Niall Ferguson: An Apology

Full Disclosure And That: Fagburn added the following as a postscript to to the post below Elites And Society And Sport on Friday after seeing a tweet with a link to the story in Financial Advisor - whatever that is - and updated it as it unfolded.
Being generally clueless and hopeless, I had no idea this would become a major news story, for the reasons I have outlined below. 
But anyway, as it has become quite a "thing", I've now separated it out.
Still rather baffled as to why it blew up quite so big, beyond the usual manufactured outrage of the mainstream - and, of course, the gay - media.
Now I'm not a leading academic/popular historian, but considering what a power-worshipping right-wing shitbag Niall Ferguson notoriously is, I'd call this obnoxious and apparently off-the-cuff remark "a detail". 
Enjoy!

Update: 'Harvard Professor and author Niall Ferguson says John Maynard Keynes' economic philosophy was flawed and he didn't care about future generations because he was gay and didn't have children', Financial Advisor.
Uh-huh...

Update update: Seems I thought this NF story was of a bit less import than some others did.
Right-wing historian makes stupid right-wing claim shock... meh.
Let's hope no-one finds out his best-known work involves writing and arguing in defence of "Civilisation" and "Empire" and "the West and the Rest".
Who said history is written by "winners"?

Update update update: Ferguson issued "an unqualified apology" on Saturday.
"Comments... that were as stupid as they were insensitive..." etc etc.

FINAL ACTUAL UPDATE: This soon became a stuck record, with lots of over-acted outrage by journalists and twitters who probably had to Google Keynes and Ferguson to find out who they were.
Here's an article that's actually interesting and insightful, by someone who knows what they're talking about - Sex, Economics And Austerity by Jeet Heer - that explains why "Keynes is so threatening to conservative economists and moralists alike", and pointing out such thinking goes back to Aristotle.

And finally? Ferguson's "argument" gets taken apart by... the Financial Times!

Jason Collins: Elites And Society And Sport

Sir, Simon Kuper in his otherwise (as ever) insightful essay on homophobia in sport (“Professional sport finally enters the 21st century”, Comment, May 1) slips in one de haut en bas assertion that “educated people tend to be most tolerant of homosexuality” which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

In fact, it has been educated elites which throughout history wrote laws and rules excluding or criminalising not just gays, but at various times women, blacks, Jews, Roman Catholics or any group they disdained. Those who served in the armed forces in the second world war, for example, reported later – when the educated elites finally allowed such taboo subjects to be discussed – that, of course, every unit would have its known gay members, and nobody gave a damn as long as they fought the enemy. It is probably precisely because the elites were scandalised by the perceived immorality of the “lower orders” that they passed laws to assert the superiority of the traditional family. If “market economies tend to be gay-friendly”, as Mr Kuper asserts, it is difficult to see how the world’s prototype capitalist economy, the US, also harbours some of the most vocal anti-gay bigots. 

He does not mention the issue of religion, which to many would seem to provide a stronger correlation. The more secular the society and the less the power of organised religion, the easier it has generally been for countries to unpick legislation previously disadvantaging not just gays, but women and ethnic minorities.

From across the Channel, even francophone admirers of republican values have recently been reminded by the violent outbursts against gay marriage that France is an overwhelmingly Catholic country – the flight of whose once-persecuted Protestant minority did nothing but benefit market-friendly Britain.

Tom Brown, London EC2, UK
Letter to the Financial Times.

Trust the FT and their bloomin' de haut en bas assertions!  
Like the Economist, the Financial Times is surprisingly "socially liberal", both were advocates of gay marriage in the UK.

Jason Farago (!) wrote on Guardian online about Jason Collins' coming out; "On one level: sport is more than just a spectacle, and every action that makes gay life more visible is worth taking.
"But while Collins has done something right and brave, the PR flood that's accompanied it should remind us that sport is not some pure land of athletic contests, but a multibillion-dollar industry whose motivations are not exactly altruistic. We should all respect and celebrate gay achievements – but I fear the real desire for openly gay athletes comes from a hunger to sell sneakers."
I think he might be overstating the (financial) case here.
Figures for the supposed "marketing goldmine" in sponsorship deals etc an (American) out pro sports (male) player could hack into seem ludicrously over-inflated and plucked from the ether.
More insightful was the blogger NewBlackMan (In Exile); "Once we view Jason Collins’ coming out narrative as a story of a maturing middle class identity—which culminates in the irrepressible desire for a monogamous commitment or “settling down” as he puts it--it becomes easier to understand his outing—and the auxiliary demand for universal adulation on the part of the media—as part of a well tread genre of black politics...
"The historic import of Jason Collins announcement may be less a sea change towards sexual liberation for black people, and more a signal that now, certain black gay men can be assimilated into the trappings of liberal, middle class American life."
Talking of assimilation, the Daily Mail managed to heterosexualise Jason Collins' coming out story, asking what his ex-girlfriend makes of it all.
Genius.