Here's a taste of Ward Churchill's scholarship, pretty impeccable prose if you ask me.As of 1996, the United Nations was estimating that well over 500,000 Iraqi kids under the age of 12 had died as a direct result of a U.S.-imposed and militarily-enforced embargo on things like food, medicine and the materiél necessary to repair the country’s war-ravaged sanitation infrastructure.57 There’s no way to contend that the figures are exaggerated, since no less authoritative and official a spokesperson than Madeleine Albright went on 60 Minutes and confirmed their accuracy, observing that she and her colleagues in the U.S. foreign policy establishment had decided it was “worth the price” in someone else’s children to impress upon their government that there’s a “New World Order” in which “what we say goes.”58 Could Goebbels have put it any more plainly? Could Hitler himself? Actually, approximately the same number of Iraqi adults and children have died as a result of the embargo over the past five years. So, you add it all up and you’ve got well over a million dead—only a couple hundred thousand of whom were military personnel—in a country with a population of 18-20 million, a toll quite deliberately, or at least knowingly inflicted by the United States as a matter of policy.59 The general public has been aware of this for three years, and yet there’s not been a whisper of popular outrage, much less mass protest. Frankly, I attribute a lot of this moral/legal default to the unforgivably self-indulgent approach to issue-framing and organizing adopted by America’s “peace movement” during the 1960s and early-70s.60 But, then, I attribute quite a lot of that to the blinders imposed by their indoctrination in the “one people, one genocide” paradigm which prevented the vast majority from seeing things clearly, and thus from responding appropriately. There are plenty of other recent examples of genocide being met by silence in this country: East Timor, Rwanda, Bosnia,61 and, oh yeah, how about Palestine?
The 1948 massacre of Palestinian villagers at Deir-Yassin was perpetrated by members of Lehi, usually known as the “Stern Gang,” as well as the Irgun.62 Both Lehi and Irgun were straight-up zionist terrorist organizations, and officially classified as such by the British authorities in Palestine from the mid-30s onward.63 These zionist terrorist groups greatly predate the emergence of any others in the area, so those of you inclined to cut some slack to Israel because of “the threat of Arab terrorism” would do well to remember where the Arabs got the idea.64 Hardline zionists like Avraham Stern—he was a fascist, really, enthralled by Mussolini65 —established the template. Of course, it’s always pointed out that Stern’s group, Lehi, was tiny. From that, we’re to adduce that it was unrepresentative of zionism. But, if it was really so unrepresentative, how did one of its leading members, Yitzhak Shamir, end up being elected prime minister of Israel?66 Not much “marginalization” there, obviously. Same with the Irgun. Menachem Begin, who was its head at the very time of Deir-Yassin, was, as we all know, later elected prime minister.67 Far from being unrepresentative of zionism, then or now, these guys—not just the top dogs like Begin and Shamir but the member-ship as well—have been integrated into Israel’s dominant rightwing party, the Likud, since day one.68 You don’t suppose their “terrorist background” might have anything to do with the nature of Israeli policy, do you? Aside from having everything to do with founding the state, I mean. I’ll give one example and then move on. Ariel Sharon, the man most responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, is also a prominent Likud member. His background is a bit different from those of Shamir and Begin in that he was too young to serve in their organizations during the pre-1948 “years of struggle.” He’s a military man in the more formal sense; made his career in the army as a paratroop officer. He didn’t work his way up by excelling at regular military duties, however. His area was “special operations.” He “made his bones,” so to speak, commanding Unit 101, a commando outfit, when it massacred the inhabitants of Qibya, a Jordanian village, in October 1953. That was to “send a message” to the Arabs during a water dispute. In early-54—a time when Israel was supposedly “at peace” with its neighbors—he led the so-called Gaza Raid into acknowledged Egyptian territory, destroying a military installation and murdering about 50 soldiers.69 This was to prompt a response from Egypt that would serve as the pretext for a war in which then-Prime Minister David Ben Gurion was sure Israel would prevail and thereby extend its southern border all the way down to Sharm el-Sheik, on the Red Sea.70 Sharon’s whole background consists of things like this. Like Begin and Shamir, he’s a world class terrorist. So what he did in Lebanon—Sabra and Shatila are only the tip of the iceberg—was right in character.71 There were no surprises there for anyone who knew his history, and how it conforms to the contours of zionist history—or Israeli history—more generally. Only by knowing that history can you be in any position to assess the current relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.
