For those of you who can’t get enough of Thomas DiLorenzo, here’s something to tide you over.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
For those of you who can’t get enough of Thomas DiLorenzo, here’s something to tide you over.
Crossroads 
Did you have to ruin my afternoon with this drivel?
Nothing forces you to read this, Jim. You decide whether to ruin your own afternoon. 🙂
Fair enough …
Get this guy a Code-Pink t-shirt… and a fact-checker!
Guess that is what happens when an Econ Prof. pontificates on history. Bunch of gobbledygook. And worst of all, factually inaccurate.
I think that has the record for the number and frequency of air quotes of anything I have read recently.
I would have to wonder how good his Econ classes are after reading that.
He has eight original, peer-reviewed articles in JSTOR. Eight. Most are from the 1980s, and none since 2000. Not a huge output for a tenured professor holding a named chair.
Once you are tenured, you don’t have to worry about it. Of course that means no grad students, but then given what he writes, who would want to be his grad student? I imagine he has time to write all these non-history books because he is on the Loyola turkey farm. Teaches some 100 level econ class and that’s it.
“Teaches some 100 level econ class and that’s it.”
Guns versus butternuts, as it were.
Let me also point out that when I noted that he had eight original, peer-reviewed manuscripts, that’s TOTAL — not since he started coasting. My point being, his tenured, nemed-chair-holding status has no relation to his actual scholarly output.
Agreed about not wanting to be his grad student. Probably not a lot of folks beating down his door, and I suspect he likes it just fine that way. Office hours are such a PITA, you know? 😉
There’s that and then there’s his apparent loathing for source notes – obviously not relevant to this piece of pop art, but definitely germane in other allegedly “scholarly” material of his which I’ve read.
Yes, and this is all coming from a guy who believes the Union blockade’s purpose was to collect tariffs. Oh, and he also buys into the “Ft. Sumter was a tariff collection point” nonsense…
Yep – his “analysis” of the war and its causes is hopelessly mired in the Morrill Tariff to the point that he just puts blinders on to the facts. And when others respond with facts there is a stark difference in the number of source notes which they use and the number which DiLorenzo manages to trot out. He tosses source notes around so little that they may as well be manhole covers. Of course, there’s a good reason for that….
He no worse than people like Slotkin or the late Howard Zinn – just a different ideology.
DiLorenzo does make roughly identical arguments to Lincoln’s leftist critics. That doesn’t make his insanity any more valid.