M&D Deep Duck Where are all the children?

[alice malice]

Though these Americans do carry with them some of the European Myths
of Destruction, that they have come to a Virgin Land, to a Promised
Land, to a New World, to a land of Savages, who must be Exterminated
or made Noble, to a place that Providence had Promised their brave
predecessors and so on, by now, they have new Myths, and they have a
reality that is not European, not what Britannia Dreamed, but what
they know. The streets are not paved with gold, their are no fountains
of youth, but america is a place of incredible opportunity. The family
is big because America can support big families. They can marry
younger, get land and a home, prosper, be fruitful and multiply. And
they do.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:40 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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