portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

actions & protests | indigenous issues

Audio and Report From Ward Churchill Last Night

Ward Churchill spoke last night at Reed College. The speech was only open to Reed College students and their guests. This was the second time I had seen Ward Churchill speak, the first was at Break the Chains in 2003.

When I saw Ward speak then, he was much more intense and not defneding himself, he was on the offense as radical natives should be, the right-wing has begun to attack him which has moved him to the defense, and this resulted in a much calmer speech.

The aura of fear around this person is alarming, he is under attack as we are all under attack. We are under attack, each and every one of us, and as Ward points out in this speech, each and every one of us has the tools necessary to defeat our enemy. We just need to recognize the players, our enemies, our tools, our objectives, and then win. Anyway, lets get into the actual speech.

ward churchill speech part 1
ward churchill speech part 1
In the beginning of the speech, one of the organizers asks specifically if all recording erquipment could remain off. Obviously this was disregarded. The reasons that media was not allowed was because the school/organizers felt that if they invited any media they would have to be FAIR and invite ALL media.

If we are to recognize our enemies and pioint them out and actively work against them, we are going to have to be able to pick and choose our allies. Naturally corporate media should be told to fuck off, because they have demonstrated daily that they cannot be responsible to the truth, yet they can be responsible to the monetary interests in the economically run world.

This audio is just the speech, there is a questions and answers section after that that will be made available soon, but this is addressed in a question then. Ward said something to the effect that media could not quote one sentence that he had uttered correctly, and that was why he was against having media present. One of the organizers admitted that Reed was taping the speech and that if you would agree to play it in its entirety, and have permission from Ward, you could get a copy of the audio.

This audio has been recorded by someone that beleives in independant media, beleives that we can be the media and tell the truth, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US. I also beleive that Ward Churchill has a very necessary message to get out there and that he has a certain eloquence that reaches people. Becuase of this, it is a shame that this audio would otherwise be regulated. This audio is made available, the speech in its entirety (in four pieces for uploading purposes), for people to hear these words that Ward says and hopefully to become radicalized by them and hear what he is really saying.

The enemy is clear to us, we have the means to overtake our enemy. This will not be a painless or bloodless fight, power will not give power over without some clear convincing. No more daily struggle to pay the rent, lets have a daily struggles to take our lives and the mechanisms of production back into our own hands as we begin to reclaim this land, and start to take our lives back into our own hands.

part 3 17.Apr.2005 11:26

you know.

part three of the speech.
ward churchill speech part 3
ward churchill speech part 3

part 2 17.Apr.2005 11:26

you know.

this is part two of the audio.
ward churchill speech part 2
ward churchill speech part 2

part 4 17.Apr.2005 11:50

you know.

fourth and final part of ward churchill speech.

please note that another 50 minutes of questions and answers exist, that will be made available in due time.
ward churchill speech part 4
ward churchill speech part 4

how did you get audio equipment in? 17.Apr.2005 12:11


did reed allow you to tape? just curious.

torrent for complete speech and q&a in mp3 17.Apr.2005 16:51

not you know

WCDJ 17.Apr.2005 18:39


Links to Part 1 and Part 2 of a Q&A with Ward Churchill and Derrick Jensen reposted from Milwaukie Indymedia

Part 1 -  http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/media/2005/02/202701.mp3

Part 2 -  http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/media/2005/02/202703.mp3

attn you know 18.Apr.2005 14:23

anthony - organizer

attn you know

i would like to have some words with you pertaining to respect and integrity. if you have any notion of the two you should probably contact me. If you actually do any organizing in this town you would porbably know who the fuck i am or some one that does

anthony - one of the organizers of the event


question? 18.Apr.2005 21:00

missed the speech

why are you pissed off?

Another Event Organizer / More about respect. 18.Apr.2005 22:20


Maybe someone at IMC should learn a little respect? I worked my ass off to help put this event together. Whoever posted this IMC statement should realize that putting him/her on the guest list free of charge was a favor on my part. Students ultimately paid for the event out of pocket through student body funds and the people on the guest list were invited as a courtesy. I find the "Oh, I can't record the speech, well we'll see about that" mentality to be very disrespectful to me as an organizer since I did bust my ass to put this event on.

