Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Churchill Art Piece Called Into Question
News4 Colorado ^ | 2/24/05 | Raj Chohan

Posted on 02/24/2005 10:19:19 PM PST by Fizzie

Churchill Art Piece Called Into Question

by CBS4 News reporter Raj Chohan

Feb 24, 2005 8:03 pm US/Mountain BOULDER, Colo. (CBS4) Boulder County resident Duke Prentup has been a fan of native American art for as long as he can remember. That love of art took him to the home of Ward Churchill in the early 1980's, where Prentup bought several pieces of Churchill's art, including a serigraph titled "Winter Attack."

"I have enjoyed them ever since immensely, they're obviously up inside my house," Prentup said.

Last month came a stunning revelation, though, as as Prentup flipped through a 1972 book called The Mystic Warriors of the Plains written and illustrated by the late artist Thomas E. Mails. He found a sketch that was strikingly similar to the Churchill piece.

(Excerpt) See the rest of the article, and photo comparisons of the 2 pieces of art here: http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

(Excerpt) Read more at news4colorado.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 90largewasted; art; artwork; campusradicals; churchill; churchillphony; churchillplagiarism; cigarstoreindian; commiefake; commieliar; cu; disownedbyindians; fakeartist; fakeindian; fakepowwow; flyerfoundit; forgery; forkeddung; fraud; hateamericafilth; hatingamerica; indian; plaigerist; professor; redbutnoindian; sittingbullshit; thief; traitor; ucdisgrace; wardchurchill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-643 next last
To: Bagehot

BINGO!
Bagehot wrote:
I think he's a load of fun - far better to have him wounded, hanging in the breeze, talking his hateful garbage, getting further out there, more and more discredited, a clear fraud, than martyred on the altar of Bill O'Reilly. He's an asset to the right, and our representatives should be asking Ken Salazar EVERY DAY whether he supports the dismissal of this clown, asking Reid, and Pelosi the same thing.

It's better to use this than to have him become another left wing victim.


Yes, better to see the forest then to pluck this troublesome weed.




551 posted on 02/25/2005 6:38:46 PM PST by DUMBGRUNT (Sane, and have the papers to prove it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: DUMBGRUNT

He is also telling lies about his service in Vietnam. Roll up what you find at LGF, Michelle Malkin, and the Denver post and you have a classic poseur and military fraud.

The taxpayers of Colorado must be just happy as can be.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2005/02/ward-churchill-he-lies-about-his.html


552 posted on 02/25/2005 6:55:02 PM PST by Mayor_of_ Cowford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: AmericanMade1776
Not really, but it did help them understand what Seurat was trying to do and how photographic pixels work....We weren't working on product just process.

All this talk of Native American art has inspired me to look up the art work of my first cousin twice removed, Woodrow Wilson (Woody) Crumbo.....I looks to me the Wart was trying to achieve some of the things Woody was successful doing.

553 posted on 02/25/2005 7:18:08 PM PST by hoosiermama (It's more than an election...It's a change of heart....an enlightenment....life is important)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Want to hear a funny one? Willard Stone was a full blood Cherokee, and one of the most famous Indian artist's. His son is an artist too, but cannot sell his art as "Indian Art" because his dad did not have a roll number. Is this a great country or what?

Willard Stone lived and died in Locust Grove, OK. I knew him.


554 posted on 02/25/2005 7:23:02 PM PST by itsahoot (There are some things more painful than the truth, but I can't think of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
This is a Ward Churchill original oil painting complete with documentation. Wether or not Ward copied the piece is not relevant. Thanks for your interest.

He's about to find out just how relevant it is when the market for this stuff starts dropping. ;-)

555 posted on 02/25/2005 7:58:24 PM PST by handy (Forgive me this day, my daily typos...The Truth is not a Smear!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: supercat

WAIT a minute! If the painting is original, it's original and NOT copied. A copyist cannot claim "originality". However, if its a painted copy or facsimile of an original, the copyist must credit the original artist - even if its a photographer. I know, because I sometimes use photos for my own "art models" - not having any live models at hand. However, I am not a copiest nor a duplicator. I use a figure or face in a photograph as a guide for proportion and gesture for my entirely original subject.

Outside of academic settings, is there any requirement to credit public domain works? To be sure, it's generally done, but if I paint a woman who looks like the Mona Lisa standing next to Abraham Lincoln, do I have to credit either Leonardo da Vinci or the original photographer?

Well, thanks for that hypothetical! What I can tell you is this: some of my artist friends who copy/trace/photo project paintings, reproductions (prints,) illustrations or photographs, or parts thereof, must credit the originator IF the painting is offered for sale or exhibited.

As an example, my artist colleague copied (painted) a (millpond) scene from an old battered oil painting by an obscure artist. Because she planned to exhibit her painting for sale, she felt ethically obligated to credit the artist by noting on the back of her painting, "Based on a oil painting dated 1921 by John Doe." Her rendition slightly resembled the original because she changed the light source, the figure's clothing colour and the foliage around the pond, some background slightly different. Whether or not artist John Doe had a copyright, this is the ethical thing to do.

Ward Churchill's plagiarism and fraudulent representation is blatant, absolutely blatant!

It's certainly is a condemning load of S**T pouring out of Churchill's closet. I find that very consoling.


556 posted on 02/25/2005 8:21:40 PM PST by purpleland (The price of freedom is vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: zoyd

Over at DU, a few die-hards are claiming that it's not copyright infringement, it's not fraud, it's not a flat-out copy....
It's POSTMODERNISM!

Therefore, Ward isn't a fraud, he's just a postmodern artist.

(I gotta stop laughing...)


***The leftist tenet is "Deny, deny, lie and dismiss."


557 posted on 02/25/2005 8:26:32 PM PST by purpleland (The price of freedom is vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: All

the eBay seller of the STUNNING SERIGRAPH..., ended the listing early, no sale,...top bid, $380 5617counter hits


558 posted on 02/25/2005 8:55:18 PM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Check above post......What do you think happened?


559 posted on 02/25/2005 8:59:13 PM PST by hoosiermama (It's more than an election...It's a change of heart....an enlightenment....life is important)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

seller could have an offer too good to refuse,...going either way,...seler just pays the required fees and maybe we never know where this goes?!?!?


560 posted on 02/25/2005 9:02:35 PM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Fizzie

wow


561 posted on 02/25/2005 9:05:01 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fizzie

Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990
Public Law 101-644






Federal Register: October 21, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 204)
Rules and Regulations
Page 54551-54556





DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Indian Arts and Crafts Board

25 CFR Part 309

RIN 1090-AA45

Protection for Products of Indian Art and Craftsmanship

AGENCY: Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB), DOI.

ACTION: Final rule.






SUMMARY: This rule adopts regulations to carry out Public Law 101-644, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. The regulations define the nature and Indian origin of products that the law covers and specify procedures for carrying out the law. The trademark provisions of the Act are not included in this rulemaking and will be treated at a later time.

EFFECTIVE DATES: November 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Meridith Z. Stanton or Geoffrey E. Stamm, Indian Arts and Crafts Board, Room 4004-MIB, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone 202-208-3773 (not a toll-free call).






SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Act of August 27, 1935 (49 Stat. 891; 25 U.S.C. 305 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1158-59), created the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. The Board is responsible for promoting the development of American Indian and Alaska Native arts and crafts, improving the economic status of members of Federally-recognized tribes, and helping to develop and expand marketing opportunities for arts and crafts produced by American Indians and Alaska Natives.

The 1935 Act adopted criminal penalties for selling goods with misrepresentations that they were Indian produced. This provision, currently located in section 1159 of title 18, United States Code, set fines not to exceed $500 or imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both. Although this law was in effect for many years, it provided no meaningful deterrent to those who misrepresent imitation arts and crafts as Indian produced. In addition, it required ``willful'' intent to prove a violation, and very little enforcement took place.

