Worst Book Review Ever Criticizes Slave History For Not Presenting 'Both Sides'

[applegrove]

Worst Book Review Ever Criticizes Slave History For Not Presenting 'Both Sides'

by Karoli at Crooks and Liars

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/worst-book-review-ever-criticizes-slave

"SNIP...................


An anonymous review of a new book about slavery and capitalism in The Economist must be read to be believed, particularly the closing line:

Mr Baptist has not written an objective history of slavery. Almost all the blacks in his book are victims, almost all the whites villains. This is not history; it is advocacy.

Ummm...yes? The point of the book is how American capitalism is based upon the slavery of black people. Slavery sort of automatically makes them victims, right?

Jonathan Chait's post is the best answer I've seen:


I can think of reasons other than ideological bias to explain why almost all the black people would be victims, and the white people villains, in a book about white people who captured black people and subjected them to torture, rape, murder, humiliation, and oppressive forced labor.

Unless The Economist wants to suggest that there were overlooked cases of deserved slavery, it seems pretty intuitive that the black people are mostly going to be victims in a book about slavery. It also seems like the white people are inevitably not going to come off terribly well, either, in a book about slavery. Sure, there were plenty of white people who had nothing to do with slavery, but they may not feature so heavily in a book about slavery.



.....................SNIP"

Update: The Economist has withdrawn the review with an apology for publishing it at all.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Like the DORK critic that questioned the validity of ' Twelve Years a Slave '

Because the sexual encounters and off spring of those encounters (rapes) didn't get recorded with the daily accounts and expenditures of the plantation .

[sheshe2]

2. Thank you Jonathan Chait!

Here's the apology from the economist.

Apology: In our review of “The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism” by Edward Baptist, we said: “Mr Baptist has not written an objective history of slavery. Almost all the blacks in his book are victims, almost all the whites villains.” There has been widespread criticism of this, and rightly so. Slavery was an evil system, in which the great majority of victims were blacks, and the great majority of whites involved in slavery were willing participants and beneficiaries of that evil. We regret having published this and apologise for having done so. We are therefore withdrawing the review but in the interests of transparency, anybody who wants to see the withdrawn review can click here.

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21615482-how-slaves-built-american-capitalism-blood-cotton?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/blood_cotton

Thanks apple.

[rbrnmw]

3. WOW

The Economist is allowing the klan to write reviews? People just all out there with their racism these days. It's like we time warped back to the 60's.

[applegrove]

4. I'm surprised with the Economist. I expect a more European take

on things than a KKKlan one.

[rbrnmw]

5. I am sickened

[malaise]

31. The Economist has long been a racist RW trash magazine

Last edited Sat Sep 6, 2014, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

dominated by neo-liberals - with utter contempt for all who stray from the Western agenda.

I'm surprised they deleted the review.

[B_Mann]

65. I have subscribed to The Economist for many years

It has been slowly moving to the right for some time. Still, much more balanced than The Wall Street Journal.

[malaise]

66. We ditched it decades ago

Being more balanced that WSJ is hardly a compliment.

Welcome to DU.

[B_Mann]

68. Thank you. What do you think of The Financial Times?

I used to read that when I was in Europe.

Thanks for the welcome. I have lurked for some time, but just decided to get active posting as the elections are getting closer.

[malaise]

70. Not a fan and have always been a very rare reader

I'm more into labour/labor than finance.

[cui bono]

12. We have time warped. Racism, sexism... the hate that gets spewed these days is disheartening. n/t

[rbrnmw]

16. I know they are here too

[logosoco]

23. I think they would like us to go back to the 1860s.

Life was so much easier for a capitalist when they could own the people who earned their profits for them.

[rbrnmw]

24. that is scary but true

[jeff47]

67. Nah, you had to actually feed, clothe and house the slaves.

Instead, you can pay people not quite enough to do all 3.

[Prophet 451]

116. Wage slavery is cheaper

Providing room, board and clothing for an employee would likely cost more than paying them minimum wage.

[Jackpine Radical]

126. Yes, you had not only an initial investment, but ongoing (if minimal) maintenance costs

with slaves. Wage slaves, on the other hand, are entirely disposable and replaceable, at least as long as you maintain the pressure of high unemployment as a permanent feature of your economy.

