A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[Unkotare]

Please enlighten us with links regarding the strikes and crime stats.

Social and Cultural Effects of the Depression [ushistory.org]

"The Great Depression brought a rapid rise in the crime rate as many unemployed workers resorted to petty theft to put food on the table. Suicide rates rose, as did reported cases of malnutrition. Prostitution was on the rise as desperate women sought ways to pay the bills."


Great Depression

"Many unemployed and frustrated workers took matters into their own hands. The Great Depression saw some of the most volatile strikes and protest movements in the city's history. Unions were often supported by the newly organized Congress of Industrial Organizations. Organizing efforts were facilitated by mass culture, which provided a common ground to a disparate workforce. Workers united across race, ethnicity, and even across different industries. By 1940 one-third of the workers in Chicago's manufacturing sector were unionized. Active social protest movements extended outside of the workplace too. Unemployed workers, relief recipients, even the unpaid schoolteachers held huge demonstrations during the early years of the Great Depression. Across the city, angry housewives protested retailers' misleading advertising and refusal to lower prices. In fact, it was a combination of public pressure and new state laws that ended the city's crippling tax strike. Although the degree of public unrest declined in later years, people's reliance on mass movements and national organization continued."

 

[Foxfyre]

Posts #194 & 195 Foxfyre.

Aha ,okay, but let's don't get dragged off course in that direction. Yes, increased crime was a result of prohibition during that same era, but was mostly unrelated to the Depression. And yes there were strikes, sometimes that turned violent, but union thuggery existed before and after the Depression too.

Otherwise increased crime was mostly illegal hunting and fishing and petty theft. Watermelon stealing became epidemic. But I also stole watermelons as a kid long after the Depression. It was sort of a rite of passage. But back then you could buy a large watermelon for 10 cents up to a quarter.

The point remains, that there wasn't mass rioting in the streets during the Great Depression which suggests that such activity is far more likely to happen when people are denied any of their government entitlements.

That is an illustration of the point to the resolution in the O.P.

 

[Unkotare]

The point remains, that there wasn't mass rioting in the streets during the Great Depression

Yes, there was.


Unemployed Councils, Eviction Riots, and the New Deal | The Economic Populist


Cleveland eviction riot of 1933 bears similarities to current woes | cleveland.com

 

[Unkotare]

Aha ,okay, but let's don't get dragged off course in that direction. Yes, increased crime was a result of prohibition during that same era, but was mostly unrelated to the Depression. .

You are wrong. If you had bothered to read the links...

Get a grip. We were writing responses to each other less than 60 seconds from your post. Petty crime went up and apparently you think the Depression lasted into the 1940s and was centered in one city. Deflection is not a debate point. Try to address the OP.

Instead of ignoring or avoiding facts, one should be honest enough to admit when one is wrong. Crime increased significantly during the Great Depression and there were mass riots in the streets of major cities.

 

[saveliberty]

The point remains, that there wasn't mass rioting in the streets during the Great Depression

Yes, there was.


Unemployed Councils, Eviction Riots, and the New Deal | The Economic Populist


Cleveland eviction riot of 1933 bears similarities to current woes | cleveland.com

You just unwittingly gave support to Foxfyre's point entitlement folks cause these types of problems. Also, they were isolated incidents in socialist neighborhoods, so mass riots? Hardly. It also was an unsourced blog post.

 

[Unkotare]

I provided facts, not conclusions. I don't know why you would resist facts. I don't see anyone else providing actual sources. There is no need for contention over a point of fact. A statement was made that was factually wrong. That is all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Posts #194 & 195 Foxfyre.

Aha ,okay, but let's don't get dragged off course in that direction. Yes, increased crime was a result of prohibition during that same era, but was mostly unrelated to the Depression. .

You are wrong. If you had bothered to read the links...

I am sure you think I'm wrong, Unkotare, but I have read enough history on this subject to be pretty secure in my point of view, and you are entitled to your point of view too.

Rebuttal with hopes we won't get into a battle of links and cut and paste that pulls us off focus on the OP:

But the notion that unemployment causes crime runs into some obvious difficulties. For one thing, the 1960s, a period of rising crime, had essentially the same unemployment rate as the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period when crime fell. Further, during the Great Depression, when unemployment hit 25 percent, the crime rate in many cities went down. (True, national crime statistics weren’t very useful back in the 1930s, but studies of local police records and individual citizens by scholars such as Glen Elder have generally found reduced crime, too.)
Crime and the Great Recession by James Q. Wilson, City Journal Summer 2011
Why Crime Keeps Falling - WSJ.com

There are few outlaws in the United States as famous as Bonnie and Clyde — a young couple, with no jobs or prospects, driving across the country robbing banks and killing police officers to make ends meet during the Great Depression.

It's an indelible image of what people will do during desperate times. For a while, Bonnie and Clyde were almost American heroes.

There's only one problem: The Depression years had very little crime.

With the economy's current troubles, many people assume a crime wave is just around the corner. But criminologists say that's just an American myth
Experts: Bad Economies Don't Cause Crime Waves : NPR

The point remains that even the hardships of the Great Depression and the great drought of the same period did not generate the angry rioting the in the streets that Vidi suggested. Why? Because the people did not look to government as the solution for their hardships.

And yet modern history illustrates that people who have been made dependent on government will form angry mobs rioting in the street if government tries to reduce their government benefits. Government charity is a corrupting force.

 

[Unkotare]

*ahem*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exuGv3HsV-U]Rioting Across America - The Great Depression - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unkotare]

I am sure you think I'm wrong, Unkotare, but I have read enough history on this subject to be pretty secure in my point of view, and you are entitled to your point of view too..

It is not a matter of points of view. I have merely corrected you on a matter of fact. That is all.

You claimed that crime did not go up during the Great Depression, but it did.

You claimed that there were not mass riots in the streets during the Great Depression, but there were.

These are not matters of opinion and there is no reason for you to take it personally.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are misrepresenting what I said Unkotare. I suggest you re-read what I posted. And yes, you can find any number of dubious sites that will provide you ammo for your point of view. So can I. I chose sources known to be reasonably trustworthy, however, including PBS that is nobody's idea of a conservative or anti-government group. I suggest you do likewise.

 

[Unkotare]

I have merely pointed out where you made a factual error. That is all. I have not even addressed your conclusions, so there is no need to feel threatened.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ackowledging your opinion and again saying you are wrong, Unkotare. I acknowledgwe that you have declared me wrong.

Now respectfully asking that we allow others to decide who has made the better case and return to the thesis of the thread.

 

[Unkotare]

Ackowledging your opinion .

It is not a matter of opinion. You were mistaken on a matter of fact. Again, there is no reason to take it personally.

 

[saveliberty]

I am sure you think I'm wrong, Unkotare, but I have read enough history on this subject to be pretty secure in my point of view, and you are entitled to your point of view too..

It is not a matter of points of view. I have merely corrected you on a matter of fact. That is all.

You claimed that crime did not go up during the Great Depression, but it did.

You claimed that there were not mass riots in the streets during the Great Depression, but there were.

These are not matters of opinion and there is no reason for you to take it personally.

Your highly biaed sources pointed to only sparse demonstrations Unktore. Hardly fact.

 

[dblack]

One of the most common conceits of political discourse is the notion that "facts speak for themselves". They never do.

 

[saveliberty]

Ackowledging your opinion .

It is not a matter of opinion. You were mistaken on a matter of fact. Again, there is no reason to take it personally.

No reason to deflect continually either, but there you are. I can only conclude that your objection to the OP is mob rule may enuse. Not much of a debate point.

 

[Unkotare]

I am sure you think I'm wrong, Unkotare, but I have read enough history on this subject to be pretty secure in my point of view, and you are entitled to your point of view too..

It is not a matter of points of view. I have merely corrected you on a matter of fact. That is all.

You claimed that crime did not go up during the Great Depression, but it did.

You claimed that there were not mass riots in the streets during the Great Depression, but there were.

These are not matters of opinion and there is no reason for you to take it personally.

Your highly biaed sources pointed to only sparse demonstrations Unktore. Hardly fact.

Maybe you didn't actually look at the links?

 

[Unkotare]

Ackowledging your opinion .

It is not a matter of opinion. You were mistaken on a matter of fact. Again, there is no reason to take it personally.

No reason to deflect continually either, but there you are. I can only conclude that your objection to the OP is mob rule may enuse. Not much of a debate point.

Not sure why I have to keep repeating this but I was not addressing anyone's conclusions, I was merely correcting a factual error. There is really no need for anyone's ego to feel threatened over it.

 

[saveliberty]

It is not a matter of opinion. You were mistaken on a matter of fact. Again, there is no reason to take it personally.

No reason to deflect continually either, but there you are. I can only conclude that your objection to the OP is mob rule may enuse. Not much of a debate point.

Not sure why I have to keep repeating this but I was not addressing anyone's conclusions, I was merely correcting a factual error. There is really no need for anyone's ego to feel threatened over it.

Except your sources are not facts in some cases and misrepresentations in others. Which we have tried to correct you on repeatedly. Failing that we have asked you repeatedly, to return to the subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the most common conceits of political discourse is the notion that "facts speak for themselves". They never do.

Exactly, and most especially when anecdotal evidence is presented as fact to dispute the larger picture.

I have diligently tried to avoid using anecdotal evidence to support the thesis of this thread except as a means to illustrate an explanation.

But I think we have adequate established it as fact that despite the last years of organized crime violence that occurred in the earlier years of the Depression, and the union thuggery that has become common regardless of the economic climate, the facts still remain that the hard times of the Depression did not result in widespread angry mobs taking to the streets. I'll amend that to be that it did not result in widespread angry mobs of ordinary citizens taking to the streets. There was no entitlement mentality at that time.

And I think it is safe to say that Vidi is probably right that citizens could and/or will take to the streets to protest a roll back in their federal government freebies now that an entitlement mentality has been developed.

So, if we accept Vidi's observation as the reasonable and logical probability, would removing entitlements as a function of the federal governmewnt be worth it?