Discussion for article #227313
WhITEs were THE viCTims OF SlaVERy. BLacks MADe thEIR whITE masters TO FEEd, CLOthe and HOUSe them. ALSO ProviDE free HEalTHcare. And WHAt IS worse, Ex_slaves LIEd. WaTCh anY ShIRLEY teMPLE mOVIe AND YOU’ll SEE HOw HAPPY theY were, SINGING and DANCINg wiTH great BIG smiLES on theiR faces. MOre revisionist historY from libturds!!1!1!!!11!!!one!!111!!!
32 Likes
Yes the Jews had a good time playing cards at the camps, the kids loved working in the mines and not having to go to school, native americans really liked the beads, victims of the pedophile priests had great Christmas’s…yup there is always another side to any story of oppression of one group of people by another.
36 Likes
Hear hear!!!
1 Like
Nice honest guy. Rather than sprinting into victimhood, he sticks up for the former slaves first. I also like that he acknowledges that he knew the review would only help his sales.
And the shoutout to Jamelle Bouie is nice too. He does good work over at that Libertarian nightmare of a website, Slate.
11 Likes
Now we can only hope that The Economist will do the right thing and out the bastard that wrote that turd of a review, and hold him up to the scorn he deserves.-- ( FAT CHANCE)
8 Likes
I want to thank The Economist. Had it not been for the controversy they created, I would not have heard of, or ordered, the book. Sounds like a scholarly work I will enjoy once it arrives.
15 Likes
I just did a tour of Monticello…my takeaway on Mr Jeffersons philosophy concerning his elegant mansion and grounds: Never put off till tomorrow what my slaves can do today".
5 Likes
Let’s be real.
Baptist couldn’t have afforded this kind of publicity. This awful review is probably the best thing that could have happened to him.
1 Like
The Economist cited the “vested interest” that slaveholders would theoretically have in treating their slaves well so that they would be productive.
There are stories told by descendants of Irish immigrants to New Orleans that their ancestors were able to secure the dangerous work the slave owners didn’t want their slaves to perform. A dead slave was an economic loss. A dead Irishman could be easily replaced.
2 Likes
Yeah, but the Irishman could choose to do the job or not. And walk away with some money after doing the chore. The slave didn’t have any options.
12 Likes
Agreed, but to a very limited extend slaveholders did “care” about the welfare of their slaves more than the welfare of their Irish workers. That is not to say being a slave was anything other than being a victim.
Also, it’s a very common flawed argument that you have to show “both sides” of a story to not be biased. A great example is Zinn’s People’s History. It’s explicitly written as a supplement to what traditional history has provided, yet it’s always criticized as “revisionist” because it doesn’t focus on the gods and generals.
Writing about the experience of slaves is just that. It’s flawed to look at that and pretend the problem is that the stories of the slavers are being under represented. We’re hearing that a lot in the Ferguson and Feminist Frequency stuff, and it’s just silly.
8 Likes
After having finished reading “The Fall of the House of Dixie,” I don’t recall any happy slaves in that book either.
3 Likes
Wow, they even disparaged the “job creators” going back a century & a half ago !
4 Likes
I wouldn’t describe that as caring, but prudence with your belongings. Which is never a description that should be applied to another human being.
6 Likes
The “vested interest” story is BS. You would think that UPS has “vested interest” on their trucks being well treated…
2 Likes
The fact that there was no byline tells me they knew that piece of crap would get the derision it got. I’m thinking the author’s either hiding under a desk or s/he’s some 1-percenter who demanded “equal time.”
2 Likes
It’s a CONSPIRACY, I tell you… and the LIBBRULLL MEEDYUHH IS PART OF IT!
2 Likes
It's kind of a caricature of The Economist, the stodgy upper-class British twits.
Okay, that tears it:
6 Likes