Talk:Niall Ferguson

Ferguson is a contentious figure and this is only the beginning of this article. if I have time I'll flesh out some of the many controversies he has been embroiled in (Including his public debate with Krugman regarding the dangers of sovreign debt) Contributions welcome. Debate welcome. Polemics welcome. Insults welcome. MarcusCicero (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * His Empire apologetics were a particular bone of contention when he was apparently asked to contribute to the UK history curriculum. Not sure if anything developed from that, though, as I've having issues finding any follow up articles about Ferguson specifically. It appears Micheal Gove might just be asking any public historian that will answer the phone about it, and the issue of making the history curriculum more nationalistic is just Gove's idea (though undoubtedly one Ferguson seems to be fully behind). 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * His involvement in a rewrite of the history curriculum is one of the reasons why I wrote this article. Some of the criticism levelled against him is utterly preposterous, levied by the predictible poseurs determined to rid the world of all non politically correct discourse. Simon Schama, a leftish historian is also involved in the rewrite. Gove pretty much is chasing any historian with some public image, to give it some weight.


 * The British curriculum is almost solely a tale of Tudors and Nazi's. Its painfully narrow. Ferguson proposes a strong narrative arch, one that supposes to provide the student with an eagles view of history, looking at things from a long term perspective. Survey courses are infinitely superior to specialist, intensive study for teenagers. People should be introduced to history as one massive story, difficult to describe (Not that that has every inhibited any historian) History should invoke a certain awe. I originally fell in love with history because of a French comic series, Asterix and Obelisk. I worry that many teenagers and children are nowadays frightened off the subject by a terrifying obsession with dates, names and battle plans.


 * This rant may or may not have anything to do with what you just talked about. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as homophobic ...
He doesn't strike me as homophobic, all he did was make an offhand remark that Keynes doesn't care about the future because he's gay and therefore doesn't have any children ... Now, this is a very stupid thing to say for a number of reasons (and even said so himself later), but it doesn't automatically make you a "homophobe". I wasn't able to find any other quotes/evidence of him about gays. I think labelling him as a homophobe is not just unfair to him, it also devalues to term 'homophobe'... Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While putting Ferguson in the category may not be warranted, that remark was homophobic. People who are not generally homophobic can exhibit homophobic behavior, in the same way people who are not generally racist can exhibit racist behavior. Also, your edit stripped the sources cited for Ferguson's statement. I suggest fixing that ASAP.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I intended the reference to stay, not sure how I managed to accidentally remove it :-/ Thanks... RW's page calls Homophobia "irrational fear or hatred of homosexuality" ... IMHO, this quote doesn't really show a fear or hatred, but more of a really silly non sequitur (no children, therefore, no interest in the future) ... Although it's difficult to guess at his feelings/intentions, of course Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)