In Defense of Black Robe: A Reply to Ward Churchill

Abstract

Whatever one thinks of his notorious comments on the 9/11 attacks, Ward Churchill has long been known to scholars of Native American studies as one of their most thoughtful and influential colleagues. Whether he ultimately proves to be of American Indian background or not—a subject of current controversy—his commentaries on the treatment of Indians in American society have been cogent and persuasive. His essays on a variety of topics, from colonial history to the Men’s Movement, have repeatedly revealed the harm done by acts that may seem innocuous or even respectful of Native heritage, and his analyses have done a valuable service to both the victims and the broader society that perpetrates or condones such behavior. As a timely example, one might note that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has recently come around to Churchill’s attitude toward the use of Indians as sports team mascots, considering them demeaning and barring teams that use them from postseason play. It is as an admirer of Churchill, then, that I find myself forced, however reluctantly, to disagree with his article “And They Did It Like Dogs in the Dirt: An Indigenist Analysis of Black Robe.”1 In his bitter condemnation of the film, he seems to misinterpret its intentions and message, not revealing the harm others have overlooked but imagining offense where there is none. By examining Churchill’s arguments, as well as other aspects of the movie he does not discuss, I offer a very different