[lbo-talk] Re: lbo-talk Digest, Vol 16, Issue 37

[jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net]

> Charles Brown wrote:
> 
> >  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

I am quite sane and I will admit the evidence is scant but not non-existant. You might want to 
read the references yourself rather than rely on Brown to provide them. Brown is the one 
confused on Churchills use of Thorntons data. Brown has his citations mixed up. Churchill 
doesn't rely on Thornton for the data Brown claims he does, but rather for population data. Just 
because Brown writes that Churchill relies on him for additional data doesn't make it so.

Have you read Churchills works in question and looked up the relevant citations yourself or are 
you relying on Brown to provide you with some and taking him at his word on the rest? I have 
read all this, and not just recently and I'm here to tell you Brown is full of shit. Historians look 
at scant evidence sometimes and draw conclusions. That is part of what they do. I think 
Churchill lacks the kind of proof he needs IN THIS ONE INSTANCE, but that hardly condemns 
his work in general and does not equate to fabricated genocide.There is no doubt Churchill is a 
hothead, kind of a dick and I don't blame Russell for wanting to keep his distance but there is 
zero proof of academic fraud. I think Churchill is probably wrong about the Army spreading 
smallpox to the Mandan people using blankets as a vector but the reality is we will probably 
never know for certain. 

If you want to read all the relevant data and then discuss this and possibly refute my position 
please do so, but reading a handful of websites and hoping they have their citations correct 
does not bring you fully up to speed on the issue.

John Thornton