Tulsa Race Massacre
- Thread starter Happier
- Start date
Guillotine
Well-known member
warriorblue
Well-known member
Agreed, these businesses could have brought forth generational wealth to black families.
That is wrong. Industrialization was already in full force in the north by 1860. Even in agriculture, northern farmers were far out producing southern states by a huge margin despite having far less of the population engaged in it and no slave labor. A single threshing machine in 1860 could produce 12X more than six men. From NPS.gov:
Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.
I enjoy wrestling
Well-known member
I can post studies all day long that refute that information. What good will it do? Victim againBam,
Same rap sheets lead to 19% longer sentences for Blacks
Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders. Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders during the Post-Report period (fiscal years 2012-2016), as they had for the prior four periods studied. The differences in sentence length remained relatively unchanged compared to the Post-Gall period.2017 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing
(November 2017) A report updating the Commission's data analysis concerning demographic differences in federal sentencing practices set forth in the Commission's 2012 Report to the Congress: Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.www.ussc.gov
Would that have anything to do with prior convictions? Blue stack usually have quite a rap sheet.Bam,
Same rap sheets lead to 19% longer sentences for Blacks
Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders. Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders during the Post-Report period (fiscal years 2012-2016), as they had for the prior four periods studied. The differences in sentence length remained relatively unchanged compared to the Post-Gall period.2017 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing
(November 2017) A report updating the Commission's data analysis concerning demographic differences in federal sentencing practices set forth in the Commission's 2012 Report to the Congress: Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.
hubman
Well-known member
post 1
hubman
Well-known member
They specifically took prior criminal history into account when comparing, and they compared apples to apples, and it still came out with the above mentioned difference.
Sure they did.
hubman
Well-known member
2017 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing
(November 2017) A report updating the Commission's data analysis concerning demographic differences in federal sentencing practices set forth in the Commission's 2012 Report to the Congress: Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing.
Redandgold
Well-known member
I was only speaking of Tulsa and even said that I didn’t support reparations. I do disagree with you on how slavery helped develop our country economically. As did European immigration.
Redandgold
Well-known member
Northern agriculture didn’t require the substantial amount of human labor that southern agriculture did. If it had, I’m sure the north would have employed slave labor as well. Racism existed in the north as well as the south. It just didn’t pay as well in the north. Northerners farmers weren’t in the same game as southern farmers. Crops produced were too different. Silly to try and draw the comparison that you’re attempting. Technological progress moved very slowly back then. Whitney’s cotton gin literally did not impact the south until twenty years after it’s invention.
JUSTGOPLAY
Well-known member
This X 1,000.....Personal choice and freedom mean you have the right to achieve at the highest levels, or you can choose to be a failure. Unless there is some underlying mental or physical disability preventing an individual from being self supportive, we are all personally responsible for our own lot in life. It really is that simple.Message of the Day
Those two aren't even related. Who gives a crap what percentage of population they are.
Slavery was not legal in the North nor was it socially acceptable. So farmers had to improvise to compete with the slavery driven agriculture of the South. This lead to innovation which led to much higher productivity. Do you think that mechanized cotton harvesting from say 1890 wasn't exponentially more efficient then slave harvested cotton?
Slavery is a grossly inefficient form of labor. It's attraction was that it was easy to set up and concentrated power in the hands of a small number of people. The human race fell into the GLOBAL trap of slavery and our advancements ground to a halt as a result for thousands of years.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The urbanization of the North required that those that wanted to be successful in farming without slave labor and with fewer workers had to improvise. They chose technology and supplied the entire US with 80-90% of the cash crops of the time.
Slavery made the south really backward. Most southerners were no better off than the slaves that the elite owned. They had the misguided thought that export crops of cotton and tobacco farmed inefficiently with methods from the Middle Ages exported to Europe would fund the war effort. They were wrong.
Redandgold
Well-known member
Of course technology eventually surpassed slavery. Slavery was illegal in the north because it was easy to make it illegal. The north didn’t need it. Socially acceptable? How about the New York race riot in 1863 that killed maybe 400 blacks and left maybe 3,000 homeless. No racism in the north?
Redandgold
Well-known member
Much smaller farms that didn’t require a lot of laborers. Plain and simple.
You've got it backwards - slavery suppressed economic and technological development for thousands of years. Only war provided an innovation spark to slave holding societies.
The South "needed" slavery much in the same way that an addict needs their next hit of crack. They will do anything to get it but it does no good for them.
The British Empire benefited mightily from slavery in the 1600 & 1700 hundreds, particularly in the Southern States and the Caribbean. At that time manual labor was desperately needed in their underpopulated colonies. Heck, they used European slaves (indentured) for nearly a century before finding a cheaper African alternative. And for the record this was the norm for most of the human race at the time.
In contrast the practice of slavery kept a huge part (the South) of the newly created USA backwards and undeveloped. The wealth slavery generated was concentrated in very few hands and squandered on a lifestyle rather then in advancing the region.
The reason the South lost the Civil War and lost it badly was because slavery had held them back in almost every economic sphere but cotton farming.
Purplemojo
Well-known member
I thought that the Union plan to wreck the Southern economy, by maritime blockade and by the "total warfare" of Sherman's March to the Sea had been successful. And it was. The wealth of the South and of Southerners was completely destroyed. Their money became worthless, their plantations were either completely destroyed, commandeered by the federal government or lost to taxes they could no longer pay. Any benefit that they received on the backs of slave was gone by 1865 and, certainly, any benefit the nation had received had been expended in the prosecution of the war and the post war Reconstruction.
I am for equality and I am for the end of all discrimination, but, CRT and the push for reparations are so full of lies and half truths, they bring nothing worthwhile to the conversation.
I am for equality and I am for the end of all discrimination, but, CRT and the push for reparations are so full of lies and half truths, they bring nothing worthwhile to the conversation.
THATS AWESOME!Message of the Day
I enjoy wrestling
Well-known member
It's old but the points are relevant imo
The Left's Prison Complex: The case against the case against jail.
The Left knows a growth industry when it sees one. Ever since prominent left-wing journalist Mike Davis popularized the term "prison industrial complex" in a 1995 Nation article, self-styled progressives have relentlessly derided America's burgeoning prison system as a racist, profit-driven...
www.heritage.org
Exactly! Why is this so hard for you to see?
A northern society that did not utilize slavery at any point since the birth of the US coupled with increasing urbanization left fewer people to engage in agriculture. So they innovated and implemented technology and ended up becoming the majority supplier of the country’s food.
If the slave labor southern approach was better and such an economic driver as you claim, why did their plantations and farms underperform compared to their northern counterparts leading up to the Civil War?
The south was very technically and financially backward until at least the New Deal timeframe and didn’t become a serious technical area until the 1980s. The use of slavery coupled with their resounding defeat in the Civil War and backlash through the civil rights movement all but guaranteed this.
I enjoy wrestling
Well-known member
Read this Hub,
www.city-journal.org
My Black Crime Problem, and Ours
My Black Crime Problem, and Ours - Why are so many blacks in prison? Is the criminal justice system racist? The answer is disquieting. Click here to read more.
www.city-journal.org
Redandgold
Well-known member
I certainly never said the slave labor approach was better. As usual, keep twisting away. I merely pointed out that slavery was never a consideration in the North because their labor needs were different.
Talk about a gross oversimplification of events. It was the British Empire that determined that slavery was needed to fully exploit the agricultural resources of the South. The USA didn't even exist until more than 150 years after slavery began.
Keep twisting what? You are the one that stated an untrue analysis of the technology advancement and economic foundations of the two regions. What you said was unequivocally false and the actual historical progression is well documented and can be found via minimal effort.
The north did not use slavery. The north invested in industry and utilized technology to dwarf production of the south in every aspect except cotton production and the asset value of owned slaves. European immigrants were coming to the northern states as non slave owners at a rate of 80% versus 20% to the south. The northern states and Republicans already had acts ready to enact that would open the west to smaller, non slave owning, technology using farmers.
