Glad to see you set up a profile page. You pretty much summed up my own argument. Williams will no doubt try to justify his endorsement of Crocker and try to show that he has been misunderstood or will try to divert attention onto something else. I'm not really interested anymore.

Frankly, I don't care why Crocker produces bad history. It's enough for me to know that it is bad. It may also be harmful in terms of the misunderstandings it promotes. However, Richard Williams either overlooks bad history or doesn't even know/care whether it's bad history so long as it supports his political agenda. I've seen that too many times already, and most clearly in the Crocker instance. The irony is that he in fact comes off behaving in precisely the same way he claims left/liberal/socialist/whatever label he so desires historians come off as when they endorse work he doesn't like. For Richard Williams, it's the politics, not the history, that counts.

I just don't let it bug me. To deal with Richard is like teaching a pig to sing. Better to devote quality time to more constructive pursuits. I suggest others follow that example (I would never come across Richard Williams if it wasn't for this blog, for example). He's established himself as a fraud, and I would think that would be enough.

But I do agree that Richard Williams likes it for the political leanings…

I am well aware of his association with Lew Rockwell, but let's not let that enter into the discussion. His book is crap because it is bad history and not because of his political leanings. And the reason Williams likes it is because of his political leanings and not because it is good history.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crocker/crocker-arch…

Glad to see you set up a profile page. You pretty much summed up my own argument. Williams will no doubt try to justify his endorsement of Crocker and try to show that he has been misunderstood or will try to divert attention onto something else. I'm not really interested anymore.

Frankly, I don't care why Crocker produces bad history. It's enough for me to know that it is bad. It may also be harmful in terms of the misunderstandings it promotes. However, Richard Williams either overlooks bad history or doesn't even know/care whether it's bad history so long as it supports his political agenda. I've seen that too many times already, and most clearly in the Crocker instance. The irony is that he in fact comes off behaving in precisely the same way he claims left/liberal/socialist/whatever label he so desires historians come off as when they endorse work he doesn't like. For Richard Williams, it's the politics, not the history, that counts.

I just don't let it bug me. To deal with Richard is like teaching a pig to sing. Better to devote quality time to more constructive pursuits. I suggest others follow that example (I would never come across Richard Williams if it wasn't for this blog, for example). He's established himself as a fraud, and I would think that would be enough.

But I do agree that Richard Williams likes it for the political leanings…

I am well aware of his association with Lew Rockwell, but let's not let that enter into the discussion. His book is crap because it is bad history and not because of his political leanings. And the reason Williams likes it is because of his political leanings and not because it is good history.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crocker/crocker-arch…