Ten more stories about smallpox blankets may turn out to be true. Its not like there isn't plenty of evidence of genocide in US history with Indians. Churchill may have a perfectly valid cite. How do you know that Churchill isn't just biding his time, giving all the "careful" scholars the chance to find the cite themselves, watching to see who goes how far with what, then he provides the cite and makes everyone look like fools. I'd be very tempted to do it if I were in his position. To jump to conclusions by accusing someone of faking genocide, when all you really know for sure is that he has a footnote mistake, is unprofessional at best.
> 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--
I've never understood all the categories for argument rebuttal, but isn't this what is called a "straw man?"
>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.
I think you may want to do alot of reading on white privilege before you attempt something like this. Have you read Yurugu by Marimba Ani and Uprooting Racism by Paul Kivel?
> Churchill is just one of many nationalist demagogues who
> find it useful to demonize whites by means of conspiracy theories.
I've always been amazed at the right's expressions of disdain for conspiracy theories, yet they have no problem with the massacre of thousands of innocent people in order to try to find some guy living in a cave who is said to be running a global terrorism conspiracy to destroy the western world? It boggles the mind.
> As Russell Thornton said, the real history is bad enough. You don't
> need to make stuff up.
So why are you making stuff up? You don't even know if he has a cite. I have to think that Churchill has done more research on this subject than you have, and from what I see, the case against him seems pretty flimsy even if he has no cite. How would you fare with a check on your footnotes? Do you have anywhere near as many as he does? What are we talking? One bad footnote out of thousands?
> The onus is on Churchill to lay out his evidence.
Then I'd suggest waiting for him to do so instead of attacking him with accusations that could too easily end up destroying any credibility that you may have.
--tully