Economist Apologizes For Review That Slammed Book On Slavery As ‘Advocacy’

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The Economist apologized Friday for running a book review that slammed a new history volume about slavery in America as “advocacy” because it portrayed all black slaves as “victims.”

An unbylined review of Ed Baptist’s book “The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism” that was published Thursday cast Baptist’s account as one-sided. It also dismissed the Cornell historian’s central argument, which was that the expansion of slavery in America fueled the nation’s rise to economic dominance.

“[Mr. Baptist] overstates his case when he dismisses ‘the traditional explanations’ for America’s success: its individualistic culture, Puritanism, the lure of open land and high wages, Yankee ingenuity and government policies,” the review read.

The review went on to conclude that Baptist’s book was biased.

“Mr Baptist has not written an objective history of slavery,” the review read. “Almost all the blacks in his book are victims, almost all the whites villains. This is not history; it is advocacy.”

The Economist replaced that review with an apology Friday.

“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,” the apology read. “We regret having published this and apologise for having done so.”

The publication said that it was “withdrawing the review,” but included a link to the original text “in the interests of transparency.”

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

84 more replies

Participants

Avatar for chris_b Avatar for paulw Avatar for scavok Avatar for swirlystar Avatar for meri Avatar for mondfledermaus Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for radicalcentrist Avatar for lonewolf_93 Avatar for leftflank Avatar for faeyin Avatar for sylhines Avatar for m3man Avatar for frankly_my_dear Avatar for sonsofares Avatar for tecmage Avatar for richardnixonhuberthumphrey Avatar for astralfire Avatar for kelletim Avatar for sweetdee Avatar for hallam Avatar for occamsrazor2 Avatar for emilianoelmexicano Avatar for established_1781

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: