made his bed; now he gets to sleep in it.

I have a son who is beginning the college application process. Needless to say, he will not be applying to any school whose administration would continue to support a fraud like Churchill.

I am surprised by your stance on this Captain. This man not only plagiarized and lied but he thumbed his nose at society and dared the college to do something about it...there was nothing else they could do and remain relevant, IMO. This was a good and just and long past due move...it means something to society. There are plenty of examples of his plagiarism cited on the internet if a search is done.

However, it is still being reported in that the firing is in reation to his political stances by local TV stations. This is not a problem that just goes away,

I live near CU and know several of the regents, so I have followed this case closely.

During the entire process, there was a substantial minority of the CU faculty who maintained that a tenured faculty member CANNOT be fired except for a felony conviction or something equally grievous. Plagiarism, falsifying research, lying about ethnicity - none of it would matter to those in academia who see tenure as an ABSOLUTE employment guarantee.

For this reason alone (even though he provided an ample supply of irrefutable just cause), it was necessary to fire Churchill.

Oh Captain:
You are way too soft on Churchill. He is symptomatic of a cancer shot throughout Higher Ed. I encourage you to see the big picture before posturing further- start with the "Group of 88" at Duke: www.durhamwonderland.blogspot.com.
(Sorry, the link's not setting up).
Tom

DubiousD:
“He also committed plagiarism and manufactured research (such as his claim that Indians were deliberately targeted by the US Army with smallpox-infected blankets).”

Here is the question asked by the U of Colorado that relates to your statement:

"Is there any reasonable basis for Professor Churchill’s claim that smallpox was spread intentionally by the U.S. Army to Mandan Indians at Fort Clark in 1837 by means of infected blankets?"

Here is their finding:
"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. We therefore do not conclude that he fabricated his account."

Yesterday there was a thread about Hugo Chavez threatening to deport critics of his administration. This was a result of a statement made by Chavez during a 5 hour unscripted live television show. Although nothing like this has happened or will happen, and was another case of Chavez making an emotional statement, it seemed to be a big deal.
The US, however, actually carries out these types of actions. Churchill criticizes the US, so they go on a witch hunt and out of thousand of references find a handful that have some problems, so they kick him out of his job. Here is a real example of a critic being silenced, but it is OK. Meanwhile, the real, intentional plagiarism and lies of Alan Dershowitz are ignored.

Ed, I was shocked when I read your views on the firing. I frequently disagree with you, but on this subject I assumed we would agree. I know standards in academia as well as every other sector of our culture have been in decline for a long time. I cheer when a step in the right direction is taken. Most of the prior commenters who normally agree with you are also cheering.

Andrew, one of his cited plagiarisms concerns fishing rights which he "borrowed" from Canadian academic, Fay Cohen.

Churchill only became a national cause celebre because of his reprehensible public statements - he was terminated for academic fraud, and the evidence supporting that termination appears ironclad. So yes, it was absolutely worth it to remove this liar and fraud from his position.

In that regard, his case is similar to that of Michael Bellesisles, who despite the heated debate resulting from the implications of his "research" and conclusions, was penalized for fraud.

Compare and contrast with the case of Dan Rather, who got in trouble, not for using faked evidence in his reporting, but for embarrassing his network. Or Peter Arnett, who like Rather ought to have been fired for lying in his reports (going back over three decades to his "destroy the village in order to save it" canard) but was brought low by a politically ill timed public suckup to the Saddam regime.

It's great that academia is belatedly discovering the importance of integrity. Too bad they appear to be the only public sector of society doing so.

"Was all of the effort worth it?"

If the reality was as narrow as your characterize, it's obviously not worth it. Fortunately, that is not the reality.

While the scrutiny of Churchill began because of his "little Eichmanns" essay, investigation of who, exactly, is Ward Churchill uncovered many questionably professional, academic and common frauds, distributed under headings either ethical, legal or both.

These were the issues that set in motion the long and arduous investigation which bored you so.

Of course, Churchill's preference was to define the investigation on the original free speech and censorship meme rather than that which the investigation became i.e., assessing the serious allegations that were uncovered.

I'm surprised you gloss over that fact and editorialize in way that makes Churchill's definition predominant, when CU investigation hasn't been since the beginning.

As for the story having become a national one, you ought to consider that half of the reason for it being so was not about Churchill at all, but CU's actions and/or inactions in concluding the matter and the people of Colorado's refusal to allow it to be ignored. Not all CV exaggerations of tenured university professors result in debates in state legislatures.

On the whole, yes, it was worth it. Who cares if he got another 15 minutes of fame or does that phrase mean something different now?

Hey dave,
Churchill is a fraud, a plagerizer, and an out-and-out liar. The fact that he claims an ethnicity of which he hasn't one single connection, should be your fisrt clue. secondly, the Army-smallpox story was debunked years ago, but I guess Churchill figured that if told enough, a lie becomes 'truth'.

Your witch hunt theory is hackneyed bullshit. It wasn't the "U.S." (government implied, I'm sure) that went after this idiot. The college has to salvage it's skewed reputation over his scatterbrained, unprofessional antics. His sixties style irresponsible radicalism is what finally got him canned. My only question is, what took them so damned long?

Churchill is more than an just another ethnic studies professor. Google "COINTELPRO" (the FBI counterintelligence program against radicals both left and right) and you'll find that Churchill is the most prominent author on the subject. Given his shoddy and dishonest research habits, it follows that COINTELPRO needs a re-visit by a competent historian.

The Churchill incident exposes the deep sickness in humanities departments around the country. Many have been captured by post-modernism, whose key component is the rejection of the concept of "truth." All interpretations of a theme are equally valid. The search for truth, and the exploration of the biases surrounding current "conventional wisdom" regarding an accepted theory, is what fuels honest scholarly inquiry. The rejection of "truth" leads inevitably to the rejection of "scholarship" and leads to the intellectual wasteland of current humanities programs.

Oh, and "dave" I welcome your knowledgeable comments on your hero Chavez. As a resident of Latin America I enjoyed reading the morning paper today with the story of your boy's ongoing row with the Catholic Church, particularly his accusation against a possible future Pope, Honduran Cardinal Rodriguez, of being "an imperialist clown." Please explain to us some time whether you support him because of his enlightened economic and political programs or just because "Chavo del 8" is lamentably now off the air?

