That's the impression I get. There's nothing wrong with trying to have a civil discussion about important topics on a forum. I just think we should all know by now that's probably not going to happen on this board.

I am merely discounting the claim that it was inefficient. I believe that it would have died out but by 1861 this country had not reached that particular point.

It was difficult for slave labor to compete with the industriaized system in the North at the time but that is quite different than saying it was a failure.

As I pointed out earlier the industrialized system of the Northern states at the time were nothing more than a different form of slavery. Its one of the main reasons used by abolitionists as a reason for wanting to abolish slavery. Conversely it was also one of the rationalizations used by slaveowners for wanting to continue slavery.

Again it isn't all that disingenuous to suggest that this Country was built on the backs of Slavery. The building years weren't the 1900's either. The Constructive years for the country were the late 1700's early 1800's.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

This post is more embarrassing than anything I've posted in quite some time. You didn't respond to anything I wrote and just went on a long winded diatribe about nothing. Take your own advice and learn how to disagree with a post without personally attacking the person making it. Nas had nothing to do with my post.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

I consider you a friend so I say this as nicely as possible: your post here is embarrassing. Your only goal is to label WfR racist. I'm sure you tried to avoid it, but three sentences in you couldn't help yourself.

But no worries - it certainly isn't just you. Topics like that can't be discussed here without it getting personal. It's funny that Nas comes on and writes a diatribe about how "mistreated" he is. Since I changed my views a bit, I can't even have a conversation without accusations of condescension, insensitivity, and race-baiting. My personality hasn't changed; only my perspective has. Somehow, when I was on the same side as the board "liberals," my "condescension" was just fine. Now that I'm bringing a bit different perspective, it's really offensive.

The usual "victims" here can't help but cry foul at the same time that they dish out insults and attack people's character. Nas wrote a diatribe yesterday about "unnamed" posters all while not refuting a single point they made. He took shots at me and didn't even have the guts to call me out by name. Instead, he just went on some whiny rant full of character assassinations while not refuting a single point I've ever made. But again, that isn't specific to him... it's just a larger issue on this board.

Some of you like to talk about how the election of Trump has revealed people's true colors. I couldn't agree more. It has revealed how close-minded, dogmatic, and petty some people are. There isn't a single conversation about race on this board in the last two years that doesn't end with the racism police yelling "yeah but ur racist derp!" It is impossible to have a conversation, which I suspect is why WfR gets so frustrated. He was labeled a racist and run off the board last year simply because he made a coherent argument that no one could refute. WfR doesn't have a racist bone in his body. He is clearly an academic who doesn't wilt when rubes call him a racist for idiotic reasons. But again, I'm sure this is reflective of society as a whole and not just this board.

Anyway, most of this stuff isn't worth the time. I love this board and am all about honest debate, but that's not what happens here. It's mainly a bunch of like-minded individuals screaming that everyone else is racist and then having the audacity to call others condescending. There are exceptions like RPB or LTG, but they are so rare they're not worth mentioning. The Left here is so dogmatic that they don't even call out a psychopath like Baby McNown and instead tacitly encourage him while talking shit about him behind his back.

For as long as I have posted here; this board has been as much about politics as it has about sports. I've always considered that a good thing. But it is interesting to be in the minority opinion. Had I known this perspective years ago, I would have been ashamed. And I wouldn't have blamed board conservatives for leaving. Why would anyone subject themselves to a bunch of dogmatic cry babies who can't ever refute a single point and just call names? It's just not worth the effort.

We have one poster who hated generalizations, labeling and name calling of white Trump voters so much that he metamorphosed into a stereotypical President Trump supporter. When I read his posts about blacks, Democrats, or posters who have the same views he once had, he is almost always doing at least 1 of the 3 things that he claimed to hate. Makes me wonder if he ever decides to read his own thoughts will he change back to a liberal.

This is a bunch of messy thoughts. The modern state was build in the 1900s. American as you know it was built during the New Deal, and post World War 2. Southern cotton wealth produced by slaves was mostly concentrated in the South, and mostly held by a planter elite who did not develop that society much past an agrarian state. Southern industry that was financed by slave cotton was largely destroyed by the Civil War, and major industrialization in the south did not occur until much later.

As for slave labor being inefficient you seem to agree since it could not complete with northern labor, and you think it was poised to die out anyway. Efficient systems of labor would not just collapse unless external pressures were being applied. And you seem to think it would collapse without a war.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

These new histories such as what you posted are a reflection of the current times, and what will play in the current university environment.

It's essentially saying the economies are interrelated. Ok. I don't think there was an ethically sourced cotton movement at the time. And cotton, which was the main cash crop at the time figured into a fraction of the Northern economy.

Beckert: There are very many economic links between the southern plantation complex and the development of American and global capitalism, involving trade, industry, banking, insurance, shipping, and other industries. The most prominent link developed around cotton.

As you know, the cotton industry was crucial to the world-altering Industrial Revolution as it first unfolded in Great Britain and then spread from there to other parts of the world, including the northern states of the Union. Until 1861, until the American Civil War, almost all cotton used in industrial production was grown by enslaved workers in the southern parts of the United States. Slavery thus played a very important role in supplying an essential raw material for industrial production.

Yet there were further links: British and later U.S. capital financed the expansion of the slavery complex in the American South. Advancing credit was essential for southern planters to be able to purchase land and labor. Northern merchants, moreover, organized the shipment of cotton into global markets.

And of course northern manufacturers, along with their European counterparts, supplied plantations in the South with tools, textiles, and other goods that were necessary to maintain the plantation regime. Plantation slavery, far from being a retrograde system on its way to being ousted by industrial capitalism, saw a second flourishing in the 19th century in the wake of the industrial revolution. And in the United States, cotton was central to that “second slavery.”

