Yes, and one of those smallpox blanket stories is true--the one about the Amherst affair in the mid-18th century. That doesn't mean that all of them are true. Also--keeping in mind for a minute that many black folks think AIDS was cooked up by the CIA as part of a genocidal plot--you might enjoy this essay:
Adrienne Mayor, "The Nessus Shirt in the New World: Smallpox Blankets in History and Legend," _Journal of American Folklore_, Winter 1995.
Mayor traces the folkloric theme of the tainted gift back to ancient Greek mythology, and discusses why it is prevalent in so many cultures. She doesn't address the political uses of this myth in the rhetoric of ethnic nationalist movements. I plan to write on that when I find the time, using AIM and Nation of Islam as my main examples. Churchill is just one of many nationalist demagogues who find it useful to demonize whites by means of conspiracy theories. As Russell Thornton said, the real history is bad enough. You don't need to make stuff up.
>Oral history can
>be accurate and it might also be seen that the Army might not wish to
>keep around any incriminating evidence.
Oral history can be accurate, and it can also be bullshit, the same as documentary evidence. It's fair to say that Indians blamed whites for bringing disease, and correctly so. But when you have a conspiracy theory re 1837, you need more evidence than vague rumor circa 2005.
The US had a vaccination program in place since 1832. Once the War Department learned of the epidemic in 1838, it appropriated additional funds for vaccine, and sent additional help. Given these facts, the burden of proof is on the genocide hypothesist.
>>Which of Wiener's examples is worse than faking a genocide?
>
>Isn't it a rather long leap to say that a mistake or omission in
>footnoting means the author fabricated genocide?
There is no evidence to support Churchill's story the way he wrote it. Every scholar I've read who has examined the evidence disagrees with Churchill's contention that the epidemic was caused by genocidal Army men handing out infected blankets as gifts. The onus is on Churchill to prove his charges. His "mistake in footnoting" is to not cite any supportive evidence-at all.
> And why
> should I keep quiet about Churchill's research misconduct,
>
>Perhaps because you don't have all the facts and are doing more than
>simply pointing out a mistake in footnoting?
Yes, it is much more than a mistake in footnoting. I have read most of the sources on this episode. There may well be some that I missed, and I am sure that there are plenty of relevant facts that I am not familiar with. But every single thing I've looked at disconfirms Churchill's version. The onus is on Churchill to lay out his evidence. He's published this story in three different books over the past ten years, each time embellishing it and adding new details, but he has yet to substantiate it even a little bit.
Thomas