[Prophet 451]

128. Quite so

Entirely agree. In the near future, the US will have shanty towns grow up around all the major centres of industry as there's bound to be a Republican president at some point and they'll just eliminate welfare entirely.

[Exultant Democracy]

6. The funny thing is there were plenty of slaves we would consider white.

Estimates vary but it a good bet that about 2 million black people (former slaves and their children) decided to be white people in the first 40 years after the abolition.

Octoroons and Quintroons were highly prized as slaves, especially the women.

[applegrove]

7. I don't like to hear the thinking of slave owners. Read slave narratives in University

Last edited Sat Sep 6, 2014, 02:19 PM - Edit history (2)

which were harrowing but they aren't from the slave owners point of view. Which is a relief. But we did read "Leopard's Spots" which was.

Later: My EARS... MY EARS

[carolinayellowdog]

19. Thomas Jefferson's 4 children by Sally Hemings were legally white, but slaves

Virginia law at the time made "quadroons" black but "octoroons" white, and Sally being TJ's wife's half-sister was herself a "quadroon." Never heard of a quintoon. A census after his death lists Sally as the free black mother of a white man, Eston I think, might have been Jim-Mad (James Madison Hemings.) The older two, Beverly (male) and Harriet, vanished into whiteness after they were all freed; no one knows their fate.

A northern visitor to Monticello later wrote to TJ asking about people who appeared to be slaves, but also appeared white. He didn't ask about the red hair and family resemblance, and TJ wrote back calmly explaining that they were legally white, but slaves. Didn't say "and those were my kids."

There were also black slaveowners but as with the white-appearing slaves it is a drop in the bucket. None of the above nuances in the slightest justify the stupid review. Enslaving one's own children is evil regardless of their racial classification.

[Exultant Democracy]

72. I wasn't aware of the law making octoroons legally white, thanks for the info

I love to learn something new.

[carolinayellowdog]

73. It was succeeded by the One Drop Rule and the Pocahontas Clause

In the 20th century the law decreed that if you had any black ancestor no matter how remote, you were "colored," and the burden of evidence on the state was nonexistent. Hence 90% of Virginia Indians became "colored" under this law. But under protests from white Virginians who claimed descent from Pocahontas, the allowable Native American percentage was 1/16 rather than One Drop.

[JustAnotherGen]

76. Thanks for this information!

Both post!

[AuntPatsy]

8. Perfect response sadly which was wasted on a (won't say it) because people like that are

Limited when having to face reality....

[gollygee]

9. I don't know quite what to say

I guess I'm glad they withdrew it, but who the hell could possibly ever wonder why a book about slavery would have the black people in the book be victims and the white people in the book be villians? How would you write a book about slavery where they wouldn't be the case?

[Paladin]

14. Never underestimate the ongoing Neo-Confederate warping of history.

The "slaves were much better off on the plantations before abolition" claim is a staple of this ugly propaganda, to this very day.

[gollygee]

15. Yeah and I've heard that

but to be surprised that when talking about slavery, white people would be cast as villains and black people would be cast as victims? Enslaved people didn't have any power to victimize anyone. How could they have been cast as anything other than victims? They were enslaved, for God's sake. That's victimization.

Hmm but I have also heard some garbage about how people who were enslaved were lucky to have been kidnapped, sent on a horrible miserable nightmare of a voyage over here, sold, raped, beaten, worked to death, etc., because they got to come to America. I suppose they think the white people involved in the slave industry were heroes and saviors of the people they kidnapped, enslaved, beat, raped, and otherwise mistreated.

[Paladin]

17. There are no limits nor depths to the harmful delusions of CSA apologists. And DU isn't immune.

Watch for the next thread dealing with the display of the Confederate flag in some public place. There are always a few "it's just an historical object, why get upset about it?" folks who turn up.

[rbrnmw]

30. they seem to have that view down thread

[Paladin]

32. I'm not a bit surprised, unfortunately. (nt)

[gollygee]

79. I always hope

that DU will rise above that kind of thing, but it seems like there's at least one poster like that in every single thread about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

[heaven05]

99. that's been an ongoing

delusion since my days of college exposure to those "blacks were lucky to come to amerikkka" people. I was in college in the early to mid 70's. Still here, alive and well on the RW racist internet monkey circus.

[heaven05]

97. Bundy said that very statement

maybe not those exact words, but his statement's intent was the same.

[Glassunion]

10. I wonder what their review of "Diary of a Young Girl" was?

[BainsBane]

11. I wish I could find a link to the book itself

I'm excited about seeing the slavery and capitalism debate revived. While I'm not surprised some half-wit made a stupid comment like the one in the review, that is was written by the Economist or someone they contracted to review the book is disturbing. I think of that publication as much better than that.

Edit: Here it is. In my excitement I failed to read the correct title and was searching under Blood Cotton. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JZBA9K6

[Nye Bevan]

13. All slave ownership was evil.

And I make no exception for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Both of these men had an evil, villainous aspect to their character in that they owned slaves.

[Cirque du So-What]

18. Confederate apologists were given free rein to write revisionist history

almost immediately after the war ended. They've had 150 years to attempt rehabilitating slavery, and thank gawd they haven't succeeded yet.

[Dawson Leery]

64. After the war ended, the southern elite class,

politicians/military leaders/clergy/plantation owners needed to face a Nuremberg style trial and face the consequences for their crimes (owning of slaves and opening fire on America Military Installations).

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. That's a pretty singularly ill-advised review...

although an objective look at the history involved there would also show that many of the African slaves who ended up in the New World were in fact sold into slavery by their fellow Africans as captives of war. Some tribal chiefs conducted raids to capture people specifically to sell them into slavery. This is well-documented history. It's also worth remembering that the Economist is a British magazine and as such one expects its writers would be better-acquainted with the history of slavery in Britain (including numerous cases before British courts in the 18th century that found that slaves became free as soon as they set foot on British soil, and the birth of the abolitionist movement among English Quakers). One would expect the Economist's reviewer to probably also be more familiar with other history, such as the Irish sold into slavery by Cromwell. So yes, the story of slavery does, in fact, involve both white victims and black villains. History is frequently messy like that.

[rbrnmw]

25. smh

[heaven05]

100. another sad attempt

at intellectual massaging of a heinous system in amerikkka. Sure what you say is true, yet THE MAJORITY of slave were provided after Portuguese, Arab and Dutch slave raids on villages. Your attempt...........major BS.

[AverageJoe90]

119. History is indeed a messy, and often muddled, subject.

I don't think any genuine user here will disagree that Trans-Atlantic slavery was one of the world's great tragedies, and that the abolitionists had a truly noble cause, etc. Not at all.

But we must always remember that history is complex. There are twists, and turns, etc.; with the exception of the Nazis and a few others(John C. Calhoun & Robert B. Rhett are two of the worst American examples), there are rarely any truly nasty villains in history, just as, on the "light" side, there's rarely any truly wholesome folks(though folks like Lincoln, William L. Garrison, and Eleanor Roosevelt, sure do come close, IMO).

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Historical revisionism.

I have seen similar remarks in regards to Holocaust book reviews, despite greater acceptance of Holocaust denial, we are bound to see an increase in Slavery revisionism.

[YoungDemCA]

71. Well yes, because we have a black President, therefore the legacy of slavery is long gone

...and racism is over, and black people who continue to complain about racism are the REAL racists, and we live in a colorblind society where everyone is judged as an individual....

[JustAnotherGen]

110. Thank you for this

But I know we "see" the same things coming from different directions. I tend to agree.

I hate - HATE - when folks play tit for tat "these are the same" or "it wasn't as bad as" games.

[alphafemale]

22. There were black people that owned slaves.

What about that?

It is hard to tell from the one sentence given above if the author was maybe just delving into the truths of our horrifying past that make it even worse.

It is a hard cold fact.

Just like we have Clarence Thomas today.

And impoverished whites in slave states were often working on the same plantations. But since they were no rich man's "property" no one really cared.

Here's the edit.
If you killed an impoverished white often no one cared.
If you killed a slave. You would at least have to compensate the slave owner for his/her lost property. Not justice....in any sense. But it is the development of the term....

White trash. They were ones whose life had no value. Monetary or otherwise.

Poor whites and blacks should have been allies against a cruel system.

A way was found to create a mutual distrust that exists to this day.

[rbrnmw]

26. a poor white person was still free

[alphafemale]

27. Free to starve or to be murdered with impunity

They were "Free."

Yes.

Free as Trash.

White Trash gave slaves something to look down on and the elite let them think they were at least above something in society.

