As a fan of Thomas Woods work, I am perhaps biased, but I did enjoy this book and found it to be both informative and entertaining with an easy to follow prose.

A good balance to Zinn's 'The Peoples History of the USA' as both could be read alongside the other in order to gain certain perspectives.

I do suggest this to anyone interested in American History or History in general.

85 %

I try to expose myself to varying points of view, as I feel like a hypocrite by telling people who only watch fox news that they need to expose themselves to a greater variety of information, but this was tough, I almost quit several times. This guy claims to be a sort of libertarian, and after reading more about him, seems to have been involved in some nefarious type business with something called "the league of the south" but then later said he was no longer a part of the group. He's got a PHD from Harvard or Columbia in history, so you'd like to think that would register some sort of baseline level of academic accuracy. However, it kept making me think that in this world where so much of our public discourse is just fast news sound bytes, there is also this type of "intellectual" backbone to a lot of this stuff. I'd like to think that by reading more, being exposed to more, getting an Ivy League doctorate in history, we could get away from the types of nonsense that get advanced in this book, which are really just thinly veiled and more erudite renditions of the things you hear Tucker Carlson going on and on about.

The book commits all kinds of reasoning errors and logical incongruencies, which coming off reading Rationality by Steven Pinker seemed more apparent to me than maybe they would have otherwise. For instance, the example he gave of the case where a black student got into medical school instead of a white student, and that particular black student ended up not being a very good doctor, ergo, all affirmative action is bad and all people admitted to schools through affirmative action will be bad. Or the way he will select one instance or one true fact about some historical event, and use that to draw some wildly broad conclusion about a major social event or period, ignoring all other context and counter-arguments. It is that sort of argument that is disappointing at best, (probably malicious in fact) especially coming from a person who ought to know better. I suppose he didn't try to hide the fact that this book was written to be shocking, or provocative, and my guess is he just wrote it to make some money.

What was so pernicious and foul about the book though was that it seemed so hell bent and clever about justifying some awful behavior and trends in society. When discussing slavery, he sort of just says "Well, you know, slavery wasn't a totally insignificant part of the civil war, but really the war was about government overreach primarily, so all you people hanging on to the glory of the south and the antebellum system are totally justified to want to continue in that mindset." Just blew my mind. You could have someone say "Some other factors that played into the civil war were X Y and Z." That seems to me to be a legit path for scholars to take. But instead he just whitewashes all the bad parts or ignores them. Or the parts about how the 14th amendment was never really passed. This book I think was from 2004, so it predated all the more recent nonsense by quite a while, but certainly contains the foundations and misleading information that is so widely circulated now, even a bunch of stuff about voter fraud.

Anyway, I don't regret reading it, and now I am seeing more and more articles about different schools and people trying to ban various books from libraries, which I have to say was an interesting backdrop to this, the way in which this book basically provides an intellectual blueprint (through subtle, clever, and misleading argument) for how to perpetuate a racist and sexist society, makes me feel like the fewer people who read this the better. However, I come back to thinking that stuff like this just needs to be exposed for the nonsense that it is and let the better and more accurate arguments prevail.

An outstanding book that breaks through many of the fallacies we were all force fed in public schools. Woods goes through the basics of American History and brings out the points and events that the government written textbooks don't necessarily want you to hear or read about.

This book will leave you thinking and asking question after question about everything you have ever been taught or heard about the history of our country.

This is a must read for those interested in History. Woods cuts down some misconceptions while explaining the true history behind a number of events in History and how the current liberal interpretation of History has skewed the facts. It is very easy reading and everything is laid out in an organized fashion. I would also recommend checking out other books in this series.

I am a fan of the Politically Incorrect series of historical books. The series typically attempts to give a balanced representation of history, in some cases having to go far to the other extreme of the accepted version that is espoused by the victor. Even if you do not agree with viewpoints given in these books, it is a good thing to get a different perspective. Certainly, a good historian should look at subjects objectively, nay, pragmatically, as possible. One thing I can say: general history does get caught up in repeating the same mantras or narratives and in reality, as one looks more closely to particulars and arguments concerning the issues in an event, things are never as cut and dry as they are presented in generalities. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people don't want to look at the particulars and would rather settle for the more stable (at least reassuring) generalities. Give me the particulars.

