The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

Rating:
Summary: Revisionist History
Review: Simply put, this book is worst exercise in polemical, revisionist history in the last 50 years, a charge which is all the more damning because of (and not in spire of) the author's credentials. Any serious student of history and disciple of the scientific method will be quick to point out that the first rule of historical study is that one is expected to remain as objective as possible and eschew presenting value judgements as historical facts when they are open to debate. Not only does Woods ignore these rules and anything resembling objectivity, he openly embraces his biases and personal opinions, and then carefully trims all aspects of his narrative which might weaken his position. Thus by avoiding the inclusion of any evidence contrary to his position, Woods is able to escape any debate whatsoever and as such is able to present his book in a "duh, of course that's the truth" sort of way without even pausing to address the fact that his views are biased, one-sides, ahistorical, and in many cases just plain false.

Examples of this can be seen in his use of selective personal failings of certain liberal political figures in order to discredit their entire historical contribution. Examples of this can be seen in one of his quotes of Abraham Lincoln regarding the inferiority of the black person. Woods is then able to use this single quote to entirely discredit Lincoln and gloss over the emancipation proclamation, the civil war, and Lincoln's assasination (or MURDER) by a die-hard secessionist (from Maryland).

Coupled with this litany of character assasination and selective amnesia with regards to historical narrative is Woods' use of the uninpeachable fact which, broadly stated and easliy repeated helps the conservative southerner feel good about his history on an emotional level without bringing any form of intellectual thought into play. Examples of this are the "Did you Know?" sidebars which include such wonderful facts as
* The South had a right to seceed! (without addressing any of the counter arguements in detail)
* Coolidge and Hoover presided over the most economically prosperous time in American history! (without making any reference to the bad economics and troubling market trends which permeated the 1920s long before the 1929 crash)
* That FDR orderd the slaughter of thousands of farm animals at a time when people in this country were going hungry! (no elaboration there. Evidentally FDR was just a tyrant who wanted his people to starve), and so on.

More bad history can be found in Woods' recommendations of "books you're not supposed to read," many of which were published in the 1950s and are no doubt long out of print.

In short, although the author maintains that he is merely trying to tell history as it "really happenend," his take on the historical narrative and perspective of the United States rings as hollow as those who complain that college education is bad because it is riddled with liberal "indoctrination," and not because critical thinking is bad. It is, however, a shame that such a prestegious scholar such as Woods with a doctorate from Columbia would be blind to the lessions he himself (should have) learned in college with regards to methodology, narrative, and academic transparency. However, it should come as no surprise to any serious historican that this book is garbage which may however be read for entertainment value and raises the possability that this may be one big joke on the part of Woods in order to make some profound social commentary on the willing suspension of disbelief of the American public. However, considering the fact that the book so honestly and unblinkingly advertises itself as a manual for Conservatives to counter annoying little facts like the freeing of the Slaves during the civil war, the New Deal and the revival of the U.S. economy, the liberal origins of the American revolution, and the rebuttal of communism by JFK during the Cuban missle crisis, it is doubtful that this is meant as a joke. Look for it on Donald Rumsfeld's coffee table soon!

Rating:
Summary: How to tell a reviewer did not read the book
Review: A reviewer below tells us that this book calls the Civil War "the War of Northern Aggression." That's how you can tell he didn't read it. He just read the Publishers Weekly review above. Pick up the book for yourself and see: the PW reviewer simply made that up, and this dopey reviewer, pretending to have read the book, echoes this falsehood. Does it get more despicable than that?

The fact is, this is an excellent book. The negative reviewers can be as hysterical as they like, but facts are facts. Are Woods's stats on nineteenth-century big business true or false? Is his incisive critique of Woodrow Wilson based on facts or isn't it? Did unemployment stay at an average of 18% during the years of the New Deal or didn't it?

This is not your typical Limbaugh right-wing screed. This book, for instance, criticizes Clinton not for the usual stupid reasons but for being a warmonger. Its critique of Woodrow Wilson should appeal to principled members of both left and right.

To be sure, the parts in favor of the free market will tend to attract the right, but Woods's arguments are based on the latest research and on serious scholarship. It is almost unbelievable how knowledgeable Woods -- a Harvard graduate and Columbia Ph.D. -- is in his field. Attempts to make him out to be some right-wing yahoo with an I.Q. of 60 won't work.

In short, this is en eye-opening book that is also fun to read. Homeschoolers in particular should get a copy, but so should any American who's tired of the pro-government propaganda that passes for history. Congressman Ron Paul, the one great constitutionalist in Congress, recommends this book to all Americans. So do I.


Rating:
Summary: Not bad but the WWI section....
Review: First, I liked the book. If you pick it up used it's a great deal.

However, I didn't like his "Great War" section. Why? Well, it gets complicated.

America and Britian pretty much ignore one another from 1865 to 1898, the Spanish American war. What changes things? An American Admirial named Alfred Mahan (sp?) puts out a book "The influence of Sea Power on World History". The book is a huge success in Victorian era Britian. Mahan's book validates what the British always did as policy in the 19th Century. He becomes the toast of the nation. Second, British Admiral Jackie Fisher's daughter marries an American family that owns a rail road. Fisher is shocked of what he sees in America. Remember, this is the 1890s, the guilded age. Admiral Fisher sees the best of America. The following is almost a direct quote from the book "Dreadnought, the coming of the Great War", "We must make friends with America. They are British."

If you read a lot of battleship books, like myself, you find the British take a mentor relationship towards America in the 1890 and later era. The analog is like this. America is the prodical son who has grown up to be successful. Canada is kind of like the son who leaves home a little too late. Britian is much more enamored of America than Canada.

Yes, there are lots of German Americans in the USA, like myself. However, my ancestors left German in the 1850s after the failed Democratic revolution. So, we love the nation but don't have a large amount of loyality towards it.

Read "Dreadnought, the coming of the Great War" and "Castles of Steel". Both books are by Robert Massee and does a better job of giving reasons why the USA supports the Allies than the Central Powers than the fact that Wilson should have been impeached for violating various neutrality acts.

Oh, Germany could have won the Great War in 1916 had it not listened to the U.S.A. Had the U-boats done unrestricted warfare against Britian in 1916 there was nothing the USA could have done. Why? The US Navy in 1916 had about 20 cruisers and 35 pre-dreadnought battleships, all useless against U-boats.



Rating:
Summary: Not a great resource
Review: I consider myself very conservative and an opponent of political correctness. However, I cannot recommend this book. I was extremely excited when I heard of its publication and bought it immediately. After having spent some time with it, I have come away deeply disappointed. First, its sneering tone is really off-putting. This book makes no effort (and perhaps no pretense) of taking a neutral or academic view towards U.S. history. Its goal and tactic seem to be to smear the Left's positions (a worthwhile goal, but it could be done in a manner that would be more likely to persuade the as-yet unpersuaded rather than turning off all but theose who already agree with the author). Two, there is no subtlety or nuance to the reasoning. The author lays out many bullet points without the merest citation or footnoting and fails to explain the opposing (P.C.) viewpoint and why the P.C. viewpoint is wrong.

I would strongly recommend reading Paul Johnson's A History of the American People before reading this book. Johnson's book is much more serious minded, more likely to persuade people and give more ammunition to Conservatives who want ammunition to convince others.

I think The Politically Incorrect Guide is best used as a "bathroom reader" (which isn't nothing).

Rating:
Summary: Its funny this book rails against "big government"...
Review: Mainly because the Republicans or what is considered "conservativism" has never actually stood for real limited government as Jefferson saw it. Ever. In fact, the GOP has been at the forefront of most Federal expansion far longer than the Democrats have.

The GOP has always been in existence to help the elite of society, the wealthiest corporate/government/bureaucratic cabal of this country that controls most of the wealth. Most mainstream conservatives don't want to do away with government; they simply want to do away with liberal-minded programs, or institute new ones that steal from the poor and give to the rich. (Medicare)

Don't think you are being enlightened by this book. While it may provide a different perspective on American history other than the mainstream "liberal" perspective, and that's good, it is still half of the picture, and simply not objective.

And still, it is an incorrect picture. While liberals have had good intentions offset by programs that favor government growth, they still uphold the true values of liberty and morality that the Founders intended. In my opinion, the liberals and the Democratic Party have long since gone astray, by believing in the very un-liberal and "left wing" idea that Federal programs and the welfare state, in short, democratic European socialism, is the best way to help the economy.

Liberal altruism is good, but it doesn't have to be done that way. Public enterprise. The free market. Employee cooperatives for mutual benefit are the true libertarian forces that will help the liberal cause. Especially the cooperative commonwealth, the true AMERICAN version, which is the best thing for the working man in this country more than liberal socialism or the conservative welfare-capitalist state.

Minimal government, individualism and morality are American values to the core. Just don't let pompous rhetoric convince you that these values belong to the neoconservatives. The neocons are this nation's biggest threat to liberty that have ever been seen.

Left-libertarianism and pure minarchism are what we need to direct this country to its true liberty. It is the GOP that is most responsible for glutting Leviathan and merging the elite corporations with the government. Do NOT believe the conspiracy that there is a "liberal elite" still somehow in power, which is ludicrous. Hollywood and the NYT are not representative of what liberalism stands for, and besides, they're limousine liberals, no better than the Wall Street High Priests. It is the GOP and their cabal that are the true elitists in this nation.

Yet I still recommend this book, in only in terms of its opinions and perspective, for it will help to truly illuminate what is democratic and what stands for the American Republic, and it will help those begin to understand that limited government belongs to neither the left nor right.

Down with Bush and the Bush Neocon State.

