Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Ward Churchill: Proud 0.009384% Cherokee
February 9, 2005 2:18 PM   Subscribe

A followup on the Ward Churchill controversy by fellow CU professor Paul Campos alleges that in addition to research fraud and plagiarism, Churchill is guilty of "bullying his way into academia" by fabricating the story of his Cherokee heritage--an idea corroborated by AIM, who called him a "wannabee" Indian, and by IndianCountry.com, which also questions Churchill's qualifications for chairing the Ethnic Studies program at CU.

Churchill's prior education began at the now-defunct experimental Sangamon State University which solicited educators with ads in Rolling Stone. In his climb to tenure at CU, did Churchill's supposed Native American heritage & activism play a more important role than his academic record? Not long ago, CU was noted for its lopsided rules of dissent. Does the environment at CU embody Cass Sunstein’s "law of group polarization", ie, "when like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs"?
posted by jenleigh (47 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
As the character assassination begins of a genuinely minor and inconsequential critic begins, meanwhile, the discussion of culpability and accountability for 9/11 and subsequent foreign policy disasters gets ignored. The machine keeps humming along, satisifed and comfortable.
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:29 PM on February 9, 2005


Less a character assassination than a character autopsy. Churchill's a twit and worse.

Elsewise, he most certainly is a distraction from real issues.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:40 PM on February 9, 2005


Congratulations. One lying asshat down. Well done, right wing blogosphere. Now on to the people who actually wield some sort of power...


*crickets*
posted by Freen at 2:41 PM on February 9, 2005


> Now on to the people who actually wield some sort of power...

One day quonsar will make the fatal slip. Then, the feeding frenzy, the bloody water, the stripped bones.
posted by jfuller at 2:50 PM on February 9, 2005


That's really interesting... thanks.

I'm actually a big fan of Ward Churchill's writing, and I hadn't heard anything about this.
It doesn't make his essay on sketchy football team names any less awesome, though.
posted by ITheCosmos at 2:59 PM on February 9, 2005


You know, if Churchill is guilty of academic fraud, if he lied about his heritage and got a job because of that lie, then by all means, CU needs to be looking into all of this.

But are we saying that because a liberal atmosphere exists on the CU campus that this is necessarily the reason why Churchill gained tenure and advanced up the career ladder there? I mean, I don't give a crap about where he got his undergraduate degrees - what was the quality of his scholarship?

If fraud was involved, fine; remove him. But if CU's decision needs to be made solely on the basis of his scholarship (or lack thereof) and any faking of his credentials, not on the basis of public outrage over his commentary.
posted by kgasmart at 3:00 PM on February 9, 2005


From the Boulder Daily Camera, today's edition (you can't get the article by using bugmenot, so I'll post an excerpt). So much for your theory of campus-wide leftist groupthink and a conspiracy against conservatives. (Who even knows the views of this sociology prof?)



CU teacher: Dismissal was political

Department official says academics sole reason for canceling courses

By Matthew Beaudin, For the Camera
February 8, 2005

An environmental studies instructor whose classes have been canceled by the University of Colorado says she was denied reinstatement for political reasons.

Adrienne Anderson, who has taught CU courses critical of big-business environmental policy for 11 years, was effectively let go when the department of environmental studies voted Jan. 31 to cancel her courses after this semester.

Advertisement

Anderson said big-business pressure was part of her removal because her students' work often targeted companies with poor environmental records.

"If those corporations were acting within the law, my course would be continuing at CU," she said Monday.

James White, director of the environmental studies program, dismissed Anderson's claims. He said Anderson's courses were cut for academic reasons alone.

"It was based entirely on curriculum," he said. "That's absurd, to be quite honest."

White said budget constraints forced the department to abandon Anderson's classes in favor of "interdisciplinary" courses that touch on social and natural sciences, law and journalism. He said the department also needed to shift to courses that promote more skills.

