Posted on 04/11/2002 9:31:50 AM PDT by beckett
Are Michael Bellesiles’s Critics Afraid to Say What They Really Think?
By Jerome Sternstein
Mr. Sternstein is Professor Emeritus of History, Brooklyn College, CUNY, and co-editor of The Encyclopedia of American Biography.
Click here to read Mr. Bellesiles's Response to Mr. Sternstein.
Click here to read Mr. Sternstein's Response to Mr. Bellesiles.
Has the time come to ask if Michael Bellesiles's Arming America is an example of scholarly deceit?
Some defenders of Bellesiles's work have insisted in various forums that Bellesiles's critics have yet to bring forth any evidence to suggest scholarly fraud. Recently, in making his case, one apologist pointed to the "searching examinations" of Bellesiles's book in the January 2002 issue of the William and Mary Quarterly (WMQ), which, "although severely critical, eschews charges of fraud or misrepresentation."
To be sure, "charges of fraud" do not appear in the Quarterly's forum on Bellesiles. But what is truly remarkable about that forum is what does appear there: scathing appraisals of his book's misuse of sources and evidence which some might regard as consistent with academic fraud, such as repeatedly misquoting, distorting, falsifying, or perhaps even deliberately inventing evidence to support one's thesis. continue...
This guy's stories are not remotely plausible. Russell Baker called him "the Milli Vanilli of academic publishing." But the Grammys have higher ethical standards than academics do (Milli Vanilli, after all, had to give back their prize).
The deeper one gets into l'affaire Bellesiles the clearer it is that he did not fake just parts of his research, he faked it across the board. As an author myself, I know with respect to every book I have publoished, when, where, and how I did the research for it. Sometimes I sweated bullets for weeks trying to track down one final point that was ecessary to the argument.
What I find most disgusting about Bellesiles is how his stories keep changing about his research. The places change not once, but repeatedly. The materials used change not once, but repeatedly. The bottom line conclusion is clear, this man and his book are both frauds.
Even his excuse, "the flood ate my homework," has been given in multiple versions to different people. At one time his notes were "drying out at home in Atlanta," Now he claims they were "carted away by the clean-up crew" with no notice to him.
This man should have the gold tassel cut off of his mortarboard and his gown stripped away, and be forced to leave Emory University at dawn down the ranks of his colleagues, all facing away from him. That's how they showed it in the opening credits of that ancient TV series The Rifleman, starring Chuck Conners.
At least, that's how they would do it if academics had a sense of drama, and shame.
Congressman Billybob
Nope, backett. But I am now! Thanks for the bump. best, bb.
Too many professors are messy and leave papers around all over their offices that they intend to keep, for the cleaners to decide to throw out miscellaneous stuff from offices without express permission such as a note on a pile of papers plainly saying "Cleaning Crew: Please discard".
This is a pretty common rule in universities.
Well I think you'll enjoy the venture, BB. L'affaire Bellesiles is an outstanding example of the kind of scholarship one can expect from careerist academics steeped in relativism who believe that the only good interpretation of data is an "alternative" PC interpretation.
Also, he previously said that he carried all his notes to his attic at home--that he did not intially toss them out.
Even better, Emory should force him to perform the "Walk of Shame" as he leaves. The Walk of Shame is portrayed in The Lords of Discipline, which is set in the thinly-disguised Citadel. A student has been expelled. At dawn, the cadets are dressed in No. 1s and lined up on each side of the main drive from the quad to the front gate. The Commandant intones, "Commence...the Walk of Shame!" As the ex-student walks toward the gate, each facing pair of cadets turns their backs on him just before he passes.
So it would seem, beckett. I note he uses the signature "pot calling the kettle black" technique, which seems standard for such folks: Always blame the other guy for doing what you are doing yourself. He claims his critic Prof. Sternstein is "politically driven." Yet Sternstein "support[s] gun regulations, especially in urban areas like New York City...." He notes his congressman while he was resident in that city was Charles Schumer, "the bete noir of the NRA," and that he supported him.
Sternstein concludes thusly: "...I hope historians...in the future will be faithful to the evidence and honest in pursuing the answers the evidence provides and will not, like Prof. Bellesiles, distort, embellish, and falsify sources in pursuit of their private, personal version of the truth."
One can hope. But vigilence seems to be in order these days. Meanwhile, a lot of people may be seriously misled by the "works" of historians like Bellesiles -- who mainly seem to be in the business of falsifying reality.
Thanks again for the bump, beckett. That's a very nice site -- I bookmarked it. best, bb.
That was Chuck Connors second TV series, Branded. The Rifleman started each episode with Connors rapidly "fanning" shots from his custom, ring-levered Winchester 76, most likely into the carcas of some miscreant.
And the guy was given the Bancroft Prize for the book, generally considered the top annual prize in the field of American History. And Columbia University, which makes the award, has declined to consider rescinding it!
Another little tidbit that just cracks me up: Garry Wills, sanctimonious scourge of the right par excellence, reviewed the book for NYRB (or the NYT, can't remember which) when it first appeared, giving it notices that compared it to the Second Coming of Christ and the arrival of the Age of Aquarius all rolled into one. But once doubts began to appear about the quality of Bellesiles' scholarship and research, Wills suddenly became "too busy" to revisit the issue. Not a peep has been heard from him since. While his buddy Bellesiles was tied to the whipping post, Garry denied him three times.
True story --- I dated Chuck Connors' niece years ago. His nephew, now a world famous deep sea fishing expert, is still a close friend of one of my brothers.
Connors' brother was a priest, one of those great priests of yesteryear who carried a Godly manner in a very masculine frame. He was a great athelete and just as handsome as his brother, maybe more so. He was just the kind of priest that has become exceedingly scarce in the Catholic Church today. As I see it, the Chuch's current troubles are directly traceable to that scarcity.
Quacks like one and waddles like one, too. Hmmm...
From Sternstein on the HNN message board --
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.