3 ms·

The article talks about why the Patterson company did not go on to become a big automaker like Ford. Although they say that, on the one hand, few of the small e

The article talks about why the Patterson company did not go on to become a big automaker like Ford. Although they say that, on the one hand, few of the small early automakers made it, and Patterson was ten years too late, they also say that it was surely due to systemic racism. It's an odd thing to say not because racism would not have been experienced by the Patterson company but because it doesn't seem like it explains what happened, given the article's more general points about the fate of most of the early automakers. While Frederick had the right idea, small firms like his own couldn’t compete for long with the mass-manufacturing might, and daily production capacity, of far larger automakers like Ford, General Motors, Willys, Studebaker, and others. Ford alone was building 10,000 cars a day, a number Patterson couldn’t begin to match. Beyond sheer manufacturing scale, Patterson also lacked the engineering and design resources of these large concerns. Considering the time frame, that was no doubt due to the fact that, as the company’s own ads state, they were “the only Negro Automobile Manufacturing Concern in the United States.” Systemic racism and prejudice of the time made it difficult for Patterson & Sons to attract the financing necessary to compete. And on top of that, they were a decade too late. If automaking had been undertaken a decade sooner, it’s possible that Patterson & Sons might have grown along with the industry into a larger manufacturer rather than remaining a small-time assembler—something the company never was as a carriage builder.

JetAlone 6y ago
_There have been more than 1,900 automobile manufacturers in the United States since the Duryea Motor Wagon Company sold its first automobile in Springfield, Massachussetts in 1896. Yet in the explosion of entrepreneurship that followed, only one American automaker has been founded and run by a Black individual: C.R. Patterson & Sons of Greenfield, Ohio._ The racism surely couldn't have helped. It already tells us something that this was the only automobile manufacturer founded and run by a Black man from among around 1900 competitors. I think the article suggests that if the discrimination hadn't made funding so difficult to acquire, they could have overcome their late entry. But it's hard to be sure 100% exactly what would have happened.
wombatmobile 6y ago
> It's an odd thing to say not because racism would not have been experienced by the Patterson company but because it doesn't seem like it explains what happened, Doesn't it? How about the quote you included from the article? Systemic racism and prejudice of the time made it difficult for Patterson & Sons to attract the financing necessary to compete
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  It doesn't. How about the rest of the quote you quoted from? To consider just one excerpt: ...small firms like his own couldn’t compete for long...
  - nexthash 6y ago
    Seems like both parts of the quote are valid.
    - wombatmobile 6y ago
      Yeah and lacking detail. We’ll have to wait for the movie.
  - JohnL4 6y ago
    Check to make sure you're not working too hard to deny racism.
wahern 6y ago
"that was no doubt due" is an ambiguous phrase. A consequence always has multiple but-for causes. We usually try to categorize causes by culpability, but even then there can be multiple of the most culpable. Plus we don't always distinguish but-for from contributing causes. When someone says "no doubt due" I think people tend to assume but-for causation. But people who make the claim may not have intended that, even when they assume the opposite as listeners. In the next sentence the author uses the phrase "made it difficult", which to me has the effect of qualifying the previous claim, suggesting that "due" is not necessarily a but-for cause, but a notable contributing cause. I don't know what the authors intentions were, or even how much thought they put into it. And there are so many possible interpretations here, though undoubtedly many people will be primed to head down certain well-worn paths. I wouldn't get too hung up on it. I see this everywhere. I even see it in my own writing. If we're being charitable, we can just chalk it up to not having enough time. (And there's never enough time.) We can probably safely assume a predisposition to emphasize matters of racial inequality. (I haven't read the article, just the title and your excerpt.) But so what? The phrasing is ambiguous, which means it's not wrong on its face, nor is it necessarily lacking support. There's little reason to be anything less than charitable, lest we draw flawed conclusions of our own.
snicker7 6y ago
According to the article, Patterson couldn't secure financing because of systemic racism. It is possible that, even if this weren't the case, they would have still failed. But the lack of financing didn't help. It is hard to imagine any manufacturer surviving without financing.

JetAlone 6y ago

_There have been more than 1,900 automobile manufacturers in the United States since the Duryea Motor Wagon Company sold its first automobile in Springfield, Massachussetts in 1896. Yet in the explosion of entrepreneurship that followed, only one American automaker has been founded and run by a Black individual: C.R. Patterson & Sons of Greenfield, Ohio._ The racism surely couldn't have helped. It already tells us something that this was the only automobile manufacturer founded and run by a Black man from among around 1900 competitors. I think the article suggests that if the discrimination hadn't made funding so difficult to acquire, they could have overcome their late entry. But it's hard to be sure 100% exactly what would have happened.

wombatmobile 6y ago

> It's an odd thing to say not because racism would not have been experienced by the Patterson company but because it doesn't seem like it explains what happened, Doesn't it? How about the quote you included from the article? Systemic racism and prejudice of the time made it difficult for Patterson & Sons to attract the financing necessary to compete

solidsnack9000 6y ago
It doesn't. How about the rest of the quote you quoted from? To consider just one excerpt: ...small firms like his own couldn’t compete for long...
- nexthash 6y ago
  Seems like both parts of the quote are valid.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    Yeah and lacking detail. We’ll have to wait for the movie.
- JohnL4 6y ago
  Check to make sure you're not working too hard to deny racism.

wahern 6y ago

"that was no doubt due" is an ambiguous phrase. A consequence always has multiple but-for causes. We usually try to categorize causes by culpability, but even then there can be multiple of the most culpable. Plus we don't always distinguish but-for from contributing causes. When someone says "no doubt due" I think people tend to assume but-for causation. But people who make the claim may not have intended that, even when they assume the opposite as listeners. In the next sentence the author uses the phrase "made it difficult", which to me has the effect of qualifying the previous claim, suggesting that "due" is not necessarily a but-for cause, but a notable contributing cause. I don't know what the authors intentions were, or even how much thought they put into it. And there are so many possible interpretations here, though undoubtedly many people will be primed to head down certain well-worn paths. I wouldn't get too hung up on it. I see this everywhere. I even see it in my own writing. If we're being charitable, we can just chalk it up to not having enough time. (And there's never enough time.) We can probably safely assume a predisposition to emphasize matters of racial inequality. (I haven't read the article, just the title and your excerpt.) But so what? The phrasing is ambiguous, which means it's not wrong on its face, nor is it necessarily lacking support. There's little reason to be anything less than charitable, lest we draw flawed conclusions of our own.

snicker7 6y ago

According to the article, Patterson couldn't secure financing because of systemic racism. It is possible that, even if this weren't the case, they would have still failed. But the lack of financing didn't help. It is hard to imagine any manufacturer surviving without financing.