thanx again okie01.
I used your references and commentary in an email to perkins. i cited you in my blog about it. u can check it out here
http://harkonnendog.blogspot.com/2005/02/another-email-to-prof-perkinson.html
if u like.
Something along the line of- "he's a hustler making a buck- why bother him?" I don't care for ethnic identifcation, Affirmative Action etc, so she's got a point.
At bottom, I agree with her assessment of Churchill. His entire life has been pretty much a lie. E.g., he claims to have been a Ranger and seen combat in Viet Nam -- when he drove a jeep and edited the battalion newsletter...he claims to have written for Soldier of Fortune -- but they never heard of him, even in a free lance capacity...he claims to have taught the Weather Underground how to make bombs -- but those he may have taught have been silent (or deceased).
Early on, Churchill found a way to game the system -- and it suited him. It was a relatively easy gig...and it earned him a lot of fawning attention. A natural occupation for a self-absorbed grifter, who probably spent his juvenile and adolescent years nursing resentments and bitching about life being "unfair" to him (not others).
Churchill's interest in the "oppression" of American Indians probably extends no further than that of an actor playing a part.
It's amazing how academe could buy into such a transparent scam. Perkinson is a fool if he insists on feeding the monster.
That's not to say that, as a partisan, I wouldn't mind Churchill making regular public appearances and getting beaucoup TV coverage. He is the academic left's tar baby -- and the more he talks, the more he reveals about them all.