i'll remind you that "figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure!"
may i also remind everyone that a "noted scholar", out of damnyankeeland of course, tried to prove last year that GUNS were UNCOMMON in the 17th,18th & 19th centuries in the USA. he actually published a book on that subject, though the title/author escapes me right now.
fyi, he got FIRED from his job @ the university when the TRUTH came out about the FACTS he had INVENTED!
free dixie,sw
May I expound upon the scholorship of Michael Bellesiles.
"America's gun culture is an invented tradition. It was not present at the nation's creation.... Rather, it developed in a single generation [following] the Civil War."
--- Michael Bellesiles, Arming America, 2000.
The Bancroft Prize, one of the most distinguished awards in the field of history, is presented annually to the authors of books of exceptional merit and distinction in the fields of American history and biography.
* * *
Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, by Michael A. Bellesiles, explores how and when Americans developed their obsession with guns. The book asks the question: is gun-related violence so deeply embedded in American historical experience as to be immutable? The currently accepted answers to these questions are "mythology," says Bellesiles, a professor of history at Emory University.
Contrary to the romantic idea that the frontiersman relied upon his weapon, Bellesiles establishes the fact that, up until 1850, fewer than 10 percent of Americans owned guns, and half of those weapons were not functioning.
Clayton E. Cramer's Speech Before Columbia University Conservative Club
April 18, 2001
My topic is Michael Bellesiles’s book Arming America, winner of the Bancroft Prize, and the very serious problems with it. Thank you to the Columbia University Conservative Club for inviting me to speak here today. Let me emphasize, first of all, that the problems with Arming America have, or at least should have, nothing to do with politics: whether one is conservative, liberal, progressive, or Marxist, careless, sloppy, grossly inaccurate history should be unacceptable.
Back in 1996, the Journal of American History published a paper by Professor Bellesiles that contained the essential ideas of his book Arming America. According to Professor Bellesiles, before the 1840s, guns were scarce in America; few Americans owned guns; most didn’t have any interest in owning guns; few Americans hunted, even on the frontier; and at least among whites, there was very little violence.
When I read that paper by Professor Bellesiles in 1996, I was intrigued by his claims. They were certainly outside the mainstream of American history, but that’s okay; it would not be the first time that conventional wisdom both inside and outside of the academic community has been wrong.
I found Professor Bellesiles’s claims intriguing because I was researching a related issue at the time: why did eight slave states take the lead in regulating the carrying of concealed deadly weapons? Professor Bellesiles’s paper suggested a possible explanation, and one that I attempted to verify.
But as I researched my topic, I found myself increasingly perplexed. The newspapers, travel accounts, diaries, and official documents of the early Republic described a country where guns were common, hunting nearly universal, and at least in some parts of America, white-on-white violence was depressingly common--with guns, with knives, even with hammers. I completed my research project, and wrote a letter to the Journal of American History suggesting that Bellesiles’s America was, at least from my research, a very incomplete description. Like the blind men attempting to describe an elephant, I concluded that Professor Bellesiles and I had grabbed different parts of the early Republic, and ended up with different descriptions because of it.
At that point, I was convinced that Professor Bellesiles’s paper reflected some sort of unconscious political bias. It was clear from the opening and concluding paragraphs of that paper that he had some sort of interest in promoting restrictive gun control, and I assumed that, as often happens, his desire to find a gun-free and therefore peaceful America had caused him to selectively pick or misread ambiguous sources. It was, I thought, a common enough sort of mistake. Of course, just because a mistake is honest doesn’t mean that it is okay for it to become the basis of public policy.
When Arming America was published last year, I received a review copy of it, and I started reading it. I found that the book was, indeed, an extended treatment of the same ideas as the Journal of American History paper. But as I read, and started making notes of startling claims, I found something quite disturbing: Bellesiles was quoting some of the same travel accounts that I had read, and "an examination of eighty travel accounts written in America from 1750 to 1860 indicate that the travelers did not notice that they were surrounded by guns and violence."
[snip]
Bellesiles resigns as fraud investigation ends
External panel asserts guilt in July; main report released today
By Michael de la Merced
Senior Editor
October 25, 2002
Professor of History Michael Bellesiles announced his resignation from the University Friday, bringing an eight-month investigation into his research to an end.
Bellesiles was under fire by fellow academics for alleged fraud in research conducted for his 2000 book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
Bellesiles wrote in a statement Friday he could not continue his teaching commitments given the controversy surrounding him and his book.
"I will continue to research and report on the probate materials while also working on my next book, but cannot continue to teach in what I feel is a hostile environment," Bellesiles wrote.
