Customer Reviews

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

5 star:		(146)
4 star:		(33)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(72)

 

 

All you need to do is read the one-star reviews to see why you should read this book. We get told by one reviewer that it's "inaccurate," but, SURPRISE, no actual examples. Another reviewer thinks he has an example of an error when he says Woods calls Jefferson a Republican, when he was a Democrat. Why I am even bothering to reply to such an idiotic misunderstanding I do not know, but Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, and his party was nearly always called the Republicans. No, it isn't the same Republican Party as today, but that WAS the name of Jefferson's party. Where do these doofuses come from?

I like the criticism that Woods condemns Woodrow Wilson and his decision to enter WWI. Is there anyone around still defending that decision? Hilarious. I also like "Woods blames the Great Depression on liberal social programs." Woods actually blames the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression, and Hoover and FDR's interventionist policies for making it so long. So what that a zillion other scholars are now saying the same thing. To a liberal today, this is enough to make you an "extremist," regardless of the evidence you have in your favor or the credentials you can boast.

I don't see any page on which Woods defends an abstract "right" to hold slaves. That would be a strange position for a libertarian like Woods to hold. But this is the kind of hysteria and irrationalism you can expect when you dare, like Woods, to ask serious and important questions. Even worse is that Woods is obviously quite prepared to ask and to answer these questions. He is a Harvard Ph.D. and holds his other degrees from Columbia. So instead of carefully answering Woods, he needs to be crushed, smeared, and destroyed. That is how these enemies of the truth operate. They hate their propaganda being exposed to the light.

It seems to me you have three choices: you can passively accept the establishment version of American history, you can actively defend that establishment view, like a good robot, against anyone who dares to question it, or you can THINK FOR YOURSELF, and go wherever the evidence takes you. Woods has more than enough qualifications to guide you through.

You can read about him at ThomasEWoods.com, though I don't know if he blogs anywhere.

There is very little in this book that I didn't know from other historical sources already, but with all the misinformation out there it will open your mind to examine what you read or think you know more critically. Dr. Woods has done us a big favor by putting it all together in this exceedingly readable volume. Don't expect it to be a comprehensive history. It's not meant to be. It's more like the "missing" books - in this case what's missing from standard American history texts.

Woods knocks off one myth and misperception after another - the Puritans "stole" Indian lands; and my favorites, as a long-term student of economics: Herbert Hoover "did nothing" about the market crash (he did way too much and hastened a depression); FDR changed all that (he continued and expanded on Hoover policies to give us another 10 years of depression), and so on. None of this should be news but apparently it is and that's why we need a book like this.

Moreover, Woods presents it - even some of the more arcane constitutional issues - with remarkable clarity. He has a facility to put facts in the context of contiguous events as well as fast forwarding to the "PC" of today. There's no sugar coating here. We see some of our treasured ideas and men - warts and all. You probably won't "agree" with (perhaps I should say like) all his findings (I didn't).

The organization of the book with highlights, bullet summaries and sidebars adds to comprehension and recall. While I found a few nits to pick here and there they are too insignificant to lower the rating of the book. Buy it. Read it! And have your kids read it when they study American history.

I've never posted a review on Amazon before, but I couldn't help it after seeing the "Kid's Review" below. For one thing, he calls Woods a "jingoist." Sorry, kid, but you're a pretty crummy reader if you think Woods, a conservative who criticizes just about every war I can see, is a "jingoist."

1.) The argument that the revolutionaries were conservatives is a very old one, and supported by a lot of fairly smart people, so it probably can't be dismissed with the non-argument Junior gives here.

2.) The Civil War was obviously not over slavery at first, given that Lincoln himself said it wasn't. Woods nowhere says that the Union's unfair taxation caused the war. He makes a brief point about tariffs, but if you blink you'll miss it.

3.) This is such a ridiculous caricature it's not worth dignifying.

4.) Obviously the kid's review knows nothing about the history of land purchases from the Indians. Only a moron thinks the New England tribes were "kicked off" in the seventeenth century, which is all Woods is saying. The poor kid is thinking of nineteenth-century Indian removal.

5.) Well, FDR DIDN'T get us out of the Depression! Even mainstream historians concede that! Just look at the employment statistics for goodness sake. And I have absolutely no idea what the kid means by FDR "sold us out to the Japanese," but I am absolutely sure nothing Woods says could possibly be described that way.

6.) Again, Woods takes a nuanced view and the kid writes a caricature. Woods says the McCarthy matter is a complicated one to sort out, but he does quote some liberals of today who admit that McCarthy was more right than his critics. Or did our kid skip those pages?