In response to growing sales in the billion dollar U.S. Indian arts and crafts market of products misrepresented or erroneously represented as produced by Indians, the Congress passed the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. This Act is essentially a truth-in-advertising law designed to prevent marketing products as ``Indian made'' when the products are not, in fact, made by Indians as defined by the Act.

Public Participation

The Indian Arts and Crafts Board published the proposed rulemaking for the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 on October 13, 1994. 59 FR 51908-51911. As the Federal Register omitted several key lines from the Enforcement section 309.3, the Federal Register published a correction on October 18, 1994. 59 FR 52588.

In addition to publication, several thousand copies of the proposed rulemaking were distributed to interested parties, including every Federally-recognized Indian tribe.

The Board received 36 public comments on the proposed rulemaking, and each was carefully reviewed, analyzed, and considered. These comments are grouped by issues and Board responses in the following summary.

Summary and Analysis of Public Comments

A broad range of respondents expressed their support of the proposed regulations. These comments emphasized the crucial contribution of art and craft work production and sales to the economic development of Indian individuals and tribes throughout the nation.

Overall Comments

Several comments raised the issue of what is a reasonable boundary between marketing statements that are simply truthful and statements that are clearly misleading. One respondent expressed concern that the Act and proposed regulations prohibit an artist who is not a member of an Indian tribe from truthfully describing his or her Indian heritage as part of the discussion of his or her art work. The regulations do not prohibit any statements about a person's Indian heritage that are truthful and not misleading in the marketing of that individual's work.

One comment asked whether an individual, who is neither enrolled nor certified as an Indian artisan, is permitted under the Act to use the term ``Non-Government Enrolled Descendant'' or its abbreviation, ``NGED,'' in conjunction with the name of an Indian tribe to market his or her work. Considered as a whole, this phrase and its abbreviation are misleading. The capitalization implies some sort of official standing, and the word ``enrolled'' is positive. However, the truth is exactly the opposite: the individual is not officially recognized by, and is not enrolled in, the tribe named.

One comment questioned the treatment of persons of various degrees of Indian ancestry who are active in the art market, but are not members of tribes. As described in section 309.3 of the Section-by- Section Comments, Congress in the Act addressed this situation by leaving it to the tribes to decide whether to certify as Indian artisans for purposes of the Act individuals who have some degree of ancestry of that tribe but are not tribal members. This tribal certification method also is discussed in section 309.4 of the regulations. A person is permitted under the regulations to make a truthful statement, in connection with marketing of an art or craft product, that he or she is of Indian ``descent'' or particular tribal ``descent''.

Several respondents questioned the absence of regulations implementing the Act's trademark provisions and recommended that a supplementary rule be proposed for comment, to carry out the trademark section, before final publication of the regulations. This recommendation has not been adopted. The Indian Arts and Crafts Board is not prepared to carry out the trademark section of the Act at this time. Although the trademark provisions may be desirable in their own right, they are not necessary to the protections covered by these regulations. As stated previously, the trademark provisions of the Act will be treated at a later time.

One comment recommended and advocated changes in both the proposed regulations and the Act on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. Another comment asked for a repeal of the Act and proposed regulations, as they are a violation of the freedom of speech of all ``Indian Americans.'' These comments have not been adopted either. While regulations can interpret and clarify the Act, regulations cannot change the Act. Furthermore, the regulations do not prohibit any individual, marketing enterprise, or other vendor from truthfully representing the art or craft products that they offer or display for sale or sell. The regulations define the nature and Indian origin of products protected by the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, a truth- in marketing law, from false representations. They also specify how the Indian Arts and Crafts Board will interpret certain conduct for enforcement purposes.

Finally, several comments recommended that the regulations be reissued in proposed form for further comment before final publication of the regulations to carry out the Act. A broad range of comments was received and carefully considered. Appropriate revisions and refinements have been adopted without fundamental change to the approach of the proposed regulations. Accordingly reissuance in proposed form is not warranted.