All this before the Civil War broke out. The south had cotton exports and the capital value of the owned slaves as their primary source of wealth. Very little else. And the large portion of their economic strength tied up in the value of the owned slaves was reduced to nothing after the Emancipation Proclamation and once it became apparent the north and its vast resources was going to win the war. By 1865, the south had almost no economic value.
There are actually some economists that believe the south breaking off from the Union, thereby removing obstructionist legislators, actually was far more beneficial to the economic growth of the US after the Civil War than anything else. This allowed the passage of legislation like the Homestead Act, Morrill Act, and the Pacific Railway Act.
SayMyName
Well-known member
MSN
www.msn.com
Tulsa was a crime, and certainly worth remembering. Yet the U.S. has had devastating urban riots on a somewhat regular basis since the 1960s—and many more devastating than Tulsa in terms of financial cost. According to the criminologist Barry Latzer, "from 1964 to 1972, a staggering total of 752 riots occurred, resulting in 228 deaths, 12,741 injuries, 69,099 arrests, and 15,835 incidents of arson." The 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles killed 63 people—higher than the number of confirmed killed in Tulsa. Most recently, at least 19 people died in two weeks of rioting last summer in response to the death of George Floyd.
These deaths weren't the result of racism. But aren't they worthy of mention? Aren't they worth incorporating in the story we tell about threats to Black life and Black property, if for no other reason than so we can better stop them?
It is an unfortunate fact about the American press that it is selective in which modern crimes it focuses on. Police shootings of Blacks and hate crimes against minorities committed by whites—a tiny portion of the violence that occurs in this country—get the most attention. Victims of everyday crimes, the background noise of our society and culture, are largely ignored, given that the victims and perpetrators of the majority of crimes committed are of the same race.
And while it's nice to see the media using the Tulsa massacre to finally acknowledge what researchers have long known—that riots can have devastating, long-term consequences for a community—the economic damages of Tulsa do not compare to more recent riots. The riot of 100 years ago caused the modern equivalent of $200 million in damage, compared to $1.4 billion in the Rodney King riots and as much as $2 billion last summer.
Why are we to believe that the economic destruction from a century ago has more relevance to the plight of Black Americans today than much more extensive damage in the recent past? Even if we concede the moral damage of the racism fueling the massacre, surely anyone invested in the economic health of our most unfortunate communities should broaden their lens.
Perhaps we should set aside a day to remember all victims of rioting, as the consequences can indeed be devastating both for the families of those killed or injured and the larger affected community.
But that is not what identity politics does; it demands we focus on white supremacy as the cause of problems currently faced by the Black community, rather than policy decisions and cultural changes rooted in the 1960s—not coincidently, when large scale urban rioting started to become more common.
But it's not just that the press and liberal commentariat ignore today's riots and the devastating impact they've had on the Black community. What's most disturbing is attempts to justify, or even glorify, recent rioting. Much of academia now refers to the Rodney King riots as an "uprising," as if it was an honorable struggle for freedom rather than a criminal rampage. And NPR famously did an interview last summer with an author who wrote a book called "In Defense of Looting." While most among the political and media establishment do not go nearly that far, the outsized focus on Tulsa shows that violence that supports the preferred narrative will always be given the most attention. A political agenda, not concern for victims, is what motivates the commemoration of Tulsa.
Last edited:
Redandgold
Well-known member
You are really impressed with yourself. It’s nauseating. Our country was founded on agricultural production. First major cash crops were tobacco, cotton, and rum from corn. No one is debating that the north was technologically superior when it came to manufacturing. My original position is correct. Slave labor, although unnecessary, provided our country with it’s initial financial success. It was never an option for northern agriculture or it would have been employed there as well. Northerners were no more enlightened on the issue of race than southernors. The civil war changed us, but it is ridiculous to assert that any economic development before it occurred had nothing to do with the development of our country.
MoeDude
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Good points! Add to it that the Tulsa incident is most likely the newest "hot topic" to be released from the Far Left Progressive Think Tank. You ever notice how a topic runs its course and then another button is pushed to keep the hatred and division going? It's pretty sad how easily people jump on these stories instead of viewing them as a historical moment to be used as a learning tool. Instead the "think tank" releases it as something more and new to get enraged about in order to keep the discension, hate and anger fully fueled.