[Tman1]

True, Canada does have more grief but it also entails less bloodshed (Wounded Knee in the 70's being one of the last active Native action in the U.S.). It's also the Canadian governments inability to take action or willingness to do anything (and that means force might be needed) about the situation. Blunders aside (Oka, Ipperwash, Caledonia) Canada seems to be more concerned what the outside world thinks of them rather than solving the situation promptly and decisively, and feed off reactions of foreign critics. U.S. solved their problems in an age when nobody cared about foreign policy or what the outside world thought about their actions, rather before human rights or the UN. Canada has to abide by those rules now.

[Yank-in-NY]

PJB PJB:

The US did, as it seems to do now, to the natives. Isolate or destroy. Britain , notice I did not say Canada, preferred the more generous and gentle approach of negotiations.

You mean like the Residential Schools? This was a tactic of extermination (when assimilation failed) of the British Empire all over the world. Injecting diseases in India, South Africa and Australia was the way to go. Canada was no different.

[Mustang1]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

PJB PJB:

The US did, as it seems to do now, to the natives. Isolate or destroy. Britain , notice I did not say Canada, preferred the more generous and gentle approach of negotiations.

You mean like the Residential Schools? This was a tactic of extermination (when assimilation failed) of the British Empire all over the world. Injecting diseases in India, South Africa and Australia was the way to go. Canada was no different.

A boatload of historical problems here: firstly, Canada’s record with Natives is significantly better than the United States (ask the Cherokee, for instance). Secondly, Canada’s (unless you mean the early French or later Upper Canadian ones) residential school system (I wonder why you didn’t mention the American one too?) was NOT extermination (unless of course you want to demonstrate that rather contentious notion with some evidence that’s not contained in some juvenile website) centres, but they were envisioned as assimilation tactics and they were rather cruel in their cultural marginalization, abusive behaviour and deplorable living conditions (but, again, that’s not evidence of planned systematic extermination nor does it address the fact that virtually all of the schools were run by Christian denominations!).

Sorry, but that’s nothing but revisionist tripe, followed up by bad history.

[Yank-in-NY]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

PJB PJB:

The US did, as it seems to do now, to the natives. Isolate or destroy. Britain , notice I did not say Canada, preferred the more generous and gentle approach of negotiations.

You mean like the Residential Schools? This was a tactic of extermination (when assimilation failed) of the British Empire all over the world. Injecting diseases in India, South Africa and Australia was the way to go. Canada was no different.

A boatload of historical problems here: firstly, Canada’s record with Natives is significantly better than the United States (ask the Cherokee, for instance). Secondly, Canada’s (unless you mean the early French or later Upper Canadian ones) residential school system (I wonder why you didn’t mention the American one too?) was NOT extermination (unless of course you want to demonstrate that rather contentious notion with some evidence that’s not contained in some juvenile website) centres, but they were envisioned as assimilation tactics and they were rather cruel in their cultural marginalization, abusive behaviour and deplorable living conditions (but, again, that’s not evidence of planned systematic extermination nor does it address the fact that virtually all of the schools were run by Christian denominations!).

Sorry, but that’s nothing but revisionist tripe, followed up by bad history.

Yes of course, because the only person on the internet that knows anything about history is...of course, none other than Mustang.

I didn't mention the US residential schools, because there were very few of them, because the extermination was overt, as in war and forced relocations. The residential schools in Canada were "allegedly" a means of assimilation, when that failed, extermination was the name of the game.

This was a tactic of the British Empire, wherever they encountered aboriginal peoples. It wasn't confined to Canada. And I am not referring to the French Indian Wars.

[Mustang1]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

Yes of course, because the only person on the internet that knows anything about history is...of course, none other than Mustang.

Well…I certainly know more than you, but hey, demonstrate how I was wrong rather than playing the banal patronizing card. If not, read a book and quit whining about your ignorance.

$1:

“I didn't mention the US residential schools, because there were very few of them, because the extermination was overt, as in war and forced relocations. The residential schools in Canada were "allegedly" a means of assimilation, when that failed, extermination was the name of the game.

You likely didn’t know about the U.S. residential schools (and I noticed you conveniently dodged the objective fact that U.S. government has historically targeted Natives for extermination, not Canada) and secondly demonstrate, with tangible, verifiable evidence that the FEDERAL CANADIAN government systemically and consciously EXTERMINATED Natives!

