> The general evidence is enough for Churchill to make a historical
> speculation, well within the history norms of speculation that this was
> intentional on the part of some U.S. military personnel. T. Brown and
> followers do not have evidence to meet their burden of proof and go around
> finding Churchill liable for fraud, or putting out bullshit; because the
> evidence in this case is not below the norm for speculating in history.
>
> T. Brown and crew's pronouncements must be much more uncertain. Like,
> "we kind of think, but aren't really sure, that Churchill _might_ , and we
> emphasize _might_, be off". Certainly, not surly certain pronouncements
like
> "Churchill is putting out bullshit". They don't have the definiteness of
> evidence for their speculation to be so definite that Churchill is wrong
or
> committing fraud.
Charles, the money paragraph from Brown's essay:
"For the sake of argument, give Churchill the benefit of the doubt. Excuse Churchill for being ignorant of Beckwourth's biography, for not noticing the Halsey letter in the Chardon volume he cites, and for confusing Bancroft with Thornton. The problem remains: Where did Churchill get the idea of smallpox blankets originating in an Army infirmary? Where did Churchill get the idea that there was a post surgeon who told the Mandans to scatter and spread the disease? Where did Churchill get the idea that the Army withheld vaccine? These are the specific charges with which Churchill indicts the US Army with genocide. Not only do all of Churchill's cited sources fail to support these charges [in fact, as Brown notes, the cited sources generally contradict Churchill's account!!!]-the broader literature fails to support the charges as well. Whence, then, did Churchill derive them?"
Read the essay here: http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm
Afterwards, tell me how any sane person could regard Churchill's genocide claim as anything other than bullshit at best or knowing fabrication at wors t.
-- Luke