The Economist withdraws book review that claimed slavery wasn't as bad as portrayed
Anonymous review of The Half Has Never Been Told maintained it was bias to take the view most black slaves were victims while most whites were villains
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A review that suggested slavery in the US wasn’t as bad as it was portrayed in a new book has been withdrawn by The Economist after a public online backlash.
The magazine was driven to apologise for publishing the review of The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism after agreeing that the widespread condemnation was justified.
The withdrawn and anonymous review had maintained it was bias rather than well-researched history for the book to take the view most black slaves were victims while most whites were villains.
It also took issue with the book’s argument that merciless treatment of slaves led to increases in productivity. “Some of the rise in productivity could have come from better treatment,” the reviewer maintained.
The book was written by Edward Baptist, a historian at Cornell University in the US, who used personal accounts to back up his argument that slaves were controlled with a ruthless efficiency designed to maximise profits. It was merciless working conditions that enabled the US cotton industry to triple productivity from 1800 to 1860.
“Mr Baptist has not written an objective history of slavery. Almost all the blacks in his book are victims, almost all the whites villains. This is not history; it is advocacy,” complained the review.
In its apology The Economist said: “There has been widespread criticism of this, and rightly so. 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. We regret having published this and apologise for having done so.”
The magazine added that “in the interests of transparency” it would continue to display the review on a special internet page topped by the apology.
Among the criticisms made by the reviewer was the use of personal accounts by slaves to support Dr Baptist’s arguments. The reviewer suggested that a historian “cannot know whether these few spokesmen adequately speak for all”.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments