"The Indian is the problem, not the white apartheid attackers?"
If bad tactics are used, they are definitely PART of the problem. Since you bring up apartheid, let me point out that the ANC had a terrible record of lack of succcess as a national liberation movement, taking more than 40 years to succeed where most movements in Africa succeeded in far less time. Pointing that out sure doesn't defend apartheid.
"So far you have only referenced a NAIM press release"
Actually I referenced a long thread with discussion of its validity.
"I challenge you, sir, to show me anywhere that Ward bragged about spitting on anybody. Or that he even spat on anybody. So far you have not been able to back up your accusation."
Oh brother. Once again, you make my point for me, insisting that we make HIM the issue rather than any substantial issues.
This is the last time I'll indulge you on this. Then it's up to YOU to do your own research on the man you admire.
www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2716087,00.html "I have never denied being a rapist. Does this make me one?"
I have no idea what you were trying to say, and I doubt you do either.
"What makes it hard for NDN activists, like any other activists, to get things done is white supremacy and US fascism, not those who challenge it."
So we can't disagree among ourselves about the best tactics? Nonsense.
"When you say "tribal governments" do you mean the BIA or Traditionals?"
Neither. I mean the legal (which is not the same as valid) tribal govts.
"Can you show me how Ward is complicit in the US government's murder of Indians?"
Try arguing with me about things I actually say, not things you invent me saying.
"Do you think it might be possible that those on the ground here in Denver might just know a WEE bit more about what goes on here than those observing from, like, hundreds of miles away?"
Obviously you've never heard of tunnel vision. What Churchill does and says affects far more than Denver's NDNs.
"are you aware of Churchill's own stated reasons for resigning?"
A direct quote from his letter of resignation:
"...it is my considered view that the present political climate has rendered me a liability in terms of representing either my department, the college, or the university in this or any other administrative capacity."
In other words, "Them bad guys are to blame for me not being able to do my job." No explanation as to why the same wouldn't be true of his job as professor, and ducking the whole question of whether he's giving encouragement to the ones out to get him and other activist professors.
I see it as lacking the courage of his convictions and throwing his attackers a bone, hoping they'll go away.
"And if lots of professors had been fired by their universities, would you blame Ward or the fascists?"
I thought what I'd said before was clear. I'd blame both.
"Again, my concern is that you are blaming the victim. Perhaps to save your own job?"
ROFL! Obviously you don't know just how little the State of Texas pays its professors.
If I were more worried about losing my job, would I have signed petitions siding with Churchill?
"Or comfort zone?"
On this point you're partly right, but it goes way beyond "comfort".
His attacks on tribal govts are as wrong as can be. It's essentially an indiscriminate verbal assault on a great many good people (along with far too many bad ones). Which is pretty much typical Churchill.
"Do you feel he was wrong about 9/11 or what?"
The little Eichmans comment? I know what he was trying to say, that technocrats in the WTC taking part in US empire served the same purpose as Eichman did, but that under US military doctrine, the other victims were "collateral damage". The second part is historically accurate. The first part...a World Bank bureaucrat is not sending people to death camps. Enforcing policies that make it more likely people starve is reprehensible in all kinds of ways, but it's not genocide. It devalues ACTUAL genocide to claim that, and it makes it harder for people to take actual genocide seriously.
