6 ms·

> built on the spoils of war Negative, you may have confused the US with Rome. The US is the beneficiary of tremendous natural resources, temperate climate ac

by sk5t 6y ago

> built on the spoils of war Negative, you may have confused the US with Rome. The US is the beneficiary of tremendous natural resources, temperate climate across a vast geography, natural isolation from external threats, and mostly very stable governmental structures.

klodolph 6y ago
Those natural resources were acquired by conquering and displacing the original inhabitants.
- rajin444 6y ago
  That's a statement that applies to nearly every society ever. What's the point of saying it? The post you're replying to is talking about a unique distinction in how 2 societies maintained power.
  - klodolph 6y ago
    > That's a statement that applies to nearly every society ever. What's the point of saying it? There's something to be said for relevance. It may be true for nearly every society, but the amount of relevance varies. The US conquered an astonishing amount of territory in recent history, which makes it relevant.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      Much less than the Soviet Union.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
birdyrooster 6y ago
Oh oh oh I have one: a peculiar form of chattel slavery considered more brutal and unforgiving than that of Rome.
- wahern 6y ago
  The American South was built on slavery, but slavery was a limiting factor in the economic development of the United States and particularly the South. It's why the industrial revolution happened in the North. And as the largest market for Southern cotton Europe was at least as much a benefactor of American Slavery. Some people spin this narrative because they think it secures African-Americans' place as legitimate and essential builders of American wealth and power. And sometimes also to justify reparations. But that seems unnecessary and a reactionary narrative that is simply the flip side of the coin of American racist ideology. There's no need to justify, let alone rank, the contributions of any group in the U.S., especially when you do it by reviving horribly misguided economic theories. Also, don't forget that slavery was endemic to European colonialism in the Americas. AFAIU, only a fraction (less than 10%?) of African slaves ended up in the United States. Brazil alone, for example, may have received upwards of 40%. If slavery were the secret sauce to economic development, the U.S. should be one of the poorest countries in the Americas.
  - birdyrooster 6y ago
    > slavery was a limiting factor I would love a source for this >Also, don't forget that slavery was endemic to European colonialism in the Americas. AFAIU, only a fraction (less than 10%?) of African slaves ended up in the United States. Brazil alone, for example, may have received upwards of 40%. If slavery were the secret sauce to economic development, the U.S. should be one of the poorest countries in the Americas. I don't follow this, why would they be the poorest? Is this based on your previous claim that slavery being a limiting factor?
    - wahern 6y ago
      > Recent research argues that among former New World colonies a nation’s past dependence on slave labor was important for its subsequent economic development (Engerman and Sokoloff, 1997, 2002). It is argued that specialization in plantation agriculture, with its use of slave labor, caused economic inequality, which concentrated power in the hands of a small elite, adversely affecting the development of domestic institutions needed for sustained economic growth. I test for these relationships looking across former New World economies and across states and counties within the U.S. The data shows that slave use is negatively correlated with subsequent economic development. However, there is no evidence that this relationship is driven by large scale plantation slavery, or that the relationship works through slavery’s effect on economic inequality. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/domestic_slavery.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/domestic_slaver... I haven't actually read much research in this area in particular. Frankly, it just seems intuitive to me based on all the literature I have read about American political, legal, and industrial development; the development of other countries, such as in SE Asia; and especially works related to the so-called "resource curse": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
freddie_mercury 6y ago
Those "tremendous natural resources" were all the result of the Indian wars. America was at war nearly constantly expanding its empire from 1775-1865. Surely you didn't think north America was terra nullis or that the natives just willingly gave away all those natural resources to European colonists? Anglo-Powhatan Wars (3 separate wars), Pequot War, Kieft's War, Peach Tree War, Esopus Wars, King Philip's War, Tuscarora War, Yamasee War, Dummer's War, Pontiac's War, Lord Dunmore's War, Cherokee-American Wars, Northwest Indian War, the Creek War, First and Second Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche-Mexico War, Cayuse War, Rogue River Wars, Yakima War, Puget Sound War, Spokane War, Snake War, Nez Perce War, Bannock War, Sheepeater Indian War, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Mohave War, Apache Wars, Black Hawk War, Yavapai Wars, California Indian Wars, Walker War, Paiute War, Goshute War, White River War, Red Cloud's War, Colorado War, Great Sioux War, Dakota War.... And I'm sure I'm leaving a bunch out. The US is definitely built on the spoils of war.
- SR2Z 6y ago
  "Spoils of war" implies some degree of active, ongoing conquest beyond the borders of a nation, but the United States has relied almost entirely on resources within its own borders to gain its power. You could say that America was "expanding its empire" but there was not substantial growth after the Gadsden purchase and most of the growth of universities (and the bulk of American power) came much later. Attributing research and production to the spoils of wars fought nearly a century ago is kind of a reach.
  - spats1990 6y ago
    "Spoils of war" on Wikipedia redirects to "war looting" or: "A prize of war is a piece of enemy property or land seized by a belligerent party during or after a war or battle, typically at sea." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war >but the United States has relied almost entirely on resources within its own borders to gain its power. How did it attain control of those resources? You haven't addressed the parent's point.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > the natives just willingly gave away all those natural resources The native Americans didn't even know about most of the natural resources, and what they did know about, they mostly didn't make any use of. That's a big part of why they ended up losing the wars against the European settlers: the latter actually turned those resources into wealth.
WalterBright 6y ago
The Soviet Union had much more natural resources available.
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  But not a temperate climate over its whole geography or stable government structures over the last 200 years.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    The USSR was stable for 70 years. Long enough. The problem was lack of free markets. Free markets are the common thread among successful economic powers. Not population, not resources, not rivers, etc.
    - fighterpilot 6y ago
      Agreed on the free markets point. Anything else is a nonstarter.
    - emteycz 6y ago
      Huh? I don't think there was a single moment of stability anywhere in the whole Eastern bloc (was born there). Especially not political stability, and much less economical. People and businesses were continually deliberately destroyed on massive scale the entire time. Though yeah, free markets are key.
    - random314 6y ago
      As well as colonialism and puppet governments in Latin America.
zmmmmm 6y ago
I often think this factor is vastly under estimated. The US geography is almost the perfect design for building a prosperous and stable society. A massive breadbasket of fertile interior flanked on each side by coastline with access to trade with all corners of the earth but still isolated and highly defensible. Every natural resource you could possibly need available in abundance without ever needing reliance on external countries. If you were sitting down to a game like SimCity and constructing a country you'd probably make something like that, but here it was "by accident" just ripe for the industrial revolution to take hold and transform it.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Japan has none of this, and yet is highly successful.
  - koreanguy 6y ago
    not really, Japanese have been stealing from western Patents for years
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    But it's not number one, perhaps party because of geography too (size of country, lack of natural resources, location).
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      Relative to their size, they have done extremely well. The lack of natural resources has not held them back, nor has the location, lack of rivers, etc. The feature that matters is a free market. The best thing a poor country can do for its citizens is move towards a free market economy.
  - lovemenot 6y ago
    At a different scale and time Japan was indeed blessed with natural resources. In the revised edition of Guns, Germs and Steel Jared Diamond tells us that the "agriculture package" sent from the Fertile Crescent 5kya arrived here late: 2.3kya - perhaps 1,000 years later than expected. The purported reason: Jomon was perhaps the most sophisticated hunter-gatherer society ever. For instance, pottery was created by Jomon hunter-gatherers earlier than anywhere else. In part, because of the sheer abundance of natural resources in Japan, the Jomon peoples had developed a rich society that agriculturism for a long time simply couldn't compete with.