"She teaches basically classes in — for lack of a better term — it's activism," he said.
posted by raysmj at 3:03 PM on February 9, 2005


The really problematic groupthink at CU involved the refusal to take action against an out-of-control athletic and football dept. that (allegedly) used CU money to hire sex-workers for recruiting parties, was (allegedly) aware of rapes and sexual harrassment at its recruiting parties and in its teams, and which set its lawyers onto anyone who complained about it. The football coach (Barnett) was nominated college 'coach of the year' amongst sports writers for 'overcoming adversity.' Bleh.
posted by carter at 3:11 PM on February 9, 2005


"She teaches basically classes in — for lack of a better term — it's activism," he said.

I'm confused. The way the right uses the term "activist courts", such as one that voted Bush into power in 2000, I don't know what they mean by activism, here. Does that mean leaving corporations alone? She was fired for political indifference?
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:12 PM on February 9, 2005


I'm confused.

As far as I understand it, in talking about the Supreme Court, the terms 'activist' and 'conservative' refer not to the judges' political beliefs, but rather to their attitudes to the Constitution. So a conservative judge is not a right-wing judge, but one who interprets the constitution conservatively, which may place him/her on the left of the political spectrum; and vice versa with 'liberal' judges.
posted by carter at 3:16 PM on February 9, 2005


Carter, I understand the distinction. I was trying to be sarcastic about how the right maintains two opposite meanings for a concept, choosing one based on political expedience. This FPP is still pretty worthless.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:20 PM on February 9, 2005


Oops, sorry, AlexReynolds - brain is tired ...
posted by carter at 3:26 PM on February 9, 2005


*polishes irony filter on metafilter goggles*
posted by carter at 3:27 PM on February 9, 2005


Hmm, Ward Churchill's the devil incarnate for his "little Eichmann's" comment and George Bush is the second coming of Christ? And there was something about a plant in the White House press corps but this academic is way too dangerous to allow to roam free anymore.

Wow, the world seems so much prettier with these glasses on. And why am I no longer depressed? What are they using now, aerosol Paxil?
posted by fenriq at 3:36 PM on February 9, 2005


...aerosol Paxil?

Pork-scented, I'll bet. Helps stomach Halliburton and mercenary payoffs.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:38 PM on February 9, 2005


Look, I know some people think this is important. But it isn't. At all. This is what is is important:

THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.

Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Okay, better? I'll keep working on it.

posted by Freen at 3:44 PM on February 9, 2005


Does the environment at CU embody Cass Sunstein’s "law of group polarization", ie, "when like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs"?

jenleigh, you're an idiot. There's no such thing as "Sunstein's law". People, when sorrounded by like-minded individuals are simply more likely to say what they really think, rather then play it safe.
posted by delmoi at 3:45 PM on February 9, 2005


Wow, and I thought this FPP started out bad. Watch it gooooooooooo!
posted by solistrato at 3:50 PM on February 9, 2005


We have been kicking this around on H-Amind, a discussion list for academics who work on American Indian history. Churchill is a big, but controversial name in our field. Wonderful writer, but his in-your-face rhetoric and sometimes slapdash scholarship, along with his always waving the I-am-an-Indian bloody shirt, annoys many people. Academic freedom should protect him from his controversial remarks, but if it turns out he has falsified his heritage and his scholarship, CU will seize on that to fire his ass. He has sewn the wind and reaps the whirlwind.
posted by LarryC at 4:08 PM on February 9, 2005


If Churchill did indeed lie and exploit a university's desire to expand the collective cultural identity of its faculty, that's a shame. The residual message to this FPP, though, is that academia is irresponsible in employing such a system. This is pretty absurd.

Having a diversity of backgrounds and lifestyles at a place where people are supposed to be learning is a good thing. If UC liked the idea of someone who brought a Native American perspective to its campus, then I applaud them.

The problem with this system is that it's kind of trusting, and thus can sometimes be exploited. But neocons, so eager to plug their ears when the rest of us speak of the environmental factors that lead to crime or drug use or what-have-you, are suddenly just as eager to blame this system when an unscrupulous person hacks it for personal gain. Churchill wouldn't have had a mouthpiece had the status quo of liberal academia not allowed him to have one, they say.

