Screenshot of the book review in question
The Economist, a British weekly news magazine, posted a book review on September 5th 2014 of “The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism” (2014) by Edward Baptist, an American historian. It appears in the September 6th print issue. At the end of the review it lurched into self-parody:
“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.”
That led to so much criticism in the comments and so much mockery on Twitter (#economistbookreviews) that The Economist withdrew its review and apologized:
“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.”
In the “interests of transparency” it posted the article below the apology, but without the comments and without the picture it had of Lupita Nyong’o as Patsey in “12 Years a Slave” (2013). Below the picture it had said:
“Patsey was certainly a valuable property”
It gets worse.
In the review The Economist said:
“In 1860 a typical slave picked at least three times as much cotton a day as in 1800. … Mr Baptist cites the testimony of a few slaves to support his view that these rises in productivity were achieved by pickers being driven to work ever harder by a system of ‘calibrated pain’.”
What it does not tell you is that “a few” means 2,300. After dismissing the testimony of thousands of Black eyewitnesses, it makes sure to remind us how hard the Irish had it and then repeats slave owner propaganda straight out of the 1850s in its own voice:
“Slave owners surely had a vested interest in keeping their “hands” ever fitter and stronger to pick more cotton. Some of the rise in productivity could have come from better treatment.”
It says this not only in the teeth of the historical record, as pieced together by Baptist and others, but even in the face of what Patsey herself went through, both in life and on film.
Unfortunately, this review was not out of the ordinary for The Economist. Just two weeks before it said of the Michael Brown shooting:
“As it is, there are two conflicting stories and no way to choose between them.”
As if a police lie that would shame a ten-year-old should be taken as seriously as several independent eyewitness accounts. Does The Economist think Blacks were lying about that too?
As Baptist himself points out, there is a reason for The Economist to be wilfully obtuse about his book: it strikes at the heart of The Economist’s belief that free-market capitalism knows best. His book lays bare how the logic of free markets drove slave owners to become increasingly cruel to slaves. Because they were just, after all, property.
Thanks to lifelearner for suggesting this post.
See also:
- External links:
- The Economist: Our withdrawn review “Blood Cotton” – read the apology and the review
- Twitter: #economistbookreviews – tweets reviewing other books in a parody of The Economist style. For example: “Objective history is clear: Primo Levi survived & Auschwitz did not, yet in his book he represents Jews as the victims
#economistbookreviews” – Philip Gourevitch (@PGourevitch)
- The Economist
- “Britain no longer has a serious race problem.” – another gem by The Economist
- Notes towards a media guide to Gaza – as with this review and the Michael Brown shooting, it sides with White men with guns.
- wilfully obtuse
- 12 Years a Slave
- Michael Brown
- The White Rules For Thinking About Black People
I laughed inside as I read this, and now I’m left with an uneasy mixture of disgust, nausea and indifference.
LikeLike
[…] Economist Book Review: Slaves were treated well.via Economist Book Review: Slaves were treated […]
LikeLike
This review was stupid.
LikeLike
omg
LikeLike
No, it’s called the cold hard TRUTH! *smh*
LikeLike
And the sad thing about it, there is huge USA population (i.e. FauxNews watchers) that truly believe in their cold-blooded hearts that slavery wasn’t that bad. And slavery was good for “dem-darkies” *pathetic*
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Abiola of the Rouge.
LikeLike
Pumpkin said:
Right there with you.
Slimy, neoliberal rag.
Slavery reflects badly on the ethics of capitalism. Heaven forbid that the privileged elite who rule the world’s economies should be seen as historical bad guys, let alone ongoing oppressors.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
Whites pointed to how Blacks loved to sing and dance as proof that they were content. But Whites were also armed to the teeth in fear of slave uprisings.
LikeLike
The happiness thing is an irrelevant diversion, IMO. Even if some of the enslaved black people were “happy”, that in no way mitigates, diminishes, or excuses their enslavement.
Even if someone makes the best of their bad situation, that situation remains just as bad.
LikeLike
Stockholm syndrome doesn’t make kidnapping or hostage-taking any less wrong.
