The Try-Works

So, dear reader, I got an interesting anonymous tip over the weekend about the identity of Pirateballerina clone and anti-Churchill crony, the appropriately named William T. Sherman. (”The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous.” — William T. Sherman)

See, Mr. Sherman recently left the following comment on Pirateballerina:

Anyway, I don’t need a committee or a specialist to tell me that the Mandan smallpox blanket claim was fabricated. The claim is illogical on its face, and for some reason, the Churchill rashly gave a recorded interview where he could not point out the evidence in the book he used. The reporters opened the book to the page he cited, and he just hemmed and hawed and got pissed. Squirm-inducing stuff.

The rest.

What’s so interesting about that, you ask?

Well, according to my anonymous tipster, though such an interview did indeed take place, it was never published.

Meaning, it only stands to reason that Pirateballerina’s most prolific commenter is none other than the person or persons who gave the interview, right?

So who gave the interview? Well, according to my tipster, none other than the Rocky Mountain News’ very own ace reporters Berny Morson and Kevin Vaughan. And since Kevin Vaughan is the author of the Rocky’s horseshit smallpox piece, my money’s on Mr. Vaughan for the pseudonym William T. Sherman.

Which would go a long way towards explaining the, shall we say, cozy relationship between the Rocky and the anti-Churchill blogging bloc. (A cozy relationship, it’s worth remembering, that led to such bizarre decisions as the Rocky using entirely unqualified anti-Churchill blogger Jim Paine of Pirateballerina as their genealogical expert.)

Update: the anonymous tip is doubly interesting, in that the IP address indicates it comes from the Rocky Mountain News. Just so you know.

Update II: It’s also interesting that the Rocky Mountain News never published this interview. That in itself, is enough to make one doubt the authenticity of Mr. Vaughan’s account.

It turns our city officials don’t like Glenn Spagnuolo.

That might be news to some city officials who have dealt with him, officials who can’t stand him, say they find him “confrontational,” “adversarial” and “hypocritical,” but won’t go on the record.

One official who will is Brown, who has debated Spagnuolo on TV and radio about an ill-fated attempt to place restrictions on how the police could deal with protesters if things got out of hand.

“I wouldn’t want to get between him and a TV camera or a microphone,” Brown says.

“If you ever get him off a protest issue, he can be pleasant,” says Brown. “The problem is, he’s always on the protest bandwagon.”

Not that Spagnuolo would likely care what Brown thinks about him. That has nothing to do with the issues he believes so passionately in. It’s information that has no place in revolutionary politics. You know, the kind of stuff that belongs in some puff piece.

The rest.

It’s one of the more subtle smear jobs, right down to the picture.  Get it, Mr. Spagnuolo’s always on the camera?

Unlike, say, Denver city councilman Charlie Brown?

I love the Rocky, though.  Mr. Spagnuolo doesn’t want to be interviewed, is obviously reticent, goes out of his fucking way to refuse answers, and gets smeared as a media whore.

It’s like the fucking hacks over on Colfax can’t even construct a coherent narrative when they try.  Even their smears are fucking nonsensical.

I rewatched Apocalypto, Mel Gibson’s attempt to do for Indians what he’s so recently done for Jews, over the long weekend. Seeing as how we managed to host a brawl between Rudy Youngblood’s agent and several of his detractors right here on the Try-Works, I figured it’s about time I came up with some comment on the flick.So what do I think of it? Well, you can probably guess. It’s heavy, contrived, pompous horseshit, complete with not one, but two, faux-Shakespearean wraith-like prophets of doom. And, as far as I can tell, it has no relation whatsoever to the Mayan people it purports to portray. Nor, for that matter, to any of the most basic building blocks of what’s widely considered, well, narrative. The characters’ only similarity to living, breathing human beings is that they occasionally manage walk upright. And, of course, the plot’s riddled with more holes than a Falluja hospital after a US precision strike. In other words, it’s colonial porn, with the Mayan represented as a viciously and wholly corrupt people, in desperate need of some Great Paternal Hand to reach out to them across the ocean and guide them out of their barbarity. Which Mr. Gibson is all too happy to provide.

In other words, it’s a Vincent Carroll wet dream. As I pointed out here.

The only reason I wasn’t more appalled is that I also made the mistake of rewatching Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. What little Apocalypto left out from the grand repertoire of Indian-hating, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee made up for. It’s no wonder this bag of shit wasn’t filmed until well after Dee Brown’s death. I consider it absolute proof of the non-existence of an ethereal afterlife that he hasn’t risen from the grave and stabbed the fucking director to death with a dull pencil.

The only thing to say in the movie’s favor is that it has absolutely no bearing on Mr. Brown’s landmark work at all, leaving very little chance that anyone will likely confuse the two. Hell, as far as I can tell, Mr. Brown doesn’t mention Charles Eastman — the purported protagonist of the flick — even once in his book.

However, my favorite fictional moments (And I had to do quite a bit of picking and choosing here, as the movie gets pretty much everything wrong, from the Wounded Knee massacre to the Battle of Greasy Grass, and even the most basic points of Charles Eastman’s biography):

1. Wherein Colonel Nelson Miles justifies his extermination campaign against the Lakota by claiming the Lakota have down the same to the Kiowa, amongst others. Said conversation never happened, but more interesting is that this scene has been a staple of extermination rhetoric for four hundred years. As given here, it’s nearly inseparable from similar horseshit in the likes of James Fenimore Cooper’s Last of the Mohicans, John Filson’s The Discovery, Settlement and Present State of Kentucke, and Increase Mathers’ Early history of New England: Being a relation of hostile passages between the Indians and European voyagers and first settlers, to name three of the better known examples.

2. Wherein Sitting Bull forces one of his people to let his daughter die rather than leave their newfound home in Canada. This also never happened. The writer, Daniel Giat, claims to have included it to humanize Sitting Bull.

3. Wherein Sitting Bull whips the shit out of two boys for horse-stealing, and shoots the horse they purportedly stole. Again, never happened, contrary to the director’s idiot claim that some unnamed Osage told him it did. Mr. Giat also claims this was included to humanize Sitting Bull.

Funny how much “humanizing” Sitting Bull needed. Particularly since Mr. Giat seemed to feel no such need to “humanize” Henry Dawes, the architect of one of the most viciously cynical land grabs in the history of humanity. Mr. Dawes is presented throughout as a decent, well-intentioned gentleman who just happens to divest American Indians of more than a hundred million acres of their land, force them into absolute starvation conditions, and, to quote my personal hero Theodore Roosevelt, “pulverize” their “tribal mass.”

A real sweetheart, that Mr. Dawes.

See, I’d have picked him to “humanize.”

With, say, a scene wherein Mr. Dawes locks a Lakota four-year-old in his basement and slowly starves her to death for shits and grins.

Update: For far more and far better on Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, check out Blue Corn Comics.

There are two days a year that seem to bring out the unabashed fucking dumbest in our local hacks.  Like some kind of boxer on an insane workout regiment, they forgo their impulse to the worst kind of gruesomely hackneyed sentimentalism 363 days a year, but come September 11th and December 25th they just can’t help but spurt their worst all over their greasy keyboards.

So I nominate the following for the My Just Invented Title of Newspaper Hack(s) Most in Need of a Crucifixion.

In third place, Paul Campos, for a stiflingly dull attempt at contrarianism, wherein, in his eternal quest to appear mildly relevant, Mr. Campos give us his take on a rightfully forgotten nineteenth-century nonsense piece by William Dean Howell.

In second place, The Daily Camera editorial staff, for this wonderfully condescending, tacky, viciously classist headline, which, as one of their readers points out in the comments, fucking nukes the contrived feel-good horseshit being peddling in the story.

And in first place, The Rocky Mountain News, editorializing for Christ and George Washington.

To the more than 2 billion Christians around the globe, most of whom will gather today in everything from cathedrals to mud huts to celebrate the birth of Jesus, Christmas has always stood for hope amid despair - a miracle of light out of the darkness and a promise of liberation from the bondage of sin.

To Americans - of every stripe, not just Christians - Christmas should also forever be celebrated as a beacon of hope and liberty. For it was on this day 231 years ago that a small band of Americans, against all odds, turned the tide of history and saved this republic in its darkest hour.

The rest.

Ah, the Rocky, closing 2007 by mixing clichés with all the subtlety and grace of a double penetration.  Excellent work, Mr. Carroll.  When your paper finally tanks, there’ll always be a future for you over at Hallmark.

Don’t believe me?  Ask the Denver Post editorial board.  Or, if you don’t believe them, try the Rocky’s.  Still confused on the issue?  Never the swiftest player on the field, David Harsanyi chimes in.

Is there anything quite as cringe-inducing as watching over-paid, under-read newspaper hacks attempt to wax philosophical in times of crisis?  Here’s a thought: when inexplicable shit happens, whyn’t you refrain from visiting us with a second inexplicable horror by attempting to explicate on said event?

Y’know, instead of bludgeoning your readership with the kind of half-baked platitudes that’d make Maya Angelou drive a railroad spike through her temple.

Right here.

“All the rage”?

Now, granted, Kevin Vaughan’s prose is usually fucking godawful in its own right, but dumping that headline on top of one of his platitude cavalcades seems unkind by even my standards.

