Credibility of Regenery's PIG series [climate change split]

Discussing all things political in NW Arkansas and beyond.
Post Reply
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Credibility of Regenery's PIG series [climate change split]

Post by Savonarola »

There's so much bullshit in the PIG I mentioned above that the The Panda's Thumb authors did a huge response that can be seen here. I expect none of you to read it, but I'd be thrilled if you did.
Here is another scathing, multi-part review of another PIG, this one the Positively Idiotic Guide to Science. Even if you just read the introduction, you'll get a good feel for what passes for "science" according to PIGs. The blog author even points out that Bethell's areas of particular weakness are shown by his "sprawling" chapters, particularly the bits on evolution and -- you guessed it -- climate change.

Edited by Savonarola 20070308 2330: added source link
Last edited by Savonarola on Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

I agree that "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design" sounds like a crock. But that doesn't mean the other PIGs are. Like other series (e.g. "for Dummies"), they are by different authors - some are good and some are not. From the review, I suspect that the one on environment is one of the good ones. Like I said, the only one I can really vouch for is the one about US history. The others I haven't read.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Savonarola wrote:I expect none of you to read it, but I'd be thrilled if you did.
DAR
I will read it. I haven't even heard of this garbage (as you can see, I have been reading it a little already).

Hogeye says, regarding the US History PIG: "That one is very good and quite accurate."

I did a quick peruse of some reviews of this book. Found this right off:

"I was distressed to find a mistake on the very first page of the first chapter. Dr. Woods states that there wasn't diversity among the American colonists from 1629 to 1775. He writes that the immigrants "came from one part of Europe and spoke a common language". Then he describes four groups of immigrants from regions of England. However he leaves out the Dutch who settled in New York State in the early 1600s, the Swedes, and the Dutch and German Quakers as well as other religious sects from Germany who settled in PA. I'm appalled. Kenneth C. Davis author of Don't Know Much About History, Harper Collins, 2003, states that "by 1640, at least eighteen languages were spoken in New York..." Dr. Woods needs to learn his facts! How can I trust that any of the rest of this book is true?"

First page, first chapter.... "very good and quite accurate." Dear god.

Another: "I was so heavily disappointed that it turned out to be a diatribe rather than an actual refutation of PC history."

Hogeye impressed with a "diatribe?" Say it isn't so.

This one reveals more clues about why Hogeye found it accurate:

"Woods has produced a silly anti-history of the U.S. in the hopes of generating a little revenue by finding a spot on the lunatic right-wing fringe bookshelf.
Among things you will learn: The Whites treated Indians just fine and talks of exploitation are overblown.
Blacks in the South were a contented lot, and the whole system was ruined by racists like Abraham Lincoln and the later Radical Republicans.
Woodrow Wilson led the U.S. into World War One despite America's resistance to doing so. No mention of Teddy Roosevelt and the " Preparedness " movement. Also no mention that it was Congress that overwhelmingly approved the war declaration.
And wouldn't you know it? In post World War II, blacks were knocking down the walls of segregation in an avalanche, and there was no need for federal intrusion, M.L. King, or even a Civil Rights or Voting act.
Woods even briefly makes a foray into sports to show how segregation was crumbling, since Jackie Robinson broke the baseball color barrier in 1947. He neglects to include that it took more than 10 more years to have all the rest of the teams come aboard; and furthermore, neglects discussion of persistent racism in other sports.
Amazingly, the author has a Ph.D. in History from Columbia! How? It had to be on some government sponsored program that he detests.
This is straight out of the Anne Coulter/Michelle Malkin school of history: heavy on mudslinging; infantile with the wrting and history."
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Darrel, perhaps you need to read the book (PIG to American History); your reviewer is misquoting Woods, and misleading you. Dr. Woods does not state "that there wasn't diversity among the American colonists from 1629 to 1775." He in fact wrote, "the colonists were not 'paragons' of diversity." And he wrote, "From 1629 to 1775 there were four waves of migration from four geographical regions of England." As loathe as I am to call someone dishonest, your reviewer seems to be; his quoting out of context and outright misquoting seems to indicate such. E.g. Woods in no way denies that there was other immigration by non-English outside these "waves."

Another blatent distortion by your reviewer: "Among things you will learn: The Whites treated Indians just fine and talks of exploitation are overblown." In fact, Dr. Woods wrote, "The Puritans didn't steal their land from the Indians." Which is true. The reviewer expanded the claim to "all Whites"! Duh.

Most of the other claims by your reviewer are similarly grossly distorted versions of what Dr. Wood actually wrote. E.g. He never wrote anything remotely implying that, "blacks in the South were a contented lot." Your reviewer is doing a totally dishonest hatchet job on the book.

Darrel, I have the book and will be glad to let you borrow it if you want to learn what Woods really says.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Hogeye wrote:Darrel, perhaps you need to read the book (PIG to American History); your reviewer is misquoting Woods, and misleading you. Dr. Woods does not state "that there wasn't diversity among the American colonists from 1629 to 1775."
DAR
The reviewer I quoted did not quote Woods as stating that, so who is misquoting and misleading? The reviewer did attribute this comment to Woods, when he said:

"He writes that the immigrants "came from one part of Europe and spoke a common language".

Is that a quote from Woods or not? That's his main point, and you duck it completely.
He in fact wrote, "the colonists were not 'paragons' of diversity." And he wrote, "From 1629 to 1775 there were four waves of migration from four geographical regions of England."
DAR
The reviewer I quoted, also affirms exactly that, by saying, as I quote above: "Then he describes four groups of immigrants from regions of England."
As loathe as I am to call someone dishonest, your reviewer seems to be; his quoting out of context and outright misquoting seems to indicate such. E.g. Woods in no way denies that there was other immigration by non-English outside these "waves."
DAR
The reviewer I quoted didn't say he Woods denied this. He did say, after noting only the immigration from England (obviously this ties in with the "spoke a common language" point):

"However he [Woods] leaves out the Dutch who settled in New York State in the early 1600s, the Swedes, and the Dutch and German Quakers as well as other religious sects from Germany who settled in PA."

Obviously this was the reviewers main concern and main point because he immediately followed this with: "I'm appalled."

So forget the spinning and ducking and weaving. Did your Woods write: [that the immigrants] "came from one part of Europe and spoke a common language" OR DID HE NOT? If he did, then the reviewer's main point stands, his quote is accurate, and your throwing dust in the air with this response didn't save Mr. Woods at all.
I have the book and will be glad to let you borrow it if you want to learn what Woods really says.
DAR
If you want your Woods roasted, pass it along. I think I have a different idea of what is "very good and quite accurate" than you do.

D.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Darrel wrote:Did your Woods write: [that the immigrants] "came from one part of Europe and spoke a common language" OR DID HE NOT?
DAR
I did a little checking. Woods did say exactly this and the reviewer I quoted was exactly right. You must have known this since you must have checked the first page in question. Did you think I wouldn't check? That you would write the above post and completely skirt this main point is just amazing to me.

This sympathetic and hardcore Libertarian source makes the exact same point:

"Chapter 1, “The Colonial Origins of American Liberty,” starts out with a curious omission. Following David Hackett Fischer’s well-known social history, ALBION’S SEED: FOUR BRITISH FOLKWAYS IN AMERICA, Woods lists four major groups of immigrants to the American colonies.[4] But whereas Fischer makes clear that he is confining himself to English speaking immigrants, Woods leaves the impression that these four groups comprised the bulk of the colonists, who all “came from one part of Europe” and “spoke a common language” (p. 1). Being a descendant myself of the Dutch settlers of New Netherland, I could take umbrage. Yet as some reviewers have observed, Woods ignores a still larger group: involuntary immigrants from Africa, and their descendents, nearly all slaves. By 1770 blacks constituted more than one-fifth the total population of those British colonies that would become the United States, the highest proportion relative to population blacks would attain throughout all U.S. history."

Here is what Woods' PEERS (and those who should be most sympathetic to him) think of this book:

"Woods's survey of U.S. history from the colonial period through President Clinton has been condemned so far by Reason magazine contributing editor Cathy Young, both in the Boston Globe and on the pages Reason, by John B. Kienker in the Claremont Review of Books, by Max Boot in the Weekly Standard, and in assorted blogs, most notably by historians Ronald Radosh and David Greenberg, and by law professors Eric Muller and Glenn Reynolds." --ibid

So I don't need to borrow it. I don't need anymore Libertarian claptrap. My opinion of Libertarians has plummeted in the last year or so.
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Yes, Woods wrote, "The colonists were not paragons of 'diversity.' They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language. They worshipped the same God." So it is true that Woods didn't mention the insignificant number of Dutch fur-traders in the vast New York area. (In 1629 there were only about 300 Euro-people in New Amsterdam.) So your reviewer is correct that Woods should have qualified it by saying, e.g. "The vast majority of colonists" rather than simply "The colonists."

Your reviewer claims, "Dr. Woods states that there wasn't diversity among the American colonists from 1629 to 1775." In fact, later on the same page Woods writes, "Nevertheless, the cultural differences among the peoples who comprised the United States were real, significant, and enduring."

