ahh...wealth creation...

[alfredjprufrock at club-internet.fr]

gee you guys are really touchy on the subject aren't you.

so i won't talk about the US, but it seems to me the colonies and the
sugar trade was very instrumental in 17th century french wealth, at
least. it also seems to me the main reason why the french could care
less about losing canada to england (voltaire with his "for a few
acres of snow"...) is because the colonial wealth and one of the main
sources of french wealth at the time resided
in sugar (that was until they found out about beet sugar), produced in
colonies, by slaves. which is also why such places as martinique kept
changing hands, from spain to france to england back to france,
because everybody wanted the cane. i know american economy was different, but that's
wealth creation right there. although apparently, chopping cotton
still produced wealth:
(http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/env-hist/studyguide/chap7.htm)
"Plantation system is organized for maximizing market production. Requires fertile soil
 on level or rolling land, cheap labor, social and economic management, and staple, routinely
 cultivated crops (tobacco, sugar, rice, indigo, cotton). Tobacco, rice, and indigo decline
 by 1780s. Demand steadily rises for cotton in textile mills in England beginning in 1790s;
 New England in 1800s. Between 1820 and 1860 world demand grows at 5 percent per year.
 South produces 10,410 bales of cotton in 1793; 177,824 in 1810 after invention of cotton gin;
 7,000,000 in 1860. Sugar production rises in Mississippi Delta between Red River and Mississippi
 River. Sugar industry reaches its height in 1849, with 1,536 plantations, 100,000 slaves,
 and 450,000 hogsheads of sugar per year."

 now of course not all the wealth. there are different departments to
 creating wealth. chopping cotton is at the bottom of the cotton
 pyramid of wealth, i guess, doesn't mean it's not instrumental in it,
 does it? investment and growth are very nice but don't they need
 manual labor to even be an issue?
 

i totally agree on the alternative history though. "what ifs?" make
good comic books, not historical theories. but if the south had been
in the north, i guess lynyrd skynyrd would hail from illinois. and
there'd be no chicago. they'd be called jackson or something. the
smashing pumpkins would be from alabama. that'd be pretty interesting, you have to admit.

greg


Mac> In a message dated 7/18/02 6:28:46 AM, alfredjprufrock at club-internet.fr 
Mac> writes:

Mac> << so africans did create wealth in america. walker wasn't so wrong after
Mac> all, was she...  he he.


Mac> <<During the interview, Lopate asked Wilkins, a history professor who happens 
Mac> to be black, if the revolution would have occurred without the institution of 
Mac> slavery. Without a moment's hesitation Wilkins responded that it would not 
Mac> have been possible for Washington, Jefferson, Mason and Madison to have 
Mac>  accumulated the wealth, inluence, intellectual prowess, etc., which allowed 
Mac> them the freedom from, well, Time, to have led the colonies to independence. 
Mac> Alternative histories loomed... >>

Mac> A couple of things.  "Wealth creation" is generally used to mean the creation 
Mac> of economic wealth, i.e., production, investment, stimulus, growth -- none of 
Mac> which can be correctly attributed to slave labor chopping cotton -- and it's 
Mac> often no more than terminological sleight of hand that makes the claims of 
Mac> Afrocentrists sound weightier than they are.   

Mac> Second, Wilkins comments are entirely speculative -- what might have been if 
Mac> -- an approach to history that, taken too far or too seriously, leads to such 
Mac> schlock as "What If the South Had Won the War?" Or "What If Hitler Is Still 
Mac> Alive and Living in Bermuda?"  Or "What if the South Had Been in the North?"



-- 
Best regards,
 alfredjprufrock                            mailto:alfredjprufrock at club-internet.fr