Rating:
Summary: Take the time to actually read the book before you criticize
Review: Most of the people who left 1 star for this book never even bothered to read it.

Why is it that liberal tolerance only extends to those who agree with them? How come everytime somebody tries to challenge certain liberal beliefs they are immediately dismissed as a right wing nut?

If you want to be critical about Dr. Woods, please be sure to include SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH--WHY NOT INCLUDE PAGE NUMBERS?? Right now the only thing that the 1 star reviews offer are ad hominem attacks and hyperbole.

Shame on you one star reviewers! Take off the blinders, you may actually learn something. Shame on the ny slimes for their ignorant review.

I am a moderate professor at a small liberal arts school and I think Dr. Woods' book is a must read!! Something that all the marxist educators in our country are afraid to confront.

Dr. Woods, when are you going to publish another book like this based on european or global history?

Rating:
Summary: Not a Liberal/Conservative Book - Just the Truth
Review: This book is an absolute must read for all Americans. If you are over 40 it will shine a light on the loss of freedoms you have suffered over the course of your life. If you are under 40 it will educate you about an America that used to exist and could exist again if people can re-discover the dream.

The facts given in the book are extremely well documented, including references to original materials and pre-political correctness texts.

Read this book to find out why history has been rewritten since the 1950s! It's not because the facts changed, it's because the desired interpretation of those facts has changed. As Orwell said "He who controls the past, controls the future; and he who controls the present, controls the past."

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating exploration of modern right-wing delusions
Review: This book is worthwhile reading simply because it provides valuable insight into the minds of the right-wing talk-radio subculture. Its demonization of FDR is cute and referring to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression" is an entertaining flashback to the Jim Crow rhetoric of the '50s and '60s, but it gets downright disturbing when it starts in on its apology of Senator Joe McCarthy.

As a work of fiction and sociological study of the minds of the far right in America, it is excellent. However, since it categorized itself as "history", I have to give it only one star, because it is junk scholarship and cannot be taken seriously.

Rating:
Summary: Right-Wing Propagandist Book
Review: This book is, just what many others reviewers have stated, right-wing selective history. I am not a lib\conservative or a capitalist of any type. I do like this book for what it
is, a study of the propaganda used by one side of American politics. I would recommend this book for anyone studying
propaganda in general and has an interest in American politics.
However, do not buy this book as a source of historical facts...
it is far too one-sided.

Rating:
Summary: Lots of fun that will help you wrestle with today's truisms
Review: This is a really fun book. It is an easy read, makes its points in clear prose, and points the interested reader to lots of other material for further study. It is not written as a history of America. Rather, it is a series of short articles that offer clarifications, left out facts, and contrarian interpretation to what is being passed off as American History in schools, the popular media, and common accepted belief.

The articles fall into several categories that provide different kinds of help. The first kind is simple correction of popular misconception. For example, it is a commonplace that counting the slaves as 3/5 of a person for representation in Congress is an example of racism. Since African-Americans are obviously whole people they should be counted as a whole person for representation. And today, that is true. However, as slaves they did not have the franchise to vote, nor would the slavers have the slightest twinge of guilt in not looking out for the personal interests of their slaves. This is why the abolitionists wanted the slaves to count as zero for representational purposes. The 3/5ths compromise is actually more in favor of oppressing the slaves than zero representational count would have been.

The next kind of article provides richer context that overthrows accepted truisms. For example, the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court is the poster child for top to bottom racism in our society and government. Prof. Woods points out the battle for representation in Congress involving expansion of Free and Slave States into the Western Territories. This awful Supreme Court decision overturned a decision by a Southern judge that had emancipated Dred Scott because his owner (awful word, right?) had taken him to a Free State voluntarily. That was the accepted law of the land at the time, but had political ramifications. The effect of the Supreme Court decision was that, in effect, there could be no Free States. There is a lot more on this in the book.

Prof. Woods also demonstrates how received wisdom has become outmoded because of more modern perspectives and research. For example, the Robber Barons are still vilified, but current research refutes that they did damage to society. Sure, they were sharp and hard businessmen, but Rockefeller for one simply brought cheaper, safer, and higher quality lighting to the world. He did not raise the price of lighting and gouge society. In fact, his work saved an almost endless number of whales that would have been killed for their oil to light homes. This alone should be earning him praise, right?

There is so much more in this neat book that I want to encourage you to read it. You don't have to end up agreeing with anything Professor Woods says (although I don't see how that would be possible) to benefit from this book. That is, you will benefit from wrestling with the arguments, doing some more reading and thinking in order to strengthen and sharpen your beliefs through examination. This process is always a good and healthy exercise.

Recommended! Just don't think that this is a substitute for your own reading, study, and thinking. This book, while fun and useful, is no more a complete source for American History than an antibiotic would be a source of complete nutrition. It has a specific role and purpose, but you will still need more.