> Vague rumors of smallpox blanket genocide predate Churchill, but have
> never been substantiated against the US. Churchill appears to be
> responsible for fabricating all of the most crucial details of his
> Mandan story. If he has a source that gives these details, he didn't
> cite it. Meanwhile, the sources he did cite all disconfirm his story, as
> does the specialist literature he ignored, as do the primary sources.
> They all agree that the epidemic was accidental, and that once it broke
> out, the feds sent in vaccine to try to stop the epidemic. So at the
> very least, Churchill is guilty of falsifying his sources. At worst--and
> more likely--he is additionally guilty of fabricating all of the crucial
> details of his story. He did this in at least three different
> books--including his notorious "roosting chickens" book--as well as in a
> legal brief to get himself off in a court proceeding.
Whatever. This is not evidence of academic misconduct. Until the recent attacks on Churchill, I had long been under the impression that the U.S. had conducted germ warfare against the Mandans and other plains nations. I don't recall getting this information from Churchill, so it must have been found in a variety of histories. If this wasn't the case, then the process of science takes place and the theory is discarded. When theories are disproven or challenged, the scientists and researchers aren't suddenly charged with "falsification" and academic misconduct.
Churchill is a solid scholar, which can simply be seen by the prodigious body of his work. I don't see any reasons for Churchill to be making shit up, since he goes to great pains to document and cite the research that support his works. I'm sure that he may have gotten a few citations wrong here and there, but which researcher doesn't do that over the course of their academic career.
These attacks on Churchill are motivated by people who take exception to his radical ideas. I guess this is the more high brow version of ad hominim attacks.
Chuck