I will begin by saying that I have tried to pass on the articles
on the AIM subject that have been received, but it's unclear to me
what course is best in carrying further reports. I do not myself
know enough about the situation and the people who make it what it
is to do more than to just transmit articles that come in. What
notes of my own I have attached to such articles have been attempts
to point out that there are at least two sides to the story without
myself seeming to take sides. Quite honestly, I do not feel that I
have any stake in the controversy, nor do I support any of those who
are involved over any others, regardless of what anyone might feel
about some evidence of bias in my very sparse commentary.
Initially, the matter seemed to be only one of dealing with an
unsubstantiated report that Ward Churchill and Glen Morris had been
involved in a physical attack upon a board member of the National
American Indian Movement, and I (somewhat naively) saw this report
and the verification or falsification of it as the only issue that
needed to be resolved. My feeling at that time was that it would be
appropriate to use the NATIVE-L mailing list to report on further
findings in this matter. Now that I've come to realize that under-
neath this report lies a possibly rather sordid political squabble,
I am far less clear that NATIVE-L is the appropriate venue for the
debate which seems likely to ensue. The NATCHAT list was initially
set up to provide a mechanism for dealing with the free exchange of
opinions, so as to leave the NATIVE-L list free as an informational
channel. During the course of this current AIM controversy, I have,
somewhat inconsistently, relayed some articles to NATIVE-L and some
to NATCHAT, based mainly on the proportion of opinion to what might
possibly be factual information (I make no judgement upon whether
certain items are actually facts, only that they are reported as if
they are factual).
During the past few days, a number of articles defending Ward
Churchill against certain charges made against him by Vernon
Bellencourt in _Indian Country Today_. However, I have not relayed
those articles yet, both because I am unsure whether to do so on
the NATIVE-L list or whether they should be routed to NATCHAT, or
dealt with in some other way, and because I have not been sent the
original article from _Indian Country Today_ which these responses
are based upon. I feel that fairness demands that both sides of
the story be presented.
Also - I'm once again feeling rather overburdened by the operation
of the NativeNet lists, and that I need to develop a new relation-
ship with this activity one way or the other. I have some thoughts
on the matter, but it may take a bit of time to sort them out in a
meaningful way. Meanwhile, I'll do the best I can. Once I have a
clear understanding of what I want to say on the subject, I'll post
an open letter to the readership of the NativeNet lists to let you
all know my thoughts.
In any event, your thoughts on how best to deal with reporting of the
AIM controversy would be most sincerely appreciated. I don't promise
that I'll be able to acknowledge each message I received at length,
but I will post a summary in a few days, quoting anonymously from the
received messages.
Thanks for your help.
Gary
--
Gary S. Trujillo gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,cdp}!gnosys!gst