Section-by-Section Comments

Section 309.1 How Do These Regulations Carry Out the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990?

One response asked how the legislation affects arts and crafts sold in business establishments. Another stated that the ``middle man'' should be held accountable for how the product is marketed.

Section 309.1 of the regulations covers these concerns. It states that the Act regulates products offered or displayed for sale, or sold as Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian, or Indian tribe, or Indian arts and crafts organization within the United States. This section does not limit the marketing vehicles covered by the regulations. The Act applies to any offer for sale or display for sale, or actual sale by any person in the United States. In light of this broad application, section 309.1 is appropriately drafted.

Section 309.2 What Are the Key Definitions for Purposes of the Act?

Definition of Indian, Section 309.2(a)

One respondent asked that the regulations specifically name Native Hawaiians to protect them under the Act. Another wanted individuals who have Certificates of Indian Blood, yet are neither on tribal rolls nor certified as Indian artisans, to be included under the definition of Indian.

The final regulations do not adopt these suggestions. The Act specifically defines who is an Indian protected by the Act. The regulations can interpret and clarify the Act but cannot change the statutory terms of the Act.

One respondent expressed concern about state incorporated non- profit ``Indian'' organizations and their members who are not enrolled with state or Federally-recognized tribes, yet present themselves as Indian at crafts shows. In addition, adoption was an issue for two respondents. One expressed concern that non-Indians, ``adopted by Indian spiritual leaders,'' may be permitted to sell their work as Indian. Another stated that ``not until the seventh generation'' should an adopted tribal member or family have the right to offer their handcrafts for sale as Indian.

The definition of Indian already satisfies these concerns. State incorporated non-profit ``Indian'' organizations do not meet the definition of Indian tribe under the Act and in section 309.2(e)(1) and (2) of the regulations. Membership in a non-profit ``Indian'' organization does not meet the definition of Indian under the Act and in section 309.2 of the regulations. Furthermore, if an ``Indian spiritual leader'' or tribal member adopts an individual, this action does not mean that the adopted individual is a member of a state or Federally-recognized tribe or is certified as an Indian artisan by a state or Federally-recognized tribe.

Definition of Indian Artisan, Section 309.2(b)

Several respondents suggested that the definition of Indian artisan should be clarified to read ``an individual who is certified by an Indian tribe as its non-member artisan.'' This clarification has been adopted with a minor modification.

More at:

http://www.artnatam.com/law.html


562 posted on 02/25/2005 9:09:21 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woofie

yeah,...there were 2 days left for the auction,...reserve price hadn't been broken yet,...but I'm sure some collectors would've seen the value as historical/contrversial item


563 posted on 02/25/2005 9:09:27 PM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Dad yer funny

I know an art lawyer in Santa Fe ...just sent this article to her.


564 posted on 02/25/2005 9:17:29 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: woofie

hey,...back at # 57,...thanks to Howlin'


565 posted on 02/25/2005 9:28:31 PM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Thommas

Actually, it was documented that the british gave blankets that were used by smallpox victims to a group of indians as a group, hoping they would get the disease and thus be wiped out...

However, what churchill was refering to was an entirely different smallpox epidemic that hit the Mandans sometime in the 1800s...

No, Churchill used an older account as the basis for his anti-american hit piece, plain and simple.

THIS is the problem with people like Churchill - actual real live events are thought false, because they make up lies...


566 posted on 02/25/2005 9:30:00 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Thommas

And just as an aside, the letters written by Amherst, and others, during that period are available in the library of congress - interesting readin, if one has the time. It lays it all out in detail...

Maybe Churchill should have actually spent more time actually researching, and less time pontificating... :)


567 posted on 02/25/2005 9:37:18 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Celibacy is a hands-on job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Dad yer funny; hoosiermama

I sent the seller an email last night, telling them they better read that article at the top of this thread.


568 posted on 02/25/2005 9:42:21 PM PST by Howlin (Free the Eason Jordan Tape!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

see #562...I assume he called himself an Indian artist....not good


569 posted on 02/25/2005 9:44:25 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

yeah,...I recall you post the reply,correct? Last night was intense and comical,when I went to bed I kept having muffled laughter and chuckles,my wife said I woke her up!


570 posted on 02/25/2005 9:50:48 PM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Dad yer funny

Me, too. I couldn't wait to show it to my husband this morning!


571 posted on 02/25/2005 9:52:40 PM PST by Howlin (Free the Eason Jordan Tape!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

yeah,...ol' Ward never learned that very important one,about when you realize you're......STOP DIGGIN'


572 posted on 02/25/2005 9:56:19 PM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: ajolympian2004
So, Churchill's not an artist, an indian, a combat vet, or a truthful man, but he is a criminal? Great story, thanks for sharing.

_

======================= Transcript for Part IV:

Churchill on getting revenge for speeding tickets: …And I’m not really comfortable with, since I’m presenting no public hazard ever when I’m ticketed, can attest to that, we can take that further at some point tonight if you’d like to, if you’d like to challenge it, but I’m presenting no public hazard, I’m simply being asked to ante up to pay for my own repression.

Not being comfortable with that, I have a rule of thumb: I smile very politely to the cop, take the ticket, look to see how much the fine is going to be, and before I leave that state, I make sure I cause at least that much property damage in state material before I go, so it’s a wash, boys and girls (laughter and applause).

573 posted on 02/25/2005 9:57:30 PM PST by GOPJ (Liberals haven't had a new idea in 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

He plagiarized his girlfriend's work.


574 posted on 02/25/2005 10:00:25 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
Not much justice...:

Want to hear a funny one? Willard Stone was a full blood Cherokee, and one of the most famous Indian artist's. His son is an artist too, but cannot sell his art as "Indian Art" because his dad did not have a roll number. Is this a great country or what?

Willard Stone lived and died in Locust Grove, OK. I knew him.

575 posted on 02/25/2005 10:00:54 PM PST by GOPJ (Liberals haven't had a new idea in 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

what a vile SOB,...Mr. Cautionary Tale


576 posted on 02/25/2005 10:01:19 PM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: purpleland
Whether or not artist John Doe had a copyright, this is the ethical thing to do.

Certainly it would generally seem ethical, but I've seen plenty of works that were obviously derived from da Vinci or other artists with no overt credit given. Further, in things like movie scores, it's quite common to hear snippets of public domain tunes with no credit given to them (sometimes public domain works are credited, but not always).

To be sure, one must invest a certain level of creativity in a work derived from a public domain work before one can copyright it. I would guess some of Churchill's serigraphs probably meet this criterion as general works of arts, though art prints have some special rules if they are to qualify for certain special copyright protections.

BTW, another thing I was curious about: suppose I buy at an estate sale a camera positive (reversal film) movie made after 1948. What would the copyright status of the film be? I would think that, in the absense of any documentation to the contrary, buying the original film would give me the copyright to it. But what are the actual rules?

577 posted on 02/25/2005 10:17:07 PM PST by supercat (For Florida officials to be free of the Albatross, they should let it fly away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

"Paintings and drawings by Ward Churchill are at the Arlene Hirschfelder Collection at (ta-da) the University of Arkansas at Little Rock!"

Ta-da!

Hirschfelder is an authority on Indian arts and crafts, and she authors nonfiction books about Indians for children. She just can't spot a fake Indian and his plagiarized art - she collects it and probably cites it!

It seems there are a hell of non-Indians who are (academic) authorities on Indian tribal cultures and art, and exploit Indian *issues.* Evidently, she's a colleague of Churchill's. In a bibliography of (recommended) Amer.Indian writers, she cites Churchill's essays, his TRIBAL indentity.(!)

from http://www.shaki.org/about/4hirschfelder

Arlene Hirschfelder
Author, Children of Native America Today

Arlene Hirschfelder is the author of award-winning nonfiction books, as well as activity guides and bibliographies concerning Native Americans. She has devoted the last thirty-five years to teaching and writing about Native American histories, cultures, and contemporary issues. Children of Native America Today is Ms. Hirschfelder’s seventh children’s book.


578 posted on 02/25/2005 10:22:36 PM PST by purpleland (The price of freedom is vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: MarineBrat
The time has come for this turd (aka Ward Churchill) to be flushed... he/she/it brought it upon him/her/it-self.

Trajan88

579 posted on 02/25/2005 10:26:32 PM PST by Trajan88 (www.bullittclub.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Of course, the fact that Big Chief Phoneybaloney concealed the origins of his plagiarism proves what we already knew anyway: he's nothing but a fraud and a liar.


580 posted on 02/25/2005 10:32:26 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Kindly shove your distracting hypotheticals, thank you.

The subject is Ward Churchill who is a proven fraud. The issue is Churchill misrepresenting "his" artwork as authentic and original, and the fact he misrepresents himself as a contemporary Amer.Indian artist. Churchill evidently fooled Indian culture authority Hirschfelder. Churchill didn't fool the Freepers. Please note the following excerpt:

Arlene Hirschfelder Collection

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK

AMERICAN NATIVE PRESS ARCHIVES
ARLENE HIRSCHFELDER COLLECTION
ANPA MSS 036
Last updated: February 2003
EXTENT
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
Provenance
Gifts from Arlene Hirschfelder, April 2001 and December 2002
Ownership and Literary Rights

The Arlene Hirschfelder Collection is the physical property of the American Native Press Archives, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Literary rights, including copyright, belong to the authors or their legal heirs and assigns. For further information, consult the appropriate curator.

Restrictions on Access
The Arlene Hirschfelder Collection is open for research.
Citation Format

Arlene Hirschfelder Collection. American Native Press Archives.

HISTORICAL NOTE
Arlene Hirschfelder is the author of numerous books and articles on Native Americans including Happily May I Walk: American Indians and Alaska Natives Today (for which she won the 1987 Carter G. Woodson Book Award from the National Council for the Social Studies). In 1989 she received Colorado State University's Native American Service Award. She served on the staff of the Association on American Indian Affairs for more than 20 years. An educational consultant specializing in Native American Studies, she also taught at the New School for Social Research in New York City. She holds an M.A. from the University of Chicago and currently lives and writes in Teaneck, New Jersey.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION
The Arlene Hirschfelder Collection consists of materials related to the Native American Heritage Month Committee, New York City, arts, tribal press, literature, language and education. Materials cover the period 1969 to 1996.
[...]
U.S. Department of the Interior, Sioux Indian Museum and Crafts Center (Exhibit Announcements/Catalogs)
Paintings by Robert Penn, 1970
Paintings and Drawings by Donald Montileaux, 1970
Paintings by Raymond Arrow, 1972
Experiments in Collaboration [Arthur Amiotte, Rose Gibbons, Lula Two Bonnets, Christina Mesteth], 1973
Paintings by Orville Salway, 1973
Miniatures by Emma Amiotte, 1973
Paintings by Buddy Feather, 1973
Paintings by Donald Ruleaux, 1974
Paintings by Ray and Carl Winters, 1974
Paintings by Sidney Keith, 1974
Paintings and Wall Hangings by Donald Montileaux, 1974
Paintings by Martin Red Bear, 1974
Paintings by Robert Leedom, 1974
Pottery by Ella Irving, 1975
Paintings by Ernie Smith, 1975
Paintings by Dominick LaDucer, 1975
Pottery by Al Blacktail Deer, 1975
Paintings and Drawings by Duane Firethunder, 1975
Jewelry by Colin Andre, 1976
Sculptures by Alfred Ziegler, 1976
[Ta Da!]
Paintings and Drawings by Ward Churchill, 1976
[!!!]
Pottery-Paintings-Weavings by Violet Kingman, 1976
[...]


581 posted on 02/25/2005 10:51:12 PM PST by purpleland (The price of freedom is vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: Dad yer funny

"seller could have an offer too good to refuse,...going either way,...seler just pays the required fees and maybe we never know where this goes?!?!?"

Could it be Soros buying and securing the evidence?


582 posted on 02/25/2005 11:01:45 PM PST by purpleland (The price of freedom is vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: purpleland

yeah,...those types,...his kind,...on another note, Arlene Hirchfelder is right across the river from us in Teaneck,...maybe there's someone with more "juice", someone she respects who'd have a lunch with her. I don't know her politics,but I can sort of guess.


583 posted on 02/25/2005 11:08:58 PM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: Dad yer funny

"yeah,...those types,...his kind,...on another note, Arlene Hirchfelder is right across the river from us in Teaneck,...maybe there's someone with more "juice", someone she respects who'd have a lunch with her. I don't know her politics,but I can sort of guess."

She's either patronized Churchill, the phony artist and phony Indian, out of ignorance even though she is an authority on Indian culture, or she patronized Churchill because she's a kindred "spirit."

Seems there is a hell of alot of funding flowing to academia for exploiting Indian issues, and seemingly, NOT to the benefit of Indians. I always feel skeptical in anticipation of academic revisionism on Indian matters. Before the NET, the average person didn't have sources to challenge insular academia or a forum in which to express outrage.

Just think it! The President of Harvard currently is being persecuted because he proffered an hypothesis that there may be cognitive and comprehension differences between men and women. Harvard feminists, who are instructors and students who might become instructors, cannot tolerate the thought of innate gender differences.


584 posted on 02/26/2005 12:03:53 AM PST by purpleland (The price of freedom is vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002

VERY funny....and well done. I have been paying closer attention to the news (all sources) of late just to be sure I do not miss this clowns antics. Maybe the whole art forgery thing will be the final straw. I am quite seriously anticipating a scenrio of Chief Crazy-Ass Churchill hold up in a building, with weapons, alone or with a small herd of his bleating sheep, as a SWAT Team closes in. Now before anyone states that this highly unlikely....Think about whom we are dealing with here.

I am all a flutter awaiting O'Reilly on Monday


585 posted on 02/26/2005 2:11:22 AM PST by Bogtrotter52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Bogtrotter52
He has been up to this type of stuff for a very long time. While I was searching for other paintings, I came across a blog written by an academic at the University of Colorado. I make no claims for the veracity of the following quote, except to say I found it on the blog:

'Kimberly Hickel is a former student of Churchill's who says she was in his class on April 19, 1995, when the Oklahoma City bombing took place.

"He actually stood in front of our class and said how the FBI got what they deserved. It was awful," said Hickel, who graduated from CU in 1997.

Some of the students tried to argue with Churchill, saying the innocent children killed in the day-care center didn't deserve to die. But he refused to allow them to speak their minds.

After that, Hickel boycotted his class and wrote a letter to Churchill, attacking his point of view. He, in turn, gave her a D- for the class. She complained to his superiors, but said they did nothing.

"The whole school is afraid of him," she said. "He is hiding behind free speech. But he doesn't allow students to stand up for free speech," Hickel said.'

586 posted on 02/26/2005 2:42:25 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; Dad yer funny; Howlin
Denver post says today:
An Aurora art gallery [American Design] removed the Churchill print from an Internet auction site after its attorney advised the gallery that it might violate copyright laws by selling it....

Questions also remain about Churchill's résumé. In a version provided to American Design by either Churchill or one of his publishers, he says he served with the 101st Airborne Division during the Vietnam War. Military records, however, show he worked as a light-truck driver in South Vietnam.

The bad news is---the article reveals that CU is considering a retirment (buy off) package for the prof. I'm sure Churchill will be reasonable in any negotiations (Ha!).
587 posted on 02/26/2005 2:47:12 AM PST by Timeout (Dean & the Bike Path Left: aging anti-warriors who use "summer" as a verb~~Jonah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

588 posted on 02/26/2005 2:48:39 AM PST by lysie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
Well, at least he won't be teaching. However, I think that hefty retirement package could be reduced substantially by LAWSUITS. Anyone who bought his paintings has a right to get their money back.

