Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Worst Book Review Ever Criticizes Slave History For Not Presenting 'Both Sides' [View all]
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Update: The Economist has withdrawn the review with an apology for publishing it at all.
129 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Worst Book Review Ever Criticizes Slave History For Not Presenting 'Both Sides' [View all]
applegrove
Sep 2014
OP
Like the DORK critic that questioned the validity of ' Twelve Years a Slave '
orpupilofnature57
Sep 2014
#1
We have time warped. Racism, sexism... the hate that gets spewed these days is disheartening. n/t
cui bono
Sep 2014
#12
Yes, you had not only an initial investment, but ongoing (if minimal) maintenance costs
Jackpine Radical
Sep 2014
#126
The funny thing is there were plenty of slaves we would consider white.
Exultant Democracy
Sep 2014
#6
I don't like to hear the thinking of slave owners. Read slave narratives in University
applegrove
Sep 2014
#7
Thomas Jefferson's 4 children by Sally Hemings were legally white, but slaves
carolinayellowdog
Sep 2014
#19
I wasn't aware of the law making octoroons legally white, thanks for the info
Exultant Democracy
Sep 2014
#72
Perfect response sadly which was wasted on a (won't say it) because people like that are
AuntPatsy
Sep 2014
#8
There are no limits nor depths to the harmful delusions of CSA apologists. And DU isn't immune.
Paladin
Sep 2014
#17
Confederate apologists were given free rein to write revisionist history
Cirque du So-What
Sep 2014
#18
Well yes, because we have a black President, therefore the legacy of slavery is long gone
YoungDemCA
Sep 2014
#71
That is precisely what you're saying. Kindly massas and grateful, happy slaves=Hail Dixieland.
Paladin
Sep 2014
#34
The contents of this thread ought to provide you with the evidence you need. (nt)
Paladin
Sep 2014
#75
I have to think that, given the opportunity, black slaves would have changed places
Maedhros
Sep 2014
#107
What I see is someone who wants to discuss how bad whites had it alongside a discussion on slavery.
KitSileya
Sep 2014
#45
Poor white resenting slaves, and slave feeling better than poor whites (or any whites)
KitSileya
Sep 2014
#52
No more and no less than a free discussion regarding the standard has to include the...
LanternWaste
Sep 2014
#98
It's an interesting post, but I'm afraid I'll have to correct you on one thing:
AverageJoe90
Sep 2014
#120
The Scots-Irish were a secondary power-group. But the aristocracy was largely Norman, not Anglo.
ieoeja
Sep 2014
#124
Regardless of the color of slave masters, slavery is wrong. The percentage of black owned slaves....
marble falls
Sep 2014
#122
If you read my post before yours, you will note that a lot of those Black slave "masters" were not.
ieoeja
Sep 2014
#125
Absolutely. Remember all the freed slaves begging to be taken back into slavery?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Sep 2014
#43
Is it your opinion that the movies exaggerated the evils of slavery?Are you suggesting that slavery
Douglas Carpenter
Sep 2014
#77
You ain't lying. DU lost its mind a while ago and the main way you could tell was the stream of
Number23
Sep 2014
#89
I am surprised any of you remain...it is so hostile here to minorities and Women
randys1
Sep 2014
#93
History is often a complicated subject.....But, truthfully, this reviewer missed the point.
AverageJoe90
Sep 2014
#118
"History is often a complicated subject" So true. I mean heck slavery has
cstanleytech
Sep 2014
#121
Nothing generates more conservative anger than information that contradicts their fairy tales.
Todays_Illusion
Sep 2014
#123
"this is not history; it is advocacy" one could argue that all history is advocacy
unblock
Sep 2014
#127