Historians criticize author's gun research

The Boston Globe ^ | January 29, 2002 | By David Mehegan, Globe Staff

[TopQuark]

In an upcoming issue of a prestigious historical journal, three historians in a panel of four severely criticize a controversial prize-winning book about guns in early America.

The essays - along with a response from Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, the author - appear in the winter issue of the William & Mary Quarterly, an eminent journal of early American history and culture. They focus on Bellesiles's arguments and research in his 2000 book, ''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.''

[Joe Brower]

There is something wrong here

Indeed.

[Diddle E. Squat]

The four historians are Jack N. Rakove of Stanford University; Gloria L. Main of the University of Colorado; Ira D. Gruber of Rice University; and Randolph Roth of Ohio State University. The latter three describe a stream of alleged errors in facts, numbers, interpretations, and methodology in Bellesiles's book.

Three from flyover country attack the creation of political myths, the coastal guy stays silent.

[freedomcrusader]

In his response, Bellesiles concedes numerous errors, but seems to minimize their significance by saying his book is about culture, not statistics, and that in any case all statistics about early America are tentative.

Facts? We don't need no stinking fatcs! Now give up yopur guns, komrade!

[vannrox]

Published in the "Boston Globe"!
I am Surprised!

[harpseal]

Now he is calling his lies mistakes. As a student of history who has at least earned a degree in history the honest way ( I did my own research and I did not falsify that research) I am appalled that any university would ever again employ this piece of filth.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Clemenza]

Bellesiles, THROW THE BOOK AT HIM!!!

[razorback-bert]

O' but he will land a better job now, because he is a victim of the VRWC.

[TomGuy]

Michael A. Bellesiles and Doris Kerns Goodwin need to start citing each other. That way each can deny it and blame the other. Plagiarism or sloppy research? Even a high school students knows better!

[Rodney King]

Bellesiles has been unable to support his use of 1,100 probate records he purportedly examined in 40 counties, because, he says, a flood in his office at Emory destroyed his notes.

There is an article on FR somewhere around here quoting the janitor as saying there were a few puddles on the floor.

[absalom01]

You have to give credit when credit is due. The Globe has been front and center in terms of pulling Bel-liar's covers from the outset. Can't figure out what got into them.

[Grut]

The latter three...

The rule is: the latter of two, the last of three or more.

Mon Dieu, Boston Globe! Eet ees to roll les yeuxes!

[Leesylvanian]

And I am so proud that my employer, the College of William & Mary, is publishing this refutation!

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[newgeezer]

The Bancroft Prize is awarded by Columbia University. They proclaim it to be "one of the most distinguished awards in the field of history, ... presented annually to the authors of books of exceptional merit and distinction in the fields of American history and biography." Here is Columbia's glowing praise for this rewrite of history.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll certainly remember Columbia U. and their worthless little prize for a LONG time, unless they reconsider their endorsement for this lying sack of dung.

To find all articles bumped to bang_list, click below:
click here >>>	bang_list	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Bookmark the bang_list.

[newgeezer]

> The latter three...

The rule is: the latter of two, the last of three or more.

Yes, of course. Since the author correctly used "latter" here -- in a list of four (Rakove, Main, Gruber, and Roth), there are two threes: the former (Rakove, Main, and Gruber) and the latter (Main, Gruber, and Roth) -- I'm left wondering why you brought it up. ;-)

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Bellesiles says his book is "more about culture, not statistics."
Clinton culture, perhaps ?

[BushMeister]

To read a blow-by-blow dismantling of Bellesiles' theories & book, click here:

CountingGuns

Click on "Counting Guns in Early America".

[Grut]

...and in a list of twenty there are two nineteens(1-19 and 2-20), but I somehow doubt 'the latter nineteen' would be greeted with cries of joy at Oxford. Sorry, nice try but it won't work.

I brought the matter up just to pimp the Globe, always a worthy endeavor.

[cascademountaineer]

Couple links to some other articles regarding the factual inconsistencies in this book,

Historian wounded as theory backfires

Arm-Twisting