327 of 385 people found the following review helpful
The proof is in the doofuses,
This review is from: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Paperback)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.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 11, 2011 12:25:17 PM PST
M. Richardson says:
"All you need to do is read the one-star reviews to see why you should read this book."
Indeed. I recommend following J Barber's advice here and looking at the first page of one-star reviews. I believe that, unless you have ideological blinders on that won't allow you to regard different viewpoints as at all legitimate in any way, shape, or form, no matter how reasoned, you will find that the majority of those reviews give good reasons for why they don't believe this product to have any credibility. I don't doubt that J Barber found several such illogical reviews when he searched through the low ratings, but, based purely on the first page of one-star reviews, I would advance that the author of this review is perhaps cherry-picking instances of bad logic and rude rhetoric and using these to mis-characterize the majority of the negative reviewers.
"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."
I believe, rewritten in less ideologically-driven language, this paragraph amounts to the following:
"It seems to me you have three choices: you can passively accept opposing interpretations of American history, you can actively defend those opposing interpretations, like a good robot, against anyone who dares to question them, or you can THINK LIKE ME."
Allow me to advance a few points which you seem to have not considered in the past:
1) Everyone who disagrees with you is not a brainwashed communist robot.
2) It is perfectly possible for two people to THINK FOR THEMSELVES and to come to two completely opposing interpretations of just about anything or, indeed, everything.
3) If others have been programmed like robots to expouse a certain point of view by influences in their lives, then it is equally probable that you have also been programmed like a robot to expouse a certain point of view. If you would deny this, then might I ask why you deny this freedom of will to every other human being who disagrees with your worldview?
Thanks for your time!
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2011 10:31:03 PM PDT
Breck Breckenridge says:
Spoken like the politically CORRECT person you are!
Posted on Aug 7, 2011 8:21:31 PM PDT
Hugo Keller says:
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 5, 2011 10:54:23 PM PDT
What's that saying? "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're not entitled to their own facts". The book is factual.
Posted on Jan 6, 2013 5:09:22 AM PST
Hogan Aynaris says:
Clarification: Woods earned his Ph.D. at Columbia (he has a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard).
‹ Previous 1 Next ›