Hannah-Jones’s behavior illustrates the absence of basic scholarly integrity from her approach to writing history.
Phillip W. Magness
Tenure is at best a mixed bag – sometimes it protects the already-employed, but at other times it means that candidates with unpopular views are never offered employment or promotion in the first place.
In just under a year’s time, Fauci’s messaging on reinfection and herd immunity has now mutated across dozens of variants of its own, each conveniently aligning with his political messaging of the moment.
The effort to get vaccinated is akin to sitting at the back of a 9-month long DMV line. Welcome to vaccine central planning.
It’s time to stop listening to Fauci, and time to stop treating his wildly inconsistent political posturing as if it carries any scientific authority.
This has been a year of astonishing policy failure. We are surrounded by devastation conceived and cheered by intellectuals and their political handmaidens.
The 1619 Project is still ill-suited for K-12 education. That is a judgement we may make on its scholarly shortcomings alone.
Similarities between slavery and socialism, and indeed the aggressive anti-capitalist rhetoric of proslavery ideology, are seldom examined in the “New History of Capitalism” literature.
The 1619 Project sacrifices scholarly standards in the service of the ideological agenda.
Keynes’s futuristic vision also entailed a scientifically planned world of human heredity, ordered around a state policy of eugenics.
The reputation of the 1619 project’s other essays, many of them entirely unobjectionable adaptations of scholarly insights for a popular audience, has suffered because of the NY Times’ inflexible refusal to address erroneous historical claims in the essays by Hannah-Jones and Desmond.
While Lincoln’s colonization remarks grate the modern ear, and evince a patronizing paternalism toward the program’s intended participants, they also reflect the sincerity of his anti-slavery beliefs and an accompanying recognition that white-supremacist violence would not end with the formal abolition of the institution.
A short yet hard-hitting indictment of the economic and political repression that so often follows from attempts to structure a society around Marxist ideology and centralized economic planning.
Was the American Revolution fought in defense of slavery? Was Abraham Lincoln a racial colonizationist or exaggerated egalitarian? Did slavery drive America’s economic growth and the emergence of American Capitalism? Did the 1619 Project seek adequate scholarly guidance in preparing its work?
Far from representing non-white scholarly voices and introducing challenges to a previously stagnant historiography of slavery, the NHC school is actually a stunning embodiment of everything it charges against its critics.
Karl Marx’s stubborn political staying power also requires that we grapple with his theory in an intelligent fashion and that we engage him seriously even if we judge his conclusions wanting.
There’s a neglected dark side to the Swedish welfare model that its “democratic socialist” admirers seldom mention.
Interest in the history of American capitalism is on the rise, although curiously this line of study is being advanced for anticapitalistic ideological reasons.
As long as universities continue to misrepresent how they use philanthropic gifts, philanthropists will remain wary of the high potential for misuse that accompanies large donations.
Thirty years ago, environmentalist policies were intended to prevent us from running out of fossil fuels. Now it’s a case of having too much fossil fuel for the environment to handle.
Voice of Capitalism
Our weekly email newsletter.