The poorest of the poor white grew to resent....YES...resent the slaves.

Because...yeah they...the whites were free.

But they resented the slaves.

On edit.

The slaves never had to worry about their next meal.

Or where they were going to sleep.



Again they should have been united against this social injustice.

It was a very devious thing for the plantation class to do.

And it is still done today.

[rbrnmw]

28. I am not going to entertain you

You actually saying slaves had it better than whites who were poor tells all I need to know about you

[alphafemale]

29. That is not actually what I am saying.

I'm saying the poor whites were led to have that perception.

The elite have been dividing and conquering the poor for a very long time.

[rbrnmw]

33. no you said slaves were fed everyday

Unlike the poor white folks forgive me perhaps you have not studied actual black history just the sterilized version put out by white folks.

What you are saying doesn't match actual historic fact plenty of slaves had to feed thenselves anyway they could. White folks might have worked on the plantation but they were given cash. They also didn't get beaten or lynched for for pissing off the owners.

[alphafemale]

37. Actually, I got this history lesson from black people.

But carry on.

And lynching happened in the Jim Crow era for the most part.

Again, you would at least have to pay the owner for his property if you killed a slave.

And

The term White trash first came into common use in the 1830s as a pejorative used by house slaves against poor whites. In 1833 Fanny Kemble, an English actress visiting Georgia, noted in her journal: "The slaves themselves entertain the very highest contempt for white servants, whom they designate as 'poor white trash'"

[Number23]

87. "I got this history lesson from black people."

I think those "black people" were performing an experiment to see how hard they could pull a stupid person's chain before they'd figure out the truth.

How many years has it been since they gave you this "lesson?"

[randys1]

91. oh lord, where am I again? LOL

[Paladin]

34. That is precisely what you're saying. Kindly massas and grateful, happy slaves=Hail Dixieland.

Neo-Confederate propaganda of the worst sort. Shame on you.

[rbrnmw]

36. Dontcha know White Privilege never existed

[Cad Bane]

42. Some people on this site are unbelievable

Now they are trying to peddle the idea that slaves had a better life than poor whites.

You know the black slaves who were treated as sub humans. The people who had their families broken up, denied an education, who were raped, beaten,killed, dehumanized in every possible way.

Those slaves had it better than poor white folks. GTFOH with that bullshit.

The ridiculous part is people don't even feel ashamed or cautious about peddling racist neo-confederate bullshit like this on this site. They probably expect to be backed up and supported.

WTF is going on here?

[rbrnmw]

44. I don't understand it either

One has "black friends" telling them this. They just don't know how telling the black friend defense is. That told me everything I need to know about them.

[Cad Bane]

58. They always have the "friend" in their back pocket.

Their jewish friends told them the concentration camps weren't that bad.

Black friend said the slaves had it better than poor whites.

Japanese friend said the internment camps were like disney land.

Native American friend said they really didn't want all that land anyway.

Also white privilege doesn't exist.

[rbrnmw]

59. it's the race card they say black folks play

When they are always the ones who do it.

[JustAnotherGen]

111. Let me take it to the next level

They put the race card in the deck in the first place. If they would remove it . . .

[rbrnmw]

115. Exactly

[Paladin]

54. Might as well get used to it.

That line of unfortunate revisionist thinking has never been absent, in all my years at DU.

[rbrnmw]

56. this is true sadly

[icymist]

74. Wow! Really? I've not seen this before.

You say it's here? Is there an example I can see? Totally unbelievable.

[Paladin]

75. The contents of this thread ought to provide you with the evidence you need. (nt)

[Sheldon Cooper]

80. Yeah, ol' Massa gave 'em roast beef every day and tucked them

into a goosedown bed every night. Now that was living. Such a shame that those poor white folks had to fend for themselves.

[Maedhros]

107. I have to think that, given the opportunity, black slaves would have changed places

with the free, poor whites.

"Not being owned" is a significant benefit that balances "being poor."

[gollygee]

112. Just knowing

your children couldn't be sold away from you, while you watched helplessly, knowing you wouldn't see them again, know what was happening, or have any way of even trying to protect them. That alone would be enough to make it a million times better than being enslaved.

