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.
The problem is that the 1619 project will be sent to schools shorn of the debate that shows how many things it asserts that are, at best, fringe views conflicted by a multitude of evidence. The people - even the top scholars in these fields - dissenting don't have that megaphone.
-
-
I think it's factually false that these are fringe views. I think there is some misrepresentation of what has been claimed, to make it seem more extreme. And it's not true that "the top scholars in the field" dissent.
-
There is legitimate dissent and some of the essays, eg Desmond's, raise provocative theses that engender important discussion - which version of capitalism should we embrace?
- 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.