One wonders what the hell Mr. Vaughan did to earn this great, stinking heap of shit being dropped on him from above. Did we fuck John Temple’s wife, Mr. Vaughan?

The summary reads: “A dance team of women wear identical outfits printed with Rocky Mountain News pages; headline reads: ‘You Can Believe What You See In The News!’”  Original here.

Any Try-Works reader worth their salt ought to recognize this picture.  But, still, I do love it, and since I was just posting about pornography . . .

The Rocky Mountain News, just so you know, decided to post the full arrest ticket for every one of the Columbus Day protesters a couple of days ago. They redacted only the social security numbers, leaving all personal contact information in place. Phone numbers, home addresses, everything.

Is it legal? Yeah. Is it a sleazy little fucking intimidation tactic? Absolutely.

Anyway, the Rocky did finally pull the arrest tickets this morning. But only after they’d been picked up by the local right-wing blogs, who are now hosting them on their sites. Which was absolutely predictable, of course.

That’s your Rocky Mountain News. When not pilfering their stories from the right-wing blogisphere, they’re subcontracting their dirty work to ’em.

In entirely related news, the Tanner Gun Show will be at the Denver Merchandise Mart all weekend. And, don’t forget, Colorado’s a Make My Day state, should any of these little creeps come knocking.

Also, in the spirit of openness and fair play, following is Rocky Mountain News hack Berny Morson’s address and phone number, since he’s the asshole whose article is linked to the tickets.

Berny Morson
624 Pine St
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 449-4239

Who the hell is Heath Urie you ask? Well, he’s the reporter from the Daily Camera who showed up last night at the Ward Churchill class organized by CU students. I can count about six lies throughout his article, but the biggest comes at the end.

Two men who identified themselves as event organizers turned away three male CU students at the door, calling them “agitators.”

One of the men watching the door, who did not give his name, became physical with a Camera reporter who tried to enter the room — grabbing his arm and pushing him — prompting a report to police.

The rest.

I was one of the two men, and according to Mr. Urie last night, it was I who pushed him, and the other gentleman who grabbed his arm. He was so sure of this, he sent several CUPD officers down with a description of me and the other gentleman, and an elaborate fantasy of being assaulted. Again, with me doing the pushing, and the other gentleman doing the grabbing.

Nice to see he’s already changing his story, don’t you think?

The real story as follows.

There were several reasons the Daily Camera shitheels weren’t let in. One damn good one is that the Daily Camera photographer, Joshua Lawton, had already violated Professor Churchill’s trust once, snapping a picture of one Churchill’s students during the initial scandal, and publishing it on the front page, after being specifically told to keep his camera off the students. But the main reason is that this was a student-organized event, and the student-organizers didn’t want ‘em there. They have the right not have these little pricks poking cameras in their faces and recording every word they say. And, as Churchill’s syllabus made very clear, the class ain’t a media event. (That said, an exception was made for two members of the CU student press. They’re students, and they still have the opportunity to set right their lives, and pursue an honest profession.)

The two Daily Camera shitbirds, Mr. Lawton and Mr. Urie, were confrontational from the get-go. They were waiting outside the classroom, and immediately jumped in Professor Churchill’s face as he arrived for class. He told them several times he had no comment for them. They then asked if they could attend the class, and were told no. (Although, that was later modified; Professor Churchill told Mr. Urie he could attend next week, without camera or recording devices, if he could show that he’d read the material. Having met Mr. Urie, I find it unlikely he could read the denser portion of his own newspaper, let alone a full-length book.) They did their required share of whining, bellowing, and etc., trying their damnedest to get someone to react to them. They were summarily ignored, of course.

Then, the little shits got busted trying to slip a digital recorder to three students entering the class. (Sound familiar? Why is it that these media types are so fucking inept, anyway?) Those are the three students turned away to which Mr. Urie refers. (Funny, how he left that part out.) When they were turned away, a whole new furor of shrieking and hair-tearing on the part of the Daily Camera crew ensued. Which, again, was ignored. And we all entered the classroom, sat down, and got to work.

Next thing we knew, Mr. Urie barged into the classroom, and strode towards Professor Churchill, shouting. He was holding a digital recorder in his hand, and obviously trying to provoke an incident. I and the other gentleman in question stood and approached him. I put my hand on him to stop his advance, and told him he had to leave. The other gentleman took him by his arm to escort him out, telling him the same. This set him into one of those panicky, arm-flailing, epileptic-type fits which seem so endemic amongst the local media and bloggers (no link), so I turned and asked another of the organizers to call CUPD. But when I turned back around, Mr. Urie had already decided to exit of his own volition. That was your grabbing of the arm and pushing.

About ten minutes later, CUPD showed up to inform us that Mr. Urie was set to file the aforementioned assault charges against us. We laughed, told them the story, and returned to class. Twenty or so minutes later, they returned to let us know that they’d spoken to Mr. Urie, informing him that he needed to act like a professional, that he wasn’t allowed to enter the classroom, and that he wasn’t allowed to harass people outside the classroom; he could politely request comment, but if told to get lost, he needed to leave his target alone. That seemed eminently reasonable to us, and we told CUPD as much.

Of course, at the break, Mr. Urie ignored these directives entirely, and began to harass Professor Churchill again. To his scant credit, we only had to remind him three or four times that he was out of line before he stalked off.

So, there you have it. According to CUPD, Mr. Urie is attempting to file assault charges, and detectives may contact us to pursue the matter.

They won’t, of course. Mr. Urie is a corny little asshole who tried his best to provoke an incident to fabricate a story. He couldn’t, so he did the best with what he had. It’s trumped up horseshit for his National Enquirer knock-off rag. But I’ll keep you updated.

Update: I still haven’t been charged with anything. Nor contacted by anyone. But word is that police are trying to serve the other gentleman with a physical harassment warrant. Which is, as I understand it, a misdemeanor up there with smoking in a public place. Heath Urie is still a lying little asshole, of course. His initial allegation was that I assaulted him. He’s now changed his story entirely, putting it all on the other gentleman.

Update II: The Campus Press has a pretty good article penned by Rob Ryan. Including a quote about whether the organizers have the right to refuse media from someone who might actually know what they’re talking about.

“It’s fairly common in discourse that private people are subject to the First Amendment. They’re not,” [CU Law Professor Richard Collins] said.

Collins did suggest that some states may have statutes that forbid secret meetings in any form, such as the Sunshine Law in Colorado, but that these laws typically do not apply to students.

“I’d be startled if students were subject to Sunshine,” Collins said.

The rest.

Update III: A Try-Works commenter has another idea on how we should approach this. Namely, that we should take the Daily Camera to court.

In my experience the only thing that will stop anyone from attacking others in the manner the Camera did is civil lawsuits. I have had police urge me to file civil lawsuits as they said that I would most likely win and that was the safest way to seek justice. This does not mean I am lawsuit happy. In fact, I would rather not have to take anyone to court. Unfortunately the harassment gets so bad that I have had no other choice but to file lawsuits and criminal charges in certain cases.

Let’s look at the facts of this incident. Judges love facts backed up with hard evidence. You have witnesses that a Camera reporter barged in and made a bee line for Ward. You have witnesses that would testify that it appeared the reporter was going to attack Ward physically by the way he rushed towards Watd in a threatening and angry manner. You have witnesses that can prove the reporter seemed very agitated and angry and that it appeared that Ward was going to be physically attacked or verbally threatened to the detriment of Ward and also other students in the class.

You prevented that attack in a careful manner and it appears to me the Camera reporter filed a false police report. The police have a duty to bring charges against the reporter. You have witnesses to him barging in. You have witnesses that he was causing trouble and harassing both Ward and students who support Ward and his philosophy. The Camera allegedly prevented people from learning in a safe and non-threatening environment and that is against the law.

Here is what you do sir: get written statements from the students who were asked to hide recording devices in their back-packs. Get signed statements from people who witnessed the reporter bum rush Ward. Get written statements that the reporter allegedly acted in a threatening and belligerent manner towards Ward and students and USA citizens attending the class.

Obviously you can take care of yourself physically and so can Ward but that does not give the reporter the right to endanger your safety and the safety of other students by barging in like he did. With written statements you have a case in civil court that would be tough to beat in my opinion. Remember the truth is on your side. Justice is slow but the truth always makes it worth seeking. You were gentle on the reporter and acted in a cautious and careful manner when escorting him out of the room. Other students saw this so get statements from them and present your case to a judge. Gather all that hard evidence and then pursue civil and criminal charges against the Camera.

Look for a lawyer who works on a contingency bases. With enough written statements saying students felt threatened by the reporter barging in the police have no choice but to file charges against the reporter. That reporter created a hostile environment in my opinion and that is a violation of federal law as people have the right to learn in a non-threatening environment.

CU gets federal money and so federal laws apply as well as state and local. Do not be scared of the Camera. As citizens of the USA and especially on a college campus we have the right to learn and listen to speakers without malcontents barging in and threatening people. The reporter headed straight for Ward in a threatening manner. He basically broke into the room when he was told specifically to stay out. In my opinion the reporter broke many laws including a few federal one as he endangered students who were there to learn.

