9 Likes
Yes, it was.
12 Likes
Well, if that’s the best you can manage…
11 Likes
11 Likes
10 Likes
13 Likes
12 Likes
I’m beginning to suspect you haven’t read MacLean. The timing of N&B paper on vouchers, timed just weeks before an important vote on vouchers, a vote in which segregationists were urging that very course as a way to preserve segregation simply cannot be explained away by inviting Hutt 5-6 years later no matter what the circumstances. I linked to my post on this: in which N&B use the EXACT language of segregationist Earnst Van Den Haag. What the hell does Hutt or his visit or nice things Buchanan may have written about do to change any of that?
I’m sure Buchanan said nothing about PEC. Again you wouldn’t have to try to “remember” if you’d read MacLean which lays this all out very clearly. Buchanan said nothing about PEC during the 6 years African Americans had NO schools available.
Battle means little. According to literally EVERY historian who has looked at this the segregationists overwhelmingly supported vouchers to preserve segregation. Here’s just a sample:
Bonastia, Christopher. 2012. Southern stalemate: five years without public education in Prince Edward County, Virginia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gates, Robbins L. 2014. The Making of Massive Resistance: Virginia’s Politics of Public School Desegregation, 1954-1956. Univ of North Carolina Press.
Hicks, Terence, and Abul Pitre. 2010. The Educational Lockout of African Americans in Prince Edward County, Virginia (1959-1964): Personal Accounts and Reflections / [Edited by] Terence Hicks and Abul Pitre. Issues in Black Education Series. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
Smith, J. Douglas. 2003. Managing White Supremacy: Race, Politics, and Citizenship in Jim Crow Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Thorndike, Joseph J. 1998. “'The Sometimes Sordid Level of Race and Segregation’: James J. Kilpatrick and the Virginia Campaign against Brown.” In Moderates’ Dilemma: Massive Resistance to School Desegregation in Virginia, edited by Mathew D. Lassiter and Andrew B Lewis, 51–71. Charlottesville: University PRess of Virginia.
Titus, Jill Ogline. 2014. Brown’s Battleground: Students, Segregationists, and the Struggle for Justice in Prince Edward County, Virginia.
What PCT says at a theoretical level is irrelevant to Buchanan’s actions on segregated education. I have no idea what inheritance tax has to do with segregated education.
7 Likes
9 Likes
Let me be open, I’m in automation. I’ve read MacLean, I’ve also listened to hours of MacLean since Democracy in Chains came out, though never before DIC. I’ve read some Buchanan, and I’ve read the detractors of DIC. I’ve never read Calhoun.
My 2000+ hours a year day job for decades now is in design, programming, troubleshooting and administration of automation systems and I’m a committed dad and husband besides the day job. After that comes community and personally rock climbing when time permits.
Now that you know my priorities, and limitations I’ve taken an interest in this discussion, but haven’t claimed expertise. Just the opposite I’m openly claiming some ignorance as opportunities have costs. Openly proclaiming my ignorance I have listened and read.
Historian John Jackson, who is also the commenter fardelsbear in this discussion, I’m quite willing to discuss with you, but need clarification first. Are you also the human Cory Doctorow who wrote this article you seem to defend?
If you didn’t author the article what are your criticisms of it, and what parts of it exactly are you willing to defend?
If we are to discuss, you’ve also dismissed much without answering. You’ve dismissed much of the article you are commenting on and I suspect you know better.
At least I hope you know better.
Wait, are you actually claiming in that pile of backpeddling mush that you think that Cory Doctorow* is a sock puppet identity of Fardelsbear/John_Jackson (who are obviously and openly the same person, confirmed by their profiles, writing style and deep expertise)?!
You may be reading this comment thread, but you’re not doing a whole lot of listening (or paying attention to the site you chose to post on, for that matter). Since you obviously lack self-awareness, let me clue you in: you’re embarrassing yourself.
[* one of BB’s founders and owners, a real person who’s authored books of his own amongst many other activities. ]
8 Likes
Yes I’m sorry it was Andrew Hartman.
I’ve never been to boing boing before this article so I plead ignorance as to who the founder of boing boing is and what he’s done. I came to read more on this topic. I’m sure there are more like me who have taken an interest in both MacLean’s work and Buchanan PCT since the book came out.
Almost every day there is a new interview or article or paper by MacLean on the book, or on Buchanan and PCT.
the subject for me has been far more interesting than TV.
While usually I don’t comment on the articles, I found this one particularly off the mark.
What I hope will happen is MacLean will engage someone outside of a progressive audience with all the many concerns.
In the friendly interviews she does she says it’s all libertarians who are criticizing. As someone who has been following this it isn’t only Libertarians criticizing and for the sake of argument if it was only, she still has avoided engaging the criticisms in any meaningful way.
I believe she has even turned down her university hosting a discussion with some of her Duke colleagues.
Yes. I am a real person who, alas, is not Cory Doctorow.
I’m a historian working on the history of the Alt Right. I’ve posted several blog entries of mine that I believe answer the questions you are posing. I’m a little frustrated because I post these answers and you seem to keep asking the same questions again. Perhaps my writing is not as clear as it should be.
My blog is:
If you want to know more about my scholarly work, you can find articles I’ve written and links to buy my books (they make great gifts!) I’ve written here:
https://wm.academia.edu/JohnJackson
MacLean will do as she pleases in terms of the criticisms of her book. I do not speak for her, but I find most of criticism completely overblown, based on strawmanning her arguments, and, quite frankly, often made in bad faith. I don’t blame her for avoiding them. Of course, if you were to ask them their opinion of me, I suspect they would say the same things about me. At least those who have bothered to read my stuff. Maybe when I publish my own book on the Alt Right I will have the opportunity to ignore them too!
14 Likes
I am interested in your work - the titles are intriguing!
Is there an easy way I can download “Whatever happened to the Cephalic Index?” without supplying an email address, allowing the hosting site to ransack my G+ contact list, or joining Facebook?
1 Like
It’s almost like there aren’t any parties or ideologies that accurately represent any significant portion of the American people. 
4 Likes
I like that terminology and it is better, but I do think that it is largely semantic in terms of how people use them in everyday political debate. In my view the point is simply that other people don’t have more claim over your body and mind than you do. Both convey that.
That part is where the NAP comes in.
This is just laughable. This is where I start to wonder if Cory lives on the same planet. I’m always open to the idea that I’m the world’s most ignorant libertarian (my god I’ve never even read Nozick), but I’ve never heard it used that way.
I’ve always seen Public Choice Theory used to help explain how you end up with subsidies and cronyism that everyone knows is silly but no one quite has enough motivation to get rid of. It’s value neutral; it’s like evolution, helping to explain something that happens whether you believe in it or not. Concentrated benefits with diffuse costs leads to certain results. How one chooses to use that factual information is up to you. It should be about as controversial as “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”.
