For a little while I have been looking for something far less “political” than Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James W. Loewen and I think I have found it. Though I still use Loewen’s book and some of his antidotes and stories, I wanted something more and That’s Not in My American History Book: A Compilation of Little Known Events and Forgotten Heroes, by Thomas Ayres, fits the bill. I highly recommend his book over Loewen’s presentation. More later.
I also am in the middle of James M. McPherson’s This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War, which I am enjoying. I think this book is a nice counter-part to his, Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War, as taken together they show a nice evolution in the thinking of this great Civil War historian.
Also, though I cannot comment on it yet, I have my review copy of James M. Schmidt’s Lincoln’s Labels: America’s Best Known Brands and the Civil War, which looks interesting.
Finally, from Newsweek magazine (6/23), I read two articles dealing with Winston Churchill, the cover story presented as “What would Winston Do?”
The two articles: A War Worth Fighting and The Mythology of Munich. I would be interested to hear your comments.
Buchanan’s book is very provocative and has spurred a lot of discussion. The discussion between Hitchens, Buchanan, and other big names have mainly been around the main points of Buchanan’s book (e.g. Were the world wars necessary? When did Hitler plan to kill the Jews?). However, no one is talking about the actual sources that Buchanan uses to back up his larger points.
After reading through the book, I’ve found a lot of holes. These include hacked quotes, misquotes, wrong dates, copied maps, and just plain inaccurate analysis. As I get a hold of Buchanan’s sources and have time, I’ve been publishing my findings here:
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/churchillhitlerandtheunnecessarywar.php
Buchanan relies a lot on the opinions of others to back up his points. He also has a knack for quoting just enough of someone’s statement to give a different impression than what the original author intended.
I’ll be posting more and more in the coming days to get to the root of Buchanan’s book. To put it plainly, it’s flawed and it uses flawed sources to back up its points.
Scott thanks for the post and the link, I will check it out!
Chris