At the same time, what's the point of this? To assign guilt to a wider group of people more than a century after the fact?

Why did these insights get lost? I think the main reason is ideological and political. For a long time after the Civil War, the nation really did not want to be reminded of either the war or the institution that lay at its root—slavery. A country that saw itself as uniquely invested in human freedom had a hard time coming to terms with the centuries’ long history of enslaving so many of its people.

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

It's almost like the air is getting LESS clear at this point.

At the start of the Civil War the South (if it were a separate entity) possessed the The Fourth Largest economy in the World Hardly the mark of an Inefficient system.

Also your thoughts on this do not coincide with facts. They also are ignorant of timelines.

Inefficient means that it wasn't working. By numerous accounts it in fact was working. There were a number of forces that would have facilitated its demise but i don't think we had reached that point as of 1861.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Yep, I have come to the realization that some things just won't be solved.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

It's almost like the air is getting LESS clear at this point.

Some things won't be forgiven.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

And even if they are forgiven, it'll constantly be brought up forever. As slight digs. Almost to the point of making you think it was never really forgiven.

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

Says the BACKSTABER who started MIDWEST MESSAGE BOARD FANS .com ??

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

Saying it had a large economy, which I don't know where you are getting this figures from. Does not mean it's not being done efficiently. You are so over the place that it's pointless to continue.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

And even if they are forgiven, it'll constantly be brought up forever. As slight digs. Almost to the point of making you think it was never really forgiven.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Some things won't be forgiven.

Some things shouldn't be said IF the goal is to have a civil discussion.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Ah, now those damn historains themselves have been taken away by that evil disease known as SJW-ism! No need to read their scholarly works at all now, especially since they dare make an argument different from the one you spouted off. They're wrong, and that's why we need brave truthtellers like Coleman Hughes instead.

Here's Beckert himself in that interview I helpfully linked:

I'd say one reason for this is to correct the record about how irrelevant or merely regional slavery was for the first 100 years of this country. Beckert himself offers an explanation for why this has been glossed over historically:

And on top of that, one reason it's also vital is to push back against the historical ignorance or denial frequently found in the "it must be inferior genes and/or culture" crowd.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

That's the impression that I get.

It's more fun to be a victim

There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.

Of course the economies were interlinked in some respects, but what it the purpose of that insight? To try to find ties in the modern economy back to slavery serves what purpose?

Maybe you should actually read my post before whining about being victimized for doing a 180 on your political beliefs. My post simply pointed out your hypocrisy and complete lack of awareness. I wasn't going to spend my time refuting your newfound beliefs. I'm not one of those "reasonable blacks" you know.



You went 3 for 3 with this post. You didn't refute anything that I posted. You just went on some whiny rant full of character assassinations. Maybe this is 4 for 4. Congrats! Thanks for continuing to prove my point about your hypocrisy and complete lack of awareness.

You think writers and thinkers are not products of the times they are writing in? That's what you are saying in your initial response. I would say the culture of the places where professors work has a huge influence on their outlooks. Do you think writers in the 30s weren't influenced by the news and politics of their times?

As for the rest it's largely semantics. Of course the economies were interlinked in some respects, but what it the purpose of that insight? I don't think you can say that without cotton from the slave South there is no modern United States economy. It's speculative at best. What is undeniable is that American capitalism excelled in non-Slave states after the Civil War. To try to find ties in the modern economy back to slavery serves what purpose? Capitalism relied on a lot of low pay or no pay workers. I don't think the burden of being at the bottom at one time should eternally lie at the feet of just black people. And if we are going to correct for slavery now where do we go next? Correct for generations of workers who had almost zero rights?

The last part is a totally separate argument. People wanted to forget about slavery in the 19th Century is not a significant factor in looking at 21st Century outcomes. It's anecdotal at best. I don't believe it serves anyone's interest to say your people have been wronged in the past, so we can't expect you to compete with other students. I think this is dangerous thinking, and not serving this and future generations well. It would be a lot better to deemphasize racial identity. Rather than say you the living embodiment of hundreds of years of mistreatment. What other group has to live like that?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

To suggest that Affirmative Action is an admission that "blacks cannot compete with whites" is for a lack of a better term stupid.

You think writers and thinkers are not products of the times they are writing in? That's what you are saying in your initial response. I would say the culture of the places where professors work has a huge influence on their outlooks. Do you think writers in the 30s weren't influenced by the news and politics of their times?

As for the rest it's largely semantics. Of course the economies were interlinked in some respects, but what it the purpose of that insight? I don't think you can say that without cotton from the slave South there is no modern United States economy. It's speculative at best. What is undeniable is that American capitalism excelled in non-Slave states after the Civil War.

To try to find ties in the modern economy back to slavery serves what purpose? Capitalism relied on a lot of low pay or no pay workers. I don't think the burden of being at the bottom at one time should eternally lie at the feet of just black people. And if we are going to correct for slavery now where do we go next? Correct for generations of workers who had almost zero rights?

The last part is a totally separate argument. People wanted to forget about slavery in the 19th Century is not a significant factor in looking at 21st Century outcomes. It's anecdotal at best. I don't believe it serves anyone's interest to say your people have been wronged in the past, so we can't expect you to compete with other students. I think this is dangerous thinking, and not serving this and future generations well. It would be a lot better to deemphasize racial identity. Rather than say you the living embodiment of hundreds of years of mistreatment. What other group has to live like that?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

But there are people- including black people- who feel that way.

Justices Thomas and Sotomayor have become very close on a personal level despite their deep philosophical and ideological differences. It would be fascinating to hear the two of them debate the merits of Affirmative Action.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.