In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Scholar under heavy fire for book on gun culture

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited January 2002 in General Discussion
[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 01.20.2002] Scholar under heavy firefor book on gun culture By JEN SANSBURY Atlanta Journal-Constitution ColumnistWhen Emory University Professor Michael Bellesiles published a book about the history of guns in pre-Civil War America, he knew his conclusions might be unpopular.He didn't expect to provoke attacks from gun owners or to be besieged by fellow scholars.MORE ONLINE Bellesiles' Web page James Lindgren's paper "Counting Guns in Early America" can be downloaded. Bellesiles "Disarming the Critics" article and reader responses William and Mary Quarterly Academic Exchange, Emory University's online faculty publication In his 2000 book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," Bellesiles contended the country's legendary gun ownership and use dating to colonial times is "an invented tradition." He said they didn't become commonplace until the Civil War era, when technology made mass production of guns possible and manufacturers started advertising campaigns to persuade people to buy them.In 2001, the book won Columbia University's prestigious Bancroft Prize, which recognizes exceptional books on American history and diplomacy.What has followed has been an assault on Bellesiles' research, his interpretations and his integrity. Beyond the political and academic criticism, his book has provoked an explosive response from more mainstream Americans.Bellesiles -- pronounced "Buh-leel" -- became the target of threats. In March, he wrote a column in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about harassment by "Web stalkers." He got an unlisted phone number, changed his official Emory e-mail address and eventually moved his family out of Atlanta."I gather that people who have formed their identity around firearms resent the questioning of the mythology of early America, in which every man had a rifle in one hand and his other hand on the plow," he said. "It's clearly touched some deep, inner nerve because there are some people who have devoted themselves for the last several years -- before my book came out -- to try to find flaws in the research."Bellesiles acknowledges that he did make some mistakes in his research, and at Emory's request he is trying to answer his critics. A well-regarded academic publication is devoting part of its next issue -- coming out in early February -- to a scholarly analysis of his book. Bellesiles said he never anticipated such heated controversy over the book he worked on for 10 years."I'm a historian and nobody pays attention to historians," he said in a brief, reluctant interview. Had his topic been anything other than guns, that may have held true."If he had been talking about book ownership in the 18th century and had been accused of miscounting the number of families that had books, that would be an issue for us, but not for the NRA and Charlton Heston" and the public at large, said Chris Grasso, editor of "William and Mary Quarterly." In its next issue, due in libraries soon, the history journal will publish several essays on Bellesiles' book.Bellesiles is spending this academic year at Chicago's Newberry Library, an independent research institution, working on other projects, but has also been busy trying to defend his work by writing articles, conducting new research and reconstructing lost information, which he is posting on a Web site.Other historians and experts say some records Bellesiles claims to have looked at don't exist, some records don't show what he says they do and his statistics are mathematically impossible.One of Bellesiles' most vocal critics, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren, said the problems with the book defy explanation. "I think this is the worst historical scandal that I've seen, in part because of the high praise that the book received," said Lindgren, who has gathered documents and written a 60-page paper debunking Bellesiles' work. "The errors are huge and they are serious and they are systematic."Responding to criticsSuch contentions from fellow scholars raised concern at Emory that Bellesiles may not simply be caught in the crossfire between firearms factions."Anytime there is an indication of any type of scholarly misconduct . . . the university administration has to take careful notice," said Robert Paul, interim dean of Emory College, the undergraduate departments of the university. "Because respectable historians have said 'this doesn't look right to me,' we are forced to consider the possibility that there might be something there."In a September e-mail message, part of which Paul provided, history department Chairman James Melton took the unusual step of urging Bellesiles -- a tenured professor -- to back up his work."Michael, it is imperative that you take immediate and vigorous measures to shift the debate back to the issues," Melton wrote. "This means finding an appropriate professional venue . . . to provide a reasoned, measured, detailed, point-by-point response to your critics."But when Bellesiles published an article called "Disarming the Critics" in the November newsletter of the Organization of American Historians, he was accused by those critics of dodging the charges against him.Not without errorsBellesiles stands behind his thesis, but he does acknowledge some errors.For example, in his book, he said he examined more than 1,000 probate records and determined that only 14 percent of estates in northern New England and western Pennsylvania included guns, more than half of which didn't work properly. Critics have challenged his findings, but Bellesiles said his notes were destroyed when a sprinkler main burst in Bowden Hall on April 2, 2000. He has been trying to recreate that research and put it online.Bellesiles said he now believes that should be "more in the neighborhood of 22-24 percent.""That's what it's turning out in county after county that I look at," Bellesiles said. "It will alter that figure, but it won't alter my conclusion about the gun culture."Lindgren points out that the probate data Bellesiles is disseminating on the Internet are not from the same counties he cited in his book and therefore don't support it. Bellesiles said a few are the same and he will continue to work on compiling as many probate records as he can."I am going to go back to the same places next year," Bellesiles said. "I'm going to be working on this for years."He said he recently visited California because critics have said he could not have looked at San Francisco-area probate records because they were destroyed nearly a century ago. But he said he found them again -- "an entire bookcase of probate record files" -- in a research center that had moved to another town since his first visit.Bellesiles has admitted that he mistakenly cited the Militia Act of 1792 to say that the government would provide the militia with arms and ammunition. Until an amendment was passed in 1803, militia members had to provide their own weapons. Later printings of Bellesiles' book corrected the error.He also concedes that he didn't use the best source when he said there were no murders in Plymouth Colony in 46 years. Another historian found some.Research continuingAnd he even says the sampling method he used to arrive at some of his figures may have been "misleading."That's why he's still working on his research long after he thought he'd put his book and the topic to rest."I understand that scholars and sincere people may want these facts corrected, clarified and expanded on and that's my responsibility as a historian," Bellesiles said.He'll have an opportunity to do some of that in the new "William and Mary Quarterly," which will include articles by four professors from Stanford, Rice, Ohio State universities and the University of Colorado and his responses to them. The articles focus on specific aspects of "Arming America": the Second Amendment, probate records, early American violence and the arming of the militia and army.Grasso, the editor, said the journal wanted to provide a forum for an academic discussion of the book and "remove it from the overheated political debate." Interest has been so high that the editors bumped it up from the April issue to the January issue, which is coming out later than usual because of the change."Professor Bellesiles' response is substantive," Grasso said. "What's going to appear in the Quarterly is not going to be that his computer was targeted or that he received death threats -- that stuff's off the table. This is just going to be scholarship."Returning to EmoryBellesiles said he intends to be back at Emory teaching in the fall. Dean Paul said officials are reserving judgment on the controversy and awaiting the publication before determining what do to next."We want to be guided by the weight of opinion among professional American historians and by how Professor Bellesiles' responses and explanations of his research are perceived by these professionals," Paul said. "We'd certainly rather not be in the position where we had this particular worry."Emory University is committed to upholding the integrity of its faculty's research, Paul said, as well as the tenet of American society that says people are innocent until proven guilty."There are a lot of protections for somebody until it can be shown by some process that is fair and legitimate that there is reason to think otherwise," Paul said. "If we as a university have done that, then I think we have nothing to be ashamed of." http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0102/0120emory.html

Comments

Sign In or Register to comment.