LikeLike
Right now, the most important issue in America is making sure that state-sponsored sodomy (a.k.a. “Gay Marriage”) is crushed.
LikeLike
@ Bobby M.
Um… Why? How is someone else’s marriage your business?
LikeLike
@buddhuu – State-sponsored sodomy is unlawful in the eyes of God. Jesus died for us, we need to have more respect for him and his teachings.
LikeLike
I suspect that your proselytising may be off topic.
LikeLike
OFF TOPIC: Gay marriage.
LikeLike
The picture stills of Lupita Nyong’o as Patsey said it all. You can feel her deep pain and despair. What sane person would think slavery was a good thing? It’s evil. E-V-I-L.
LikeLike
Yeah, no one would ever say domestic abuse is okay because the abused hasn’t left, or smiles sometimes. So singing and dancing with your family to keep from going completely mad does not diminish the morality of the issue. That reminds me of those Duck Dynasty comments.
LikeLike
Has anyone seen the movie shutter island with Leo dicaprio?
White people have this grand delusion. Ever so often we think we’ve shattered it and brought them back to light only to find it’s back at the end of the movie.
In the movie the only other option was to lobotomize Leo.
LikeLike
EbonyMonroe,
Have you been following the ray rice thing? People definitely say that.
LikeLike
This is the magazine that wanted President Assad of Syria desposed off! A big slavers mentally from that land once described by an Asian newspaper as ” a small little country”.
LikeLike
@Solesearch
“White people have this grand delusion.”
The Marxist philosopher Engels called this a phenomena a “False Consciousness”.
If his theory is correct then capitalist defenders like the Economist must square slavery with their idea that Capitalism is universally good always and is the end -all, be-all of human progress. Slavery could be seen as unfettered Capitalism, allowing even for the comodification of humans.
If slavery cannot be integrated into the narrative that capitalism is always good, all the time then a bit of our ‘false consciousness’ might erode. We might unplug from the Matrix (epic analogy). The Economist must normalize it, and show how it wasn’t all that bad, or it festers as a challenge to their preferred socio-economic system.
I assume that Marxist theorists would posit that black Americans have a “False Consciousness”. I doubt though, that most black Americans are as sold on capitalism as white Americans given their propensity to vote for the Democratic party, which favors redistributive policies.
LikeLike
All I can say is wow! It seems white people want to tell themselves that their cruel history wasn’t all that cruel. They want to lie to not only themselves, but others who are just as willfully naive.
LikeLike
Slavery is the epitome of capitalism, it morphed into mining/railroad camps and company stores into mortgages
LikeLike
@v8driver
“Slavery is the epitome of capitalism”
Agreed.
LikeLike
@Brothawolf
” It seems white people want to tell themselves that their cruel history wasn’t all that cruel. They want to lie to not only themselves, but others who are just as willfully naive.”
IMHO the Economist and organizations and media like it aren’t talking to ordinary white people. The white masses don’t read the Economist, don’t partake in elite discussion about capitalism and won’t read or ever hear about “The Half Has Never Been Told”. And if they did read it, they wouldn’t be sophisticated enough to understand most of it.
The Economist is written by and for the elite. You may pick-up a copy at the airport, read it and think it’s for you. It isn’t. For the typical person, of ordinary means reading the Economist is like living in L.A. and reading The New Yorker.
In this instance, the Economist book review is talking to other elitists about what narrative is allowed to be shared with the masses. Will “The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism” become an accepted mainstream narrative of American capitalism or will it be thrown in the dustbin. The Economist wants it in the dustbin. Not because the Economist has a racist agenda (although it may), but rather because the book is not just a condemnation of slavery, which is fine, but because it attacks capitalism, and that just won’t do.
The sort of narrative that ties slavery to the history of capitalism in the U.S., especially a narrative that shows how unfettered capitalism, lacking a social conscious lead directly to the suffering of millions, if allowed to stand, may add strength to any movement that would promote the societal regulation of our economic system in favor businesses that represent America’s progressive nature. So the Economist and other media like it must constantly ridicule, attack and delegitmize any narrative that illustrates how American capitalism supported and even encouraged the growth of chattel slavery in the United States. And of course, we know, slavery wasn’t just a part of the story of early American economic expansion – it was the main event.
