Ta-Nehisi Coates

Ta-Nehisi Coates is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about culture, politics, and social issues. He is the author of the memoir The Beautiful Struggle. More

Born in 1975, the product of two beautiful parents. Raised in West Baltimore -- not quite The Wire, but sometimes ill all the same. Studied at the Mecca for some years in the mid-'90s. Emerged with a purpose, if not a degree. Slowly migrated up the East Coast with a baby and my beloved, until I reached the shores of Harlem. Wrote some stuff along the way.

The Lost Battalion

It's yours...

Strategy Gaming Talk

Any thoughts on Empire and/or Napolean Total War? Dealing with Stephen Sears' Gettysburg has put me in a gaming mood. It really helps to actually see a flanking move--even if its mounted knights in Medieval Total War. 

As an aside, I really think an iPad app/e-book with computer animation would really help a lot of these Civil War books. I don't need a movie, but I'd like to get some sense of what, exactly, Longstreet saw when he looked across the field before Pickett's Charge. Having gone there and seen it, I get the idea. But for people who can't go, it'd bee cool to see.

Washington vs. D.C.

Adam Serwer sketches a tale of two cities:

Washington, D.C., has always been two cities. Washington spills out of downtown Metro stations at 8 A.M.; D.C. huddles on crowded buses at 6 A.M. On Sundays, when Washington goes to brunch, D.C. is in church. Washington clinks glasses in bars like Local 16 in its leisure time, while D.C. sweats out its perm at dance clubs like Love or DC Star. Washington has health-insurance benefits, but D.C. is paying out of pocket. Washington just closed on a condo; D.C. is in foreclosure. Washington is making money. D.C. never recovered from the 2001 recession.

Matt feels the focus on black unemployment, minus national context, is obscuring:

I think that much as claims about the economic vibrancy of the DC area are rightly tempered by the observations that conditions are much worse for the city's working class residents than for affluent professionals, claims about the city being "a city divided" need to be tempered by the reality that these divisions exist all over the place. 

The five percentage point increase in the unemployment rate for black residents in the city is bad. But nationwide African-American unemployment hit a low of 7.7% in August of 2007, rising to 10.7% in August 2008, 15% in August 2009, 16.2% in August 2010, and all the way up to 16.7% in August 2011. In other words, the nationwide increase in black unemployment was larger than the DC-specific increase in black unemployment. Similarly, while for DC the Hispanic unemployment rate may have "nearly doubled," nationwide it hit a low of 5.1% in March 2007, much more than doubled to 13.2% by November 2010, and has slowly oozed downward to 11.3% today.

I don't l know about that. Ward 7 (96 percent black) has the highest unemployment rate in the country. Second highest? Ward 8, which is 94 percent black. I haven't been able to find the unemployment rate for African-Americans in Washington, D.C. proper (not the metro area.) Perhaps the middle class is balancing those numbers out. 

But nevertheless, you still have essentially the most unemployed population in the country, living in the same city with one of the most employed populations, if not the most employed population  outright:

Yglesias' analysis is missing an obvious data point: Namely for DC to be pretty much the same as the rest of the country in terms of racial disparities and unemployment ratios, white people in DC would have to have be similarly "slightly better off" than their counterparts nationally when it comes to unemployment. Except they're not. They're MUCH better off. 

In 2009 in DC white unemployment went up to 4.1 percent from 3 percent, while nationally white unemployment peaked in 2009 at about 8.3 percent. Now THAT's "insulated from the recession." There's a reason for this--more than 80 percent of white residents in the District have college degrees, compared to 30 percent of whites nationally. That's pretty much how it goes in general--if you have a college degree you're more likely to have kept your job or found a new one.

The starkness in terms of wealth -- by which I mean literal, educational, social etc. -- and race in Washington has always been striking. D.C. is pretty accurate economic portrait of black America -- poor, working class, middle class and upper middle class. But as a portrait of white America, it's really airbrushed. I've always thought that too many of our wonks live in Washington and Manhattan -- places where "white and poor" is an extinct species.

Manning Down

Not good:

Manning underwent more neck surgery Thursday, his third procedure in 19 months, and his return this season is uncertain. Losing Manning for any stretch of time is something the Colts would love to avoid, and it's certain to throw the race for the AFC South wide open. 

Manning hasn't missed a game in 14 NFL seasons, with 227 consecutive starts, including the postseason. "Rehabilitation from such surgery is typically an involved process," the team said in a statement, calling the procedure "uneventful." 

The Colts said there would be "no estimation of a return date at this time. We will keep Peyton on the active roster until we have a clear picture of his recovery process." Team owner Jim Irsay tweeted that the 35-year-old Manning would be out "awhile." 

I'm hesitant to start talking "career" in terms of Peyton Manning, only because I remember people saying the same thing about Dan Marino only to see him come back and erase all memories of Scott Mitchell. 

That said, this sound serious, and at 35 you have to wonder. It saddens me about the season, because I got a lot of joy out of watching Manning play. I don't think I've ever seen a football player dominate throughout a season like he did in 2009.

Marginal Debates

People who look forward to, and eagerly engage in, the kind of food fight we had yesterday should expect a banning. It's very easy to know when you've pushed into too far. Can you not fit half a sentence onto a line? You've gone too far. Is a third of a 300-plus post thread dedicated to your war with someone whom you've never met? You've gone too far. Have you been reduced to name-calling and rudeness? You've gone too far.

When you're deploying your sarcasm to hurt people, you've gone too far. When you're just getting your rocks off, you've gone too far. When you are speaking to people over the internet in a manner which you would not speak to them face to face, you've gone too far.

It's easier than you think to walk away. It will bother you for about ten minutes. You'll have a beer, and all of it will fade away.

Let it go--before it let's you go.

Let's Talk

Here's a thread for any of you watching the President.

The Glory of the Coming of the Lord



Dominic Tierney lays out the history of "one of the most influential publications in the history of the Atlantic Monthly."

By November 1861, the early enthusiasm of the Civil War had faded into a grim appreciation of the magnitude of the struggle. The poet and abolitionist Julia Ward Howe joined a party inspecting the condition of Union troops near Washington D.C. To overcome the tedium of the carriage ride back to the city, Howe and her colleagues sang army songs, including "John Brown's Body." 

One member of the party, Reverend James Clarke, liked the melody but found the lyrics to be distinctly un-elevated. The published version ran "We'll hang old Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree," but the marching men sometimes preferred, "We'll feed Jeff Davis sour apples 'til he gets the diarhee." Might Howe, the Reverend wondered, craft something more fitting? The next day, Howe awoke to the gray light of early morning. 

As she lay in bed, lines of poetry formed themselves in her mind. When the last verse was arranged, she rose and scribbled down the words with an old stump of a pen while barely looking at the paper. She fell back asleep, feeling that "something of importance had happened to me." The editor of the Atlantic Monthly, James T. Fields, paid Howe five dollars to publish the poem, and gave it a title: "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."

A pox upon me for forgetting to mention that "The Battle Hymn" was first published here. I've been thinking a lot lately about how the song's themes reverberate through African-American history. Tierney offers perhaps the greatest invocation of Howe's words after the jump.

More »

The Scope of the Atlanta Cheating Scandal

The Times looks at the revised tenure of once celebrated school superintendent -- and zealous testing advocate -- Beverly L. Hall:

The devastating report came in July. Two longtime government lawyers who were asked by the governor to investigate charges that answers had been changed on state standardized tests found that students had sometimes simply been given correct answers. In other cases, they said, staff members erased wrong ones and filled in the right ones. One school held weekend pizza parties to fix tests. 

No criminal charges have been filed, but the district is scrambling to respond to two sweeping grand jury subpoenas. It will turn over at least 20 hard drives of information containing communication among school lawyers, board members and staff members, along with scanned records dating back to the 1990s, said Keith Bromery, spokesman for the district. 

The report asserted that Dr. Hall, while not tied directly to cheating or the direct target of a subpoena, had to know about it or should have. She tried to contain damaging information, it said, and did not do enough to investigate allegations, especially after 2005 when "clear and significant" warnings were raised. 

And she was, investigators and people who worked closely with her said, more interested in adoration than achievement. Some said they believed they would be ostracized if they did not deliver the results Dr. Hall wanted.

