<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Bad Scholarship
Review: Bellesiles Misfires
An antigun "scholar" as today's Galileo? Oh please, just shoot me. BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, February 6, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST History has its fair share of persecuted geniuses, men who were ahead of their time and made to pay for it. There's the hemlocked Socrates, the house-arrested Galileo, the exiled Rousseau. And to this list of giants it seems that we are now expected to add the name of Michael Bellesiles. Mr. Bellesiles is the former Emory professor who shook the scholarly world in 2000 with his book "Arming America." An academic bombshell, the tome went against long-held beliefs by claiming that few colonial Americans actually owned guns. This set off a riotous public debate over whether the Second Amendment was designed to protect individual gun rights. Mr. Bellesiles was showered with prizes and media praise, becoming an instant academic star. That is, until his peers started looking into that little thing called research. Reputable scholars in the ensuing months tore apart his work on probate and military records, travel narratives, and other documents. Mr. Bellesiles, when asked to explain, provided ever-more outlandish excuses: that his notes had been lost in a flood, that his Web site had been hacked, that he couldn't remember where he'd found certain documents. The officials of the prestigious Bancroft Prize stripped him of his award, he left Emory and Knopf chose to stop publishing his book. Most of us sighed happily and figured that was the end of that academic scandal. But oh, no. It turns out that Mr. Bellesiles is still riding his dead horse, his nonexistent guns still blazing. Soft Skull Press (which takes pride in putting out books that other publishers avoid like ricin) has not only agreed to reissue "Arming America" but has decided to release Mr. Bellesiles's latest response to his critics. This 59-page pamphlet, "Weighed in an Even Balance," is a spirited attempt by Mr. Bellesiles to turn himself into the world's latest misunderstood genius. As such, it's worth reading for pure entertainment value. Much of the booklet is a repeat of the professor's creative excuses and dissembling. He explains again about the flood and helpfully assures us that he is not an agent of the Zionist Occupational Government (though surely that is why the Bancroft panel took away his prize, right?). He does acknowledge a few errors, but only after pointing out that "even the finest scholars . . . make mistakes." As proof, he cites one blooper in esteemed historian David McCullough's 1,120-page biography of Harry Truman. But the most amusing parts of the pamphlet are those meant to support our scholar's belief that he is up against a stubborn world that refuses to open its mind to the truth. And his sense of persecution and righteousness is very much on display. The very title of his book is taken from Job: "Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may known mine integrity." And that's just for starters. The pamphlet is sprinkled with quotations from thoughtful men, all meant to back up Mr. Bellesiles's argument that he is fighting the good fight. We hear from Isaiah Berlin: "Few things have done more harm than the belief on the part of individuals or groups . . . that he or she or they are in sole possession of the truth." One epigraph recounts that in the 16th century, Oxford used to fine any student who diverged from the teachings of Aristotle. We are clearly meant to envision a fiesty Mr. Bellesiles handing over his shillings to the dons. We are treated to lecturing tracts about the benefits of scholarly disagreement, the complex nature of historical research and the need for academic exploration. And finally, in case readers still aren't getting his drift, Mr. Bellesiles sums it all up in his conclusion: "There are those who rest their very identity on the notion of a certain, unchanging past. The vision that society is unalterable is not just incorrect, it is dangerously undemocratic, and as such should be of concern to every modern historian." In fact, the academic world is hardly a monolothic creature that resists all change. If it were, we'd still be trying to explain how the sun moves around the Earth. Most historians and scientists are wise enough to realize that new discoveries or interpretations hold out opportunity. But before they completely cast aside mountains of research, they usually demand some proof. Mr. Bellesiles's problem isn't that he's misunderstood; it's that he still hasn't given them any. Or as the old saying goes: "To be a persecuted genius, you not only have to be persecuted; you also have to be right." Ms. Strassel is a senior editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal.
Rating:
Summary: This book is a fraud.
Review: I am fairly alarmed at the number of book reviews still out there on the web [Amazon's, I'm afraid, included) that still have the initial glowing reviews of this book 18 months [it was revoked in December, 2002 and I'm writing this in May 2004]after the 2001 Bancroft prize awarded to the author for it was revoked. Michael Bellesiles has also been forced to resign from Emory, dropped by his publisher and his work generally discredited by the academic community (just do a google search).
I don't even want to think about how many copies of this book are sitting on library shelves across America being checked out by readers who are going to take this phony's "work" at face value...
