The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £0.25
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Politically Incorrect Guides) for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.25, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
An American history professor sets the record straight on American history with an irreverant and hard-hitting look at the nation's most important people and events, concluding that the American Revolution was fought by conservatives and the First Amendment accepted state-sponsored churches. Origina
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Firstly as an amateur historian, I did so enjoy this book. The author has a decidedly old-school conservative viewpoint of American History and gives short shift to any form of PCism.
Saying that, the work while written in an engaging simplistic manner, Dr. Woods seems to ignore blissfully any topics which cause it to deviate from it's shattering of PC icons (e.g. ignoring the Zimmerman Telegram as a major factor in the US entry to WWI.)
However, in general the author does provide alternative narratives to prevailing pre-conceived historical notions, and for that I recommend this book.
Saying that, the work while written in an engaging simplistic manner, Dr. Woods seems to ignore blissfully any topics which cause it to deviate from it's shattering of PC icons (e.g. ignoring the Zimmerman Telegram as a major factor in the US entry to WWI.)
However, in general the author does provide alternative narratives to prevailing pre-conceived historical notions, and for that I recommend this book.
1 of 7 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
In my opinion, the way to view this book is part of a Catholic fightback, where the author is being careful not to tangle with the Jewish 'ZOG' which of course is much of established 'PCness'. Hence the odd partial PC-ness of this book.
To get the idea, consider Europe, where the Jewish/Marxian types - the descendants of the USSR mass murderers - promote immigration, much of it Muslim, presumably to damage the host countries. It's a three way war of white Europeans vs invaders vs Jews. So far, there's been an alliance, not necessarily even recognised, of invaders and Jews. Whether this will continue, I have no idea, though I hope not.
Now. In the USA, illegals etc are usually Mexican, not Muslims. As with Europe, we can assume a three way war of White American Protestants vs Catholic invaders vs Jews. (There are blacks too in the US but numerically they're less important, just as e.g. Hindus are less important here). Again, so far there's been a de facto alliance of Mexicans and Jews. I don't know whether it will continue - again, I hope not.
Woods's book I think must be predicated on that. He reconsiders WW2 as far as he dares - probably because the USSR more or less extinguished the Russian Orthodox church. He thinks the pilgrim fathers were all the same - as far as he's concerned, they're all Protestants. The official Catholic view on 'capitalism' is to frown on it, but support private property [I think - no doubt there are numerous encyclicals]. The Spanish Civil War was essentially Russian Jews vs Catholics, just as countries like Poland were the same - 'communists' vs Catholics. I think if you read between the lines, this is what Woods is hinting at, though there are of course other issues. Catholics like to think democracy developed through them. They are only just starting to fight back against the WW2 consensus. I think this explains the rather odd nature of Woods's book and I'd expect there to be further detail which confirms this.
(Why not comment with your thoughts?)
To get the idea, consider Europe, where the Jewish/Marxian types - the descendants of the USSR mass murderers - promote immigration, much of it Muslim, presumably to damage the host countries. It's a three way war of white Europeans vs invaders vs Jews. So far, there's been an alliance, not necessarily even recognised, of invaders and Jews. Whether this will continue, I have no idea, though I hope not.
Now. In the USA, illegals etc are usually Mexican, not Muslims. As with Europe, we can assume a three way war of White American Protestants vs Catholic invaders vs Jews. (There are blacks too in the US but numerically they're less important, just as e.g. Hindus are less important here). Again, so far there's been a de facto alliance of Mexicans and Jews. I don't know whether it will continue - again, I hope not.
Woods's book I think must be predicated on that. He reconsiders WW2 as far as he dares - probably because the USSR more or less extinguished the Russian Orthodox church. He thinks the pilgrim fathers were all the same - as far as he's concerned, they're all Protestants. The official Catholic view on 'capitalism' is to frown on it, but support private property [I think - no doubt there are numerous encyclicals]. The Spanish Civil War was essentially Russian Jews vs Catholics, just as countries like Poland were the same - 'communists' vs Catholics. I think if you read between the lines, this is what Woods is hinting at, though there are of course other issues. Catholics like to think democracy developed through them. They are only just starting to fight back against the WW2 consensus. I think this explains the rather odd nature of Woods's book and I'd expect there to be further detail which confirms this.
(Why not comment with your thoughts?)
