So...who wants to tell Nikole Hannah Jones about Hurston's economic philosophy?
Hint: it was, in fact, in direct opposition to what NHJ embraces.
In particular, see Hurston's assessment of W.E.B. Du Bois, who she basically called him a Kremlin stooge. The distance between her and NHJ on economic matters could not be further apart.
Another telling passage from Hurston's autobiography, 'Dust Tracks on a Road,' which is the direct antithesis of Hannah-Jones' backward-looking arguments about slavery in the 1619 Project:
These are not obscure facets of Hurston's life btw. Her libertarian-leaning 'Old Right' outlook is a long-acknowledged aspect of her biography that several generations of mainly left-leaning Hurston scholars have considered an enigma about her.
And finally for the chaser, here is Hurston directly repudiating the very premise of Nikole Hannah Jones's argument in the 1619 Project:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The interesting feature of the argument made here is that it rests heavily on Douglass's assessment of Abraham Lincoln from 1876.
While the original 1619 Project took a fairly harsh look at Lincoln, Douglass was completely absent from its discussion.
In this essay, Field attempts to supply Nikole Hannah-Jones with material from Douglass to bolster an interpretation of Lincoln that NHJ likely sympathizes with, but also completely omitted from her original essay - either out of sloppiness or ignorance of the literature.
I'm not convinced that this is a result of a plan dating back to the 60s, but the leftward ideological shift of the universities is both rapid and undeniable.
Simpler explanation: faculty jobs are scarce, and scarcity prioritizes political homogeneity.
Decades of PhD overproduction have resulted in a situation where tenure track appointments are mainly rationed on non-merit based grounds. Instead we get ideological nepotism, so faculty retirements are replaced by an ideologically homogeneous cohort of new hires.
We see this clearly in faculty surveys, which show a hard left shift after the early 2000s to the point that leftwing faculty went from a ~40% plurality to an outright 60%+ majority. In some areas such as the humanities it's more like an 80-90% majority.
A primary economic function of a price system is the signal conveyed in the price.
When you replace free labor with coercion, you obviate the price signal. We should therefore expect accounting under unfree labor (slavery) to be *more* complex than under free-labor capitalism.
The reason? In addition to the brutality of coerced labor, its lack of a functional price signal means the plantation overseer needs to turn to other empirics to figure out how to produce goods. So they invent non-priced measures of labor inputs and outputs, all coerced.
This is why some of the most complex accounting systems known to human history came from attempts at centrally planning an entire economy, such as in the Soviet Union. They ended disastrously, but necessarily relied on other input/output measures after destroying price signals.
There's a segment of the twittersphere that seems to believe that it's okay to crib the published work of another writer as long as you include a citation.
Not so! If you copy their words, sentence structure etc. with only superficial cosmetic changes, it's still plagiarism.
This is how the American Historical Association defines plagiarism. As they clearly note, a citation alone is not enough. Indeed, their example of plagiarism includes a citation...then copies the text with small cosmetic changes. historians.org/teaching-and-l…
Several high-profile plagiarism cases in recent years involve texts where the author properly cited the plagiarized work, but then lifted wording and sentence structure. Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose both had extensive citations in their plagiarized passages.