Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historians criticize author's gun research
The Boston Globe ^ | January 29, 2002 | By David Mehegan, Globe Staff

Posted on 01/30/2002 11:12:15 AM PST by TopQuark

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:20 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.''


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 01/30/2002 11:12:15 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bang_list
There is something wrong here

Indeed.


2 posted on 01/30/2002 11:15:33 AM PST by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
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.

3 posted on 01/30/2002 11:16:55 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
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!

4 posted on 01/30/2002 11:18:06 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

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


5 posted on 01/30/2002 11:18:36 AM PST by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; Travis McGee
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

6 posted on 01/30/2002 11:22:34 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Bellesiles, THROW THE BOOK AT HIM!!!
7 posted on 01/30/2002 11:24:07 AM PST by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
O' but he will land a better job now, because he is a victim of the VRWC.
8 posted on 01/30/2002 11:27:45 AM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
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!
9 posted on 01/30/2002 11:28:24 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
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.

10 posted on 01/30/2002 11:44:18 AM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
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.
11 posted on 01/30/2002 11:46:24 AM PST by absalom01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
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!

12 posted on 01/30/2002 11:47:30 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
And I am so proud that my employer, the College of William & Mary, is publishing this refutation!
13 posted on 01/30/2002 11:49:37 AM PST by Leesylvanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
bttt
14 posted on 01/30/2002 11:49:48 AM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
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.

15 posted on 01/30/2002 11:56:09 AM PST by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
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. ;-)

16 posted on 01/30/2002 12:05:28 PM PST by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Bellesiles says his book is "more about culture, not statistics."
Clinton culture, perhaps ?
17 posted on 01/30/2002 12:45:04 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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

CountingGuns

Click on "Counting Guns in Early America".

18 posted on 01/30/2002 1:33:14 PM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
...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.

19 posted on 01/30/2002 2:50:48 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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

Historian wounded as theory backfires

Arm-Twisting

20 posted on 01/30/2002 4:44:24 PM PST by cascademountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson