M&D Deep Duck Where are all the children?

[alice malice]

If P wants to show us what might have been, what was possible, if only
the Americans had...he has to begin with prosperity and success, and
that is the case in Christmastide 1778. There were no serious economic
reasons, not even taxes, or taxes on Tea even, fro the colonies to
rebel. Things were mighty fine. But they had other reasons to get rid
of the English. The had money and power and people and prosperity and
they didn't need England so why not get rid of the then and make start
their own country? And this where it began with so much promise,
though there are dark and bloody hauntings, the murder of the Indians,
the enslaving of Africans, the destruction of the Earth etc.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
> in 1775, the 13 colonies has a population of apx. 2.6mm, 2.1mm white,
> 540000 blacks, 50,000 or fewer Native American; 21% of the people
> lived in Virginia and 22% were in Penn. and Mass., 11% each. In
> Philadelphia there were 35,000. The 13 colonies were not dependent,
> for anything, on England, Europe, or anyplace else. Still the case in
> the US, where trade comprises a relatively small percentage of the
> Economy.   In 1775, the Colonies had 1/3 as many inhabitants as the
> mother country, and more than 30% of her economic output. As
> Franklin's famous demographic publications, though flawed, as were
> Malthusian Theories all, predicted, the colonies would, in a few
> generations, far outnumber the inhabitants in England.  This because
> the average family had 8 children in the colonies but only 4 in
> England. It was not the poor who, in their ignorance and poverty,
> living on the 1% of the wealth of the nation that were supporting
> large families, for other than the enslaved population, where family
> size was also 8 children, America was not 19th century industrial or
> urban Europe, the black poverty of Pip or  Blake's Chimney Sweeper did
> not exist in America, as it was only the 18th century, but more so
> because America was prosperous and people married younger and
> sustained large families on the land and wealth, not on poverty and
> infant mortality and abuse.
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>> a valid point  but the large families may not have been the ones cashing in on economic growth.
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l