3 ms·
> So the Freedmen were forced to be tenants of the white landowners — planting the cotton seed, tending the crop, being responsible for everything produced by t
by jpdoctor 14y ago
> So the Freedmen were forced to be tenants of the white landowners — planting the cotton seed, tending the crop, being responsible for everything produced by their small patch of land. But after all the work was done, they had to hand over the proceeds of their labor to the landowners and receive just a “share” of the “crop” — usually no more than half.
Sounds like the VC model?
- niggler 14y agoIt's exactly the VC model, except that in the VC model you still keep your limbs and salary if the business fails. My understanding is that in traditional share cropping and in other things related to it (like music), the "freedmen" still bore "equity risk"
- hyperpape 14y agoNot to mention that the system was propped up by organized violence and the corruption of the legal system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping#United_States). This isn't a bad post, but the sharecropper simile kinda stinks.
- randomdata 14y agoIt also sounds like modern-day agriculture share-cropping, which is usually seen as a good way to mitigate risk in poor years and allow the landowner share on the upside in a profitable year. It is kind of strange to see it presented in a negative light when it is generally regarded as a fairly good way to obtain workable acres today.
- grannyg00se 14y agoAlso sounds like any typical employment. You put in labour, and get back some fraction of the proceeds of the combined labour of all employees.