|
Bellesiles "Responds" to Critics
|
"...[Bellesiles' response] is unlikely to pacify either his ideological foes
or those academic critics who think his scholarship flawed . . . because
Bellesiles addresses only a few alleged errors..." |
|
|
-- Boston Globe, November 13, 2001 |
|
Work of fiction |
Emory University historian
Michael Bellesiles, author of the widely
criticized book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,
has begun to respond to demands that he defend the "research" on which
his book was based-research that has not stood up under scholarly
scrutiny. After more than a year of controversy surrounding
Bellesiles's book, James Melton, Emory's history department chairman,
told the Boston Globe in September that Bellesiles must "defend himself
and the integrity of his scholarship immediately."
Unfortunately, rather than carefully defend his "research," Bellesiles
has chosen to use the November newsletter of the Organization of
American Historians (OAH) to focus his "response" to critics on what he
calls "hateful, threatening, and expletive-laced telephone calls, mail,
e-mail, and faxes" from individuals he implies are part of some sort of
organized effort to discredit him.
Bellesiles also laments that his
book has "been subject to many harsh and intemperate attacks," and that
"every conceivable accusation, and many inconceivable ones, have been
made against the book and its author, many of these on the web, where
normal standards of fair and civil [sic] have less application." He
even goes so far as to claim that somebody "hacked" into his web site
for the purpose of "altering and deleting material."
Of course, it is entirely possible that Bellesiles has been subject to
personal attacks. Anyone who has ever openly sought publicity to
promote his theories and personal opinions, as has Bellesiles,
understands that he may be subject to unkind words - especially when those
theories run contrary to carefully documented historical record.
Ironically, Bellesiles even mentions
NRA President Charlton Heston in
his OAH article, a man who is no stranger to "hateful, threatening"
comments and "intemperate attacks" from his detractors. Controversial
film director
Spike Lee once suggested that Mr. Heston should be
murdered by someone using a handgun. (Also ironic, and perhaps telling
of Mr. Bellesiles's "research" abilities and lack of attention to
detail, the controversial author misidentifies Mr. Heston as
"Charleton.")
But the real focus of the criticism that has Bellesiles
beleaguered and befuddled is his "research," and the response from the
author thus far remains woefully lacking in substance.
Contrary to what appears to be the message of Bellesiles's OAH article,
the criticism that led to demands from the historian's superiors that he
defend his work had nothing to do with any messages he may have received
that he considered to be personal attacks. The genesis of the demands
came from the growing ranks of Bellesiles's own colleagues - fellow
academics, law professors, historians, and journalists - who found "Arming
America" to be absurdly flawed. The criticism from colleagues regarding
Bellesiles's research includes accusations that
- he misquoted sources,
- cited sources that do not contain the information he claimed was
present,
- cited sources that may not exist, and that
- the conclusions from
his analysis of probate records are simply wrong and cannot be
reproduced.
As we predicted in October, it looks like Bellesiles's initial response
to his critics is raising far more questions, while addressing few of
the legitimate criticisms. A November 13 Boston Globe story comments
that the OAH article "is unlikely to pacify either his ideological foes
or those academic critics who think his scholarship flawed . . . because
Bellesiles addresses only a few alleged errors." Bellesiles will have
more opportunities to respond to the numerous complaints about his book,
and we can only hope that he will actually address the problems with his
"research," rather than try to dismiss his critics as being
ideologically motivated.
Considering Bellesiles's claims his detractors are either politically or
ideologically motivated, and implies he does not have any ideological
motivation himself, perhaps he should explain why, in 1995, he appeared
at an anti-gun conference - the 3rd Annual HELP Network Conference - to
promote his "research," and share a stage with ideologically and
politically motivated gun-ban extremists from HCI and the Violence
Policy Center.
Related Stories...
More About The Gun-Ban Lobby at Work
Bellesiles Ordered To Respond To Critics
Columbia University Set to Honor Controversial Researcher
Disarming America, Part II - National Review
|
|
