#Alert: US Chargé d'Affaires Atul Keshap is under personal/professional attack after doing what diplomats from Germany, Australia, UK, Singapore & dozens of EU countries did before--visiting RSS headquarters as part of routine diplomatic outreach in India.
#Hindphobia? 1/
https://t.co/ypG86r0KwU
Stop the bigotry. End #Hinduphobia.
More from All
You May Also Like
Took me 5 years to get the best Chartink scanners for Stock Market, but you’ll get it in 5 mminutes here ⏰
Do Share the above tweet 👆
These are going to be very simple yet effective pure price action based scanners, no fancy indicators nothing - hope you liked it.
https://t.co/JU0MJIbpRV
52 Week High
One of the classic scanners very you will get strong stocks to Bet on.
https://t.co/V69th0jwBr
Hourly Breakout
This scanner will give you short term bet breakouts like hourly or 2Hr breakout
Volume shocker
Volume spurt in a stock with massive X times
Do Share the above tweet 👆
These are going to be very simple yet effective pure price action based scanners, no fancy indicators nothing - hope you liked it.
https://t.co/JU0MJIbpRV
52 Week High
One of the classic scanners very you will get strong stocks to Bet on.
https://t.co/V69th0jwBr
Hourly Breakout
This scanner will give you short term bet breakouts like hourly or 2Hr breakout
Volume shocker
Volume spurt in a stock with massive X times
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