LikeLike
@biggiefriez
Have you ever seen documentary The Corporation? It goes into depth on how laws which were made to protect newly freed African Americans were taken advantage of by burgeoning corporate America, leading to corporate businesses being classed as human beings, creating a binding law that made it unlawful to sacrifice profit, (by any means necessary), and turning the corporation into what board certified psychologists diagnosed as psychopathic. It’s an incredible documentary; really, a must see.
LikeLike
@Ebonymonroe
“Have you ever seen documentary The Corporation?”
I have not. I Googled it and am interested. I added it to my Netflix queue. Thanks for the recommendation.
LikeLike
No problem. I was gonna say it’s on netflicks, if you’re interested.
LikeLike
@ biggiefriez:
Excellent contributions to the thread.
Although Ancaps claim that their NAP, and basic Anarchist non-coercion, mean that they would not enslave, that is nonsense. They (capitalists-max) often refuse to acknowledge economic coercion and wage slavery. The aggression that they claim to reject already happened when an elite took control of land and resources to establish the private property that is so sacred to them. One way or another, de facto slavery of some kind is inevitable under capitalism.
@Ebonymonroe:
My thanks also for the recommendation re.The Corporation.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on and commented:
It appears to be an interesting read that is worth sharing and I will be pursuing the search of this novelty and provide a review in the near future.
LikeLike
Sharina,
here is an article discussing the differences between Irish/ European slaves/servants versus African slave/servants in North America:
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Runaway_Slaves_and_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia
At first, the lives of servants and slaves were similar. They were owned by their masters and they worked shoulder to shoulder in the tobacco fields
—sometimes even alongside their masters and their masters’ wives. Masters often used the courts to discipline their servants. The English common law, though only sparingly enforced, was meant to protect servants and slaves from mistreatment.
1600s
Still, blacks and whites sought relief from their often grueling labor and difficult work conditions by running away, sometimes together.
In July 1640, two such cases appeared before the colony’s judges. The decision dated July 9 describes three servants belonging to Hugh Gwyn who ran away to Maryland and were captured there.
Victor, “a Dutchman,” and James Gregory, “a Scotchman,” were each sentenced to be whipped, and four years were added to their indentures.
The third servant, “a negro named John Punch,” was punished differently.
Rather than take on additional years, he was made a slave for life.
Scholars have argued that this decision represents the first legal distinction between Europeans and Africans to be made by Virginia courts.
____________________________________
By studying Virginia’s laws, historians have been able to track the continuing problem of runaway servants and slaves.
During the General Assembly’s March 1661 session, for instance, lawmakers addressed the circumstance of “English running away with negroes.”
March 1660–March 1661 – The General Assembly passes a law entitled “English running away with negroes” that adds years of service, in addition to the normal penalty, to runaway white servants captured with blacks.
LikeLike
1700s
1707 – Robert “King” Carter asks permission to chop off the toes of “two incorrigible negroes” named Bambarra Harry and Dinah.
1717 – Parliament passes a convict transportation act, establishing a procedure by which persons convicted of a capital crime in Great Britain might have their sentences commuted to transportation to the colonies, where they would be sold for a term of service, usually fourteen years.
1725 – Robert “King” Carter receives court permission to dismember two slaves named Will and Bailey.
October 10, 1727 – In a letter to one of his property managers, Robert “King” Carter suggests he dismembered the slave Ballazore, writing, “I have cured many a negro of running away by this means.”
LikeLike
back in the 1600s, African servants were also enslaved with time limits
From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery by PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html
One of the few recorded histories of an African in America that we can glean from early court records is that of “Antonio the negro,” as he was named in the 1625 Virginia census.
He was brought to the colony in 1621. At this time, English and Colonial law did not define racial slavery; the census calls him not a slave but a “servant.”
Later, Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson, married an African American servant named Mary, and they had four children.
Mary and Anthony also became free, and he soon owned land and cattle and even indentured servants of his own.
(He bought his first property in 1640) By 1650, Anthony was still one of only 400 Africans in the colony among nearly 19,000 settlers.