A scene that really stuck with me from 12 Years a Slave was where the woman's children weren't bought with her, and her young daughter was obviously being marketed specifically to become someone's regular rape victim. That was her daughter's future, she knew it, and she was helpless and could do nothing about it. She'd likely never see her kids again. And then when the plantation owner's wife seemed so nice and sweet and seemed to empathize with that, and then said to her, "Don't worry, in a couple of weeks you'll have forgotten all about them." Then she later told her husband to sell her to someone else because the woman's constant crying was bumming her out. Those were what the nice people, what history revisionists would call "benevolent slave owners." That's about as good as it got.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

114. Yes

+1

[treestar]

35. free blacks who owned slaves were very rare

An oddity might occur; that doesn't make the system other than what it was.

These "arguments" are CSA apologist BS.

The white slaves one is even dumber - one was counted as black with any amount of black ancestry, no matter how little.

[alphafemale]

38. But it DID happen. A free discussion has to include that.

Just as where the term "White Trash" came from.

[KitSileya]

39. A free discussion has to give time to a minuscule phenomenon

just to be fair? Even if the ratio of main phenomenon (slavery) to minuscule phenomenon (whites who had it worse than slaves) is so incredibly high? Because slavery is so inherently bad that very few white people, even if they were starving, or houseless, or had been raped, or had lost their families, would have had it worse than a black slave.

As was said up thread - that tells me more about you than does a "free" discussion about slavery.

[alphafemale]

40. It was very common. And I learned this history from black friends.

Again. Where did the term "White Trash" come from?

Lower classes have been played against each other forever.

I can't see how you are not getting my point.

[rbrnmw]

41. yes the ole black friends defense

Classic

[alphafemale]

46. Stick with your white very special After School Special view of history.

Because it makes you feel superior.

woop.

The truth is muddled.

[rbrnmw]

49. I've studied Black History

So say what you will about me. I am secure in my knowledge.

[KittyWampus]

81. Ah, but history is not a fixed thing.

[rbrnmw]

83. I've read Slave Narratives on top of many many books

Are you suggesting the slaves lied?

[KitSileya]

45. What I see is someone who wants to discuss how bad whites had it alongside a discussion on slavery.

What I see is someone who would draw the discussion off center, and use time on poor whites. What I see is someone who somehow thinks that slaves, in slavery, could have it better than free white people. What I see is someone who doesn't understand freedom - who doesn't understand what it means to not own your own body. What I see is someone who put up false equivalencies between "white trash" and blacks, neatly refusing to see the glaring fact that white people, even if they were born "white trash", need only move away and suddenly not be "white trash", while African Americans are black and treated consequently wherever they move.

That is what I see.

[alphafemale]

48. Slaves were made to feel above poor "White Trash"

Poor whites resented slaves.

It was a created hated by the slave owners.

It is pretty much a historic fact.

Sorry you don't like it.

[rbrnmw]

50. you are something else

Now white folks resented slaves???? you should do some self reflecting before you post

[Cad Bane]

51. GTFOH with this bullshit!

For the love of god.

Do you have no shame?

Slaves were treated as sub humans. White people did pseudo science to convince themselves that blacks weren't equal human beings to them. Can you not fuckin understand that. Slaves did not consider themselves "above" poor whites.

You're just fuckin making shit up.

[rbrnmw]

53. no the black friends taught them

Which we know what that means.

[KitSileya]

55. This is what DU has become.

People on a progressive board arguing that some whites had it worse than slaves, because they claim slaves had somewhere to sleep and were guaranteed their meals. Honestly, did we go through the looking glass while I wasn't watching?

[rbrnmw]

57. this racist nonsense shouldn't be tolerated

[KitSileya]

61. That is very true.

However, even if the diminishing number of African American DUers should alert on their posts, odds are it wouldn't be hidden anyway. And then they wonder why we have a diminishing number of African American DUers.... and why Democrats keep losing elections when the major forum working on electing Democrats is so hostile to core demographics.

[rbrnmw]

63. yep

Not to mention all the females they are also losing

[JustAnotherGen]

78. Yeah - I'm not alerting on this nonsense

DU has a group of folks who are hostile to us. What's the point? I'm not even sure these people are true liberals/progressives so I'm not wasting my time on them.

This will give you a chuckle though!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11878357#post12

[heaven05]

103. I read that the other day

[KitSileya]

52. Poor white resenting slaves, and slave feeling better than poor whites (or any whites)

Doesn't mean that poor whites had it as bad as, or worse than slaves, and that is what you are arguing.