So, in all the reviewer's criticisms, we found one valid one - Woods generalized regarding the nationality of early colonists. The many other errors of the reviewer (re treatment of indians, slaves, and so on) still stand.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Hogeye wrote: So it is true that Woods didn't mention the insignificant number of Dutch fur-traders in the vast New York area.
DAR
Oh, that's the only ones he missed? (Maybe the 1/5th of the population that was black? The Swedes, Germans, etc.) Good grief.
Yes, Woods wrote, "The colonists were not paragons of 'diversity.' They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language."
DAR
So is that true? Is it remotely true? Is it defensible? Is it "very good and quite accurate?" Of course not. And this is the junk on the first page.
The many other errors of the reviewer (re treatment of indians, slaves, and so on) still stand.
DAR
No they don't. It's your opinion against this unknown Ms. Davis from Amazon. It's hardly a close call!
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Darrel wrote:Maybe the 1/5th of the population that was black?
You're in the wrong time period. The chapter we've been quoting and discussing is about early colonists.
Woods> "The colonists were not paragons of 'diversity.' They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language."

Darrel> So is that true?
It is true of most early colonists - almost all of them. It is a generality though, and not true if you take it to mean every early colonist.

Some of the clear false attributions of Woods that the reviewer makes, taken from the short excerpt you gave:

1) "The Whites treated Indians just fine." In fact, Dr. Woods wrote, "The Puritans didn't steal their land from the Indians."
2) "Blacks in the South were a contented lot." Totally fabricated - Woods said nothing like that.
3) "In post World War II, blacks were knocking down the walls of segregation in an avalanche." Woods didn't say that either - its a gross exaggeration. Actually, Woods quotes several sociologists and historians indicating that blacks were making progress, and gives many examples and evidence of such a trend.

Some things that the reviewer paraphrases Woods about, but apparently thinks are false, are in fact true. E.g.

1) Lincoln was a racist by today's standards, and did do things that resulted in a centralized State. Like start that war for forced unification. Lincoln did effectively kill Jeffersonianism aka federalism.

2) Woodrow Wilson did lead the U.S. into World War One despite popular resistance to doing so. Even after the sinking of the Lusitania, editorials were generally against the US getting involved. The "right" of Americans to travel in luxury ships in war zones was ridiculed. As was Wilson's position that is was fine to starve German civilians with a blockade but terrible to try to sink ships imposing the blockade. Entry into the war didn't become popular until 1917, after massive propaganda. Freethinker Clarence Darrow offered to pay $1000 to anyone who could show him a Belgian boy whose hands had been cut off by a German soldier. (One commonly alleged atrocity.)

One suspects that the reviewer simply didn't like Wood's attitude. Most of the claimed inaccuracies are either exaggerated or non-existent.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Darrel wrote:Maybe the 1/5th of the population that was black?
HOGEYE
You're in the wrong time period. The chapter we've been quoting and discussing is about early colonists.
DAR
Nope. The period in question is, as you said: "And he wrote, "From 1629 to 1775 there were four waves of migration from four geographical regions of England."

As I quoted Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (and the other review agrees): "Woods leaves the impression that these four groups comprised the bulk of the colonists, who all “came from one part of Europe” and “spoke a common language.”

If they all came from England, this would make sense. But it's not true, not accurate and doesn't make sense.

And as I quote Hummel above:

"By 1770 blacks constituted more than one-fifth the total population of those British colonies..."

1770 comes before 1775. Check it and see.

D.
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Woods wrote:"From 1629 to 1775 there were four waves of migration from four geographical regions of England."
That is a true statement. Perhaps you are making some unwarrented assumptions, e.g. that these four major inputs ("waves") were the only immigration. But Woods does not say that.

Chapter one of his book is predominantly about the Puritan and Jamestown settlements. Other than the quote above and an offhand reference to Ben Franklin's Albany Plan, it's all about pre-1700 colonizing. In those early days, there were very few blacks. By 1770, as you correctly note, there were many blacks; instead of the swamps and forests of the early days with a few small farms, there was some cleared land and tobacco plantations.

I'm not sure when the black population started increasing (Barbara?). The black history sites I just perused all start in the 18th century, when plantation agriculture was already established, and all but ignore pre-revolutionary times. Can anyone find a timeline or graph for black immigration from 1600 to 1800?
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Hogeye wrote: Perhaps you are making some unwarrented assumptions, e.g. that these four major inputs ("waves") were the only immigration. But Woods does not say that.
DAR
No, multiple even sympathetic reviews say he leaves that impression (see above).

