Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

The machine didn't come for everyone in U.S. slavery's case, though.

Who picks cotton now?

Sorry, I still don't follow this reasoning.

Legacies of slavery have left socioeconomic wastelands all over Central and South America too. We just happened to be discussing the U.S. South. It's true that more slaves were sent to Central and South America, but 250k still went to North America; and when cotton production ramped up, nearly all of them were traded to Dixie.

African Americans do better economically and educationally than every other previous slave state afaik, despite average IQ levels being only slightly better, although the crime rates are far more closely linked.

...if the implication includes the notion that a country should be "removed from experiences of violence and animosity," then I would agree; and I would say that I'd rather "the country" look like the Northeast than the Old South. To be honest, I don't see the point of this comment.

You think the Northeast is removed from violence and animosity? Separately, looking at demographics, that's a pretty racist statement.

 

[Einherjar86]

Who picks cotton now?

...and?

African Americans do better economically and educationally than every other previous slave state afaik, despite average IQ levels being only slightly better, although the crime rates are far more closely linked.

Certainly not collectively, but I'm not sure what you mean by " every other previous slave state."

You think the Northeast is removed from violence and animosity? Separately, given demographics, that's a pretty racist statement.

That's what you said. I was quoting you.

 

[Dak]

...and?

Yes not everyone gets to see the the top forms of tech that replace, and the economic replacements are linear. I was trying to be as "on the nose" as possible.

Certainly not collectively, but I'm not sure what you mean by " every other previous slave state."

TAST specific sorry. Why not collectively relevant to that?

That's what you said. I was quoting you.

Yes, me referencing you. You've helped me out of at least one bubble, but I'm afraid I've been heretofore unable to help you out of this one.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes not everyone gets to see the the top forms of tech that replace, and the economic replacements are linear. I was trying to be as "on the nose" as possible.

I just don't see why current developments are relevant. We're talking about the nineteenth century, at the latest.

TAST specific sorry. Why not collectively relevant to that?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I meant that AfAm communities collectively don't do better, although some probably do. What other slave-state communities are we talking about?

Yes, me referencing you. You've helped me out of at least one bubble, but I'm afraid I've been heretofore unable to help you out of this one.

You think I see the NE as immune to violence, inequity, and hardship? I don't understand how you're interpreting my comments anymore. All I meant to say was that Reconstruction introduced new episodes of violence across the country. How did you interpret that as me thinking the NE was some utopian, nonviolent enclave?

 

[Dak]

I just don't see why current developments are relevant. We're talking about the nineteenth century, at the latest.

Yes. I'm pointing out the direction of currents, not where one might put their foot in the river at a given time. By the time the Civil War occurred, slavery was already on the way out because of rising industrial productivity affording the luxury of accepting moral arguments against slavery in much of the west.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I meant that AfAm communities collectively don't do better, although some probably do. What other slave-state communities are we talking about?

In Caribbean states, Brazil.

You think I see the NE as immune to violence, inequity, and hardship? I don't understand how you're interpreting my comments anymore. All I meant to say was that Reconstruction introduced new episodes of violence across the country. How did you interpret that as me thinking the NE was some utopian, nonviolent enclave?

the country is witness
.....
I'd rather "the country" look like the Northeast than the Old South.

What I'm pointing out here is that there is an implicit, incredibly wasP-ish world view baked into these takes. New Englander Protestant Evangelical Universalism. The New York-Boston Corridor as center of the world, its elites stooping down to correct the behaviors and beliefs of the unwashed masses in other places and/or times.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes. I'm pointing out the direction of currents, not where one might put their foot in the river at a given time. By the time the Civil War occurred, slavery was already on the way out because of rising industrial productivity affording the luxury of accepting moral arguments against slavery in much of the west.

Slavery was on the rise in the South, and the northern states opposed it because a slave-based economy threatened northern industrial manufacturing.

There's no doubt that industrial developments correlated with intellectual developments in a material way; but if anything, capitalism generated a need for more slaves as much as it generated an abolitionist mindset.

In Caribbean states, Brazil.

And there haven't been socioeconomic repercussions that still persist today in those regions?

What I'm pointing out here is that there is an implicit, incredibly wasP-ish world view baked into these takes. New Englander Protestant Evangelical Universalism. The New York-Boston Corridor as center of the world, its elites stooping down to correct the behaviors and beliefs of the unwashed masses in other places and/or times.