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
294 reviews
216 of 254 people found the following review helpful
The proof is in the doofuses
12 Jun 2006
Format:Paperback
All you need to do is read the one-star reviews to see why you should read this book. We get told by one reviewer that it's "inaccurate," but, SURPRISE, no actual examples. Another reviewer thinks he has an example of an error when he says Woods calls Jefferson a Republican, when he was a Democrat. Why I am even bothering to reply to such an idiotic misunderstanding I do not know, but Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, and his party was nearly always called the Republicans. No, it isn't the same Republican Party as today, but that WAS the name of Jefferson's party. Where do these doofuses come from?
I like the criticism that Woods condemns Woodrow Wilson and his decision to enter WWI. Is there anyone around still defending that decision? Hilarious. I also like "Woods blames the Great Depression on liberal social programs." Woods actually blames the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression, and Hoover and FDR's interventionist policies for making it so long. So what that a zillion other scholars are now saying the same thing. To a liberal today, this is enough to make you an "extremist," regardless of the evidence you have in your favor or the credentials you can boast.
I don't see any page on which Woods defends an abstract "right" to hold slaves. That would be a strange position for a libertarian like Woods to hold. But this is the kind of hysteria and irrationalism you can expect when you dare, like Woods, to ask serious and important questions. Even worse is that Woods is obviously quite prepared to ask and to answer these questions. He is a Harvard Ph.D. and holds his other degrees from Columbia. So instead of carefully answering Woods, he needs to be crushed, smeared, and destroyed. That is how these enemies of the truth operate. They hate their propaganda being exposed to the light.
It seems to me you have three choices: you can passively accept the establishment version of American history, you can actively defend that establishment view, like a good robot, against anyone who dares to question it, or you can THINK FOR YOURSELF, and go wherever the evidence takes you. Woods has more than enough qualifications to guide you through.
You can read about him at ThomasEWoods.com, though I don't know if he blogs anywhere.
I like the criticism that Woods condemns Woodrow Wilson and his decision to enter WWI. Is there anyone around still defending that decision? Hilarious. I also like "Woods blames the Great Depression on liberal social programs." Woods actually blames the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression, and Hoover and FDR's interventionist policies for making it so long. So what that a zillion other scholars are now saying the same thing. To a liberal today, this is enough to make you an "extremist," regardless of the evidence you have in your favor or the credentials you can boast.
I don't see any page on which Woods defends an abstract "right" to hold slaves. That would be a strange position for a libertarian like Woods to hold. But this is the kind of hysteria and irrationalism you can expect when you dare, like Woods, to ask serious and important questions. Even worse is that Woods is obviously quite prepared to ask and to answer these questions. He is a Harvard Ph.D. and holds his other degrees from Columbia. So instead of carefully answering Woods, he needs to be crushed, smeared, and destroyed. That is how these enemies of the truth operate. They hate their propaganda being exposed to the light.
It seems to me you have three choices: you can passively accept the establishment version of American history, you can actively defend that establishment view, like a good robot, against anyone who dares to question it, or you can THINK FOR YOURSELF, and go wherever the evidence takes you. Woods has more than enough qualifications to guide you through.
You can read about him at ThomasEWoods.com, though I don't know if he blogs anywhere.
141 of 166 people found the following review helpful
Pungent and Provocative. If you only read one book in the "Politically Incorrect Guide" series, this should be it.
3 Sep 2006
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
There is very little in this book that I didn't know from other historical sources already, but with all the misinformation out there it will open your mind to examine what you read or think you know more critically. Dr. Woods has done us a big favor by putting it all together in this exceedingly readable volume. Don't expect it to be a comprehensive history. It's not meant to be. It's more like the "missing" books - in this case what's missing from standard American history texts.
Woods knocks off one myth and misperception after another - the Puritans "stole" Indian lands; and my favorites, as a long-term student of economics: Herbert Hoover "did nothing" about the market crash (he did way too much and hastened a depression); FDR changed all that (he continued and expanded on Hoover policies to give us another 10 years of depression), and so on. None of this should be news but apparently it is and that's why we need a book like this.
Moreover, Woods presents it - even some of the more arcane constitutional issues - with remarkable clarity. He has a facility to put facts in the context of contiguous events as well as fast forwarding to the "PC" of today. There's no sugar coating here. We see some of our treasured ideas and men - warts and all. You probably won't "agree" with (perhaps I should say like) all his findings (I didn't).
The organization of the book with highlights, bullet summaries and sidebars adds to comprehension and recall. While I found a few nits to pick here and there they are too insignificant to lower the rating of the book. Buy it. Read it! And have your kids read it when they study American history.