We haven't had a scandal like this in New York (fingers crossed) but it does seem rather inevitable. Perhaps the best thing about leaving the public school system is getting away from the relentless push toward test prep. My kid was at a pretty progressive school, but even there there was a rather manic climate among the parents when testing time came. One of my big concerns was that we were communicating a message of credentialism -- as opposed to a message of education.

The problem is that we have a great number of children who lack basic math and reading skills. Understandably, the schools have shifted to make sure that number shrinks. But if your kid has the basics, if you have other concerns about their development, and if you believe they need something more direct and tailor-made, the draw of public school weakens. 

And then there was the Cathleen Black affair which made the whole reform business look like the latest celebrity pet cause.

The Lost Battalion

It's yours...

The Most Discomfiting Sentence Uttered This Summer

This is my hand, and this is the speculum.


Chris Orr on The Debt:

Answers are provided in a film within the film, an unspooling of memory-tape: It's 1965 again, and Rachel (now played by Jessica Chastain), Stephan (Martin Csokas), and David (Sam Worthington) make their initial rendezvous in East Berlin--young, energetic, unclouded by remorse. The war criminal Vogel has been located, and it is their mission to bring him back across the Iron Curtain and to justice. 

This central sequence is the beating heart of the film: The callow agents, full of fear and ambition and longings they cannot quite name, crammed together in a dilapidated apartment, taking turns at the piano and at ju-jitsu practice. The boil of hormones is palpable, and before long a kiss--and more than a kiss--intended for one man is stolen by the other. 

 And then there is Vogel, now a gynecologist, whom Rachel visits repeatedly in the guise of a patient--a profoundly unsettling variation on the female spy who offers her body for her country. Vogel's gentle introduction to each session, "This is my hand, and this is the speculum," may at last have displaced the "Is it safe?" of Christian Szell--another Mengele stand-in--as the most discomfiting sentence ever uttered by doctor to patient onscreen.

Chris is kinda "Meh" on the film. I think I might see it just for Tom Wilkinson. I would shout out Helen Mirren, too, but that feels cliche.

Death Row Applause

Apparently people were shocked by the applause here. The only thing that shocked me was that they didn't form a rumba line. It's a Republican debate. And it's America. Perry's right--most people support the death penalty. It's the job of those of us who oppose the death penalty to change that

It's worth remembering that no Democratic nominee for the presidency in some twenty years, has been against the death penalty. 

This is still the country where we took kids to see men lynched, and then posed for photos. We are a lot of things. This is one of them. 

MORE: Forgot about this Jon Chait piece. "It takes balls to execute an innocent man."

Presidents to Represent Me

Heh:

But as the exchanges intensified, one of the candidates, Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, chastised the moderators of the debate, from NBC and Politico, and said they were trying to stoke divisions among Republicans in a way he said would help Mr. Obama.

Dude, it's a debate.

Anyway, I don't know if Perry will win, or not, but the more I listen to him, the better I feel about Obama's chances. Even in this economy.


'What I Want Is to Advance'

Christopher Phillips chronicles Grant's entrance into the War:

After graduating from West Point, Grant married the daughter of an affluent Missouri slaveholder and, after an undistinguished and often drunken army career, left to farm unsuccessfully on a rocky piece of Missouri timber that his father-in-law gave him. (Appropriately, Grant named it "Hardscrabble.") Grant was even more ambivalent about slavery than his father -- enough to free the only slave he ever owned (given to him by his wife's father), but he was not sufficiently opposed to it to deter him from hiring slave field hands or sell his wife's domestic servants. Or to drive him from the Democratic Party, or even from the slave states. Or to remain largely politically uninformed. Eventually, Grant's poor head for business and ineptitude at farming forced him, debt-ridden, to seek refuge in Galena, in extreme northern Illinois, where he clerked in his father's store only months before the war began. 

There, the nation's ambition found him despite his best efforts. A veteran of the Mexican War (which he had opposed), Grant was the only man in town with military training, much less experience. He was soon beset by prominent Galenans, mostly Republicans who did not know the shut-mouthed Grant's politics, to lead its men into battle. He was unwilling to accept a volunteer commission, especially a subordinate one, and organized a company of volunteers and led them to the state capital, Springfield, where he helped to organize and train the thousands of men arriving daily. 

Unsatisfied with the volunteers, Grant appealed to Nathaniel Lyon in St. Louis (where he witnessed the fallout from the Camp Jackson affair) as well as George B. McClellan in Cincinnati for a commission in the Regular Army. When none came, he accepted the colonelcy of the 21st Illinois Volunteers, and soon marched them westward to Missouri, already plagued by warfare.

I've yet to make the time for a really solid biography on Grant. Two things interest me: First, his evolution on the question of slavery. Early Grant always struck me as relatively indifferent to the institution. During the War he advocated arming African-Americans, and was greatly angered by Confederate treatment of black prisoners of war. As president, he became one of the most aggressive defender of civil rights in American history. I'd be interested in seeing how his thoughts progressed.

Second, I'm always amazed at how Grant rose through the ranks of the Union Army. I know the basic outlines of the tail but I'd love to get a biographer's take on things. One thing that I've found frustrating about military history is the inability to tangibly demonstrate the qualities of great generalship. There's a kind of circular logic you run into. For instance, was Pickett's Charge foolhardy because it failed, or on merit? If Hooker is better prepared at Chancellorsville, is Jackson's surprise attack still a bit of genius?

This isn't particular to Lee, either. When people talk about Grant's qualities, you tend to hear these vague intangibles about "toughness," "courage," and "coolness." Perhaps that's all there is. But I'd really like to understand--in great detail--why the crossing of Mississippi below Vicksburg was such a feat. Or why McClellan was so slow. Is it really as simple as Grant being tougher?

I'm finishing up Stephen Sears' book on Gettysburg, and I'm thinking about how Mead gets a bad rap for not pursuing and finishing off Lee. But so much of this critique sounds like bad sports analysis. I'm much more interested in why--specifically--Meade didn't pursue. "Toughness" isn't enough. (For the record, Sears is pretty high on Meade. I don't know how he feels about him only giving faint chase. I'm not that far, yet.)

The Lost Battalion

It's yours...

Asymmetrical War

Fallows linked to this piece from an ex-GOP staffer last week. He's been updating the conversation over the past few days. I thought this part deserved some emphasis:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner. 

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s -- a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

That distrust in government will always hurt Democrats significantly more than it will hurt Republicans. When an influential swath of one party already is cynical about government,and the other party really believes in government, something like the debt crisis only serves to bolster the cynical party's point. It doesn't much matter that the Tea Party is less popular. If you believe "government is the problem," you've effectively demonstrated your point.

To the extent that there's liberal discomfort with Obama, I think a great deal of it emanates from the sense that he fails to understand the ruthlessness of his opposition. So back in December, liberals hear Obama say something like this:

"Here's my expectation," he said, moments after comparing the Republican negotiating strategy to terrorists who shoot hostages, "and I'll take John Boehner at his word. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen.... Once John Boehner is sworn in as speaker, then he's going to have responsibilities to govern. You can't just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower."

And we wonder what portion of "Government is the problem" he failed to understand. What evidence was there that "nobody"  would be willing to see the "faith and credit of the United States government collapse?" On the contrary, we found that they gladly would risk collapse. Collapse isn't a pox on both houses. It's a pox on government, and the party that defends government. Moreover, it's a boon for cynicism. The present GOP would surely risk collapse. And they'll do it again. Mitch McConnell has already said as much:

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting," he said. "Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this -- it's a hostage that's worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."

Whitney Houston Meets the Civil War

Talk about worlds colliding. Here's Whitney, old-school Whitney, doing a version of "Battle Hymn of the Republic."

I forgot how much she could sing. It's funny, back in the day we all thought Whitney was like a straight Jack-and-Jill bougie black girl. When she married Bobby Brown a lot of us were thrown. It was only much later that I realized that she might well have Bobby beat on the hood quotient.


Feeling It

Over the weekend, during our discussion over the Black Confederates, a couple of commenters objected to the tone I took in my post. I work hard to steer away from personally attacking people  but at the same time it's extremely important to me that I convey to you some of the angst, urgency and, yes, anger that I feel when grappling with the legacy and the Civil War.

I think this portion of Blight's lecture might help clarify things:

By the 1830s, 1840s, there were over 100 men in Charleston, South Carolina alone, making their livings full-time as slave traders. Their ads were in the newspapers every day. Many of them owned their own shops and their own -- in effect -- jails where they housed people. Other cities became major ports or places of deportation, for the domestic slave trade. Richmond, Virginia, for example, became a huge slave-trading center by the 1840s and 1850s. It had two -- depending on when you look -- to three dozen major full-time slave traders. 

One of the richest was a man named Hector Davis. Hector Davis owned a two-story slave auction house and jail on 14th and Franklin Streets, just two blocks down the hill from Thomas Jefferson's glorious capitol building of the State of Virginia. Just two blocks down the hill from that great equestrian statue of George Washington, the Founder, you could find a huge slave jail owned by Hector Davis. Hector Davis kept tremendous records, he kept account books, huge account books. And one of those account books ended up in the Chicago Historical Society after the Civil War because it was confiscated by an Illinois regiment that took it home. 

And I worked with that account book, because one of the two slaves I write about in this new book called A Slave No More -- I publish their two narratives -- was indeed a young 14-year-old teenager, sold out of North Carolina -- from Snow Hill, North Carolina, he was sold in 1860 to Hector Davis in Richmond. Hector Davis purchased him for $900.00. For about six months Wallace Turnage worked in Hector Davis's slave auction house helping organize the auctions every day. And one day, Wallace was told, "Today, boy, you're in the auction." 

And he was sold for $1000.00 to an Alabama cotton planter who came up to Richmond twice a year to buy slaves. And 72 hours by train he found himself on a huge cotton plantation, near Pickensville, Alabama, on the -- in west central Alabama, on the Mississippi border, at 14-years-old...I calculated in Hector Davis's account book that the biggest week he had -- and he had some big weeks -- but he had a week in 1859 where he made a cool, approximately, $120,000.00 in profit, just from selling slaves. 

I mean, the equivalent of a healthy teenage male slave, if you could sell him for $1000.00 in 1860 -- it's about the same price of a good Toyota Camry today... For slave children -- one other little point about this, so we can get a sense of this system that is now about to be justified and defended -- for slave children, between 1820 and 1860, living in the Upper South or the Eastern Seaboard, they had approximately a thirty percent chance of being sold outright away from their parents before they were ten.

Forgive the long quote. The last part is really the point. Think of it like this: If you were born, during those years on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, like my maternal American ancestors, there was a thirty percent chance that you would be parted from your parents before you hit puberty. If you were an adult there, and you fell in love, and had a child, there was a one in three chance you would live to see that child sold. Given the fertility rates at the time, it's highly likely that one of your children would be sold. To my eyes, that is little more than systemic, state-sanctioned child abuse.

On some level, I'm hoping to stimulate an intellectual conversation about American History. But on another level, I am hoping to make this portion of our history more concrete, and less abstract. I believe the discussion should be respectful. I do not believe it should be antiseptic or dispassionate. 

When we talk about the Confederacy, we should always be clear that we are talking about a rebellion incited for the purpose of purchasing and selling children. When we talk about Pickett's Charge, Robert E. Lee, or whatever, we should always remember that it was valor in the service of trafficking. Perhaps that sounds too harsh. I don't know. I don't really want to be emotionally distant from this..

Pick up a copy of A Slave No More to get more of Wallace Turnage's epic journey, recorded by his own hand and edited by Blight.

The Lost Battalion

It's yours.

Stimulating History

I think Jon Chait's point about the overestimation of Bush's domestic successes is a good one. Leaving aside the tax cuts (which as Chait notes Bush passed by reconciliation) there just isn't much evidence for Bush bulldozing his way through a weak and acquiescent Democratic congress. Memories of Bush's foreign policy debacles, as well as Democratic support for the Iraq War tends to blur our memories.

With that said, this recapitulation of the stimulus debate seems off:

Perhaps the oddest feature of the liberal indictment of Obama is its conclusion that Obama should have focused all his political capital on economic recovery. "He could likely have passed many small follow-up stimulative laws in 2009," Jon Walker of the popular blog Firedoglake wrote last month. "Instead, he pivoted away from the economic crisis because he wrongly ignored those who warned the crisis was going to get worse." 