Either concede that you erred in slurring Canada’s historical narrative or prove your point.

Sorry, but all I’ve seen from you is bad history, an anti-Canadian bias and juvenile excuses to mask your ahistorical dreck. But, hey, I’ll spot you two post to prove me wrong on that.

[HyperionTheEvil]

the title is misleading they were never then and are not now nations.

I dont call them first nations because they do not that appellation

[saga]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

Yes of course, because the only person on the internet that knows anything about history is...of course, none other than Mustang.

Well…I certainly know more than you, but hey, demonstrate how I was wrong rather than playing the banal patronizing card. If not, read a book and quit whining about your ignorance.

$1:

“I didn't mention the US residential schools, because there were very few of them, because the extermination was overt, as in war and forced relocations. The residential schools in Canada were "allegedly" a means of assimilation, when that failed, extermination was the name of the game.

You likely didn’t know about the U.S. residential schools (and I noticed you conveniently dodged the objective fact that U.S. government has historically targeted Natives for extermination, not Canada) and secondly demonstrate, with tangible, verifiable evidence that the FEDERAL CANADIAN government systemically and consciously EXTERMINATED Natives!

Either concede that you erred in slurring Canada’s historical narrative or prove your point.

Sorry, but all I’ve seen from you is bad history, an anti-Canadian bias and juvenile excuses to mask your ahistorical dreck. But, hey, I’ll spot you two post to prove me wrong on that.

Forbidding the "G-Word": Holocaust Denial as Judicial Doctrine in Canada

"Genocide is not an old word, having "naturally" evolved over time to hold meanings contrary to its own. Nor was it meant to serve as a synonym for mass killing. When Raphaël Lemkin coined the term in 1944, he went to considerable lengths in explaining that it was intended to describe policies and processes designed to bring about the dissolution and disappearance of targeted human groups, as such. He wrote "Genocide has two phases, one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor."15 If these two conditions have been fulfilled, a genocide has occurred, even if every member of the targeted group has survived the process in a physical sense."

And read the rest of Churchill's paper to see how Canada manipulated the definition of genocide to cover it up.

And churches did no wrong? Read Alfred's story.
Alfred Beaver's Story

And there are similar stories for Anglican and United church schools, though most schools were Catholic.

And there were lots of schools and lots of children.
Res Schools Map

Genocide and Native Residential Schools in Canada
"I believe the conditions are being deliberately created in our Indian schools to spread infectious disease. The mortality rate among students often exceed 50%. This is a national crime." Dr. Peter Bryce, Ontario Health Commission, in his report to Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Scott, May, 1909.

"We couldn't begin to investigate all the deaths at the Alberni residential school. It would be too huge an investigation." Constable Gerry Peters, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vancouver, October 3rd, 1997"

"In March of this year (2000), a United Nations Human Rights panel declared what many of us have known for years: that Canada is in violation of International law for its treatment of Native Peoples,"

..........................................................................................

You are being too hard on good buddy from the south.
It appears that there is no silencing of talk of our crimes south of the border like there is here. Listen ... and learn. It has always been silenced here. Canada is about to admit to a whitewashed version to satisfy the UN.
But what you hear in the news will not be the whole story.

And about the tangible verifiable evidence ... there may be some graves found eventually, but their school records will often be missing (dumped at sea, burned, etc.). Only their families know, and those who may have witnessed.
It's a huge coverup, and people from other countries know more about it than we do.

[Mustang1]

saga saga:

Forbidding the "G-Word": Holocaust Denial as Judicial Doctrine in Canada

"Genocide is not an old word, having "naturally" evolved over time to hold meanings contrary to its own. Nor was it meant to serve as a synonym for mass killing. When Raphaël Lemkin coined the term in 1944, he went to considerable lengths in explaining that it was intended to describe policies and processes designed to bring about the dissolution and disappearance of targeted human groups, as such. He wrote "Genocide has two phases, one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor."15 If these two conditions have been fulfilled, a genocide has occurred, even if every member of the targeted group has survived the process in a physical sense."

And read the rest of Churchill's paper to see how Canada manipulated the definition of genocide to cover it up.

Oh great, a piece from Ward Churchill (the same twit that claimed 9/11 victims deserved their fate as they were little Eichmanns – this is the kind of junk you support) – you have no idea about the pigswill you ape, do you, Granny? This is the kind of pseudo-academic junk that fuels the whackjobs and falsely gives amateurs like you hope in your misguided agendas.

