Ricardo,
You're not a sinner. You're just a Siberian
tiger, :-).
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Ricardo Duchesne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 11:05 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:11946] Re: taking stock
>
>
>> > Look at the responses to the last post on total foreign trade,
>>
>> Why? Are you telling me that you want me to join in with your
accusations against
>> those who disagree with you?
>
>I know where you stand on this issue, and would never expect that. But
>favoring a position requires knowing why one favours it.
>
>
>> > only
>> > one took direct issue with the argument and the figures I used, which
>> > is a fair critique, but am also being told that the
>> > material I used on total trade is from the 1980s when the fact is
>> > that most of the sources favouring my view where from the 1990s, as
>> > was indicated.
>>
>> As long as you are merely throwing sources at each other, the accusation
of
> obsolete
>> data is standard procedure.
>
>I think I have done more than throw sources, but am also trying to
>indicate that the position am taking is the latest consensus among
>economic historians. Even Deane (1965), a source which Mat just cited
>(and argument which I did mention in an earlier post), no longer
>thinks that *total* foreign trade was the major factor.
>
>RD:
>> > (Not that there's anything wrong with older sources,
>> > as Blaut appears to think,
>>
>
>MP:
>> Now you're back taunting. Let Jim speak for himself.
>
>Please, Michael, be sensible; I think you are an excellent moderator
>given the circumstances and the number of people you have to deal
>with, but Jim has been stating over and over
>that my views are old stuff, conventional. Perhaps you acquiesce when
>someome argues against your views; I dont, 'cause I don't argue
>unless I know what I am saying. And if I recognize a good argument I
>will - one way or another - acknowledge it, whether by saying it
>directly, or by responding in a serious scholarly manner.
>
>RD:
> > > with this silly idea that I am defending a
>> > "conventional" view whereas he is on the side of the newest
>> > scholarship! Fact is that both sides have old and new sources).
>> > Besides, I have made more references than anyone else,
>>
>MP:
>> We are not keeping score here. The question should be if you fail to
convince
> us on
>> this list, either the rest are stubborn or stupid or you have just not
made your
>> point because you may be wrong or you may have a poor technique for
>communicating.
>> It is far easier to assume the fault lies with those who disagree with
you.
>
>RD: What am writing is part of a future paper, of which the colonial
>trade will be just a section. I am not faulting
>anybody for not accepting what I have said. Am only asking for
>serious academic responses, rather than this stuff about eurocentrism
>and all. You can be sure that if someone challenged me seriously I
>would raise the level of my arguments more. But Proyect must be
>disappointed with Blaut whom he expected to take me but has instead
>relented.
>
>I agree with you that I may have been insensitive at times (as I may be
>here again). But I cant always help it. Guess am a sinner too.
>Anyways, this debate will end anytime soon, and then I am out of here, at
>least for a while.
>
>
