Discussion: Economist Apologizes For Review That Slammed Book On Slavery

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #227281

2

Ridiculous, racist bullshit designed to inflame most and satisfy the powerful…check!

Transparently bogus “apology” designed to make it seems like “they care” when in fact they’re snickering…check!

Editor takes the crew out for steak and lobster tonight, secure in the knowledge their readership just went up thanks to a bunch of racists…check!

7 Likes
3

Not impressed with that apology. They apparently had no problem with it before it was published, and its only after a public backlash that they saw the error of their way. Nice try, but not buying it.

14 Likes
4

That didn’t take long, but you have to wonder why the editorial board thought that was a fit review to publish in the first place.

8 Likes
5

They must have known it was going to be a little inflammatory if they left the author(s) name off of it.

Nothing better than a bunch of white males telling us slavery could not have been as bad as the slaves want us to believe.

15 Likes
6

Throw some ridiculous crap out there and then withdraw it and apologize later… unfortunately (sarcasm) you already made your original point.

That’s complete BS.

3 Likes
7

The Economist readers are not stupid people, yet I bet most them really truly believe that most slaves were quite happy with their lot in life. They would argue that if the slaves were so unhappy, why would they sing songs while picking cotton. On second thought, I guess they are pretty stupid. Racist in denial is what they are.

5 Likes
8

No, most of them don’t believe such nonsense. If that were the case, The Economist would have no reason to apologize. It’s likely their readers (those who buy the subscriptions) were pretty upset about it. Nothing works faster then economic motivation.

16 Likes
9

You don’t have to wonder that much it seems.

3 Likes
10

The Economist almost never issues bylines, traditionally, to avoid agreement or disagreement based on an individual writer’s pedigree. I haven’t read it much lately, but I would be surprised if that has changed.

I’m not going to try to read too much into the editorial board’s general principles from this. The Economist is typically right-leaning centrist, but it’s usually of the “honestly self-interested” kind rather than ideological BS. Retractions and apologies are fairly rare for them, even on controversial articles.

13 Likes
11

So: African slaves in America were “well-nurtured investments”, and their descendents are now “wasteful expenditures.”

Got it.

4 Likes
12

I know diddly about the economist but this article pretty much shows their heart, or lack thereof.

I’ll bet bullwhips to cotton seeds that these guys have a real strong opinion on legitimate rape also.

1 Like
13

Why does the editorial process occur AFTER the publishing of garbage?

10 Likes
14

Slavery and white supremacy are deeply rooted in Anglo American culture. In fact before the Angles and Saxons first landed on the British isles the prehistoric Britons practiced slavery until the slavery-loving Romans arrived to enslave them. So, no, not surprised to see this in an English publication.

15

You wouldn’t say that if you had read through the comments on the review at the site. I only got halfway through the second page of well over a hundred comments, but every one I read was universally condemnatory. Why else do you think they pulled it so quickly?

9 Likes
16

Actually, the Economist rebuked the whole “legitimate rape” nonsense pretty strongly and pretty quickly. As I said, they have a general “right” lean, but it’s generally not ideological.

Seriously, this whole situation is a giant embarrassment to them, but rushing to assumptions like that doesn’t really do much.

7 Likes
17

I have it on excellent authority that many slaves were happy and content in their servitude and devoted to their loving masters. I mean, it’s right there in “Gone With the Wind,” what more historical evidence do you want?

5 Likes
18

Yet another effort to put the notion that slavery was not all that bad ‘out there’. The first step is to make a despicable practice a legitimate object of debate. Racists will have won by merely muddying the waters.

3 Likes
19

See,that wasn’t hard to do.Apologize that is .Especially when the author is “authorless”.

"A good novel tells us the truth about it’s hero;but a bad novel tells us the truth about it’s author "

G.K Cheserton 1874-1936"

Well in this case it’s the publisher that is being exsposed.IMHO.

20

Slavery was pretty much a fact of life throughout recorded history until the past few centuries. It was pretty much a by-product of humanity’s constant wars. Adult male prisoners were usually killed and women and children were enslaved. The other main source of slaves was profit-driven. Neighboring populations were raided for captives who were then sold as slaves. Being Anglo-Saxon has little to do with it. And slavery still exists today. You need to get out more.

3 Likes