It's worth recalling that several weeks before Obama proposed an $800 billion stimulus, House Democrats had floated a $500 billion stimulus. (Oddly, this never resulted in liberals portraying Nancy Pelosi as a congenitally timid right-wing enabler.) At the time, Obama's $800 billion stimulus was seen by Congress, pundits and business leaders -- that is to say, just about everybody who mattered -- as mind-bogglingly large. News reports invariably described it as "huge," "massive" or other terms suggesting it was unrealistically large, even kind of pornographic. The favored cliché used to describe the reaction in Congress was "sticker shock." Compounding the problem, Obama proposed his stimulus shortly after the Congressional Budget Office predicted deficits topping a trillion dollars. 

Even before Obama took office, and for months afterward, "everybody who mattered" insisted that the crisis required Obama to scale back the domestic initiatives he campaigned on, especially health care reform, but also cap-and-trade, financial regulation and so on. Colin Powell, a reliable barometer of elite opinion, warned in July of 2009: "I think one of the cautions that has to be given to the president -- and I've talked to some of his people about this -- is that you can't have so many things on the table that you can't absorb it all. And we can't pay for it all." 

Rather than deploy every ounce of his leverage to force moderate Republicans, whose votes he needed, to swallow a larger stimulus than they wanted, Obama clearly husbanded some of his political capital. Why? Because in the position of choosing between the agenda he came into office hoping to enact and the short-term imperative of economic rescue, he picked the former. At the time, this was the course liberals wanted and centrists opposed.

I'm confused by the writing here. What I gather is this: Chait starts out attacking liberals. He then moves to outline the thinking of people who more often than not aren't liberals (Congress, pundits, business leaders, Colin Powell.) He shifts back one more time to say that liberals supported going soft on moderate Republicans, while centrists were against it. (If someone has a better summary, I welcome it.)

It's tough to evaluate Chait's final claim as he doesn't cite any centrists who thought Obama should expend political capital on a bigger stimulus, or any liberals who opposed it. But his core claim that "everyone who mattered" thought the $787 billion stimulus was "mind-boggling large" only works if "everyone who mattered" disqualifies liberals. Maybe that's what Chait means to say--but that would be really odd in a column entitled "What The Left Gets Wrong About Obama."

At any rate, the record is fairly clear and any distillation of what liberals thought at the time about the stimulus had better reckon with what the most prominent liberal economist said at the time:

For while Mr. Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn't ask for enough. We're probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. 

And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn't nearly enough to bridge that chasm. Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy's need. But few economists agree. And it's widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have -- that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support. We've just seen how well that worked.

That's Paul Krugman, of course, and maybe he's what Chait means when he says "centrist," because Krugman clearly isn't urging Obama to "husband political capital." (More citations from firedoglake.)


More »

The Slave Society Defined

I've repeatedly used this term "slave society" to distinguish the antebellum South from societies where slavery was practiced. The practice of slavery has developed in virtually every civilization known to man. Slave societies, on the other hand, are considerably rarer.

David Blight sketches the terms for us:

What do we mean when we use that phrase 'slave society'? Essentially, it means any society where slave labor -- where the definition of labor, where the definition of the relationship between ownership and labor -- is defined by slavery. By a cradle to grave -- and some would've even said a cradle to grave and beyond -- human bondage. Where slavery affected everything about society. Where whites and blacks, in this case -- in America in a racialized slavery system -- grew up, were socialized by, married, reared children, worked, invested in, and conceived of the idea of property, and honed their most basic habits and values under the influence of a system that said it was just to own people as property. 

The other slave societies in human history -- and you can get up a real debate over this, especially among Africanists, Brazilianists, Asianists and others, and it's why slavery is such a hot field in international history -- but the other great slave societies in history where the whole social structure of those societies was rooted in slavery, were Ancient Greece and Rome; certainly Brazil by the eighteenth and nineteenth century; the whole of Caribbean -- the Great West Indies sugar-producing empires of the French, the British, the Dutch, the Spanish, and a few others -- and the American South. 

More »

The Biggest Story in Photos

2013 National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

Subscribe Now

SAVE 65%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

Ta-Nehisi Coates
from the Magazine

The Emancipation of Barack Obama

Fear of a Black President

As a candidate, Barack Obama said we needed to reckon with race and with America’s…

Why Do So Few Blacks Study the Civil War?