HARKONNENDOG

Bookmark me or the Baron will pull my heart plug thingy.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

ANOTHER Churchill update

Now it appears he didn't say he wasn't an Indian... ugh... and the correction is from the Star Bulletin, the same paper that said he did say he wasn't an Indian, so there's no fisk-ability. Hrff... Hack.... Ugh... The link is here.

Here's the part that somehow got misreported:

"Is he an Indian? We really care. We're trying to protect the rights of Indians to divine for themselves, say this circle of flies in the form of white reporters circling a manure pile like it's of all consequential importance. Cut to the chase on that."

Okay... He later claims he's less than a quarter Indian so he couldn't get full citizenship in his tribe. Except he has NO Indian blood, according to Indians.

This first link http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410335 provides proof of a negative. Specifically proof that Churchill is NOT Native American.

Harjo: Why Native identity matters: A cautionary tale

Posted: February 10, 2005 by: Suzan Shown Harjo / Indian Country Today

Excerpt 1:

“As Churchill has lurched through Indian identities, he has not found a single Native relative or ancestor. He is descended from a long line of Churchills that Hank Adams has traced back to the Revolutionary War and Europe. Adams, who is Assiniboine-Sioux and a member of the Frank's Landing Indian Community, has successfully researched and exposed other pseudo-Indians.

Adams traced Churchill's ancestors on both sides of his family, finding all white people, including documented slave owners and at least one spy, but zero Indians.” (emphasis mine)

So it comes down to who you trust. Churchill or Adams.

2 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home