If you had actually bothered to link the specific instances where he sources those claims, we would have read them.
But you didn’t, because you probably didn’t read a book you want us to go on a wild goose chase for. Eyewitness accounts from anglos are only good enough to wipe your ass with and even then there’s better alternatives.
You’re making the claims, you get the source. It’s really not that hard.
You don’t have a source? It’s ok. Don’t make claims, only repeat things you checked the source for.
No investigation, no right to speak.
I’ve already provided a source.
You provided a second claim from somebody else. That’s not a source. Sources include verifiable facts.
If you actually bothered to read the book at least a little bit, you’d have read he actually sources a fair bit.
He’s also providing an eyewitness account from his time there. I’m not sure how much more primary you want to get.
If you had actually bothered to link the specific instances where he sources those claims, we would have read them.
But you didn’t, because you probably didn’t read a book you want us to go on a wild goose chase for. Eyewitness accounts from anglos are only good enough to wipe your ass with and even then there’s better alternatives.
No facts then? Cool, I thought so.