Such Men are Dangerous: The Fanatics of 1692 and 2004 [Hardcover]

Frances Hill (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 2004

A BookSense Pick, this well-researched book by a respected historian has managed to stand out among the many political books released in 2004, and unlike many of them,remains current for the foreseeable future.Most Americans would like to think that our modern-day leaders are more enlightened than the witch-hunting Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. But are they? Is it possible that people like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and even George W. Bush are just the modern-day equivalents of Cotton Mather, John Hathorne, and William Phips? Frances Hill finds a frightening resemblance, and hopes that by remembering the past we can avoid repeating it.The events are, of course, very different. The Puritans twisted a popular fear of imaginary "spectral" forces to bolster their ideological agendas, power and wealth. Today's neoconservatives are twisting the very real public fear of terrorism for those same ends.We know how the story of the witch hunts ends. The modern equivalent is still under way, with far more chilling ramifications for the future of humanity.

Editorial Reviews

From the Inside Flap

There are surprising similarities between the ideologues of 1692, who manipulated to their advantage the hysteria of the Salem witch hunts, and today’s ideologues in Washington, who are manipulating to their advantage our reactions to the terror of September 11.

Much of what we know about the Salem witch trials is the result of Frances Hill’s meticulously researched books on the subject. To many, this seems to be a bizarre chapter of history that could never repeat itself in modern times.

Yet that is exactly what is happening, Hill says. The events are, of course, very different. The Puritans twisted a popular fear of imaginary "spectral" forces to bolster their power and wealth. Today’s neoconservatives are twisting the very real public fear of terrorism to bolster their ideological agendas, power and wealth.

We know how the story of the witch hunts ends. The modern equivalent is still under way, with far more chilling ramifications for the future of humanity.

From the Back Cover

"Such Men are Dangerous is that rare book-a work of meticulous scholarship that is also a passionate indictment of American self-righteousness and intolerance. Frances Hill's point-by-point comparison of 17th-century Massachusetts and 21st-century Washington, DC, is chilling and thought-provoking. The witch-hunters are not only thriving-they are in power." -Mark Pendergrast author of Mirror, Mirror and Victims of Memory

Most Americans would like to think that our modern-day leaders are more enlightened than the witch-hunting Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. But are they? Is it possible that people like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and even George W. Bush are just the modern-day equivalents of Cotton Mather, John Hathorne, and William Phips? Frances Hill finds a frightening resemblance, and hopes that by remembering the past we can avoid repeating it.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 233 pages
• Publisher: Upper Access, Inc. (March 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0942679288
• ISBN-13: 978-0942679281
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,362,370 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An eye-opener of a book, October 7, 2004

By 

Paul Lappen (Manchester, CT USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Such Men are Dangerous: The Fanatics of 1692 and 2004 (Hardcover)

This book compares the men behind the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692 to the Bush II Administration. The comparisons are distressingly close.

Massachusetts of the 1690s was a very rigid sort of place. Those in power were ideologues who believed that their version of Calvinism was the only way and the only truth. Everyone who came to Massachusetts was required by law to attend Puritan services. Belonging to any other church was forbidden, on pain of banishment or hanging. All dissent was equated to bonding with the devil. The Puritans believed you were "either with us or against us." Since Massachusetts thought itself a place where anyone could find work, poverty was considered a sign of general immorality and probable damnation.

America in 2004 is a place where those on the bottom are blamed instead of helped. Prisons are full of victims of poverty, and each year scores of Americans are legally executed. It stems from a point of view of self-seeking masquerading as righteousness, without regard for social justice. Selfishness is a virtue. Those who can't make it economically are wicked and contemptible. Today's leaders are as inhumane and self-righteous as those of 300 years ago.

Paul Wolfowitz and Minister Cotton Mather tried to emulate their famous fathers. They both also see only what they want to see, and are slippery and self-serving in argument. Deputy Governor William Stoughton and Donald Rumsfeld both hold rigid ideological views, lack humanity and mercy, and are war mongers and hypocrites. Stoughton and Dick Cheney are willing to bend their view of the world to accommodate their pursuit of wealth and power. Magistrate John Hathorne and Richard perle were not part of their respective elites, but they were the first to push their respective agendas. Governor William Phips and George Bush were intellectually lacking, but they did have a talent for forming alliances and cultivating people. They also had very foul mouths and furious tempers, and owed everything to family connections.

It's disheartening to know that Americans have evolved so little in 300 years. This is quite an eye-opener of a book. An interest in Massachusetts of the 1690s would be a big help, but this is still fascinating and thought-provoking. Highly recommended.

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Chilling in its uncanny comparisons, June 12, 2004

By 

Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Such Men are Dangerous: The Fanatics of 1692 and 2004 (Hardcover)

Such Men Are Dangerous: The Fanatics Of 1692 And 2004 is a chilling commentary that compares political figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush with the ideologues of 1692 colonial America who led the Salem witch hunts. Comparing the government's manipulations of American reactions to September 11th with the Puritans' twist on popular fear of "spectral" forces to commit murder and bolster their own wealth, Such Men Are Dangerous takes a bold stand but is chilling in its uncanny comparisons. A scathing expose that forces the reader to take a cold, hard look at America's current leaders.

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The Witch? Report, March 18, 2004

By 

william tayleur (London UK) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Such Men are Dangerous: The Fanatics of 1692 and 2004 (Hardcover)

Read this book! Whether you are a seething democrat, a bilious republican - or just a normal person - this book gives an historical perspective on the current day Bush administration by drawing parallels with the Salem Witch Trials and those who instigated them. The fear of the witch is replaced by the fear of the terrorist.

Frances Hill has created a powerful argument that draws the two regimes together through individual comparisons, and a minutely forensic approach in teasing out the similarities. Even the 'good' or 'believable' members of President Bush's and Governor Phips' teams are seen to be weak and pliable.

There is anger at the roughshod methods of both regimes; but anger tempered by incontrovertible facts. How has the US lost its way as a beacon of democratic freedom in the world? Why are the poorer being disadvantaged while the rich benefit?

Michael Moore may be funnier, but Frances Hill delivers a more devastating polemic.

The comparisons are uncanny; the initial outcomes chilling. The only question remaining is left at the very end... how will the world respond to the neocons' callous ministrations?