But baked into your comment was an implicit apology for the cultural absurdities of the Old South, and their legacy in current deep-South communities. All I was saying was that I'd rather the country look like the impression of NE that you accused me of having.

 

[Dak]

Slavery was on the rise in the South, and the northern states opposed it because a slave-based economy threatened northern industrial manufacturing.

There's no doubt that industrial developments correlated with intellectual developments in a material way; but if anything, capitalism generated a need for more slaves as much as it generated an abolitionist mindset.

I'd like to see some citations for this, particularly the first sentence; not only do I not believe this to be the case, it seems in contradiction to the claim that capitalism/industrialization fueled the need for more slaves.

And there haven't been socioeconomic repercussions that still persist today in those regions?

There have been, but it's hard to trace a direct line other than simply looking at demographics. Haiti and the Dominican Republic are an interesting juxtaposition.

But baked into your comment was an implicit apology for the cultural absurdities of the Old South, and their legacy in current deep-South communities. All I was saying was that I'd rather the country look like the impression of NE that you accused me of having.

The original impetus for the whole discussion was claiming hiphop, or something like that as short hand for contemporary urban African American culture, was rooted in "cultural absurdities of the Old South", which I disputed. Along the way you made references to "the country witnessing" Reconstruction era and after violence/animosity - which, given that the west was barely developed at the time, leaves the US Northeast as "the country" observing something happening elsewhere, ie, not the country. You have previously expressed irritation with MAGA types calling themselves "real Americans", but that is precisely the same sentiment at play here. All cultures have their own absurdities, and the Northeast isn't exempt (of course, I say "Northeast" but the NY-Boston corridor doesn't even have that much in common with the rest of the US Northeast). That you prefer that New Englander/WASPish culture to others isn't somehow obviously a morally superior preference.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd like to see some citations for this, particularly the first sentence; not only do I not believe this to be the case, it seems in contradiction to the claim that capitalism/industrialization fueled the need for more slaves.

From Andrew Delbanco's The War Before the War:

By the 1850s, according to the historian Eric Foner, the economic value of "enslaved men, women, and children when considered as property exceeded the combined worth of all banks, factories, and railroads in the U.S. Under the regime of "King Cotton," the need for involuntary labor grew so rapidly that supply could barely keep up with demand.

The original impetus for the whole discussion was claiming hiphop, or something like that as short hand for contemporary urban African American culture, was rooted in "cultural absurdities of the Old South", which I disputed. Along the way you made references to "the country witnessing" Reconstruction era and after violence/animosity - which, given that the west was barely developed at the time, leaves the US Northeast as "the country" observing something happening elsewhere, ie, not the country. You have previously expressed irritation with MAGA types calling themselves "real Americans", but that is precisely the same sentiment at play here. All cultures have their own absurdities, and the Northeast isn't exempt (of course, I say "Northeast" but the NY-Boston corridor doesn't even have that much in common with the rest of the US Northeast). That you prefer that New Englander/WASPish culture to others isn't somehow obviously a morally superior preference.

I'd just direct you back to my final comment to CIG on this.

 

[Dak]

If you can provide an economist, if we are talking about economic aspects, rather than a quote referencing a super-biased historian (activist historians are even worse than polemical economists, which I agree with you are bad), that would certainly be better. I'm probably mostly offline for the next couple of weeks but I'll try to check in as I can, but I'm guessing based on the request to combine replies that probably won't be super necessary (I'm not sure what reply to CIG you're talking about tbh, I'm barely following the board).

 

[Einherjar86]

If you can provide an economist, if we are talking about economic aspects, rather than a quote referencing a super-biased historian (activist historians are even worse than polemical economists, which I agree with you are bad), that would certainly be better.

Now we've moved from citing sources to suspecting credentials of long-standing scholars in their field. I don't understand what makes Delblanco or Foner "super-biased" (I'm not sure whom you're talking about), or what would qualify them as less biased--other than citing figures you want to see, in which case it would seem you've already made up your mind and any amount of citing won't change it. These are established scholars in their fields. And I don't agree that historians are worse than polemical economists.

You can't ask for sources and then say "well, not those sources." I provided academic historiography, which is relevant in this case. If you want an economist's take, find one and provide it.

I'm probably mostly offline for the next couple of weeks but I'll try to check in as I can, but I'm guessing based on the request to combine replies that probably won't be super necessary (I'm not sure what reply to CIG you're talking about tbh, I'm barely following the board).

