4 ms·

Well, about that.... The US was certainly built on plunder, perhaps not of the shiny metals kind but plunder nonetheless.

WalterBright 2y ago
> The US was certainly built on plunder Selling iron ore and other raw material to other countries? I don't think so. Don't neglect all the goods and services created by an industrial economy. You can't dig a house out of the ground, nor shoes, nor canned goods, nor glass bottles, nor choo choo trains, nor airplanes, nor textiles, etc. Japan and Hong Kong both proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that great wealth does not come from plunder, it comes from creating things.
- MeImCounting 2y ago
  I think maybe youre missing your own point here? The US got rich from primarily three sources: First it was agriculture specifically tobacco and sugar both of which are cultivars I believe qualify as plunder. Next it was oil, which came from from land taken as plunder. This oil was primarily consumed domestically and contributed to the building up of the large industrial manufacturing economy then and later in the 20th century. Then finally yes the US had a large manufacturing economy which lead to the innovation and information economies of the late 20th and 21st centuries. It is clear to me that much of the United States' wealth comes from the plunder of the conquered peoples of the continental US, Caribbean islands and Pacific islands. https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/ https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/the-... https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1681/tobacco--colonial-american-economy/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1681/tobacco--colonial-... https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Industrialization-of-the-U-S-economy https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Industrializa...
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Colonial America was not rich with plunder. They lost every battle with the British (except the last one), and was on the edge of defeat at every turn. This, despite have the home turf advantage, and the British had to ship everything over via sailing ships. The industrialization of America happened after 1800 and took place in the free North, not the tobacco cotton plantations in the slave South. Where were the Indian tobacco and cotton plantations, anyway? Besides, explain why didn't the other American countries get rich from all this plunder, too? Recall all that oil in Mexico and Venezuela? Why has that plunder failed to make Venezuela and Mexico rich? > Then finally yes the US had a large manufacturing economy Why do you think that happened? Did the US plunder machine tools from other countries (like the Soviets did after WW2, though that didn't seem to have helped them much)? > It is clear to me that much of the United States' wealth comes from the plunder of the conquered peoples of the continental US, Again, why aren't Mexico and S. America wealthy? > Caribbean islands and Pacific islands. This is sheer fantasy. A few islands in the Pacific fueled the industrial empire of the US?
    - MeImCounting 2y ago
      Im just going to paste my comment from the other thread here in response since I dont want to rephrase everything ive said. Feel free to reply in either place Do you actually not know/want to discuss why that is or are you just pushing your narrative which is that "the particular special brand of White People™ who happened to become dominant in the US were very good and very smart and so invented factories and made the US rich and therefor the riches of the US have nothing to do with plunder but with the virtue of these very good very smart very special White People™"? Because I think its clear that the reason the rest of the Americas didnt become wealthy like North America is because of the same habit of plunder that made the US rich but instead of that wealth being sent to Boston or New York or wherever, it was sent back to Europe. How the oil rush in the US was primarily consumed domestically and enabled a huge buildup of industry or how the US has long had a strong domestic supply of steel those places either lacked key resources such as oil or steel while being rich in others or had their social and political structures destroyed by the legacy of colonialism. This combined with terrible governance shows us pretty clearly why the rest of the Americas didnt become rich like the US. https://focus.bse.eu/colonial-settlers-economic-development- https://focus.bse.eu/colonial-settlers-economic-development-... https://cod.pressbooks.pub/westernworlddailyreadingsgeograph https://cod.pressbooks.pub/westernworlddailyreadingsgeograph... https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/50/3/583/152678/The https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/50/3/583/152678/The...
      - skybrian 2y ago
        I think the technical point here is that buying slaves, etc. isn't plunder. Plunder is getting rich specifically from looting, like when a city-state's soldiers conquer other cities and loot them, which was common in ancient times and where the Roman Empire got its riches. (Along with tribute from the people they conquered.) And I don't think the US did that? Of course Native Americans were attacked and often treated terribly, but unlike with the Spanish, they didn't have any loot, I don't think? That was about land. Piracy ended in 1730, but maybe privateering during the American Revolution and 1812 counts. It doesn't mean that a lot of terrible things didn't happen, just not that specific terrible thing.

