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 bot
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 t
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.
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, th
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,
someon
