The article you cited has a paywall, so I cannot read it for myself, but Reddit says it’s bad, and I’m highly skeptical myself. Wikipedia also doesn’t mention any critique that comes anywhere close to what you describe, not even on the talk page. I also tried to search for such criticism somewhere else, and didn’t find anything. So I’m confidant that this is wrong, and that the way I described Leopold is largely correct.
Those redditors have pretty weak arguments. The first comment is basically “the other academics all agree with the popular claim that Gilley is criticizing, so the popular claim must be true”. The second guy basically states “Gilley correctly argues that Hoschild’s evidence for a population decline is too weak. But if the evidence is bad, Gilley can’t prove there was a genocide. Therefore Gilley is wrong”.
The article you cited has a paywall, so I cannot read it for myself, but Reddit says it’s bad, and I’m highly skeptical myself. Wikipedia also doesn’t mention any critique that comes anywhere close to what you describe, not even on the talk page. I also tried to search for such criticism somewhere else, and didn’t find anything. So I’m confidant that this is wrong, and that the way I described Leopold is largely correct.
Those redditors have pretty weak arguments. The first comment is basically “the other academics all agree with the popular claim that Gilley is criticizing, so the popular claim must be true”. The second guy basically states “Gilley correctly argues that Hoschild’s evidence for a population decline is too weak. But if the evidence is bad, Gilley can’t prove there was a genocide. Therefore Gilley is wrong”.
archived version of the article