There's a poll going on over at History News Network. Out of five you choose which is the worst book in print.

http://hnn.us/

I voted for the book claiming Thomas Jefferson to be an evangelical Christian.

I thought we were voting on history, not fiction.

Tough choice with Menzies also being on the list. But I'll at least give him the benefit of the doubt for merely being overzealous and hasty in his conclusions, not for inventing outright falsehoods, which David Barton certainly does.

How the hell is Zinn leading the pack? Say what you want about the perspective of People's History, but he's thorough about his sources at least and is honest about where he's coming from. He doesn't call it a definitive history, merely a different side of history. At the very least, it isn't full of outright falsehoods.

My guess is people are simply voting for books they've actually heard of.

voted for the one that said china discovered america.
dilorenzo is very credible, biased poll itt

Gavin Menzies

I read 1421 back in '06, I think. He didn't convince me, but it wasn't until later -- when I spotted a book of his on how a Chinese fleet sailed into the Med and ignited the Renaissance that I realized Menzies was really off his rocker.

He has a new one now about how Atlantis was real. Dude is off his rocker. But he's also not a historian. Nor is David Barton. I try not to be elitist in my evaluation of history books, but sometimes it is painfully obvious when people have no sense of methodology.

Zinn, by contrast, is at least systematic about his sources. He has a perspective, and it's a highly-biased perspective, but he is at least honest about it. He says "this is an alternative view of X from the perspective of other people." Barton's nonsense book says "the prevailing view of X is not correct, so let me give you the real story," except his story isn't just an issue of perspective. It's pure bull****.

The Bill O'Reilly book on Lincoln.

Wow, there is so many bull****ing books on the market. And the worst is, if you don't know the subject, you can trust them.

My grandma got this for me for christmas last year as she is a huge O'Reilly fan, I've only read the first 30 or so pages but it seems pretty lol so far.

the bible? I assume a lot of christians thinks a bunch of things in it is true.

who cares if he's honest if he's factually incorrect and his theories have been argued and refuted 80 years ago? he's either a political activist masquerading as a historian who doesn't actually know the historiography (yep) or he's dishonest. i think we all agree that he's not dishonest.

He was not masquerading. He studied under Hofstadter at Columbia and got his PhD in History, did a post-doc at Harvard, was a sitting professor, made original arguments using oft-ignored primary sources, and had successful, peer-reviewed history works. He was most definitely a historian, which is much more than can be said for most of the other authors on the list. Zinn is maligned because people did not like what he had to say, not because he didn't "understand historiography."

Im gonna stick with Dan Carlin's blast of ''Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world''. If you want Genghis Khan turned into a ''bringer of religious freedom and peace'', get this. Makes Khan look like Robert Lee.

I won't say that Weatherford's account doesn't have its share of problems and anachronisms, but I do think Dan has been a little unfair thus far as regards "the revisionists." One reason we have such a negative account of the Mongols is that the leading accounts were written by their enemies, who regarded them (not without reason, of course) not just as brutal conquerors, but as savage barbarians who came from an obviously inferior civilization.

I see your point and i think weatherford's book is alright for starters; maybe dan (and i) are taking a book intended to ''amateur historians'' and slamming it with our ''hardcore historian'' point of view.

And to be fair, Weatherford isn't a historian (he's an anthropologist), and sometimes it shows. Rather painfully. The book on Mongol Queens (though I have only read about 2 chapters) seems better IMO.

At least most of the "who, what, when and where"s are mostly accurate with more being confirmed as time goes on.

The Book of Morman however has nothing creddiable to add. I havent heared of any of thier stories matching up to anything.

A good chunk of the historical context spoken about in the bible has been proven true, especially the ''post-exodus'' period. But that aside, the influence of the bible in history itself, regardless of its truth or not, makes it a historical document of the utmost importance for historians. One could easily say the bible shaped europe as it is(see Europe from its Origins for more info)

truth hurts, huh?

Sure does, the publisher withdrew the book after it won the poll.

And yet,

Zinn is a joke. Mostly fiction looks like a hollywood version of history.

At this point I now call it the Cruise-a-fiction.

Updated link.... http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/147149

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/20...history-books/

A People's History of the United States
By Howard Zinn

A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable and makes no serious attempt to address the biggest question a leftist can ask about U.S. history: why have most Americans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalist republic in which they live?

--Michael Kazin, professor of history, Georgetown University [from Dissent]

By convincing several generations of Americans that leadership does not matter and that all beneficial change comes from the bottom, it has played a significant role in the destruction of American liberalism.

--David Kaiser, William B. Pratt Chair of Military History, Naval War College

It is a synthesis of the radical and revisionist historiography of the past decade. ... Not only does the book read like a scissors and paste-pot job, but even less attractive, so much attention to historians, historiography and historical polemic leaves precious little space for the substance of history

--Michael Kammen, Newton C. Farr Professor of American History and Culture (emeritus), Cornell University [from the Washington Pos
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/articl....7fBegsgD.dpuf