When reading Parenti, you have to understand first and foremost that he is writing as a polemicist first and historian second. He is deliberately going against the mainstream grain as a first priority. As a result, he does play fast and loose with the facts and the sourcing.
But I wouldn't say he is BAD history. His extremely controversial book on Yugoslavia aside (which I never read) its very rare that he writes anything outright false. In fact the vast majority of what he outright asserts is TRUE...in broad strokes. His takes just largely lack nuance.
But there's a place for that kind of agitator, absolutely. The long and short for Parenti is read him, think about what he writes - but don't take him as gospel, don't cite him in an academic paper. Its on you to fill in the gaps of nuance that Parenti isn't concerned with (because his writing has its own priorities).
I'll try to weigh in now I'm not shit hammered
When reading Parenti, you have to understand first and foremost that he is writing as a polemicist first and historian second. He is deliberately going against the mainstream grain as a first priority. As a result, he does play fast and loose with the facts and the sourcing.
But I wouldn't say he is BAD history. His extremely controversial book on Yugoslavia aside (which I never read) its very rare that he writes anything outright false. In fact the vast majority of what he outright asserts is TRUE...in broad strokes. His takes just largely lack nuance.
But there's a place for that kind of agitator, absolutely. The long and short for Parenti is read him, think about what he writes - but don't take him as gospel, don't cite him in an academic paper. Its on you to fill in the gaps of nuance that Parenti isn't concerned with (because his writing has its own priorities).