The bibliography from @nhannahjones' @masterclass lecture consists of (a) quack ideological economic history exclusively from the New History of Capitalism echo chamber, and (b) a few "classics" by Alfred Chandler and Eric Williams that NHJ almost certainly never read.
@nhannahjones@MasterClass Listening to her lecture now. It is painfully incompetent - basically a badly garbled cliff notes version of Ed Baptist, as delivered by someone who has even less familiarity with economics than Baptist himself.
@nhannahjones@MasterClass In addition to embracing King Cotton theory, she claims that the use of accounting book on plantations is proof that they are "capitalist." She then claims accounting practices today descend from the plantations.
@nhannahjones@MasterClass Next she claims that the concept of the mortgage originated on the plantations by using slaves as collateral for loans.
Um, no. The history of mortgages traces back to lending contracts on land in medieval England.
@nhannahjones@MasterClass Next we get what is probably the most incompetent explanation of the Panic of 1837 that I've ever heard. The gist of it is that cotton something something risky slave bonds something something 'too big to fail' and therefore "what happened in 1830 is what happened in 2008."
@nhannahjones@MasterClass Note that she does not even know the date of this event - 1837 - and at several times in the video refers to it as 1830.
@nhannahjones@MasterClass The Panic of 1837 "lesson" is followed by what's essentially garbled conspiracy theory alleging that the financial crisis of 2008 was the product of a predatory lending scheme designed to specifically entrap African-Americans. Because something something lending and slavery.
@nhannahjones@MasterClass She never establishes how 2008 is linked to "what happened in 1830" or anything at all having to do with slavery - only that they are both recessions in the wake of vaguely alluded credit collapses that she neither explains nor - likely - understands.
@nhannahjones@MasterClass Now we're at the conclusion, which is a string of declarative statements that American capitalism is "a racist system, a brutal system" and some vaguely alluded-to Pikettyesque claim about inequality.
Therefore to fix it all, NHJ wants socialized health care and a list of 21st century progressive economic policy priorities.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've suggested before that the 1619 Project unwittingly tries to rehabilitate 'King Cotton' theory - the debunked economic strategy of the Confederacy.
But don't take my word for it. Here's Nikole Hannah-Jones espousing King Cotton theory outright in her @MasterClass lecture.
On a related note, she clearly does not understand the difference between a final product and an intermediate step, e.g. shipping, hence this exercise in Ed Baptist accounting.
Intermediate steps of production are included in the final good. Cotton = ~5% of US GDP before 1860.
Before the second round of lockdowns started in November 2020, the main argument against the GBD was to accuse it of arguing against a lockdown strawman from the previous March.
Lockdowns were behind us, they insisted, and would not be coming back.
Almost all of the leading lockdowner epidemiologists on Twitter offered some version of this argument: Deepti Gurdasani, Carl Bergstrom, Bill Hanage, Gregg Gonsalves, "Health Nerd" to name a few.
But another who used it was Anthony Fauci, as the recent email releases confirm.
In response to a directive from Francis Collins to "take down" the GBD, Fauci circulated an article from Wired Magazine (wired.co.uk/article/great-…) that supposedly rebutted the GBD - by arguing that lockdowns were behind us.
@MasterClass The lesson itself appears to be a rehashing of Matthew Desmond's error-riddled essay from the 1619 Project. Desmond himself was not an expert in that subject when she recruited him to write. The problems are apparent in his essay.
@MasterClass Hannah-Jones is even less-equipped to teach this subject than Desmond.
In August 2019 I pointed out some elementary errors stemming from Desmond's reliance on the debunked work of historian Ed Baptist. @nhannahjones was not even aware that Baptist's work had problems.
If you want to know the reason why @woodyholtonusc "disengaged" from any discussion of the 1619 Project with me, it's this:
He became incensed when I posted screenshots of his pal Nikole Hannah-Jones's abusiveness toward her critics on twitter.
@woodyholtonusc A sample of that abusiveness, which Hannah-Jones has since sent down the memory hole...
@woodyholtonusc Apparently, Holton thinks that this sort of behavior is entirely acceptable and warranted...provided that it comes from an ideological friend who also happens to be hocking Holton's latest book in the national media.
This is someone who has plainly not read the criticisms. In particular, pay attention to the problems with the Matthew Desmond essay. They are substantial and cut to the core of his argument about what he mislabels as "capitalism."
As for NHJ's essay, it is hardly a fresh or novel account. It is historiographically an extension of decades-old arguments by Lerone Bennett (on both the Revolution and Lincoln/the Civil War), although much less persuasively presented.
Bennett was at times a polemicist (I met him a decade ago and he openly admitted that!) but had a grasp of scholarly debates & made original contributions. Before my work, he was one of the only sources to give a serious look at Lincoln's colonization commissioner James Mitchell.
Of the 12 feature essays in the original 1619 Project, only *two* were written by historians. Both were historians of the 20th century - not experts in the Am. Revolution, the Civil War, or slavery.
@nhannahjones One of those essays is by Khalil Gibran Muhammad - a specialist in 20th century urban history - and received little if any criticism.
@nhannahjones The second was by Kevin Kruse, another 20th century historian who is better known for his twitter feed than his scholarship.
Also, a month ago I caught Kruse in what appears to be an act of plagiarism in his published academic work.