Justin’s review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History > Likes and Comments
22 likes · Like
Dear random internet stranger.
I didn't realize that goodreads.com was a forum for scholarly reviews. Silly me I thought that an appropriate venue for a lengthy, scholarly, academic review that raised specific concerns about an author's sources, arguments etc... was the scholarly journal. If you want to read such reviews, I would suggest the Journal of American History or the American Historical Review not goodreads.com. Oh, as to your tired old adage that history is written by the winners, I would humbly suggest that the overwhelming majority of American historiography, particularly Civil War historiography, would disagree. Countless authors have written about how the history of the Civil War was defined by the former Confederacy. I would specifically recommend David Blight and his excellent work Race and Reunion. Also, if we’re going to be internet scholars should I be footnoting sources here? Do you want Chicago style or MLA?
Cheers,
Cynical Asshole
I'm just curious; did you actually read this book? You give no specific criticisms and no indication of specific knowledge of any one section. Your review could have easily been written by someone who saw the title, read the back cover, and got pissed off. If that's not you, I apologize. But I have to ask, is that you?
Wow, this is from a good while ago, but it certainly deserves a response. Yes, I read "book." You want some specific criticisms? Fine. How about the author's deliberate erasure of the gradual racialization of Native Americans in Puritan colonies throughout the 17th century? How about the fact that, in his desperation to pretend that Puritans weren't racist, the author conveniently leaves out the thriving slave trade in colonial New England (not to mention that quite a few Natives captured in the wake of Metacom's War were sold into slavery? How about the fact that the author deliberately misrepresents a great deal of the scholarship that he cites (when discussing the Civil War, for example, he cites McPherson's For Cause and Comrades as proof that Southern soldiers fought for "patriotism" rather than chattel slavery, despite the fact that McPherson's entire argument about Confederate patriotism is that it revolved around race and slavery! How about the fact that the author brutally misinterprets the 14th Amendment and tries to claim that it wasn't supposed to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to the states, while also ignoring the long history of incorporation that specifically cited the 14th. How about the fact that Woods falsely presents Butler's General Order no. 28 as a right to rape? How about his claim that Robert E. Lee kept to "moral codes" throughout the Civil War despite the fact that his army not only foraged for supplies in both of their invasions of the North, but that they also abducted free blacks in Pennsylvania and sold them into slavery? What about the fact that he wants to pretend that slavery could have ended peacefully despite the fact that in 1860 is was more profitable and vibrant than ever? What about the fact that the author wants to portray Confederates as noble and chivalrous despite atrocities like Fort Pillow and Poison Spring? Despite a systematic refusal on the part of Confederate authorities to treat captured black soldiers as legitimate prisoners of war?
I get that this work probably appeals to your politics, and that's fine, just don't pretend that this is legitimate scholarship.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Dear random internet stranger.I didn't realize that goodreads.com was a forum for scholarly reviews. Silly me I thought that an appropriate venue for a lengthy, scholarly, academic review that raised specific concerns about an author's sources, arguments etc... was the scholarly journal. If you want to read such reviews, I would suggest the Journal of American History or the American Historical Review not goodreads.com. Oh, as to your tired old adage that history is written by the winners, I would humbly suggest that the overwhelming majority of American historiography, particularly Civil War historiography, would disagree. Countless authors have written about how the history of the Civil War was defined by the former Confederacy. I would specifically recommend David Blight and his excellent work Race and Reunion. Also, if we’re going to be internet scholars should I be footnoting sources here? Do you want Chicago style or MLA?
Cheers,
Cynical Asshole
That's what I was going to say Justin. Well played sir.
I'm just curious; did you actually read this book? You give no specific criticisms and no indication of specific knowledge of any one section. Your review could have easily been written by someone who saw the title, read the back cover, and got pissed off. If that's not you, I apologize. But I have to ask, is that you?
Wow, this is from a good while ago, but it certainly deserves a response. Yes, I read "book." You want some specific criticisms? Fine. How about the author's deliberate erasure of the gradual racialization of Native Americans in Puritan colonies throughout the 17th century? How about the fact that, in his desperation to pretend that Puritans weren't racist, the author conveniently leaves out the thriving slave trade in colonial New England (not to mention that quite a few Natives captured in the wake of Metacom's War were sold into slavery? How about the fact that the author deliberately misrepresents a great deal of the scholarship that he cites (when discussing the Civil War, for example, he cites McPherson's For Cause and Comrades as proof that Southern soldiers fought for "patriotism" rather than chattel slavery, despite the fact that McPherson's entire argument about Confederate patriotism is that it revolved around race and slavery! How about the fact that the author brutally misinterprets the 14th Amendment and tries to claim that it wasn't supposed to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to the states, while also ignoring the long history of incorporation that specifically cited the 14th. How about the fact that Woods falsely presents Butler's General Order no. 28 as a right to rape? How about his claim that Robert E. Lee kept to "moral codes" throughout the Civil War despite the fact that his army not only foraged for supplies in both of their invasions of the North, but that they also abducted free blacks in Pennsylvania and sold them into slavery? What about the fact that he wants to pretend that slavery could have ended peacefully despite the fact that in 1860 is was more profitable and vibrant than ever? What about the fact that the author wants to portray Confederates as noble and chivalrous despite atrocities like Fort Pillow and Poison Spring? Despite a systematic refusal on the part of Confederate authorities to treat captured black soldiers as legitimate prisoners of war?I get that this work probably appeals to your politics, and that's fine, just don't pretend that this is legitimate scholarship.
Clearly, an 'ignorant buffoon' such as myself (you know the kind: They would annoy the Hell out of you because they'd do something like spot check the author for quote accuracy) can come away from this book and, instead swallowing it whole, be inspired to do something 'crazy' like learn more about history. Unlike you, I never forget that history is written by the winners of the conflict. To review it from a violently partial perspective while ignoring any discrepancies with current common practice is hardly the behavior of a rational autodidact. If generations previous spent their lives listening to idiots on either side of the fence on such issues, we'd probably still believe that 'smoking is good for us because 9 out of 10 doctors say so!'
Don't attack any book, no matter how biased, unless you have the knowledge and figures to back your beliefs AND ONLY YOUR BELIEFS. If your opinion can't stand up to the minority report (and it won't), then don't bother throwing it out there.