I clarified that I wasn't saying the plantation South is to blame, per se, for current African American cultural behavior; what I meant, rather, was that if we're saying either the American South is responsible, or cultural behaviors from pre-colonial Africa, then it's more likely that the South plays the greater role.

My original comment, way back at the beginning of all this, was that the South was a fucked up place (I'm paraphrasing). CIG then asked if Africa didn't have all the things I mentioned. I said it probably did, but I think it's more likely that AfAm experiences in the Americas play a greater role in shaping their situation today than their ancestors' experiences in Africa.

 

[Dak]

Now we've moved from citing sources to suspecting credentials of long-standing scholars in their field. I don't understand what makes Delblanco or Foner "super-biased" (I'm not sure whom you're talking about), or what would qualify them as less biased--other than citing figures you want to see, in which case it would seem you've already made up your mind and any amount of citing won't change it. These are established scholars in their fields. And I don't agree that historians are worse than polemical economists.

You can't ask for sources and then say "well, not those sources." I provided academic historiography, which is relevant in this case. If you want an economist's take, find one and provide it.

Activists aren't impartial, and historians aren't economists. Foner is a partial ideologue, and also speaking outside of his area. Duckworth and Dweck are established and popular psychologists and independent studies keep showing them to be hacks. Being "established" doesn't bestow a halo.

I clarified that I wasn't saying the plantation South is to blame, per se, for current African American cultural behavior; what I meant, rather, was that if we're saying either the American South is responsible, or cultural behaviors from pre-colonial Africa, then it's more likely that the South plays the greater role.

My original comment, way back at the beginning of all this, was that the South was a fucked up place (I'm paraphrasing). CIG then asked if Africa didn't have all the things I mentioned. I said it probably did, but I think it's more likely that AfAm experiences in the Americas play a greater role in shaping their situation today than their ancestors' experiences in Africa.

Fair enough on paragraph 1 as far as it goes in clarification but: This is really getting back to that nature/nurture divide. It's certainly not an either or, but the both/and is tilted to heritability, and that ship turns much slower than technology has been advancing in the last 200 years.

 

[Einherjar86]

Activists aren't impartial, and historians aren't economists. Foner is a partial ideologue, and also speaking outside of his area. Duckworth and Dweck are established and popular psychologists and independent studies keep showing them to be hacks. Being "established" doesn't bestow a halo.

I don't know Duckworth and Dweck, but based on their names, they sound like quacks.

Where are the independent studies challenging Delblanco and Foner? Look, if you don't buy the evidence, then fine; but then find an economist who disputes it. I know you're busy, I am too, so I'm not going to hunt that down. My stance: slavery was a huge market in 1850, and I don't agree with you that it was "on its way out."

 

[Dak]

I don't know Duckworth and Dweck, but based on their names, they sound like quacks.

Angela Duckworth is the hack behind the concept of "grit". Carol Dweck is the "genius" behind the "growth vs fixed mindset" grift. They are at Penn and Stanford, respectively. I believe that they believe they are doing important work, and many other people believe they are as well. But they aren't.

Where are the independent studies challenging Delblanco and Foner? Look, if you don't buy the evidence, then fine; but then find an economist who disputes it. I know you're busy, I am too, so I'm not going to hunt that down. My stance: slavery was a huge market in 1850, and I don't agree with you that it was "on its way out."

I don't care about Deblanco since this is simply him quoting Foner. Foner is just a quasi-marxist with a specific axe to grind. I could pull plenty of contra pieces from the Mises Institute, for instance, but you wouldn't accept those for likely a similar reason I won't accept Foner (I'm not even saying that their pieces would necessarily be accurate either). As per his wiki, he has specifically engaged in historical revisionism (which is what made him somebody), which is also something you have previously spoken against at times.

Yes, this is a very busy time probably for many people involved in academia in even tertiary modes. The last shave ship to the US came in 1860. Around half of the slaves brought to the US came before the Declaration of Independence. If slavery itself in the South wasn't yet on the downward trend in terms of cotton production, the demand for slave import certainly was, and the US South had a tiny fraction of the total slave population in the Americas.

 

[rms]

round half of the slaves brought to the US came before the Declaration of Independence.

you're just flat out ignoring the domestic and regional market that existed prior to 1776.

 

[Dak]

you're just flat out ignoring the domestic and regional market that existed prior to 1776.

Yeah, slaves in the US had kids and those were traded around. The total numbers were still a fraction. Regional slave trading was negligible though, as slaves south of the US (Caribbean etc) had high mortality.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't care about Deblanco since this is simply him quoting Foner. Foner is just a quasi-marxist with a specific axe to grind. I could pull plenty of contra pieces from the Mises Institute, for instance, but you wouldn't accept those for likely a similar reason I won't accept Foner (I'm not even saying that their pieces would necessarily be accurate either). As per his wiki, he has specifically engaged in historical revisionism (which is what made him somebody), which is also something you have previously spoken against at times.

I've spoken against historical revisionism?

Being a Marxist doesn't disqualify someone as a scholar, although I'm sure it's a knock in your book. Again, this is about a community of scholars vetting another's work. I know you have a problem with a large portion of that community; but your personal grievances don't constitute a valid objection.

If you could pull pieces from a peer-reviewed journal, and not an anarcho-capitalist think-tank, that would be better.

The last shave ship to the US came in 1860. Around half of the slaves brought to the US came before the Declaration of Independence. If slavery itself in the South wasn't yet on the downward trend in terms of cotton production, the demand for slave import certainly was, and the US South had a tiny fraction of the total slave population in the Americas.

Slaves stopped being imported from Africa, but not because demand went down. The African slave trade was outlawed in the early nineteenth century, and slaves continued to be illegally transported to the U.S. until 1860. Increased numbers of slaves were traded from the upper to deep south in the wake of the prohibition. Demand wasn't on the downturn because of technology.

 

[rms]

Yeah, slaves in the US had kids and those were traded around. The total numbers were still a fraction. Regional slave trading was negligible though, as slaves south of the US (Caribbean etc) had high mortality.

the mortality is what I'm referencing, the slave trade was about maintaining or replacing because of the harsh conditions for so long. So it's not a surge of slaves , rather a bring as many as we can because they lost so many.

 

[Dak]

I've spoken against historical revisionism?

Being a Marxist doesn't disqualify someone as a scholar, although I'm sure it's a knock in your book. Again, this is about a community of scholars vetting another's work. I know you have a problem with a large portion of that community; but your personal grievances don't constitute a valid objection.

If you could pull pieces from a peer-reviewed journal, and not an anarcho-capitalist think-tank, that would be better.

I could have sworn you have, but it would have been years ago when the subject even came up, so maybe things are different now, or I'm just misremembering.

If it weren't for personal grievances the marxist and marxist adjacent cults wouldn't have many adherents. I don't see much difference between working for the Mises Institute and declaring yourself a marxist, in terms of having a single hammer and declaring all problems nails in need of a-hammerin. At least the Mises Institute has a legitimate claim to their ideas never having been tried.

Slaves stopped being imported from Africa, but not because demand went down. The African slave trade was outlawed in the early nineteenth century, and slaves continued to be illegally transported to the U.S. until 1860. Increased numbers of slaves were traded from the upper to deep south in the wake of the prohibition. Demand wasn't on the downturn because of technology.

I already addressed both of these points. Demand wasn't down yet, but would have been as technology progressed. And again, yes slaves were transported to the US until right before the Civil War, but the number was minuscule (due primarily to the illegality, but still).

 

[Dak]

 

[Einherjar86]

I could have sworn you have, but it would have been years ago when the subject even came up, so maybe things are different now, or I'm just misremembering.

If it weren't for personal grievances the marxist and marxist adjacent cults wouldn't have many adherents. I don't see much difference between working for the Mises Institute and declaring yourself a marxist, in terms of having a single hammer and declaring all problems nails in need of a-hammerin. At least the Mises Institute has a legitimate claim to their ideas never having been tried.

I think this misrepresents the project of Marxist historicism (which, for you, always seems to come back to utopianism), but if the methodology is a problem for you then fine. I'll stand by what both historians cite unless you find something else.

I already addressed both of these points. Demand wasn't down yet, but would have been as technology progressed. And again, yes slaves were transported to the US until right before the Civil War, but the number was minuscule (due primarily to the illegality, but still).

The highlighted words are suspicious.

Also, it was illegal to bring slaves to the U.S., but not to trade them within the country. In the years just prior to the Civil War, large numbers of slaves were being transported to, and traded in, the Plantation South, where they were still in high demand.

Ha, this is confusing as fuck to me, but then I've never been an image-based learner.