Re: [Marxism] Ward Churchill Redux

[Debordagoria <phantasmagorias@xxxxxxxxx>]

I've not been following this thread, but isn't it totally legitimate for a 
active defender of Churchill to conclude that Churchill did engage in some 
pretty sloppy scholarship, but that this had nothing to do with why he was 
actually fired?

Michael D.  

--- On Wed, 5/6/09, John Thornton <jthorn65@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: John Thornton <jthorn65@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Ward Churchill Redux
> To: phantasmagorias@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 5:16 PM
> Mark Lause wrote:
> > Tom, who on the left has bought into the phony
> academic case against
> > Ward Churchill?
> >
> > I've not followed this case more closely than I've
> needed to decide to
> > defend him, but I've not seen any indications of
> anyone on the left
> > buying into the case against him.
> >
> > ML
> 
> Perhaps Tom subscribes to LBO?
> There was more than a small amount of agreement that
> Churchill had done 
> wrong with regards to the ghostwriting and the evidence for
> infecting 
> the Mandan people with smallpox.
> Most academic leftists did not comment on the issue which
> was cowardly 
> in itself.
> 
> John Thornton
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a
> message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/phantasmagorias%40yahoo.com
> 


      

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu