I feel like there are people still pissed that they can't enslave other people.
[Question] Did the Confederacy actually win the United States Civil War?
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Not to mention that it's real easy to feel good about your lot in life when you can literally see people n chains walking down the street.
We still have that, at least in the south. They're called chain gangs.
Your land is a strange land I will never comprehend.
Whoa, whoa, wait, I thought they stopped doing that by World War II?
Hah! Hardly.
Prisoners make cheap labor, what with being otherwise unemployable once they're convicted of anything.
"Orange is the new Black," indeed.
--Patrick
Guess that answers the thread question with a yes.
Part one: incarcerate as many black men as possible (we're doing a great job at this, especially if you look at crack vs cocaine drug laws!)
Part two: before-mentioned chain gangs
Part three: *dixie playing forever, profit*
Part two: before-mentioned chain gangs
Part three: *dixie playing forever, profit*
I'm scared that this is the country my little cousins are growing up into.
The pixel quality there makes it look like he's unshaven, like he's been tapping that pencil for days.
If you're reacting to what Charlie said: there had been laws put into effect that specifically targeted black people post-emancipation. And in the eternally-shitheaded war on drugs, there is skewing toward arresting non-whites despite the volume of white drug-users. It's easy to see where there would be a line of thought considering the law against slavery states except in the case of imprisonment.
If you're reacting to me: the cousins I refer to are half-black, half-Hispanic, and I'm 99% certain they're going to encounter some shit in their lives that I never will based on ethnicity.
He is unshaven. Conan sported a beard for quite awhile.
Oh shit, statistically they're going to jail.[/quote]
He needs to stop whacking that pencil then.
Only for being adorable!
But that's what I mean; I feel like at some point at least the boy of the twins is going to get profiled by his ethnicity and charged for something he didn't do. One of his moms is going to change her "they only put people on trial if they're guilty" stance real fast then.
I harp on this stuff because of all that I read in the news. For minorities, if you surrender, you get kicked and beat and maybe your testicles popped, if you don't, you get killed. And I know that would never happen to me--I'm a blond eyes, blue hair white American straight male with a plain American accent and I have knowledge of my rights. The only thing of minority to me is my religion, and that's really a non-issue for people who don't have to shout about it to everyone they meet. I don't have to be scared of the police; I can depend on them. I want that for everyone.
Many economists, including Adam Smith, believe that slavery is actually inefficient and less productive than paid work by free people.
Or pissed that their states were economically stagnated by the war and reconstruction. It was not until the need during WWII for war production factories to be decentralized that the southern economies got away from only farming and natural resources.
This is as much the fault of the South as it is the North for destroying their economy. They had the money and opportunity to diversify their economy away from agriculture and natural resources, but instead choose to keep things as they were. What the plantation owners could have done is setup their economy as a one stop shop for textile manufacturer, where everything from growing the cotton to making the fabric to making the clothes happened in one location (kind of like production works in China). Instead they refused to change and the south never really recovered.
GasBandit
Staff member
It sure did in the Browncoats, too.
150 years and things haven't changed. Replace agriculture with coal, and you've got WV. When the political platform from either party is nothing but whore themselves out to coal and attack the president, why should I muster up the energy to even spit in your face, let alone vote for you?
It stands to reason that "loyalty slavery" (that is, people who do a thing because they wholeheartedly believe in it and want it to succeed) would be the most efficient and productive, but when "productivity" is quantitatively measured as a ratio of (work accomplished/money spent), outright slavery would give the highest ratio, since that would push the denominator very close to zero.
--Patrick
Well, you can't push the denominator arbitrarily close to zero, there's a limit in the cost of keeping your workers alive (fed, mostly). If the denominator has a limit as to how low it can go, then in general both quantities matter for the ratio.