I have seen some posters dismissing this book as not being good history. I am inordinately fond of this book and I would like to see something more substantive before I relegate it to the status of unneeded revisionist history.
So far I have seen Green Bean, Spider, and Yankee Blue dissing Dr. Loewen.
I am wondering if there is anything to their ( or anyone else’s ) reservations.
Good book. Important stuff in there. Not comprehensive, of course, but I’ve yet to see anyone refute his scholarship. I’m all ears, though.
Along the same lines, Richard Schenkman was similarly dissed.
Both Schenkman (sp?) and Loewen supply many, many references, so does this mean that they’re just picking the wrong references? I don’t think they just made up the stuff in their books.
As I mentioned in the History Book thread, I am rearranging my office, so my books are boxed. As soon as am able to get to the book, I will provide some examples of why Loewen isn’t all that reliable. (I did say that Shenkman is way worse!)
And Mjollnir, a person doesn’t have to “make stuff up” for it to be inaccurate. Plus, they don’t supply nearly enough references (especially Shenkman). If you are going to write a book about “lies an d myths” in American history, you better be able to back up what you say REALLY WELL.