You nailed it Dave......critics of the adminstration just get "silenced." You are so right my friend! I'm hiding under my bed as I type these very words. I mean, MY DEAR G-D, what a POLICE state we live in. Worse or at least as bad as Hugo's. Wake up people! I mean, consider this: Now that Churchill has been "silenced", (and, I assume, sent to Gitmo to do hard labor and be waterboarded on a daily basis, by Cheneyist Thugs - and when he is finally released - our dear leader and his contacts will assure that Prof Churchill WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND ANY EMPLOYMENT EVER AGAIN,so not only is his voice silenced forever, he is also gonna STARVE!) does anyone think we are going to hear even a tiny PEEP of anti-Bush, Leftist, Marxist, or anti-America sentiments coming out of a SINGLE college campus in this totalitarian Hell of a JebusLand?? No way, baby. You can bet every professor will be toeing that Christinist Taliban line NOW. What a CHILLING message this sends to every poor college in America! Today it is Professor Churchill. Tomorrow, every last student will be goose-stepping across Campus, marching in time as they chant the Pledge of Allegiance, and giving the Heil Bushitler salute to that blood-caked Flag of Shame. Laugh all you want, but you heard it here first, comrades.

And how about all those Code Pink, BushHitler Sign carrying, war protestors. Once any of them appear for the first time, do you ever see any of them every again? Notice how there are different individuals for each protest march, sit-in, vandalism-fest, etc.? Wonder why? Dave and I will TELL you why, bucko: it is because they are ROUNDED UP by the Pigs and are NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN. That's why!!

(Snort).

Ed, I guess you are right if you are thinking of it purely in national political terms, but from the standpoint of the academy it was obviously worth it. Churchill's behavior ran counter to every standard of academic decency, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, and academic freedom. So for anyone who cares about academia it was not a minor issue.

Yes, lots of people who don't normally care about the doings at colleges and universities can take a thrill at Churchill's ouster. He's very obviously a jerk who was never gonna draw sympathy from the political right. But all of that is irrelevant to the academic interests involved.

Scfmac:
“Churchill is a fraud, a plagerizer, and an out-and-out liar. The fact that he claims an ethnicity of which he hasn't one single connection, should be your fisrt clue. secondly, the Army-smallpox story was debunked years ago, but I guess Churchill figured that if told enough, a lie becomes 'truth'.”

I find no mention in the U of Colorado report regarding anything about ethnicity claims. I know nothing about this. Whatever this is about, it has absolutely no bearing on the issue of why Churchill was fired. You bring up the Army-smallpox issue. The U of Colorado found this issue in favor of Churchill. You are accusing Churchill of being a plagiarizer, fraud, and liar, but the only specific issue you bring up is one that not even the U of Colorado agrees with you on, and has nothing to do with his firing. That is very baffling. If Churchill is a plagiarizer, fraud, and liar, maybe you should bring up an issue that the U of Colorado found him guilty of, and we can discuss it.

The other two people who addressed me said absolutely nothing of substance, so I will intentionally not respond. Would anyone like to discuss a specific issue relating to why the U of Colorado fired Churchill?

WC's transgressions go far beyond inflated resumes and the like.

Investigations of his conduct clearly demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty. The man lied about his ethnicity, changing his story repeatedly as each was debunked. He plagiarized the scholarly work of others, fabricated wholesale many articles, created sock puppets for citation purposes, and even represented as his own artwork items clearly copyrighted by others.

I recommend:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/churchillreport051606.html

It is probably not surprising that Ward Churchill's defender "dave" should use Ward Churchill's methods.

dave writes:

The Committee's actual report, on the Mandan smallpox issue:

You bring up the Army-smallpox issue. The U of Colorado found this issue in favor of Churchill.

The actual committee report, from jim2's URL (which is the actual report), p. 63:

The Committee therefore finds that Professor Churchill has misrepresented the sources he cites and that they do not support his claim.

A few lines further down:

In his submissions and interviews with the Committee, Professor Churchill provided no persuasive written evidence to back his claim for the intentional distribution of infected blankets to Mandan Indians by the U.S. Army.

So, "misrepresented" and "no persuasive written evidence" actually means "found in favor of Churchill."

Of course, when you commit sins of omission, I suppose you can reach dave's conclusions quite easily.

Here's the next three bullets after dave's quote about Churchill not fabricating his account (p. 68):

2. Professor Churchill did not, however, give any indication in the text or notes of his published essays that he himself was drawing upon Indian oral traditions, as he subsequently claimed. If those were indeed his sources, he deviated significantly from accepted research practices by not acknowledging and giving appropriate recognition to native traditions in his publications.

3. During the course of our investigation, Professor Churchill was unable to present any evidence that demonstrates that at the time he wrote those essays he was basing his account upon knowledge of the oral traditions of the tribes that were at or near Fort Clark in 1837. Instead he disrespectfully introduced Indian sources only belatedly, as a defense against this allegation.

4. Professor Churchill has misrepresented several of the published works that he cites in his essays, a form of falsification.

Must be getting old.

dave wrote:

You bring up the Army-smallpox issue. The U of Colorado found this issue in favor of Churchill.

The CU report, on the Mandan Indian-US Army issue, is correctly blockquoted.

Just to clear up who wrote what.

So very sorry, Captain, but we are so beyond fed up with the status quo that these abominable creatures have an entrenched "right" to sit on TAX-FUNDED jobs and perpetrate horrors of injustice on America, through our children, and "CANNOT BE FIRED" for it.

Congress just refused again to cut the $450 million or billion or whatever from NPR.

Hopefully, his firing will begin an AVALANCHE of similar actions across the nation.

From Tax-payer funded colleges and bureaucracies - and the Flight 93 Memorial Commission which is still determined to install the Red Crescent Islamic Tribute, in lieu of a a tribute to the heroic crew and anti-terroristic passengers of that ill-fated flight!

Worth the EFFORT???
Sorry, Captain, that was the response of over-worked men to the Vietnam War protesters, 40 years ago, who were relieved that most of those idiots went off to hippie communes, until the checks from home dried up.

The firing of Ward Churchill is infinitely satisfying, as would be the murder trial of Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy, or the Treason trial of Hanoi John and Hanoi Jane, etc, etc, etc.

INFINITELY SATISFYING.

There is no healing without Justice.

Maybe the U of C got tired of funding drug purchases for Ward's following, billed as "field trip exercises" - but he was caught plagerizing others, and manufacturing bald-faced lies out of thin air, and trying to pass tem off as American history of Indian cultures and historical events.

