|
 R's
Melissa Seckora had the misfortune of seeing an important piece
debut on National Review Online on the morning of September 11.
Her story exposing the phony sources behind Arming America: The
Origins of a National Gun Culture, an award-winning book critical
of U.S. gun culture by Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles,
normally would have attracted a great deal of attention. Instead,
it became a minor concern as we all came to grips with the horror
of mass terrorism.
Now there's
been a stunning new development in the Bellesiles case: The head
of Emory's history department is demanding that Bellesiles write
a detailed defense of his book. "What is important is that
he defend himself and the integrity of his scholarship immediately,"
said James Melton, according to yesterday's Boston Globe,
which also printed a September 11 story on Bellesiles airing charges
similar to NR's. "Depending upon his response, the university
will respond appropriately."
That's not
exactly a ringing endorsement of a colleague. And it gets worse:
"If there is prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct,
the university has to conduct a thorough investigation. Whether
it be a purely internal inquiry, or the university brings in distinguished
scholars in the field, will depend on how Michael responds,"
said Melton.
Seckora, in
fact, interviewed some of the "distinguished scholars"
any such effort is likely to involve — including a few recommended
to her by Bellesiles. Let's just say he doesn't fare well in their
estimation. But how could he? Key sources for his claim that guns
were a much less important part of early American culture than is
commonly believed simply don't exist. Many of those he cites, in
fact, were destroyed in San Francisco's 1906 earthquake. There's
not a historian alive who's seen them.
Bellesiles
now must explain how they wound up in his footnotes — and he
told the Globe he'll do it in a future newsletter published
by the Organization of American Historians.
He has his
work cut out for him, thanks in part to the intrepid reporting of
Seckora, whose article may be read here,
or in the October 15, 2001, issue of National Review.
|
