yeah, they know about him, and they don't want him!
No kidding. A liar is exposed as a liar.
More of these frauds need to be exposed! Thanks.
Wow!
Churchill a real split nose. Too bad old customs can't still be enforced.
*** the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. ***
Ah yes. The so-called "lost" tribe of Cherokees. They have been trying to get a "reservation" of a few acres for themselves near Hot Springs, Arkansas for years.
Reservation =casinos=money.
Get my drift?
Pretty cool.
What a piece of poo this scuzzball is.
I don't see how they can't fire him.
Wasn't this guy calling somebody else a Liar?
Shouldn't he be declared unanimously as the DNC chairman?
Palestinian flag Palestine: Information with Provenance www.stopthewall.org The best map of the West Bank Translations from the Hebrew media
Investigative News Radio Independent Unembedded Media
Who is telling the truth about Israel/Palestine? Decide for yourself!
We give the background on every author, speaker, journal or broadcaster whose opinions you find here.
The writers we cite include supporters of Zionism as well as critics.
You will see that the aspects of Zionism criticised by anti-Zionists are frequently documented by supporters of Zionism. Also, if you find it hard to believe Palestinian critics of Zionism, you will find equally harsh words from its Jewish critics.
About this database Home Search Show newly-added material Contact us
UCC Palestine Solidarity Campaign Login
List articles published on
List articles published between and
A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present
Read full text
Article/book #3465: A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present
By: Ward Churchill
Date of issue: January 1998
ISBN: 0872863239
Topic(s) addressed:
* American policy on Israel/Palestine
* Israeli abuse of the 'military needs' terms of the Geneva conventions
* Holocaust exclusiveness
Commentary: This book is about European colonialism in the Americas but anybody interested in the Palestine question cannot fail to spot analogies which cast an interesting sidelight on American policy towards Zionist colonialism in Palestine.
Abstract: From a review of the book (not by this editor): This book is packed full of information for so relatively small a number of pages and at times, though not always, the prose style is, well, rather dry, to use the most polite term. There are streches where one cannot read more than two or three sentences without being directed to look down at large footnotes. But Mr. Churchill is man of immense learning and passion. In this inconclastic study he engages in a comparative study of genocide and its academic treatment with a specific focus on the history of Native Americans vis a vis the U.S. government and the dominant white race. He starts off by dissecting the opinions of such professional holocaust exclusionists like Deborah Lipstadt, Yehuda Bauer, and Steven J. Katz. These brethren have made it their duty, allbeit ito fully ingrain in mainstream ideology the idea that the holocaust of Jews was an utterly unique even in human history; in contrast, they have written, the genocide of Slavs and especially gypsies by the Nazis, to say nothing of the genocide of Native Americans, Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge, Africans by the European powers, etc. etc. is not worthy of the same consideration. Professor Lipstadt goes even far as to say that people who say that they are are anti-semitic holocaust deniers. Obviously they do this so as to provide an ideological bulwark of vicitimization so as to deflect criticism of Israel and its continuing dispossession and brutality against Palestinians. He goes on to examine the barbaric treatment of Indians in Latin America in modern times, two most prominent examples being that of the Ache indians in Paraguay by the U.S. backed neonazi dictator Alfredo Stroessner, whose fate managed to elicit a few crocodile tears from the great holocaust exculsivist Elie Wiesel, and the peoples of the Amazonian basin in Brazil. The next sections are probably the most important. He provides a pretty damm near exhaustive account of European-Indian relations. He examines the activities of the Spaniards, the first European colonisers as they conducted a campaign of wholesale mass murder, rape, pillage, starvation and slave labor against the Indians who crossed their path. He says that their is no real evidence for the Aztecs allegedly commonplace custom of \"ritual sacrafice\" of up to twenty thousand people a year and says that it was an excuse contrived by Hernan Cortes and the other conquistadors to justify their murderous policies and was only \"confirmed\" by indians being forced under torture to testify during the Inquisition in Spain. He compares this theory offered up by respectable intellectuals to the theory of \"Jewish ritual murder\" contrived by their counterparts in Germany in the 1930\Œs. He goes on to examine the activities of the French (far less genocidal towards the Indians, if only for tactical reasons) and the greatest of mass killers of them all, the Anglo-Saxon races. He traces all the great Indian killers of American history and people who provide their ideological justification from Jeffery Ameherst to some of the soldiers marching through the streets of Denver after the Sand Creek massacre in 1864 with Indian male genitals for tabacco pouches and Indian female genitalia accross their saddles. The policy from the original Jamestown settlers to George Washington to Andrew Jackson to the settlers in Northern California to George Custer was pretty much along the following lines, often quite explicitly stated: destroy women and children, destroy their economies and infrastructure, exterminate or push them further west, disregard any treaties we might sign with them, they are only cockroaches. In the next section he traces U.S. Indian policy since roughly 1890 after the Indian Allotment removal act and the implementation of the \"spare the man, kill the Indian policy.\" It was gradually discovered that Indian reservations were places of great mineral wealth, so they were prevented from being dismantled as they were scheduled to be and their indigenous tribal structures were eliminated in favor of a colonial type system that could put the government and corporations in a better position to exploit those resources. He points out that the high rates of cancer resulting among Indians who work or who are forced to live near, for example Uranium Ore or Plutonium based industries or weapons testing sites is more often than not deflected away from the hazardous conditions of the sites and towards theories about the victims getting cancer because of smoking or second hand smoke even though such descriptions fit very few of them. He ends with a discussion of the effort to get a decent revision of the United Nations convention on genocide and examines U.S. and other countries evasions of it. He describes the U.S. as a violent and lawless state, as evidenced by its withdraw from World Court jurisdiction as a result of the 1986 World Court ruling against its terrorist war in Nicaragua, eliciting widespread international condmenation, including from Thatcher\Œs Britain.