I was really looking forward to this book, but I admit that parts were really hard to stomach. I knew going into it that the author rides the far right of the spectrum, and in fact that's why I was looking forward to his findings and perspective. But this dude is utterly infrared. Arriving in the timeline at WWII, this book took a turn for me because the author blamed England, defended Germany and pretty much cast FDR as a just a follower of Churchill's lead. Yeah. Oh, and this dude sympathizes with Stalin, too.

I enjoy perspectives that differ from what I'm used to, but anyone who defends Germany's actions during the war is... beyond the pale. The book probably made other worthwhile insights after this section, but whatever they were I must've tuned them out. I probably should have just put the book down when I became infuriated. Two stars instead of one because the first 2/3 started well.

Awesome. The book laid out the many deceits that have lead to our society today -- politically, economically, and culturally. It tells of the actions of the various presidents (not all Democrats) that eroded away the original intent of the Constitution and the well-meaning politicians that have contributed to our country's fall from prosperity.

The concept behind this book is great. There are a slew of historical facts that are so vastly over-simplified when you are a kid in history class that they end up effectively being lies. Many history books and teachers also present complicated constitutional issues as if they are simple, with of course the history teacher's view presented as the one "true" view. The problem with this book is that Woods does these exact same things, but he seems to think it's somehow better because he's coming from the conservative angle instead of the liberal. He has some great facts in here, but they are polluted by the fact that he is a conservative idealogue first and a historian second.

The best example I can think of is comparing his chapter on Reagan and the greed of the 80s to his chapter on Clinton. Die-hard Clintonistas like to ignore anything bad about the guy, and Woods' Clinton chapter is an amusing attack that brings up some of the lesser-known bad things about Clinton. But while Republicans tend to be just as ridiculous about Reagan, his chapter on Reagan and the 80s is just a straight-up love-fest. The intellectually honest and "politically incorrect" thing to do is bring up the bad things that people on both sides of the fence ignore about their own icons, not slam one and raise the other as a Saint.

Another great example of his oversimplification of the facts and presentation of his view as "historical fact" is his comment on Michael Milken. Woods goes on a rant about the greed of the 80s, states repeatedly that Milken was "not guilty of any crime," and argues that Milken was convicted on six petty charges - what Woods refers to as "technicalities." In fact, Milken pled guilty to six securities felonies and the Judge in his case stated, "You were willing to commit only crimes that were unlikely to be detected... When a man of your power in the financial world... repeatedly conspires to violate, and violates, securities and tax business in order to achieve more power and wealth for himself... a significant prison term is required." Apparently this history professor at Ludwig von Mises Institute believes he understands securities laws and the criminal code better than the judge who was actually presiding over the case. Milken's story is a politically charged one, and the prosecutors in that case did a number of very questionable things, but Milken's story is a complicated web and to present the opinion that "Milken was not guilty of any crime" as if it's a historical fact is ludicrous.

Similarly, Woods goes after the religious freedom argument and carries his strict constructionist viewpoint as if it's the only way to go. His section on the Constitution is basically: Here's a quote from one or two of the founding fathers, so that's all the Constitution means, and all the attorneys, law professors, and judges in the world who disagree with me are wrong. This area of the law is far more complicated than that, and legal scholars have disagreed for decades over both a) how locked down we need to be to the original words of the founders and b) what exactly the two religion clauses mean. Woods clearly doesn't get that, which is understandable as he's not an attorney or a judge, and he is completely unqualified to be presenting his oversimplified view of the Constitution as if it is the only true position.

Finally, his whole discussion of the South is so defensive that when I was reading it, I immediately guessed he lived in the South, and went to look it up. Not only was I right (he lives in Alabama), he was present at the founding of the League of the South and has contributed to its newsletter. The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization that promotes the "independence of the Southern people" from the "American empire," sees opposition to its promotion of the Confederate flag as "cultural genocide." After seeing him spend an entire chapter devoted essentially to downplaying the effect of slavery and trying to defend the Confederacy, somehow I'm not surprised.

I wish this book had been written by someone with a critical eye towards both sides of the aisle. As it is, it's a book with a few fantastic little-known facts hidden in a mess of political propaganda and excuses for the Confederacy, slavery, and Native American exploitation.