I don't like your argument because it is wrong, and because it draws attention away from the main premise of the discussion, that slavery in the US was mostly black victims, white villains. I don't know why you feel the need to mention that you think some white people had it worse than slaves in this discussion, but as said before, it says a lot about you.

[heaven05]

104. not negroes

[Number23]

88. MIRT!! Calling MIRT!! PLEASE!!

I know you guys have a limited purview but can we please make an exception here???

[yardwork]

95. Gone With the Wind isn't really a historical document.

It's fantasy.

[justiceischeap]

113. I wish I could recommend this comment.

My co-workers are wondering why I'm laughing right now.

[gollygee]

96. It sounds like

you're saying that white people had a hard time at least partly because not all enslaved African Americans felt inferior to them. That feeling inferior would be neutral, and anything else is proof of a problem.

[LanternWaste]

98. No more and no less than a free discussion regarding the standard has to include the...

"A free discussion has to include that..."

No more and no less than a free discussion regarding the standard norm has to include the statistical aberration...

[tazkcmo]

101. And a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again

But you don't include it in the statistical analysis. Congratulations! You are the first person on my ignore list in 8 years!

[ieoeja]

106. Okay, let's include that.

Sometime after the African slave trade ended, the South found itself in serious trouble. Contrary to your "slave is too valuable" misreading of history, the South was actually killing slaves faster than they could be replaced. During her pregnancy, a slave will have to consume more than the they produce. And child slaves are pretty useless for awhile making them not cost effective. So outside Kentucky and Rhode Island, where they made slave breeding a major industry, there wasn't much effort to replace slaves domesticly.

Plenty of attempts were made non-domesticly. Cuba was invaded twice. Baja California was captured. Sonora was invaded (at which point Baja was lost). Guatemala was conquered. Then invaded a second time after being kicked out after the first time.

Every one of those adventures were launched for the specific purpose of obtaining replacement slaves.

Here in the good ol' US of A, laws were passed to slow the loss of slaves. This included laws making it illegal to free a slave, even if the owner wanted. Up to that point a lot of free Blacks would purchase and free relatives as often as they could. When it became illegal to free them, they continued purchasing friends and relatives. Legally, they remained slaves since they could not legally free them. In reality, of course, they were just friends and relatives.

The worst long standing result of benevolent slavery (as the above legal fiction became known) is that it introduces nonsensical data into the topic that lets propagandists trick people into believing that "Blacks owned slaves" is a real issue when it is complete bullshit.

------------------------------------

For the record: the first of my name was brought over as a "White Trash" indentured servant from Ireland in the 1740s. Five years later he was free and a sharecropper on his former master's plantation. Awhile later he owned his own place and, from time to time**, his own slave(s).

None of his children ever had to be a servant. Hopelessness is one glaringly big difference between slave and indentured servant.

That and the fact that he would be free someday meant the master better not treat his ass too bad or a day of reckoning was coming when the indenture ended.

------------------------------------

** If you're ever read that "most southerners did not own slaves" a period does not correctly belong after that phrase. It should end "at any given moment". Because the South wasn't just a slave culture. It was a Norman/Celtic military culture (which is why they were so confident they could kick the Anglo-Saxon*** North's ass in the Civil War). And in military cultures:

Land Owners call the shots.

Warriors are worshipped.

Craftsmen are respected.

Freed men are necessary for the food they produce.

Laborers who work for another man are the lowest life form on the face of the Earth. No man who would willingly do so and must therefore be beaten into submission.

So a small family farm like ours never owned generations of slaves. But roughly every other census showed them owning slaves. Because sometimes who needed some help. And in the old South, few men were willing to work for pay. So you had to buy a slave then sell him/her when the job was done.

That, or they just lied on the census since more slaves meant more political power. Too many people today would have given slave owners even more power because they think the 3/5th rule was meant to demean the slave (like anyone gave two shits how slaves felt) instead of a compromise between abolitionists who wanted a 0/5th rule since the extra political power was obviously going to the slave owners, not the slaves, and the slavers who wanted the 5/5th rule that many DUers think would have been just peachy keen ignoring the fact that it would have given slave owners more power. Many DUers clearly think with their hearts on this subject, not their heads.

