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

[Thomas Brown]

Doug Henwood wrote:>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.So you're refusing to allow a discussion of the evidence, because you already have opinionsabout a subject that you don't know much about, and introducing inconvenient facts might changeyour mind. It's okay to invent a genocide that never happened, because you think othergenocides like it probably did happen. Am I reading you correctly here?I hope not.Meanwhile, you have allowed a number of ad hominem attacks on me. Ad hominem, okay;discussion of evidence, out of bounds. I think your priorities are backwards. I have foundvalue in your journalism in the past. But if this is your approach to evidence, I'mgoing to have to read you a bit differently from here on out. Please tell meit was a momentary lapse, and not your normal working method.Thomas Brown
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20050215/9ea69139/attachment.htm>