In addition, I hope we keep track of this guy once he leaves Colorado. I am certain he is going to cause trouble somewhere else.

He will probably locate to Ithaca, the City of Evil.

589 posted on 02/26/2005 2:54:16 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

I always give credit where credit is due. So, using the the song *Nowhere In A Hurry Blues* by the late Steve Goodman.....

The last thing that phony Ward Churchill said
When he turned on the evening news was
"I don't know where I'm goin' but I'm goin'
Nowhere in a hurry too"


590 posted on 02/26/2005 3:13:19 AM PST by Bogtrotter52 (Singin' the blues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

That one's copied from a photo, too, though colorized. I have that photo in a book here.


591 posted on 02/26/2005 3:26:07 AM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: piasa

Could you post the source of the photo? Usually there will be a photo credit in the caption. Then we could find it on-line.


592 posted on 02/26/2005 3:54:16 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I have to dig up the book in my office today- I've seen the exact figures before so I know it's in there. I'm pretty sure the image is derived from one photo, but it looks like he moved the woman upward to be just a hint higher than the man.

In the original as I recall, the woman was seated on the same side but in front of and at the feet of the man.

These images derived from very old sepia-colored photos though, aren't as big a deal as the artwork plagiarized from the artist's original, since in the case of the photos their copyright has probably long ago run out and because he has altered the images by colorizing them and in this case by also shifting the position of one figure.

593 posted on 02/26/2005 4:11:58 AM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

Welcome to academe' . My niece received a D from a jabberwocky black, probably Jamaican at Richard Bland College in Virginia ( a satellite of William and Mary) because she said , very articulately, what she thought about the class and its instruction material and methods. The requirement of the exercise was to " speak freely about the instruction and methods in this sociology class" . She learned her lesson....fat black,daishiki-sporting stupid socialists rule and always speak jabberwocky and leftist trills Free Speech Hell...Academe is 1984


594 posted on 02/26/2005 4:19:39 AM PST by chemainus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
" Where do you think I first heard of Peter Sellers? I'm an old bat!"

- Thinks: Who is Peter Sellers?
Re-Thinks: Would he trade me an old bat for some jelly
babies?

And so on, and so on.
595 posted on 02/26/2005 4:21:37 AM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: piasa

Oh, I know he hasn't probably violated copyright laws with using old photographs. However, I am also sure that in his discussion of his art he did not explain they were derived from copied photos. More fakery from the fake Indian.


596 posted on 02/26/2005 4:28:31 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

There was an article that described the non-assault too, so the Belmont Club has it right. He was going to claim victim status once again and it's a good thing they had it on tape to prove he was NOT assaulted.


597 posted on 02/26/2005 4:37:26 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Depends on the old photos. Some are certainly copyrighted, and cannot be reproduced without permission. Example from 1887: (Courtesy Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives [1659-A]. Images from the National Anthropological Archives may not be reproduced without permission.)
598 posted on 02/26/2005 5:07:12 AM PST by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: shezza
Well, now, that is VERY interesting.

One of the things I appreciate about Free Repulic is the opportunity to learn new things. I had no idea there was a law prohibiting artists who are not Indians from representing themselves as "Indian artists." I had no idea there were so many Indian artists until I got to searching museum sites. And I didn't know about reproducing Smithsonian photos without permission.

I have learned a lot about geography, weapons, laws, and a host of other things since I found Free Republic. Well, enough of the commercial for this site. Back to searching for Ward Churchill stuff.

599 posted on 02/26/2005 5:16:02 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Back to searching for Ward Churchill stuff.

LOL! Me, too. Good luck...it's slow going!

600 posted on 02/26/2005 5:26:03 AM PST by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-643 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson