The book is well sourced with tons of evidence. If you can invalidate their evidence, I am happy to hear. Otherwise, please drop this discussion. It’s not a good look.
You don’t have to apologize to me. If he’s someone who would collaborate with Ward Churchill, he’s got a clear agenda. My source for that was looking him up on Wikipedia, as I had no clue who he was. I’m not going to do the effort of sending you a direct link to the article, so feel free to do it yourself. And grant us all the fact that someone who writes a book has an implied agenda to sell the book.
And every time you start a post with “Source?”, it’s a bad look.
I’m going through the sourced materials in the American Holocaust book, (great title, by the way! not divisive at all!), and considering the sources, it’s pretty obvious Stannard has an agenda, he’s a “cultural materialist”, an offshoot of cultural Marxism. But you knew that, you just didn’t think I’d look 😉
Anyway, with as far as I’ve gotten, I can surmise the sources, the majority of them at least, point to textbooks published by “Berkley; University of California press”. Seems a lot of anti-American sentiment comes out of Berkley. Just to appease my curiosity, I’m going to look deeper into this fellow, who, funny enough, cites his own works as well. That’s pretty douchey
Thanks for being open minded and reading through! Even if it’s through a biased eye and a bit of a snarky reply, I still appreciate it. I hope that you open up and consider the sources presented with an open mind.
I’ll be looking forward to your assessment when you’re done, and I’ll do my best to receive it with an open mind as well.
It’ll be a while before I can read further but I do intend to read all of it. In my biased opinion so far, i reads like a propaganda piece, the words seleceted in some of the passages are used to elicit a response, but maybe I’ll see differently as I continue. I do have a question, when you say “genocide”, are you also including open conflicts? It’s my understanding of the word that it would not, but I want to make sure, especially when numbers are involved, that we’re using the same metrics.
The book is well sourced with tons of evidence. If you can invalidate their evidence, I am happy to hear. Otherwise, please drop this discussion. It’s not a good look.
Citing one book by someone with a clear agenda isn’t a good look either. You picked the fight, feel free to drop it at your leisure.
Source? Prove to me that this author cannot be trusted. Otherwise your claim is to be ignored, sorry.
You don’t have to apologize to me. If he’s someone who would collaborate with Ward Churchill, he’s got a clear agenda. My source for that was looking him up on Wikipedia, as I had no clue who he was. I’m not going to do the effort of sending you a direct link to the article, so feel free to do it yourself. And grant us all the fact that someone who writes a book has an implied agenda to sell the book.
And every time you start a post with “Source?”, it’s a bad look.
this is what you look like saying that
Clever.
I’m going through the sourced materials in the American Holocaust book, (great title, by the way! not divisive at all!), and considering the sources, it’s pretty obvious Stannard has an agenda, he’s a “cultural materialist”, an offshoot of cultural Marxism. But you knew that, you just didn’t think I’d look 😉
Anyway, with as far as I’ve gotten, I can surmise the sources, the majority of them at least, point to textbooks published by “Berkley; University of California press”. Seems a lot of anti-American sentiment comes out of Berkley. Just to appease my curiosity, I’m going to look deeper into this fellow, who, funny enough, cites his own works as well. That’s pretty douchey
Thanks for being open minded and reading through! Even if it’s through a biased eye and a bit of a snarky reply, I still appreciate it. I hope that you open up and consider the sources presented with an open mind.
I’ll be looking forward to your assessment when you’re done, and I’ll do my best to receive it with an open mind as well.
It’ll be a while before I can read further but I do intend to read all of it. In my biased opinion so far, i reads like a propaganda piece, the words seleceted in some of the passages are used to elicit a response, but maybe I’ll see differently as I continue. I do have a question, when you say “genocide”, are you also including open conflicts? It’s my understanding of the word that it would not, but I want to make sure, especially when numbers are involved, that we’re using the same metrics.