[lbo-talk] Fwd: lbo-talk unsubscribe notification

[Michael Dawson]

> 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

The main issues in the Churchill Affair are two: 1) does Churchill speak for
the left on 911?; and 2) does somebody gets to say what he said about 911
and keep a very cushy professorial job.  Churchill and the right concur on
the former and disagree on the latter.

The issue for the left, in my view, is how to shout "No!" on #1 while
holding our noses and saying "yes" on #2.

The footnote thing is simply part of a pattern of seeming thuggery that was
inevitably going to arise, once Churchill drew the spotlight.  Personally, I
don't dismiss it as nothing, though I also presume innocence until guilt is
proven.  Social science is not reducible to politics, and the left must do
better than the right, if we ever hope to win.  Making up stories belittles
reality, which is quite nasty all on its own.