The rest.

Update IV: There’s already one letter to the editor in at the Daily Camera regarding their horseshit coverage of Ward Churchill’s guerilla class at CU. The writer ain’t confused in the least about what the reporter was up to. Nor has anyone else been that I’ve been hearing from.

I still haven’t had any charges filed against me, but I am begging you to file them, Mr. Urie. We will take it to trial. We’ve got dozens of witnesses to back us up. We will run fucking roughshod over you.

The Daily Camera misrepresented Tuesday’s on-campus lecture by Ward Churchill. Out of curiosity I attended the lecture, and what I witnessed was not as The Daily Camera reported. To begin with, The Camera underreported attendance by over half (attendance was closer to 70 people, rather than 30). More importantly, they reported that three students were turned away for being “agitators” and that a reporter was “grabbed and pushed… prompting a report to police”. This is spin. The three students were turned away for attempting to sneak in a recording device given to them by a reporter. The reporter, out of options for recording inside the room, entered the classroom and refused to leave, effectively disrupting the beginning of the lecture. The police arrived later because the press was causing a ruckus and disrupting classes.

This series of incidents demonstrated exactly why Professor Churchill did not want reporters inside the lecture to begin with. The Daily Camera, mistaken again, thought that this was the most significant aspect of the evening, the sub-headline reads, “Controversial prof bars press”. The reporting focused on the press’ own role. They created a controversy, falsely reported the incident, and then suggested that the real news was that they were barred.

What the press missed entirely was the real significance of Ward Churchill’s new lecture series. What happened on Tuesday was an experiment in academic freedom, a course sponsored entirely by students, free of charge and open to all who come to learn. The justifications given in July for firing Professor Churchill included that he falsified information, how ironic that the reporting of his continued presence seems to do the same.

The rest.

Update V: I can’t believe I missed this, but according to the Campus Press, the Daily Camera release a statement in response to my take on the evening’s events, as follows.

We believe that our reporter, Heath Urie, acted ethically and responsibly while covering Ward Churchill’s class (Tuesday) night. He simply was attempting to ascertain why another news organization, the Campus Press, was allowed to have reporters and a photographer in the class, while all others were excluded. We fully support a journalist’s right to do his job without being physically harmed for asking a simple question.

The rest.

That’s a lie. We’d already addressed Mr Urie’s concerns about the Campus Press being allowed in the classroom. We’d already explained why. He was trying to disrupt the class and provoke an incident, pure and simple.

Update VI: I just sent this letter to the Daily Camera. We’ll see how open their new letter-to-the-editor blog feature really is.

I was one of the two men, who, according to your reporter, refused to allow student “agitators” into the Ward Churchill class on October 2nd. The reason being that your reporter, Mr. Urie, was using them to smuggle in a recording device after being expressly told they were disallowed.

I was also involved in ejecting your reporter from the classroom. He’d been told repeatedly he wasn’t allowed in the classroom, and he barged in after class had begun, and advanced on Ward Churchill, shouting. He had no questions we hadn’t already answered. His sole purpose was to disrupt the class and provoke an incident he could then write up in the Daily Camera. I don’t know what kind of tactics are considered acceptable by the Daily Camera’s editorial staff, but Mr. Urie’s would be scorned by the National Enquirer.

Moreover, his claim of being assaulted is a joke. I put my hand on him to stop his advance towards Professor Churchill, and the gentleman I was with took him by the arm to escort him out. If that’s Mr. Urie’s idea of assault, I suggest he might be a little too tender for the role of hardened journalist on the mean streets of Boulder.

Mr. Urie has also changed his story at least once, claiming to CUPD that I shoved him, and that he would be pressing assault charges against me. Of course, I did no such thing, which is probably why those assault charges have never materialized. But I eagerly await them. I have at least three dozen witnesses who saw what happened, and I would like nothing more than to take Mr. Urie to trial. I demand Mr. Urie live up to his word and file assault charges against me immediately.

Benjamin Whitmer
Instructor, Ethnic Studies
University of Colorado

Update VII: Thanks to Michelle Malkin, I now have a new quote for our list of citations. “Thuggish as ever,” it is.

Update VIII: Everybody’s jabbering on about whether or not the students have the right to close Ward Churchill’s class. CU’s rules and regulations are real clear. Students have the absolute right to “set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media.”

It ain’t an open event. That’s been made abundantly clear. Attendance is at the discretion of the students. No one else gets a say. When a weaselly little shit like Mr. Urie barges in the classroom, he’s trespassing. It doesn’t what his reason is. In my opinion, we were more than restrained in our treatment of him.

Policy on the Use of University Facilities

V. Open Meetings

Those who qualify to schedule the use of University facilities may set their own policies concerning opening or closing their scheduled activity to the public and news media, and such policies shall be stated at the time of scheduling. If such scheduled activities are closed to the public, they may be open or closed to the news media at the discretion of the sponsoring user. If such scheduled activities are open to the public, they are open to the news media. Unobtrusive use of still and motion picture cameras and recording devices is permitted during any open meeting. The presiding officer shall be the judge of whether such use is obtrusive and may, at his/her discretion, request persons to stop using their cameras or recording devices in a fashion which he/she deems to be obtrusive.

The rest.

Update IX: As of last night, October 6, no warrant for the arrest of either myself or the gentleman I was with has been issued. Another lie from the Daily Camera.

Update X: As poot and WTF have pointed out in the comments, some little idiot by the name of Jessica Peck Corry, from our local faux-libertarian group, the Independence Institute, has weighed in at the Rocky Mountain News.

To Churchill’s misguided minions, he remains a hero in the crusade for academic free speech. Too bad they believe the First Amendment only applies to those who support their shared perspective. At a Tuesday evening lecture, titled ReVisioning American History: Colonization, Genocide and Formation of the U.S. Settler State, only those with favorable perspectives were allowed to attend.

Two male organizers who doubled as bouncers turned away at least three male students, calling them “agitators.” At least one of the organizers also scuffled with a Boulder Daily Camera reporter who tried to enter the lecture.

Ultimately, only 30 or so attendees — mostly bright-eyed followers drinking way too much of the Churchill Kool-Aid — made it past the screening process and inside the door to the classroom in CU-Boulder’s Eaton Humanities Building.

In a written introduction to Tuesday evening’s lecture, as reported by the Camera, Churchill was not compensated for his time leading the first of what he hopes will be an ongoing course. It will carry no academic credit and, according to the introduction, is “in no sense bound by the rules supposedly governing courses offered in the university catalogue.”

While Churchill’s actions as a disgraced former professor are certainly free from the confines of a simple course catalog, they are not free from the requirements of university policy governing public accommodations. CU specifically prohibits discriminatory actions by those hosting events anywhere on its taxpayer-funded campuses.

University spokesman Bronson Hilliard emphasized to the Camera that the event was “private” — which is allowed under university policy — and yet the exclusionary tactics used Tuesday night raise serious concerns about the actions of Churchill and his supporters.

First, even if the event was booked as “private,” university policy still dictates that event organizers must not discriminate against people on the basis of a variety of protected characteristics — including their creed or basic set of core beliefs. And second, while “private” event organizers are allowed to ban the media, why would they? What has Churchill got to fear by respecting the free speech rights of others, including reporters? If he believes in the power of his positions, he should welcome all willing to hear them.

This all reminds me of a lesson that CU should have learned years ago. In 2003, the university came under public scrutiny after the Independence Institute revealed that CU students were using university rooms to host racially segregated events. While the discrimination then was based on race — and Tuesday’s was based on ideology — the intent of organizers remains the same: Segregation is OK as long as they’re the ones perpetuating it.

Ultimately, students of all perspectives can — and should — be able to host controversial on-campus events at public universities, including the University of Colorado. In doing so, however, they are rightly prohibited from excluding those who might look or believe differently than they. Perhaps this is a little detail that Churchill left out of Tuesday evening’s syllabus.

For those who missed out on Tuesday’s event, there is good news. According to organizers, he will be back at least three more times in the next month, with future sessions focusing on colonialism, genocide and racism. But if you happen to disagree with him, just hope that you can get a foot in the door. Body armor may be a good idea.

The rest.

In order. For the thousandth time.

1. As even Bronson Hilliard has “emphasized,” the event is private. If you don’t like how the organizers are determining enrollment, sue CU.

2. No one was turned away because of their “core beliefs.” The three young men who were turned away, were turned away because they were trying to smuggle in a recording device for Heath Urie. We’re not giving quizzes on core beliefs at the door. We’re turning away the media and known entities — i.e., bloggers who have tried to smuggle recording devices into other events held by students — and we will be ejecting disruptive influences. That doesn’t have anything to do with ideology, it has to do with a bunch of whiny little shits who can’t obey the stated rules. The rules ain’t gonna change.

3. And, yeah, private organizers are allowed to ban the media. If you want a hell of a glimpse as to why no one wants the fucking media around, take a look at Heath Urie’s little gotcha journalism stunt.

4. Kool Aid? I know you rightwing loons like your clichés, er, tried and true, but good God, that one’s been a dead metaphor since calling college students “bright-eyed.”

Oh. Right.

Must be the “critical thimking” these fuckers are so proud of.

Shit, did it again.

Just call me a “useful idiot.”

Update XI: The Campus Press has an interview with me here. The student journalists are a hell of a lot better than the so-called professionals, but there ain’t nothing you haven’t already heard.

Update XII: The aforementioned little idiot Jessica Peck Corry has a blog. There’s no place for comments as far as I could tell.

Update XIII: Heath Urie didn’t show this evening, no warrants were served, even I’m bored of this post.

Just got this today.  Funny, Al Lewis has a blog at the Denver Post where he posts correspondence, and for some reason I ain’t seen hide nor hair of this letter.

Wonder why?

Cajamarca, Peru
August 9, 2007

Mr. Al Lewis
Columnist, Denver Post

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I would like to send an open letter to you and to the academic community of the University of Denver.

I have read your column, Not all that Shines is Good (was this the original title?), and I feel only consternation and indignation at the decision of the Dean of the School of International Studies at Denver University to award a prize to the ex-CEO of Newmont, Mr. Wayne Murdy, “for building relationships between Denver and the rest of the world.”  Due to the actions of Newmont, for the rest of the world where this company operates, Denver, Colorado is now seen as the headquarters of the company that destroys our ecosystems, corrupts our societies, threatens our lives, and condemns our people to live in pollution and poverty.

I am a parish priest in Cajamarca, where the Yanacocha Mine operates, the largest gold mine in Latin America, of which Newmont is the principal shareholder.  The majority of my life has been spent studying in different universities in Peru, as well as the Papal Gregorian University in Rome.  My life has been tied to academic work at universities and to pastoral service among the poorest peasants of my diocese, helping them to live in harmony with God, their brothers and sisters, and Nature.  I have always believed that universities are places for searching for knowledge and truth, and ethically I have always felt that “the truth shall set us free” (John 8.32).

So I was completely dumbfounded to hear that Denver University awarded a prize to Mr. Wayne Murdy, who has been responsible not only for the economic success of Newmont, but also for the destruction of habitats and the suffering of so many people in Ghana, Bolivia, Indonesia, and Cajamarca, Peru.

I met Mr. Murdy in two shareholders’ meetings in Denver, which I attended to present a group of demands having to do with violations of human rights and environmental damages that his company is committing in Cajamarca.  On both occasions, Mr. Murdy publicly committed to write letters responding to the demands.  Mr. Murdy lied to us, as he never sent the letters.  On the contrary, his company initiated an espionage operation in 2006 to intimidate and endanger the security of environmental leaders in Cajamarca. And in recent months, we have received death threats, and dirty campaigns have been unleashed against us in many of the media connected to Yanacocha.  Most painful is that three peasant leaders who were defending their water and lands have been killed for opposing Newmont’s expansion of mining activities in Cajamarca (November 2004 in La Zanja, August 2006 in Combayo, and November 2006 in Yanacanchilla.)

Yanacocha removes more than 600 tons of rock daily, it consumes more than 3 million gallons of fuel monthly in the watershed of my region, and it uses immense quantities of cyanide and water for leaching.  The consequences are devastating: lakes, springs, rivers and streams have disappeared, in order to make way for new monstrous mountains for cyanide leaching.  In all of the rivers affected by the mining operations, there have been systematically documented fish deaths.  Hundreds of peasant families have lost their water sources, and many others complain that their livestock have died because they cannot drink the water, or they die from unexplained strange illnesses. As the official health statistics show, so-called environmental illnesses have increased exponentially in the region: dermatitis, conjunctivitis, and respiratory illnesses- all during the same period of time as Newmont’s mining operations.

Of course, Yanacocha has also received awards in Peru: for provision of water, for social responsibility, and also for their work in communication.  All of these awards have been given by associations tied to the government, which is Newmont’s principal ally due to the money and benefits that many times are given to the families of government authorities for jobs or contracts with the company; or in other cases they have been awarded by private associations that receive donations or contributions from the mining company itself.  Personally, I had thought that only in poor countries would important institutions such as universities beg for funds from the companies that then impose conditions on research results.  I know that Denver is a city that has benefited from Newmont’s income.  But should a school in that University forget or turn a blind eye to the fact that a large part of that income comes from the dirty work that Newmont does in the rest of the world?  Even worse, that the School of International Studies awards a prize to Wayne Murdy for “building relationships between Denver and the rest of the world”.  The relationships that poor countries such as Peru would hope for with Denver are relationships of respect, collaboration, and solidarity, and not of lies, exploitation and abuse. As long as American institutions, such as the School of International Studies of Denver University, continue to close their eyes to the reality that Americans’ well-being is achieved at the cost of suffering, pollution, and exploitation of poor countries’ resources, prizes will not be awarded for the goodwill and wisdom of illustrious American citizens in solidarity with the rest of the world, but rather to promote impunity and justify greed, which in our countries translates into more poverty, more corruption, and environmental contamination.

What unpleasant news for the people of Ghana, Indonesia, Bolivia, and Peru to find out that a school at an American university, in exchange for financial support, ends up paying homage to a company such as Newmont, whose history is stained with the suffering of many countries!

Worse, in Cajamarca, Murdy’s award will not be seen as something far removed from our history.  According to the logic of the Dean of the business school at Denver University, certainly Pizarro, the Spanish conqueror, should be awarded a prize because over 500 years ago, also out of greed for gold, he murdered thousands of indigenous people and killed Atahualpa, the Inca ruler, a curious way in which the powerful of the North think they are creating relationships between our countries.  It is unacceptable that a University would be complicit in this.

Sincerely,
Father Marco Arana Zegarra
Recipient of the National Award for Human Rights, Peru

Word also has it that Tom Rowe has responded to Vincent Carroll’s horseshit column (first update).  Anyone wanna take a bet on whether the Rocky Mountain News prints it?

Stay tuned.

(New readers: I haven’t repeated all the backstory on this protest, but you can find all you like here.)

As I said yesterday, the Newmont Mining protest went swimmingly. It was good rough, lively fun. As long as you weren’t one of the Korbel Dinner guests, that is. From what I could tell, the guests were having no fucking fun at all, and my money is that the Marriott will never, and I mean never, host anything like this again.

Western Shoshone elder Carrie Dann received her award. Graduates of the University of Denver’s Graduate School in International Studies burned their degrees. Newmont Mining stockholders burned their stock certificates. And a gorgeous puppet of Wayne Murdy was given a citation.

(You can’t see the lady walking ahead of the puppet, but she’s wearing signs that read “Pimp that School!” and “Hey! We’re Talking $$$ Here!” and leading Mr. Murdy’s doppleganger with a carrot. An allusion to Tom Farer’s singularly stupid explanation for giving a serial human rights violator a humanitarian award.)

But the most effective tactic, as alluded to above, was the hectoring of the shindig’s attendees. They were ravaged, starting as they waited at a dead stop in a line of cars to unload, where protestors were assailing them through the car-windows with a litany of Newmon Mining abuses, and giving ’em holy hell for taking part in, as one commenter put it, “Eichmannalooza.” (Catchy, no?) Then, of course, they had to totter from their luxury cars into the Marriott. Over-dressed, incredibly-quaffed, pinch-mouthed, upper crust shitbirds, just begging for ridicule.

And, oh boy, did they get it.

There was the rather restrained, but always effective, “you should be ashamed of yourselves,” but there were also a few, shall we say, more vigorous folks. Some of the best lines I heard:

“Newmont Mining poisons people for money. Hey, do you think we could pay the Marriott to do the same?”

“How’s about we throw Wayne Murdy off a bridge? How’s about we throw Madeleine Albright off an even bigger bridge?”

“How’s about we feed a cyanide cocktail to your kids?”

“You guys should read Ward Churchill. He’d scare the hell out of you, because you’re,” then after a dramatic pause, in a wonderful game-show announcer’s voice, “little Eichmanns!”

And, my favorite, at a woman in a ridiculous hat that looked something like a very large rat eating a partridge, “holy shit, look at that hat! You look like a little Eichmann train wreck!”

If nothing else, the Marriott paid in spades for its Director of Event Planning, Joe Humerickhouse’s, cowardice and servility. I doubt there was a Marriott guest during the four-hour protest that wasn’t really, really wishing they’d stayed somewhere, anywhere else. (Nor, for that matter, a Marriott employee that wouldn’t rather have been working anywhere else.) It was an excellent example of the ways in which, with only a megaphone and a vicious sense of humor, non-corporate entities — meaning, people — can bring their own kind of pressure.
(The goon in the suit is, of course, Omar Jabara, Newmont Mining PR hack. The young man with the bullhorn is Nick Brown of the delightful Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement - Denver. Mr. Brown was responsible for the vast majority of the great one-liners hurled at the Eichmannalooza attendees.)

Needless to say, the $500-a-plate crowd entered the Marriott flustered, red-face and muttering to themselves. Just as funny was the contingent of Denver’s finest who just stood there fuming and purpling.

One enterprising businessman stalked over to make his outrage at being called a “little Eichmann” known. Unfortunately for him, he picked Glen Morris of Colorado AIM to vent on. Mr. Morris takes no shit, and didn’t take any from this gentleman. He laid into him, running down a whole litany of things he was rather outraged by. Like, say, a fucking butcher being awarded a humanitarian award. Needless to say, Mr. Morris had the gentlemen walking on his own tongue before their lively discourse ended.

Then, as if we weren’t having enough fun, Omar Jabara, Senior Director of Communications and Media Relations for Newmont Mining, came out and made a horseshit pretense of taking the concerns of the protestors seriously for the local media.

The highlight of that exchange came from the Ghanan WACAM representative Awon Atuire, who told Mr. Jabara in no uncertain terms that he’d like him to get out of his country and stop killing his people. Predictably, Mr. Jabara protested that Newmont Mining worked with many Ghanan leaders. To which Mr. Atuire responded, “And you know what those people are? They’re slave traders. And so are you.” That shut Mr. Jabara down fairly effectively.

All in all, it was a gas. Oh, and I didn’t get to meet Madeleine Albright, but Al Lewis of the Denver Post introduced himself. It happened while Carrie Dann was speaking. There were a group of protestors still hanging around Mr. Jabara, arguing with him. I’ve never thought much of the concept of trying to argue with little Eichmanns. You can’t educate them. They know what they’re doing, they just consider their own financial gain, how shall I put it, worth the cost. As such, it seemed to me that these folks might be better served listening to Carrie Dann. I walked over and told them as much. Al Lewis, who was following Mr. Jabara around dutifully all evening, kind of grinned and turned around, held out his hand and introduced himself.

I actually asked him later why he was following the Newmont Mining flack around all night, and he protested that he was a journalist. So I asked him why he wasn’t getting the other side. He asked me if I’d read his first article. I said I had, and that it was pretty good. He said, “wait until you see the next one, dude.”

I have no idea what that means. Could be he’s decided to go hard pro-Newmont as we so offended him, or it could be that the next article’ll be much tougher on them. But I told him I’d reserve judgment, and I will.

Update: Vincent Carroll has weighed in on Wayne Murdy’s award, castigating Tom Rowe for his guest editorial in the Denver Post. It’s a shoddy piece of work by even Mr. Carroll’s usual standards. The predictable Indian hating whopper comes here:

“In North America,” Rowe writes, “Newmont operates on Western Shoshone lands without their permission, damaging the environment and paying no royalties to the tribe for taking their resources.”

Wouldn’t a scholar interested in fairness have mentioned that this mining land, while claimed by the Western Shoshones under a 19th century treaty, is in fact among holdings of the federal Bureau of Land Management, as Newmont has repeatedly pointed out? Isn’t it more than a tiny bit inflammatory to suggest to readers that Newmont is simply occupying tribal lands as a rogue multinational?

If Rowe sympathizes with the Western Shoshone and considers Newmont’s behavior atrocious, so be it. Make the case. But at least acknowledge that the mining property is, say, within “ancestral Western Shoshone lands,” as less biased activists do.

Keep reading.

Speaking of playing fast and loose with the facts, these are “ancestral Western Shoshone lands,” sure, but they’re also lands guaranteed the Western Shoshone by the Treaty of Ruby Valley. It’s the only agreement ever signed by the US government and the Western Shoshone, and the land granted therein has never been ceded. The Bureau of Land Management can claim to own anything they like — hell, I can claim to own Vincent Carroll’s house, that doesn’t make it mine — but the Ruby Valley Treaty is the law. And, as we all know from Article VI of the US Constitution, them treaties are the supreme law of the land.

As always, I’m a little awestruck by Mr. Carroll’s casual contempt for the US Constitution, not to mention those principles of property rights he’s always on about. A little awestruck, but never surprised. As we all know from long experience, any pretense of principle goes out that Colfax window when Mr. Carroll gets an opportunity to express his pathological hatred of Indians.

Update II: RAIMD’s recap of events is up. They got to see Madeleine Albright. Motherfuckers. I’ve been hating Ms. Albright since they were playing cops and Assata with AK-47 squirt guns. (Yeah, I’m old.) Anyway, more good stuff from Mr. Brown and all those positively charming lads and lasses whom I hope and pray we shall be hearing from for a long time to come. Read it.

Update III: Slapstick Politics and The Legend of Pine Ridge are shocked and offended that I’ve endorsed Newmont Mining’s methods be applied to people who aren’t brown and poor. Being that they don’t seem like the quickest pair of guns in the right-wing blogosphere, I’ll point out the obvious: if poisoning people’s kids is terrorism when advocated by leftist cat-callers, then it’s sure as shit terrorism when actually fucking done by corporations. If you don’t like the logic, press for an end to terrorism. I’d start with, as the folks at RAIMD have so eloquently put it, tossing Wayne Murdy and Madeleine Albright off a bridge.

Update IV: Snapple’s been working overtime. All my life I’ve pined for some lunatic stalker, and I’ve finally found him (or her). Now if only he could find it within himself to manage an accidental lobotomy while chewing on his pencil.

Update V: Al Lewis’ promised article is up. It’s kind of revealing, in that Al Lewis indicates he considers Newmont Mining flack Omar Jabara a fucking liar, right before slobbering all over him and buying the poor dear a drink. It’s shit, of course. The kind of shit that would get any reporter in any respectable newspaper reassigned to suburban pie-baking contests. Luckily for Mr. Lewis, he doesn’t work for a respectable newspaper.

The only interesting tidbit comes in Mr. Lewis’ professed terror of the protesters. And that he didn’t even bother asking Carrie Dann for comment. I guess I’m one of the people with “menacing stares” who “hassled him” until he identified himself. I don’t believe I was rude to the tender soul, I just wanted to know why he was following a fucking Newmont Mining PR flack around, and entirely ignoring folks like Carrie Dann who have to live with the consequences of Newmont Mining’s actions.

The answer now seems obvious: he’s Omar Jabara’s media counterpart: a chickenshit flack, who, as he put it, didn’t dare “look her in the face.”

Which was probably a wise move.

See, I remember going to the emergency meeting — er, KHOW pep rally — they convened when this all began.  Remember?  It was the one where they apologized to the media for Churchill’s existence and announced their intention to find a pretext to fire him no matter how long they had to dig.

Now, it seems, they’ve become “acutely aware that the university will be sued by Churchill.”

Well, no shit.  And, though I don’t speak for Ward Churchill, I’ll bet he’s delighted at their hamhanded handling of the case, right up to their ignoring the final result of due process, and firing him in direction contradiction to CU’s own appeal committee’s findings.

And, while we’re thanking the hamhanded, how’s about a round for the Rocky Mountain News?  Nice of them to conclude their idiot article by soliciting calls for termination from an assortment of elected officials. 

I’ve said it a million times, but I’ll repeat myself: they can’t set pen to paper without exposing the nature of this witchhunt.  It’s a kind of compulsion.  Sort of like dogs eating their own shit.

(I’ve posted this elsewhere, but I’m repeating it here in light of some of the recent comments about the American holocaust.)

Most of you ain’t never heard of Nick of the Woods. There are a few reasons for that, not the least of which is it being a hugely popular example of a genre which most people would rather forget existed: a fictional argument for the “final destruction” of American Indians. It’s a weird book, to put it mildly, hinging on an schizophrenic Quaker with a secret identity: by day, quivering pacifist, by night, superhuman Indian killer.

It’s also intensely racist, often degenerating into nothing but a long string of orgiastic racial epithets. In fact, the plot seems all but irrelevant to the author, Robert Montgomery Bird, serving as little more than a skeleton to drape with some of the most ingenious racist lingo ever put to paper, such as this war cry delivered to a band of Shawnee by Salt River Roarer, Ralph Stackpole:

H’yar you ‘tarnal-temporal, long-legged, ‘tater-headed paint-faces! . . . h’yar you bald head, smoke-dried, punkin-eating red-skins! you half-niggurs! you ‘coon-whelps! you snakes! you varmints! you raggamuffins what goes about licking women and children, and scar’ring-anngelliferous madam! git up and show your scalp-locks; for ‘tarnal death to me, I’m the man to take ‘em–cock-a-doodle-doo!

Or this expression of surprise and dismay by the same character:

“Tarnal death to me!” cried Stackpole, looking upon Edith’s pallid visage and rayless eyes with more emotion than would have been expected from his rude character, or than was expressed in his uncouth phrases, “if that don’t make me eat a niggur, may I be tetotaciously chawed up myself!”

Who also provides the most purely inventive racial epithet of the book:

You switches gentlemen, do you, you exflunctified, perditioned rascal? Ar’n't you got it, you niggur-in-law to old Satan? you ‘tarnal half-imp, you? H’yar’s for you, you dog, and thar’s for you, you dog’s dog! H’yar’s the way I pay you in a small-change of sogdologers!

All of this orgiastic racialism finally culminates in a climactic act of symbolic copulation, as the aforementioned superhuman Quaker, Nathan Slaughter, confronts the evil Shawnee leader, Black Vulture — also known as Niggur Nose — in a remarkable unsubtle description of the homoerotic joy found by Bird’s ilk in racial slaughter:

The knife took the place of the hand, and one thrust would have driven it through the organ that had never beaten with pity or remorse; and that thrust Nathan, quivering through every fibre with nameless joy and exultation, and forgetful of everything but his prey, was about to make. He nerved his hand for the blow; but it trembled with eagerness.

So, yeah, just a little bit racist. But what makes Nick of the Woods most interesting — at least to me — is its insistence on being the Realistic corrective to soft-headed Romantic depictions of American Indians. This is one of the oldest Indian-hating tricks on the books: an insistence that the virulent racism ejaculated by the author exists only to rectify falsely Romantic depictions of Indians. As Bird claims in his preface to the second edition, Nick of the Woods was written during a period when:

the genius of Chateaubriand and of Cooper had thrown a poetical illusion over the Indian character; and the red men were presented–almost stereotyped in the popular mind–as the embodiments of grand and tender sentiment–a new style of the beau-ideal–brave, gentle, loving, refined, honourable, romantic personages–nature’s nobles, the chivalry of the forest . . . The Indian is doubtless a gentleman; but he is a gentleman who wears a very dirty shirt, and lives a very miserable life, having nothing to employ him or keep him alive except the pleasures of the chase and of the scalp-hunt–which we dignify with the name of war . . . if he drew his Indian portraits with Indian ink, rejecting the brighter pigments which might have yielded more brilliant effects, and added an ‘Indian hater’ to the group, it was because he aimed to give, not the appearance of truth, but truth itself.

That’s a straw-man from the get-go. You gotta wonder if Robert Montgomery Bird ever picked up a copy of any of Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales. Sure, a few Indians are romanticized, but no more so than the equally ridiculously embellished figure of the frontiersman found in Hawkeye — or, for that matter, Bird’s aristocratic frontiersman, Roland Forrester (Knight of the Forest, get it?). More to the point the vast majority of Indians in the Leatherstocking Tales are hardly “nature’s nobles.” Most of them are indistinguishable from the filthy, verminous, rapacious savages found in Nick of the Woods. Truth be told, those few Indians passed off as nearly human are described as such solely because they’ve been able to sublimate their Indian nature. As Cooper describes his noblest of noble savages:

Uncas stood, fresh and blood-stained from the combat, a calm, and, apparently, an unmoved looker-on, it is true, but with eyes that had already lost their fierceness, and were beaming with a sympathy that elevated him far above the intelligence, and advanced him probably centuries before, the practises of his nation.

Cooper’s novel hinges on the superiority of the Delaware to all other Indians, but this passage narrows the field of good Indians even further. Uncas is centuries advanced not only of his race, but of his nation. He is a good Indian precisely because he is un-Indian, and Cooper’s great romantic folly lies not in his sympathetic depiction of all Indians, nor even all Indians of a nation of Indians, but of a single Indian — with all others being centuries behind him in intelligence and practice.

That’s what Bird is so offended by, in a nutshell: not that all Indians are presented as romantic heroes, but that even one has managed to repress his Indian nature to a degree he’s become almost human.

So, what is that Indian nature that he’s repressing? Bird’s pretty clear about that:

The single fact that [the Indian] wages war — systematic war — upon beings incapable of resistance or defence, — upon women and children, whom all other races in the world, no matter how barbarous, consent to spare, — has hitherto been, and we suppose, to the end of our days will remain, a stumbling block to our imagination: we look into the woods for the mighty warrior, ‘the feather-cinctured chief,’ rushing to meet his foe, and behold him retiring laden with the scalps of miserable squaws and their babes.

This gruesomely stupid insistence on the Indian as the only race on earth that wages war against women and children is the core of the Indian-hating, whether given us by Bird, Francis Parkman, or the framers of the United States’ Declaration of Independence, which states in its final charge against King George: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

It’s pure mythology. The history of Euro-American military engagement has been an unbroken lineage of warfare on women and children, from Manhattan to the mass graves at Wounded Knee. Take the Mystic massacre of 1637, or the systematic braining of the village of Christian Delaware at Gnadenhutten, or the winter campaigns of Phil Sheridan and George Custer, or the Texas Rangers’ long history of indiscriminate butchery. Not to mention, from my neck of the woods, the Sand Creek massacre, wherein the Colorado First Volunteer Cavalry slaughtered an entirely peaceful village, and then made trophies of women’s genitalia to parade through Denver.

And these are only the most sensational examples. As Air Force Academy historian John Grenier has argued, the American way of war has always been war on civilians, honed on the bodies of Indians.

To attempt to argue that American Indians are the only race to wage war on women and children is fantastic. Worse, it’s the cornerstone of a racist mythology used repeatedly to drum up support for exactly the sort of genocidal campaign just given. And it is always delivered under the guise of Realism.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that I ain’t the first to make the argument that Bird’s Realism is a stalking horse for his extermination argument. Even at the time of publication Bird was accused of creating his fictions to further the extermination of the American Indian. In fact, he responds to such accusations in the preface to the second edition of Nick of the Woods:

Having, therefore, no other, and certainly no worse, desire than to make his delineations in this regard as correct and true to nature as he could, it was with no little surprise he found himself taken to account by some of the critical gentry, on the charge of entertaining the humane design of influencing the passions of his countrymen against the remnant of an unfortunate race, with a view of excusing the wrongs done to it by the whites, if not of actually hastening the period of that ‘final destruction’ which it pleases so many men, against all probability, if not against all possibility, to predict as a certain future event.

That might hold water, might, but for the fact that Nick of the Woods is structured specifically as an argument for extermination. The novel is one long didactic parable, leading Easterner Roland Forrester from his pacifistic tendencies to the light of extermination through the figure of Nathan Slaughter.

The novel’s animosity towards pacifism is announced at the outset by Ralph Stackpole, who challenges Slaughter to a wrestling match by mocking his unwillingness to defend the settlement’s women and children against Indian attack:

Yea verily, verily and yea!” cried Ralph, snuffling through the nostrils, but assuming an air of extreme indignation: “Strannger, I’ve heerd of you! You’re the man that holds it agin duty and conscience to kill Injuns, the redskin screamers–that refuses to defend the women, the splendiferous creatur’s! and the little children, the squall-a-baby d’avs! And wharfo’? Bec’ause as how you’re a man of peace and no fight, you superiferous, long-legged, no-souled crittur! But I’m the gentleman to make a man of you. So down with your gun, and ‘tarnal death to me, I’ll whip the cowardly devil out of you.

And just in case Roland Forrester misses the point, the argument is immediately reiterated by the author:

The doctrine, so eloquently avowed by Captain Ralph, that it was incumbent upon every able-bodied man to fight the enemies of their little state, the murderers of their wives and children, was a canon of belief imprinted on the heart of every man in the district; and Nathan’s failure to do so, however caused by his conscientious aversion to bloodshed, no more excused him from contempt and persecution in the wilderness, than it did others of his persuasion in the Eastern republics, during the war of the revolution.

And if you managed to miss even that, it’s repeated only a few pages later when the naïve Roland Forrester expresses dismay at all the talk of scalping and the sundry other bodily mutilation visited upon the indigenous population of Kentucky.

“Stranger,” said Big Tom Bruce the younger, with a sagacious nod, “when you kill an Injun yourself, I reckon,–meaning no offence–you will be willing to take all the honour that can come of it, without leaving it to be scrambled after by others. Thar’s no man ‘arns a scalp in Kentucky, without taking great pains to show it to his neighbours.”

The lesson is repeated throughout the book. Over and over again. And it’s important to remember that Forrester ain’t the primary target of Nick of the Woods’ education: that would be the reader.

Roland Forrester, like the reader, finally learns his lesson, when, towards the end of the book, his cousin/sweetheart is taken captive by the Shawnee. After a discussion of her probable fate according to Nathan Slaughter, including all the ubiquitous references to rape that are attendant to these discussions in the discourse of Indian hating — see The Searchers, by way of example — Roland finally succeeds in his rite of passage into manhood; i.e., the will to genocide:

“You have told me she is dead–murdered by the foul assassins,’ said Roland; “and if it be so, it avails not to deny it. If it be so, Nathan,” he continued, with a look of desperation, “I call Heaven and earth to witness, that I will pursue the race of the slayers with thrice the fury of their own malice,–never to pause, never to rest, never to be satisfied with vengeance, while an Indian lives with blood to be shed, and I with strength to shed it.”

All of Bird’s equivocating aside, that’s the sole point of the book: American Indians cannot be civilized; as long as they are in contact with civilized peoples they will rape and butcher them. They are, in other words, inherently savage. The only way of dealing with them is to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

It’s not an argument that’s gone away. The critical adulation for furiously racist — not to mention wholly inaccurate — movies like Black Robe and Apocalypto bear witness to that fact. When each was released, film critics from coast to coast were whipping themselves into a frenzy to laud their Realism.

One has to wonder why? Are we to believe that, say, Vincent Carroll of the Rocky Mountain News is an expert on pre-contact Mayan culture?

Of course not. He’s not praising Apocalypto for any real sense of Realism, he’s praising it because the Indians contained therein are straight out of Bird’s mold.

I.e., filthy, verminous, rapacious savages, for which there is only one corrective.

Extermination.

This morning’s Vincent Carroll column happened to catch my eye.  Especially this tidbit:

University officials have no business trying to cull students with unpopular or provocative views from the classroom. But weeding out intimidating or scary weirdos is a different proposition.

Keep reading.

Now, I’d thought to go on a long tangent about who exactly gets to make the call as to who’s weird and who ain’t.  Perhaps delving into Vincent Carroll’s so called conservatism, which always seems to end up on the side of greater governmental intrusion in the lives of everyone who ain’t, well, a corporation.

But instead, I thought I’d just try this tack.  By Mr. Carroll’s logic, would you let this fucker set foot on a college campus?

(And, yes, I know.  I’ve run variations of this joke six or seven hundred times now.  But, good Christ, look in that evil shitbird’s eyes and just try to tell me you haven’t already found your gunhand unconsciously moving to the bedside table where your .357 lays.)

The definition of plagiarism includes lifting others’ ideas and/or general language, not just word-for-word thefts.

Y’all remember that?

Well, bearing that in mind, take a gander at this snippet from the Vincent Carroll column in today’s Rocky Mountain News:

The Ward Churchill saga, which enters its final phase this month, is like an overwritten novel we thought would never end — 900 pages when it should have been 200, a host of plot lines when a handful would do.

When the University of Colorado Regents finally discuss whether to terminate the wayward professor two weeks from today, it will be 21/2 years since a furor erupted over his essay on 9/11 — prompting the scrutiny that led to his official exposure as an academic fraud.

I say “official,” because anyone who listened to Churchill or read his work before 2005 knew he was no scholar. They knew he was an intellectual bully, even if they were unaware of the extent of his contempt for historical truth. Which is why when Churchill is finally fired, we would do well to remember the most disturbing fact involving his downfall: He was chair of the Ethnic Studies Department, where his perspective was absolutely commonplace.

If your son or daughter is thinking of majoring in ethnic studies, you might want to check out its Web pages on the CU-Boulder site. Much of the content reads as if its authors are winking at us; you couldn’t write a better parody of radical gibberish if you tried.

“The Department of Ethnic Studies encourages participatory, experiential, student-centered learning and empowers students to move beyond existing social, cultural and political paradigms to more inclusive paradigms in which they are the subjects of their own reality. Consequently, all students are encouraged to examine and analyze their own inherited political/economic and social/cultural background and identities.”

Any questions?

“We stress critical thinking, the construction of grounded social theory, data gathering and comparative analysis. . . . We engage emergent epistemologies of racial/ethnic communities to critically question established disciplinary canons by encouraging our students to move beyond being objects of study toward being subjects of their own research.”

Whew!

As for their “primary areas” of research, they include “critical race theory with various strands of critical pedagogy, critical class theory, feminist theory, liberation theology, postmodernism, and postcolonial theory.”

This is a department that was content to have Churchill as its leader. The king is being deposed, but the kingdom looks about the same as always.

Keep reading.

Kind of amazing how similar Mr. Carroll’s column is to this post by Mr. Paine of Pirateballerina, ain’t it?

I particularly like this line from Mr. Carroll: “Much of the content reads as if its authors are winking at us; you couldn’t write a better parody of radical gibberish if you tried.” It ain’t quite Mr. Paine’s take of, “it’s clear from that last paragraph that ES should have added ‘advanced self-parody’ and ‘exquisite irony’ to the list,” but I’d say it’s close enough.

Though, to be fair, Mr. Carroll ain’t lifting solely from Jim Paine. He seems to also owe a certain debt to Mr. John Martin.

From Mr. Martin’s keyboard: “How any parent could let a kid major in ethnic studies at CU (or anywhere else) after reading the department’s mind-boggling drivel is beyond me.”

Seems rather alike to Mr. Carroll’s, “[i]f your son or daughter is thinking of majoring in ethnic studies, you might want to check out its Web pages on the CU-Boulder site,” don’t it?

I don’t pay Messrs. Martin and Paine very many compliments. But I do try to give them credit where it’s deserved, and compared to Vincent Carroll, they’re role-models of intellectual honesty.

Of course, I mean that in the way that I might favorably compare, say, Alferd Packer’s culinary skills to Jeffrey Dahmer’s.

Update: From our We Say It Here, It Comes Out There department: Pirateballerina’s Jim Paine discovers (with no apparent help from us) Vincent Carroll’s lifting of his post.

Update II: Mr. Paine had this to say over at Mr. Martin’s place about the, shall we say, suspicious timing of his notice of Vincent Carroll’s plagiarism.

I see DBAB Central has also picked up on Carroll today (right around the same time, too…. we must subscribe to the same Google alerts); Churchill’s dog, Benjie, even has a kind word for you and me.

Keep reading.

A little on the defensive side, don’t you think? Around the same time?

Well, yeah, that’s true. According to my site stats, he visited at 11:03, and then posted his squib about ten minutes later on his site. I suppose that satisfies his bit of dodging.

Hell, what’s a bit of link-poaching amongst friends? I, for one, am always happy to see Mr. Paine post any material he hasn’t stolen from wardchurchill.net.

Of course, there’s just a wee bit of hypocrisy in that Mr. Paine’s squib is in reference to others poaching his posts — a practice which he’s rather prone to — but as Mr. Paine’s hypocrisy goes, to make too much of it would be akin to bemoaning Dick Cheney’s posture while he’s in the act of roasting a succulent Iraqi child over an open flame.

Update III: Snapple’s razor-sharp intellect at work!

Yep, Vincent Carroll’s heard about the Magnificent Boulder Seven Plus Two, and he ain’t happy.

Seven University of Colorado professors have issued a warning to their colleagues who were brave enough to serve on a committee that condemned a plagiarist and fraud. If that committee’s report on Ward Churchill isn’t retracted, the seven promise, they’ll consider “filing charges of research misconduct against the authors.”

This ominous pledge is also signed by two non-CU professors, one from Cornell and the other from Kansas, and alleges five specific “violations” of scholarly norms in the anti-Churchill report.

Keep reading.

A last-ditch attempt to turn the tables? Of course, and from professors who in at least some cases share Churchill’s political outlook. But fear not: Even if the committee’s report were as rotten as this gaggle of Churchill defenders contends, it would still provide more than enough basis for the professor’s eventual, much-delayed firing. Indeed, the committee’s conclusion that Churchill is a serial plagiarist is not even challenged. Apparently that is now conceded by all sides.

Well, Mr. Carroll would know, wouldn’t he?  After all he’s the Ernest I. White Professor of American Studies and Humane Letters at Cornell, who specializes in federal Indian law and American Indian Studies.

Oh.  Right.

Moron.

The money line, however, comes towards the end of the column.

In issuing a report of 124 pages, the committee investigating Churchill undoubtedly made a few mistakes.

Undoubtedly.  Just as in a publishing career which includes around 25 books, Ward Churchill undoubtedly made a few footnote errors.  Funny, how when those you agree with make mistakes you’re so easy to forgive them, Mr. Carroll?  While calling for the lynching of anyone you happen to disagree with for similar oversights?

Smacks of selective prosecution, don’t it?

Tell you what.  I’m starting to get real smug about this.  My money still says you shitheels will find a way to fire Churchill, due process be damned.  I don’t think it matters what the appeal committee says, Hank Brown’ll still fire Churchill.

But my money then says that the court case is gonna put a hurting on CU that’ll continue for generations to come.

And they couldn’t deserve it more.

Any takers?

(Thanks to John G. Martin, whom has been doing a fair bit of whining about the recent roasting handed him by our always delightful commenters.)

The Rocky Mountain News ran the following regarding about their decency standards in the comments.

We’re concerned about vulgar language, not because we’re unfamiliar with those words - it’s a newsroom, after all - but because readers are put off by vulgarity. (And besides, I tend to think that people who can’t talk without being vulgar are unlikely to have anything valuable to say, unless I have personal evidence to the contrary.)

After we admonished one commenter he (or she) replied, “Hey, Editor, did someone pee in your corn flakes this morning? I didn’t say anything close to what even the FCC would disallow. Anyway . . .” and went on to repeat his comment in a slightly more subdued manner.

But we’re not the FCC, and if we invite you to come sit on our porch for a while and watch the world go by, we can disinvite you, too, if you are making the space uncomfortable for others.

Keep reading.

First of all, I hate that canard. “I tend to think that people who can’t talk without being vulgar are unlikely to have anything valuable to say.” That’s nonsense. Worse, it’s a cliché. And it’s the worst kind of cliché, in that it represents that the cliché-monger hasn’t invested the slightest energy in actually pondering what it is that spews out of their mouth. After all, by the Seebach’s logic, we should ignore, say, Shakespeare, because he was as willfully vulgar as was allowable in his time. Everybody knows the joke behind Much Ado about Nothing, right? (Under the Language heading.) And we should certainly toss Chaucer from the shelves. And Hemingway, the furor over the vulgarity in A Farewell to Arms being legendary.

But more amusing, at least to me, is the wholly arbitrary application of those standards in The Rocky. Take for instance, the comments from this bit of tooth-gnashing over the White Privilege Conference, by, you guessed it, Vincent Carroll. (He’s agin’ it.) They’re led off as follows:

Success in this country is not a rigged game? Of course it is.

The rappers copied Imus and made a lot of money. And now all the white guys are blaming the rappers, when it was Imus who paved the way to making money filling the air waves with insults.

