Once again I'm mystified by this thread. This time, I don't
understand why (allegedly) overlooking slavery is an intellectual
crime, but complaining about the absence of gender is "bogus."
Mr Grouchy, ABD
===
LP: This is not about overlooking. As I have already stated
on three different occasions, the problem is how slavery
is viewed theoretically. Brenner and Wood break with the
Eric Williams analysis. The paucity of references to slavery
in her book is not even the main problem. It is her messed
up theory which puts the slave trade on the same footing
as trading Chinese silks for Ethiopian zebra hides, etc. It
is called "commerce" which is NONCAPITALIST in nature. That
being said, it is grotesque to not even spend more than a
sentence ruling the Williams approach as invalid.