by sk5t 6y ago

klodolph 6y ago

Those natural resources were acquired by conquering and displacing the original inhabitants.

rajin444 6y ago
That's a statement that applies to nearly every society ever. What's the point of saying it? The post you're replying to is talking about a unique distinction in how 2 societies maintained power.
- klodolph 6y ago
  > That's a statement that applies to nearly every society ever. What's the point of saying it? There's something to be said for relevance. It may be true for nearly every society, but the amount of relevance varies. The US conquered an astonishing amount of territory in recent history, which makes it relevant.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Much less than the Soviet Union.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

birdyrooster 6y ago

Oh oh oh I have one: a peculiar form of chattel slavery considered more brutal and unforgiving than that of Rome.

wahern 6y ago
The American South was built on slavery, but slavery was a limiting factor in the economic development of the United States and particularly the South. It's why the industrial revolution happened in the North. And as the largest market for Southern cotton Europe was at least as much a benefactor of American Slavery. Some people spin this narrative because they think it secures African-Americans' place as legitimate and essential builders of American wealth and power. And sometimes also to justify reparations. But that seems unnecessary and a reactionary narrative that is simply the flip side of the coin of American racist ideology. There's no need to justify, let alone rank, the contributions of any group in the U.S., especially when you do it by reviving horribly misguided economic theories. Also, don't forget that slavery was endemic to European colonialism in the Americas. AFAIU, only a fraction (less than 10%?) of African slaves ended up in the United States. Brazil alone, for example, may have received upwards of 40%. If slavery were the secret sauce to economic development, the U.S. should be one of the poorest countries in the Americas.
- birdyrooster 6y ago
  > slavery was a limiting factor I would love a source for this >Also, don't forget that slavery was endemic to European colonialism in the Americas. AFAIU, only a fraction (less than 10%?) of African slaves ended up in the United States. Brazil alone, for example, may have received upwards of 40%. If slavery were the secret sauce to economic development, the U.S. should be one of the poorest countries in the Americas. I don't follow this, why would they be the poorest? Is this based on your previous claim that slavery being a limiting factor?
  - wahern 6y ago
    > Recent research argues that among former New World colonies a nation’s past dependence on slave labor was important for its subsequent economic development (Engerman and Sokoloff, 1997, 2002). It is argued that specialization in plantation agriculture, with its use of slave labor, caused economic inequality, which concentrated power in the hands of a small elite, adversely affecting the development of domestic institutions needed for sustained economic growth. I test for these relationships looking across former New World economies and across states and counties within the U.S. The data shows that slave use is negatively correlated with subsequent economic development. However, there is no evidence that this relationship is driven by large scale plantation slavery, or that the relationship works through slavery’s effect on economic inequality. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/domestic_slavery.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/domestic_slaver... I haven't actually read much research in this area in particular. Frankly, it just seems intuitive to me based on all the literature I have read about American political, legal, and industrial development; the development of other countries, such as in SE Asia; and especially works related to the so-called "resource curse": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