Published by Regnery Publishing in 2004.

As a real history teacher (as opposed to the coach history "teacher" that too many people have had) I was looking forward to this book since I read and enjoyed other Politically Incorrect Guide... (P.I.G.) books.

I have few quibbles or quarrels with the facts presented. Woods has done his research and I would even recommend parts of this book as a supplement to read alongside a regular American History book. He is especially strong on his facts about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

However, I do have an issue with the way it is presented. Woods states in his preface that this book is not intended to be an alternative, non-PC history book. But, what is is exactly. I have pegged it as a supplement, but Woods really fails to do so. Sometimes, the book tries to come off as a "Gotcha! Betcha didn't know this!" trivia book, other times it goes into pretty strong detail and nearly is as well-rounded as some high school or middle school textbooks (particularly in the Revolutionary War/Constitution section). The end of the book (Clinton) comes off almost like one of the dime-a-dozen political books that are written by Michael Moore and Ann Coulter.

This guide to American History does enter a crowded field...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2012/...

The lack of notes in the P.I.G. books (Politically Incorrect Guides) that I've read so far is frustrating. They offer quite a different perspective which I imagine could be just as biased as the leanings in other books the claim to debunk.

I offer as example a 19th century soundbite taken completely out of context to support the portrait of a innocent, peaceful Confederacy. Page 87 Woods writes,

"Johnson argued that Radical Reconstruction showed such contempt for law and precedent that it proved the Southern secessionists' point at the time they withdrew from the Union: that their constitutional liberties would not be secure under the administration elected in 1860. He said:

'Those who advocated the right of secession alleged in their own justification that we had no regard for law and that their rights of property, life, and liberty would not be safe under the Constitution as administered by us. If we now verify their assertion, we prove that they were in truth and in fact fighting for their liberty, and instead of branding their leaders with the dishonoring name of traitors against a righteous and legal government we elevate them in history to the rank of self-sacrificing patriots, consecrate them to the admiration of the world, and place them by the side of Washington, Hampden, and Sidney. '


QUITE an interesting quote from a standing president following the civil war, uncited, I looked this up: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pi... , finding that our little history book left out this little tidbit he said right after; "No; let us leave them to the infamy they deserve, punish them as they should be punished, according to law, and take upon ourselves no share of the odium which they should bear alone."


This is a preemptive write up (most likely all that will be offered) since I am only at page 87 but just wanted to jump at this opportunity since I am at my computer with some spare time

You could shorten the title to simply "incorrect."

Usually the words politically incorrect announce someone who is proud of having gone against the grain. Thomas E. Woods is here to show us that a person can be unusually proud of committing all the sins he purports to denounce.

Woods' aim is to correct the cherished myths of American History that are advanced (without evidence!) by Liberals/Political correctness/people who disagree with Woods. The problem is in order to do this, Woods does exactly the same thing.

If you're going to point out the inadequacies of the established historical narrative, you might want to put some time in research. Woods' bizarre characterization of the Civil War as a justifiable assertion of States rights to nullify Federal law is Exhibit A.

Any treatment of the Civil War that sidesteps or dismisses (as Woods does) the topic of slavery is so clearly ignorant of the facts as to be a farce. You could argue that there was a State's rights dispute - but the chief right the southern states wanted was the right to own people. Don't believe me? Okay, but you'd have to ignore the n  Mississippin, n  South Carolinan, n  Georgian, and Texas declarations of Secession - for starters. It would be fair to argue that there were more issues than slavery but to dismiss it?! No serious scholar could do that.

Woods might be tired of slavery dwarfing all other discussions but that does not give him license to artificially add weight to factors he's more interested in.

If this was the only misstep in Woods' book, it would be fatally flawed. Sadly, there are many more.

To be true in Woods' eyes all a theory needs is to be out of favor with the people he dislikes. There are certainly sacred cows in academia and theories that have gaps, inaccuracies or out and out fraud (J. Ellis, I'm looking at you...) but Woods doesn't bother to tear these down with facts. He's sure he's right - and so he just screams out his message - adding volume instead of clarity.

In denouncing the cherished myths of academia he creates his own mythology. Those who embrace that mythology may enjoy the book, but they will have learned nothing.

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History": fixed it for ya.