American Politics

[ChuchoLoco]

Yes, right CL. I agree. But it is not relevant to the discussion. We are discussing reasons why the USA got wealthy, not allocating blame for it, nor discussing the morlaity of it all. That's another discussion.

Part of what I see was and is still in existence. It may sound idealistic but immigrants who come here, come for what they see as an opportunity for a better life. In their homeland they have to bust ass just to get by. They come here with the same work ethic and do more than get by. Many learn enough to start their own business. I live in an area that was very industrial and with many early to mid 1900's immigrants from Eastern Europe and that's what many did. Now the immigrants here are mostly Latin Americans who do the same. Some go back to the "old country" and live well on their pensions but most stay here as the now have kids and grandkids that they don't want to leave. I guess that South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are wealthy for similar reasons.

I was just responding to what seemed to me as a bash Americans for success. Also many entrepreneurs from all over the world come here. I ask many immigrants if they could make a decent living at home whether they would stay here or go home. Most would go home.

[ChuchoLoco]

Not sure how aportioning blame jas anytihng to do with it. I am arguing it was an important factor. Doesn't matter who did it.

Just added it because everyone profited except the slaves in one way or another. What gets me is that slavery in South America was primarily for sugarcane and sugar / molasses.

[JustTK]

The French were in Southeast Asia before USA. When I was in grade school it was called French Indo China! Great Britain in the Mideast and India / Pakistan. The USA is no angel but we are not alone or the first bad guys.

Yes, right CL. I agree. But it is not relevant to the discussion. We are discussing reasons why the USA got wealthy, not allocating blame for it, nor discussing the morlaity of it all. Thats another discussion.

[JustTK]

I wonder who brought all the slaves over and did they do it for profit? Hmmm. Let's ask the Dutch, they might know.

Not sure how aportioning blame jas anytihng to do with it. I am arguing it was an important factor. Doesn't matter who did it.

[ChuchoLoco]

There are many types of evidence, not just economic stats. The article I quoted is well referenced with well written background articles:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...lroads-slavery
https://archive.nytimes.com/opiniona...tton-was-king/
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-econ...the-civil-war/

Cotton accounted for more than 50% of exports. It was this that brought much needed capital in to the country and fueld its early development.

Furthermore, the use of slaves allowed USA to clothe the world bcos it could produce cheaper. This fueled development and created a constant demand for import labour. The labour rates were higher than elsewhere in the world due to the use of slaves to do the grunt jobs. And this made the USA an attractive place to settle. And fuel further growth. It’s all related.

I wonder who brought all the slaves over and did they do it for profit? Hmmm. Let's ask the Dutch, they might know.

[JustTK]

I quickly scanned your articles and they don't appear to offer any economic statistics that would back up your claim.
Cotton accounted for 5% of the USA Economy on the eve of the Civil War, and 87% of that cotton was exported.

There are many types of evidence, not just economic stats. The article I quoted is well referenced with well written background articles:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...lroads-slavery
https://archive.nytimes.com/opiniona...tton-was-king/
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-econ...the-civil-war/

Cotton accounted for more than 50% of exports. It was this that brought much needed capital in to the country and fueld its early development.

Furthermore, the use of slaves allowed USA to clothe the world bcos it could produce cheaper. This fueled development and created a constant demand for import labour. The labour rates were higher than elsewhere in the world due to the use of slaves to do the grunt jobs. And this made the USA an attractive place to settle. And fuel further growth. Its all related.

[ChuchoLoco]

I don't see why you are disagreeing with me here. It seems we both agree that the extermination of the natives was an important step in the development of the USA and that if it hadn't taken place then the USA would not be what it is today. Indeed the USA would not comprise of the lands that it currently holds. Then why did you initially pick this item from my list to disagree with?

The word 'genocide' - debating the use of the word is a deflection. There are many definitions of words. Let's not play linguistic prescriptivism. We both know what we refer to here. The mass ethnic cleansing of the natives by the soon-to-be USAns.

Also claiming the USA was not as bad as other countries is plain whataboutism and irrelvant to the point. We can debate that at another time if you like. My African history is pretty good.

The Americans at the time of Manifest Destiny were all recent immigrants from Europe of mostly Western WASP countries as was the same in Africa. You know, the former Colonial Powers who once ruled the world and where most problems today exist. The French were in Southeast Asia before USA. When I was in grade school it was called French Indo China! Great Britain in the Mideast and India / Pakistan. The USA is no angel but we are not alone or the first bad guys.

[ChuchoLoco]

That's over an hour long. I don't have time to watch it. Furthermore, Chomsky's about as biased a source as you can find, and he doesn't know any more than you or me about anything except linguistics.

I think I was probably wrong. The USA Invasion of Mexico in 1846 resulted in Mexico ceding California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming to the USA. That did contribute substantially to American wealth. As to all the other South American, Central American and Caribbean countries, I don't accept that invasion and exploitation by the USA had a significant effect on the USA's current wealth.