I am not some fuck'n trust fund kid that got into Reed no his parents dime and I think I deserve some fuck'n respect for actually getting to where I am today. That is, being able to use the campus facilities and do some positive organizing. Not many people in Portland can say that they have been in my shoes. For fuck sake, I remember when my mom was on welfare taking care of me and my two brothers virtually on her own and we were constantly on the verge of homelessness. Now, I am grateful that I have the privilege to deliver intro speeches for Ward Churchill, Stew Albert, Billy X and others in spite of my background weighed against me. I guess when I read things like this on IMC I get a little jaded and I lose faith in people that are part of the activist community. I know that I am privileged to be at such an elite institution, but I think that this kind of disrespect is really counter productive.

Although I don't care so much that the event was recorded by someone from IMC, they did write something publicly that was very disrespectful and I find their words to be a personal attack on me since I gave the introduction speech. I specifically asked that all recording equipment be turned off as a courtesy to the school for allowing me to bring Ward. I thought that it might be a good idea since the school's administration ultimately had the say as to whether or not Ward could speak at Reed.

I am still willing to give IMC a video of the speech, but I would very much so appreciate it if whoever wrote the aforementioned statement in the IMC post could revise the post and rethink what he/she wrote. At least a formal apology from the author, I feel, is in order.

Blacklist Organizer

Thanks for posting. 18.Apr.2005 23:23


Whatever the conlfict between 'you know' and the organizers of this event, I for one appreciate the opportunity to hear the audio. Whoever had the thought that this wouldn't happen is, in my opinion, niave to the realities of the age we live in. You see, some folks feel it a sort of responsibility to disseminate information, however gained and for whatever reason, to the masses. Especially when someone asks or tells them not to. Right or wrong, there are obviously some different feelings regarding whether or not this should have been made public or kept private. This in and of itself should have been considered initially. It really doesn't matter how generous it was of the organizers to set the whole thing up, the minute someone said "please don't record this" was the minute someone else hit the 'RECORD' button.
I'm not trying to take sides, really.
But I am glad to get the audio.

sharing some thoughts 19.Apr.2005 00:10

indy volunteer #12345

Many years ago I helped organize an event at a college campus to bring a controversial speaker so I can empathize with what the organizers are thinking and feeling. I spent much of my time working hard to make things happen only to come under attack for doing so. And even that I could tolerate to a point, but near the end it just felt like all the organizers were just left fatigued from their efforts to organize and then defend their actions. And to be honest it's no different than the daily experience of doing media activism, particularly with indymedia. I've learned that many people would rather criticize than organize and choose to define themselves with their words rather than their actions. However, I have also learned that patience and compassion are important and one can contribute to the community by sharing one's understandings of a situation, not to be critical but to point out alternative understandings of a situation. To do so is to act in solidarity. People falsely believe that solidarity is something that can be requested of others when in reality it is only something that one can offer to others.

So, in the interest of sharing my understandings which differ from the organizers of the event I choose to write this response. First of all IMC is not a place, nor is it an organization, nor does it have members. The work that is done on this site is done through volunteers, or perhaps contributers is a better word. There are those who contribute content and there are those that contribute to the enabling process (such as keeping the servers running). I find it important to treat contributors as individuals, as in this case, a gripe with someone writing an article is a gripe with that individual. That individual represents the indymedia tactic in the spirit of being empowered to report but their views are their own, just as mine are my own, and yours are your own.

As Mackenzie noted quite accurately, "why the hell are we all so interested in labeling eachother and people we dont even know". I suggest reading the rest of that post as it is quite honest and astute:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315702.shtml#176887

My impression of this situation, which is quite limited as I have nothing but printed words, which themselves carry far less meaning than most people ascribe to them, is that the organizers are feeling criticized unfairly but then also choosing to interpret words as being disrespectful when, in my opinion, they seem neutral. In the other article covering the event there were, and still are, words being thrown around that are certainly not neutral, and people are certainly making blatant assumptions about individuals. However, in this article I could read no such thing. I can speculate on what words caused the organizers to become offended and if I'm correct I would suggest that those words were not meant as an attack, merely a statement of fact. The problem with communication on the internet is that the use of words, which is to say inert dead symbols, can be interpreted in any number of different ways depending on your perception of the mood(s) of the writer and your own mood(s) as the reader.