The principle, of course, extends far more broadly. It works like this: the ruling elite in every country in the world aspires to maintain the order upon which its own power and privilege depends by continuously pumping up “national morale,” inculcating among the citizenry a triumphalist notion of what they’ve achieved and the process through which, over time, they’ve achieved it. It’s more complex than what’s usually referred to, wrongly, as “nationalism.” The idea of “patriotism” comes closer, although there are almost always hefty doses of cultural chauvinism—eurocentrism, for instance—and racialist ingredients like white supremacy mixed in. Social constructions of sexual domination, articulated as “virility” or “machismo,” also play a role. In any event, the goal is to always have a critical mass of the population feeling proud of itself in a way that’s at once abstract and deeply personalized, because—this one’s a no brainer—people don’t tend to rebel against the source of their pride.72 This remains true, as a lot of marxist organizers in the U.S. have discovered, much to their dismay, even if the source of pride is objectively the source of things like class oppression. The end product here is by design a public consciousness that is neither objective nor particularly rational. What we’re talking about is what Antonio Gramsci termed “hegemony,” or, more accurately, creation of a “hegemonic bloc.”73 And establishing the hegemonic bloc requires that there be a “master narrative” of history, into which these triumphalist subsets of national narrative can fit.74 Well, it’s a little difficult to construct a triumphalist narrative of a national history that includes commission of the crime of genocide. So genocide must be denied. But how? I mean, it might be plausible to simply expunge the record in certain instances, but overall? Too many facts are known, so denial in its crudest sense, that of simply asserting that “nothing happened,” is unworkable. The trick is therefore to come up with a means of accounting for these inconvenient facts, conceding that “things happened,” but interpreting the “things” themselves as “unfortunate incidents” or “regrettable events”—the word “tragedy” comes up a lot—rather than as genocides.75 This is where the concept of Holocaust uniqueness comes into play for real. The “one genocide, one people” thesis that Jewish exclusivists have done the major work in crafting affords everyone but the Germans the service of taking them off the hook. The Germans must bear “the burden of guilt,” not only for their perpetration of the Holocaust, but for all genocide.76 That’s a heavy load, and an obviously unfair one, although I personally have a hard time feeling sorry for them on this score since they’ve done and are still doing so much to deserve the weight they’re carrying. Besides, they’re compensated rather well for carrying it. So it’s not unfairness to Germany that’s problematic; it’s the exemption of other perpetrator countries from bearing the same burden. And that’s exactly why Holocaust uniqueness/Jewish exclusivism has found such resonance among the world’s ruling elites that it has been embraced as a matter of Official Truth. Official Truth. Once again, I should note that I’m not overstating things for effect. Consider the arrangement between the governments of Israel and Turkey, wherein the Turks will deliver in their schools a curriculum in which children are instructed that the Holocaust, or the Jewish aspect of it at any rate, was history’s only “true” genocide. In exchange, Israeli school children are instructed to believe that the Turkish extermination campaign directed against Armenians from 1914 through 1918 was not genocide. When Armenian Americans approached the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum with the idea of observing a day of commemoration for the million-plus victims of the Armenian genocide, both governments, Turkish and Israeli, intervened with the board to protest.77 And so, of course, the commemoration—which is to say, the public education aspects of any such proceeding—never occurred. Now that’s pretty damned official, wouldn’t you say? So was the policy of the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1990-91, when it was soliciting proposals for public education projects it could fund as part of the planned national celebration of the Columbian Quincentennial in the U.S. The evaluation procedure began with a screening where any proposal in which the word “genocide” appeared was simply removed from further consideration. There’s a delicious little irony involved in this one because it turned out that a bunch of proposals for projects designed to prove that genocide is not an appropriate descriptor of either the “initial encounter” or “Columbian legacy” were arbitrarily weeded out, merely for having mentioned the word. People are always shocked when I mention this one, but I don’t know why. The NEH policy in this case wasn’t especially different from that embodied in the accreditation “standards” imposed with respect to the teaching of history in every public school in the United States. Japan notoriously excludes information concerning its atrocities in China and elsewhere during the 1930s and ‘40s from its public school curricula,78 but, in that, one can find little difference from how the U.S. excludes information