Skip to main content

View Diary: The Economist Critiques Book on Slavery: "Almost all the blacks in his book are victims." (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  say what? (10+ / 0-)
    Mr. Baptist has not written an objective history of slavery. Almost all the blacks in his book are victims, almost all the whites villains.......
    so which Africans asked to be shipped off in chains to america?

    which African American slaves asked to have their children sold out from under them?

    Dude is crazy

    •  just to play devil's advocate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      merrywidow, DeeDee001, Mindful Nature

      No idea of the importance or accuracy of the following points, they are just things I've heard over the years.

      a)  There were black slave owners
      b)  Blacks were principally in charge of catching other blacks, from other tribes, for sale in Africa.
      c)  There were white abolitionists.

      Obviously I have not read the book in question so there could be perfectly legitimate reasons for not discussing these issues.  Every book has to pick and choose what it wants to cover.  Possible reasons to exclude:
      a) if black slave owners, if they did exist, were less than 1% of slave owners are they really worth devoting space to other than for false balance.
      b) the book might not deal with the transatlantic slave trade
      c) the book might not deal with abolition.

      •  Please don't. (16+ / 0-)

        Whites created the transatlantic slave trade.  That trade undermined African cultures.  The slavery that existed in African was far different from that chattel slavery of teh New World.  

        Those first two points are nothing but excuses for white crimes.  

        That some white people were abolishionists is nice, but it does not excuse the crime of slavery.

        I am amazed I even have to discuss this.

        Repeat after me:



        Next time you can be a devil's advocate for including the good Germans in the story of Hitler's final solution, if you wish.    

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 02:57:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think Shaso's post incompatible (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mindful Nature, NoBlueSkies

          with the creed you would like him to recite.  

          The points he makes are exploring the very tiny, very marginal, very peripheral ways in which one might identify some non-victim roles of blacks or non-villain of whites during American slavery.  He addresses the question of"what could this stupid reviewer POSSIBLY be referring to?" and concludes that although there is a small number of actual candidates, none are likely significant.   That's not at all the same as excusing the crime of slavery.  

          And for that matter, information on the ways that a small number of Germans worked to oppose the Holocaust, is not bad information either, and in no way detracts from the enormity or significance of the Holocaust.

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 03:43:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And yet (12+ / 0-)

            Though they are very tiny and marginal, a whole lot of white people always manage to keep bringing them up in conversations about slavery. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

            Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

            by moviemeister76 on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 03:51:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •   An excellent point, and well-stated (0+ / 0-)

              Yet it is essentially the rightwing reviewer -- the subject of this diary -- who brought them up.  To my mind, trying to understand an opponent's argument (perhaps the better to dismiss it) is NOT quite the same as advancing the same points on one's own hook.  Devil's advocacy is an honorable activity, and not usually an indication of practicing Satanism.

              "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

              by lgmcp on Fri Sep 05, 2014 at 09:00:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Hate to burst th bubble (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But it wasn't even a small number of Germans who opposed the Nazis.  It isn't clear there was ever majority support for the regime in fact.  However, if you are in the business of peddling in caricatures and stereotypes for propaganda purposes, then obviously that is a fairly inconvenient fact that many choose to ignore

            After all, why have a nuanced view of history when a simplistic one suits your political rhetorical purposes so much better?

      •  I suggest you read 'Slave Nation'. (9+ / 0-)

        It puts our founding fathers in a new light.

        Two law professors make slavery the motor driving the Revolutionary period in this provocative if not always convincing study. Southern colonists, they contend, feared that British court rulings against slavery in the motherland and newly assertive British claims of legislative supremacy over the colonies meant that Britain would restrict or abolish slavery in America; they therefore took the lead in pushing for outright independence and demanded assurances from Northern colonies that slavery would be protected in the new nation.
        Their basic premise is that slavery cast its shadow over the founding of the republic, not simply the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. The Blumrosens peer further back than that convocation in Philadelphia, convened to revise the union of former colonies, and discover within the early provenance of the movement toward revolution--the movement toward one united nation free and independent, that is--the southern colonies' fear that Britain would outlaw slavery and the northern colonies' acceptance of the continuation of slavery where it previously existed.
        It's a very compelling read and places the southern plantations in line with OPEC in our current era but without the cost of labor. Plantations were self-sufficient while factory owners in the north had to pay wages. Once we were free of British rule the stage was set (economically) for the next conflict.
        •  Interesting. I will have to read that. (6+ / 0-)

          Another driver was the British restriction on settlements on the other side of the Appalachians.  After the French and Indian War (7 Years War, really the first world war), The French were gone and the Native American lands were there for the taking, but British policy was to preclude settlement of Europeans over the mountains.  

          I suspect there were multiple causal factors, but these two probably played some role also.

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 03:20:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I live within 15 miles of Fincastle, VA. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lgmcp, DEMonrat ankle biter, TomP

            The one-time capital of the frontier, everything east of the Appalachians.

            I've been doing a bit of family history research lately. It seems the Quakers/Amish, etc were opposed to driving off resident peoples from their lands. They were not, however, opposed to paying a group of new emigres, Scots and Irish, to do the job for them.

            The brotherhood got half of Pennsylvania and the Scots/Irish used their rewards to purchase large tracks of land in the Shenandoah Valley.


          •  In fact, what made the Revolution possible (7+ / 0-)

            was exactly that there were various interests, sometimes intersecting, that were all losing patience with British governance. Both the smugglers and tea importers were going to get hammered by the concession given the East India Company to bring tea directly from the colonies in the far east to the colonies west of the Atlantic. Speculators were pissed off about being held back from the Ohio valley. Plantation owners quite accurately feared that decisions striking down slavery in britain would eventually be extended, either judicially or legislatively, to the british colonies. Etc etc etc.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 03:45:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, let's not That it's called devil's advoca... (5+ / 0-)

        Yeah, let's not

        That it's called devil's advocacy should be enough of a clue for you to know it's not an appropriate thing to advocate when it comes to topics like our history of slavery.

      •  your devil's advocacy is flawed (5+ / 0-)

        the black slave owners of whom you speak were primarily those who had to buy their own family members and couldn't emancipate them due to white laws.

        The African slave trade was a result of European hegemony on the continent...preceded by Arab slaving.

        If you want to inform yourself on slavery in Africa read Claude Meillassoux:Anthropologie de l'esclavage: le ventre de fer et d'argent

        "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

        by Denise Oliver Velez on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 04:29:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site