racists (1 Viewer)

[mr pharmacist!!!!1]

oh you rascal!11

 

[shower another shower]

my niece is a racist. can't give her a slap because she's in red-neck-so-cal.

 

[IFF]

now i'm not racist but [insert a racist comment here]

 

[Cormcolash]

I know someone who said "I'm not being racist, but I won't get in a taxi with a black person driving, I don't trust them".
Okay, actually I know two people that said that.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

So, The Economist reviewed a book on the economics of slavery and concluded thus.
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. Unlike Mr Thomas, 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.

The economic theory of a slavery system based on nice treatment of slaves and not divided by colour is a new one on me. Twitter did a nice job with this though.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[nooleen]

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.

lol

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Twitter's at its best as the smartassed hivemind of humanity.

 

[nooleen]

what the fuck were they thinking?

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

what the fuck were they thinking?

My best guess from reading the whole review is that the reviewer took actual ideological offence to the notion that American prosperity had been based on anything other than "traditional causes" (Yankee ingenuity, individualism etc.) - these would seem to be articles of faith over at the Economist.
Slavery and its massive economic benefits were apparently something that just happened to occur at the same time.

But to dig the hole even deeper by countering the "calibrated pain" evidence with this pulled-out-of-his-ass notion of benevolent plantation owners treating their valuable property kindly and the slaves responding by working harder than ever, is mind-boggling. Especially with actual evidence to the contrary in a book he had just read.
I say 'he' & 'his' (the Economist obviously has no bylines) but their books editor is a woman, who has a definite interest in the topic.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[nooleen]

i bet some of the other staff are wishing they did have bylines right about now

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Exactly
The problem with speaking with one voice is that a fucked up ugly comment makes the one voice sound pretty shitty

 

[washingcattle]

Yeah and shouldn't celebrity boob havers like J-Law be thanking Reddit for raising their profiles ?

Exactly
The problem with speaking with one voice is that a fucked up ugly comment makes the one voice sound pretty shitty

Ha, If I'd said that there'd be hell to pay.


Nooly, I await your meh.

 

[nooleen]

?
are you on the wrong thread?

 

[washingcattle]

?
are you on the wrong thread?

Nope.

 

[nooleen]

uh..ok
i have no idea what you're on about

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[nooleen]

The slave trade: Not black and white | The Economist

 

[nooleen]

i'd say it's a safe bet the same prick wrote both of those reviews

i wonder if they'll be outed

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

The slave trade: Not black and white | The Economist

Nuts.
Truly.

 

[nooleen]

response from the author:

"It is a rare gift when people reveal themselves for who they are and what they believe. One of the challenges of writing a book about slavery is that a lot of the historians and journalists and students you talk to when you are writing the book are exactly the kind of people who can’t believe that anyone still thinks U.S. slavery was a mild, paternalist institution. Or that anyone still thinks slaves were “well-treated.” But in fact those people are still out there. Many of them are powerful. And their ideas still influence public policy and public discussion of race. So it is a good thing to flush out the ideas and reveal them for what they are.

Of course, The Economist’s reviews are unsigned, so who knows who actually wrote it and how it got green-lit for publication. I’m actually sorry that the review was retracted, both for the reasons I just mentioned, and because it inspired some brilliant takedowns of the piece in the Economist’s own comment thread."

The Economist Is Sorry About Its 'Not All Slave Masters' Book Review - The Wire