Re: Austin's dismissal of war possibility

Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:11:23 -0400
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@pobox.com)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BC45C9.D57B4560
charset="us-ascii"

Andrew Wayne Austin writes:
My comments regarding evangelicals is in response to
David's point that there are not world historical forces at work in the
world today; rather he is attributing structural change in China to the
insertion of evangelicals there. People really believe stuff like this,
Richard. It may be absurd, but not trivial, and the argument should be
demolished.
* * *

I don't know why Andrew would want to "demolish" an argument nobody has =
made.
He continues to mix up "evangelicals,"his own code word for reactionary =
US cults, with evangelists, the one or two people in very large numbers =
of American families who go off to preach their Gospel, very often in =
China.
I have not attributed structural change in China to either evangelicals =
or evangelists. I have suggested that the effect of evangelists and =
their historical importance in American life are more important as a =
political force in American life than the comparatively small effect of =
trade or investment with China.
Finally, I have not for a moment denied that there are world historical =
forces at work in the world today. I have simply expressed scepticism =
that Austin knows what those forces are. My general position on "world =
historical forces"is that the ex post facto analytical ones are only =
accidentally and randomly connected to any that have actually existed at =
the time of the events being analysed after the fact.
-dlj.

------=_NextPart_000_01BC45C9.D57B4560
charset="us-ascii"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML 3.2//EN">

 

Andrew Wayne Austin writes:

My comments regarding evangelicals is in response = to
David's point that there are not world historical forces at work in = the
world today; rather he is attributing structural change in China to = the
insertion of evangelicals there. People really believe stuff like = this,
Richard. It may be absurd, but not trivial, and the argument should = be
demolished.

* * *


I don't know why Andrew would want to "demolish" an argument = nobody=20 has made.

He continues to mix up "evangelicals,"his = own code=20 word for reactionary US cults, with evangelists, the one or two people = in very=20 large numbers of American families who go off to preach their Gospel, = very often=20 in China.

I have not attributed structural change in China to = either=20 evangelicals or evangelists. I have suggested that the effect of = evangelists=20 and their historical importance in American life are more important as a = political force in American life than the comparatively small effect of = trade or=20 investment with China.

Finally, I have not for a moment denied that there are = world=20 historical forces at work in the world today. I have simply expressed=20 scepticism that Austin knows what those forces are. My general position = on=20 "world historical forces"is that the ex post facto analytical = ones are=20 only accidentally and randomly connected to any that have actually = existed at=20 the time of the events being analysed after the fact.

-dlj.

 

------=_NextPart_000_01BC45C9.D57B4560--