Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (142294)	2/4/2002 12:45:54 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578652

boston.com Historians criticize author's gun research By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 1/29/2002 In an upcoming issue of a prestigious historical journal, three historians in a panel of four severely criticize a controversial prize-winning book about guns in early America. The essays - along with a response from Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, the author - appear in the winter issue of the William & Mary Quarterly, an eminent journal of early American history and culture. They focus on Bellesiles's arguments and research in his 2000 book, ''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.'' The book, which won the coveted Bancroft Prize for history, startled the field with the revisionist argument that, contrary to popular myth, functional guns were rare in early America, and that gun ownership was uncommon before the Civil War. The findings outraged organized gun owners because of their possible negative implications for ''the right to bear arms.'' But mainstream historians also raised questions, in some cases doubting that Bellesiles did the research he claimed to have done. For example, San Francisco records he cited were apparently destroyed during the 1906 earthquake. Bellesiles has been unable to support his use of 1,100 probate records he purportedly examined in 40 counties, because, he says, a flood in his office at Emory destroyed his notes. The four historians are Jack N. Rakove of Stanford University; Gloria L. Main of the University of Colorado; Ira D. Gruber of Rice University; and Randolph Roth of Ohio State University. The latter three describe a stream of alleged errors in facts, numbers, interpretations, and methodology in Bellesiles's book. In his response, Bellesiles concedes numerous errors, but seems to minimize their significance by saying his book is about culture, not statistics, and that in any case all statistics about early America are tentative. Proof copies of the William & Mary articles were provided to the Globe on condition that they not be quoted directly until the magazine is mailed to subscribers next month. Main, an expert in probate records, blasts Bellesiles for allegedly faulty use of such records, and for disregarding earlier published research that undercuts his thesis. Gruber, a military historian and expert on early militias, writes that Bellesiles is careless in his handling of evidence and context, and that his reading of the records is strongly biased in favor of his thesis. Roth, a historian of violence in America who had favorably reviewed Bellesiles's earlier book about Vermont Colonial leader Ethan Allen, cites striking discrepancies between Bellesiles's statements about Colonial homicide rates and what records show. For example, Bellesiles writes in his book that in 46 years, there were no homicide cases heard in the courts in Plymouth Colony. But Roth writes that well-indexed and readily available records clearly show 11 murder cases in the Plymouth courts, and possibly four others. None of the three accuses Bellesiles of blatant dishonesty, but they express a common bafflement at his methods and findings. When Bellesiles's 1996 journal article, on which his book was based, appeared, ''I was extremely skeptical,'' Roth said in a telephone interview yesterday, ''and so were all my colleagues. We looked at his methods and said, `There is something wrong here.' It appears to be the counts themselves. And that is not a methodological question, but an accuracy question.'' Main, also reached by phone, said, ''The book was frustrating, because as scholars we are supposed to describe our methods. There is very little description in this book.'' Bellesiles did not return a phone call yesterday. Officials at Emory have said there will be no official internal investigation of the complaints until after the William & Mary forum appears. David Mehegan can be reached by email at M ehegan@globe.com.