author ignores "powerful revisionism" but the book is still a gem?

Submitted by dante (United States), Apr 29, 2022 at 14:01

confused by your parenthetical comment in the first paragraph: "(Before going further, note that he ignores the powerful body of revisionist history, limiting himself only to the increasingly discredited conventional history.)" one would imagine that the issues are well-known to specialists like DP. others could have used some annotation or citations to explanatory works.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".