Besides, in blindly parroting yet another site, you’ve shot your dipshit argument in the foot. If what Churchill posits is true (it’s needling and it reaches) than Canada isn’t guilty of true physical genocide (only, at best, cultural genocide) and your initial comparison to Nazi Germany’s genocide is WRONG. You can’t have it both ways. In your moronic attempt to barf up anything, you posted a junky article that disproves your own original assertion!

Oh…and the rest of your tired, out of context, blurbs mean nothing as they don’t show conscious intent nor do they objectively prove the Federal Government knowingly systematically EXTERMINATED Natives. I’ve already dismantled this garbage before, so I’m not about to do it again, but suffice it to say, you’re wrong.

I’ll be waiting for your concession speech, Driving Miss Dumb as you shit the bed again.

[saga]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

saga saga:

Forbidding the "G-Word": Holocaust Denial as Judicial Doctrine in Canada

"Genocide is not an old word, having "naturally" evolved over time to hold meanings contrary to its own. Nor was it meant to serve as a synonym for mass killing. When Raphaël Lemkin coined the term in 1944, he went to considerable lengths in explaining that it was intended to describe policies and processes designed to bring about the dissolution and disappearance of targeted human groups, as such. He wrote "Genocide has two phases, one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor."15 If these two conditions have been fulfilled, a genocide has occurred, even if every member of the targeted group has survived the process in a physical sense."

And read the rest of Churchill's paper to see how Canada manipulated the definition of genocide to cover it up.

Oh great, a piece from Ward Churchill (the same twit that claimed 9/11 victims deserved their fate as they were little Eichmanns – this is the kind of junk you support) – you have no idea about the pigswill you ape, do you, Granny? This is the kind of pseudo-academic junk that fuels the whackjobs and falsely gives amateurs like you hope in your misguided agendas.

Besides, in blindly parroting yet another site, you’ve shot your dipshit argument in the foot. If what Churchill posits is true (it’s needling and it reaches) than Canada isn’t guilty of true physical genocide (only, at best, cultural genocide) and your initial comparison to Nazi Germany’s genocide is WRONG. You can’t have it both ways. In your moronic attempt to barf up anything, you posted a junky article that disproves your own original assertion!

Oh…and the rest of your tired, out of context, blurbs mean nothing as they don’t show conscious intent nor do they objectively prove the Federal Government knowingly systematically EXTERMINATED Natives. I’ve already dismantled this garbage before, so I’m not about to do it again, but suffice it to say, you’re wrong.

I’ll be waiting for your concession speech, Driving Miss Dumb as you shit the bed again.

Read the rest of my post ... and then read Churchill's 9/11 paper and see if he really said that.

Because if a guy from the US knows more about it than we do ... maybe we should be looking into it.

I am not an amateur, but strangely all the people who have written about it have been discredited, destroyed even. Why do you think that might be?

I made no comparison to the scale of the nazi holocaust. I merely quoted Duncan Campbell Scott's use of the term "final solution" in the decade before Hitler used it. Scott used it to describe Canada's policy in regard to natives, and specifically to refer to the exorbitant death rates in the residential schools, which pleased him.
They were injected with diseases. Healthy children were put in bed with sick children. They received no medical treatment, and died of treatable things like appendicitis. They were thrown out windows and died, kicked down stairs and died, starved and died. Much of this was established practice in the church schools before the government became involved, and then it was encouraged by failure of oversight.

The children who "did as they were told" and became good little Canadians were used as abusers of children who clung to their spiritual practices and language. These divisions continue in their communities to this day. The cycle of family violence continues. Families were disrupted never to be reunited ... for SIX generations.

Not a pretty picture.

[HyperionTheEvil]

saga saga:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

saga saga:

Forbidding the "G-Word": Holocaust Denial as Judicial Doctrine in Canada

"Genocide is not an old word, having "naturally" evolved over time to hold meanings contrary to its own. Nor was it meant to serve as a synonym for mass killing. When Raphaël Lemkin coined the term in 1944, he went to considerable lengths in explaining that it was intended to describe policies and processes designed to bring about the dissolution and disappearance of targeted human groups, as such. He wrote "Genocide has two phases, one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor."15 If these two conditions have been fulfilled, a genocide has occurred, even if every member of the targeted group has survived the process in a physical sense."

