Another Email to Prof Perkinson

I sent this about one minute ago. I need to credit Freerepublic.com, specifically okie01, for help with this. I more or less rewrote what okie01 argued in this thread.

Professor Perkinson,

Thank you for your quick and gracious reply. I believe I’ve found definitive proof regarding the allegations surround Churchill. I understand you are very busy, so I’ve excerpted the following two links. I hope you will make time to read the articles they link to in their entirety.

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)

Excerpt 2:

“Colorado and all universities should respect Native nations at least as much as they respect schools and other employers, but they don't. They frown on people who falsify their written material and wrongly claim degrees they did not earn and jobs they did not hold. But when people falsely claim to be Native, it is seen by some as less serious, less offensive and something anyone besides the Indians ought to decide.”

This second link http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm demonstrates that Churchill’s academic fraud extends beyond lying about his ethnicity.

Assessing Warch Churchill’s Version of the 1837 Smallpox Epidemic

Thomas Brown

Assistant Professor of Sociology

Lamar University

Beaumont,TX 77710

browntf@hal.lamar.edu

Excerpt 1 of 1:

“Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, 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.

It is a distressing conclusion. One wants to think the best of fellow scholars. The scholarly enterprise depends on mutual trust. When one scholar violates that trust, it damages the legitimacy of the entire academy. Churchill has fabricated a genocide that never happened. It is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation.” (emphasis mine)

Finally, I have an observation regarding the article you attached:

Lyons wrote:

“At the very least, even the toughest identity police among us will have to admit that, as a United States citizen, Churchill has the right to ethnically self-identify in any way he wants, as is the official policy of the U.S. Census Bureau.”

To which I would reply:

1. The Census Bureau policy is irrelevant. CU's policy is the relevant standard.

2. Churchill lied about his ethnicity to obtain benefits and set asides reserved for certain minorities. Churchill claimed Affirmative Action preference on his application. The application said that the description Native American/Pacific Islander was reserved for persons descended from the original peoples of North America. It didn’t say applicants could claim Native American ancestry because they empathized.

3. Churchill was one of eleven applicants who claimed Native American ethnicity, and one of two who were interviewed for the position. Assuming the other was not a liar, like Churchill, that person may care that Churchill’s lied, regardless of whether Scott Richard Lyons think it was no big deal.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope you will decide Churchill can only dishonor UH, and change your mind about bringing him to my alma mater. Anyway, using his case to champion free expression is self-defeating, akin to citing NAMBLA to solicit money for the ACLU, or Lee Malvo and John Muhammad to solicit support for the NRA.

Sincerely, etc.

P.S. I have attached copies of Churchill’s application.

ed.- That's the end of the email. I hope he'll reply. I hope he'll disinvite Churchill altogether. I will keep you posted. (unintentional pun, so I will not apologize, hehehe) My wife, btw, has a slightly different take on this whole thing. Something along the line of- "he's a hustler making a buck- why bother him?" I don't care for ethnic identifcation, Affirmative Action etc, so she's got a point. Er... I guess I'm motivated by the Eichmann thing- I'll have to think about that...