Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/13/2002 8:52:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2002 9:01:40 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
[b]Columbia Rescinds History Prize for Book[/b] By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [b]NEW YORK (AP)[/b] -- Severe doubts about a book on guns in the United States has led Columbia University to [b]rescind the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history.[/b] "Arming America,'' by Michael Bellesiles, had received the award in 2001. In a statement released Friday, Columbia said that the school's trustees had concluded ``his book had not and does not meet the standards ... established for the Bancroft Prize.'' [b]Columbia has asked Bellesiles to return the prize money, $4,000.[/b] [:D] It was the first time in the 54-year history of the Bancroft award that Columbia has taken such actions. Phone and e-mail messages left by The Associated Press with Bellesiles were not immediately returned. Bellesiles resigned in October as a professor at Emory University, after an independent panel of scholars strongly criticized his research. In May, the National Endowment for the Humanities withdrew its name -- although not its funding -- from a fellowship given to Bellesiles. (pronounced Bell-EEL). Bellesiles has acknowledged some errors, but defends his book as fundamentally sound. ``I have never fabricated evidence of any kind nor knowingly evaded my responsibilities as a scholar,'' he said after announcing his resignation. The historian spent 10 years working on ``Arming America,'' published by Alfred A. Knopf in 2000. The book challenges the idea that the United States has always been a gun-oriented culture and that well-armed militias were essential to the Revolutionary War. Relying on numerous sources, Bellesiles writes that only a small percentage of people possessed firearms in colonial times and that militias were mostly ineffective. Only after the Civil War, he contends, did guns become vital. "Arming America'' was praised in both The New York Times and The New York Review of Books and won the Bancroft Prize, presented to works of ``exceptional merit and distinction in the fields of American history and biography.'' Many cited it as a devastating statement against America's alleged historical love affair with firearms. Gun advocates quickly attacked the book, with National Rifle Association president, actor Charlton Heston, complaining that Bellesiles had ``too much time on his hands.'' But scholars and critics also became skeptical. In October, Emory released a 40-page study that concluded Bellesiles was ``guilty of unprofessional and misleading work.'' The report, written by scholars from Harvard and Princeton universities and the University of Chicago, said Bellesiles' failure to cite sources for crucial data ``does move into the realm of 'falsification.''' It also suggested he omitted other researchers' data that contradicted his arguments. "The Bancroft judges operate on a basis of trust,'' said Eric Foner, a past winner and a history professor at Columbia who has served as a prize judge, although not in 2001. ``We assume a book published by a reputable press has gone through a process where people have checked the facts. Members of prize committees cannot be responsible for that.'' Knopf said in a statement Friday it regretted ``the circumstances that prompted Columbia University to rescind the Bancroft,'' but respected the committee's decision. The paperback edition from Vintage Books, which already includes corrections, will remain in print. Columbia said Friday that trustees concurred with the scholars commissioned by Emory and found that Bellesiles had ``violated basic norms of acceptable scholarly conduct.'' NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam praised Columbia's decision as ``appropriate.'' [blue]But wait... I thought the 9th. Circuit cited this book in their recent decision that the 2nd. Amendment does not protect or acknowledge an individuals right to bear arms?!?!?! I guess no one told them that their ruling is based in part on a thoroughly discredited work of revisionist history.[/blue] [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 8:58:52 PM EDT
Yeah right! If the 2nd Amendment is only meant for the government, I assume the 1st is gov only also? Oh wait, that's in 100 years after they disarm us....
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 9:18:09 PM EDT
Gee, I watched the [i]CBS Evening News[/i] this evening, and I don't recall hearing one word about this! Well, anyhoo, that ought to bump the freedom index up by a couple of points...
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 9:19:13 PM EDT
The man has no idea why we don't sing Hail to the Queen.
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 9:27:41 PM EDT
WOOO WOOOO Satisfaction!!!
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 3:07:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: [blue]But wait... I thought the 9th. Circuit cited this book in their recent decision that the 2nd. Amendment does not protect or acknowledge an individuals right to bear arms?!?!?! I guess no one told them that their ruling is based in part on a thoroughly discredited work of revisionist history.[/blue] [rolleyes]
View Quote
Do you think they care? They're activists, not interpreters of law.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 4:09:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 7:31:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: [blue]But wait... I thought the 9th. Circuit cited this book in their recent decision that the 2nd. Amendment does not protect or acknowledge an individuals right to bear arms?!?!?! I guess no one told them that their ruling is based in part on a thoroughly discredited work of revisionist history.[/blue] [rolleyes]
View Quote
No, the 9th Circuit didn't quote from [i][u]Arming America[/i][/u], but from his article [i]Gun Control: A Historical Overview[/i] concerning the origin of the 1934 NFA, and again from [i]The Second Amendment in Action[/i] where they take his out-of-context quotation from George Washington: "(w)e are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!" They didn't quote from [i]Arming America[/i] but they still seem to consider Bellesiles to be a credible reference. Idiots.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 8:11:10 AM EDT
[^]
Top Top