Arming America

[jimmy the one]

14. well, mel

mel moose: Wiener is a decent historian but, in my opinion, does not write in an unbiased manner.

Neither did bellesiles critics, mel.

mel: Wiener states that there was a concerted attack on Belleisle's book that started on the internet and chat rooms but, at least in the part that I read, did not immediately support that with examples and citations.

Well, mel....

mel: Wiener also discusses that Bellesilse's under went scrutiny above and beyond that of many historical analyses but the vast majority of historical works/analyses were not awarded Bancroft Prize. Many works that are awarded prizes like this are put under a microscope as they become important works in their fields and quickly become highly cited works.

You make a fair appraisal at times, mel, & I thank you for being somewhat open minded.
Had Encyclopedia Brittanica been scrutinized by the gun lobby for being 'anti gun', Brittanica would be labeled biased, inaccurate, & guilty of falsifying information.

If a book is destined to become that important, it is critical that they be examined from all directions to ensure that it is accurate and worthy of becoming an important work.

In an ideal world it works that way, but in the political world, witch hunts thrive.

Please keep in mind that not only did Emory University disassemble Bellesilse's work, so did Columbia University.

Didn't GWBush say something like that? I think you meant 'dissemble'.