In Johnson’s own county, at least 20 African men and women were free, and 13 owned their own homes.
In 1641, Massachusetts became the first colony to legally recognize slavery. Other states, such as Virginia, followed.
Slavery was not only a life-long condition; now it could be passed, like skin color, from generation to generation.
In 1665, Anthony Johnson moved to Maryland and leased a 300-acre plantation, where he died five years later.
But back in Virginia that same year,
because he was a “negroe and by consequence an alien.”
In 1705 Virginia declared that “All servants imported and brought in this County… who were not Christians in their Native Country… shall be slaves. A Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves … shall be held to be real estate.”
LikeLike
@Linda
Thank you for the detailed information. I was aware that blacks were indentured servants. I have been studying a bit on what happened that made turned the system into racism and slavery.
I read that the case of John Punch was the turning point.
LikeLike
There is a piece in The New York Times by Edward Baptist a very good one called Teaching Slavery To Reluctant Listeners. In the article he talks about how the first thing white students utter from their lips “Africans sold other Africans” deflection tactic because they are uncomfortable or unwilling to discuss slavery. His book The Half Has Never Been Told is a very good read. The Economist are full of horse manure. Over the weekend on Google+ Edward Baptist was being discussed and why white people are reluctant to discuss slavery. White people and everyone else who have an issue with discussing slavery and need to be enlightened as need to view the PBS documentary Slavery By Another Name and read the book by Douglas A. Blackman. White folks need to get a damn clue and a revelation for real.
LikeLike
Listening to the Half Has Never Been Told By Edward Baptist on Audible it’s very informative. I recommend it to all.
LikeLike
@Mary Burrell
Thanks for the recommendation.
LikeLike
@Linda: Thanks for your valuable information adding to my learning.
LikeLike
Capitalism takes capital and leverages that to produce more resources. It doesn’t have a moral compass but then no economics systems do. The State ends up providing security via the military industrial complex to ensure resources abroad continue to flow into the economy.
Bernie Sanders style of Socialism relies on Capitalism to generate profits so that greater tax revenue is generated and redistributed more “equally” . How the pie gets divided up depends upon politics.
Real Socialism nationalizes resources like oil and redistributes the wealth. It still relies on market forces to dictate prices.
To get away from Capitalism you have to go to a centrally planned Communist economy and history shows how stagnated economies get when incentives are removed from society.
White supremacy can thrive under any economic model.
As I see it private property isn’t evil. It’s the State behind private property that carve out politically protected entities like corporations who pay the State for special privileges. It’s this cronyism between business and the State that keeps class barriers in place and leads to oppressive and caste societies. Public servants, including non whites,can help maintain the status quo.
In slavery humans are made personal property and are leveraged to maximum production just like capital is within Capitalism.
The larger the plantation the more dehumanized slaves became in the eyes of their owners. The likelihood of painful coercion increases in that kind of environment.
It could be that small farms who owned a few slaves treated them more humanly then larger plantations but that doesn’t have any bearing on the moral argument against slavery. It is still theft of a sovereign human being which makes the “owners” compliant to the kidnapping, rape and abuse that slaves had to go through to get to their finale destination.
When slavery was abolished their was no paradigm shift that took place within the U.S. that allowed whites to view Blacks as people. Just anger, resentment and racism. Jim Crow made sure that new economic barriers were erected to keep Blacks from competing in the market place.
Civil rights have come and gone and todays racism is much more subtle but it is just as real in maintaining economic barriers; it’s just masked as a Black person problem.
In the white hierarchy we all live in civil rights trickle down from the top and have little effect on those at the bottom. Those non whites who are able to move up in the hierarchy receive greater benefits. I’m going to speculate that the farther up the hierarchy non whites get the less likely they will care about nor acknowledge those on the bottom. The degrees of separation that class affords makes Blacks like Bill Cosby or Ben Carson blind to the system that they help maintain.
The only alternative is for Blacks is to build their own Hierarchy to disempower the white one. And that means a Black centric world view, Black political parties and a refusal to compromise within the system. It means building communities, holding them and having the means to defend them.
LikeLike