This May or May Not Be The Post Where I Get to the Point About Ward Churchill

As a nerd, I usually preread some of the material for the upcoming semester. I'm taking a Native American Lit class this fall, and decided to skim through what looked like the densest required book in the class. This would be "The State of Native America" published by Colorado-Boulder in 1992. The book includes several contributions from, you already know.

Churchill is every bit as radical the "Little Eichmann's" crack would lead you to believe. He and other contributers frequently and unabashedly call on the U.S. to return native land to the point that it returns itself out of existence. Churchill, always in a bone-dry academic tone' calls for the United States to be replaced by something "infinitely better" and name drops Castro and the Sandinistas as examples of how revolutions can overcome long odds. Another writer, John Mohawk, says that white Americans never feel quite at home. Since America is nothing but a breakaway colony that turned into an empire, he reasons, the U.S. is completely illigitimate, existing as "nothing but a government". ( His implication that true nationhood is based on blood and soil is usually considered very right-wing.)

As I have no soul, I am offended by nothing. So I'm not bothered by either the "Eichmann's" crack or the suggestion that the U.S. be replaced by something "infinitely better" I have also heard that Churchill is lying about his claim to native ancestry. Well, that would be a trifling thing, really, there are worse moral failings than that. Though I would suggest that this is 2006, and a man dosn't need elaborate excuses to wear his hair long in middle age. One thing that did piss me off was the fact that Churchill footnotes himself at least twenty times. Who the hell does that, honestly? (Eating boiled plague rats will make men grow a second penis out of the right nipple. See "Beran: Little known Facts About Mammals; Heartland Press)

In all seriousness though, the political "left" can be divided into two camps, liberal reformers and radical destroyers. Churchill is clearly a member of the later.(Again and again "The State of Native America" attacks the center-left for having the audacity to focus on poverty and woman's rights instead of advocating violent native land seizure) The problem is that he just isn't a very good radical. Radicals do have their place. Churchill could have used his talent for saying outrageous things and made himself into a (maybe) half-indian George Carlin. But he wanted to be an intellectual, what a shame. There have been lots of intellectuals, only a tiny elite of them have any impact on society. Goethe never footnoted himself.

As a member of the "liberal reformer" camp, (However caustic I may be at times) I have never bought into the narrative of all-american children being corrupted by radical professors. In fact, I consider this narritive to be dangerously anti-democratic and anti- free thought. And I don't have much patience for cheap conservative cracks about "The People's republic of Boulder/Berkeley/Madison, etc. Boulder is a fine town, so long as you get out before the jocks start hitting the Coors. Having said that, it does seem as if Churchill had created a little fiefdom for himself in the U.C. Boulder Native Studies department. Surrounded by like-minded associates; who spent their time playing playgound games of deriding the center-left and daring each other to say something more radical than the other. The fact that this has finally gotten Churchill into some trouble shouldn't be the least bit surprising.

(This has been Mr. Heartland's token appeal to the center for 2006. Be sure to come back tomorrow when I angrly demand the legalization of cocaine and accuse Pete Rickitts of raping his slaves, thank you and good night.)