Mumia Is Still A Killer and Ward Churchill Is Still A Fake

“It is not enough for us to merely, dumbly intone that Churchill has the right to write what he does. No -- we must do more. We must insist that Churchill *is right*. And no one, not some rabid talk show
parrots, nor a political whore like Gov. Bill Owens, has a right to demand what is wrong. The Cold War is over (even in Colorado).
Churchill is right!”
-Mumia Abu-Jamal, 2005

(Picture of Ward Churchill)

Mumia Abu-Jamal and Ward Churchill are cut from the same sordid cloth. They are both fakes who are neither intellectuals, moralists, persons of integrity, or true humanitarians.

Both have found themselves in the press lately. Jamal for having his name defile a street in France and Churchill being exposed as an intellectual fraud.

Allow me to refresh your memory. Churchill, who is of course a Jamal apologist got himself into a bit of trouble with a certain little essay he wrote a couple of years ago. In case you forgot, Churchill’s view of the victims of 9/11 was that “they were civilians of a sort... but innocent?...gimme a break."

Churchill would go on to describe the World Trade Center victims as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolph Eichmann, who carried out Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jewry before and during the second World War.

Understandably, these opinions evoked a huge barrage of opinion and debate about what Churchill said. And while I firmly disagree with his views, I do not begrudge him his right to state them, stupid as they were.

I would also not add my voice to the those of those who demand Churchill’s termination of employment. In America people should have the right to make political comments without fear of losing their job.

My view on the affair were summed up with the following comment on my blog at that time

“How funny it is that a fake journalist and real murderer would take up for a fake intellectual who defends real murderers. On second thought, it's not funny, not funny at all.”As it turned out, I was more correct at that time than I had initially believed.

For starters, Churchill is no native American at all. His Indian get-up is a costume apparently pulled together for his fan’s benefit. Reporters (and some really tried hard to find the contrary), found that the only actual connection to Native Americans Churchill came through his late wife. In short, Churchill is a wannabee.

This is something that is personally offensive to me as I am sure it is to other actual descendants of native peoples. My fraternal great grandmother was a full-blooded Native American, but the darkness of our nations past would cause me never to know her. She committed suicide, allegedly as a result of the bigotry she faced as an “Indian” with white kids and a white husband.

That fakes like Churchill attempt to ingratiate themselves into this kind of tragedy is profoundly vulgar and offensive. And if I get to meet him again, I will be sure to tell him so, (I once met him briefly at an anti-Columbus rally in Denver) a few years back.

Now in addition to playing Indian, and making indefensible remarks about September 11th, it seems that he has made some professional transgressions that have now caught up with him.

A five member panel of professors (Churchill's own peers) have concluded that

"The Committee’s investigation of the seven allegations before us has unanimously found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Professor Churchill committed several forms of academic misconduct as defined in the policy statements of the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Colorado system:231

1. Falsification, as discussed in Allegations A, B, C, and D.

2. Fabrication, as discussed in Allegations C and D.

3. Plagiarism, as discussed in Allegations E and G.

4. Failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications, as discussed most fully in Allegation F but also in Allegations A, B, and D.

5. Serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research, as discussed in Allegation D."

The proffeseors would go onto say that:

"Although many of his writings, including nearly all those discussed in this report, address historical and/or legal issues, he does not have formal training at the graduate level in those fields. Professors writing on the topics he addresses would typically have a Ph.D. in history or a law degree; Professor Churchill’s graduate degree is an M.A. in Communications Theory."

So as it turns out Churchill supports an unapologetic cop-killer, pretends he is a native American, and is a now debunked intellectual. Why am I not the least bit surprised.?