Have you ever heard of the United Fruit Company and the Dulles brothers and Ike and the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala in 1952 or 53? Just one obvious example. There is also the Monroe Doctrine which gives USA "rights" to the area. Bush 1 invaded Panama and kidnapped Noriega shows that we will do anything to maintain control. It was a totally illegal act. There's so much more too but the abuse started with the Conquest and Spain and Portugal's Colonial years. South America is very rich in natural resources including obviously Venezuela and its oil. China has been down there making friends for the last few years by building stadiums and other public projects and supplying new police cars as in Costa Rica. If it's not about profit, and it usually is, it is about controlling.

The mob controlled Cuba and its wealth. A few rich and most others poor. And guess what happened?

[JustTK]

Chomsky's about as biased a source as you can find, and he doesn't know any more than you or me about anything except linguistics.

Chomsky is one of the most knowledgable US historians of the 20th and 21st century. Read any book or formal document that he has written and you will see that each point he makes is spuuported by official documents. he doesn't just pull stuff out of his arse. He is a true USA patriot and should go down is hiistory as one of the greatest sons of the USA.

[JustTK]

Here's what you wrote before.

I understood you to say that the USA wouldn't be as wealthy if not for the genocide of the indigenous population.

I don't see any way America, north of the Rio Grande, would be as wealthy as it is today without the settlers of European origin.

We shouldn't have been using the word "genocide" to describe the subjugation of Native Americans in the USA. Here's the definition:
"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"

And the USA was a piker compared to the Spanish in the New World. I imagine Portugal and Belgium were responsible for a lot more deaths of native peoples than the USA too.

I don't see why you are disagreeing with me here. It seems we both agree that the extermination of the natives was an important step in the development of the USA and that if it hadn't taken place then the USA would not be what it is today. Indeed the USA would not comprise of the lands that it currently holds. Then why did you initially pick this item from my list to disagree with?

The word 'genocide' - debating the use of the word is a deflection. There are many definitions of words. Let's not play linguistic prescriptivism. We both know what we refer to here. The mass ethnic cleansing of the natives by the soon-to-be USAns.

Also claiming the USA was not as bad as other countries is plain whataboutism and irrelvant to the point. We can debate that at another time if you like. My African history is pretty good.

[Xpartan]

90 billion to Ukraine? Highest inflation in 40 years? Supply chain crisis? He wants to forgive 200 billion in student loans at the expense of working Americans?

1. Putin + Covid.

2. Putin + Covid + Trump.

3. Putin + Covid + Trump.

4. Stop it. A huge part of these "billions" is purely political, like the loans that have been defaulted on and won't be repaid anyway.

But enough of that foolishness.

I wonder why no one mentions that genius Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that promised to usher in a new era of economic prosperity. Remember that?

I can't help but notice how no Repubs who decry "Biden's inflation" ever even mention that $3. 5 trillion Trump's unconditional billionaire tax cuts that have done nothing to help the economy.

Has it added any jobs? In the long term. No.

How about renewed investment? In the long term. No.

Did it grow the wages? No.

Has it repatriated jobs back from the overseas? No.

Can we file taxes on a "on a postcard-sized form"? (Remember that joker Paul Rayan?) Hell, no!

No kidding, the Repubs never mention that grandiose failure nowadays like it's never happened.

[Tiny 12]

Absolutely WRONG. Here is a video explanation on US involvement in the Americas since WW2, when the USA told all other Western countries to leave it all alone bcos it was USA hemisphere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKwJI9axblQ

Just think of the control of Panama, think about all the South American countries that wer couped so that US indutsrty would dominate. Think about all those islands and countries that were forced to buy USA products. Think about all those wars that were fought using USA weapons. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY.

That's over an hour long. I don't have time to watch it. Furthermore, Chomsky's about as biased a source as you can find, and he doesn't know any more than you or me about anything except linguistics.

I think I was probably wrong. The USA Invasion of Mexico in 1846 resulted in Mexico ceding California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming to the USA. That did contribute substantially to American wealth. As to all the other South American, Central American and Caribbean countries, I don't accept that invasion and exploitation by the USA had a significant effect on the USA's current wealth.

[Tiny 12]

You are denying history.

Historian and author Edward E. Baptist explains how slavery helped the US go from a "colonial economy to the second biggest industrial power in the world. ".
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...edward-baptist

History shows slavery helped build many USA Colleges and universities.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2...hackled-legacy

How the Slave Trade Built America. The New York Times. The economic engine of the slave trade helped to fuel America's prosperity.
https://archive.nytimes.com/opiniona...built-america/

I'm not denying history. I'm denying that slavery is a reason why the USA is wealthier, per capita, than most other countries today. And in fact believe the USA would be a slightly more prosperous place if there had never been a slave trade.

I quickly scanned your articles and they don't appear to offer any economic statistics that would back up your claim.

Cotton accounted for 5% of the USA Economy on the eve of the Civil War, and 87% of that cotton was exported. Admittedly, some slaves were not engaged on cotton plantations. But then without slavery, there would still have been cotton production from the South, just not as much. And to produce that 5% of GDP, slave labor wasn't the only input. There was land, agricultural equipment, infrastructure, etc. Anyway, I don't think you can attribute any more than 5% of US GDP to slavery just before the Civil War. I got the 5% from here:

See https://www.business-standard.com/ar...2600103_1.html.

Furthermore, note that,

"The reality is that cotton played a relatively small role in the long-term growth of the US economy. The economics of slavery were probably detrimental to the rise of US manufacturing and almost certainly toxic to the economy of the South. In short: The US succeeded in spite of slavery, not because of it."

Now, see Figure 1 here:

https://www.theigc.org/reader/the-co... so%20 costly.

The Civil War reduced USA GDP by around 18%, and this reduction was maintained for years after the end of the war. The Civil War would not have occurred if slavery never existed. The decline in GDP from the Civil War far exceeded the % of GDP attributable to cotton.

[Tiny 12]

This is a ridiculous claim. The USA would NOT exist if it hadn't genocided the native Americans. I don't know what North America would look like now if it had respected the land rights of its original settlers, it would make for an interesting read.

But certainly the USA would not be what it is.

Here's what you wrote before.

Here are a dozen reasons why stats show USA as wealthy, in no particular order...

Genocide of indigenous population.

I understood you to say that the USA wouldn't be as wealthy if not for the genocide of the indigenous population.

If you actually intended to say the wealth of the people in the lands comprising the present day USA would be higher if European settlers hadn't emigrated to North America and pushed aside the natives, I again have to strongly disagree. I've tried to identify a large country that's sparsely populated, has mineral wealth, and has little or no colonial history. The best I can come up with is Mongolia. GDP per capita in Mongolia is $4500 per year in nominal terms and $12,000 adjusted for purchasing power. Similarly, I don't see any way America, north of the Rio Grande, would be as wealthy as it is today without the settlers of European origin.

I'll reply to your other points later. Maybe to Ram's post on this issue too. He's got a point. We shouldn't have been using the word "genocide" to describe the subjugation of Native Americans in the USA. The word doesn't fit. Here's the definition:

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group"

I believe most of the deaths were from disease, that is, they weren't intentional killings. And the USA was a piker compared to the Spanish in the New World. I imagine Portugal and Belgium were responsible for a lot more deaths of native peoples than the USA too.

[RamDavidson84]

Oh my word. I never thought I would see the day when I see someone try to deny the genocide. . And then you claim its me that needs to educate myself. Really, I am stunned. Lost for words.

LOL, my bad- Let me word it better, Technically it was borderline genocide as most of them lost their land and way of life and I do see where you are coming from.

Here is a different perspective to consider. Both Jamestown and Plymouth and most early settlements were started as financial investments mainly by the Virginia Company. There goal was to obtain raw materials to be sold back in England- Timber, Tobacco, etc. From the very beginning there was conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans. The Wampanoags in Plymouth and Powhatans in Jamestown. Small violent conflicts escalated into all out wars between the English and the Natives. In Jamestown, the Powhatans raided Jamestown and killed 1/2 of the Colonists in an ambush attack. This lead to a war against them which they lost. In Plymouth, for an entire winter the Wampanoags lead by Chief Massasoit raided village after village killing dozens, men-women-children. This lead to a final showdown between the Plymouth Colonists and the Natives in a battle known as the Swamp Battle, the Natives lost and were brutally slaughtered.

These conflicts continued for the next 100 years until the French and Indian War in which the Natives allied with the French against the English. French lost, but Natives lead by Chief Pontiac kept fighting until the English agreed to give them all lands past the Appalachian Mountains. When colonists lead by Daniel Boone started to settle past the Appalachians, this further angered the Native Americans and when the Revolution broke out, the Natives mostly sided with the British, as the British promised them those same lands. British and Natives lost. They lost all land up to the Mississippi River over the next few years at the hands of American Frontier General William Henry Harrison.

Then when the War of 1812 broke out, again the Natives now being lead by Chief Tecumseh of the Shawnee sided with the British. This war ended in a draw for the British and Americans, but the Shawnee were defeated in the present day midwest and the Creek were defeated by Andrew Jackson and his militia in the South. Following the War of 1812, the Native Americans were far too weak to ever wage a significant war against the United States again. They tried several times to win lands, but each time they failed, until they were too weak to fight.

Andrew Jackson would eventually become president, and he hated Native Americans as he fought against them in two wars. He strongly advocated for the policy of Indian Removal in the 1830's and the five great tribes of Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, and Chickasaw were forced to sign treaties which relocated them west. This was basically the end of any real threat from Native Americans after this. Geronimo would lead Apache raids in the Southwest and Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse would lead the Lakota Sioux in small rebellions in the late 1800's, but they never posed any real threats.

This is the real history of what transpired between America and the Native Americans. A very brief one, but I hope I pointed that time and again, Native Americans tried to defeat the Colonists / Americans and unfortunately for them, they never succeeded.

Ask yourself this, Would the Native Americans have treated the colonists or British any different had they won? I doubt it. And yes, technically you could argue this was a genocide, but I would argue this is just one group of people who refused modernize and unite and fought multiple losing wars to the point they were so weak they had no room to negotiate to keep their lands against an enemy they had shown deadly aggression towards for generations.

Now if you are going to claim genocide, please just back it up. Explain your reasoning as to why you consider this a genocide.