I thought my conclusion was obvious, so that I didn't have to say it. Maybe
I'd choose Brenner over Blaut on one specific issue (say, the
underdevelopment issue). But I'd never rank them in general terms. Maybe
one is right about one issue, but the other is right about another. More
likely,
I have an additional point: one can't rank different people in terms of
"scholarship," since there are different kinds of scholarship for different
purposes. Someone who's trying to argue for a very specific point of
history will mobilize all sorts of primary sources. On the other hand,
