Skip to main content

View Diary: What Would James Madison Do (WWJMD)? Would the Framers Support the Occupy Wall Street Movement? (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  also (0+ / 0-)

    "4. There is plenty - too much - shoddy research in this area.  There is not a lot of quality material on this."

    please, what shoddy research? that is a straw men, for when the research doesn't validate our priors, we diminish it!

    again, what did Jefferson in his own words write in Notes on the State of Virginia?

    •  You ask me? (0+ / 0-)

      You raised the claims to "plenty of research" - shouldn't you be providing it.

      I have started with the FOUNDATION of it - because nearly all the rest builds on its flawed premises - by citing Charles Beard's Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.

      As for what did Jefferson say in his own words in the Notes on the State of Virginia - let me ask you two questions:

      1) What did Jefferson say on the issue at the Constitutional Convention - if you want to claim that Jefferson's words elsewhere somehow prove something about that document?

      2) What did Jefferson say on the issue in the Declaration of Independence?

      •  i did (0+ / 0-)

        look above.

        Mills is wrong? Smith is wrong? Hahn is wrong? Roediger is wrong...his newest book on race and American history is very good btw, you should check it out. John Hope Franklin, one of the country's greatest historians who also wrote on this issue is just wrong?

        So we have historians, political scientists, philosophers, and legal studies types saying, "hmmmm there is something up here, a "democratic" document is produced in a moment when democracy and citizenship were racialized, gendered, and class based? Magic! maybe those understandings are somehow represented in the type of political document they crafted?"

        So profound. Why deny this?

        You go hard on Beard, but you miss the counter-argument that has been made by many folks smarter than you or I, that he may have been off in his narrow argument about causality because of his materialist orientation, but he was not wrong in the basic idea that the ideas about freedom and citizenship and democracy expressed by the framers and the elite class were a reflection of their material positions in society.

        You are constructing a straw man in Beard in order to try to rebut a very basic premise: the Constitution is a practical document, however imperfect that was radical for its time but that reflected the interests of the people who made it.

        This should not be so unsettling for a "scholar".

        Are you part of the fetishize the "founders" club? They were just men, smart, but just people, not gods.

        •  The idea that democracy was racialized (0+ / 0-)

          is - in my view - scholarly nonsense.  But then again - probably 3/5ths or more of scholarly literature these days is nonsense.

          We will have to leave it at that.

          •  so folks who are more (0+ / 0-)

            highly regarded than you, are tenured, have won book awards, and really know this literature are playing with "nonsense?" Disagree based on research, empirical findings, theoretical rigor, and hard work, don't reject claims just because you don't like them.

            but at this point you are really showing your butt!

            I am right, there is something deeper in this game for you.

            Check out some of Goldberg's work. And come on, you have a country that has to explicitly write in black folks with the equal protection clause, then fight Jim and Jane Crow, and finally pass the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts and you say American democracy was/is not racialized.

            You sound like a narrowly (and poorly trained) legal studies type, given that "scholarly bent" check out the book White by Law which looks at how immigration law and the notion of white group membership was litigated and changed over time. America has historically, in its law, defined citizenship as being limited and bounded by whiteness. Non whites in fact, were not even allowed to become naturalized citizens for most of this country's history up to the 20th century.

            •  What do you know about me (0+ / 0-)

              and my scholarly work?

              What - of all things - does TENURE have to do with it!?  Do you know the politics of tenure?

              What does a book award have to do with it?

              I have not placed my work along side of those you refer to.

              As for narrowly and poorly trained - My doctorate work is in Law from University College London and in Politics from the University of Florida.  I have an LL.M. in Legal History and Jurisprudence from University College London.  An M.A. in Legal History and Jurisprudence (with distinction) from University College London.  An M.A. in Political Science from the University of Florida.  B.A.s in Philosophy, History and Political Science from the University of Florida.  And a B.S. in Microbiology from Auburn University.  I have a Law Teacher's Certificate from University College London.  And I have taught both undergraduate and graduate level courses in law and political science/theory at University College London and the University of Florida.

              You want to put your C.V. to the test?

              •  yeah, i looked you up (0+ / 0-)

                and yes, book awards have a good amount to do with it. they are an acknowledgement of one's work, their relationship to the discipline and respect by peers.

                if i have to take your view that democracy in america is "not racialized" versus Roger Smith's it is an easy choice.

                if i have to take your claim that the civil war was not primarily about white supremacy and slavery versus morgan  it is an easy choice.

                in fairness i would take them over most, myself certainly included, any day. i am aware of this fact and difference, you appear not too.

                your arguments here are dishonest and selective. we call that piss poor scholarship. this is why i keep asking you what skin do you have in this game, why deny the obvious? your claims can intimidate and bully neophytes and lay people, but for folks who know a little more than the average bear, they are easily exposed.

                i do hope that you do not bring such selective insights into the seminar room, as that would be unfortunate for your students.

                i didn't announce myself as a "scholar" you did. thus, you have to carry that burden.

                trust me, i would put my vitae against yours any day. this isn't a pissing contest, until you made it one.

                your claims are thin, moreover, please respond to the cites i listed above please, the georgia articles of secession, loewen and morgan, etc.

                •  Well you can believe what you want (0+ / 0-)

                  as regards to my arguments being "dishonest" ... and all the rest.

                  I would have to disagree with many of your criticisms.

                  And I didn't make it a pissing contest.  You were the one demanding "qualifications" to make statements - and then made assumptions about my education.

                  I'd suggest you are taking this too personally - and spend most of your time on ad hominems.

                  But I think we have gone through this enough.

                  •  this is fun (0+ / 0-)

                    you have never answered any of my questions or interventions. i didn't make assumptions about your education, i wondered who trained you and how then could be making the claims that you were, given how poorly evidenced they are.

                    this is personal because it is about the truth. when you misrepresent something as important as the constitution to folks you are trusted with teaching, it is personal and important. when we minimize the role of racial inequality in this country's history and government and society it is personal.

                    much of the mess in this country now is caused by a failing educational system and a process wherein all opinions are elevated to fact, however specious. we have fools running for President who believe that America was founded as a Christian Nation because some hack historian told them so. This is very worrisome.

                    your arguments are dishonest and intentionally overlook any of the strong counter arguments or evidence to the contrary.

                    they are also poorly structured and reasoned--esp. in regards to the 3/5th clause and America as a racialized democracy.

                    If you are a scholar as you pretend to be--note, never announce yourself as a scholar of anything, that is tacky and invites attack because most folks who are the real deal don't go around announcing it--go do some more reading and track down some of the books I suggested.

                    I can give you an exam list if you like. It will be like doing your comps again.

                    •  As I said - this is going nowhere. (0+ / 0-)

                      Your arguments, actually, are unsound - and you simply ignore or read into my points what you want to be there.

                      Let's just agree to disagree on this.  I am not going to post any further on this tangent.

                      •  my arguments are fundamentally sound, easy one (0+ / 0-)

                        simple question, one more softball for you,

                        was Jim Crow an example of racialized democracy?

                        easy one, even easier than was slavery a primary cause of the Civil War...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site