Zone1 Why Whites make fun of reperations?

[Ghost of a Rider]

As you plucked that from your arse, you mean.

“In the decades between the American Revolution and the Civil War, slavery—as a source of the cotton that fed Rhode Island’s mills, as a source of the wealth that filled New York’s banks, as a source of the markets that inspired Massachusetts manufacturers—proved indispensable to national economic development,” Beckert and Rockman write in the introduction to the book. “… Cotton offered a reason for entrepreneurs and inventors to build manufactories in such places as Lowell, Pawtucket, and Paterson, thereby connecting New England’s Industrial Revolution to the advancing plantation frontier of the Deep South. And financing cotton growing, as well as marketing and transporting the crop, was a source of great wealth for the nation’s merchants and banks.”​

The Clear Connection Between Slavery And American Capitalism

The slave economy of the southern states had ripple effects throughout the entire US economy, with plenty of merchants in New York City, Boston, and elsewhere helping to organize the trade of slave-grown agricultural commodities—and enjoying plenty of riches as a result.

www.forbes.com

​

Irrelevant.

Your original argument seemed to be that cotton was the basis for the U.S. economy and that slavery is what made it that way.

Even if we allow that cotton was the main foundation of the economy at the time, the demand for it was such that slavery wouldn’t have mattered to it one way or the other. At least, not enough to say that I, a hundred fifty years later, should pay for their sins.

 

[cnm]

You mean you could tell I know more history than you do.

No

 

[cnm]

Your original argument seemed to be that cotton was the basis for the U.S. economy and that slavery is what made it that way.

No, my original argument is that black slaves built the base of the US economy from which they and their descendents were excluded.

 

[DudleySmith]

No

Yes. Lots more.

All you have is shallow virtue signaling and sniveling.

 

[cnm]

Even if we allow that cotton was the main foundation of the economy at the time, the demand for it was such that slavery wouldn’t have mattered to it one way or the other. At least, not enough to say that I, a hundred fifty years later, should pay for their sins.

So an imaginary situation is all you need to discount benefiting from the US economy at the expense of others. I expected nothing less.

 

[cnm]

All you have is shallow virtue signaling and sniveling.

I've read US history. You don't seem to. Or, at least, you read some very strange material.

 

[el midgetron]

The South lost the Civil War. Thats the greatest testament to the economic prowess of a slavery based economy I can think of.

 

[DudleySmith]

No, my original argument is that black slaves built the base of the US economy from which they and their descendents were excluded.

No, they didn't. They were merely agricultural workers, and they weren't any worse off than Irish and German laborers, and in fact were better off in many cases. At least they were fed year round and had roofs over their heads.

The levees around New Orleans are full of dead Irish and German laborers, who were simply just left where they fell and covered over when they died. The Irish had the most dangerous jobs on the cotton boats as well; slaves were too valuable to risk being injured doing the dangerous stuff.

The Peanut Gallery can read Fredrick Law Omstead's travel diary through the South for coverage of the above.

The South lost the Civil War. Thats the greatest testament to the economic prowess of a slavery based economy I can think of.

Yes. Slavery discouraged white Europeans from settling there. A mono-economy is always a bad idea, and capital in the South flowed to the highest returns, which was cotton and dyes, and hence industrial and technical development and investment was severely neglected.

This also reduced the number of Congressional seats southern states had.

 

[DudleySmith]

I've read US history. You don't seem to. Or, at least, you read some very strange material.

I read all of it, not just the idiot propoganda narratives you like to read. This guy has the right take on hisotry.


And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. THey do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George mason Univ.

Obviously you chose prozac.

 

[el midgetron]

Yes. Slavery discouraged white Europeans from settling there. A mono-economy is always a bad idea, and capital in the South flowed to the highest returns, which was cotton and dyes, and hence industrial and technical development and investment was severely neglected.

You have two econimc systems pitted against each other in battle. One wins. What does that say about the other?

