Interesting propaganda in support of a political position:
"the book is complementary reading to Ta-Nehisi Coates' much talked-about Case For R********ns"
Thanks for sharing.
BTW: from where did the North get its cotton 1861-1865?
soba1
Loc: Somewhere In So Ca
davefales wrote:
Interesting propaganda in support of a political position:
"the book is complementary reading to Ta-Nehisi Coates' much talked-about Case For R********ns"
Thanks for sharing.
BTW: from where did the North get its cotton 1861-1865?
Lol never thought about where the north got its cotton from.
I found item #1 the most interesting.
it was never north vs south...
...it's always have's vs don't haves's
soba1
Loc: Somewhere In So Ca
user47602 wrote:
it was never north vs south...
...it's always have's vs don't haves's
Yep and race was in the middle. The poor w****s in the south were used to further the agenda of the rich land owners.
I did some searching and found that some New England textile plants stored extra cotton from the bumper crops of the late 1850s. Others did not and had to shut down for lack of material.
davefales wrote:
Interesting propaganda in support of a political position:
"the book is complementary reading to Ta-Nehisi Coates' much talked-about Case For R********ns"
Thanks for sharing.
BTW: from where did the North get its cotton 1861-1865?
I don't know how you just offhand classify this as propaganda... Just think about the doom and gloom to small business that would result in a $10/hr minimum wage today...
then think that industry was much more geared to manual labor back in 1860...
then think about s***e owners thinking how their profits would shrink if they actually had to pay their workers...
makes a lot of sense.
user47602 wrote:
it was never north vs south...
...it's always have's vs don't haves's
:thumbup: :-( :-( :-( :-( :roll: :roll: :roll: :thumbup:
cascadia13 wrote:
:thumbup: :-( :-( :-( :-( :roll: :roll: :roll: :thumbup:
sending mixed messages or experimenting with emoticons? :mrgreen:
"A rich man's war, but a poor man's fight."
Union draftees who had the means could pay to have someone else fill their boots and coffins.
The thumb ups were because I agree with your post. The rolled eyes were because...the more things change, the more they stay the same.
cascadia13 wrote:
The thumb ups were because I agree with your post. The rolled eyes were because...the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I get the bracketing-thumbs-up are like tags of agreement, and the sad and sarcastic guys are a reaction to the reality of the content.... is that close?
soba1 wrote:
Lol never thought about where the north got its cotton from.
I found item #1 the most interesting.
I think that we can all agree that s***ery is an assault to the human condition, that period of our history is pretty much incomprehensible, but it should alert us to the evil that man is capable of even as we try to understand the power structures that exist today.
Having said all of that, I am not so convinced that the wealth would not have accumulated anyway, maybe it would have taken longer but cotton and agricultural products would have still been in demand and consumed, s***ery served to provide a commodity at an artificially low price and therefore probably stimulate more demand than there otherwise would have been, but I am not so sure that the south would not have developed without s***ery. It is hard to understand the economy of the 16th through 19th centuries, there was almost a non existent middle class, you were either rich or poor and there was not much in the middle... I don't know what paid labor would have done to the south, but it is completely understandable that once s***e labor was established in the cotton and sugar commodity markets, that the ending of s***ery would have been greatly disruptive to those markets.
History is history, America was not the only country which used s***es although because of Sugar and Cotton the s***e markets did develop strongly in this hemisphere, but s***ery was at one time commonplace throughout the world.
user47602 wrote:
I don't know how you just offhand classify this as propaganda...
Possibly not offhand. From Wiki:
"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position."
When an article suggests that the thoughts are linked to r********ns, I'm going to believe that was not accidental or unintentional. It is meant to influence.
What are your thoughts about the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) enslaving Christian women and children and selling them as we sleep tonight?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.