about what was and is being done to American Indians. While we’re on the topic of official truth, has anyone considered the implications of there being a museum memorializing the Holocaust in Washington, D.C., and none for the American Indians who were by all accounts eradicated as part of the process of forming this country? And none memorializing the institution of slavery? I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a Holocaust museum. Actually, I think there should, and that it should include Gypsies on an absolutely equal footing with Jews,79 that Slavs should be included as well, and that it should serve as the sponsoring vehicle for commemorating genocides other than the Holocaust (that of the Armenians being only one example).80 But my point is that an institutionalized focusing of the public gaze on a genocide or genocides occurring half-a-world away, meanwhile remaining silent about the holocausts that occurred here, adds up to a calculated diversion of attention. And it doesn’t redeem the situation a bit to observe that the Holocaust museum is only quasi-official. The vacuum against which it’s balanced is very official. I don’t want to be accused of leftwing bias here, especially since I’m not by any stretch of the imagination a leftist, so I’ll note that the record in the socialist countries has been no better. Not “worse,” mind you, but no better. The Large Soviet Encyclopedia, for instance, defined genocide as “an offshoot of decaying capitalism.”81 All the stuff Stalin did to the Ukrainians and others during the collectivization drives of the 1930s was officially described as “criminal”—Khrushchev announced it as such during the mid-50s—but never as genocide.82 That remained by official designation a peculiarly nazi crime. And China? I’ve got a hot news flash for anybody who’s sporting a “Free Tibet” sticker on your bumper. There are a few dozen other nationalities subsumed in what used to be called “Red China,” all of whom are in as bad or worse shape than the Tibetans, and the fact that none of them happens to have developed a spiritual tradition appealing to the Naropa Institute doesn’t make them any less worthy of notice.83 I’d like to build on Santayana a bit. If “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it,” as he observed, then what are we to say of those who are prevented from learning it in the first place? Worse still, how about those force-fed a false history? Being denied the ability to recognize genocides past translates into an inability to recognize genocides present. Inability to recognize the phenomenon for what it is precludes the ability to combat it effectively, and that, in turn, paves the way for future perpetration.84 So, the official silencing and deformation of history we’ve been discussing is not motivated simply by elite desires to infuse the body politic with properly triumphalist outlooks. It’s motivated even more strongly by the desire of those same elites to preserve genocide as a viable policy option, even while they outlaw it in a formal sense and indulge in the loftiest rhetoric condemning it. The way in which the United States recently purported to have finally ratified the 1948 Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, meanwhile attaching a “sovereignty package” in which it claimed the “right” to be self-exempting from compliance, is a perfect illustration.85
You’d think, in the face of what I’ve been laying out, that somewhere along the line at least one of the major Jewish exclusivists might have had a revelatory experience and come to the conclusion that, “Oh my god, I’ve been wrong, we’ve got a lot in common with American Indians, and it would be in everybody’s interest, my own people’s most of all, if I were to use my standing as a recognized Holocaust scholar to point it out.” But it’s never happened. Not once, that I’m aware of. Quite the opposite. I was talking about silence a few minutes ago, and Lipstadt is a good example of it, but it’s more than that. Steven Katz, for instance, actually took time out from his busy schedule preparing The Holocaust in Historical Context to write a side essay, “The Pequot War Revisited,” in which he contended that the Pequot people of present-day Connecticut suffered “at most, cultural genocide,” because only half of them were physically exterminated during the 1637 “war” conducted against them. Moreover, he concludes, there are still a few people of Pequot descent alive today, so what happened “couldn’t” have added up to genocide.122 No, I’m not kidding. I really wish I were. Katz was way low on the proportion of Pequots killed—Connec- ticut colony declared them officially extinct after the Mystic Massacre, in which about 800 were slaughtered in a single night123—but even if he weren’t, by his own estimate they suffered a proportional fatality rate only ten percent less than that of the Jews during the Holocaust. Should we therefore adduce that Jews, too, experienced “at most, cultural genocide”? That the Holocaust didn’t “really” add up to genocide because there are still “Jewish-descended individuals” like Katz himself living in places like Israel and New York? I’ll spare you my usual commentary about insanity, while nonetheless pointing out that this is an example of holocaust denial, actively so, no less callous than that spewed by the worst of the neonazis.
