I agree with Carrol on a lot of things, including some of what he has written above . However, I diagree with his claim that the Churchill *case* has no relevancy for left politics.
Allegations of the sort that right-wing talk show hosts, "professional" anti-leftists, and politicians (right-wingers, opportunists, and right-wing opportunists) have feasted on for several years have existed for quite some time among some American Indian Studies scholars as well some on the left.
Differences, disagreements, and disputes went largely unnoticed, taking place as they did within the "small universes" of a fledgling academic discipline and the U.S. political left (both of which are culturally marginalized). While some of this appears to have been the stuff of squabbling - personal attacks, turf battles, etc. - some of it had/has important consequences for both left scholarship and left politics.
I'll try to avoid *personalizing* here as much as I can; I'm also going to generally ignore the recent public controversy which quickly devolves into crap about "the left" and "academic credentials." Pundit labelling of Churchill as a Marxist is far off the mark as anyone who has read much by him knows. My own introduction goes back to the edited collection _Marxism and Native Americans_ from the early 1980s where he states his opposition to all European ideologies. He is, however, a *critical* scholar/thinker (in a sense broader than that associated with Frankfurt School critical theory) who has "pushed the envelope" throughout his career. As for the *credentials* thing, both pundit and academic criticisms of Churchill ignore the fact that some people built their reputation from a body of work rather than through conventional channels. While *specialized training* is a bigger deal today than in the past (principally for institutional, not intellectual reasons), I'm sure you can find evidence of such persons in a number of universities, including Tier I research places.
On one hand, some stuff from the past looks like petty bickering, claims and counter-claims over whether or not someone has embellished their life-history. Unfortunately, some of these situations can/have had significant political repercussions. The rancor (and worse) surrounding the American Indian Movement (AIM) for several decades is indicative. Ripped apart by government repression, AIM folks turned on themselves in the manner that Fanon asserted oppressed peoples do. My own limited knowledge about such matters comes from having read disputants on both sides, having a brief acquaintance with a former wife of an AIM leader, and disseminating information for Leonard Peltier's defense committee some years ago (regarding the latter, i recall a less than amiable break-up leaving two groups, one of which had Peltier's approval).
On the other hand, some stuff from the past has/had specific importance for the left such as positions on 1980s Nicaragua. In some cases, manifest differences went beyond criticism of/ appeals to the Sandinistas regarding their policies on indigenous peoples to active opposition to both the FSLN and solidarity groups in the U.S.
Lastly, questions about research and scholarship date to early (late 80s?) books on government repression of AIM and the Black Panthers. Long before Bill O'Reilly (or some other right wing talk guy) caught wind of the 9/11 piece (which was *years* after it first appeared in a corner of the Internet called Black Night Press), American Indian scholars raised issues about certain claims as well as footnote material and use in journals such as _American Indian Quarterly_ and _Wicazo Sa Review_. A guy named John Lavelle's critique dates to 1996.
As for "chickens coming home to roost", Churchill has himself played the plagiarism card (see his discussion of Jack Weatherford's _Indian Givers_ in _Indians Are Us?_). Moreover, in _A LIttle Matter of Genocide_, he initially cites Noam Chomsky's use of copious citations and notations as an influence upon his own approach to references and then he challenges readers to check out the sources in his book. I wonder how many took him up.
As someone who thinks highly of Chomsky on this matter *and* whose own co-authored book on Hong Kong cinema has 45 pages of notes (to the chagrin of the publisher during the publication process), I've long believed that *critical perspective* (how's that for a cop-out phrase for left or radical) authors can potentially protect themselves in this way. However, such practice could conceivably be put to a different use: overwhelming the reader and providing legitimacy. Speaking for myself, I'll admit to thinking that an author must have really dug deeply and did some heavy research when a book is heavily cited and noted.
By his own admission, Churchill intends for his writings to "take no prisoners". He was a controversial figure for years in what was a much smaller pool (one mostly ignored, except by those who read South End Press and several other small publishers). He's a bit like a "shock jock" and a "gotcha" journalist - inflammatory, provocative, and, yes, self-serving. I've babbled enough and I'm not sure I've effectively made the point that I was trying to make that this *case* has implications for left politics, nevertheless, I think it does. Michael Hoover
Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.