I don't understand this thread. The "history of capitalism" stuff is hotly disputed inside academia. People didn't want to join in public shovel fight because Wilentz & co. had framed debate in gate-keeping polarizing way that could be easily be exploited by right (as it was). https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1377649894803054597 …
-
-
True. There's a perfectly reasonable argument that argues slavery played a lesser role in development of US capitalism or even retarded its development. But that can get reduced to - slavery, not so big a deal. So not surprising that many scholars who have that ...
-
2/ read of the economic history just end up thinking no sense walking into that buzzsaw and leave it to others. And for reasons that's would be the case even if Wilentz and Co never entered the debate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.