freddie_mercury 6y ago

Those "tremendous natural resources" were all the result of the Indian wars. America was at war nearly constantly expanding its empire from 1775-1865. Surely you didn't think north America was terra nullis or that the natives just willingly gave away all those natural resources to European colonists? Anglo-Powhatan Wars (3 separate wars), Pequot War, Kieft's War, Peach Tree War, Esopus Wars, King Philip's War, Tuscarora War, Yamasee War, Dummer's War, Pontiac's War, Lord Dunmore's War, Cherokee-American Wars, Northwest Indian War, the Creek War, First and Second Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche-Mexico War, Cayuse War, Rogue River Wars, Yakima War, Puget Sound War, Spokane War, Snake War, Nez Perce War, Bannock War, Sheepeater Indian War, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Mohave War, Apache Wars, Black Hawk War, Yavapai Wars, California Indian Wars, Walker War, Paiute War, Goshute War, White River War, Red Cloud's War, Colorado War, Great Sioux War, Dakota War.... And I'm sure I'm leaving a bunch out. The US is definitely built on the spoils of war.

SR2Z 6y ago
"Spoils of war" implies some degree of active, ongoing conquest beyond the borders of a nation, but the United States has relied almost entirely on resources within its own borders to gain its power. You could say that America was "expanding its empire" but there was not substantial growth after the Gadsden purchase and most of the growth of universities (and the bulk of American power) came much later. Attributing research and production to the spoils of wars fought nearly a century ago is kind of a reach.
- spats1990 6y ago
  "Spoils of war" on Wikipedia redirects to "war looting" or: "A prize of war is a piece of enemy property or land seized by a belligerent party during or after a war or battle, typically at sea." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war >but the United States has relied almost entirely on resources within its own borders to gain its power. How did it attain control of those resources? You haven't addressed the parent's point.
pdonis 6y ago
> the natives just willingly gave away all those natural resources The native Americans didn't even know about most of the natural resources, and what they did know about, they mostly didn't make any use of. That's a big part of why they ended up losing the wars against the European settlers: the latter actually turned those resources into wealth.

WalterBright 6y ago

The Soviet Union had much more natural resources available.

fighterpilot 6y ago
But not a temperate climate over its whole geography or stable government structures over the last 200 years.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  The USSR was stable for 70 years. Long enough. The problem was lack of free markets. Free markets are the common thread among successful economic powers. Not population, not resources, not rivers, etc.
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    Agreed on the free markets point. Anything else is a nonstarter.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Huh? I don't think there was a single moment of stability anywhere in the whole Eastern bloc (was born there). Especially not political stability, and much less economical. People and businesses were continually deliberately destroyed on massive scale the entire time. Though yeah, free markets are key.
  - random314 6y ago
    As well as colonialism and puppet governments in Latin America.

zmmmmm 6y ago

I often think this factor is vastly under estimated. The US geography is almost the perfect design for building a prosperous and stable society. A massive breadbasket of fertile interior flanked on each side by coastline with access to trade with all corners of the earth but still isolated and highly defensible. Every natural resource you could possibly need available in abundance without ever needing reliance on external countries. If you were sitting down to a game like SimCity and constructing a country you'd probably make something like that, but here it was "by accident" just ripe for the industrial revolution to take hold and transform it.

WalterBright 6y ago
Japan has none of this, and yet is highly successful.
- koreanguy 6y ago
  not really, Japanese have been stealing from western Patents for years
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  But it's not number one, perhaps party because of geography too (size of country, lack of natural resources, location).
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    Relative to their size, they have done extremely well. The lack of natural resources has not held them back, nor has the location, lack of rivers, etc. The feature that matters is a free market. The best thing a poor country can do for its citizens is move towards a free market economy.
- lovemenot 6y ago
  At a different scale and time Japan was indeed blessed with natural resources. In the revised edition of Guns, Germs and Steel Jared Diamond tells us that the "agriculture package" sent from the Fertile Crescent 5kya arrived here late: 2.3kya - perhaps 1,000 years later than expected. The purported reason: Jomon was perhaps the most sophisticated hunter-gatherer society ever. For instance, pottery was created by Jomon hunter-gatherers earlier than anywhere else. In part, because of the sheer abundance of natural resources in Japan, the Jomon peoples had developed a rich society that agriculturism for a long time simply couldn't compete with.