Tom, it doesn't look like the Gang of 88 got their own label over at KC's site, look under "faculty", instead.

Duke, along with a lot of other Universities, needs a though housecleaning. I doubt they will get it though, the administrations and Boards of Trustees are part of the problem themselves.

Posted by: dave at July 25, 2007 10:30 AM
************

Your defense of Ward Churchill from all the legitimate charges against him is as bogus as he is.

All these issues, including his ethnicity, and false claims regarding such, and his claims about other's copyrighted artwork, etc etc etc, as listed by jim2, was well-documented in the news a few years ago, and Ward was confronted on camera about them all, at the time the charges on these issues was made - he didn't even TRY to vindicate himself and claimed there was a "misunderstanding" about the artwork and his genetic background, with statements by several Indian tribes regarding their documentation of ancestries.
Yes, one tribe had a few "representatives" who TRIED VAINLY to cover his fanny on that issue, but their blatant attempts to "adopt" him were far short of claiming, or trying to convince anyone he had any of their BLOOD in his veins.

Those who defend Ward are blatantly seen as fellow idiots of the same political philosophies as his - TAX DOLLAR THIEVES BY FRAUD.

You need to notice - there isn't any patience left in America for this garbage.

Meanwhile, thanks for anything you do that lets folks in your own neck of the woods know who you are and what you do.

Just so's they know what pew you belong in, when the rubber hits the road.

Things will be getting rough in a few years - and folks will be making hard decisions about priorities - and who to invite into a fortified position when it is necessary to circle the wagons in earnest.
They'll be careful who they let at their backs, then, much less who gets to have a wagon let into the circling.

You'll have to go circle with your own kind.

Rose -

Here's the url for the art theft event you might have been referring to:

http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

I recommend reading and comparing the art pix on the side bar.

BTW,

WC's malicious psuedo-scholarship has been out on the web for years.

Here's just one site reference:

http://www.pirateballerina.com/blog/entry.php?id=21

Hey Dave,

"If Churchill is a plagiarizer, fraud, and liar, maybe you should bring up an issue that the U of Colorado found him guilty of, and we can discuss it."

It's been done since you made that post.

So discuss it, please, as you promised.

You can candy coat Ward, who dareth speak "truthiness" to the power, all the live long day, but the ol bottom line appears to be:

1. The "Little Eichman" quotes may have gotten him the national attention and kicked off the national campaign to pressure Col to fire him; BUT...
2. That or other similar comments appear NOT to be the grounds Col either needed or relied upon to fire his sorry ass. Could it possibly be that there just MAY be a difference between an Academic who is a political bigmouth but yet who has the requisite legitimate academic credentials to obtain and/or retain tenure; and an Academic bigmouth who doesn't? Hmmm.

Oh and a question: Has Ward Churchill been prevented from exercising his first amendment rights to engage in political speech in public from this point forward? (which is what is clearly implied when it is said that he has been "silenced"); or, are his First amendment rights still fully and completely intact - and the only thing which has changed is that when he is expounding forth in the future it won't be funded by the taxpayers?

Does the first amendment guarantee you the right to consequence-less speech, Dave? Dave, here's another one for you: If a work of "art" which is attacked as being highly offensive by religous or ethnic groups, can still be exhibited; but its federal GRANT is withdrawn due to public outcry (no more free money), is this truly "censorship", Dave? Is this truly a first amendment issue, Dave? Has the artist REALLY been "silenced" like say, in Stalin's Soviet Union....or, is it just a case of the taxpayers simply no longer FUNDING this artist?

Should taxpayers be FORCED to fund whatever our betters in the government decide should be funded? Or should we have any sort of say over how what was once our money, is now being spent?

Doesn't being "silenced" mean...uh, I dunno, being "silenced?" That being the case, I don't expect we'll see Ward giving any speeches for a fat fee to Progressive groups, getting a fat advance from a publisher for his life story. Or getting hired by some far left private college as an ethnic studies prof., since after all it, this "witchhunt" was just about the political speech and not about his academic credentials or lack thereof. At least according to you, Dave. Right?

LurkingObserver:
I specifically linked to one of the sub-questions in the report that I felt had the most relevance to people on this thread, including DubiousD, whom I addressed. When DubiousD brings up Churchill’s “…claim that Indians were deliberately targeted by the US Army with smallpox-infected blankets”, I believe it to be because he finds the claim false and not believable. Very few on this site have the ability to acknowledge wrongdoings by the US. When the issue is brought up, I believe it is response to the believability of the statement, and is not in connection with the details of the footnoting procedure involved. This is the reason I brought up the sub-question that reflects this issue. I correctly quoted this question, and also correctly quoted the committee’s response. In relation to this specific issue, the report also says:

“We do not find academic misconduct with respect to his general claim that the U.S. Army deliberately spread smallpox to Mandan Indians at Fort Clark in 1837, using infected blankets. Early accounts of what was said by Indians involved in that situation and certain native oral traditions provide some basis for that interpretation.”

So, in relation to what I brought up, Churchill’s statement that the Army deliberately infected Indians is a completely valid point of view, and the U of Colorado agrees.

You, however, bring up a different issue. You bring up his footnoting regarding this statement. I agree that there certainly are some issues with his footnotes, and Churchill should be much more careful, especially considering the content of his writing. In context, however, this does not seem to be an issue that should be cause for dismissal. The U of Colorado spends 42 pages dissecting a statement that in Churchill’s work never covers more than three paragraphs. The whole smallpox issue is only made by Churchill in passing, and is not a major point in any of his papers or books. That he was not diligent in correctly footnoting a passing comment is wrong, but not grounds for dismissal, especially considering that the statement in question is, by the U of Colorado’s own admission, a valid point of view.

What Churchill did here pales (and I mean pales) in comparison to the deliberate lies, falsifications, and plagiarism committed by Dershowitz, but Dershowitz will never be questioned about his work, because he is part of the system. This is where the real problem is. Another example of this double standard can be seen on the Captains own blog. Recently, on a thread about health care, Kevin Fleming, an MD from the Mayo Clinic, made a post referencing this paper that he wrote and published on the Heritage Foundation website:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1973.cfm

The paper took him 4 years to write, and contains nearly 200 references. It took me about 45 minutes to find more problems in this one paper than was ever found in Churchill’s voluminous writings. This includes deliberate misrepresentation of sources and quoting sources that not only do not support his point, but actually refute his points, which is quite astonishing. (See my post at June 6, 2007 6:52 PM regarding this):

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010143.php

At the end of the thread I keep bringing up lies from his paper, and he is unable to answer. So will Dr. Fleming be fired as a result of this paper?? I think not. This is the issue.

