I have argued that Ward Churchill should not be fired because of his outrageous article about 9/11. A better case for his dismissal would rest on 1) his advocacy of violence as a means of political action; and 2) pading his resume with false pretensions to Native American ancestory. On that latter thing see Patti Jo King at Indian Country Today.
Churchill does not now, nor has he ever, represented Indians. His complex, overly-academic rhetoric clarifies how little he has in common with Native people. His acid tongue, dirty-mouthed sarcasm, self-important posturing, and preachy fanaticism contribute nothing to the challenge Indians face to establish a satisfying position in contemporary society.
Churchill portrays Indians as hapless victims, repressed and demoralized by the crafty American government. These characterizations only serve to impede Indian social progress. He combines hackneyed stereotypes, postmodern gibberish, and radical buzzwords to coax naive individuals to accept his authenticity. Such characterizations are the antithesis of empowerment.
Recent Comments