 

[cnm]

No, they didn't. They were merely agricultural workers, and they weren't any worse off than Irish and German laborers, and in fact were better off in many cases. At least they were fed year round and had roofs over their heads.

How to say one is from a slave state without actually saying one is from a slave state.

 

[cnm]

I read all of it, not just the idiot propoganda narratives you like to read.

Does this fit that bill?

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln - Doris Kearns Goodwin

 

[DudleySmith]

How to say one is from a slave state without actually saying one is from a slave state.

How to say you embarrassed yourself with your usual stupid fake morals and got handed your ass.

 

[DudleySmith]

You have two econimc systems pitted against each other in battle. One wins. What does that say about the other?

And what has been the result? Slavery was on its way out all on its own. Lincoln's war was entirely about something else. Slavery works great in Red China; just ask Wall Street, They love it. They also love it in Africa and everywhere else. The history of sweatshops and ag labor in the U.S. points to a northern economy that relied on temp labor and a constant flow of poor immigrants to sustain it, due to the high mortality rates of 'free labor' due to famines, depressions, harsh winters, and disease. Add to that a severe alcoholism problem, with a per capita booze consumption over three times that of Europe and the violence and mayhem generated by that.

 

[el midgetron]

So slavery works “great“ and is so awesome that we sould strive for Africa’s and China’s standards on human rights (Needed to facilitate the institution of slavery)?

 

[AMart]

That is the most normal thing, didnt Germany pay reperations to Jews and the Allies as well? If they commited genocide, slavery etc. they should pay reperations no? Why is that funny?

300,000 whites died freeing those lazy ungrateful nigs. They were never genocided you obese faggot filth lying scumbag.

 

[cnm]

300,000 whites died freeing those lazy ungrateful nigs. They were never genocided you obese faggot filth lying scumbag.

No one went to war to save the Jews. Let's have some realism here.

 

[IM2]

No, they didn't. They were merely agricultural workers, and they weren't any worse off than Irish and German laborers, and in fact were better off in many cases. At least they were fed year round and had roofs over their heads.

The levees around New Orleans are full of dead Irish and German laborers, who were simply just left where they fell and covered over when they died. The Irish had the most dangerous jobs on the cotton boats as well; slaves were too valuable to risk being injured doing the dangerous stuff.

The Peanut Gallery can read Fredrick Law Omstead's travel diary through the South for coverage of the above.


Yes. Slavery discouraged white Europeans from settling there. A mono-economy is always a bad idea, and capital in the South flowed to the highest returns, which was cotton and dyes, and hence industrial and technical development and investment was severely neglected.

This also reduced the number of Congressional seats southern states had.

This is lunacy. The other people mentioned were free. They chose to do the jobs. Slaves died from work, beatings, children were murdered, used as gator bait, I mean this post is just stupid.

 

[DudleySmith]

This is lunacy. The other people mentioned were free. They chose to do the jobs. Slaves died from work, beatings, children were murdered, used as gator bait, I mean this post is just stupid.

lol the world according to con artists trying to get free money for nothing. Eyewitness reports by abolitionists of course tell the real story, which sucks for hacks and fraudsters like IM2. And we all know how violent blacks are and how they treat each other, no need to keep reminding us. You're still beating and murdering children and pimping them off today; old habits die hard, eh? lol at 'gator bait'. Yeah that was real common ... if you're a tard who believes idiot dreaming up propoganda.

 

[DudleySmith]

So slavery works “great“ and is so awesome that we sould strive for Africa’s and China’s standards on human rights (Needed to facilitate the institution of slavery)?

It indeed works great , for those who profit from it. And I never said or claimed that, but go ahead and pretend I did if it's all you have. Slavery in Africa is still widespread and active today, in case you haven't noticed. We don't see any left wingers here in the States even mentioning it, so obviously they don't actually care about it. Must be because the slave owners there are a color that is above criticism.

I already pointed out why it failed and what it cost the South in a number of ways.