I like the term "literary sock puppet" that an early poster used. That is indeed a fairly huge breach of scholarly conduct, and combined with his other actions, was certainly grounds for suspension or dismissal. The UC was careful to make clear that his idiotic 9//11 statements were protected by free speech and not the cause of his firing, only that they brought attention to him and their scrutiny of his record is was got him ousted. I think they will withstand appeal, and I don't see a university picking him up unless there is an American Indian studies program somewhere that wants to throw him a part-time bone (what university would want that publicity? Few, I think.). But I want to call out UC here, because of a few things. 1) they hired him in the first place, and even though ~90% of UC faculty [think that statistic is right] have a terminal degree [e.g., some type of doctorate], Churchill did not; 2) even though he didn't have a terminal degree, they reviewed his record and gave him tenure; 3) they also reviewed his record and promoted him to full professor. UC has gotten it right in the end, but it is clear they didn't get it right earlier.

The single requirement for Caucasians to become a member of a Native American tribe is to subscribe to the "victim hood" of today's Native Americans.

A good example is the greatly misunderstood story of Wounded Knee. While terrorizing isolated settlers on the plains of Dakota, the "Ghost Dance" Indians believed that they could kill the settlers and be immune from bullets by wearing their "Ghost Dance shirts".

They were chased by the Seventh Calvary for weeks across the Dakota prairie until finally caught up with at Wounded Knee. They refused to give up their weapons and the battle started when a fifteen year old Indian fired the first shot at the Calvary men. The ensuing battle killed men, women and children, much the same as the Indians had done to the settlers in the previous weeks.

The many works of fiction that this battle has inspired are known primarily due to the political correctness of "spinning" the victim hood of Native Americans. Ward Churchill is a master of this genre.

dave said:
"I find no mention in the U of Colorado report regarding anything about ethnicity claims. I know nothing about this. Whatever this is about, it has absolutely no bearing on the issue of why Churchill was fired. You bring up the Army-smallpox issue. The U of Colorado found this issue in favor of Churchill. You are accusing Churchill of being a plagiarizer, fraud, and liar, but the only specific issue you bring up is one that not even the U of Colorado agrees with you on, and has nothing to do with his firing. That is very baffling. If Churchill is a plagiarizer, fraud, and liar, maybe you should bring up an issue that the U of Colorado found him guilty of, and we can discuss it.

The other two people who addressed me said absolutely nothing of substance, so I will intentionally not respond. Would anyone like to discuss a specific issue relating to why the U of Colorado fired Churchill?"

Dave, if you spent as much time actually reading the facts behind this jerk and his behavior as you do making excuses for him, ya might get a clue.
Here's some references:

Chancellor Recommends Firing Churchill
By Associated Press
Associated Press | June 27, 2006

DENVER — The top official at the University of Colorado's flagship campus on Monday recommended that the school fire the firebrand professor who compared some of the World Trade Center victims to a Nazi and later was accused of academic misconduct.
Ward Churchill has displayed "a pattern of research misconduct committed over a period of time," Interim Chancellor Philip DiStefano said.

The school's committee on research misconduct last month concluded Churchill "has committed serious, repeated, and deliberate research misconduct," findings DiStefano agreed with.

Ward Churchill's No Indian
By Jim Adams
Indian Country Today | February 7, 2005

NEW YORK - National attacks on University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill are raising questions of false pretenses as much as free speech.

A number of Native scholars and activists are challenging his posture of speaking for American Indians in his inflammatory writings on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and even his claim to be an American Indian. Others support his right to free speech in the face of ferocious attacks in the national press and television and political calls for his dismissal from a tenured position at the University of Colorado.

The Oneida Indian Nation, which has historic ties to nearby Hamilton, issued the following statement:

''It's disturbing that anyone would use such hateful speech, and do so while claiming to be an American Indian when there is significant evidence that he is not. Professor Churchill caused many in the media to falsely believe an American Indian scholar could besmirch the lives of those who died on 9/11. Because of this, he owes every American Indian an apology.

Although the national furor struck with the unpredictable suddenness of a Great Lakes storm, Churchill has long been a divisive and somewhat feared figure in Indian country, especially among his former colleagues in the American Indian Movement. Some prominent activists involved in earlier confrontations have devoted a great deal of energy to investigating his claim to be an American Indian himself and have found no evidence to support it.

At various times, according to press reports, Churchill has described himself as Cherokee, Keetoowah Cherokee, Muskogee, Creek and most recently Meti. In a note in the online magazine Socialism and Democracy he wrote, ''Although I'm best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my wife's uncle.'' In biographical blurbs, he is identified as an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. But a senior member of the band with access to tribal enrollment records told Indian Country Today that Churchill is not listed. George Mauldin, tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla., told the Rocky Mountain News, ''He's not in the data base at all.''

According to Jodi Rave, a well-known Native journalist and member of the Mandan-Hidatsa-Arikara Three Affiliated Tribes, Churchill was enrolled as an ''associate member'' of the Keetoowah by a former chairman who was later impeached. The one other known member of the same program, since discontinued, was President Bill Clinton. Rave said that she made this discovery as a student in a journalism class at the University of Colorado. She was also in a class taught by Churchill. When her article came out, she said, he dropped her grade from an A to a C minus.

(Talk about vindictive retaliation)

Suzan Shown Harjo, a columnist for ICT who has tracked Churchill's career, said that aside from the in-laws of his late Indian wife, he has not been able to produce any relatives from any Indian tribe.

Beyond the question of his personal identity is the question of his standing to represent Indian opinion, not only on 9/11 but also in his other published works. Mohawk ironworkers helped build the World Trade Center and other monuments of the New York City skyline, and one crew was actually at work in the flight path of the plane that struck the second tower. St. Regis Mohawk Chief James Ransom noted that they joined rescue teams at great personal risk.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16911

Funny how asshats who engage in hate speech for a living always run and hide behind the Ist Amendment skirts. Newsflash Dave: With freedom comes responsiblity. A lesson Churchill hasn't yet learned.

dave -

I went to the url you included, read the comments through, and skimmed some of the urls internal to that discussion. I certainly do not want to rehash that oft strident exchange. However, even if your points were correct - and Fleming's measured replies to you were not without some merit - Fleming's work would be worthy of debate and Churchill's work did not rise to even that plateau, as best I (and apparently to the cognizant authorities) could judge.

