Bellesiles Resigns, Gun Book Disgraced – But Still In Print

One by one, the superstitions of liberalism are
crumbling into the sea like the towers of lost Atlantis.
Last month anthropologist

Franz Boas
, a patron saint of the liberal view of
race, bit the deep waters when one of his major studies
turned out to be a fraud. So did

Margaret Mead
, one of Boas`s major disciples and
also a pillar of liberal views of sexual liberation.
Then there are all the

for characters like

Alger Hiss
, the Rosenbergs, J. Robert Oppenheimer,
and others, all of whom are now known to have been
secret communists and

to boot, despite

of yelling and screaming by their defenders
that they were just saintly progressives

by McCarthyite fascists.

Now, just last week, yet another liberal myth, one
barely a couple of years old, as well as the mythologist
who fabricated it gurgled down into the oceanic depths.

The latest liberal fraud was the claim of Emory
University “historian” Michael A. Bellesiles in his 2000

Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,

that most people in early American history really didn`t
own many guns. The reason the left swallowed this
claim—dismissed as

on its face by

real experts
on firearms history—was that it
appeared to bolster the enemies of the right to

keep and bear arms
. If gun ownership is a fairly
recent habit in our culture, then it could not have been
considered necessary to a free republic by the
Founding Fathers
and the authors of the

Second Amendment

Mr. Bellesiles` book at once became a holy relic in the
temples of the left. Columbia University

it the

Bancroft Prize
, probably the country`s most
prestigious award for historical scholarship, and such
bigwig academics and writers as
Edmund S. Morgan

Garry Wills
hailed the book as a marvel of learning.

But to anyone with a balanced mind, there was something
fishy. When critics clobbered Mr. Bellesiles` book, it
turned out that the Emory professor was unable to
substantiate several of the major claims his “research”
was supposed to have proved. Unable to identify the
sources for some of his conclusions, he claimed his data
had been destroyed in a

flood in his office
. Scholars couldn`t locate
records on which he was supposed to have relied. It
turned out they had been destroyed decades before he
claimed to have examined them.

Aside from hostile reviews by skeptical scholars,
[See James Lindgren`s Yale Law Review piece here.] the
William and Mary Quarterly
in January published a

that cast even further doubt, not just on
the truth of Mr. Bellesiles` conclusions but on his very
honesty as a historian.

Finally last week the last remaining pillar crumbled. A
committee of scholars composed of three major academics
from Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Chicago
reported that the Bellesiles book showed “evidence of
falsification,” “egregious misrepresentation,” and
“exaggeration of data.” The Emory professor`s “scholarly
integrity is seriously in question,” they concluded. Mr.
Bellesiles submitted his

from the university faculty

the next day.
report in PDF format

Yet die-hard defenders of the frauds of the left were
still swinging in Mr. Bellesiles` defense. The Nation
magazine, which defended the innocence of convicted
perjurer Alger Hiss for decades after two trials and a
mass of new scholarship showed him to be guilty, carried

by editor Jon Wiener that

tried to make out
that Mr. Bellesiles was merely the
innocent victim of the omnipotent and mysterious “gun
lobby”—mainly because NRA president Charlton Heston was
outraged by the book`s foolish claims when he first read
about them.

Presumably, Mr. Wiener will soon try to prove the NRA
bribed the three scholars at Harvard, Princeton and
Chicago to issue their damning report.

for Mr. Bellesiles, he has shown himself more than
willing to play the role of martyr as what Mr. Wiener
calls “the target of a campaign to destroy your work.”
In his

statement last week,[PDF]
he compared himself to those attacked by “Holocaust

When you`ve got the entire establishment on your side,
why shouldn`t you be defiant?

Mr. Wiener points put that Mr. Bellesiles is preparing a
second edition of his worthless book for Vintage, the
prestigious paperback arm of Random House.

And so far there`s no breath of retraction or apology
from the reviewers whose shameless trumpeting raised the
book to glory in the first place.

Nor is there any suggestion from Columbia that it plans

the Bancroft Prize.

Email Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University,,
and ask him if he`s planning to rescind the Bancroft
prize awarded to Michael Bellesiles.  Bollinger has
previously featured in VDARE.COM as a
Christmas-abolishing P.C. 
Random House
at this
has this blurb on its

“Painstakingly examining the historical record,
Bellesiles shatters the myth of our gun-toting
forefathers. Most early settlers were indifferent or
hostile toward guns, which until the middle of the

also says

is Professor of History at Emory University.”

them and
suggest “
a professor at Emory University.

That`s what happens when the

dominant ideology
of the nation is nothing more than
a gigantic tissue of

deceit and fraud.

But sooner or later, despite all the cover-ups and
denials by the elite that relies on the big lies
liberalism pushes, the truth will out, and the powers
and policies that liberal lies support will crash with


November 04, 2002