Michael Bellesiles has a new book out. In light of his public humiliation for being exposed as a fraud, the last thing you would think to do is remind everyone of it:
1877 is also notable as the comeback book for a celebrated U.S. historian. Michael Bellesiles is perhaps most famous as the target of an infamous “swiftboating” campaign by the National Rifle Association, following the publication of his Bancroft Prize-winning book Arming America (Knopf, 2000) — “the best kind of non-fiction,” according to the Chicago Tribune — which made daring claims about gun ownership in early America. In what became the history profession’s most talked-about and notorious case of the past generation, Arming America was eventually discredited after an unprecedented and controversial review called into question its sources, charges which Bellesiles and his many prominent supporters have always rejected.”I'm just amazed. Maybe 1877 is a fine book. But the extent of his exposure from scholars across the spectrum was so overwhelming that the smartest thing he could do is not remind anyone of Arming America. It's rather like deciding to go straight--but include a copy of the Wanted poster for bank robbery with your resume. The History News Network coverage includes this:
Randolph Roth, who teaches at The Ohio State University, had this to say:I hope and expect that Michael Bellesiles' new book will be judged on its merits. I am disappointed, however, in the promotional campaign for the book. Mr. Bellesiles may indeed have been the target of the NRA's ire, but he was not "swift-boated" by anyone. Many people found Arming America deeply flawed—among them scholars of unquestioned skill and integrity such as James Lindgren, Gloria Main, Laurel Ulrich, and Clayton Cramer. Some of them are conservatives, some liberals, some contrarians, but they all followed the evidence where it led, regardless of their personal views about guns or gun control. The evidence, quantitative and qualitative, undid Arming America.
I'm stunned that anyone would actually publish ANY book by this fraud.
ReplyDeleteThe Blub there is just gobsmacking. How does eventually admitting it was proven to be fraudulent reflect on all of the earlier praise in any other way but to discredit all of those sources?
ReplyDelete"the target of an infamous “swiftboating” campaign by the National Rifle Association"
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see the word "swiftboat" used correctly. It's synonym for "to tell the truth" about someone.
That happens alot in publishing, though. Why does anyone publish Paul Erhlich after The Population Bomb?
ReplyDeleteThe description of the book, which I assume was provided by the publisher, simply shows that when someone is trying to sell something, they'll often fabricate falsehoods in order to make the sale.
ReplyDeleteSort of like Obama and ObamaCare.
Ehrlich was wrong. Wrong is part of the scientific method. Fraud isn't. And that's the difference between Ehrlich and Bellesiles.
ReplyDeleteI know, I know, swiftboating is an expression to refer to dishonestly attacking someone.
ReplyDeleteBut did the swift boat vets lie about anything? I seem to recall that some of their charges were either never settled, and some were proven truthful, and none were disproven.
I think it's a shame that people assume the swift boat vets did anything wrong in saving us from a Kerry presidency. That man was a traitor who helped ruin the Vietnam effort and wanted very much to ruin the Iraq efforts. The middle east would be so much worst right now but for swift boat vets.
Bellesiles committed academic fraud and was caught, so I agree with him that he was swift boated. He was discovered for what he was by truth tellers.
I think the blurb is perfectly on-pitch for the target audience: True-believing "truth to power" types who see a courageous hero who's been crushed by "the Man".
ReplyDeleteI first read the title of this post as beginning with "When You Are An A Hole".
ReplyDeleteIt works, too.
Congratulations on being called a "scholar[] of unquestioned skill and integrity."
ReplyDeleteThis is from Volokh Conspiracy:
ReplyDelete"Eugene Volokh notes the forthcoming book from the audaciously fraudulent and inaccurate writer Michael Bellesiles, 1877: America’s Year of Living Violently. Because 1877, unlike gun ownership, is not currently a controversial topic in the United States, it is possible that nobody will track down Bellesiles’ footnotes to see if they support his claims."
You're right about the difference between Erhlich and Bellesiles. But my point is that, since he was so wrong, and since he was often arrogant about his claims, it is difficult to imagine that anyone would publish another book by Erhlich.
Erlich wasn't wrong--his claims were so preposterous they weren't even wrong, and don't qualify as science any more than N-rays or Piltdown man.
ReplyDeleteAlas Piltdown Man was a fraud--but one accepted by the anthropological community in spite of some genuine misgivings at the beginning. It was a Convenient Falsehood.
ReplyDelete