This reviewer makes the point better, showing how inadequate Woods' is on this matter:

***
American History for Ideologues

Joe Lockard

The opening two paragraphs of Thomas Woods’ The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History are astonishing. Chapter 1 on ‘The Colonial Origins of American Liberty’ begins:

“First basic fact: the colonists were not paragons of ‘diversity.’ They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language. They worshipped the same God.”
From 1629 to 1775 there were four waves of migration from four geographical regions of England…”

Then Woods provides a specious list of four migration waves, all from the British Isles and all Protestant. And so, in this exercise in what used to be called Anglo-Saxonism, major streams of migration from elsewhere simply disappear. The Dutch immigrants of Woods’ own New York disappear; the Germans of the mid-Atlantic colonies, almost as numerous as the Scots-Irish, disappear; the Catholics of Maryland disappear (not to mention the Catholics of Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico and elsewhere, in communities established long before the original thirteen colonies); and, most tellingly, the entire African diaspora in North America and the Caribbean disappears. Even the settlement dates provided for Virginia and Massachusetts are plain wrong.

This is not simply bad history; it is excruciatingly incompetent history."

link

DAR
The book is terrible rightwing junk. I have read enough about it now to know I would never waste my time with it. This lady, a libertarian and certainly a peer, has taken the time to give it a good roast. Worth a skim:

***
This isn't history, this is political screed., March 12, 2005

Reviewer: Kristan O. Overstreet (Livingston, TX United States) -

As a libertarian, I was hoping for a book which would truly debunk Liberal myths. Instead this book props up conservative myths, with a good chunk of racism and intolerance along the way... oh, and there's the lies it tells about history, too. There's a good bit of truth in here, but it's swallowed up by the author's burning desire to justify greed, bigotry, inequality, and injustice for all who aren't white male Republicans.

To make things even better, there are no footnotes or references to specific cites. There are cute quotes without context, and there is a long bibliography at the end, but for the most part we have to take each of Dr Woods' assertions as fact- unless we have learned better through more direct sources already.

Factual errors:

* Sorry, Dr. Woods- Virginia, New York and Rhode Island did NOT reserve the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution. Virginia and New York demanded a Bill of Rights; Rhode Island ratified without conditions.

* Sorry again, but the Puritans- as all Europeans of their time- were quite definitely racist. You entirely ignore the many Indian wars prior to the Revolution, most of which were triggered by European violations of treaties and encroachments on Indian land.

* The words "We the States" was changed to "We the People" *specifically* to render the federal government independent of the states. Woods utterly ignores the Articles of Confederation, the problems they caused, and their affect on the Constitution which followed them.

* Yes, the struggle over slavery prior to the Civil War was about political power... but only insofar as that power was to be used to -defend slavery.- Insofar as the South had any unifying cause, slavery was it. Woods would have you believe that slavery was unimportant to the South except as a tool for gaining supremacy over the North in a Washington pecking order.

* The right to secede is not so clear-cut as Woods would have you believe. His application of the Tenth Amendment- "you can do anything not specifically prohibited you"- ignores the repeated references to the President's power to suppress rebellions and insurrections. Even at the time of the civil war, and even in the deepest South, there was no unified opinion on the subject. Woods, however, would have you believe nobody except Lincoln and his fellow tyrants endorsed Union Forever.

* Confederate armies- including Lee's armies- did not go for the total destruction of civilian property, but they did destroy a lot, both for military purposes (railroads, bridges, supplies) and for lack of discipline. Woods ignores the vast documentation of Southern civilians who feared Confederate cavalry depredations more than Union troops.

* Yes, extremely racist "vagrancy laws" and black codes existed in the North during Reconstruction and after. Northern Jim Crow, however, does NOT excuse or justify Southern Jim Crow.

* A monopoly is any company with effective total control over a commodity, class of product, or service. It does not -have- to jack up prices astronomically to strangle competition, no matter what Woods would have you believe.

* Woods praises John D. Rockefeller and claims that Rockefeller did no wrong in undercutting his competition. He completely ignores exclusive service agreements with railroads for transport of his product, and claims that laws which force equal trade for all are unjust!

* In Dr. Woods' universe, the Zimmerman telegram, urging Mexico to declare war on the United States, never existed. Wilson went to war because he was personally pro-British... oh, and siege warfare is against international law if it involves the seas, according to Woods.

* Woods claims that boom-bust economic cycles are solely caused by centralized government banking. How do you explain the Panics of 1837, 1853, and 1873, then, all of which were worse than the Great Depression, and all of which took place when there was no central bank whatever?

* As distasteful and corrupt as socialism is, Dr. Woods, it is and was quite possible to be leftist without being in the pay of Stalin.

Things Woods endorses in the course of the book:

* That states have the right (and, indeed, the obligation) to mandate religion and to force citizens to worship or depart.

* Intolerance and persecution is required for freedom- not for people to flee from, but for people to -live under.-

* The Fourteenth Amendment, which extends prohibitions on violations of individual rights to state as well as federal governments, should be repealed. Go censorship! Go kangaroo courts!

* Thomas Jefferson, although he had nothing to do with the crafting of or ratification of the Constitution, is the sole Founding Father to be relied upon for interpretation of what the Constitution means.

* Abolish unions. There's no such thing as exploitation of workers.

* Joseph McCarthy, far from being an opportunist politician seeking to promote himself by destroying others, was a well-intentioned hero.

* FDR -forced- the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor- indeed, the world would be a better place had America remained neutral in the Second World War.

* Legislated segregation is not merely lawful, it is a good thing. Besides, the South would have given up segregation by itself eventually, right?

*Michael Milken, far from being a perpetuator of fraud and deception in trade, was a hero for creating the junk bond.

And this is the stuff I get just from skimming the book!!

In his preface, Woods says: "[This book] is not intended to be a complete overview of American history." You bet it's not- it's merely a partial and extremely selective covering of issues to present a fundamentalist conservative viewpoint of America. Libertarians who believe in -equal- freedom for all, and political students who seek a balanced and accurate presentation of disputed facts, should AVOID THIS BOOK LIKE THE PLAGUE.

If you listen to Limbaugh and watch O'Reilly, and dislike independent thought, then this book is for you.
***

DAR
But then I look a little closer and find this Woods character is a founding member of these racists bastards: The League of the South

"The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization whose ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic."[1] The group defines the Southern United States as the states that made up the former Confederacy, plus Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland."

Views
As noted, the League promotes the "independence of the Southern people" from the "American empire"[4] and this on a variety of levels: culturally, economically, socially, and politically.

Politics
Seeking support in the American Declaration of Independence, the League believes the "Southern people" have the right to secede from the United States, and that it "must throw off the yoke of imperial [American] oppression".[12] The League promotes a Southern Confederation of sovereign, independent States that "work together . . . to conduct foreign affairs".

...Though the ultimate goal of the League is to create an independent Southern nation, it sees this aim as the final step in an ongoing process:

Once we have planted the seeds of cultural, social, and economic renewal, then (and only then), should we begin to look to the South's political renewal. Political independence will come only when we have convinced the Southern people that they are indeed a nation in the organic, historical, and Biblical sense of the word, namely, that they are a distinct people with a language, mores, and folkways that separate them from the rest of the world.[15]

The League's current official activities focus on recruiting and encouraging "cultural secession" and "withholding our support from all institutions and objects of popular culture that are antithetical to our beliefs and heritage."[16]

LoS President Michael Hill has argued for the centrality of Christian white men in the movement: "But let us never deny (for the sake of pleasing the implacable Cultural Marxists) that we, the descendants of white, European Christians, are central to a movement to preserve and advance a particular civilization, cultural inheritance, and physical place."[18] Hill has also advocated the ideology of kinism, and would outlaw racial intermarriage and non-white immigration, expel all “aliens” (including Jews and Arabs) and limit the right to vote to white landowning males over the age of twenty-one.

DAR
So basically they are a cross between the Klan and nazis.

Much more on Woods here

Rightwatch has this, which is even better and shows how the vile Lew Rockwell is wrapped up with these filthy, nasty, rightwing racist bastards:

Sample:

***
I was doing some research today about the extreme Right. These are people who are authoritarians, often violent, almost always racist, etc. In the process I came across an article about the Southern Patriot Shop which is owned by the League of the South which paid $158,000 for the building. The manager is David Sutter. All this is easily confirmed via League of South web sites.

The bookstore has a massive Confederate flag flying outside. Really massive. Inside is Joshua Caleb Sutter, an employee and the son of David.

Now David Sutter is not unknown in among radical racists. He was known as a major activist in the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist Nazi group. He called himself Wulfran Hall, High Counsel of Aryan Nations. Sutter lived at the compound of the Aryan Nation for awhile. And when the group split the new leader, and Sutter’s mentor, August Kreis, moved the “headquarters” to a trailer not far from the Southern Patriot Shop.

Joshua Sutter was previously arrested when he tried to purchase a firearm with the serial number ground off. Sutter also was a member of the Church of the Sons of Yaweh, a racialist Identity church, that preaches that only whites have souls and that Jews are the physical offspring of Satan. After the 9/11 attacks Sutter was appointed by the Aryan Nations as their Minister for Islamic Liaison. His job was to start building alliances with radical Islamic groups.

Sutter also penned a “message of solidarity and support” to Saddam Hussein where he expressed his desire that “the evil regime of the United States... shall be utterly wiped off the face of the earth. He apparently got of jail in November and found employment working for the League of the South in their bookstore.