VI I want to move beyond the exclusivists themselves because in this connection they’re just support troops. The main weight of denial where Indians are concerned is carried by mainstream American historians, like James Axtell at the College of William and Mary, who’s considered the dean of U.S. “ethnohistorians.”124 He’s our David Irving, so to speak. Actually, we’ve got a bunch of Irving look-alikes operating in this area—try Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., managing to win a Pulitzer Prize with a biography of Andrew Jackson that never once mentions the “Trail of Tears,” that is, removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the Southeast, which I highlighted earlier and which Jackson was instrumental in initiating;125 or Patricia Nelson Limerick’s writing a new, revised and very popular “history of the West” that avoids all reference to such uncomfortable events as major massacres.126
But I want to use Axtell as exemplar, partly because he is, and partly because I can do it anecdotally. Before I go into the anecdote, however, I want to ask what an “ethnohistorian” is supposed to be. I mean what is “ethnohistory”? Sounds kind of exotic doesn’t it? But how do you distinguish it from “history,” per se? History, “real” history, is the history of Europe and its offshoots; white people’s history, as it were. “Ethnohistory,” then, is all the sideline stuff concerning everybody else. But, then, what does that imply? That white folks have no ethnicity? That the term “ethnicity” itself applies only to people with a certain melanin content, and is thus being used as a euphemism for “race”? If so, isn’t the whole procedure of prefixing certain disciplinary subparts with “ethno-” a covert racialist construction, and isn’t “racialist” just a polite way of saying “racist”?127 As for myself, I figure all history is ethnically-oriented, so, either you call the whole field “ethnohistory,” or none of it. Anyway, Axtell is quite happy being described as an “ethnohistorical” heavy-hitter, and, it follows perhaps, he’s always been avid to utilize that peculiar standing in defense of orthodoxy, no matter how illogically. He ran around all over the country during the prelude to the Quin- centennial publicly bashing graduate students for using the term “genocidal” to describe the Columbian legacy, although he himself had already acknowledged five separate genocides as occurring in North America between 1630 and 1765. He was also prone to railing against comparisons of conquistadors to nazis because, in his words, “after all, the conquistadors were human beings and we need to understand them as such.”128 One can only wonder what he thinks the nazis were. Space men? Anyhow, needless to say, there were a few of us out there who were gunning for him in return, and Don Grinde, the Yamasee historian, and I finally caught up with him in public at the American Historical Association conference in 1993. He was conducting a workshop for high school history teachers, running his usual line, when Grinde and I sauntered in and started popping inconvenient questions. Pretty soon, his face looked like a beet and we were embroiled in a demographic argument and the high school teachers’ eyes were getting real big. Finally, in sheer exasperation, he threw up his hands and said something to the effect of, “Fine. Just to end this damned argument, let’s say I accept your contention that there were 15 million people here when the first European arrived. It doesn’t matter. It still wasn’t genocide.” When I asked why, he replied, and this one I can quote verbatim, “Because no matter how many there were, 75 percent of them still died of disease.”129 Now, there’s Smithsonian-style “science” at its finest. He can’t tell you with any certainty how many there were, but he can tell you with precision what proportion died of what cause. This is the cornerstone denier’s position with regard to what I’m going to follow David Stannard and call the American Holocaust.130 Well, Grinde and I just glanced at each other and smiled, because we knew we had him. And Don says, “Okay Jim, just to be fair, let us accept that. So what?” Axtell gets all puffed up like he’s ready to accept another award and delivers his “crushing” blow, speaking as if he’s delivering a lecture to 4-year-olds. “Because nobody can be held responsible for the deaths attributable to disease,” he replies. Now’s my chance, so I say, “That’s funny. Something like half the victims of the Holocaust died of disease, and the Nuremberg Tribunal held that the nazis were as guilty in relation to those deaths as they were for those they shot, gassed and burned alive.”131 Now, he looks a little flustered. “That’s true,” he says, “and I agree with the decision, but you’re comparing apples and oranges.” He got a chorus on that one, not just Grinde and I, but some of the teachers joining in: “How’s that, Jim?” “Because,” he responds, “whatever else can be said of the nazis, they were 20th century men. Even the guards in the camps, who were mostly uneducated, were aware of how disease is communicated. They knew they were forcing people to live under conditions where epidemics would run rampant, and so they were properly held accountable for the deaths that resulted. You simply can’t apply that standard to Columbus, or the conquistadors, or anyone, really, until the end of the 19th century. They had no idea what a microbe was, no scientific understanding of what was happening to the Indians. So, even though they brought in the microbes that caused mass death, they can’t be held accountable for it.132 And to argue otherwise, as you two are doing for your own obviously political reasons, is not to further historical understanding but to preclude it altogether.” There it is in all its glory. The whole rap, succinctly framed, by which American historical orthodoxy has sought to make the virtual disappearance of North America’s indigenous population seem benign. An “inadvertent tragedy,” is the usual term deployed.133 Can you really buy that? Well, let’s interrogate it a little.