My analysis is simple, since the event would never have happened without the efforts of the organizers I find it unlikely that anyone wishing to further their goals would be disrespectful. For example, I have little doubt that the organizers knew they would be criticized for having a closed event rather than an open one. Therefore by making the audio available to everyone such claims can be put into perspective. Yes, not everyone could see Churchill live and in person but everyone can hear his speech. This furthers the goals of the organizers to carry out the event in the best way they could while allowing others to benefit from their labor.

Given the writeup I feel that the author was not at all critical of the organizing or the organizers since she/he clearly felt that the event was positive and that "Ward Churchill has a very necessary message to get out there and that he has a certain eloquence that reaches people." Without the work of the organizers this audio wouldn't be here, and I find it difficult to believe that the author would not recognize that and respect the efforts that went into organizing this event. I would think that if one reads the article with that in mind, as I did, one might have a different understanding of what the author was trying to convey.

I'd also like to thank the organizers, I know it wasn't easy, as well as the poster of the audio. Thanks to your combined efforts many people can hear this speech who otherwise would not have been able to and that is a noteworthy accomplishment.

My Interpretation 19.Apr.2005 04:26


"In the beginning of the speech, one of the organizers asks specifically if all recording erquipment could remain off. Obviously this was disregarded." by: "you know"

This is how I interpreted the quote:

'Thanks for inviting us and putting us on the guest list, asshole, ha, ha, ha. Now I will do something that you will really appreciate--do something you directly told me not to do. I'm sure THAT will earn you (and IMC for that matter) some good standing with the college administration through what you thought was good judgment to invite people you thought were not conniving media people. This way you can have lots more events where people will also not respect your wishes as the organizer. But who cares if your respected? I liberated the speech!!! Oh, but what's that? You even promised weeks ago in advance to get us (the volunteers at IMC) a quality video and audio copy of the speech ASAP to put up on the archives? That's OK. Don't worry about it. I'll just disregard what you had to say in order to broadcast this really crappy version (that does not include video) instead. Gee, I hope you'll still invite us to come back in the future.'

After all, it is I.M.C. and nothing in the acronym implies "respect."

Maybe there ARE many ways to interpret the quote, but this is how other organizers of the event and I have interpreted it and it's most likely the way the administration will interpret it. I am all for free speech and academic debate, which is why I helped to organize the event in the first place, but I feel that after going out of my way to be in constant contact with IMC volunteers about recording the event, someone did violate a boundary of respect by not only anonymously recording the event against the wishes of the school, but also by editing my speech to include just the beginning where I say to "please refrain from using any recording devices" and just the end of my speech where I introduce Ward. Everything in the middle is cut out and it's like the person who edited my speech wanted people to know that he/she was being defiant. I would have preferred if the person had at least just cut out everything up to where I brough Ward out. As an act of good faith, directly after the speech was over, I even took the time to take one of the IMC volunteers up into the A/V room to reassure him that IMC will in fact get a quality copy for the archives. Still waiting for an apology...

Blacklist Organizer

ha 19.Apr.2005 05:33


"...As an act of good faith, directly after the speech was over, I even took the time to take one of the IMC volunteers up into the A/V room to reassure him that IMC will in fact get a quality copy for the archives. Still waiting for an apology.."

You didn't by any chance threaten withholding, going back on your promise should a pirate version show up??

Still waiting for the 'official' version .. . NOT

don't think you'll fork it over.

don't think I am interested after hearing Ward's last 3 or 4 speeches, I mean, they're all the same! Comes with the professorial territory I understand and that's why I ain't got any.

I repeat myself enough as it is . .. but try not to .. . .

thanks for the laugh

Weird. 19.Apr.2005 10:04

listened to churchill

Maybe I'm reading this wrong. But it looks like at least one Reed organizer is pissed that an important commentary by an otherwise repressed speaker, actually made it out to the public. What gives? I'm happy for the opportunity to hear what Churchill said, and I'm appalled that you, Justin, allowed yourself to be co-opted by official policy of Reed *authorities* in that manner. I'm equally appalled that you are putting personal pride in the way of sharing this important story.

Do you know who recorded the event? If not, I think it's unwise to impugn "The IMC" like that. As indy volunteer #12345 tried to tell you, indymedia is a tactic, not an organization. It's about the free exchange of news, ideas, and information. So in posting here, you are, in essence, part of "the IMC." And you slander us all, everyone who writes and posts and reads and keeps the site up, by throwing your criticism at "the IMC" rather than at the specific author of this specific piece. It's very likely that those whom you spoke to about sharing a videotape were different people than the one who posted this story. (But for the record, I very much support whomever posted this. It's important information, worthy of being liberated.)