The reason why conservatives are, to use Mr. Will's very unfair word, "excluded" from academia, is that both academia and progressive thinking value the notion that learning can make the world a better place, and that there is a direct link between academic exploration and the betterment of society. Conservatism, in its most modern and popular form, does not value critical thinking, or the public good, or the relationship between the two. Thus, most conservatives find themselves out of place, and don't want to be there. There is not a conspiracy among pointy-bearded, patch-elbowed professors to take over the world student by student and force everyone to sit around in coffehouses reading Chinua Achebe and listening to Putomayo CDs. Really, there isn't.

I'm really, really sick of neocons looking for more ways to be victims. Please: The horse is dead. It's a damn corpse. It's got flies all over it. Give me a break.
posted by hifiparasol at 4:21 PM on February 9, 2005


I also hear that the guy went AWOL during his National Guard service.

anyway, given the many death threats received by Churchill -- you gotta love those freedom-loving, second-amendment-worshipping, dissent-appreciating American patriots -- he probably won't be around for much longer. easier to get him than, say, Osama Bin Laden.

I love the way the wingnuts are trying to pretend Churchill is somehow relevant to the debate. I certainly don't see right-wingers feeling guilty -- or getting defensive -- about the more unreasonable extreme wings on their side (I mean, Churchill isn't bombing any abortion clinics or redecorating downtown OK City like that freedom-loving war hero Tim McVeigh). but you know, somehow a pacifist college professor is worth much outrage.

hate on, guys. Churchill's the enemy. you know what, request a loyalty oath for college professors. it worked like a charm the first timne, didn't it?
*snicker*
posted by matteo at 4:23 PM on February 9, 2005


I don't disagree with your larger point, matteo, but Churchill's no pacifist. In fact, he wrote a book called "Pacifism as Pathology."
posted by jeffmshaw at 4:33 PM on February 9, 2005


really? there goes to show how marginally relevant the poor man really is. Bill O'Falafellatio Reilly made him a star after all.

and, btw, jenleigh, thanks for alerting us of what's going on in LGF and InstaPundit, since you've lifted this fine fpp from their quality pages -- waiting eagerly for you to whine about somebody here linking to Kos. I mean, that'd be partisan. heh.
posted by matteo at 4:42 PM on February 9, 2005


Every time someone almost—almost—dupes me into thinking Liberal is still synonymous with Tolerant, I stumble across one of matteo's smirking, hate-fueled, self-involved misanthropic sermons from on high, always delivered to the same familiar, safe, receptive audience whom he knows will lap it up—and I feel a little foolish.
posted by dhoyt at 5:47 PM on February 9, 2005


I pulled these these three sentences at random from his
website.

"And, of course, children born of a union between Indian and non-Indian were almost invariably never relinquished at all (not least because whites, not Indians, tended to frown upon such "mixed-blood" offspring and thus made little or no effort to claim them)."

"With respect to blacks-mostly Africans brought to the southeastern quadrant of North America as chattel slaves, but the occasional few "free man" as well-the situation was not dissimilar, albeit the imperative for them to reject a return to Euro-American society was obviously greater than for whites, and a much larger proportion of adults was involved."

"By relentless and undeviating assertion of the basic rights of treatied peoples—at all levels, through every available venue, and excluding no conceivable means of doing so—we can begin to (re)secure them, restoring to ourselves and to our posterity our/their rightful status as sovereign and coequal members of the community of nations, free of such pretense as IRA-style "self-governance" and subterfuges like the 1975 "Indian Self-Determination" Act."

"Almost invariably never"? My fingers itch for a blue pencil.

Perhaps his other writings are more compelling, but do I really have the time or inclination to find out? He seems an emotional junkie and attention hound as far as I can see. Kind of pathetic, really.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:52 PM on February 9, 2005


I can't prove my Cherokee ancestry either (Dad could but he died and most of his papers got lost), but then an anarchist has no use for the "Federally-recognized tribe" concept -- which I'm surprised the tribes go for considering where it came from; I resolve that "dilemma" by simply not claiming to be a member of any band of the Cherokee (though I'm as "Cherokee-blooded" as Trail of Tears chief John Ross). And whether Churchill's a Cherokee or not that has no bearing on his rant about 9/11. I take my stand not because of my ancestry but because of my principles, principles my Cherokee ancestors would not have understood 500 years ago -- and that my white "Christian" ancestors honored mainly in the breach (as most white American "Christians" still do).

I'm also tired of all the shit about Native peoples being so "spiritual" and "caring" and "in touch with Nature" and all that; the "Noble Savage" is European concept, not a Cherokee or native one.

Be that as it may, while I would not have used the same words as Churchill (which his "critics" have twisted anyway), I've got to say on the whole he's right about "9/11". How dare the United States claim "victim" status after a history of imperialist violence stretching from Plymouth Colony through Vietnam and the first Gulf War, and how dare the United States whine about its civilian casualties after all it's done to everybody else's civilians all this time. "Hey! No fair! We're not supposed to get hit back!"

As for Churchill himself, that someone's an asshole does not mean he's wrong -- and that someone's popular doesn't mean he's right. (Hitlers popularity ratings were up there with Reagans, for crying out loud.) In short, if the fascists weren't seizing upon this as a way to smear the (so-called) Left, this would be just another case of some academic popping off -- as lots of academics do every day about damn near anything. At the very worst Churchill was as "insensitive" as Rush Limbaugh usually is; like I said, the Right can dish it out but it sure can't take it. (The latter behavior illustrates "cowardly", which Churchill is not.)

AND, to begin to wind up this long-winded rant of mine, right on to what kgasmart said: "If fraud was involved, fine; remove him. But if CU's decision needs to be made solely on the basis of his scholarship (or lack thereof) and any faking of his credentials, not on the basis of public outrage over his commentary." What good is tenure otherwise? Is the University of Colorado out to self-destruct or something?

In closing, right on also to what AlexReynolds posted at 2:29 PST and to what delmoi wrote 46 minutes later.
posted by davy at 5:56 PM on February 9, 2005


Indigo Jones wrote: "I pulled these these three sentences at random from his website."

Please share with us your magnificent random-quote-picking algorithm? It mimics amazingly well those carefully selected out-of-context quotes "pundits" like to to make "sarcastic" quips about, perhaps because that's all they "bring to the table".
posted by davy at 6:02 PM on February 9, 2005


This Ward Churchill stuff is remarkable for the way an academic has managed, with a few ill chosen phrases, to work his way up from obscurity to being the rights premier whipping boy. The fact that most people had never heard of him, and outside of a small circle he wields no influence, until the lunatic fringe grabbed the torches and headed for the village square is a wonderful illustration of the rights ability to set the agenda for political discourse.

This pinko commie never heard of the guy and believe me, he is no icon of the left. If he's a fraud, fire him. If he's a bad educator, fire him. There is no controversy except for the one you and your cronies are doing everything in your power to create, jenleigh.

Also, while I credit you for writing lucid and well researched posts, it's hard to escape noticing that in your time here your pretty much spitting them out on a weekly schedule and each and every one is political with a pronounced spin. I say this not in the snarky way it's usually used but in all seriousness: get your own fucking blog. Metafilter does not exist to serve as your outlet for whatever political beliefs you might hold.
posted by cedar at 6:09 PM on February 9, 2005


People, when sorrounded by like-minded individuals are simply more likely to say what they really think, rather then play it safe.

Or simply go along to get along.
posted by jonmc at 6:22 PM on February 9, 2005


jeffmshaw: Which, ironically, comprises my main beef with Churchill - he provides us with a false dichotomy for social action: violence or nothing. He ignores the distinctions between nonviolent social action and sitting around with one's thumb up one's ass (which, in that piece, he conflates with pacifism), and, for his grand finale, decides that violence is OK. Yeesh.

While I won't mourn the loss of his contributions to my field (I can't comment on his work in ethnic studies), I do find the process at work here fairly insidious. We have at my university a professor who is as close to fascist (literally - and I meant that literally) as common decency will allow. He has fallen in love with his subject matter to the point where his classroom behavior would almost require the class to be listed as a lab. That said, I wouldn't fire him for all the world. Intellectual freedom means not having to kow-tow to the party line, regardless of what kind of wild-eyed gobbledy-gook you're frothing up. That's the point of tenure, isn't it?