Democrats.?.. (Eddie Murphy laugh)..
This guy exploits people in order to attack others for alleged exploitation? Shameful!
The folks at AIM deserve our sincere thanks for trying to set the record straight. I hope they're ready for the attack in Academia for this.
the following is from:
http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm
Another came with the publication in 1993 of a book by Deborah Lipstadt, a fairly prominent Judaic scholar at Emory University, entitled Denying the Holocaust.3 It deals with Holocaust deniers of the neonazi persuasion. I found two things especially striking about the book. One was the system of classification Lipstadt uses. I found that very useful, and entirely applicable to the context with which I deal. So, if that’s all there were to it, I’d have relied upon her method with thanks and attribution, and that would’ve been the end of it. In the second half of the book, however, she goes into a sort of extended polemic having to do with the inappropriateness of suggesting that there might be other peoples who have suffered experiences in any way comparable to that of her own during the nazi genocide.
Here, she focuses on denouncing Afrocentrism, including, presumably, its characterizations of the effects of the transatlantic slave trade on American blacks as genocidal4—interestingly, she fails to discuss the impact on the societies of subsaharan Africa5—and repudiating the idea that the camps in which the U.S. placed Japanese Americans during World War II might be comparable to some of the nazi concentration camps. A couple of points are worth highlighting here, beginning with the fact that a page after they’re first mentioned the Japanese Americans have somehow been transformed into “Japanese.” From there, they quickly mutate into a sort of “racial fifth column,” real or potential, at least in the quite reasonable perception of U.S. policymakers, and thus their mass internment is presented as an “unfortunate” but entirely justifiable national security measure.6 Unfortunately for Lipstadt, the nazis often used an identical rationalization, picked up by postwar deniers like Harry Elmer Barnes, to explain why it was “necessary” to intern the Jews.7 At another level, she appears to deliberately conflate concentration camps and death camps, thus setting up a straw man to rebut. It’s true, as she implies, that comparing Manzanar to Auschwitz would be absurd. But I’m unaware—and she offers no examples—of anyone who’s actually made such a comparison. To compare Manzanar and Dachau, on the other hand, which several serious scholars have done,8 is another matter entirely.
What to make of this? One is left to conclude either that Lipstadt is abjectly ill-versed in her subject matter—a possibility the quality of her performance in the first half of the book renders utterly implausible—or that she’s quite consciously engaging in exactly the same pattern of obfuscation, distortion and outright deception she so ably exposes, and quite rightly reviles, as the stuff of neonazi pseudoscholarship. In other words, it wasn’t accidental or mere sloppy scholarship. She knew what she was doing. Her goal, of course, is different from that of the neonazis. Where they deny that the Holocaust occurred at all, she wants people to believe that it happened, but that it happened only to Jews, “uniquely” so, and that for any other people to contend that any aspect of their historical experience is in any way genuinely comparable, is to degrade and dishonor the memory of the nazis’ Jewish victims, and thus to be objectively guilty of antisemitism, and thus on the same moral footing as the neonazis. 9 Wow!
What I’ve found is that this is very much a standard theme in “responsible” or “respectable” Holocaust scholarship. Where the neonazis deny a single genocide, those embracing the exclusivist posture of “Jewish uniqueness” deny many. Indeed, they deny everybody’s holocaust but their own. With this in mind, I couldn’t wait to see how Lipstadt dealt with the destruction of indigenous peoples which attended the U.S. exercise in “nation-building.” I mean, she had to deal with it, right? She’s an American scholar purporting to explain why the concept of genocide is inapplicable to the understanding of American history. So, you’ll understand why, when I reached the end of Denying the Holocaust, I thought maybe I’d been too eager, that I’d read too fast and somehow missed the part about the campaigns of “extermination”—that’s an official term, not something I made up for effect—conducted against American Indians. I didn’t want to go back and reread the whole second half of the thing, so I flipped through the index, trying to figure out where I should look. Nothing under “American Indians.” Nothing under “Native Americans.” We’re never dignified with so much as a passing reference anywhere in the book’s 250-odd pages. We’re treated as if we’re either nonexistent or utterly irrelevant. I’m not sure which, and I really don’t care, because I submit to you that, either way, it’s impossible to conceive of being any more denied than that.
Interesting to note that Banks always tried to represent himself as Lakota (Sioux) when he was in South Dakota and ran for tribal chairman on the Pine Ridge Reservation. I guess it must be easy to change your tribe.
AI ping...
Ha! I knew he was a white guy when I saw him on the news.
If he in fact is not a native american and lied on his resume to get his job at CU, it seems as if the University would have cause to fire him, tenure be damned.
How did he ever become a college professor..
As Rush would say....Churchill looks like a long-haired maggot-infested FM type:-)