In fact Mr. Carroll your daily column is thiny veiled insults wrapped in a cynical and elitist vocabulary that you pretend is intelligent.

And here you go again trembling with fear that those less educated than yourself could hold you to task for your disguised view of yourself as exceptionalist because you believe being selfish is a virtue.

April

Which earns her the following:

April, you ignorant slut!

lol - just playin’ - don’t be a victim! (or a nappy-headed ho)

But, honestly, if you think the game is rigged you are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or some combination, thereof.

Please, I pray for you, enlighten yourself, educate your mind, expand your sources of information, clear your head, work hard, and find the great American dream - and lose the socialist, hate-America-first drivel that has been trundled into your little head.

Have a nice day!

SoS

“Ignorant slut” and “nappy-headed ho,” hmm? Funny how that one slipped by the crack censors at, The Rocky, ain’t it? Especially in a column that lead by castigating those who believe

most middle-aged white guys talk like Don Imus when among friends — spewing venomous jokes about blacks, women, Jews and gays.

Keep reading.

Well, I don’t know about “most middle-aged white guys,” Mr. Caroll, but it seems your supporters certainly do.

Not mention, y’know, the editorial page editor, who presumably controls the comments.

What’s his name, again?

On Tom Tancredo’s dipshit presidential bid.  As usual when one of our local pundits or politicians shows their ass nationally, it’s really funny, until you remember, shit, I live here.

If there’s any reality competition that should be capturing the nation’s viewing attention, it’s the burgeoning field of 2008 presidential contenders. On the Democratic side, there’s sex (Clinton!), youth (Obama!), medical drama (Edwards!), and intrigue (who’s Chris Dodd?!).

But while the Democrats are interesting, it’s the Republican field that has me excited. In addition to an angry war veteran, weight-loss Dr. Phil-wannabe, and a cross-dressing mayor, the real star may just be a shoot-from-the-hip Coloradoan who combines Archie Bunker charm with Mel Gibsonesque sensibility.

This past Monday, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) formally announced he’s running for the Republican nomination for president. Here’s a look at the man who just may capture the minds — and votes! — of Americans in ‘08:

The Dreamer. What Tancredo lacks in foreign policy decorum, he makes up for in crazy ideas and shoot-for-the-Mecca moxie. Congressman Tancredo first jumped into the spotlight in the summer of 2005 when he appeared on an Orlando radio program and surmised that the best way to respond to an attack against America is to bomb Mecca. The “Bomb Mecca” lobby in Washington was ecstatic, but foreign policy wonks and state department officials were less so, especially after “US Congressman Proposes Bombing Mecca” headlines appeared in Arab newspapers. Tancredo later said he was “just throwing out some ideas.”

The Hypocrite. Tancredo is often labeled a single-issue candidate — something he doesn’t deny — for his constant fight against illegal immigration. In 1999, he founded the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, and since has dedicated the majority of his legislation fighting for stricter border control and stiffer penalties for companies that employ illegal aliens. But in a Law and Order twist, Tancredo himself had illegals work in his home. A 2002 Denver Post investigation found at least two illegal immigrants from Latin America helped install a home entertainment system in Tancredo’s Colorado home.

The Racist. Noted social scientist and Broadway play “Avenue Q” made the following observation about Americans: “Everyone’s a little bit racist / Sometimes.” If correct, Tancredo may have stumbled onto a political goldmine of votes. Back in September, Tancredo gave an anti-immigration speech to the League of the South, a white supremacy and secessionist group. During the talk, Tancredo also joined in a singing of the confederate song, “Dixie,” in a room with Confederate flags and a picture of Robert E. Lee.

And he’s also good with Hispanics, ladies! Just two months after his Confederate talk, and watching Scarface on his Hispanic-installed home entertainment system, Tancredo caused a stir when he referred to the city of Miami as a “Third World country” that’s trying to “create the illusion” of a “multiethnic ‘All American’ city”.” After Hispanics protested the Congressman’s comments, Tancredo fired back that there’s little difference between Cuba and Miami when it comes to free speech.

Yet for all his far-right posturing and propensity to propel himself into the media spotlight, it appears unlikely that Tancredo will be America’s Jean-Marie Le Pen and receive his party’s nomination in 2008. Polling shows Tancredo strong with the white racist vote, but doing poorly among the more influential “let’s try to win” block.

Keep reading.

I’d only add that it’s never wise to underestimate the “white racist vote.”  Especially in Colorado, where said demographic has their own radio station and newspaper.

You do recall, doncha kiddies, how we’ve been sayin’ all along that the anti-Churchill blogoscape hereabouts tends to be a wee bit factually-impaired? And that they tend to parrot one another’s horseshit as if it were established “fact”? And that the “reportage” in rags like the Rocky Mountain News often amounts to no more than a 3rd-hand—and usually unattributed—regurgitation of what’s on the blogs?

Need proof? Well, here, check it out.

First Drunkablog’s resident drunk, John Martin, lives up to his reputation, scooping the world by reporting a 2-year-old posting by the Maoist International Movement as current events. Jim Paine then immediately links to Martin, adding his own incisive commentary in the bargain. And now….

From the Extra! section of today’s RMN:

MAOISTS JOIN FIGHT

The Maoist Internationalist Movement has organized four rallies to “Stop the Witch-Hunt against Ward Churchill,” the embattled University of Colorado professor who is “facing firing . . . for a speech he made about 9/11.” Speech, essay, whatever.

Rallies will be in Los Angeles; San Francisco; Cambridge, Mass.; and, well, Huntington, Ind. - where it will not be held at the United States Vice Presidential Museum at the Dan Quayle Center.

Sources: etext.org; quaylemuseum.org

Observe that the “source” cited by whichever of the Rocky’s ace news sleuths penned this yarn has nothing to do with either Drunkablog or Pirate Ballerina. Instead s/he pretend to have tracked down this bit of “breaking news” all by themselves.

Uuuuuh…

Ain’t this yet another example of your writers’ chronic resort to plagiarism, Mr. Temple?

Better question: Y’all gonna send news teams to cover these events?

So, we’re just a wee bit tardy on this, but in The Churchill Smear you will find a new addition entitled Now, About Ward Churchill’s Cherokee Enrollment…. It includes clips of video shot during the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee enrollment of Ward Churchill, along with a breakdown by the mighty Charley Arthur, refuting several long-standing lies about Ward Churchill, including, but not limited to:

1. That his membership was honorary. As you’ll see, both Vernon Bellecourt crony David Cornsilk and UKB council member Ernestine Berry make it very clear that an associate membership legitimizes Churchill as a member of the UKB.

2. That associate memberships were only around during John Ross’ reign and have been discontinued. As is made clear, associate memberships have been around as long as the Keetoowah.

3. That Churchill begged the Keetoowah to provide him with a membership, making several quid-pro-quo promises. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: A UKB member approached Churchill and asked him to apply.

4. That because his membership was honorary, there was no application process, nor checking of his genealogy. Actually, as is shown, his application, necessarily including a genealogy, was vetted not once, but twice, by the UKB enrollment committee. It’s also worth pointing out that unlike the Rocky Mountain News’ genealogical panel — two anti-Churchill bloggers and a New Jersey cop — UKB genealogists are actually experts at verifying claims of Indian ancestry.

When watching the video, do bear in mind that several members of the local media had access to it, viewed it and still continued to regurgitate the above lies. As I’ve said a few thousand times now, the local media’s coverage has never been about journalism, it’s been about smearing Ward Churchill for actually exercising his right to freedom of speech. Its been vicious, stupid, and so shot through with outright lies one wonders that those involved — in this case, Rocky hack Kevin Flynn — can even walk upright under the weight of their accumulated horseshit.

Enjoy.

Update: The Painenites would have you know that the video means nothing. Even though they’ve spent the last two years claiming Ward Churchill’s associate membership in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee was an honorary membership only; that said associate memberships were only around during the reign of John Ross; that Churchill begged the UKB to even receive that; and that because said memberships were honorary, there was no application process. (http://tinyurl.com/2a7bz4)

Sure.

And, hey, Vigil and Paine, what exactly do you think the UKB’s enrollment committee was vetting when they went through Churchill’s application not once, but twice? Y’know, especially after they spent the entire meeting discussing genealogy and Cornsilk’s contention that Churchill wasn’t a real Indian?

His credit rating?

Keep fiddling with the rope, gentlemen. I’ll be happy to keep giving it to you.

Update II: It’s worth pointing out that Paine has a vested interest in disputing this video. He, after all, was one of the two anti-Churchill bloggers hired by the Rocky Mountain News to serve as their, ahem, genealogical experts.

Update III: For the hell of it I sent the following email to pretty much everyone I could think of. I’ll keep you updated on any responses. And, when I get bored, I’ll follow up with a second round.

Hello,

I’m co-host of a Denver media watchblog called the Try-Works, which, I’m proud to say has drawn a little blood here and there amongst our locals. One of our primary foci has been the Denver media’s neo-Stalinist smear of CU Professor Ward Churchill. You’re getting this email because you’ve shown some interest in either the Try-Works or Ward Churchill. If I