In short - boo for firing someone for their crazy ideas, yay for adding a "freaky-deaky crazy-pants" warning on the class listing.

(And, of course, if he's been misrepresenting his claim to authorial authenticity, he's a sham and a fraud and should be 86'd from the ivory tower, Palantir-style.)
posted by Coda at 6:29 PM on February 9, 2005


Coda, I think Churchill's argument in Pacifism is a little more nuanced than that. He expresses support and admiration for nonviolent action that involves legitimate self-sacrifice and personal risk, like much of the civil rights movement. His point -- which I concede can be obscured by rhetorical bombast -- is that many use 'pacifism' as a convenient excuse to avoid risk of financial and physical harm to themselves, settling for ineffectual symbolic action. I do not necessarily agree with this, but it is interesting to think about.

I have a similar story about a professor at one of the colleges I attended. He wrote a letter on behalf of Nike that told the Vietnamese government "don't worry, we'll never push democracy and human rights on your country." I remember well the prominent mainstream criticism of Joseph Ha, since he was an influential scholar speaking to a foreign government on behalf of a major corporation.

Oh wait, I don't remember that outcry. Because it never happened.
posted by jeffmshaw at 6:43 PM on February 9, 2005


If Ward Churchill thinks the people in the towers deserved to die for participating in the system that drove the terrorists to kill them, then does he think he deserves to die for angering the people who've threatened to kill him?
posted by techgnollogic at 7:08 PM on February 9, 2005


Please share with us your magnificent random-quote-picking algorithm? It mimics amazingly well those carefully selected out-of-context quotes "pundits" like to to make "sarcastic" quips about, perhaps because that's all they "bring to the table".

Sarcasm is as sarcasm does, davy. Two posters said he wrote well. I looked, I didn't see it. At best it was wooden, at worst, illiterate. Context would not have helped.

But if you can show us something lapidary, elegant, memorable or quotable, please do. Me, I'm nothing if not educable.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:22 PM on February 9, 2005


If Ward Churchill thinks the people in the towers deserved to die for participating in the system that drove the terrorists to kill them, then does he think he deserves to die for angering the people who've threatened to kill him?

That would imply right-wingers are terrorists. Careful with your "logic".
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:31 PM on February 9, 2005


Strawmen, get yer strawmen and red herrings here! We got 9-11! We got Bill O'Reilly! We got CU athletics! We got George Bush and Halliburton! We got abortion clinics and Tim McVeigh!

And while you're at it, take a free toss at jenleigh sitting in the dunk tank! She's just rehashing LGF and instapundit, you know!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:41 PM on February 9, 2005


i went to cu, and live about 4 blocks from the campus, have been in this town for 10 years (if that qualifies me any moreso than anyone else on this thread ;)

boulder - very liberal town that can get confused when it comes to issues of big business, but generally stays the course in terms of smart decisions. lots of wackos here, but lots of relatively normal people who want to make a living and put their kids through a school that won't indoctrinate them w/ the doctrine du jour as well, and are willing to stand up for it.

cu - a school filled with very liberal people and alot of liberal professors (and for the better, i must add; reference Stan Brakhage, among others), a smaller handful of wackos (in a bad way; reference Gary Barnett, Gamov and numerous presidents). republicans get pissed when they come here and realize the town's so leftist, and then raise a stink when someone speaks their opinion. If I were to attend a Catholic university in the south and attempt to engage in any serious discussion on our current administration, I imagine I'd be run out pretty quickly, too.

As mentioned previously in this thread, CU's problems lie in the upper management of the university, not in the professors. Money dumped on the football program like you wouldn't believe, numerous scandals, complete ignorance of non-engineering programs (of which Brakhage was a part of, before he passed).

Regardless of Churchill's background or credentials, I'm simply impressed that he's willing to stand up for what he believes in, and that's that dissent should still be allowed post 9-11. He had helicopters overhead last night to provide security, had every major news organization at the uni, and his message was 'i have no one to apologize to.' Have to admire the man for that.
posted by crabcakes at 9:01 PM on February 9, 2005


darn, didn't get the brakhage link i wanted in there
posted by crabcakes at 9:04 PM on February 9, 2005


I stumble across one of matteo's smirking, hate-fueled, self-involved misanthropic sermons from on high, always delivered to the same familiar, safe, receptive audience whom he knows will lap it up—and I feel a little foolish.

