Books to Avoid

What history books have you guys have come across that you would urge others to avoid? There's always one or two book threads floating around on Veeky Forums, but I've never seen threads about which books to avoid. I feel like for history it would be just as important to point out bad sources of information as it is to point out good information, so people can understand and disseminate the differences between the two.

Anything by Jared Diamond

most of Peter Brown's works

Night by Elie Weisel or whatever the fuck his name is

Could you elaborate why? I'm not saying either of you are wrong. I'm just curious as to your reasons why you think so.

I'm the Peter Brown lad
While I do enjoy some of Peter Brown's works, in fact, I cite his works when discussing Roman religion. He sometimes tries to whitewash most Christian atrocities as a form of "Populist revolution". One example would be the the part where I believe he talked about the destruction of the Serapeum as an action supported heavily by the people. He also tries to justify Cyril of Alexandria's persecution of Pagans and Jews in his "book of Late Antiquity" as well. Another thing would be his controversial opinion on Late Antiquity. While he did expand on a very interesting subject (Late Antiquity), his perception of it is fairly contrarian. He claims that the later Roman Empire wasn't in decline or falling, but instead it was "Revitalising" or being "Reborn". Some historians (like Bryan Ward-Perkins) called Bullshit on this, showing a degradation of Pottery, becoming handmade, the decrease of home utensils and Villas becoming more simplistic, smaller.
Basically, while he is a good author, also be careful with his works, try and read some other authors as well, like Perkins Bryan, Wolf Liebescheutz and A.H.M Jones.

Black Book of Communism.

""Seven Pillars of Wisdom""
Unless you like reading novels you thought were historical, stay away from this one, unless you like rape and pedophilia, then this one is for you, but not if you love the Ottoman Empire, then pick this book up.

Anything by Ilan Pappe. His books can be summed up as 'the bwitish empire was le bad and israel was nasty >:(' without any nuance or credible evidence to support him. The only guy to write an academic history of the Ottomans in Palestine without looking once at an Ottoman source.

The Many Headed Hydra by Peter Linebaught as well. An over-Marxed work where he argues pirates were a proto-proletariat. More nuanced than anything Pappe has ever done, but constantly misinterprets his sources to fit his worldview.

I don't know about avoid, but anything not published by a university press or journal should be carefully read.

David Irving

>yet another Jared Diamond bait thread

Karl Marx

Please explain. I am frequently met with criticisms of Jared Diamond by the Alt Right et al but have never read an actual valid critique of his overall work. Don't give me the "he said New Guineans have a higher IQ than whites" bullshit, he's not a psychologist and should never have spoken on the topic. If you can't defend your opinion then please provide me with links debunking him other than from American Renaissance.

Peter Green
Jack Weatherford
Jared Diamond
Mary Beard
Gavin Menzies

Anything should be carefully read, anything unreviewed by peers should be read with a handful of salt. Even established Ph.Ds can go off on an autistic tangent.

why

I had never heard of this book so I looked it up a while ago, and even on the fucking wiki page they have cited quotes from him about how he literally made half of it up. Also his dad was literally fucking called Schlomo

t. schlomo sjw

weird i always hear people shit on diamond in SJW circles
never read him tho

>Peter Green

What have you got against Fleetwood Mac, user?

The book is all about Diamond trying to explain why Africans never developed as much as Europeans, or Asians or Middle Easterners. The answer he comes up is geographical determinism, if Africans were placed in Europe they would have developed along the same lines that Europeans did because the environment would demand it.

The right hates him because his answer ins't that Africans are genetically inferior, the left hates him because his answer isn't that the white be keeping the black down and unable to progress.

That makes sense. This argument seems less than nuanced- not too removed from the general consensus of the Arab geographers of the middle ages