The main founder of the group, Michael Hill, has said that people other than white Christians will be allowed to live in the new Confederacy which they envision but only if they acknowledge “the cultural dominance of Anglo-Celtic people and their institutions”. And he has allegedly said that slavery is “God-ordained.”

This is a view shared by many extremists, especially individuals associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement, a movement with close ties to Rockwell and crew. In one article about the bookshop the author interviews one of the League members visiting the shop who says: “People today misunderstand what slavery was all about. Slavery is a natural part of man. It explains that in the Bible. And that’s what really separated the North from the South, is that the South recognized the Bible as the true word of God when it came to slavery.”

Rev. Steven Wilkins is a Reconstructionist minister and a board member of the League. Prominent League officials attend his church. He repeats a message very similar to that of Thomas Woods in his infamous essay on the South. The Woods essay, which we covered earlier, was written for a Reconstructionist publication.

Wilkins says the major conflict between North and South was one of culture, particularly Christian culture. He claims the North wanted “not merely to destroy slavery and its evils but to destroy Southern culture.” He says: “There was a radical hatred of Scripture and the old Theology, which they felt were so bad for the country. They saw the South as the embodiment of all they hated. Thus, the northern radicals were trying to throw off this Biblical culture and turn the country in a different direction.”
***

So there we have it. No wonder Hogeye thought Woods' book was so accurate.

I am on to better things.

D.
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

We've already discussed Woods' statement characterizing early colonists. Bottom line: His statement is true if interpreted as a generalization (most colonists were Anglo-Xtian types), but false if you interpret it with an implied "all" quantifier (there were some colonists who were not Anglo-Xtian.)

Kristan Overstreet's criticisms are on the whole, contrary to what she says, not "factual errors," but simply disagreements in interpretation, along with some outright misrepresentations of what Woods wrote. There is a whole list of claims, but since I don't want to write a whole essay, let's just look at her first claim for now.
Overstreet wrote:Sorry, Dr. Woods- Virginia, New York and Rhode Island did NOT reserve the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution.
Here Ms. Overstreet is the one making the factual error.
Virginia Ratification wrote:WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...
The part I italicized clearly and unambiguously states the right to seceed. Moving on to New York:
New York Ratification wrote:We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —

That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.

That the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are essential rights, which every government ought to respect and preserve.

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments...
Again, we have a clear statement of the right to secede. Finally, Rhode Island:
Rhode Island Ratification wrote:We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this state, do declare and make known,—

I. That there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity,—among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates, therefore, are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.

III. That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. ...
Apparently Ms. Overstreet didn't bother to read the original documents before she made her charge.

That was too easy; all I had to do was look up the primary sources online from here. Let me do another. Overstreet's second charge:
Overstreet wrote:Sorry again, but the Puritans- as all Europeans of their time- were quite definitely racist. You entirely ignore the many Indian wars prior to the Revolution, most of which were triggered by European violations of treaties and encroachments on Indian land.
Mr. Woods style is to make a provacative statement (contrary to PC myth) and then give details debunking it. His section title is "PC Myth: the Puritans were racists." Of course, "racism" can vary tremendously in degree. Woods makes it quite clear that he is not saying that Puritans were wholly devoid of any racist sentiment. Nor does he deny that the Indians were often treated poorly (note that Overstreet is outright wrong about this.) What Woods actually writes (pg. 6) is: "Few would deny that the American Indians have been the victims of injustice and maltreatment over the course of American history." He writes a bit about a Puritan named John Elliot, who not only learned the Algonquin language, but developed a written language for them. He goes on:
Woods wrote:It is not true that the Puritans possessed a sense of racial superiority over the Indians. They certainly did consider themselves culturally superior, though it is not clear what else they were supposed to think when they met people who did not use the wheel, possessed no written language, and were, in effect, living in the Stone Age. But race did not enter into the question. Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island, believed that the Indians were born white, a view that was generally shared by the Puritans; the effects of stains and the sun were said to have darkened their skins.
The technique of taking the provocative statement, exaggerating it into an inclusive statement, and ignoring all the nuances, explanations, and arguments Dr. Woods gives, is typical of the criticisms by Overstreet and other critics Darrel has cited. That was fun. One more:
Overstreet wrote:The words "We the States" was changed to "We the People" *specifically* to render the federal government independent of the states.
Overstreet is quite wrong about this, and (per technique) totally ignores Dr. Woods explanation of the change from "We the States" to "We the People."
Woods wrote:In fact, the Constitution as originally drafted did say "We, the States." This wording was removed for practical reasons by the committee on style. Since no one could know in advance which states would ratify the Constitution and which would not, it made little sense to list all the states by name bofore each had made its decision. The swubstitute phrase "We, the People of the United States" referred not to a single American people taken in the aggregate, but to the people of Massachusetts, the people of Virginia, the people of Georgia - in other words, the people of the several states.

The fact that this textual change was unanimously accepted proved it could not have been intended to alter the nature of the Union. Had the new text really meant what Webster later claimed it did, vocal and lengthy debate would have ensued. It would certainly not have been unanimously approved.
Woods' historically informed argument beats Overstreet's raw claim hands down IMO.

My general impression is that these critics real beef is with Woods' bold interpretations rather than fact. No doubt he makes some mistakes - they are inevitable in a book of this scope. And I, too, disagree with some of his interpretations, e.g. I don't think John Brown was insane. But I find Woods' interpretations to be much more rational and accurate than, e.g. the history book being used by Fayetteville High School for senior American History. It's not even close.

(The ad hominem poisoning the well diatribe in the last part of Darrel's post is hardly worth answering. His "argument" is that Lew Rockwell has an obscure tangential relationship to "the Xtian Reconstuctionist movement" which shares some views with Michael Hill (whoever he is) who is somehow associated with Joshua Sutter, whose father is David Sutter who is manager of "League of the South," an allegedly racist group. LOL! So (apparently this is the ad hom logic) everyone associated with LewRockwell.com is a liar and a scoundrel, and everything they write is false. Darrel is capable of making reasonable arguments; such ad hom does not do justice to his fine mind, and only detracts from his arguments. Yet he seems suseptible to such fallacious argumentation - witness his obsession with the rather inconsequential Tim Ball in the global warming threads.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Hogeye wrote:We've already discussed Woods' statement characterizing early colonists. Bottom line: His statement is true if interpreted as a generalization
DAR
No, his statement is patently false. Again, from above (last time):

"The opening two paragraphs of Thomas Woods’ The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History are astonishing. Chapter 1 on ‘The Colonial Origins of American Liberty’ begins:

“First basic fact: the colonists were not paragons of ‘diversity.’ They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language. They worshipped the same God.”
From 1629 to 1775 there were four waves of migration from four geographical regions of England…”

The "not paragons of divisity" is false: "by 1640, at least eighteen languages were spoken in New York..." That's diverse. See above

"They came from one part of Europe" is astonishingly false, ridiculous and indefensible.

The claim that they spoke a common language, is false x 18.

To summarize the colonists, from 1629-1775, as four waves of migration from England, is dishonest, misleading and indefensible and numerous professional historians have pointed this out in widely publicised reviews.

Again, this leaves out: "Dutch immigrants of Woods’ own New York disappear; the Germans of the mid-Atlantic colonies, almost as numerous as the Scots-Irish, disappear; the Catholics of Maryland disappear (not to mention the Catholics of Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico and elsewhere, in communities established long before the original thirteen colonies); and, most tellingly, the entire African diaspora in North America and the Caribbean disappears. Even the settlement dates provided for Virginia and Massachusetts are plain wrong."

As this historian pointed out, this is "American History for Ideologues"

Woods is an ideologue, like you. That's why you like this crap.

He is also a few other things, which I have no qualms about pointing out.

Snip response to Overstreet's Amazon.com comments.
His "argument" is that Lew Rockwell has an obscure tangential relationship to "the Xtian Reconstuctionist movement" which shares some views with Michael Hill (whoever he is)
DAR
Miachael Hill is the president of the League of the South, a racist group for the modern day southern gentleman, sort of a Klan lite. Woods is one of the founders and endorses the group. You obviously don't know what you are talking about and did not read the information carefully.
David Sutter who is manager of "League of the South," an allegedly racist group.
DAR
The Southern Poverty Law Center (the famous Klan busters) give extensive evidence showing this group your Woods helped found is a white supremacist neo-confederate hate group filled with christian reconstructionalists (those who want to go back to Old Testament rules). See here, and here.

You may think it irrelevant that your historian is associated with these racists bastards, but I think it is very relevant. It explains quite clearly his bizarre unorthodox interpretations and why so many serious historians dismiss his material as junk (as do I). It also exposes why he would try to so blatantly white wash (literally) the colonists. The president of the League of the South believes intermarriage between the races should be illegal. These guys would like their America white and pure now, and they would like like it white and pure historically as well. So along comes Woods to help them out. Isn't it interesting how his blatant revisionism all makes sense once you find out a little background on the guy.
You keep pretending that it is somehow fallacious to check out the background foundational beliefs of the supposed experts your bring forward. Nonsense. If a creationist brought a credentialed geologist to testify as an expert witness, it would be remiss if the opposing side did not check his background close enough to find out that the geologist has a website endorsing a flat earth or some such outlandish garbage.
LOL! So (apparently this is the ad hom logic) everyone associated with LewRockwell.com is a liar and a scoundrel,
DAR
Everything I have seen from Rockwell's site would suggest this yes. Many specific examples have been provided. Rockwell has a little cult carried along in the name of Rothbard. It is piles of outrageous falsehoods only intended as anarchist wank material. No serious scholar or philosopher or scientist could take such material seriously.
and everything they write is false.
DAR
Well it is very hard to be wrong 100% of the time. That takes great skill and practice. But his material is filled with errors spin and distortion. If I have nothing else to do I may take a paragraph from the nutbar Robinson who did the Oregon petition and roast it. He packs more blatant lies per paragraph than I have seen in quite a while. Having read creationist tracts, I have seen quite a few.
obsession with the rather inconsequential Tim Ball in the global warming threads.
DAR
That's ridiculously false. Tim Ball was the leader of your favorite Friends of Science (since renamed), and the highest credentialed climatoligist in that horrible GW denial documentary you wanted to show at a meeting. He is easily the most prominent GW skeptic in Canada. You run from him now because I have shown him, undisputably, to be two things:

a) dishonest (lies about his resume)
b) a fool (recently thought the earth was cooling and we should spend money to prepare for this)

Or perhaps you believe he really is, as he says, one of the worlds first climatologists? Or is, as he has said, the first climatologist in Canada? I don't doubt that you have already forgotten your former defenses of the man you would now like to dismiss as "inconsequential."

D.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
A little more exposition of why some Christians desperately want distort and white wash American history. Remember this important distorted introductory assertion from Robinson:

"They came from one part of Europe. They spoke a common language. They worshipped the same God.”

***
History is Powerful
Why the Christian Right Distorts History and Why it Matters


By Frederick Clarkson

The notion that America was founded as a Christian nation is a central animating element of the ideology of the Christian Right. It touches every aspect of life and culture in this, one of the most successful and powerful political movements in American history. The idea that America's supposed Christian identity has somehow been wrongly taken, and must somehow be restored, permeates the psychology and vision of the entire movement. No understanding of the Christian Right is remotely adequate without this foundational concept.

But the Christian nationalist narrative has a fatal flaw: it is based on revisionist history that does not stand up under scrutiny. The bad news is that to true believers, it does not have to stand up to the facts of history to be a powerful and animating part of the once and future Christian nation. Indeed, through a growing cottage industry of Christian revisionist books and lectures now dominating the curricula of home schools and many private Christian academies, Christian nationalism becomes a central feature of the political identity of children growing up in the movement. The contest for control of the narrative of American history is well underway.

The rest at Public Eye
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Whether that southern heritage group has gone racist in the last few years is an interesting question. Like Clarence Darrow, I'm always willing to take the contrarian side ... in another thread. Back to the topic...

Darrel, do you agree (contra Overstreet), now that I have provided the primary documents, that Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island did in fact reserve the right to seceed?

Do you agree that "we the people" referred to the people of the several states? I.e. the change to that wording was not considered at the time to imply a change from federalism to consolidation into a central State?
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

DAR
I know the neo-confederate types wet themselves with excitment when they consider the subject of the right to secede. Unfortunately, (even though I know how to spell the word) I haven't the slightest interest in that subject.

Let me know when the South rises again.
Whether that southern heritage group has gone racist in the last few years...
DAR
"Last few years." Good one.

D.
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

The last two secessions were East Timor (2002) and Montenegro (2006). Naturally, those supporting the ancien regime (the existing order) can't stand the idea of secession.

The UN, a cartel of States, is particularly loathe to recognize new entities - it still hasn't recognized Somaliland, which declared an independent republic way back in 1991. And it recently took over formerly stateless Somalia and installed its puppet TFG (Transitional Federal Government) using the Ethopian army plus US air support.

But back to topic - do you admit that Virginia, New York, and RI reserved the right to secede when they ratified the US Con?
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Post by Dardedar »

Hogeye wrote:...do you admit... reserved the right to secede...
DAR
I haven't the foggiest. I didn't read that stuff. You spelled secede right this time.
User avatar
Hogeye
Posts: 1047
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Contact:

Post by Hogeye »

Hmmm. Well, if you're going to ignore the topical points, and go off on ad hom rants instead, maybe you should be posting on the Rush Limbaugh site or something.
"May the the last king be strangled in the guts of the last priest." - Diderot
With every drop of my blood I hate and execrate every form of tyranny, every form of slavery. I hate dictation. I love liberty. - Ingersoll
Post Reply