Did Ward Churchill try and expose 'fake Native Americans'? Apparently

the fact that he was not in fact, a native American, does not seem to bother him.

Apparently he had a long running fued with former Green Party VP candidate Winona LaDuke's father:

Until recently, better known than Winona, at least among non-Indian "spiritual seekers," was her father, Vincent LaDuke, through whom she derives her White Earth Ojibwe ancestry. In the 1960's, he took the Indian-seeming name of "Sun Bear" for himself, and did a great deal of outreach to non-Indian spiritual seekers, people with environmental concerns, and hippie drop-outs. He was much criticized for this by a white man who established a more respectable career for himself: a fake Indian who became a University of Colorado Indian Studies professor (Ward Churchill) and wrote several books that pillory alleged careerist fakes (like, but not including, himself). A large number of non-Indian "seekers" know of Sun Bear (who died in 1992). There are several websites for the continuing organizations he founded. Here's one for an organization and magazine that claims some 31,000 members, and lists dozens of books Sun Bear wrote. Sun Bear may be a controversial figure to some, but his achievements are undeniable.

of the Colorada chapter of AIM (American Indian Movement). For those interested in an accurate description of his relationship with Winona LaDuke, I would suggest reading "Struggle for the Land," By Ward Churchill, with a preface by Winona, and a foreward by John Trudell. (Common Courage Press, 1993) While I do not agree with some of the things Ward says from time to time, I think it is important that democrats and progressive people do not feed into the "is he an Indian?" baloney that I've seen, among other places, on Bill O'Reilly's show. Rather, let's focus on what is far more important, which includes not only the things Ward said, but ideas such as freedom of speech, and the role of serious debate of topics in colleges and universities.

I so agree!

Whether the Republicans are saying it or not, he may well *not* be an Indian at all.

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

longer an AIM. There are a few people living in the past, but AIM is no longer an organization, any more than the Black Panthers.

that Native American children were gathered up & essentially imprisoned in (to erase the Indian in them), and the damage these hideous institutions did to the entire race. Oddly enough, this book review ran in the Tulsa (OK) Sunday World newspaper the same time the sh*t was hitting the fan over his remarks about 9/11:
(Well the Tulsa World's a pay site for this, so I can only cut & paste in a very clumsy way here, but you get the gist - and the book's worth a read):
~snip~

"Children became government targets"
MIKE NOBLES, 02/06/2005
Tulsa World (Final Home Edition), Page H10 of Books
approx. 646 words
Kill the Indian, Save the Man: The Genocidal Impact of American Indian Residential Schools
WARD CHURCHILL
(City Lights Publisher, $14.95)

". . . The white man had concluded that the only way to save Indians was to destroy..."

~snip~

comes from "research" conducted by the crack genealogists at the Rocky Mountain News, the out-to-lynch-Churchill paper of record. The opinions of Native Americans on the subject is not something I can speak to. One of the radio lawyers leading the charge for firing admitted he has no information on the subject other than what he reads in the paper.

Since I am very familiar with navigating census records I looked up the only person in my family database known to be Indian, and the census record says "White," so I don't think the census can be used as proof of anything.

The radio lawyers are pushing the idea that Churchill got his job on the basis of Affirmative Action, and can be fired for lying.

anyone who doesnt see that this is all just an attempt to punish him for his speech is totally lost.

Although obviously he's made some enemies on the left too, and they dont mind joining in with the mob.

See my earlier post. They really don't like this guy, and being a fake Indian appears to be one of the main reasons.

CounterPunch
February 24, 2005

Lynching Ward Chuchill
Witchhunts to the Right; Witchhunts to the Left
By FRED FELDMAN

Some leaders of the American Indian Movement and quite a few mouthpieces on the left are currently seeking, on what I am sure they consider morally justified grounds, to counter the efforts to fight the witch-hunt against University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill. Churchill faces an attempt by the University of Colorado to find grounds for firing him because of statements he made about the 9/11 attacks and to deepen the attack on ethnic studies at the university.

They challenge his claim to be an Indian, claiming that he is not a "real" Indian genetically or spiritually. There has been no disproof of his claim to be 1/24th (or whatever) Indian and therefore the claim should be accepted.

Support for Indian rights does not oblige us to get into the race-certification business, which usually has more to do with business interests among the Indian nations than with rights per se. From the standpoint of the struggle for rights, the oppressed generally have no interest in preventing others from identifying with them for whatever reason.

There should of course be affirmative action and treaty-based measures to support the business activities of Indian nations, including the protection of Indian identity in these operations (casinos, artwork, etc.). But the defense of the democratic rights of Indians and all of us should not be disrupted by inevitably poisonous campaigns about who is really an Indian genetically or in their deeper nature.

http://www.counterpunch.org/feldman02242005.html

Anyone vaguely familiar with what used to be AIM knows that it was factionalized and destroyed as an organization long, long ago. Traditional Native Americans will tell you that AIM isn't an Indian group today. (smile)

and independent chapters of AIM, one of which is in Colorado. Colorado AIM is supportive of Churchill. I'm sure someone else can explain it more authoritatively, or correct me if I'm wrong.

got two other people and played a concert, even if they called themselves "the Beatles," they would not be the Beatles. The Beatles were part of the 1960s, and had an influence in the '70s. But Paul and Ringo would be two old guys who were having a middle-age crisis.

AIM was an important group in about the same time the Beatles were the best rock & roll band. A lot of AIM members died. Others broke up and formed their own bands, ... er, organizations. But the real AIM is part of history, from the late '60s and early '70s.

The things that Ward Churchill says and writes should be judged entirely on their merits. They have nothing to do with the diversions that the right-wing is tossing in to the national discussion. If Bill O'Reilly gets on tv tonight and starts screaming that Ward is NOT the 5th Beatle, it doesn't mean we should waste our time discussing that.

is to focus on Ward's "indianness". We should be talking about US foreign policy and its consequences. We should be focused on the group headed/founded by Daniel Pipes called Campus Watch who targeted Churchill.

www.campuswatch.org