You know, Reed once had a reputation of being at least a little rebellious. Despite the high tuition and elitist filtering mechanisms, people there expressed some fire once in awhile when it came to thinking for themselves rather than allowing administration to think for them. Sadly, this no longer seems to be the case. Justin, perhaps some of the reason why you feel so chagrined at this is the fact that, deep down, you know the critique is correct: You perhaps should not have bowed so easily to school administrators who told you to close the event, and especially to those who asked you to control this story by not allowing it to be recorded. I thank you for the work you did in organizing the event, but please now think about what is being said from the perspective of a person on the outside, who just wants to hear what this guy has to say. Can you see why it might be a good thing that someone felt empowered to record it, rather than bowing to your request? It's not a personal attack on you, Justin. It's taking back the truth. This guy has been censored and ignored all over the place. Damn, it's time people actually HEAR him. You should be grateful. Isn't that what you wanted? To get this story out? Isn't that why you organized this in the first place? Don't let pride get in the way of recognizing that, as we fall farther and farther over the edge and into the abyss, the one thread we have that can still pull us out of this, is the truth. And that's why, everywhere we turn, *authorities* are trying to supress that truth. Let's not help them at it. Let us help ourselves.

you lost me there, Justin 19.Apr.2005 11:02

regular reader

i was giving everyone in this situation the benefit of the doubt up 'til now, Justin, but your response to indy volunteer #12345 shows that there's a couple synapses not connecting for you at the moment, unfortunately. you did indeed read ALOT into that statement, giving it more meaning than it possibly could have held. thanks for helping to bring Churchill to Reed, but i hope you can let this rest now.

statement of fact 19.Apr.2005 12:15

another reader

"Obviously this was disregarded"

Of course, the author could have left this out because it is obvious but I think it showed some honesty to write that the organizers had asked recording devices to be turned off and why this author felt it necessary to get the message out. But yeah, I see it as a statement of fact, not as a snide rant, and I'm amazed at how so few words can cause such a ruckus. I'd suggest that the organizers go to an indy meeting if they are upset; clearly communication over the internet is lacking and hopefully face to face communication could put everyone at ease and clear up whatever misunderstandings have occurred.

One last thought, since I don't believe the author had any ill intent and justin is asking for an apology I'd really prefer to not see writers here have to stoop to the current popular political strategy of apologizing for other people's misunderstandings (*cough* delay *cough*). But if that would make everyone feel better than I guess there are worse things.

consider this an amendment to my slightly off topic rant above 19.Apr.2005 15:16


in a nutshell: Ward has learned and ripened since some years ago (quite like Saddam did and catches hell too, proportionate to the amount of oil they controls; Ward gets all the hot air too but not the explosions); he now occasionally mentions 'any means necessary' but hammers on int. law a whole lot.

Us out of north america should however not be construed as possible by violent means, not even as a catalyst, don't fall for that bad to worse quick and fake fix.

Secession and such are the way to go.
I quoted Carol Moore on Ward over at the blog that specializes in Ward rumours and vacuous accusations and went to see google about it; SHOCK!!!!! him and her are found only 47 times. It is enough to go desperate over innit?


jstees, when all else fails find somebody to pat you on the back right; it's the american way, I've seen it or I wouldn't believe it. This place is as good as dead and I'll tell you why I feel really sorry for you guys; it's so obvious you can't get a grip on Ward cause the only legit thing to call him out for is a vice y'all have in spades yarselves; a condonement of violence (you even agree that the cause being good, however opposed (but who's comparing right?) justifies it.

Tell you what, for the sake of livening the place up and as a service of gratitude for good stuff in the past I'll offer some stuff none of you roit wingers seem to be able to find the sense to notice; it's Carol Moore on Ward:

Looking to expose the inconsistencies of his advocacy of "any means necessary" political violence, I asked him if his position theoretically did not justify radical women castrating dominant abusive men as a political tactic. I even mentioned that I had noticed that several Native American women on news groups were extremely hostile towards him and that he himself theoretically could be the target of such a tactic. This was met with laughter by those who understood the question and outrage by those who could not follow the train of logic and thought I was calling for Churchill to be castrated.

the tragic fact is you all punish people for improving; Saddam Hussein and now you go after Ward Churchill; sad really.