Did Columbus, and the conquistadors, and the other Europeans importing pathogens to the New World understand the cause/effect relationship of their conduct, and can they therefore be legitimately seen as culpable? The answer is “absolutely.” How can I know this? Because, as any specialist like James Axtell knows perfectly well, they wrote it down, not once or twice or on occasion, but more-or-less continuously. It’s there in ships’ logs and the reports of expeditionary leaders, in official correspondence and private diaries, in clerical documents and published travelogues. Some bemoan it, others celebrate it, and most attribute it to intervention of the “Hand of God”; but they all agree on one thing: “We come, they die in huge numbers.”134 And what was their collective response to this understanding? Did they recoil in horror and say, “Wait a minute, we’ve got to halt the process, or at least slow it down until we can get a handle on how to prevent these effects”? Nope. Their response pretty much across-the-board was to accelerate their rate of arrival, and to spread out as much as was humanly possible.135
For anyone who might still find the situation too “ambiguous,” I’ll hand you the smoking gun. It comes in the form of an order written in 1763 by Lord Jeffrey Amherst, a ranking official in North America, to a colonel named Henry Bouquet. In it, Amherst instructs Bouquet to invite representatives of a multinational military alliance assembled by the Ottawa leader Pontiac to a peace parlay in the Ohio River Valley. Since the English were doing the asking, Amherst observed, frontier diplomatic protocol required that they bestow gifts upon the Indians who showed up. “Make these,” he instructed, “items taken from a small pox infirmary, in order”—and I’m quoting him directly—”in order that we may extirpate this execrable race.” A couple of weeks later, Bouquet writes back, saying that he’d done as he was instructed, distributing blankets, handkerchiefs and “other sundry items,” and that “hopefully, this will obtain the desired result.”136 It did. Even by the Smithsonian’s low count, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 Indians died of smallpox over the next six months.137
There are a few items worthy of mention in this connection. First, Howard Peckham, longtime president of the American Historical Association, discovered the documents I’m referring to in the British Royal Archive during the mid-1930s, but then proceeded to sit on them for years.138 Second, the “incident” has been described as “history’s first documented instance of biological warfare.” That’s wrong on two counts. On the one hand, it’s well documented that Tamerlane was catapulting the bodies of plague victims into besieged cities in order to spread disease a full century before Columbus (which means that Columbus and his peers weren’t quite so ignorant of how disease is communicated as Axtell would have it).139 On the other, “war” is directed against combatants. Amherst said in so many words that his goal was to “extirpate the race .” So, what we actually have here is history’s first documented instance of genocide attempted by bacteriological means. It’s important not to view what Amherst did as an isolated matter. It wasn’t. It’s simply the best documented. There are several earlier cases, one involving Captain John Smith of Pocahontas fame. There’s some pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Smith introduced smallpox among the Wampanoags as a means of clearing the way for the invaders.140
Over the next century, both the Pequot War and what’s called King Philip’s War were fought in the same area, at least in part because the Indians had become convinced—and, again, there’s evidence to support it—that the colonists were deliberately infecting them, using contaminated trade goods for the purpose.141 I don’t want to leave the impression that this sort of thing happened only in the Northeast, or only at the hands of the English. In 1836, at Fort Clark, on the upper Missouri River, the U.S. Army did the same thing as Amherst. It was considered desirable to eliminate the Mandans, who were serving as middlemen in the regional fur trade, and, by claiming a share of the profits in the process, diminishing the take of John Jacob Astor and other American businessmen. So the commander of Fort Clark had a boatload of blankets shipped upriver from a smallpox infirmary in St. Louis, with the idea of distributing them during a “friendship” parlay with the Mandans. There’s a bit of confusion as to whether they actually started passing them out, or whether some young Indian men “stole” a couple of blankets, but it really doesn’t matter, because the army was planning on distributing them anyway. Irrespective of the particulars in this regard, when the first Mandans began to display symptoms of the disease, they went straight to the post surgeon. They knew nothing about treating smallpox, but they’d heard about it and