I return to my original post to remind you all that I was questioning why a post entirely related to events in North America in the 1760s (before Napoleon was even born) had appeared on this Forum. It's not as if subsequent treatment of native Americans by the United States would stand too close an investigation.
My compatriot, Susan, caught on immediately that I was suggesting it was because it showed the British in the worst possible light (not denied) but still having absolutely no relevance to the work of the Forum. As Margaret said, "Amherst has squat to do with Napoleon".
I then watched in dismay as the thread went wildly off topic and ended up discussing definitions of red-hair. This is all very amusing (and often infuriatingly annoying!) Breaking some sort of record for length of thread is small compensation.
So let me open the discussion in the way I originally intended. And start by stressing that Tom Holmberg is god-like in my eyes - the Forum owes him more than any of us can possibly say. When he posted that he thought most of his posts 'were ignored' he could not have been more wrong. But his explanation for why he posted the Amherst letters didn't sound convincing.
Their sole function is, as I said, to point out a disreputable aspect of British history. Am I allowed to say this is a tendency that seems to be enjoyed by our American cousins in particular?
So, if we can borrow from other epochs (although to make what point I still don't understand) perhaps when we next discuss the policy of the French invaders in the Iberian peninsula, is it alright for me to reference the heroic American soldiery led by Medina and Calley as they sought to win the hearts and minds of the women, children and old men of My Lai and other villages in the Pinkville area of South Vietnam? That might start a useful thread about how to conduct counter-insurgency operations.
Having lit the blue touch paper, I shall now stand well back!