Rating: 
Summary: A Fascinating Book
Review: I enjoyed this book immensely, as it tackled a topic that receives far too little attention--the evolution of the gun culture in America.
Bellesiles makes many convincing arguments that this culture developed far later in our history than the National Rifle Association would have you believe, and as far as I'm aware, only a small portion of his research was discredited in the initial edition of the book (San Francisco and Rhode Island probate records). That doesn't forgive his sloppiness, but it does beg the question of why gun nuts are trying to shut down all meaningful discussion on this important topic by crucifying one man.
Apparently, hwoever, Bellesiles has accounted for the problems with his research in his most recent edition of Arming America. You also have to realize, this book has an immense Notes section and the aforementioned items are only a small part of his overall body of research.
One thing you will notice with all the 1-star reviews on this site by pro-gunners (the NRA has clearly rallied its forces again) is that they attack Bellesiles character, but almost none of them use any evidence of their own to refute his basic thesis.
Clearly, the debate itself scares them more than the author. Hopefully, intelligent readers to whom "academic" is not a dirty word will feel free to make up their own minds.
Rating:
Summary: Does he even know how to do research?
Review: I found Michael Bellesiles' book "Arming America" to be most amusing. I have to be amused, otherwise I would be outraged that such drivel could come from an alleged historian. Let me start at the beginning:
His survey of probate records covers only those who had wills and probate proceedings. These people were typically rich urbanites who had no need to hunt and could rely on neighbors for help if attacked. Since there was usually at least one person in the house at all times, the risk was slim. This survey does NOT represent the typical American at the time, but the typical elite snob. And most of them STILL had guns, based on the VERY PROBATE RECORDS HE CLAIMS TO HAVE USED.
American settlers, as he notes and then contradicts, used rifles for hunting. Muskets, which were military weapons, were inaccurate other than in volley fire, so were not desirable for frontier use, hence the lack of interest in buying surplus ones after the War of Independence. It did not take "two days" to find game, "luck" was not needed, and the typical game would be rabbit or squirrel, which are far more plentiful than deer. One would be unlikely to slaughter chickens regularly for meat, as he suggests, unless one had a sufficient breeding population to replace those slaughtered. It would actually be far easier, despite his amusing theories on hunting, to bag a woodchuck, squirrel, or rabbit. And they all taste like chicken.
Gunpowder is merely charcoal, sulfur, and saltpetre. Sulfur occurs naturally, charcoal is readily made, and saltpetre takes little effort to distill from cow manure. As late as 1873, the Zulus were using stones as projectiles in their muskets. This destroys his myth that owning a gun made one "dependent" on the government for lead and powder.
Flintlocks are remarkably simple devices, with only two springs and three major moving parts. Where he got the notion otherwise I have no idea. They function well, are easy to clean (they do not take "all day"), and displaced the earlier bow because of ease of use, despite a slower rate of fire and greater expense.
He makes an issue of gunsmiths not advertising in major newspapers of the day. Only the wealthy could afford luxury guns, and newspaper ads were expensive. Had he bothered to review old blacksmithing manuals, he would find that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM contained instructions for manufacturing, finishing, treating, and repairing non-luxury firearms, including building rifling cutters to rifle the barrels. Hardly the thing to waste paper on if these items were as scarce as he claims. There is a video available from Colonial Williamsburg in which their resident smith manufactures one from raw materials in one day.
While it is true that the Continental Army (which numbered in the hundreds in 1795) sneered at the militia, ask any reservist today, and one will find the same attitude persists. He clearly has forgotten that it was the militia that drove the British from Washington during the War of 1812, the Army not being within a hundred miles at the time. So much for their relative effectiveness.
Early weapons were rusty? This much is true. Petroleum lubricants not being available in that era, bear grease had to suffice. As we all know, North America tends to have climate that encourages rust. What else could they do? How does surface rust affect the operation of a firearm?
Finally, one must ask, "So what?" So few Americans owned arms (if we concede for sake of argument that he is correct, which he is not). Few people, even with the modern advantage of email, actually write to their local newspapers or elected officials. Should we assume by this that there is no right to free speech?
He makes excellent use of the negative proof method--that lack of mention equals lack of presence. By that logic, outhouses were also scarce. I have found very few historical references to them. One tends to report only the unusual as news, and firearms were not unusual in Colonial America.
Bellisiles is all too typical of the true gun nuts in society--those who use their position to destroy civil rights from some misguided father-knows-best philosophy. He should evaluate his goals. If he wishes to be an historian, he should stick to history and do better research--like not referring to probate records from San Francisco in the 1850s, which no one on the planet (besides himself, apparently) has seen, since they were destroyed in a fire in 1906. If not, then he should be honest and declare himself a politician. And I don't need 600 pages to make that point.
Rating: 
Summary: Publish and Perish
Review: If you would enjoy reading an old-time newpaper, you might like this book. The America which emerges is more Mark Twain than James Fennimore Cooper.
It's not anti-gun, whatever that means, nor is it fraudulent, as far as I can tell. It is anti-pro-gun, however, if you know what I mean. If you're offended by the assertion that smooth-bore muskets weren't very accurate, for instance, don't buy this book. If you've never read a book based (apparently) on stacks of 3 x 5 cards, try the Amazon excerpt, especially past page 30, before you commit. It seems "dry" because constant reference to quotations interrupts the flow, while undermining easy theses. For this reason, you will also look in vain for guidance on the current 2nd Amendment debates re assault weapons or gun-show registration. You will find consideration of why guns replaced bows, how their high maintenance and training costs affected everything from military structure to Indian independance, etc.
This tight adherence to scattered sources (over 1000 notes), however, also buffers the emergent picture against errors...
Rating:
Summary: Only because Amazon won't let me give it a zero
Review: The author had to resign from Emory because this book was such garbage. I read it anyway out of curiousity, and was completely taken aback at how bad it was - it's as if no research was done at all. Read this drivel only if you're looking for comedy or fiction. Better yet, spend the cash on toilet paper and get some use out of it.
Rating:
Summary: You already know this, but...
Review: The character of this book can be summed up with two words: omission and deception. Anyone close to a contemporary issue has bristled at news reporters' tendency to omit facts at odds with their biases, thereby distorting facts the viewer or reader knows to be true. It is thus with this book. The author is willing to go as far as omit half of a historical document, in this case a letter written by General George Washington, in order to invert the letter's meaning. From his treatment of the letter, author would have us think that it was normal for militia to have a weapons ownership rate of 10%. A complete reading of Washington's letter shows that such low rates of gun ownership of arms was highly unusual, and Washington actually suggested punishment for soldiers who did not bring their own arms to the fight. The common ownership of arms preceded the founding of the United States of America, and the common ownership of arms is woven into the founding document of our nation and advocacy for same is found in the writings of those who helped write the Constitution. In fact, the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is unique among others in the Bill of Rights in that the authors acknowledged that weapons ownership is a right, which preceded the penning of the Constitution itself. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" Revisionists would have us believe that "the people" of the first amendment are the whole people, but "the people" of the second amendment is not, and that it only refers to members of the national guard. Perhaps "the people" of the fourth amendment are only national guardsmen as well, and only they are "secure in their persons [and] houses." Only military personnel secure in their homes...what does that sound like?
Rating:
Summary: The problem when 'research' is dictated by prior assumption
Review: The perfect example of worst-case research: 1) Determine exactly what you want to find. 2) Look exclusively for details that support it. 3) Ignore all other evidence, no matter how great or predominant. 4) Manipulate, misrepresent, and misconstrue all evidence you find. 5) finally - simply make up "evidence" and state that it is old so that no one will bother to verify it. This book illustrates this perfectly - partly why Bellisles (Having a PhD, I refuse to call anyone who so blatantly abused his position and ignored all research ethics and morals a doctor) has received so many admonishments and even punishments for such a crass and unscientific bashing of something simply because there was an audience and he had a personal ax to grind. Academia at it absolute worst. No wonder Joe and Jane Public have no confidence, no regard, and no respect for academics.
Rating:
Summary: The problem when 'research' is dictated by prior assumption
Review: The perfect example of worst-case research: 1) Determine exactly what you want to find. 2) Look exclusively for details that support it. 3) Ignore all other evidence, no matter how great or predominant. 4) Manipulate, misrepresent, and misconstrue all evidence you find. 5) finally - simply make up "evidence" and state that it is old so that no one will bother to verify it. This book illustrates this perfectly - partly why Bellisles (Having a PhD, I refuse to call anyone who so blatantly abused his position and ignored all research ethics and morals a doctor) has received so many admonishments and even punishments for such a crass and unscientific bashing of something simply because there was an audience and he had a personal ax to grind. Academia at it absolute worst. No wonder Joe and Jane Public have no confidence, no regard, and no respect for academics.
<< 1 >>
| 
