[Vision2020] (no subject)

[Captain Kirker]

Visionheads:

 

As a follow-up to Dr. Gier’s thoughtful post, I would like to remind everyone that on November 21, 2003, the Wolfman wrote an op/ed (appended below) for the Daily News, in which he impugned the scholarship of Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey. He wrote, 

This aspect of the fracas is ironic because one of the attacks that has been leveled at me by certain local professional historians (Sean M. Quinlan and William L. Ramsey) is that our research in the slavery booklet was inadequate. . . . I am happy to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to a public discussion/debate on this issue with Quinlan and/or Ramsey. Let’s set a date at our earliest mutual convenience.

Then on December 1, 2003, the Wolfman used Vision2020 to reissue his challenge to Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey, suggesting that they lacked valor for not responding to him (appended below).

 

Given the recent apocalypse concerning Southern Slavery As It Was, the Captain hereby offers to sponsor the proposed debate between the Wolfman and Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey, to be held at the animal park of the Wolfman’s choice (as long as he can show proof of his rabies vaccine). Furthermore, I hereby officially bet $1,000 out of the Kirk tithe that the Wolfman will need a long stay in the veterinarian hospital after the two doctors finish him off.

 

To that end, I am, and shall remain, the Captain at your service.

 

 

PS: Memo to the Wolfman: heed the advice from the Biblical Horizons list and do not republish Southern Slavery As It Was.

 

 
Their view: Doug Wilson . . . The conference was never about slavery
Finding myself, as I do, in the middle of a fabricated controversy, one of the questions that has occurred to me—honestly—is what responsibilities I might have for all of this. So before I address what some other folks are now doing (promoting the fabrication) I would at least like to own some of the controversy.

 

Is there anything in all this that I regret? Yes, there are a couple things. I have regretted the fact that The Biblical Offense of Racism and the Southern Slavery booklet, which were published at the same time, were not published under the same cover. This would have prevented any groups (that we do not want to be associated with) from using the booklet for their own purposes. It also would have made next to impossible some of the confusions that have been exhibited throughout this controversy. Given the volatility of the subject, this was my responsibility.

 

Secondly, given the complexity of the subject, I also bear some of the responsibility for agreeing to undertake the discussion in this kind of public forum, a setting that necessarily generates more heat than light. This said, I don’t mind defending unpopular positions, but I really do not want to defend any position simply from pride.

 

That said, there are two more things I would like to address here. The first is a fundamental factual error that seems to have taken on a life of its own. The conference we are sponsoring in February is not about slavery, and it never has been. Nevertheless, we are being reported in the media throughout the Northwest as being sponsors of a conference on slavery. Moreover, we are supposedly perpetrating this outrage during black history month. But the conference is not on slavery.

 

The theme of the conference is “Revolution and Modernity,” and we are doing biographical sketches of men like Robespierre, Lord Byron, and Karl Marx, and their destructive influence in the modern world. I want to emphasize again that the conference is not on slavery. Although some may note that Marx was responsible for enslaving hundreds of millions of people in a different way, his secularist worldview was reprehensible, and this point will be made at the conference.

 

So, however this error happened to have hatched, it is an error that is now being circulated by The Associated Press news service and by university presidents. However it happened, by now everyone should be pointing out that it is in fact an error. So I would like to take this occasion to state that the conference is not on slavery. Not even a little bit.

 

When the time comes for me to go join the choir invisible, I would like my loved ones to inscribe on my tombstone, “The conference was not about slavery.”

 

This aspect of the fracas is ironic because one of the attacks that has been leveled at me by certain local professional historians (Sean M. Quinlan and William L. Ramsey) is that our research in the slavery booklet was inadequate. But these are gentlemen who had trouble spelling the names of their adversaries. It’s George Grant, not Gary Grant, it’s Francis Schaeffer, not Frances, and Peter Leithart, not Peter Leihard. People who cannot spell our names right should not be trusted with historical sources and refereed journals.

 

Applying this principle more broadly, I think our operating assumption ought to be that we should not accept the historical credentials of anyone who cannot do enough research to find out that the history conference in February is not about slavery.

 

Lastly, I would like to conclude by pointing to the only issue that I really care about in all of this. I am a Christian minister, and it is my responsibility to teach the people of God to live and die by the Scriptures, applying it to all of life. This means accepting the Bible’s nonviolent way of subverting the evil of slavery (Eph. 6:5–9; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Tim. 6:1–6).

 

I am happy to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to a public discussion/debate on this issue with Quinlan and/or Ramsey. Let’s set a date at our earliest mutual convenience.

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Douglas 

To: vision2020 at moscow.com 

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:07 PM

Subject: [Vision2020] Proposed debate

 

Visionaries,

In my newspaper column a week or so ago, I concluded by inviting Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey to debate. Not hearing anything back from them, I emailed them privately last week to reiterate the offer. After making that second offer I have not heard back either.


I must now take an interesting (and perhaps courageous) step. At the top of their paper is the most interesting copyright notice I have ever seen. After the normal copyright dealies, it says, “Please do not cite, quote, summarize, or otherwise reproduce without permission of the authors.” Not being a professional historian myself, I am unfamiliar with this kind of restriction. I was somewhat surprised that they did not also include “or refer to the existence of” as one of the restrictions.


Here is the courageous step. I am now going to quote from their paper, and I did not get permission. On the second page, the writers say that it “is imperative, therefore, that real historical scrutiny be focused on this unusual performance.” I agree! Well, here is a golden opportunity for professional historians to focus some more real historical scrutiny on my little putt-putt scholarship.


This being the case, why the silence? Perhaps there is an explanation to be found in Ambrose Bierce’s incomparable Devil’s Dictionary.


Valor, n. A soldierly compound of vanity, duty and the gambler’s hope.

“Why have you halted?” roared the commander of a division at Chickamauga, who had ordered a charge; “move forward, sir, at once.”
“General,” said the commander of the delinquent brigade, “I am persuaded that any further display of valor by my troops will bring them into collision with the enemy.”

 

 

Cordially,

 

Douglas Wilson


P.S. Chickamauga was a battle in the War of the Roses, although professional historians take a different view.


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040816/f37a3e94/attachment-0001.htm