And read the rest of Churchill's paper to see how Canada manipulated the definition of genocide to cover it up.

Oh great, a piece from Ward Churchill (the same twit that claimed 9/11 victims deserved their fate as they were little Eichmanns – this is the kind of junk you support) – you have no idea about the pigswill you ape, do you, Granny? This is the kind of pseudo-academic junk that fuels the whackjobs and falsely gives amateurs like you hope in your misguided agendas.

Besides, in blindly parroting yet another site, you’ve shot your dipshit argument in the foot. If what Churchill posits is true (it’s needling and it reaches) than Canada isn’t guilty of true physical genocide (only, at best, cultural genocide) and your initial comparison to Nazi Germany’s genocide is WRONG. You can’t have it both ways. In your moronic attempt to barf up anything, you posted a junky article that disproves your own original assertion!

Oh…and the rest of your tired, out of context, blurbs mean nothing as they don’t show conscious intent nor do they objectively prove the Federal Government knowingly systematically EXTERMINATED Natives. I’ve already dismantled this garbage before, so I’m not about to do it again, but suffice it to say, you’re wrong.

I’ll be waiting for your concession speech, Driving Miss Dumb as you shit the bed again.

Read the rest of my post ... and then read Churchill's 9/11 paper and see if he really said that.

Because if a guy from the US knows more about it than we do ... maybe we should be looking into it.

I am not an amateur, but strangely all the people who have written about it have been discredited, destroyed even. Why do you think that might be?

I made no comparison to the scale of the nazi holocaust. I merely quoted Duncan Campbell Scott's use of the term "final solution" in the decade before Hitler used it. Scott used it to describe Canada's policy in regard to natives, and specifically to refer to the exorbitant death rates in the residential schools, which pleased him.
They were injected with diseases. Healthy children were put in bed with sick children. They received no medical treatment, and died of treatable things like appendicitis. They were thrown out windows and died, kicked down stairs and died, starved and died. Much of this was established practice in the church schools before the government became involved, and then it was encouraged by failure of oversight.

The children who "did as they were told" and became good little Canadians were used as abusers of children who clung to their spiritual practices and language. These divisions continue in their communities to this day. The cycle of family violence continues. Families were disrupted never to be reunited ... for SIX generations.

Not a pretty picture.

You're using Ward churchill to back up your' claims'?

Please so this more often

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churc ... misconduct


In February 2005, during the height of the media firestorm surrounding his "little Eichmans" comments, Churchill publicly challenged anyone to find fault with his scholarship. The media took up the challenge and a number of allegations of research misconduct were reported.

Federal regulations that define "research misconduct" specify three types of misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Churchill was investigated by the University of Colorado's standing Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, which found that he had falsified and fabricated information, and plagiarized two different essays.[18]

[edit]
Was there a smallpox blanket genocide?
In several essays, Churchill argues that the U.S. Army deliberately distributed smallpox-infected blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837 to spark a smallpox pandemic, and that hundreds of thousands of Indians died of smallpox as a consequence. Other scholars who have studied this episode agree that smallpox killed many Indians in this time frame, but deny that there is any evidence to support Churchill's allegations of deliberate genocide by means of smallpox blankets. They also charge Churchill with exaggerating the death toll and with falsifying the sources he cites in support of his claims.

In November 2004, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, published an essay charging Churchill with misrepresenting his sources. Lewy says Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets in 1837 is false. "He just makes things up," said Lewy. Lewy calls Churchill's claim of 100,000 deaths from the incident "obviously absurd".[19][20]

In an article in the journal "Plagiary" entitled "Did the US Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill's Genocide Rhetoric", Lamar University sociology professor Thomas Brown also accused Churchill of fabricating the incident and falsifying his sources.[21] Brown argues that Churchill's claim that his cited source--Russell Thornton--supports Churchill's smallpox blanket allegations is a falsification of Thornton. Brown also charges Churchill with fabricating the presence of US Army personnel on the scene, with fabricating the distribution of blankets taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis, and with concealing evidence in his possession that disconfirms his allegations.