Symbolic or nonviolent arrests are just submission to authority and support rather than challenge authority.
This is a frequently repeated street fighter claim. And it certainly is true in cases of well-orchestrated sit-ins at government offices, dutifully choreographed with police, in support of some moderate reformist cause, such as ending just one foreign intervention, or freeing just one prisoner, or increasing any social welfare program-or even ending government-sponsored Columbus Day celebrations, a Ward Churchill cause. However, this is not true of nonviolent actions with more radical, inherently anti-authoritarian goals, such as resisting taxes in order to abolish war (or abolish taxes); performing abortions to protest laws against abortion; creating safe work places for sex workers to protest laws against prostitution; distributing medical marijuana or sacred peyote to protest drug laws; or organizing a community secession project to demand the right to secede from the union. These are so radical that minor cooperation with police (like telling them the time and place of an action) can hardly be considered submission to authority. It is the political goal, not the nonviolent political means, that defines whether one is submitting to or challenging authority.

Carol draws the line here: George Lakey comments at length on this question: "Everyone 'doing their own thing' in a mass action doesn't work because it's self-contradictory. If those who organize the action base it on strategic nonviolent action, they aren't being allowed to 'do their thing' if others come in and do violence or even property destruction. The advocates of violence or property destruction, when it comes down to it, are being intolerant by not letting their comrades carry out their intentions. The only way that tolerance can work is by mutual understanding that different strategies will be used at different times or in different places - sufficiently different so that the police cannot use one kind of action as an excuse to bash the other kind.
"Tactical disagreement is another diversity challenge that faces our movement. If some of our more militant friends aren't willing to 'agree to disagree' but instead do confrontive tactics that endanger others without their consent, then the issue is no longer about strategy and tactics, it is about respect and needs to be tackled on that level."

Of course were it a case of how the UN rebuilders must function we'd be in a whole different ballgame; not claiming presence near if not the pad of the preposterously prestigious at critical times but going to crisis areas well enough equipped to deal with the exigencies, etcetera and having some sort of credible cautioning against resistance by rebels and terrorists in the shape of effective(ly restrained) militation potential.

To Justin and other organizers 19.Apr.2005 17:53


I did not have any part in this article or recording. My opinion is my own just as the poster's opinion is their own. They do not represent imc and this was/is not an "IMC statement". I appreciate your efforts to bring Ward to Portland. I disagree with the compromises. But I understand how you must have felt at the time they were made. You probably were worried about the event being cancelled and your ability to organise future events. I have myself organized a few events in my time that have come under unfair/misunderstood fire. While I see where you are coming from I also see the necessity for a bootleg copy of the event. Many things can go wrong in recording especially if there is only one person recording. Being that this was a closed event, it would be a shame if something were to happen and to not have any copy available to the folks who truely should be the target audience of Ward. That said, I feel that the bootleg copy could have been made available without the criticism slipped in. I feel it would have been more valuable to focus on the content of the speech instead. So I hope that you will treat me and other IMCistas as individuals and keep your frustration with the poster.

Thank You V! 19.Apr.2005 21:29


Thank you for making the best arguments so far. I just picked up the official copy of the speech and I hope that it goes on IMC soon. I'm making arrangements to meet with an IMC operative this weekend and he'll put it on the website. I respect the opinions that people have when criticizing Reed, Ward, the event, the compromises that were made, and even for criticizing me for making some of the hard decisions in order to bring Ward, but please realize that you don't know the whole story. Hell, I helped to put it all together and I don't even know about everything that was going on. One of the most constuctive things someone can do is to organize events like this.

At points during the organizing of the event I was just waiting for the administration to pull the plug on brining Ward to campus. Yes, I would have preferred if the event had been open to the public, but the decision was not mine. I would have also preferred that the event be open to the media and thus allow the media to more thoroughly cover the event, but again, it wasn't my call. I just want to thank everyone that helped to put the event together.

I realize that it is possible that the author "you know" didn't have intentions to be disrespectful toward me specifically and I see the value of having an extra copy of the event in case one of the recordings failed. In conclusion, I'm happy that people are accessing the speech and I look forward to the official video version being posted on the site in the near future. I also look forward to a continuation of respectful and well thought-out comments with regard to the speech. I agree with "you know" that it's important "for people to hear these words that Ward says and hopefully to become radicalized by them and hear what he is really saying." I just hope that in the future some individuals will show more appreciation to the organizers of events like this.