Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
The smears with plausible deniability are the best kind, aren't they?
As I said, DiLorenzo hasn't said or done anything overtly racist.
But he's a scholar at the League of the South. The SPLC chronicled (see link above) the organization, and the overtly (imo) racist statements and ideology of its founder and members.
People have complicated personal histories. It's a low content thread, I glibly responded to taso's by saying DiLorenzo was white supremacist. I can't cite anything he's written or done to demonstrate that, other than the people he's associated with. Guilt by association ftw. As I said, anyone in the business of publishing academic stuff that champions succession, is sympathetic to the South's cause in the Civil War, and hatred of Lincoln naturally attracts the white supremacist crowd.
Discerning the tangible differences between "people who champion succession, are sympathetic to the South's cause in the Civil War, and hatred of Lincoln because they hate black people" and "people who champion succession, are sympathetic to the South's cause in the Civil War, and hatred of Lincoln for other reasons" is difficult. But it's difficult because these two crowds frequently run in the same circles. Like DiLorenzo and the League of the South, and Ron Paul and his ghostwriter.