Posted on 08/05/2010 1:54:30 PM PDT by neverdem
In his 2000 book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, then-Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles asserted that guns were actually rare in early America, and that the idea of widespread gun ownership before the Civil War was an "invented tradition." This provocative thesis charmed the academic world and netted Bellesiles the prestigious Bancroft Prize from Columbia University. But as it turned out, Bellesiles was the one doing the inventing. As Bentley College historian Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote in her definitive account of the Bellesiles affair for Reason:
The evidence he had presented for his groundbreaking theory was investigated first by experts from a range of disciplines and political viewpoints; then by a special symposium in a learned journal; and finally, as a result of the disturbing findings, by the professor's university and an outside panel of scholars that it appointed. The results are now in: Bellesiles' arguments are based on wholesale misuse of evidence and, in some cases, no evidence at all. The "invented tradition" is fact, the professor's version a folk tale.
The results were swift and severe: Bellesiles' publisher dropped the book and Columbia rescinded the prize, the first time that it had ever retracted a prize in the Bancroft's 50-year history. Bellesiles also lost his tenured job at Emory and basically disappeared from public life. But now he's back with a new book (from a new publisher) called 1877: America's Year of Living Violently. Does this discredited and disgraced author deserve a second chance?
The Chronicle of Higher Education seems to think so. Bellesiles is the subject of a new and mostly sympathetic portrait by Chronicle writer Tom Barlett, who concludes his piece like this:
In a sense, Michael Bellesiles will never get a second chance. The odds of his once more securing a tenure-track position are vanishingly small. He will never completely outrun the controversy over Arming America. He is aware of that, and his goals are more modest: "I would like to think that the scholarship I am producing will demonstrate that I am a competent, capable historian and I always have been."
He doesn't want to talk about Arming America. He doesn't want to talk about guns. He doesn't want to talk about Emory. Instead the historian wants to look forward. "Let's talk about the new book," he says. "And the book after that. And the book after that."
Of course Bellesiles doesn't want to talk about the fraudulent book that cost him his job and his reputation, but why should we pretend like it doesn't exist? Bellesiles' so-called scholarship has already demonstrated that he is an incompetent, incapable historian. What more is there to say?
Go ahead and publish your book, Doc. I doubt many will want to read it.
“If he was just wrong then he may get a second chance but instead he went out of his way to sell BS as fact. He doesnt get one from me.”
I agree with you HGC. Remember, they believe it is a crime only if they get caught. This was not an “Ooops, my bad!” This is someone who has offered a rendition as an objective truthful representation of the original, when it has been proven to be grotesquely altered with deviously calculated misrepresentations artfully designed to intentionally deceive. It will not “if” but “when” he resumes his true colors. Will there be any diligent people left to catch him next time? Folks, it is time to stop talking about shades of gray. Right or wrong. Left or right. Call a spade, a spade.
If true, Bellesiles is confirming what we always knew about his book Arming America, it wasn't shoddy work, it was a lie pure and simple.
I doubt it. A zebra doesn't change its stripes.
“Of course he has a future. It includes the question Would you like fries with that?
HaHaHaHa! Great line.
“I would like to think that the scholarship I am producing will demonstrate that I am a competent, capable historian and I always have been.”
This man isn’t producing scholarship- he’s producing bulls**t. I don’t care what he likes- as a historian, your job is to present the facts accurately. It’s called objectivity. His first book was total garbage, and the logical conclusion is that all of his others to come will be.
Does Disgraced Historian Michael Bellesiles Deserve A Second Chance?
Does that future involve living under a bridge?
Yes, he will certainly be welcome to edit and post Wikipedia articles.
NO....never.
Let him apologize, publish an acocunt of his errors, denounce his own use of political agenda to shape history, and then I may forgive him.
Lock him up next to Ward Churchill.
I don’t have a problem with him publishing a book... as long as the crayons are included.
Senate Votes to Confirm Kagan Comment# 157 links the roll call vote.
Ashtabula County 'Posse' Helps Nab Wanted Man
Groups Seek Ban on Lead in Sporting Ammunition
Lawmaker wants gun permit data curbed (NY Pistol Permit Records, not concealed carry privileges)
Thanks for the link.
Belles isles. Does he pronounce that like...Belial?
No. He didn’t just make an innocent mistake, which could happen to anyone guilty of shoddy research and ideological prejudice. His was a quite deliberate and calculated deception, and his future must be considered outside academia and/or serious research.
Wouldn’t this be the third chance?
I searched "Michael Bellesiles" pronounced on Yahoo.
I got "buh-LEELS" or "buh-LAYELS," Bell-eel, buh-LEEL, 'b'leel,' buh-LEEL and Bell-Leel on the first page.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.