On February 12, 2005, I sent the following email to Anne Coulter who wrote an article about Ward Churchill.
I didn't really expect a response. Ignorance like this is hard to crack. I believe that what concerns Ms. Coulter most of all is doing what most so-called reporters do today to get noticed.
Write anything BUT news! Coulter made some racist remarks about American Indian People, bottom line. We have an obligation to let individuals like Coulter know we will not tolerate racism anymore.
Dear Ms. Coulter,
Regarding your article on Ward Churchill - "The Little Injun That Could" I'd like to make a few comments and none of them are about Ward Churchill. I take umbrage at some of the terms you have used in this article - even your header "The Little Injun" - I find insulting and bordering on racist remarks. But to make matters even worse, you don't stop there. Your reference to our Ancestors scalping whites isn't exactly factual either. It was the Europeans who introduced this sort of abuse toward native people, just like they would give bounty for our Ancestors' dead bodies - "redskins" and tear their flesh, fashioning it into reins, pouches, etc. At the Sand Creek Massacre, for one example, soldiers picked up little children and swung their skulls into rocks; they ripped the unborn children from their mother's wombs, they raped and tortured the women, our elders and so forth. Please don't make it seem as if our People were the "brutal savages" stereotypes portray without any basis in fact. Yes, warriors did begin to scalp the Whites as well, but it was not something they introduced. Their other actions sounds more like something the Nazis did too - smashing the skulls of little children and toddlers and fashioning the flesh of the People into pouches and other such things. The "kemosabe" remark was totally uncalled for, as was your reference to the Trail of Tears, where thousands of innocent Cherokee died, forced from their homelands in the most brutal of weather, forced to suffer all sorts of indignities. I feel that terms you used in your article were unnecessary. All you did, was denigrate "the real native peoples" of North America, by your choice in using those terms and in reference to the Trail of Tears - or better known by the Cherokee as the Trail where they Cried...... All this news coverage on Ward Churchill is a media feeding frenzy and most of the "reports" that are out, are from people who have their own agendas - and it's not truth. Because if it was based in truth - more reporters would be reporting on Big Mountain, the desperate and terrible poverty of Pine Ridge, the continuing racist attacks on native people, the high incidence of diabetes that is out of control and on and on. It would be good for the American people to see more media coverage concerning the Bush administration's budget - now that's a humdinger of a story. While we continue to send young men and women off to this war Bush started, he wants to cut more Veterans Services, cut programs that communities need, more elderly and disabled will have to go without necessary medications because Bush decided that the Medicare program can no longer barter with the companies that make drugs for pennies, if that, and then turn it around and expect old people to pay hundreds of dollars on one medication alone. Labels belong on jars, not people. We are not kemosabes, the brutal attacks and forced removals of our people is not something to joke about - and I could go on and on but I won't - I've said enough for I'm quite certain you could care less yourself. It's not about protecting native rights - it's about selling newspapers and articles on Ward Churchill. The time to come together is NOW before it's too late. Jeanne Svhiyeyi Aga ChadwickWhen you consider the remarks made by Coulter in her article, would it be acceptable to call, for example, Condelezza Rice a Ni--er?"
I DON'T THINK SO!!
But not for the reasons we feel. Coulter is so far right it isn't funny and so therefore, it would not be right (pardon the pun) at all and she would probably make one big stink if someone did that to an appointed yes-woman she supports.
My email was in response to the article she wrote:
THE LITTLE INJUN THAT COULD
Wed Feb 9, 7:59 PM ET
By Ann Coulter If Ward Churchill loses his job teaching at the University of Colorado, he could end up giving Howard Dean a real run for his money to head the Democratic National Committee. Churchill already has a phony lineage and phony war record—just like John Kerry! (Someone should also check out Churchill’s claim that he spent Christmas 1968 at Wounded Knee.) In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, “has not requested arms from the Libyan government.” In 1997, he was one of the “witnesses” who spoke at a “Free Mumia” event in Philadelphia on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Come to think of it, Churchill could give Hillary a run for her money. All that’s left for Churchill to do now is meet with Al Sharpton and kiss Suha Arafat. Churchill’s claim that he is an Indian isn’t an incidental boast, like John Kerry pretending to be Irish. It is central to his career, his writing, his political activism. Churchill has been the co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, the vice chairperson of the American Indian “Anti-Defamation” Council, and an associate professor and coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado. By Churchill’s own account, a crucial factor in his political development was “being an American Indian referred to as ‘chief’ in a combat unit” in Vietnam, which made him sad. This is known to con men everywhere as a “two-fer.” In addition to an absence of evidence about his Indian heritage, there is an absence of evidence that he was in combat in Vietnam. After the POW Network revealed that Churchill had never seen combat, he countered with this powerful argument: “They can say whatever the hell they want. That’s confidential information, and I’ve never ordered its release from the Department of Defense. End of story.” Maybe we should ask John Kerry to help Churchill fill out a form 180. In one of his books, “Struggle for the Land,” Churchill advances the argument that one-third of America is the legal property of Indians. And if you believe Churchill is a real Indian, he also happens to be part owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. In his most famous oeuvre, the famed 9/11 essay calling the 9/11 World Trade Center victims “little Eichmanns,” he said “Arab terrorists”—his quotes—had simply “responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq” by giving Americans “a tiny dose of their own medicine.” Having blurted out “Iraq” in connection with 9/11 in a moment of pique, Churchill had to backpedal when the anti-war movement needed to argue that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Arab terrorism. He later attached an “Addendum” to the essay saying that the 9/11 attack was not only payback for Iraq, but also for various other of this country’s depredations especially against “real Indians” (of which he is not one). In light of the fact that Churchill’s entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he’s an Indian, it’s rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are “absolutely indefensible.” Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian “on a good day” to claiming he is “three-sixteenths Cherokee,” to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he’s not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) A recent investigation by The Denver Post revealed that Tyner’s father was indeed married to a Cherokee. But that was only after Joshua’s mother—and Churchill’s relative—was scalped by Indians. By now, all that’s left of Churchill’s claim to Indian ancestry is his assertion: “It is just something that was common knowledge in my family.” (That, and his souvenir foam-rubber “tommyhawk” he bought at Turner Field in Atlanta.) Over the years, there were other subtle clues the university might have noticed. Churchill is not in the tribal registries kept since the 1800s by the federal government. No tribe will enroll him—a verification process Churchill dismisses as “poodle papers” for Indians. In 1990, Churchill was forced to stop selling his art as “Indian art” under federal legislation sponsored by then-representative—and actual Indian!—Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that required Indian artists to establish that they are accepted members of a federally recognized tribe. Churchill responded by denouncing the Indian artist who had exposed him. (Hey, does anybody need 200 velvet paintings of Elvis playing poker with Crazy Horse?) In the early ‘90s, he hoodwinked an impecunious Cherokee tribe into granting him an “associate membership” by telling them he “wrote some books and was a big-time author.” A tribal spokeswoman explained: He “convinced us he could help our people.” They never heard from him again—yet another treaty with the Indians broken by the white man. Soon thereafter, the tribe stopped offering “associate memberships.” A decade ago, Churchill was written up in an article in News From Indian Country, titled, “Sovereignty and Its Spokesmen: The Making of an Indian.” The article noted that Churchill had claimed membership in a scrolling series of Indian tribes, but over “the course of two years, NFIC hasn’t been able to confirm a single living Indian relative, let alone one real relative that can vouch for his tribal descent claim.” When real Indians complained to Colorado University in 1994 that a fake Indian was running their Indian Studies program, a spokeswoman for the CU president said the university needed “to determine if the position was designated for a Native American. And I can’t answer that right now.” Apparently it was answered in Churchill’s favor since he’s still teaching. If he’s not an Indian, it’s not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university. In his book, “A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present,” Churchill denounces Jews for presuming to imagine the Holocaust was unique. In the chapter titled “Lie for Lie: Linkages between Holocaust Deniers and Proponents of the Uniqueness of the Jewish Experience in World War II,” Churchill calls the Third Reich merely “a crystallization” of Christopher Columbus’ ravages of his people (if he were an Indian). His research apparently consisted of watching the Disney movie “Pocahontas,” which showed that the Indians meant the European settlers no harm. (That’s if you don’t count the frequent scalpings.) Even the credulous Nation magazine—always on red alert for tales of government oppression—dismissed Churchill’s 1988 book “Agents of Repression” about Cointelpro-type operations against the American Indian Movement, saying the book “does not give much new information” and “even a reader who is inclined to believe their allegations will want more evidence than they provide.” If The Nation won’t buy your anti-U.S. government conspiracy theories, Kemosabe, it’s probably time to pack up the old teepee and hit the trail of tears. In response to the repeated complaints from Indians that a phony Indian was running CU’s Indian Studies program, Churchill imperiously responded: “Guess what that means, guys? I’m not taking anyone’s job, there wouldn’t be an Indian Studies program if I wasn’t coordinating it. ... They won’t give you a job just because you have the paper.” This white man of English and Swiss-German descent apparently believes there are no actual Indians deserving of his position at CU. (No wonder the Indians aren’t crazy about him.) As long as we’re all agreed that there are some people who don’t deserve jobs at universities, why isn’t Churchill one of them?Write Anne Coulter and let her know what you think."
Editor's Note:
I have not yet made up my mind about Churchill. I've never met him personally; like most people, I've read about him.
I don't agree with many of his written statements. I can somewhat grasp the intellectual scenario he is attempting to present to his readers, but we do not live in academia, we live in the real world. Real people died during the attacks on September 11, 2001. People of all colors. American Indians too. If we, as native people dishonor the deaths of innocent people to make a point, we are no better than the ones we call the oppressor." My personal feelings and beliefs concerning why 911 happened, are my own opinion. No one speaks for me! Therein, is the real problem - the projection by the press more than anyone else, is that Churchill represents all American Indian Nations and People.
I can't help but wonder however, why is it that this written article of Churchill's did not make the big time news when he first wrote it?
There are agendas here, if you ask me. I believe that American Indian Nations and People must keep "our eyes on the prize" is how Civil Rights Workers and Black Americans saw it back in Civil Rights area.
I believe the People know what "the prize" is for all nations.
And the more we feed into the frenzy, the less good energy we can spend on resolving real issues and moving forward in a good way."
Jeanne Svhiyeyi Aga Chadwick
Publisher/Editor/WebmasterLast updated on March 06, 2005