No evidence for allegations

I respond to Peter McKenna’s letter of August 9 which references mine of August 7.

My purpose is not to defend Amherst or to be his apologist. Rather, it is to bring to the attention of readers that most of those advocating a change of Fort Amherst’s name have made statements for which there is no historical evidence. The latest such statement is that of John Joe Sark (August 8): “…historical evidence has shown that (Amherst’s) main intention was to exterminate all indigenous peoples in Canada and the U.S.A….” Not so.

The historical evidence shows that Amherst suggested to a subordinate, Henry Bouquet, that smallpox-contaminated blankets be given to the Shawnee and Delaware peoples in Pennsylvania – not to the Mi’kmaq, let alone the scores, if not hundreds, of other aboriginal peoples of what is today Canada and the U.S.A. There is no evidence that Bouquet acted on this suggestion.

The whole matter of Amherst and smallpox blankets has been thoroughly researched by two American historians, Bernard Knollenberg and Philip Ranlet, the latter being professor of history, emeritus, Hunter College, New York. Their conclusions are as I have indicated above. Peter McKenna, an academic, can readily avail himself of their published papers if he has any interest in going beyond anecdotal, oft-regurgitated, conventional “wisdom.”

Recognizing the findings of Knollenberg and Ranlet, the town of Amherst, MA, as well as its Amherst College and University of Massachusetts, Amherst Campus, have not changed their names, despite pressures to do so.

Earle Lockerby, Darnley