WalterBright 2y ago

> The US was certainly built on plunder Selling iron ore and other raw material to other countries? I don't think so. Don't neglect all the goods and services created by an industrial economy. You can't dig a house out of the ground, nor shoes, nor canned goods, nor glass bottles, nor choo choo trains, nor airplanes, nor textiles, etc. Japan and Hong Kong both proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that great wealth does not come from plunder, it comes from creating things.

MeImCounting 2y ago
I think maybe youre missing your own point here? The US got rich from primarily three sources: First it was agriculture specifically tobacco and sugar both of which are cultivars I believe qualify as plunder. Next it was oil, which came from from land taken as plunder. This oil was primarily consumed domestically and contributed to the building up of the large industrial manufacturing economy then and later in the 20th century. Then finally yes the US had a large manufacturing economy which lead to the innovation and information economies of the late 20th and 21st centuries. It is clear to me that much of the United States' wealth comes from the plunder of the conquered peoples of the continental US, Caribbean islands and Pacific islands. https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/ https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/the-... https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1681/tobacco--colonial-american-economy/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1681/tobacco--colonial-... https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Industrialization-of-the-U-S-economy https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Industrializa...
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Colonial America was not rich with plunder. They lost every battle with the British (except the last one), and was on the edge of defeat at every turn. This, despite have the home turf advantage, and the British had to ship everything over via sailing ships. The industrialization of America happened after 1800 and took place in the free North, not the tobacco cotton plantations in the slave South. Where were the Indian tobacco and cotton plantations, anyway? Besides, explain why didn't the other American countries get rich from all this plunder, too? Recall all that oil in Mexico and Venezuela? Why has that plunder failed to make Venezuela and Mexico rich? > Then finally yes the US had a large manufacturing economy Why do you think that happened? Did the US plunder machine tools from other countries (like the Soviets did after WW2, though that didn't seem to have helped them much)? > It is clear to me that much of the United States' wealth comes from the plunder of the conquered peoples of the continental US, Again, why aren't Mexico and S. America wealthy? > Caribbean islands and Pacific islands. This is sheer fantasy. A few islands in the Pacific fueled the industrial empire of the US?
  - MeImCounting 2y ago
    Im just going to paste my comment from the other thread here in response since I dont want to rephrase everything ive said. Feel free to reply in either place Do you actually not know/want to discuss why that is or are you just pushing your narrative which is that "the particular special brand of White People™ who happened to become dominant in the US were very good and very smart and so invented factories and made the US rich and therefor the riches of the US have nothing to do with plunder but with the virtue of these very good very smart very special White People™"? Because I think its clear that the reason the rest of the Americas didnt become wealthy like North America is because of the same habit of plunder that made the US rich but instead of that wealth being sent to Boston or New York or wherever, it was sent back to Europe. How the oil rush in the US was primarily consumed domestically and enabled a huge buildup of industry or how the US has long had a strong domestic supply of steel those places either lacked key resources such as oil or steel while being rich in others or had their social and political structures destroyed by the legacy of colonialism. This combined with terrible governance shows us pretty clearly why the rest of the Americas didnt become rich like the US. https://focus.bse.eu/colonial-settlers-economic-development- https://focus.bse.eu/colonial-settlers-economic-development-... https://cod.pressbooks.pub/westernworlddailyreadingsgeograph https://cod.pressbooks.pub/westernworlddailyreadingsgeograph... https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/50/3/583/152678/The https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/50/3/583/152678/The...
    - skybrian 2y ago
      I think the technical point here is that buying slaves, etc. isn't plunder. Plunder is getting rich specifically from looting, like when a city-state's soldiers conquer other cities and loot them, which was common in ancient times and where the Roman Empire got its riches. (Along with tribute from the people they conquered.) And I don't think the US did that? Of course Native Americans were attacked and often treated terribly, but unlike with the Spanish, they didn't have any loot, I don't think? That was about land. Piracy ended in 1730, but maybe privateering during the American Revolution and 1812 counts. It doesn't mean that a lot of terrible things didn't happen, just not that specific terrible thing.