> Sad and sadder. Whatever else anybody says about Brown, he is the author of
> the only properly balanced thing I've read about Churchill Affair: his
> history list editorial where he observed it is a loss any way you slice it.
> And it's quite alarming to see this forum threatening excommunication of
> somebody over a legitimately open question for the left. The idea that
> Churchill is drawing us into hanging ourselves with his (and, apparently,
> our own) rope seems to me to be panning out.
If Browns nonsense was the only balanced thing you read it must have also been the only thing you read concerning it. Balanced it was not. You obviously have no idea how insignificant the foot noting issue Brown made such a stink about really is. It is merely one among thousands of footnotes in several books. The "controversy" surrounding the footnote is much ado about nothing. That explains why, despite several years worth of attempts on the part of a small number of people, no one gives a shit about it. Native American scholars are not in a snit about it. Why do you think that is? They're all brainwashed into following Churchill? No, it's because the "problem" exists only in the mind of three or four people and they can't convince anyone else to see it because it is total BS. Maybe it's inaccurate to say they can't convince anyone else, they apparently fooled, er... convinced you.
John Thornton