I'm pretty sure people who trash other scholars looking for a job have incredibly low self esteem and are undoubtedly much less qualified than the person they criticize.
Upcomng market stars 2016
-
Whoever wrote there is a record low of douchebags here was badly wrong. Thank you, people, for trashing yet another person looking for a job, who is actually a very good and interesting scholar.
Now who's next? Shall we go down the list of people mentioned here previously and kill them, one by the other?You really can't distinguish between criticizing a book and criticizing a person? How embarassing for you.
-
You really can't distinguish between criticizing a book and criticizing a person? How embarassing for you.
Oh, yes, I am embarrassed big time. Embarrassed enough to go back and read your so-called criticism, where you bring up several points:
* You read the entire Black Panther literature (you're certainly one of a few).
* You see nothing new in the book (here's for specific criticism, which minutely analyzes theory, data, argumentation, as any good criticism of academic work does)
* You see "a whole lot of recent and significant Black Panther scholarship either ignored or discounted in the book" - did the book discount the scholarship or the scholars?
* We are hipsters and Bloom is a SJW - not an ad-hominem critique?Sometimes, a troll is a troll is a troll.
-
You really can't distinguish between criticizing a book and criticizing a person? How embarassing for you.
Oh, yes, I am embarrassed big time. Embarrassed enough to go back and read your so-called criticism, where you bring up several points:
* You read the entire Black Panther literature (you're certainly one of a few).
* You see nothing new in the book (here's for specific criticism, which minutely analyzes theory, data, argumentation, as any good criticism of academic work does)
* You see "a whole lot of recent and significant Black Panther scholarship either ignored or discounted in the book" - did the book discount the scholarship or the scholars?
* We are hipsters and Bloom is a SJW - not an ad-hominem critique?
Sometimes, a troll is a troll is a troll.Not sure where you're going with your first three bullet points. If you want a full-blown book review, you won't get it in this venue.
As for the last one, "SJW" applies to the book's perspective, not the author, who I know nothing about. In fact, "SJW" is an entirely appropriate short-hand for a social movement of self-professed revolutionaries. The problem with the book's take is that it focuses almost entirely on the "SJW" aspect of BP, and largely ignores or downplays what was really happening behind the scenes. Furthermore, the book disparages or ignores the work of scholars who do write about the behind the scenes story.
BP started as a revolutionary movement/criminal gang, and then morphed into a social services agency/criminal gang. Any author who ignores or downplays that one constant is trying to peddle a vindicationist myth--not write history.
-
Criminal gang? Gtfo. Go straight to library. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200
I take it you've never read "Shadow of the Panthers", or Flores Forbes's autobiography. This is really not at all controversial for anyone familiar with the literature.Troll detected. Don't feed it...
-
Criminal gang? Gtfo. Go straight to library. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200
I take it you've never read "Shadow of the Panthers", or Flores Forbes's autobiography. This is really not at all controversial for anyone familiar with the literature.
Troll detected. Don't feed it...The "troll" has a better command of the literature than you do, apparently. That radical right-winger Ward Churchill was describing the Party as a combination revolutionary movement and criminal gang back in the 1990s. This is nothing new, except maybe to you. I suppose it is easier to dismiss ideas that disturb you with ad hominem than it is to educate yourself.
-
Boring. Back to the gossip please.
Criminal gang? Gtfo. Go straight to library. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200
I take it you've never read "Shadow of the Panthers", or Flores Forbes's autobiography. This is really not at all controversial for anyone familiar with the literature.
Troll detected. Don't feed it...
The "troll" has a better command of the literature than you do, apparently. That radical right-winger Ward Churchill was describing the Party as a combination revolutionary movement and criminal gang back in the 1990s. This is nothing new, except maybe to you. I suppose it is easier to dismiss ideas that disturb you with ad hominem than it is to educate yourself. -
Hugh Pearson, author of "Shadow of the Panthers," was a Wall Street Journal editor, with not an iota of scholarly training.
Since when do we hold sociologists accountable for not engaging with nonacademic literature?? That is taking for granted that your claim that Bloom doesn't cite this book is correct and not a simple- minded flash judgment you made upon seeing the book's title.
Here we go again. References to fringe right wing literature. Mindless, baseless assaults on somebody's work. And of course, instinctually falling back on that buzzword of rightwing trolls everywhere: "ad hominem".
Oh where would SJMR be without all this "opinion diversity"...
Criminal gang? Gtfo. Go straight to library. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200
I take it you've never read "Shadow of the Panthers", or Flores Forbes's autobiography. This is really not at all controversial for anyone familiar with the literature.
Troll detected. Don't feed it...
The "troll" has a better command of the literature than you do, apparently. That radical right-winger Ward Churchill was describing the Party as a combination revolutionary movement and criminal gang back in the 1990s. This is nothing new, except maybe to you. I suppose it is easier to dismiss ideas that disturb you with ad hominem than it is to educate yourself. -
Hugh Pearson, author of "Shadow of the Panthers," was a Wall Street Journal editor, with not an iota of scholarly training.
Since when do we hold sociologists accountable for not engaging with nonacademic literature?? That is taking for granted that your claim that Bloom doesn't cite this book is correct and not a simple- minded flash judgment you made upon seeing the book's title.
Here we go again. References to fringe right wing literature."Fringe right wing literature"? Are you serious? You've never read either Pearson's or Bloom's books, have you? Pearson's is entirely fascinating, and right in line with what Elaine Brown and Flores Forbes both describe in their memoirs.
FWIW, I would agree with many academic critics that Pearson's account of BP criminality is a one-sided view, in that it excludes most of the political dimensions of the movement. But the same can be said for most of the scholarly BP literature, which focuses on politics to the exclusion of criminality.
There should be a space for a balanced general history of the BP, but no one's written one yet. It might be hard to get one published in a university press due to politics. If Robyn Spencer ever gets her book out the door, I would expect it to come a little closer to the center than previous attempts, based on what I saw in her dissertation. But there should still be space for an enterprising grad student or AP to undertake a complete BP history, warts and all.
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.