were terrified of it, and, since it was a white man’s disease, they went to the white doctor to find out what to do. What did he tell them? To scatter, to run for their lives, to seek shelter in the villages of healthy relatives as far away as possible.142 It follows that what might have been a localized epidemic—the Mandans were pretty much doomed the moment the smallpox broke out among them, but it might have ended with them—ends up a pandemic that rages for 15 years, from the Blackfeet confederation in southern Canada all the way down into Texas, killing who knows how many people. The Smithsonian acknowledges about 100,000 fatalities. Thornton suggests it may have been as many as 400,000.143 Whatever the number, it made the subsequent U.S. military conquest of the Great Plains region, which began in earnest about the time the pandemic was ending, a whole lot easier than it would otherwise have been. Of this, there can be no doubt. The fact that the army still had a tough time subduing the Lakotas, Cheyennes, Comanches and other peoples of the Plains is simply a testimony to how hard those peoples fought to preserve their ways of life, not that the effects of the disease were less than they were.144
The “Fort Clark episode,” as it’s often called, has always been passed off by mainstream historians as just another one of those “inadvertent tragedies.” There aren’t any documents as explicit in their expression of intent as there are in the Amherst case, so they very conveniently chalk it up to “ignorance” on the part of the officers involved, including the post surgeon. And it’s of course true that they weren’t yet acquainted with microbes, but let’s consider what they did know. Lady Mary Wortley Montague had introduced the principle of vaccination to England somewhere around 1715. By about 1750, the whole English army had been inoculated against smallpox—that’s what allowed Amherst to do what he did—and, by 1780, George Washington had ordered that his Continental Army be inoculated as well.145 So, unquestionably, the surgeon at Fort Clark was aware of the procedure. It had long since become standard. Indeed, a whole supply of vaccine, designated for inoculating Indians, was sitting in his store-room when the disease broke out. It had been there for several months, and there is no evidence that he’d ever tried to use it for its intended purpose.146 Both the surgeon and the post commander were also quite aware of the principle of quarantine. Quarantining people who’d come down with the pox had been standard medical practice for the better part of 50 years. All things considered, then, it seems to me you’d have to have undergone a lobotomy to actually believe that the surgeon’s telling the Mandans to “scatter” and “run for their lives” was either “accidental” or an “honest mistake.” And this isn’t the end of it.
Items appeared in the San Francisco press in the early 1850s indicating that the pox had been deliberately introduced among the Indians of northern California, and a decade later the papers in that city were still discussing the efficacy of “exterminating” Indians by disease.147 It’s their word, not mine. Later in the 19th century, there seems little question but that a group of traders did the same with the Carriers and other peoples in northern British Columbia.148 It continues right on into the early 20th century when it’s fairly clear that an epidemic was unleashed among the Dene of the Northwest Territories. At least no particular effort was made to provide medical treatment once the disease took hold.149 So what’s that come to? A dozen instances, including three that were hugely lethal, where it is either known, or where there’s very good reason to suspect, that disease was consciously and intentionally used to destroy native populations.150 There’s also a whole backdrop of discourse in which newspaper editors and the like are both celebrating what’s been done and arguing that there should be more of it. It’s in the face of this record—which is quite preliminary, very little research has been done as yet—that people like James Axtell persist in asserting that the erosion of native population through disease was “benign,” free of perpetrators, and that it “precludes proper historical understanding” to so much as suggest anything else.151 I don’t know how you define denial, but this works pretty well for me.
via
www.gfvb.ch society for threatened peoples
http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htmWard Churchill. An American Holocaust? The Structure of Denial. Socialism and Democracy Online. Vol 17, No. 1, Issue #33 ...
www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/wardchurchill.htm - 29k
Other Voices 2.1 (February 2000), Ward Churchill "Forbidding the ...Forbidding the "G-Word": Holocaust Denial as Judicial Doctrine in Canada ...the disintegration of a social structure grounded in families led by successful ...
www.othervoices.org/2.1/churchill/denial.html - 53k
