The Book Prize Index

Neither Black nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States

Carl N. Degler

Until this groundbreaking work, scholars were puzzled by the differing courses of slavery and race relations in the United States and Brazil. Brazil had never developed a system of rigid segregation, such as appeared in the United States, and blacks in Brazil were able to gain economically and retain far more of their African culture. Rejecting the theory of Giberto Freyre and Frank Tannenbaum -- that Brazilian slavery was more humane -- the author points to a combination of demographic, economic and cultural factors as the real reason for the differences.

Race & EthnicityRace & Ethnicity · high confidenceRace & Ethnicity81 signalsLlm Classifier: Race & Ethnicity -> Race & EthnicityOpen Library: Race relations -> Race & EthnicityOpen Library: African Americans -> Race & EthnicityBlack History & CultureSlavery & EmancipationReconstruction

Award History

2 wins · 3 total

AwardYearResultCategory / Notes
Bancroft PrizeMajor1972WinnerOfficial source
American Historical Association Book Prizes: Beveridge Family Prize in American History1971WinnerOfficial source
Pulitzer Prize in HistoryMajor1972FinalistSecondary source
View all award history (3)
Experimental book profileGenerated by GPT-5.4 nano · may contain inaccuracies

This is an unverified interpretation of the catalog description, offered as an opt-in discovery experiment—not as bibliographic fact.

  1. 01 Central figures

    None extracted with sufficient confidence.

    These suggestions did not meet the normal display threshold and are more likely to be wrong.

    • Giberto Freyre36%
    • Frank Tannenbaum36%

  2. 02 Central places

    • Brazil92%
    • United States86%

  3. 03 Suggested argument

    The differing courses of slavery and race relations in the United States and Brazil are best explained by demographic, economic, and cultural factors, not by claims that Brazilian slavery was more humane.

    Model confidence 74%

  4. 04 Reading orientation

    66 / 100 academic

    Academic

    An estimate of intended readership and scholarly apparatus—not quality or importance.

Confidence percentages are the model's own estimates. Profile confidence: 78%.