Additionally, Fleming's paper seemed to me to have a somewhat different focus or theme than your comments appeared to presume. As a result, you seemed to this reader to be talking past each other at times.

Churchill did not cite the oral Indian work originally, but only attempted that defense when his initial defenses were determined false. This is part of Churchill's pattern in so many other things. In fact, his Indian ancestry claims followed the exact same sequence. First, he was some fraction from one tribe. Then, when debunked, his claim was a smaller fraction from a different tribe, again debunked. Then, another tribe, until his last claim seems to have been a brief honorary membership of a few months, essentially an honorary membership or "visitor's pass" that the tribe issued as a convenience.

For example:

"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."

http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm

Yet, even Wiki easily lists the debunking here:

*****Churchill claims ancestry of three different tribes, Creek[28][29], Cherokee[30], and Metis[31][32] and states that he is an enrolled[33] member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Rocky Mountain News investigated and found "no evidence of a single Indian ancestor" [of Churchill's].[34] The Denver Post's genealogical investigation resulted in the same conclusion. Ernestine Berry, who was on the tribe's enrollment committee (Keetoowah) and served on the tribal council for four years, told the The Denver Post: "He (Churchill) was trying to get recognized as an Indian. He could not prove he was an Indian (Cherokee) at all." [35] Moreover, the United Keetoowah Band responded to Churchill's claim by clarifying that he was not an enrolled member, but an honorary associate member (just as former President Bill Clinton was) for few months in 1994. According to tribal chief George Wickliffe, Churchill's claims to Keetowah membership "are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band," and that Churchill "could not prove any Cherokee ancestry." [36] According to a statement issued by the Keetowah tribe, Churchill's membership claim after receiving an associate membership "is akin to receiving an honorary doctorate, and then claiming to have received eight years worth of university education." [37] ******

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

Oh, per news articles, Ward Churhill's ancestors put their ethnic status as "white" in the 1930 census. It gets even better, as this article meticulously demonstrates:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3841949,00.html

Dave "If Dr. Fleming & Dershowitz are plagiarizer,s frauds, and liasr, maybe you should bring up an issue that their schools found them guilty of, and we can discuss it."

As for UC, here's what they have found:
"The Investigative Committee concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Professor Churchill had committed research misconduct in the following forms:
• Falsification with regard to his description of the General Allotment Act of 1887, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, the 1614-1618 smallpox epidemic in New England, and the smallpox epidemic at Fort Clark in 1837-1840.
• Fabrication with regard to his description of the 1614-1618 smallpox epidemic in New England and the smallpox epidemic at Fort Clark.
• Plagiarism of Professor Fay Cohen and of a pamphlet by the Dam the Dams group
• Failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications, as discussed most fully in the Investigative Committee’s description of work attributed to Rebecca Robbins but also with regard to his description of the General Allotment Act of 1887, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, and the smallpox epidemic at Fort Clark.
• Serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research, as discussed in his account of the smallpox epidemic at Fort Clark.
Moreover, the Investigative Committee concluded that the misconduct was serious, repeated, and deliberate."

As has already been said, just because you are critical of the US does not mean that you don't suffer the consequences of your bad actions.

dave -

(My previous one must have tripped the too-many-link filter)

I went to the url you included, read the comments through, and skimmed some of the urls internal to that discussion. Even if your points were correct - and Fleming's measured replies to you were not without some merit - Fleming's work would be worthy of scholarly discussion and Churchill's work was not, as best I (and apparently to the cognizant authorities) could judge. For one thing, Fleming's paper seemed to me to have a somewhat different focus or theme than your comments appeared to presume. As a result, you seemed to this reader to be talking past each other at times.

Churchill did not cite the oral Indian work originally, but only attempted that defense when his initial ones failed. This is part of Churchill's pattern in so many other things. In fact, his Indian ancestry claims followed the exact same sequence. First, he was some fraction from one tribe. Then, when debunked, his claim was a smaller fraction from a different tribe, again debunked. Then, another tribe, until his last claim seems to have been a brief honorary membership of a few months, essentially an honorary membership or "visitor's pass" that the tribe issued as a convenience.

For example:

"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."

However, Ward Churchill's ancestors put their ethnic status as "white" in the 1930 census. It gets even better, as this article meticulously demonstrates:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3841949,00.html

"and his termination will give him a patina of martyrdom, too. Was all of the effort worth it? "

Captain,

Did Dan Rather achieve martyrdom? Was the exposing of his lies based on fraudulent documents "worth it"?

You bet it was.

Allowing that Churchill's professional demise was a much smaller victory than Rathergate, it was a victory nonetheless.

I'll take all we can get, large or small.

It's a mere matter of time until this academic fraud is sharing a bitterness studies appointment with Cornel West at Princeton. Harvard probably also has some sort of make-work job he might fit. Dean of Plagiarism Studies or something pompous blow hard chair of Clintonian Intern Relations at the Kennedy School of Gummint if Marvin Kalb retires.

Ward Churchill is merely symptomatic of an underlying cause within an inbred activist academe. No less than President Brodhead's and the Duke 88's sabotage of the Duke lacrosse team or U Penn's Sheldon Hackney's railroading of student Eden "water buffalo" Jacobowitz.

Ward Churchill like may other faux "professors" never belonged in a paid teaching position in the first place. Don't expect any return to education instead of indoctrination until the administrative clowns who hire the Ward Churchill frauds also are long gone back to careers of flipping burgers or as rent-a-riot participants for angry hippie causes in the Cindy Sheehan tradition.

Churchill has sued CU on 1st amendment grounds. The saga goes on....

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/pdf/complaint.pdf

Jim2:
If you think that Flemings paper is more scholarly than Churchill’s, then you do not have a shred of objectivity in you (you said you read Fleming’s paper and my comments, and I will assume you have read at least one of Churchill’s books. If so, you are the only one but myself on this thread who has). It was very difficult for me to look up a single reference from Flemings paper that did not make my jaw drop to the floor in amazement at what a liar he is. On the other hand, a team of researchers combed through dozens of books and papers by Churchill containing over 10,000 references, and they find a handful that they can quibble over. Do you wonder what is contained in the 9,993 references that were completely without fault, which covers thousand of pages of writing? Is that information to be ignored because he did not cite oral traditions as he should of, relating to a point that is completely valid? That’s ridiculous. I can bring up hundreds of pages of facts containing thousands of references in Churchill’s work than neither you or U of Colorado can find any fault with. By comparison, I do not believe you can find a single point in Flemings paper of any substance that is not full of crap and supported by obvious deceptions or lies. But Fleming’s work is more “worthy of scholarly discussion”. That’s crap. U of Colorado did not find a single thing in Churchill’s work that is “not worthy of scholarly discussion”. Their points are about superfluous issues, and not about the content of Churchill’s work. Of course, it’s never about the content. It’s about hiding the truth with smear campaigns. It’s about negating thousands of pages of inconvenient facts because Churchill did not properly cite Indian oral traditions, or some other such nonsense. Things that have no bearing on the truth of the content of his work. Meanwhile, people like Fleming and Dershowitz can mangle the truth all they want, because they back up the lies that the elite peddle off to ignorant citizens.

I certainly won't waste my time reading any of Ward Churchill's books whether cited properly or not. His open mouth sufficed to convince he's not suited to a position of responsibility much less a captive student audience. Maybe NPR, PBS or Al Franken can use him?

Note to Ward:

I know a tobacconist who needs a loiterer / sandwich board carrier out front. Costume is optional though you'll have to keep your mouth shut even if passersby send you a few rotten tomatoes. Pay starts at whatever Pelosi's clown-car congress dictates as legal minimum.

dave -

I did not post that I read Fleming's paper. I stated that I "skimmed some of the urls". Additionally, I have not read one of WC's books, but I have read all or part of several of his many works available on line. I have my own view of my objectivity, and you are entitled to any view you decide upon.

Was Fleming's paper a work plagiarized from others? Did it base itself on non-historical or non-factual events? Did it feature as Fleming's the copyrighted art of others? Did Fleming achieve his position by claiming he was something or someone other than he was?

Fleming may well have lifted data selectively, as you asserted. However, he may have done it in places where the data did not exist that precisely fit his needs and adapted found data as best he could, or (alternatively) to best fit his case. Many reputable scholars have encountered situations where they needed data that did not exist precisely as they needed it and decided to use what did exist as best they could. Did Fleming do that? Maybe, maybe not. It is that aspect that merits discussion, whereas misrepresenting a published authority's writings as the opposite of that same authority's actual and explicit position can never be worthy of scholarly discussion but only disciplinary discussion. Churchill did the latter, not the former.

Jim2:
“Was Fleming's paper a work plagiarized from others?”
I hope not. I hope he is the only person who would write that crap. Alan Dershowitz is the only person I know of who was stupid enough to plagiarize from a source that had already been exposed as a hoax and widely acknowledged as such. What an idiot. The Churchill plagiarism claims are ridiculous. In the Dam of Dams incident, for instance, he did cite the group as a co-author in the first paper, but neglected to do so in two subsequent papers, although he did reference the original paper in the subsequent papers. Big fucking deal. God forbid you should know the content of the Dam of Dams paper, which in uncontroversial.

“Did it base itself on non-historical or non-factual events?”
Tell me what point in the U of Colorado paper concerns itself with Churchill basing something on non-historical or non-factual.

“Did it feature as Fleming's the copyrighted art of others? Did Fleming achieve his position by claiming he was something or someone other than he was?”
Where is this in the U of Colorado paper? I thought this thread was about why Churchill was fired. I know nothing of these issues. Are these issues covered in the paper? Do these issues have anything at all to do with his writing? What if Churchill cheated in his wife as well? Is that another reason to fire him?

“I did not post that I read Fleming's paper. I stated that I "skimmed some of the urls".
That’s not what is necessary to find the most of the good lies. The good lies are in the papers he references that are not readily available, such as Congressional testimony. Fleming knows not to put the biggest lies in a link that can simply be clicked on in order to check. I have access to Harvard’s online library, and can check all of his references very quickly. That’s where you find the best lies, as I showed in the thread I linked to. Some things I did find on the internet, but it took some searching, the kind of thing most people do not do. It's great that you can compare Flemings work with Churchill's after "skimming" some URl's and not reading any of Churchill's books. That's impressive.

“Fleming may well have lifted data selectively, as you asserted.”
That not what I asserted. I asserted that he lied and deceived, and he did.

The whole exercise of firing Churchill has nothing to do with citizens such as yourself or myself. People on the right such as yourself will never, ever, bother to pick up a book that is not known to already agree with their world view (on the other hand, I just finished reading “Land and Power” by Anita Shapira – it mostly made me sick, but I always find good material in everything I read). People on the left such as myself will not be dissuaded from reading authors such as Churchill as a result of these pathetic demonization campaigns (actually, I sometimes find new authors to read by looking at the “banned” authors list of people such as Horowitz – if they are telling people not to read it, there is usually a good reason to do so). The exercise of firing Churchill also has nothing to do with either Churchill or writers like Dershowitz and Fleming. Churchill will find another job and continue to write well-researched material (hopefully the refs will be immaculate next time), and Dershowitz and Fleming will continue to pour out crap without consequences.
The point of firing Churchill is to be a warning to writers who may be on the fence. If a writer has a moral motivation to tell a particular truth by writing about it, he may decide not to do so when he knows his job will be in jeopardy if he does. Principled writers will not be dissuaded, but many will. That is the point. It is a warning to not go against the accepted world view peddled by the elites.

Jim2:
BTW, can you tell me the title of one of Churchill's papers that you have read?

dave -

There are examples on the web that show that some of WC's text was lifted from other sources. Not so for Fleming.

The deliberate small pox blanket is not supported by any written sources as WC claimed and WC's lame after-the-fact Indian oral tradition assertions are akin to 9/11 Truthers or FDR knowing the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor. They are non-factual. Live with it. Small pox killed 3 million Aztecs in Mexico and a great many Incans in South America including their emperor Huayna Capac. It is an historical fact that the indigenous North American peoples would almost all suffer from small pox epidemics after some period of exposure to European-originated populations. There was no need for deliberate blankets conspiracy theories. To call it an example of deliberate genocide is an example of a deliberate lie.

I am hardly a Right winger, though you are probably able to determine if you are a Left winger.

