In spite of the smears, the book, now in its eighth printing, spent three months on the New York Times bestseller list. There is also the ongoing battle of the stars on Amazon–fans give 5 and the opposition gives 1. I’ve noticed that the former provide evidence of having read the book, whereas the latter seem to be part of some continuing campaign. I never imagined myself to be a “public intellectual”; it happened inadvertently, a result of something I may have picked up from Murray Rothbard: a desire to bring scholarship to a broad audience so that the lessons of history stand a better chance of shaping our future. Yes, the results are frustating, but also fun. When they stop attacking you is when you become an echo chamber for conventional wisdom. That’s also when you cease doing history the way it should be done. [Full Article]
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3327/the-purgatory-of-an-inadvertent-public-intellectual/
The Purgatory of An Inadvertent Public Intellectual
Previous post: Norwegian DNA Now At Wholesale Prices
Next post: The Failed Compromise
{ 6 comments }
Professor Woods, thank you for the excellent introduction to American history, especially in pointing out facts that are not mentioned or downplayed in the typical mainstream treatments. I believe that the responses your book has elicited from both the Right and Left starkly illustrates the similarity in fundamental ideology between these two supposedly disparate groups. Most importantly, thank you so much for injecting more of the truth into historical research. It is a shame that I even have to mention the word truth in this context, but unfortunately, academic “scholarship” and journalism all too often do not place a high priority on this concept. Best of wishes in your future endeavors.
Professor Woods, I think I understand exactly why you have generated such heated criticism. It is precisely because you have challenged the standard interpretation of American history in a book aimed at a general audience. Stating precisely the same views in a graduate level textbook would have generated no interest at all from most reviewers for obvious reasons. It is not solely your ideas they are objecting to, but the thought that you might be encouraging people to think about them. I can’t imagine that is news to you at this point.
I bought a copy of your book on the strength of a review here on the Mises Blog. My only disappointment so far has been that it has left me wanting a deeper treatment of several subjects. Happily, you cite enough sources that I have already started putting together my summer reading list.
Please don’t let the criticism dissuade you from writing for a general audience. If your critics object, let them write a response that addresses your arguments factually and with evidence. Such a debate would be a very welcome change from the usual popular repetition of received wisdom on historical events.
The ad hominem approach to the reviews of the Woods book are improper. Few critical reviews I have seen actually addressed the facts and arguments made in the Woods book, and that is telling. (And even though arguments could be made, such as slavery shows the limits of libertarianism and federalism.)
However, what does this statement mean:
“I was also taken to task by an inexplicably popular “libertarian” blogger who has endorsed–-I am not making this up–Condoleezza Rice for president in 2008. (Can you believe someone like that didn’t like my book?)”
Why does Woods find Rice’s popularity inexplicable? What is the characteristic of the “someone like that” who naturally would not like the book?
Woods also does not address this portion of Young’s article:
“‘Today’s white Christian Southerners are the blood descendants of the men and women who settled this country and gave us the blessings of freedom and prosperity. To give away this inheritance in the name of ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’ would be unconscionable.” While generously urging ”Christian charity” toward blacks, the paper denounces the idea that ”Southerners should give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants.”
Is that a true statement or not? Disavowed or not? If still the opinion of Woods, what on earth does “blood” and “inheritance” have to do with government? I am hopeful, and presume given the Institute’s endorsement of Woods, that this quote is either out of context or disavowed.
It does have nothing to do with the merits of the Woods book, but it provides an interesting inquiry as to whether one is a true advocate for liberty who advocates judging individuals by their race and not their individual merits.
Mike, I think the problems arise from the use of the words “equality” and “fairness.” I would venture a guess that “equality” means equality of results or some form of egalitarianism, and not equality before the law or equality based on the principle that each person is the owner of his or her own person and all property acquired through labor and free exchange. The word “fairness” is subjective, quite open to interpretation, but again I don’t think it is used in the context that a Classical Liberal or Libertarian would use the term. Regarding the Rice comment, I would again venture a guess that opposition to her stems from her credentials as an extremely prominent neocon and specifically the neocon desire to remake the world as they see fit through military violence and conquest. The true protection of American life and property does not have too prominent a place in neocon foreign policy and world-view.
Mike,
I do not think Woods’ comment proves his disbelief of Condi Rice’s popularity (she has to be popular to SOMEONE!), but disbelief that a person who describes himself as a libertarian would actually support Bush’s pet parrot for the presidency.
The second statement made by Woods is meant to be a warning against forced integration of people, in violation of their natural right to freely associate with whoever they choose. Forced integration means changing an established set of standards of civility or knowledge to include everybody, lest someone is left out. An example of this is the lowering standards of reading and comprehension that the US school system is suffering right now; this “inclusion” social engineering experiment is dumbing down the very students it is supposed to help. Try to imagine a community being coerced to include a different people alien to their culture (not inferior, just different); it will lead to immediate conflict. Woods warns against such feel-good, it-takes-a-village, social engineered approach.
Francisco Torres
Monterrey, Mexico.
Professor Woods, you have written a great book. I find it quite interesting that few of the negative reviews of your book seem to be written by individuals who have read your book (or who can read at all, for that matter). Even more interesting is that not one reviewer has been able to refute a fact in your book or even attempt to do so.
Comments on this entry are closed.