The complaint's cite to Circe Sturm as external support is hilarious, because Sturm cited the Churchill/Jaimes sock puppet fraud as her source for there being a BQ in the GAA. Her _only_ evidence is Churchill's original lie.
Do these people really think that such blatant dishonesty is going to convince anyone? The signatories are dragging themselves down to Churchill's level.
Hey folks, check out the "Angela Gonzalez" rag. It shows signs of having been ghostwritten by Churchill, making arguments eerily similar to WC's (and using the same vocabulary) against the GAA and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act.
As you may have seen, Tryworks is having a field day over the unremarkable fact that Sturm does not include a cite for her assertion that those of less than one-half blood were excluded from allotments. While true, that does not tell the whole story. Consider the following two quotes:
1. Each Indian, identified as being those documentably of one-half or more Indian blood, was entitled to receive title in fee of such a parcel; all others were simply disenfranchised altogether.
2. Native Americans living on reservations who were documentably of one-half or more Indian blood received allotments, while those who did not meet this standard were simply excluded.
The first is from Jaimes/Churchill's "Federal Indian Identification Policy," pg. 126 in "The State of Native America," while the second is from Sturm, pg. 78 of "Blood Politics."
So yes, Sturm does not cite Jaimes/ Churchill (why this means she is an independent source bolstering the half-blood "hoax" is unclear, as presumably citation to a primary source should be necessary to count as such independent source), but she clearly used Jaimes/ Churchill as that source, unless the use of "documentably" and "simply" are just coincidences. Further, Sturm uses the term "eugenic" on the same page to describe the use of blood quantum; Jaimes uses the term "eugenics mechanism" on the same page to also describe the use of blood quantum.
Hmmmmmm. Is Sturm indeed an independent source wrongly ignored by the committee? I do not mean to suggest that Sturm is not a good scholar, but only that she is not the independent source claimed by Cheyfitz, et al.
Draw your own conclusions.
Wow. It looks like Sturm was documentably copying language from Churchill/Jaimes. Simply amazing.
Wow, indeed.
Interesting observation, Jim, about Sturm's citing to the wrong pages of Jaimes/Churchill's "Federal Indian Identification Policy."
Inserting false page numbers in referenced sources to send readers on a wild goose chase is a distinguishing characteristic of Churchill's handiwork, including his "ghost-written" pieces.
The evidence is building that Churchill was the actual author of the "Circe Sturm" piece.
Could the same be true of the "Angela Gonzalez" piece, Cheyfitz's other "reputable independent source" for Churchill's lies about the General Allotment Act?
Anybody taking bets?
It never occurred to me that Churchill may have written the Sturm book. Seems unlikely, but with The Perfesser, anything's possible.
While this has got to embarassing for Circe Sturm, let's not lump her in with Churchill. Her book is really a pretty good piece of anthropology. I think it qualifies as first rate Indian Studies scholarship. The little flaws we are discussing happen in Sturm's historical survey sections. History is not her field, and these sections are peripheral to her central focus in this book.
While Sturm's copying of language (and false information) from Jaimes/Churchill seems apparent, she may well have authored most of the book. Still, the reference to fake page numbers smells of Churchill.
I see Sturm as a dupe of Churchill. She assumed that published scholarship is valid and reliable. She was sloppy, in that she did not check the primary sources and instead accepted someone else's
characterization of those sources. That is bad scholarship, but it is not research misconduct.
Sturm skated dangerously close to plagiarism, but she copied only two words and one sentence structure, and she did cite her source. That is bad writing, but it would not meet the test for plagiarism.
I have to wonder if Sturm or Gonzales would be willing to sign a petition for Churchill, or to testify in favor of Churchill's falsification of the Dawes Act. I seriously doubt it. I'd wager they'll run screaming in the other direction if Churchill approaches them for this favor.
One other ding on Sturm: It looks like she copied the Limerick quote out of the Churchill/Jaimes essay, and also accepted Churchill's misrepresentation of that quote. Had she actually gone and read Limerick, it is unlikely that she would misrepresent Limerick's meaning in exactly the same way that Churchill did. This again is very sloppy scholarship, and skates dangerously close to the line of plagiarism without actually crossing over.
Noj:
I suspect if academia ever hopes to clear its sordid reputation vis-à-vis Victim Studies, it would do well to assign actual scholars (ie, anyone from virtually any other field of study) to comb every text used in every classroom, and expunge those found to contain even the mere odor of Ward Churchill's "scholarship." That includes everything written by him under his seemingly endless supply of pseudonyms.
Vincent Carroll has a good editorial about this subject today in the Rocky Mountain News.
http://
blogs.rockymountainnews.c...atest_defe.html
You may want to post comments there.
Commenting by HaloScan
