6 ms·

Citation please, or at least a numeric definition of "heavily dependant".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
macintux 8y ago
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/11/19/slavery-economy-baptist http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/11/19/slavery-economy-ba... https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/historical-context-was-slavery-engine-american-economic-growth https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/historical-context-was... Just a couple of references I found with a quick search.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  Your first link has exactly zero value in determining the economic value of contributions. Your second link has this paragraph "The answer is "0"; slavery did not create a major share of the capital that financed the European industrial revolution. The combined profits of the slave trade and West Indian plantations did not add up to five percent of Britain's national income at the time of the industrial revolution." So I am confused about what I am supposed to take away from the links you gave.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    Holy crap, this is a breathtakingly dishonest answer. Regardless of the topic, you should be ashamed of yourself for being so comfortable with intellectual dishonesty. The quote you cite explicitly talks about the _European_ industrial revolution. The _very next sentence_ says: >. Nevertheless, slavery was indispensable to European development of the New World. It is inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed North and South America and the Caribbean without slave labor Even more to the point, a couple sentences later: > In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers. Given that we're talking precisely about "the economy of the early usa", this is the relevant perspective. Again, shame on you
    - patrickg_zill 8y ago
      Read the original post I responded to. Britain's 5 per cent is not "heavily dependant". American development was different. The demographics are not in dispute: at no point in time did the US have more than 23% of the population be African Americans. So even assuming they all worked exactly as hard as all others (and that 100% were enslaved), the share is "23%". So is that "heavily dependant" given that 77% of the output is not from that source? I would point out that cotton was a raw material crop, while the Northern development was a mix of agriculture and industry.
      - vhudud 8y ago
        > In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. >thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers. These two quotes prove my claim. Slave grown crops were a large part of the usa's exports and even in states without slaves, industry depended on the plantation system in some way. I think its reasonable to say the us economy heavily depended on slavery for that reason. Either you are expending an extraordinary amount of effort nitpicking the semantics of "heavily" or you're knowlingly deluding yourself to avoid facing the truth. As an american, who lives in an area where enslaved people once walked, i know its hard to accept that the country i love was founded on opression. But it's something we all must acknowledge. It's a dark chapter of our history, and it continues to impact us today.
        patrickg_zill 8y ago
        Maybe you have a point. Because I don't accept it (collective guilt). And 23% is not heavily dependent, no matter how you slice it. Maternal side: has been in the USA since 1727. In those nearly 300 years, no one ever owned slaves or benefited from slavery. In fact, it is possible that they were even harmed by it; because as free farmers they had to compete against slave labor. Paternal side: arrived in 1920s, well after slavery ended.
vhudud 8y ago
Ok. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2.html https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/11/19/slavery-economy-baptist http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/11/19/slavery-economy-ba... https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/historical-context-was-slavery-engine-american-economic-growth https://www.gilderlehrman.org/content/historical-context-was... Just a couple of references I found with a quick search.

patrickg_zill 8y ago
Your first link has exactly zero value in determining the economic value of contributions. Your second link has this paragraph "The answer is "0"; slavery did not create a major share of the capital that financed the European industrial revolution. The combined profits of the slave trade and West Indian plantations did not add up to five percent of Britain's national income at the time of the industrial revolution." So I am confused about what I am supposed to take away from the links you gave.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  Holy crap, this is a breathtakingly dishonest answer. Regardless of the topic, you should be ashamed of yourself for being so comfortable with intellectual dishonesty. The quote you cite explicitly talks about the _European_ industrial revolution. The _very next sentence_ says: >. Nevertheless, slavery was indispensable to European development of the New World. It is inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed North and South America and the Caribbean without slave labor Even more to the point, a couple sentences later: > In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers. Given that we're talking precisely about "the economy of the early usa", this is the relevant perspective. Again, shame on you
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    Read the original post I responded to. Britain's 5 per cent is not "heavily dependant". American development was different. The demographics are not in dispute: at no point in time did the US have more than 23% of the population be African Americans. So even assuming they all worked exactly as hard as all others (and that 100% were enslaved), the share is "23%". So is that "heavily dependant" given that 77% of the output is not from that source? I would point out that cotton was a raw material crop, while the Northern development was a mix of agriculture and industry.
    - vhudud 8y ago
      > In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. >thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers. These two quotes prove my claim. Slave grown crops were a large part of the usa's exports and even in states without slaves, industry depended on the plantation system in some way. I think its reasonable to say the us economy heavily depended on slavery for that reason. Either you are expending an extraordinary amount of effort nitpicking the semantics of "heavily" or you're knowlingly deluding yourself to avoid facing the truth. As an american, who lives in an area where enslaved people once walked, i know its hard to accept that the country i love was founded on opression. But it's something we all must acknowledge. It's a dark chapter of our history, and it continues to impact us today.
      - patrickg_zill 8y ago
        Maybe you have a point. Because I don't accept it (collective guilt). And 23% is not heavily dependent, no matter how you slice it. Maternal side: has been in the USA since 1727. In those nearly 300 years, no one ever owned slaves or benefited from slavery. In fact, it is possible that they were even harmed by it; because as free farmers they had to compete against slave labor. Paternal side: arrived in 1920s, well after slavery ended.

vhudud 8y ago

Ok. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2.html https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203...