In a University statement, Interim Dean of the College Robert Paul said he accepted Bellesiles' resignation, effective Dec. 31. The announcement was released along with the long-awaited results of an Investigative Committee's inquiry into allegations of scholarly fraud against Bellesiles.
The Committee, headed by Stanley Katz, a professor of public and international affairs at Princeton University (N.J.), concluded that Bellesiles was guilty of both substandard research methodology and of willfully misrepresenting specific evidence in Arming America.
Many people have wondered how to pronounce Mr. Bellesiles's name. It's ba-leale ... "leale" rhymes with feel.)
On April 19, 2002, two months after Emory announced it had launched a formal investigation of Mr. Bellesiles's book, Arming America, the school newspaper, the Emory Wheel, called on the university to complete its work quickly, noting that "by remaining silent on the issue in the face of national controversy, Emory appears to be implicitly supporting Bellesiles." "If Emory has already completed its investigation," the paper's editorial continued, "it has an unquestionable duty to its students to release its findings. And if it has not yet, the University should reach a verdict before he sets foot in the classroom. Whatever the final outcome, Emory must eventually participate in the national dialogue surrounding Bellesiles' research, either to support or denounce him." The editorial included this stinging accusation: "an overwhelming amount of evidence has surfaced to suggest that Bellesiles was indeed guilty to some degree of fraud."
(Note: Mr. Bellesiles is currently a fellow at the Newberry Library in Chicago. He is scheduled to return to Emory in the fall.)
On April 24 National Review, which published several highly critical articles about Mr. Bellesiles in the fall, reported that Columbia University's Bancroft committee was considering taking away the Bancroft Prize, which was awarded to Arming Americain 2001. The magazine cited Roger Lane as a source; Lane himself was a winner of the Bancroft Prize. Doubt was cast on the story the next day when Eric Foner told the magazine, "I've heard nothing about Columbia rescinding the prize. The University's trustees would have to do it, not the Bancroft Committee."
Another report by National Review was more portentous; the magazine reported that Bellesiles's Newberry fellowship may be in question:
The National Endowment for the Humanities has sent a letter to the Newberry Library in Chicago which raises serious questions about the Library's $30,000 grant to Michael Bellesiles for the second book he is writing on guns. In a letter to Dr. James Grossman, director of the Newberry Library, the NEH asks the Newberry to provide a written notice of the institution's "procedures for handling alleged cases of academic misconduct and fraud." If the Newberry's response fails to satisfy the NEH's concerns, officials there are prepared to take any "necessary and appropriate actions including but not limited to removing the NEH name from the Newberry Fellowship to Michael Bellesiles."
[snip]
Below is an official announcement released Friday, December 13, 2002, by the Columbia University Board of Trustees.
Columbia University's Trustees have voted to rescind the Bancroft Prize awarded last year to Michael Bellesiles for his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. The Trustees made the decision. Based on a review of an investigation of charges of scholarly misconduct against Professor Bellesiles by Emory University and other assessments by professional historians. They concluded that he had violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners. The Trustees voted to rescind the Prize during their regularly scheduled meeting on December 7, 2002 and have notified Professor Bellesiles of their decision.
http://guncite.com/gun-control-more-bellesiles.html
More Bellesiles: "Cite Correction"
An expose of the citations provided within the work of Mr. Bellesiles.
RESPONSES TO THE EMORY REPORT
THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORY (OAH)
On November 22, 2002 the OAH released the following statement:
At its meeting on 8 November 2002 in Baltimore, Maryland, the executive board of the Organization of American Historians (OAH) discussed the report on Michael Bellesiles recently issued by Emory University. Board members agreed that this matter raises larger questions about trust and integrity in the scholarly process and the ways in which historical argument and interpretation are conducted. The board agreed that these issues should become the subject of wider discussion across the profession. The Organization will use the OAH Newsletter as a vehicle for further consideration of the matter. In addition, sessions on the subject will be planned at upcoming annual meetings in Memphis and Boston in 2003 and 2004. The editorial board of the Journal of American History will consider a commissioned essay or a roundtable to address the ethical issues of this and other recent cases and how much historians rely on trust in practicing their craft. Finally, the board agreed that it would continue this discussion at its meeting next April in Memphis.
THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION (AHA)
When Michael Bellesiles reported that gun activists were harassing him, the AHA passed a resolution defending scholars who come under attack for holding controversial views. Some critics of Bellesiles have expressed skepticism about his claims, particularly his allegation that his office door had been set on fire. Arnita Jones, executive director of the AHA, told HNN that the organization stands by its resolution. She also noted that Bellesiles is scheduled to participate in an AHA session at the upcoming annual meeting in Chicago:
Michael Bellesiles will be a participant in a session on "Comparative Legal Perspectives on Gun Control" at the Chicago annual meeting of the AHA this coming January. It is a session that was chosen many months ago by the AHA Program Committee from among those proposed by members of the association. We expect a vigorous debate among the many scholars who are intensely interested in Mr. Bellesiles' and others work on this subject.
In such discussions, of course, it is always important to strike an appropriate balance between the needs of criticism and civil discourse. The AHA stands by its position that all scholarly work should be subject to criticism but that ad hominem attacks upon or harassment of an author are inappropriate.
We continue to believe that a full public airing of controversies relating to historical research and writing is best and we commend Emory University for making its report public. One of the goals of public debate and criticism among historians is precisely to make sure that our arguments are based on appropriate evidence and methodologies. We are pleased that the committee commissioned by Emory University found the AHA's Statement of Standards of Professional Conduct--which deals with these matters--helpful in its deliberations.
JON WIENER
On November 7 Jon Wiener, contributing editor to the Nation , defended Bellesiles while attacking the committee that wrote the Emory Report:
Since the issue here is Bellesiles's integrity as a historian, the Emory inquiry should have been as sweeping as the stakes, instead of being tied to a few pages in a great big book. And if Bellesiles is right in his reply, then those distinguished historians are guilty of some of the same sins they accuse him of committing: suppressing inconvenient evidence, spinning the data their way, refusing to follow leads that didn't serve their thesis. The point is not to condemn them for their inability to achieve the scrupulousness they demanded of Bellesiles. The point is that historians have to deal with the messy confusion of things, and they offer interpretations of it. Historical knowledge advances by the testing of interpretations, not by stifling interpreters, and not by indicting the interpreter's character for flaws in a table.
THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS (OAH)
In 1996 the OAH's Journal of American History published an article by Bellesiles in which he laid out his main argument that guns did not play a significant role in American life until the Civil War. The article won Bellesiles the highly coveted Binkley-Stephenson award, which is given to the author of the best article published by the Journal that year. Bellesiles received $500.
Critics have suggested that the OAH should withdraw the article and rescind the prize. Lee Formwalt, executive director of the OAH, told HNN that the Bellesiles matter is on the agenda of the November 8 meeting of the executive board of the history association. In the meantime, he indicated, OAH staffers will round up the records relating to the publication of Bellesiles's article in anticipation of the meeting.
CLAYTON CRAMER
Clayton Cramer was one of the first people to detect errors in Bellesiles's research. Though not a professional historian, he gradually persuaded academics that he was right and Bellesiles was wrong. Shortly after the Emory report was issued, he commented on HNN: "It's like watching a killer executed: justice requires it, but it would have been best if the original crime hadn't happened."
JEROME STERNSTEIN
Jerome Sternstein, who demonstrated that Bellesiles's yellow legal pads almost certainly could not have been "pulped" as a result of the flood at Bowden Hall, told the Chronicle of Higher Education:
"It was a resignation made under duress. Had [Bellesiles] not resigned, I think they would have fired him."
MICHAEL ZUCKERMAN
Michael Zuckerman, a historian at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Emory Wheel "Emory's losing an immensely talented historian. He's got a million other pieces of his argument that don't remotely touch on inventories."
HANNA GRAY
Hanna Gray former president of the University of Chicago and member of the panel that wrote the Emory Report: "It's very difficult to talk about intentionality. Who knows what goes on in the mind of someone? But I think you will see that there are some assertions that go a little bit beyond carelessness."
RANDY BARNETT
Boston University Law Professor Randy Barnett "Even if the book were true, it would have made no more difference to the Second Amendment debate than the number of printing presses that were available back then would make to the First Amendment. To me, the real story is that in the beginning the professional historians closed ranks behind Bellesiles and savaged the professional and amateur researchers who questioned him, and unless those historians are now willing to step forward and admit they were wrong and the critics were right, they run the risk of turning Bellesiles into the Alger Hiss of the history profession."
KEN JACKSON
Ken Jackson, professor of history, Columbia University:
I have not read the book and do not know the author. But my general position is that history is history. He won the Bancroft Prize. Perhaps that was a bad decision. But the decision was made by a respected jury in a particular year, and that is that. I wish I could change many things about history, but I cannot. I view this as a fact. He won the prize. The Twin Towers fell.
The larger point is that most prizes probably do not go to the books that will have the most influence over the decades. The juries do the best that they can. Human judgments are inherently problematic. Mistakes are made. This is perhaps an example of one.