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The results were swift and severe: Bellesiles' publisher dropped the book and Columbia rescinded the prize, the first time that it had ever retracted a prize in the Bancroft's 50-year history.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?
Of course he has a future. It includes the question “Would you like fries with that?”
It's what the academy does to conservatives every day.
In the sense that he’s free to write and sell a book on something, sure. In the sense that he’ll ever be considered a reliable authority on it, no. You don’t get that back.
No. He attempted to affect public policy by writing a book full of lies. And he isn’t even in Congress.
I wouldn’t trust him in that job, either. He’s a proven liar.
To accord him the status of historian is the real tragedy. He was/is an unrepentant propagandist.
I vote NO.
It’s time for this guy to be flushed down the toilet. Then we should jiggle the handle to make sure he stays down this time.
Once a liar, always a liar.
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 doesn’t get one from me.
Oh, he is much, much more than incompetent...he is agenda heavy and a liar. He HAS no future in history.
He refuses to admit that he made Arming America up.
His latest book is dedicated to the patron saint of the falsely accused.
He can never be taken seriously until he admits what he did.
“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.”
Hmm, no mention of the blogosphere. For example, I remember the threads on Free Republic when the book came out. This community disected and destroyed his propaganda. In detail. With proven facts. It was beautiful!
Card carrying Communist Howard Zinn was always able to get work and indoctrinate minds full of mush.
What’s shocking is that Emory and Columbia actually gave a rat’s behind that he lied. As a rule, coming up with the politically correct conclusion is all that matters. I don’t believe that there’s really ANY academic integrity left. There’s got to be more to why he got canned and lost his prize-he must be a Christian or something...
Not only NO, but Hell NO.
This is a guy who tried to take our RKBA away by rewriting history. Bastard.
Once found out, his publisher may have stopped futher runs of the hardback, but the book was still on store shelves available to miseducate for a year of two. Another publisher, Soft Skull Press, even did a paperback issue AFTER the facts of the fraud were widely known.
Amazon still has their glowing review — you can buy an electronic copy for your kindle. The lies of the left never die — they have no shame.
I’d like to think you’re right, but he’ll probably be shuffled off to another college while lefty apologists continue to quote his erroneous bullcrap.
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.