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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @jasonintrator
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @jasonintrator
And yet, Hannah-Jones attacks the core of Frederick Douglass' own theses about America & its Founding.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I think various founders were more conflicted than she makes them out to be, but I also think Douglass was being rhetorical/aspirational.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator @baseballcrank
Mostly I'm just excited to see people discuss this stuff seriously for a change.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Consider a parallel: Dinesh D'Souza. D'Souza writes a lot about history, gets people to think about stuff they haven't considered. Most of his stuff includes many true facts. Is that good? I say it's not because he smuggles falsehood & tendentiousness in with most of it.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
There is no analogy between Dinesh D'Souza and Kevin Kruse, or Khalil Muhammad, or Hannah-Jones' piece. Desmond's piece is more provocative, but it's better reasoned than D'Souza and does not substantially depend on the 400% claim.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jasonintrator @baseballcrank
It definitely completely misrepresents US historians view of the 1619 project to say that the most distinguished US historians regard it like D'Souza. Not that you were saying that.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.