[lbo-talk] O'Reilly vs Churchill: treason? sedition?

Leigh Meyers leighcmeyers at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 9 20:52:36 PST 2005


----- Original Message ----- From: Doug Henwood To: lbo-talk Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:20 PM Subject: [lbo-talk] O'Reilly vs Churchill: treason? sedition?

Just saw O'Reilly interviewing a former JAG, Somebody Noone. O'Reilly was grilling him on whether it was possible to get Churchill for treason or sedition. The JAG said no, but O'R clearly wanted to hear a yes.

Chuck Grimes asked me offlist why I didn't want any discussion of Churchill's footnoting practices. It's a good question, and here's what I said:


>I'm afraid it'd be a lot of people talking about what they don't
>know much about. Also, I gotta say, it makes me nervous that pissing
>on Churchill's scholarship will contribute something to minimizing
>the horror of Indian genocide. So what if he got some details wrong,
>white people did kill 90% of them and still treat them like shit.

Doug ~

I never meant to 'dis his scholarship, I am not even remotely qualified.

Also, I don't think he's got the details wrong. I think he's got them just the way he likes them, and, barring the production of new data, or historical documents, no one can prove him wrong.

The "Mandan Blanket" incident is an example.

L

-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.305 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list