I'm not lapping it up. I'm confident in the knowledge that you'll be along like clockwork to insult matteo and insinuate that the rest of us are fellow travelers, so it'll balance out pretty much immediately.

Oh, but if you're out of town some time, let me know and I'll do it until you get back.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:43 PM on February 9, 2005


This is from Louis Proyect over at marxmail.
posted by lazymonster at 11:00 PM on February 9, 2005


almost—almost—dupes me into thinking Liberal is still synonymous with Tolerant,

well I don't think it was the damn lib'ruls making all those death threats, dhoyty. it never ceases to amuse me how everybody to the left of GW Bush or Alberto Gonzales (ie, most of the intelligent, decent human beings worldwide) seems to be a baddie now in FoxNews' America -- Conservative is the new tolerant, all the world knows that after Iraq Attaq and Abu Ghraib.

FDR = lame
Alberto Gonzales = cool
and don't even get me started on all those living, breathing baby stem cells some people want to murder.

sadly, Churchill is perfectly free to think that the WTC was a military target (he has the right to, and everybody can disagree), and that US Foreign policy stirred up a lot of hate at least in part of the world (I suggest you get a passport, travel to, say, Chile or the Philippines or even maybe Liberated Baghdad, find an interpreter and talk with the natives, enjoy the cheering).
one is free to disagree with Churchill of course (I certainly do, the WTC was a classic non-military target), and that is one thing. to paint him as a traitor and set him up for a wingnut orgy of hate is entirely another. but I don't expect you understand that dhoyt.

oh, and keep attacking me. it's cute.
posted by matteo at 11:51 PM on February 9, 2005


it never ceases to amuse me how everybody to the left of GW Bush or Alberto Gonzales (ie, most of the intelligent, decent human beings worldwide) seems to be a baddie now in FoxNews' America -- Conservative is the new tolerant, all the world knows that after Iraq Attaq and Abu Ghraib.

If you're not with us, you're against us, hippy scumbags.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:11 AM on February 10, 2005


If I were to attend a Catholic university in the south and attempt to engage in any serious discussion on our current administration, I imagine I'd be run out pretty quickly, too

Why? Catholic universities generally aren't particularly conservative. Being in the South wouldn't make them any more so.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:51 AM on February 10, 2005


lazymonster, I know it is juvenile, but this sentence in Proyect's post made me smile:

"Except for a couple of voices there, the comments
section on crookedtimber.org has been demanding Ward Churchill's scalp."
posted by Cassford at 7:36 AM on February 10, 2005


Ethnic studies is racist.
posted by semmi at 7:51 AM on February 10, 2005


Er, no, it is ethnicist.
posted by Cassford at 11:53 AM on February 10, 2005


The ironic thing about the questions regarding Churchill's purported Indian ancestry is that Churchill has accused others in his book of being fake Indians, including former Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. He has also written a really good dissection of the Carlos Castaneda & don juan hoax, but who knew how close to the subject he really was?
posted by jonp72 at 2:06 PM on February 10, 2005


Speaking of professors, why in all the uproar coming from the right, are none of them speaking of these folks? ... -- James Everett Kibler, a University of Georgia English professor. A founder of the secessionist and white-supremacist League of the South, Kibler is mostly noted for his outspoken admiration for defenders of slavery and white upper-class rule.
-- Thomas DiLorenzo, an economics professor at Loyola College in Baltimore, who promotes a historical view of Abraham Lincoln as a wicked man "secretly intent on destroying states' rights and building a massive federal government."
-- Clyde Wilson, a University of South Carolina history professor. Wilson is another League of the South founder, and remains an unapologetic neo-Confederate. He says the only thing wrong with The Birth of a Nation is that it was too sympathetic to Lincoln. ...

posted by amberglow at 2:05 PM on February 13, 2005


« Older Bolt Gallery...  |  Making your loved one comforta... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments