When you're calling the leading figures in a field not your own "older historians with a minority view," maybe you've outrun your own credentials.https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1208570808836251650 …
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
This narrative is simply wrong. It is just not the case that "the leading figures in US history" are all critical of the 1619 project. That is why I mean by a conspiracy theory. Some leading figures disagree with some things in the 1619 project. Others don't.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator @baseballcrank
And other "leading figures" contributed to the 1619 project.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator
Such as Hannah-Jones? Bouie? These are journalists, not historians. And the Desmond piece is clearly not a majority view in the historical field (note the NYT doesn't even try to defend it).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I agree with almost everything in Hannah-Jones's opening essay based on my own scholarship in the area - and what I took to be her main claims, eg that Black intellectuals led the charge to realize democratic ideals, were not contested.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator @baseballcrank
There is a broad claim in the Desmond piece about American capitalism that is hard to substantiate by its nature. I was appreciative of Desmond's take, and appreciated the bold hypothesis and his documentation of the brutal efficiency of the plantation as a premise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator
The idea that "a broad claim...that is hard to substantiate by its nature" in the field of economic history is valuable by being a "bold hypothesis" notwithstanding elementary economic errors should horrify anyone who cares about scholarship.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
What "elementary economic errors" did you find in Desmond's essay?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator
Phil Magness has walked through thishttps://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/1619-project-new-york-times-king-cotton-thesis/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I enjoyed that piece. It contests the 400% claim, but goes pretty far on a pretty thin basis in contesting the rest of Desmond's analysis. The relationship between capitalism and slavery, eg the role of property rights in figures like Calhoun, is too much to get into on twitter
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
My fundamental issue: the project - which contains some good stuff! - includes numerous assertions that are obviously factually unsupportable, draws fringe-y conclusions from them, & then presents the whole thing as definitive w/o disclosing the dissent of leading scholars.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
What was weird for me is that what I found so valuable about the project was not the part that was dissented to by those historians. And I welcome highlighting certain debates - e.g. about the relation between capitalism and slavery.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator @baseballcrank
I'm not sure how any project with this broad a scope could be uncontroversial, and I found the initial Hannah-Jones essay really powerful and am upset at its misrepresentation. It's a super important point that Black intellectuals urged realization of democratic ideals.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
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.