-----------------------------------

*** Anglo-Saxon's were reviled in the Confederate States of America. In fact, there were at least two proposals (one possibly facetious) to replace the dwindling African slave population with Anglo-Saxons.

[AverageJoe90]

120. It's an interesting post, but I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on one thing:

The "Norman/Celtic aristocracy" meme(that seems to have it's fair share of adherents), I'm afraid, is nothing more than a myth. With maybe a slight few fringe exceptions, Anglo-Saxons weren't just not at all reviled, they were downright worshipped in the South, especially in the core of planter country. You know why? Because, let's face it: the large majority of the Southern aristocracy were Anglo-Saxons themselves, through and through. Even if a few of them did have a couple of Scots-Irish ancestors who assimilated into the fold(and even then, the Scots-Irish were never more than a secondary power group, and weren't always even really liked if they didn't assimilate enough; it's actually part of why so much of the Appalachia area leaned so pro-Unionist during the Civil War.).

[ieoeja]

124. The Scots-Irish were a secondary power-group. But the aristocracy was largely Norman, not Anglo.

I think you saw "Celtic" and overlooked the Norman part. You are correct in that a lot of people overstate the importance of the Scots and Irish. Heck, my family was one of those Irish families, and he was brought over as an indentured servant. He wasn't exactly a power broker!


I read a quote from a southern newspaper written during the Civil War along the lines of, "we conquered the Anglo-Saxons before, we can do it again."

The two suggestions I mentioned previously that Blacks be replaced with Anglo-Saxon slaves were also written in southern newspapers during the Civil War. This was not the private musings of some politician or, worse yet, sourced from one of the post-war biographies. This is directly from contemporary sources.


As to further evidence of Norman aristocrats in the South, consider the names of the colonies:

North
--------------------------
Massachussettes, Delware and Connecticut - Native American
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York - English
William Penn(sylvania) - a populist politician where the populace was English

South
--------------------------
Queen Mary(land)
King Georg(ia)
Kings Charles I & II (Carolus is Latin for Charles; hence the two Carolinas)
The Virgin(ia) Queen Elizabeth
Lord Rhode's Island and Plantation


Basically, the North was largely founded by English seeking to flee the British Empire. The South was founded by Normans seeking to expand the British Empire.

The Southern economy also makes perfect sense when you take into account their Norman origins. The Plantation/Slave model was just a modernized version of the Barony/Serf model.

[AverageJoe90]

129. My Response.

I think you saw "Celtic" and overlooked the Norman part

I actually didn't overlook anything. And Colony names don't really prove much, TBH.

Although, yes, it may be true that Norman strains also existed in Southern culture, as well as Celtic. But again, the Anglo-Saxon culture had always been the dominant basic culture in the South, just as up North; the real major difference was in it's expressions(you were certainly correct on this, however: Southern colonists sought to expand the empire, Northerners sought refuge from it).

You are correct in that a lot of people overstate the importance of the Scots and Irish. Heck, my family was one of those Irish families, and he was brought over as an indentured servant. He wasn't exactly a power broker!

Interesting. In any case, it can be pointed out that there were a few Scots-Irish who actually did become worthy in the eyes of the old elite: namely, John C. Calhoun, and a few others. There were also a few descended from Huguenots as well, such as William Porcher Miles. Basically, it seems, as long as one seemed Anglo enough and was willing to assimilate into the elite culture, then it was possible to be accepted: even the Taliaferros got a seat, and they were Italian!

I read a quote from a southern newspaper written during the Civil War along the lines of, "we conquered the Anglo-Saxons before, we can do it again."

Looking at this quote, it honestly seems to be more of an allegory more than anything else; after all, William the Conqueror did beat Godwinson at Hastings.

This is directly from contemporary sources.

Okay, but it seems that this was more of a case of some Southerners wanting to expand slavery as much as possible, and not some swipe at Anglos(well, not Southern Anglos, anyway).

[marble falls]

122. Regardless of the color of slave masters, slavery is wrong. The percentage of black owned slaves....

was very low:

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.2.html

"So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave."

That racists feel a need to point out "blacks owning blacks" somehow justifies or ameliorates slavery is cynical and part and parcel of their racism.

[ieoeja]

125. If you read my post before yours, you will note that a lot of those Black slave "masters" were not.

By the time the Civil War rolled around many Southern states had made it illegal to free a slave even if the owner wanted. The best a free Black man could do was to purchase a friend or family member. Their "slave" status would then just be a legal fiction.