Three of the authors that Churchill cites in support of his smallpox thesis, Evan Connell, RG Robertson and Russell Thornton, have rejected Churchill's interpretation of their work. Thornton characterized Churchill's smallpox thesis as "fabrication." [22]

Churchill continues to maintain that his description of events at Fort Clark is correct, and that he has obtained new supporting data.[23]

The May 2006 report by the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado corroborated Churchill's critics. The committee concluded that for over a period of 10 years, Churchill consistently falsified his sources and fabricated claims regarding the Fort Clark epidemic. The committee criticized Churchill for failing to recognize and correct his errors, and for his insistence that he intends to republish his indictment of genocide in the future without substantive changes. The committee also criticized Churchill for answering his critics with ad hominem attacks instead of reason and evidence.

Additionally, the committee found Churchill guilty of serious research misconduct in his claims that John Smith initiated a smallpox epidemic against Wampanoag Indians in the 17th century. The committee determined that Churchill had fabricated this event, and falsified his sources


Findings of Plagiarism
The University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee concluded that Ward Churchill plagiarized the writing of three different authors.

[edit]
Annette Jaimes and Rebecca Robbins
John LaVelle was the first to publicly note that several of Churchill's essays share similarities with an earlier essay by Annette Jaimes, Churchill's ex-wife. Additional plagiarism allegations stem from portions of an essay Churchill published in 1993 that closely resemble a 1992 essay published by Rebecca L. Robbins. However, "LaVelle did not accuse Churchill of [plagiarizing the Jaimes passages], one of the most serious offenses in academia. On the contrary, LaVelle speculated that Churchill might have been the author of all the works. The ideology, rhetoric and writing style" of the Jaimes piece are 'interchangeable' with positions that Churchill takes in his books, LaVelle wrote".[31]

Churchill also asserts that he himself is the original author of the material in question, and thus has not plagiarized either Jaimes or Robbins: "I'm free to make disposition of my ideas and my material any way I see fit… That's my understanding of the situation… If there's an issue around that, then there's an issue around that." Churchill says that he ghostwrote the material to help Jaimes' career: "All you need to do is take a piece of Annette Jaimes' material, which is published—and she's published things that I didn't (write) - take her stuff, stack it up next (to mine), set it side by side, and read the two… You tell me who's writing this. We don't need to get into forensics to do it."[32]

Jaimes denies that Churchill wrote the material in dispute, and calls him "a liar." Jaimes complains that Churchill is jeopardizing her career to defend himself from the plagiarism allegations, and said "He's despicable." Robbins has refused to comment publicly on the matter, but Jaimes says that she saw an early draft of Robbins' essay, and that the matter in question is original to Robbins.[32]

Because both Robbins and Jaimes refused to testify for the committee, it took Churchill's word that he was the original author of the essays published under Robbins and Jaimes's names. However, the committee still found Churchill guilty of "serious research misconduct" with regards to the Robbins and Jaimes essays, for failing to follow accepted practices of attributing authorship, and for citing in works published under his own name to these essays that he had ghostwritten, as if they were independent sources.

[edit]
Dam the Dams
University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee also investigated allegations that Churchill plagiarized a pamphlet entitled "The Water Plot"—originally published by Dam the Dams, a Canadian activist group in 1972—and republished it under his own name several times.[33]

Churchill first republished the "Water Plot" essay in 1989, when he credited the piece both to the original authors as well as to the "Institute for Natural Progress." In three subsequent publications, twice in 1993 and once in 2002, Churchill took sole credit for substantially the same essay. Churchill says that he did not plagiarize the essay in 1993, but rather that the editors of Z Magazine incorrectly excised Dam the Dams from the byline. Churchill also says he did not plagiarize in 2002, because he added additional material of his own to the essay, and because he cited Dam the Dams as one of his sources in the footnotes.[33]

The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill repeatedly plagiarized the Water Plot pamphlet, and that Churchill's "misconduct was not accidental, but deliberate."[34].

[edit]
Fay Cohen
The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill had plagiarized the work of Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, and republished it in a book edited by his wife Annette Jaimes. The previous year, Churchill had edited his own book of collected essays, which had included Cohen’s chapter on fishing rights. Churchill then solicited Cohen’s essay for republication in his wife’s book. Cohen refused to grant Churchill and Jaimes permission to republish the essay.

In Jaimes’ book, the essay in question is attributed to the “Institute for Natural Progress,” the same pseudonym under which Churchill had previously published the disputed "Water Plot" essay. In the back matter, Jaimes writes that Churchill “assumed the lead role in preparing" the essay; he characterized his role as similar to a newspaper’s “rewrite man,” who takes materials gathered by others and works them into a final version for publication.

After the Jaimes book was published, Cohen asked lawyers at her university to assess her rights in the matter. An internal Dalhousie University report concluded that "[t]he article … is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said, summarizing the report's findings in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News.

Churchill says that he has not committed plagiarism because he never said he wrote the essay.[35] The CU investigative committee found Churchill's defense "implausible," observing that Churchill did claim authorship of the essay in his Faculty Report of Professional Activity for the year 1991, followed by the parenthetical notation “for the Institute for Natural Progress.” The committee concluded that Churchill's involvement in plagiarizing Cohen's essay constitutes an act of research misconduct.[34]

[edit]
Allegations of copyright infringement and art fraud
Four authors have come forward to accuse Churchill of publishing their work without their permission.[36] Robert T. Coulter, a lawyer and member of the Potawatomi Nation, has accused Churchill of taking a class that Coulter taught on the status of American Indian nations and having publishing notes distributed in the class without written permission. Coulter has criticized not only Churchill's republication of the handout, but also Churchill's addition of his own endnotes. He said: I would never have permitted that—especially [by] Ward Churchill. He's not a lawyer. He doesn't have the skill or expertise to add [endnotes] to a paper on my own subject.[36]

University of Minnesota Professor Brenda Child alleges that Churchill printed in his latest book on Indian boarding schools a photograph that Child had taken and previously published in her own book on the same topic".[37] The photo depicts the grave of an Indian child who had died while at school. Child complains that Churchill never requested or obtained her permission to use her photo. Furthermore, Child complains that Churchill's caption to her photo cites her while estimating that one half of Indian children died at boarding schools. Child characterizes Churchill's estimate as a "tremendous exaggeration".

There are allegations that "Winter Attack", a 1981 serigraph signed by Ward Churchill, may be a copyright infringement of a 1972 drawing by Thomas E. Mails.[38] Churchill has responded that "[t]he whole issue is utterly contrived." He said he spoke to Mails about adapting the imagery before using it, an adaptation which he said "[t]here was nothing unusual about."[39] Ryan Mails, the son of the late Thomas Mails, said that he could not imagine that his father "would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces."[38]

In a similar style, Churchill sold an ink sketch of a public domain 1877 photograph by Charles M. Bell.[40] The photograph of an Oglala Sioux Warrior is titled "Little Big Man".

The University of Colorado's Investigation
Seven misconduct charges against Churchill have been investigated by the University of Colorado's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. The Committee has defined its jurisdiction narrowly in Churchill's case, limited to the three dimensions of research misconduct that are specified in the federal regulations. The Standing Committee has declined to pursue the various charges of copyright violation that do not meet the legal definition of "plagiarism" and are not covered in the federal misconduct regulations. The Committee's investigative subcommittee has completed its investigation into the various charges of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification, brought by Professors Brown, Lavelle, and Cohen, a charge of fabrication published by Kevin Vaughan of the Rocky Mountain News,[22] as well as Churchill's alleged plagiarism of the "Water Plot" pamphlet.

The University released its investigative committee findings on May 16, 2006. The committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct," including four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.”

Following the sub-committee report's release, Churchill called the report "self-contradictory" and "patently false".

As things stand, the entire procedure appears to be little more than a carefully-orchestrated effort to cast an aura of legitimacy over an entirely illegitimate set of predetermined outcomes. It follows that I reject and will vigorously contest each and every finding of misconduct.[41]

— Ward Churchill , A Travesty of an "Investigation"

The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct disagreed on what sanctions should be imposed on Churchill. Six members voted for dismissal. Two members voted for a five year suspension without pay, and one voted for a two year suspension without pay. Churchill's actual punishment was determined by the University Chancellor, who recommended to the Board of Regents that Churchill be dismissed. The Chancellor has relieved Churchill of his duties pending the outcome of this process.[42] on June 13, 2006, and is reviewing whether an investigation is warranted for additional recently presented charges

[Mustang1]

saga saga:

Read the rest of my post ... and then read Churchill's 9/11 paper and see if he really said that.

Actually, until you address your monumental errors, I’ll pick and choose which pieces of your fluff I’ll dismantle and which ones I ignore as many of them are too blatantly juvenile to warrant a protracted response.

Keep dodging, coward.

$1:

“Because if a guy from the US knows more about it than we do ... maybe we should be looking into it.”

He doesn’t, and you can’t even keep your articles straight (I read both your infantile aped junk and Churchill’s “Some People Push Back” and they’re both full of biased agenda pushing minutia that is historically questionable. You wouldn’t know that because, quite frankly, you’re an ignoramus).

Quit projecting your unawareness onto others, Granny.

$1:

“I am not an amateur, but strangely all the people who have written about it have been discredited, destroyed even. Why do you think that might be”

You’re not an amateur? Really? Where are your history degrees from? Besides, don’t push your dementia-fuelled paranoia onto issues – they’ve been discredited because they’re WRONG! Are you seriously telling us that graduate students in Canadian universities (hungry to publish) are all mindless automatons that’ve bought into this massive cover-up – they simple sit there and accept objectively incorrect data? They’ve (and historians) have been swindled, but you and your intrepid band of Internet goofs are on the cutting edge of truth exposure? Tinfoil hat time, Granny.

Time for your nap as you’ve consistently demonstrated an utter lack of lucidity and an inability to think objectively. Night.

Oh…and don’t PM again as I don’t care about your nocturnal hang-ups.

[Mustang1]

saga saga:

I made no comparison to the scale of the nazi holocaust. I merely quoted Duncan Campbell Scott's use of the term "final solution" in the decade before Hitler used it.

That’s a blatant lie, Granny. Not only are you coward, you’re a disingenuous fraud too. See your “blog” here and your other threads for evidence of your lies.

[stratos]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

PJB PJB:

The US did, as it seems to do now, to the natives. Isolate or destroy. Britain , notice I did not say Canada, preferred the more generous and gentle approach of negotiations.

You mean like the Residential Schools? This was a tactic of extermination (when assimilation failed) of the British Empire all over the world. Injecting diseases in India, South Africa and Australia was the way to go. Canada was no different.

A boatload of historical problems here: firstly, Canada’s record with Natives is significantly better than the United States (ask the Cherokee, for instance). Secondly, Canada’s (unless you mean the early French or later Upper Canadian ones) residential school system (I wonder why you didn’t mention the American one too?) was NOT extermination (unless of course you want to demonstrate that rather contentious notion with some evidence that’s not contained in some juvenile website) centres, but they were envisioned as assimilation tactics and they were rather cruel in their cultural marginalization, abusive behaviour and deplorable living conditions (but, again, that’s not evidence of planned systematic extermination nor does it address the fact that virtually all of the schools were run by Christian denominations!).

Sorry, but that’s nothing but revisionist tripe, followed up by bad history.

I'll have to agree with you on the treatment of native americans. The US gov. after the civil war had a very poor record of dealing with them. The use of small pox invested blankets, rotten grain, spoiled meat and the list goes on. Now i'm not sure what you mean by residental schools i've not heard that term used before with the US reservations. Can you tell/explain what they are in canada. Could be the US has something simular but I would know it by a diff. name.

When talking about treaties and what not with firends and such I always ask what nation would you be most willing to sign a treaty with. Everyone of course says the US. I then point out the the US gov. has broken more treaties then any other nation in the world over the past 200 years. I just point to all the ones we signed with the various Indian nations and then broke them with in a couple years if not sooner. Does canada have a simular record with its native population?

[saga]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

saga saga:

I made no comparison to the scale of the nazi holocaust. I merely quoted Duncan Campbell Scott's use of the term "final solution" in the decade before Hitler used it.

That’s a blatant lie, Granny. Not only are you coward, you’re a disingenuous fraud too. See your “blog” here and your other threads for evidence of your lies.

The "final solution", made infamous by Hitler, was first invented and used in Canada against Indigenous people.

That was my statement.

You are really oout of control about this Mustang!

Take a break, take a walk, take a pill.

[Mustang1]

saga saga:

The "final solution", made infamous by Hitler, was first invented and used in Canada against Indigenous people.

That’s objectively false. Move on.

$1:

“That was my statement.”

It was and is, wrong. It, however, does not change the fact that you are a liar.

$1:

“You are really oout of control about this Mustang!”

Says you, which is immaterial.

$1:

“Take a break, take a walk, take a pill.”

Have some Pablum, clean your sheets, have a nap