7.) The kid knows nothing about Woods, apparently. Woods has written endlessly on economics and on the inefficiencies and immorality of socialism. THAT was what brought down the Soviet Union. Woods would be the last person to give credit to a politician.

But the fact that the kid calls the book "jingoist" really takes the cake. The book is a systematic indictment of the U.S. government, not a celebration of it, as anyone who actually read it (as opposed to reading the front and back covers) would know.

Buy this book for all the kids in your life, so they won't grow up like little Mr. Propaganda.

More people should examine history in this way. As the title suggests, too many are worried about being "PC" and miss the truth of what really happened. I often wonder what will be written in years to come about events that occurred in my lifetime. Would I be shocked to see how they are portrayed or would I be pleased that the truth was being taught? Share this book and others like it with kids growing up, they need to know.

I have a master's degree in U.S. History and I have taught History and Government for the past six years at a small college in Iowa. I am well-qualified to judge this book, which seems to have drawn polar opposite reviews from people; It doesn't take long to figure out that the reviews are politically-driven.

Those readers who consider themselves liberal will hate this book because it skewers many left-wing sacred cows. However, Woods also takes many conservative icons to the wood-shed as well, including Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Those reviewers who say that Woods has written a one-sided attack on 'liberals' in history must not have read the book.

I was very familiar with many of the arguments and positions raised in this book before it was published. I have read several of the books that Woods cites in his bibliography. The chapters on the Civil War and Reconstruction, The Great Depression and New Deal, and JFK and LBJ are particularly well done.

It's amusing to read some of the scathing reviews of this book--almost all of them are groundless. None of the ones I perused raised any significant challenges to his facts. It would be difficult to do so, since Woods is presenting well-documented information. From the perspective of a fellow historian, there's nothing actually new in this book--it's merely a compilation of facts and data that most readers are probably unfamiliar with.

One is certainly free to support the more 'politically correct' history that you can find in every library and textbook in America. What Woods has done is compile some of the historical facts pushed out of those books in the name of political correctness, as he calls it. It creates a counter-point to the history most of us are used to seeing.

For whatever reason, the things Woods details have indeed been left out of most history books. It's why historians and history teachers like myself appreciate a book like this so much. It gives us a chance to explore and mull alternative reasons for why things happened the way they did.

This book will be on the shelf of anyone who wants to have a serious debate about a variety of topics in U.S. History, be they liberal or conservative.

As per the below, see Thomas Woods' response to "legitimate historian" David Greenberg (who doesn't have one-third of Woods' credentials or publications) at ThomasEWoods.com, where Woods has a whole page devoted to this book. Greenberg wants to peddle the same old nonsense about American history and can't believe the gall of someone who dissents (and who has obviously read much more widely than he has).

Woods is an accomplished young scholar with impressive credentials. The very fact that certain self-described "legitimate historians" want to discourage you from reading his book is almost all you need to know about it. For what it's worth, I loved it.

I don't think anyone at Publishers Weekly actually read this book. Their review is dreadful. They claim that Woods is "utterly contemptuous of anything supported by Liberals or 'Intellectuals,'" that his view is "classically conservative," and that "diehard Republicans may find this book an inspiring corrective to supposedly Liberal-biased history texts.."

How, then, do they explain the strongly anti-war arguments in this book? How many Republicans, diehard or otherwise, do you know who are anti-war these days?

When I was in high school, I hated history. Now I love history, because I see how the ideas people hold are based, for better or worse, on their understanding of history. But so much of the common understanding of history is just plain wrong. When Publishers Weekly complains that this book is contrarian, what they mean is, Woods brings a certain point of view which differs from the *unbiased* history we have been taught all our lives.

But that last part is completely false. *Every* historian brings a point of view, in the sense that historical data must be *interpreted* by *theories* of human nature. And the vast majority of history books have used *incorrect* theories and have been pro-statist. This book is one of the few exceptions.

Woods often shows, not how the common understanding is off the mark, but completely upside down. Here is just one example (page 20): It is commonly believed that the Constitution's compromise to count each slave as 3/5 of a person resulted from Southerners (due to their racism) wanting slaves to count for nothing, and Northerners wanting slaves to count as a full person. But the truth is exactly the reverse! These counts were for the purpose of Congressional representation, and so the South wanted each slave to count as a *full* person, while the North wanted slaves to not count at all! How often have you heard that??

All in all, an excellent book, very easy to read, and full of surprises even for someone who thinks he or she knows a lot about US history.

As a real history teacher (as opposed to the coach history "teacher" that to many people have had) I was looking forward to this book since I read and enjoyed another P.I.G. book on global warming.

I have few quibbles or quarrels with the facts presented. Woods has done his research and I would even recommend parts of this book as a supplement to read alongside a regular American History book. He is especially strong on his facts about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

However, I do have an issue with the way it is presented. Woods states in his preface that this book is not intended to be an alternative, non-PC history book. But, what is is exactly. I have pegged it as a supplement, but Woods really fails to do so. Sometimes, the book tries to come off as a "Gotcha! Betcha didn't know this!" trivia book, other times it goes into pretty strong detail and nearly is as well-rounded as some high school or middle school textbooks (particularly in the Revolutionary War/Constitution section). The end of the book (Clinton) comes off almost like one of the dime-a-dozen political books that are written by Michael Moore and Ann Coulter.

This guide to American History does enter a crowded field. There are plenty of other books out there that serve a similar purpose such as "Don't Know Much About History". The difference may be in political slant.

Although Woods does a tremendous job with the Founders, I believe he did an very poor write up on the Civil War. Lincoln's racial views were stated too simplistically. Also, they are not exactly secret anymore - textbooks cover Lincoln quite well nowadays. He also overstates the strength of democracy of the South at the time in a rather lengthy argument about the Gettysburg Address. Woods note that he thinks the Address is ironic as a statement of democratic ideals since Lincoln was, at that very moment, destroying the expressed will of the Southern people who were trying to secede. Woods leaves out details such as the aristocratic nature of Southern politics at the time, the fact that uplanders (non-plantation, small farmers in the hills and mountains) were quick to join the Union armies since they felt the aristocratic plantation owners were not representing them in state government and had shut them out of the halls of power. That is how West Virginia was formed and how parts of Eastern Tennessee earned a reputation for being very pro-Union.

Also, in the same section, Woods mis-characterizes Ben Butler's Order #28, the strength of the anti-slavery sentiment in some factions of the Union Army (although, certainly not the majority of it).

However, I don't want to go through a point by point refutation of each part. Suffice to say, Thomas has a decent supplement of mostly good quality here.

I give this one a C+. Minus one star for the lack of focus I mentioned above. Minus one star for his treatment of the Civil War section.

In response to another reviewer: of course this book is selective. Woods wouldn't discuss the aspects of American History that are indeed factually correct -- the point of the book is not to talk about what textbooks got right, the point is (surprise!) to talk about what they got wrong.

The overview of the Civil War -- or lack of one -- is vitally important for Americans to read. Our impressions of the Civil War have been warped. The Civil War was not actually a civil war. A civil war is a war in which two factions are fighting to take control of a nation's government. The southern states felt that their rights had been violated, and were fighting a war for independence, very much like the war fought against Britain in 1776.

The explosion of government under the Clinton years is overviewed, as well as the truth about the "doll tests" in the 1960's that led to forced busing, Woodrow Wilson's bizarre fixation on getting us into World War I, and a brief summary of the failure of the New Deal.

The one problem: some of the evidence is flimsy. He'll take a quote from someone and use that as his full proof sometimes (such as what the early colonists thought of one another). It doesn't take away from the validity of the point, but it makes his work seem less scholarly and more thrown together in a rush to get the book out.

Definitely worth a read. The other side of "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen (I believe that's his name!).

For many, the title alone works as a sales boost, but the title is also a bit misleading. For that matter, I don't much like the title, since to be "politically incorrect" has become the slogan of every half-baked College Republican bent on backing Bush against campus detractors. This book has nothing to do with such nonsense.

This is not one of those nose-tweaking marketing ploys you see in the history section of major chains, or Rush-Limbaugh-style radio gab. Nor do I find the thesis or argument particularly "conservative," if by that you mean Bush-style nationalism and cultural agitprop.

On the contrary, this is an amazing piece of scholarship - compressed scholarship, to be sure - that reflects vast reading in the best libertarian and Austrian scholarship available, a wonderful short history of the United States, revisionist in all the best ways, that integrates history, politics, and economics.

The high-energy prose is a special feature here. He is thrilled about the chance to tell you how he discovered that much of what he learned from his mainstream history education (Harvard, Columbia) is contradicted by facts and logic. Even from the first pages, when Woods is describing the religious and ideological demographics of the Colonial Period, the reader is aware that he is being taught by a master who loves his subject. He prose burns with a passion to tell the next thing. Rarely do two or three sentences pass when he is not surprising you with a new insight. He is glad he has your attention and does not intend to let it go. So long as you are reading, Woods is going to make sure you get his point and come to believe it. How many academics can write like this? Not many.

The format seems to be designed for a high school student, and certainly the prose is pristine enough to be read by anyone. And yet I'm betting that even (or especially) specialists will learn so much from this book. The author's capacity for reading, processing, and conveying information is a marvel; his first book designed for a mass audience (it is his second in so many months) is even more so.