Either the publication is racist and they got caught or something slipped by a broken editorial system. Indiviidual racists exist everywhere and yet it is still entirely possible that the entire organization is reflecting a engrained cultural bias. At this point, I would accept their apology on face value and watch them like hell forever after.
If thatâs what you got out of what I wrote, I suggest you try to find a remedial reading course at your local community college or continuing education center. The point was that slavery is not peculiar to âAnglo-American cultureâ, but was a widespread phenomenon for most of the worldâs history. That is in no way a claim that it is ânot as bad as people thinkâ. Your reading comprehension is not usually that far off. Do you have a substance abuse problem?
5 Likes
Weâll see if in the next few months someone decides to spend more time with their family.
1 Like
I take it that youâre trying to say slavery as a part of human civilization is a feature, not a bug.
1 Like
OrâŚit had been, as a habit, for a long time.
1 Like
Now thatâs a well placed Rolex ad.
1 Like
There is an odd conservative tenor here of condemning someone for saying something we donât like. Why is it we canât tollerate the expression of an idea that says itâs more complicated than todayâs black and white beliefs? I wish more people here were willing to defend the 1st amendment.
1 Like
Your ignorance on the First Amendment is impressive.
6 Likes
One of the better non-apologies that I have seen in a while. The Economist is still an upper class, racist, arrogant rag that it always has been. The news media business allows The Economist to be treated far more seriously than it deserves. Thus, the general news media business is guilty of enabling the continuation of the "empire subservient colony good, independent, self-determinant nation bad philosophy that is the predominant world view of the British upper class.
Well, more of a feature than a bug. Actually, I think it more of a bug in the makeup of the human psyche, rather like the tendency to use violence and war to solve problems. People have always practiced slavery when they could, even in modern times. The Nazis used slave labor; the Soviet Union used slave labor. Slavery is still common in many parts of the world. That doesnât make it a good thing any more than using a firearm to settle an argument is a good thing. You can google âslavery todayâ and take your choice. Or, you can start here:
The idea that slavery is peculiar to âAnlgo-American cultureâ and that slavery ended when it was abolished in the British Empire and the United States in the 19th century is a bunch of hokum.
10 Likes
Clearly you are confused. The right to voice an opinion does not protect you from being criticized. As an example letâs use the scientifically established fact of global climate change.
97% of climate scientists agree on climate change and human activity as a major contributing factor. Now as a private citizen itâs your right to hold a contrary opinion; although that right does not provide immunity to you from being recognized as an idiot.
Example- if you had ninety-seven engineers tell you the bridge you were about to cross in your car was in imminent danger of collapse and three who alternatively said it was safe, what would you do? As a bystander I would call you an idiot for taking the advice of the minority over that of the majority. But again your right is upheld in that the decision is ultimately yours.
However if youâre a politician or an authority, and you refuse to act on expert consensus, you are negligent and should be help publicly/privately liable for your reckless disregard for the public good.
3 Likes
Thatâs because all blac were the victims and all whites were villians, unless they were abolitionist
If the Kochs (aided by their neo-Confederate voting bloc) have their way, our children will know about slavery a lot more intimately than the revisionist historians at The Economist.
I am reasonably well versed in the role of slavery relative to world history, at least what is considered western civilization. With that said the South did not willingly give up slavery; and despite active long-standing Southern appeasement- or maybe because of it- the apologist narrative for American slavery has always struck me as disingenuous, bordering on revisionist.
The mechanics of slavery display the very worst aspects of human nature, and in the South it was not only institutionalized but venerated.
2 Likes
Konsentrait yersef on tolleratinâ sum bettuh spellinââŚ
We had better slave overseers maybe?
I will note that one of the âtraditional explanationsâââthe lure of open landââitself is due primarily to ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by various means.
2 Likes
You have a Sarah Palin-esque understanding of the 1st AmendmentâŚ
It happens to work both ways, if in the exercise of 1st amendment you say something moronic, other people will do some exercising on their own and call you an @$$hole,
I can see how these replies could take this post as excusing slavery out of context. I think if you all read the original post by Soigne that FMD was replying to, and FMDâs subsequent reply to Established_1781, that it might make more sense.
This threading has got to change!
well some editor at the Economist let that review through soâŚno Iâm not impressed by that apology one jot.
1 Like