If you think WC's other proven examples of dishonesty and prevarication (art and ethnicity, to name but two) are irrelevant, you are welcome to your views.

Now I'm getting concerned about this Fleming guy's credentials. Did this Fleming lie about his racial background and claim to be part minority of some sort, in order to play the affirmative action card and get himself a cush academic position in spite of his lack of other credentials?

Just wondering.

Great article you linked to Jim2. Thanks.

Please, please keep "dave" from any machines which go beyond a basic wedge. This will make things much safer for those of us capable of functioning in a post-dark age world.

Dave is dishonest. The truth is that CU did find Churchill guilty of fabricating his smallpox blankets fraud. If Dave were more literate, he would understand that CU found Churchill innocent of inventing the overall idea of smallpox blanket genocide, but found him guilty of inventing a number of details of the story that have no basis in truth, and of falsifying the sources he cited. For more clarity see the article at:

www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf

No intelligent person can read that and still believe that Churchill is innocent.

Dave is also sadly ignorant of the American academy. There is no chance for Churchil to get another academic job anywhere in this country. True scholars hate Churchill's violations of sholarly ethics, and will never allow him to be hired into a tenured position.

What makes the smallpox blankets fiction most pathetic is we're talking about an era before Pasteur (and Koch, Ehrlich, de Kruif, Semmelweiss etc.) when the method of disease transmission was unknown.

That's why ergot poisoning in Salem was blamed on witches and why a good bleeding wouldn't fix it. Something had to be blamed so it may as well be the wench over there with the hook nose.

Part of the problem with frauds like Ward Churchill is they are like Dan Rather's famous typewriter. Forging documents or theories based upon technology unavailable at the time.

Jim2:
“There are examples on the web that show that some of WC's text was lifted from other sources.”
Where?

“They are non-factual. Live with it.”
The University of Colorado disagrees with you, and I agree with them. Eyewitness accounts are not “non-factual”. There is a mountain of eyewitness accounts to the Holocaust that certainly support its authenticity. I do agree, however, that there is not much hard evidence for Churchill’s claim. If he wrote a book on this subject, or a paper, or a chapter, I would agree with you. It is a shaky claim, but he wrote a few paragraphs on it. It was a few paragraphs out of an entire book. When I read the book, I did not know of this controversy. The smallpox story did not even stick in my head when I read it. It was that central to the book.
The rest of the book, from U of Colorado’s point of view, is uncontroversial. What about that material? If he left out those three paragraphs, would you defend him? Would you then read the book? If I state 1,000 well-supported facts and one based only on oral traditions that is not well documented, does it negate all of it?

Jim:
I did not see your second post until now. I tried to address every point from the U of Colorado paper that was brought up to me. Let me know exactly what you like to talk about if I have not addressed something.
You are correct that Churchill has not been “silenced”. Not a good term for me to have used. Actually, the publicity is probably very good for him. When Chavez held up that Chomsky book at the UN when he gave his “Bush is the devil” speech, it went to number one in the amazon ratings for weeks. The reason for the whole incident is better stated in my post above. It’s a warning.

Da Coyote:
"Please, please keep "dave" from any machines which go beyond a basic wedge"

Too late. I do pharmaceutical research in oncology, and I work with some machines more complicated than a wedge.

Quentin:
"For more clarity"
For more clarity, read Churchill's books and the U of Colorado paper. Otherwise, shut your pie whole,

"Dave is also sadly ignorant of the American academy."

I have a PhD and have written dozens of papers for medicinal chemistry journals, and a few patents as well. I know a little about the "American academy", if that's what I think it is.

viking01;
"What makes the smallpox blankets fiction most pathetic is we're talking about an era before Pasteur (and Koch, Ehrlich, de Kruif, Semmelweiss etc.) when the method of disease transmission was unknown."

Girolamo Fracastor wrote this in 1546:

"I call fomites such things as clothes, linen, etc., which although not themselves corrupted, can nevertheless foster the essential seeds (seminaria prima) of the contagion and thus cause infection."

http://books.google.com/books?id=u0wr2C4lCw8C&pg=RA1-PT30&lpg=RA1-PT30&dq=such+things+as+clothes+linen+etc+which+although+not+themselves+corrupt+can+nevertheless&source=web&ots=LpS9wfdrR8&sig=pH-wz0zfGixQzfNdPXNlDY2TMyI

Posted by: jim2 at July 25, 2007 11:29 AM
*************

Thanks for the link, Jim2.

I remember in the interviews a few years ago, when they asked him how he could take credit for others' work, and he tried to claim it was a simple misunderstanding, they he wasn't trying to take credit for their work, just because it wasn't properly labeled as the work of others - just because it was all lumped in with work that was "supposedly" all his own! WHAT A SIDEWINDER he showed himself in those interviews.

Clearly, no college that let such a jerk stay on staff could imagine itself to have a smidgeon of credibility in the academic world. But that has seldom stopped the Dim Liberals.

I saw a lady interviewed a few years ago where her statistics showed the students leaving these Liberal colleges by the droves unless they were interested in a NO-WORK degree with the prestege of NAME ONLY recognition.

But those who were interested in a degree with the prestege of hard and certifiable honest educational endeavor, they were going to a very different type of university, these days, and those colleges were the fastest growing, including the most highly valued Home Schooled students searching for academic excellence ---
--- while the Liberals were naturally the fastest DECLINING.

Don't worry Dave, Ward has promised that he will file suit in federal court if he is fired, so this is far from over. It is doubtful he'll win, but it will keep him in the spotlight for awhile and I think that's his biggest concern. It will, if anything, help him come up with a good ending for his book: I Lost My Tenure at Wounded Knee: One Man's Journey into Obscurity.

Ward deserved to be fired for for his 9-11 comments.

Ward is free to carry out his crusade against his Little Eichmann's, but not on the public dime.

Ward and Duke's Group of 88 show that there is something fundamentally wrong with higher education in America.

you have to realize that crazy dave has been on this site for quite some time.

He's very adept at fabricating his occupation and education in order to impress his inferiors.

This canned ham can barely read but ya, get a load of the PhD. University of Mail Order most likely.

Don't worry Dave, Ward has promised that he will file suit in federal court if he is fired, so this is far from over. It is doubtful he'll win, but it will keep him in the spotlight for awhile and I think that's his biggest concern. It will, if anything, help him come up with a good ending for his book: I Lost My Tenure at Wounded Knee: One Man's Journey into Obscurity.

