It would seem that that Honolulu Star-Bulletin misreported Churchill’s quotes (as posted here). The paper has posted a correction:
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, incorrectly quoted University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill as admitting that he was not American Indian.The story about Churchill’s Tuesday night speech at the University of Hawaii-Manoa said the professor noted that his “white Republican” critics were asking, “Is he an Indian? Do we really care?”
“Let’s cut to the chase, I’m not,” the quote in yesterday’s paper continued.
But a review of video and audio tapes of the speech shows that Churchill actually said: “Is he an Indian? We really care. We’re trying to protect the rights of Indians to divine for themselves, say this circle of flies in the form of white reporters circling a manure pile like it’s of all consequential importance. Cut to the chase on that.”
Churchill went on to say that he is an associate member of the Keetoowah tribe and that associates are enrolled in the band after their genealogy has been vetted by the enrollment office. He said that he is less than one-quarter Indian, so he does not qualify to be a full member.
Thanks to Bill Hennessy for e-mailing with the information.
The Denver Post has more: CU prof’s Hawaii speech misquoted
Neither the Honolulu Advertiser nor The Associated Press published a remark like that. Honolulu’s NBC affiliate reviewed its tape of the speech and did not believe Churchill had made the remark.And student editors at the university’s paper, Ka Leo, said they had listened repeatedly to a tape of the speech, and because of the applause, laughter and poor sound quality, they weren’t sure what he said. He might have said, “Let’s cut to the chase; I’m not.” Or, “Lets cut to the chase on that,” according to their review.
It is too bad the Honolulu paper did not give Churchill the same correction treatment every other paper gives conservatives - on page C23, near the pet obituaries and corrections of mispelled names.
Baron
Comment by Baron — Thursday, February 24, 2024 @ 11:50 am
the interesting thing to me is how much information they left out in the middle of that quote. Very selective misquote. Brings to mind all the people who say their quotes were “taken out of context.”
The sad part of this is that Churchill will get a pass on playing that race card in the middle of that speech because of the Honolulu paper’s screw-up.
Comment by bryan — Thursday, February 24, 2024 @ 10:10 pm
What’s the brouhaha about WC’s race anyway? Don’t get it. Jesus Christ said he was the son of God; millions of Christians believe that; Jews aand Moslems don’t.
And by the way millions of Americans carry Native American DNA and either they don’t know it or they know it but cannot really pinpoint it.
But case in point: do a google on molecular geneticist Mark Shriver to learn that he was quite surprised that when he tested himself he found out that he had not only Native American ancestry but also African. It just wasn’t evident nor did his family know about these aspects of their genealogy.
The point about WC is that he chose to identify psychologically with the NA’s in much the same way that trans-sexuals identify with a particluar sex. Who knows how these things work?
If a trans-gendered person applies for a job in a Women’s Studies Department and claims to be a woman without revealing that she was born male–woould that be important, or should the person be judged purely on scholarship?
Comment by Paradox — Friday, February 25, 2024 @ 11:44 am
It matter for two key reasons: 1) Churchill’s raison d’etre is linked to his ethnicity, and 2) the main reason he got his job at CU was because of his status as a Native American.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Friday, February 25, 2024 @ 12:03 pm
Re 1) above: I don’t see much diiference between the writings of, say, a Chomsky and a WC. NC is a secular atheist whose father was a rabbi. But NC’s raison d’etre is not tied to his secular atheism or otherwise. Like NC, WC has written a number of books and articles–of course you may evaluate them negatively on all fronts–but many of those texts(do an Amazon.com) are not about NA issues. He has even written on the Holocaust.
On 2) above: you can’t win on that one because of that liitle disclaimer that all universities must adhere to when they hire; no discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, sexual preferencs, etc. This would mean that even if WC were(note I didn’t say “was”)white the UC couldn’t turn him down for the job if they deemed him qualified for the position.
You will also have to come up with hard evidence that during the interview for the UC position that his interviewers said “we are hiring you because you are affiliated racially with NA’s”. You must also point out that other applicants for the position–regardless of “race”– were more qualified than WC.
Comment by Paradox — Friday, February 25, 2024 @ 1:01 pm
If you read the reporting on the reason why the Dean of Arts and Sciences wanted to hire Churchill to a tenured position it is rather hard to deny that his ethnicitiy wasn’t the central issue.
You can deny that all you like, but the evidence is pretty clear.
And to argue that he hasn’t built his whole career on his alleged ethnicity is to be arguing with blinders on. Just read what the man has said.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Friday, February 25, 2024 @ 1:06 pm
Thanks. I will be brief. You seem to be assuming–and very erroneously–that if WC were not NA as he claims then he would not(or could not) have written what he did about the history of the NA post encounter with the Europeans.
J.S. Mill wrote on the status of women, does that mean that he could not have been hired by a WS Department because he was male? If not, then why not?
You will note that non-Jewish historians have written persuasively on the Holocaust so why couldn’t a WC have written persuasively and accurately of the hostory of the NA post encounter with Europe?
If so, then his ethnicity should be irrelevant to whether he should be fired or not.
Comment by Paradox — Friday, February 25, 2024 @ 7:59 pm
No–I am assuming nothing of the sort.
The person who has made his ethnicity a key issue is Churchill himself, as has CU.
And since I have, in the past, argued that he should not be fired I am wondering if you have read what I have written on the subject. It seems that you are arguing with me over something I never said.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Friday, February 25, 2024 @ 8:10 pm