Justin:
You're kidding right? There is no question who has the higher level of
schilarship. Brenner is one of the major historians of our time. Blaut is
just another professor. He might be right, but he can't touch Brenner for
scholarship.
Actually, Jim Blaut is not just another professor.
How to determine whether someone is one the major historians: There is a book called
The Brenner Debate, with articles and responses discussing B's thesis about the rise
of capitalism. If the people in your field name a major debate after you, such that it
can be referred to by just your name,
Justin wrote:
"How to determine whether someone is one the major historians: There is a
book called The Brenner Debate, with articles and responses discussing B's
thesis about the rise of capitalism. If the people in your field name a
major debate after you, such that it can be referred to by
I don't think that Justin's test should be accepted uncritically. Weren't there
debates about the Bell Curve? His test might have been somewhat valid in the past --
perhaps even in the time of the Brenner Debate -- but now with big $$$ promoting hacks
.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How
Louis, this is unworthy. Brenner like Faurisson? If I didn't know you better, I'd say
you were a fool. As it is, the remark approaches legal defamation. Need I point out
that being refuted by being taken seriously is indeed the sign og major scholarship,
while being refuted by being trashed as
At 11:32 AM 9/27/00 EDT, you wrote:
Louis, this is unworthy. Brenner like Faurisson? If I didn't know you
better, I'd say you were a fool. As it is, the remark approaches legal
defamation. Need I point out that being refuted by being taken seriously is
indeed the sign og major scholarship, while
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 10:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Eurocentric Historians
Louis, this is unworthy. Brenner like Faurisson? If I didn't know you
better, I'd say you were a fool. As it is, the remark
I wrote:
Brenner clearly went out on a limb to attack the D-of-U school. And
Blaut attacks back, also going out on a limb. I won't say which of these
two has higher levels of scholarship. It seems to me that both "bend the
stick" a little too far in an effort to make it straight (i.e., the
Louis writes:
Yeah, there's a new Brenner debate goin' on as well. Mostly people
refuting his NLR article on the imminent collapse of capitalism, just as
they refuted his earlier articles claiming some kind of privileged status
for the rise of capitalism in Great Britain.
Brenner didn't claim
OK, maybe there is something wrong with the Big Name structure of academia: I wouldn't
dispute that. Part of my point is that Brenner is a Big Name. Not all Big Names are
any good: I know lots who aren't. But Brenner is a Big Name who is first rate. part of
the way you can tell this is that he
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,
Jim Devine wrote:
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
I'm at the same school. Yes, a heavy teaching load and an underfunded library,
but, please, we're not "stuck"...
Peter
Carrol Cox wrote:
Stephanie Coontz, stuck in a school with a heavy teaching load and an
inadequate research library
Why are we discussing this again? didn't we kill this topic? Nonetheless, I
don't see why Blaut's distortions should go unanswered.
Jim Blaut wrote:
ROBERT BRENNER IN THE TUNNEL OF TIME
Robert Brenner is a Marxist, a follower of one tradition in Marxism that
is as diffusionist, as
In a message dated 9/26/00 6:12:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brenner clearly went out on a limb to attack the D-of-U school. And Blaut
attacks back, also going out on a limb. I won't say which of these two has
higher levels of scholarship. It seems to me that both
16 matches
Mail list logo