Woods knocks off one myth and misperception after another - the Puritans "stole" Indian lands; and my favorites, as a long-term student of economics: Herbert Hoover "did nothing" about the market crash (he did way too much and hastened a depression); FDR changed all that (he continued and expanded on Hoover policies to give us another 10 years of depression), and so on. None of this should be news but apparently it is and that's why we need a book like this.
Moreover, Woods presents it - even some of the more arcane constitutional issues - with remarkable clarity. He has a facility to put facts in the context of contiguous events as well as fast forwarding to the "PC" of today. There's no sugar coating here. We see some of our treasured ideas and men - warts and all. You probably won't "agree" with (perhaps I should say like) all his findings (I didn't).
The organization of the book with highlights, bullet summaries and sidebars adds to comprehension and recall. While I found a few nits to pick here and there they are too insignificant to lower the rating of the book. Buy it. Read it! And have your kids read it when they study American history.
181 of 223 people found the following review helpful
Poor kid
23 Feb 2006
Format:Paperback
I've never posted a review on Amazon before, but I couldn't help it after seeing the "Kid's Review" below. For one thing, he calls Woods a "jingoist." Sorry, kid, but you're a pretty crummy reader if you think Woods, a conservative who criticizes just about every war I can see, is a "jingoist."
1.) The argument that the revolutionaries were conservatives is a very old one, and supported by a lot of fairly smart people, so it probably can't be dismissed with the non-argument Junior gives here.
2.) The Civil War was obviously not over slavery at first, given that Lincoln himself said it wasn't. Woods nowhere says that the Union's unfair taxation caused the war. He makes a brief point about tariffs, but if you blink you'll miss it.
3.) This is such a ridiculous caricature it's not worth dignifying.
4.) Obviously the kid's review knows nothing about the history of land purchases from the Indians. Only a moron thinks the New England tribes were "kicked off" in the seventeenth century, which is all Woods is saying. The poor kid is thinking of nineteenth-century Indian removal.
5.) Well, FDR DIDN'T get us out of the Depression! Even mainstream historians concede that! Just look at the employment statistics for goodness sake. And I have absolutely no idea what the kid means by FDR "sold us out to the Japanese," but I am absolutely sure nothing Woods says could possibly be described that way.
6.) Again, Woods takes a nuanced view and the kid writes a caricature. Woods says the McCarthy matter is a complicated one to sort out, but he does quote some liberals of today who admit that McCarthy was more right than his critics. Or did our kid skip those pages?
7.) The kid knows nothing about Woods, apparently. Woods has written endlessly on economics and on the inefficiencies and immorality of socialism. THAT was what brought down the Soviet Union. Woods would be the last person to give credit to a politician.
But the fact that the kid calls the book "jingoist" really takes the cake. The book is a systematic indictment of the U.S. government, not a celebration of it, as anyone who actually read it (as opposed to reading the front and back covers) would know.
Buy this book for all the kids in your life, so they won't grow up like little Mr. Propaganda.
1.) The argument that the revolutionaries were conservatives is a very old one, and supported by a lot of fairly smart people, so it probably can't be dismissed with the non-argument Junior gives here.
2.) The Civil War was obviously not over slavery at first, given that Lincoln himself said it wasn't. Woods nowhere says that the Union's unfair taxation caused the war. He makes a brief point about tariffs, but if you blink you'll miss it.
3.) This is such a ridiculous caricature it's not worth dignifying.
4.) Obviously the kid's review knows nothing about the history of land purchases from the Indians. Only a moron thinks the New England tribes were "kicked off" in the seventeenth century, which is all Woods is saying. The poor kid is thinking of nineteenth-century Indian removal.
5.) Well, FDR DIDN'T get us out of the Depression! Even mainstream historians concede that! Just look at the employment statistics for goodness sake. And I have absolutely no idea what the kid means by FDR "sold us out to the Japanese," but I am absolutely sure nothing Woods says could possibly be described that way.
6.) Again, Woods takes a nuanced view and the kid writes a caricature. Woods says the McCarthy matter is a complicated one to sort out, but he does quote some liberals of today who admit that McCarthy was more right than his critics. Or did our kid skip those pages?
7.) The kid knows nothing about Woods, apparently. Woods has written endlessly on economics and on the inefficiencies and immorality of socialism. THAT was what brought down the Soviet Union. Woods would be the last person to give credit to a politician.
But the fact that the kid calls the book "jingoist" really takes the cake. The book is a systematic indictment of the U.S. government, not a celebration of it, as anyone who actually read it (as opposed to reading the front and back covers) would know.
Buy this book for all the kids in your life, so they won't grow up like little Mr. Propaganda.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