[Number23]

86. Jesus Christ on a crutch

If you killed an impoverished white often no one cared.

Unless of course, you were BLACK then your ass was hung from a fucking tree with NO TRIAL.

Get out of here with this stupidity!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

90. Times ten thousand

And God help you if you had learned to read and write.

Can't have folks doing a little thing like learning they aren't a full human being in America! What about the children Number23?

[heaven05]

102. those whites you

point out were deemed 'better' than an slave. And yes white classism existed and still exists in the white culture among whites, yet ANY white was and still is deemed worth more than a slave or a modern era amerikkkan black. As far as blacks owning slaves, very, very minor numbers there and if you really want to know some truth instead of that BS you're spreading, 'Before the Mayflower' Lerone Bennett.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Absolutely. Remember all the freed slaves begging to be taken back into slavery?

Yearning for the good old days of luxury and ease, singin' and dancin' with the kindly white owners.

[Octafish]

47. Rothschilds have an ownership stake in The Economist

The family once also was in the slave trade.

Rothschild and Freshfields founders’ had links to slavery, papers reveal

By Carola Hoyos
Financial Times

Two of the biggest names in the City of London had previously undisclosed links to slavery in the British colonies, documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed.

Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, and James William Freshfield, founder of Freshfields, the top City law firm, benefited financially from slavery, records from the National Archives show, even though both have often been portrayed as opponents of slavery.

Far from being a matter of distant history, slavery remains a highly contentious issue in the US, where Rothschild and Freshfields are both active.

Companies alleged to have links to past slave injustices have come under pressure to make restitution.

JPMorgan, the investment bank, set up a $5m scholarship fund for black students studying in Louisiana after apologising in 2005 for the company’s historic links to slavery.

CONTINUED (with registration, etc) ...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0.html

Humans as property is nothing new to Old Money.

[alphafemale]

60. Yeah. OK It all as black and white as you imagine.

Whatever.

Cede to people that have seen movies.

[rbrnmw]

62. you are on the wrong side of this discussion

and the wrong side of history you are just plain out wrong

[YoungDemCA]

69. This isn't Neo-Confederate Underground

Are we clear on that?

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. Is it your opinion that the movies exaggerated the evils of slavery?Are you suggesting that slavery

was a mixture of good and bad?

[spanone]

82. this nation has lost it's collective mind.

and so has DU

[rbrnmw]

84. yep

[Number23]

89. You ain't lying. DU lost its mind a while ago and the main way you could tell was the stream of

black and brown posters that left and couldn't be paid to post here again.

[randys1]

93. I am surprised any of you remain...it is so hostile here to minorities and Women

Yes there are still many here who back them up like myself, but if we dare speak truth we get hidden, soon to be banned etc.

Nah, we need a liberal message board to go to and talk freely.

[Number23]

108. I'm surprised any of us remain too.

I really am.

Yes there are still many here who back them up like myself, but if we dare speak truth we get hidden, soon to be banned etc.

You could get a million hidden posts and I'd still be a fan. If you get banned from this place for speaking out against liberal and "left" racism and ignorance, then consider it a badge of honor.

[randys1]

92. Yes, liberal democrats are dying out...USA is in for some real sad days ahead

[heaven05]

105. Yep

very sad and regressive days, weeks, months, years ahead for all who dare challenge the RW ..... males mentality, supremacy and privilege.

[shenmue]

94. Duhhhhh

What a moron.

[blkmusclmachine]

109. ,

,

[Prophet 451]

117. That's what happens when everything becomes political

The right's constant attempts to revise history are not new and the review is only saying something that millions of right-wingers have been saying for years.

[AverageJoe90]

118. History is often a complicated subject.....But, truthfully, this reviewer missed the point.

I think Chait's response to this essentially captured my opinion about those comments.

[cstanleytech]

121. "History is often a complicated subject" So true. I mean heck slavery has

actually been practiced in one form or another at one time or another all over the globe for thousands of years.

[Todays_Illusion]

123. Nothing generates more conservative anger than information that contradicts their fairy tales.

[unblock]

127. "this is not history; it is advocacy" one could argue that all history is advocacy

in any event, is it really problematic for a history book to advocate against slavery?