I know, thanks to the University of Colorado's Investigative Committee, that Churchill has been caught misquoting people to support his conclusions. He has cited pieces ghost written by himself as independent corroborating evidence. I am not denying this is all true what I have a problem with is that although these are stupid things to do that does not make everything he has done worthless as many here are claiming. Justin writes below:
"This is the case of a writer -- he can't be called a scholar -- who committed every crime against scientific scholarship that it is possible to commit,a did so systematically, repeatedly, willfully, and over a long period of time. " {jks}
Where was condemnation in such strong terms concerning Michael Bellesiles fabrication of records, citations of destroyed records and deliberate misrepresentation of other records in his book "Arming America"? Instead we get comments like:
"My guess is that he probably "overstates his case," but that he is nevertheless "right" on the whole. " {JCWise}
"I basically agree with you (JCWise). What's even more interesting than the controversy regarding the scarcity, unreliability, and dearness of firearms in pre-Civil War America (that is, in America prior to the Industrial Revolution) is Michael Bellesiles's argument concerning class, race, and the state." {Yoshie}
"Arming America is thus a valuable springboard for discussion. However it is judged, it ought to spur further research into an important and little-studied area of American life."
and my favorite:
"Most recentlt there was Michael Bellesiles, who wrote the book on guns, Armind America, that teed off the NRA. He fudged the sources in one chart, not even an important one in his argument, and they pulled his Bancroft and forced his resignation from a tenured professorship, basically ruining him." {jks}
Bellesiles falsifications was no less than Churchills but here Bellesiles is treated with kid gloves compared to Churchill. Why the double standard? Bellesiles did far more than "fudge the sources in one chart" so why bend over backwards to defend one author and not another for committing the same transgressions? Why does Justin lament Bellesiles career is ruined and yet write the following concerning Churchill:
"We should abandon this sinking ship. Even if Churchill's charges turned out to be true, he not only failed to support them, he fabricated evidence, systematically misread sources, plagiarized, and in general violated every scholarly canon of evidence. It is true,as he says, that few scholars would come through the kind of examination he was subjected to unscathed."
Bellesiles is forgiveable because he was might be correct even though he fabricated evidence and deliberately misrepresented sources but Churchill is not te be forgiven for fabricating evidence and misrepresenting sources even it he does turn out to be correct! What an amazing double standard.
John Thornton
On 26 May 2006 at 19:38, info at pulpculture.org wrote:
At any rate, to answer the question about the report. This is what is wrong. Churchill cites scholars who do not say what he said they say. I don't know about you, but I would be really annoyed were I someone who didn't say what was attributed to me.
The Committee therefore finds that Professor Churchill has misrepresented the sources he cites and that they do not support his claim.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm