5 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 24.4 ms ] thread
From article:

> There is not one single historical source in existence that substantiates any of the “crimes.” Not one. None!

Hm, others disagree:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/07/books.spain

This might be a _politicised_ piece.

Ya think? Here's the headlines on their front page right now:

* John Durham and the Amazing Disappearing DNC Hack (subtitle: Evidence grows that the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server in 2016 was an inside job.)

* They Hate You So Much (subtitle: There’s just no hiding the fact that the Democrats loathe America. They proved it Monday.)

* Language Victim (subtitle: If English gets the job done, why knock yourself out?)

* The Taiwan Enigma (subtitle: The Chinese Politburo sees Taiwan as a renegade province.)

Wikipedia cautiously describes it as "conservative"[0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator

EDIT: Fixed the Wikipedia link, The American Spectator is not the US Spectator, which is also conservative.

EDIT2: I find it funny that multiple people would take time out of their day to downvote this comment that's just pointing out the clear and obvious political bias of the paper that's confirmed by Wikipedia and reflected in their headlines and focus of reporting. It's an American paper that's comfortable running a lead article literally stating that the Democratic party "loathes America". This is almost caricature level politics.

> The American Spectator is not the US Spectator, which is also conservative.

Ah right! I was wondering how the Spectator (UK) had fallen so low. That explains it.

Citing Las Casas as if it were a historically valid source is a great way of loking like a fool.
I'm certainly a _layman_ in this field. So As a historian, perhaps you could tell us more?