I feel that we are missing key links in the persona of Ward Churchill. Mr. Churchill could not have achieved his infamy without the foundation of political correctness.

The opportunity exists for opportunists to exploit the fads of, "Indians have been exploited", "we are in another VietNam", "impeach the President", etc. The most successful use several of the politically correct mantras. It is considered boorish to challenge these popular delusions.

Beware the next time you see a Muslim, speaking in tongues, waiting to get on an airplane. You might consider not being politically correct and simply kick his ass.

Vinkingo1:
“What makes the smallpox blankets fiction most pathetic is we're talking about an era before Pasteur (and Koch, Ehrlich, de Kruif, Semmelweiss etc.) when the method of disease transmission was unknown.”

Girolamo Fracastoro wrote this in 1546:

"I call fomites such things as clothes, linen, etc., which although not themselves corrupted, can nevertheless foster the essential seeds (seminaria prima) of the contagion and thus cause infection."

http://books.google.com/books?id=u0wr2C4lCw8C&pg=RA1-PT30&lpg=RA1-PT30&dq=such+things+as+clothes+linen+etc+which+although+not+themselves+corrupt+can+nevertheless&source=web&ots=LpS9wfdrR8&sig=pH-wz0zfGixQzfNdPXNlDY2TMyI

I feel that we are missing key links in the persona of Ward Churchill. Mr. Churchill could not have achieved his infamy without the foundation of political correctness.

The opportunity exists for opportunists to exploit the fads of, "Indians have been exploited", "we are in another VietNam", "impeach the President", etc. The most successful use several of the politically correct mantras. It is considered boorish to challenge these popular delusions.

Beware the next time you see a Muslim, speaking in tongues, waiting to get on an airplane. You might consider not being politically correct and simply kick his ass.

Viking01 writes: "Note to Ward:

I know a tobacconist who needs a loiterer / sandwich board carrier out front. Costume is optional though you'll have to keep your mouth shut even if passersby send you a few rotten tomatoes. Pay starts at whatever Pelosi's clown-car congress dictates as legal minimum."

This is perfect - talk about the punishment fitting the crime. The phony Indian becomes the cigar-store Indian. Delightful!

True, Churchill is a minor figure. The point though is that if a public university can't fire someone for blatant dishonesty and fraudulent research, what can they fire anyone for. It is a matter of public institutions being able to govern themselves with honesty.

Ward Churchill also could not have achieved his infamy without tenure. Agreed that without political correctness infecting modern college campuses Mental Ward would be limited to conspiring to commit Sociology.

RE: fomites

There are plenty of theories in writing from Paracelsus to Fracastorius. Most of that usually in Latin was arcana to all but scientists and doctors not your average US Army officers or men. I suspect that Churchill likely read about the Tuskeegee experiment (syphilis) and made a few changes to suit his propaganda objectives and preferred victimization group.

One can also read Edward Jenner's writings on investigations of cowpox and the apparent prevention of smallpox yet realize the culprits Mental Ward tries to frame are unlikely to have had any such knowledge much less any desire to infect themselves while plotting to infect someone else. It is also unlikely those peddling any blankets were immunized, at least not knowingly.

That too sounds too much like Ward Churchill having listened too much to Peter Arnett's / Jeff Greenfield's CNN Tailwind fabrications about Vietnam while wishing somehow he could pin his own smallpox fabrications on the US Army a century before.

"Mr Churchill, I knew an Indian. I served alongside an Indian. Mr. Churchill, you are no Indian."

- the Lone Ranger

Viking01:
“There are plenty of theories in writing from Paracelsus to Fracastorius. Most of that usually in Latin was arcana to all but scientists and doctors not your average US Army officers or men.”

You are an idiot. The knowledge of how disease spread was widely known long before Pasteur. Also, using that knowledge as a form of biological warfare was also known before the incident Churchill speeks of:

“On several occasions, smallpox has been used as a biological weapon in the New World. Pizarro is said to have presented indigenous peoples of South American with variola-contaminated clothing in the 15th century, and the English did the same when Sir Jeffery Amherst provided Indians loyal to the French with smallpox-laden blankets during the French and Indian War (1754–1767).”

“In 1763, during Pontiac’s Rebellion in New England, Colonel Henry Bouquet, a British officer, proposed giving the Indians at Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania, blankets infected with smallpox. The disease, whether purposely disseminated or not, proved devastating to the Native American population. A similar plan was executed in 1785, when Tunisians threw plague-infected clothing into La Calle, held by the Christians.”

(It will be easy for you to believe the Tunisian example, since in that case it was the evil Muslims who were the culprit).

https://ccc.apgea.army.mil/sarea/products/textbook/Web_Version/chapters/chapter_18.htm

https://ccc.apgea.army.mil/sarea/products/textbook/Web_Version/chapters/chapter_2.htm

I don’t know if these sources can be trusted, however. They are from the US Army.

Viking01:
“There are plenty of theories in writing from Paracelsus to Fracastorius. Most of that usually in Latin was arcana to all but scientists and doctors not your average US Army officers or men.”

You are an idiot. The knowledge of how disease spread was widely known long before Pasteur. Also, using that knowledge as a form of biological warfare was also known before the incident Churchill speeks of:

“On several occasions, smallpox has been used as a biological weapon in the New World. Pizarro is said to have presented indigenous peoples of South American with variola-contaminated clothing in the 15th century, and the English did the same when Sir Jeffery Amherst provided Indians loyal to the French with smallpox-laden blankets during the French and Indian War (1754–1767).”

“In 1763, during Pontiac’s Rebellion in New England, Colonel Henry Bouquet, a British officer, proposed giving the Indians at Fort Pitt, Pennsylvania, blankets infected with smallpox. The disease, whether purposely disseminated or not, proved devastating to the Native American population. A similar plan was executed in 1785, when Tunisians threw plague-infected clothing into La Calle, held by the Christians.”

(It will be easy for you to believe the Tunisian example, since in that case it was the evil Muslims who were the culprit).

https://ccc.apgea.army.mil/sarea/products/textbook/Web_Version/chapters/chapter_18.htm

https://ccc.apgea.army.mil/sarea/products/textbook/Web_Version/chapters/chapter_2.htm

I don’t know if these sources can be trusted, however. They are from the US Army.

Dave? Is by chance your real name Ward?

Dave- go to chavez thread

what chavez thread?