Can the right explain the success formula for New England (unemployment, crimes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It isn't perfect, but it can offer an insight to why the poverty rates and murder rates are low, and education is superlative. And for those who want to put race into this, Thomas Sowell has an explanation for that too. Not everything is as Black and White as it seems.
A big part of it boils down to cultural differences, economic differences, and history. Education in the Deep South lags because it has always been that way. It was like that from the days of slavery. The South might have generated alot of wealth from the cotton, sugar cane, tobacco, and the sale/trade of slaves. However, most of the population was poor. The Deep South, going back to the antebellum days, had a higher murder rate than New England did. The "honor culture" was a big part of it.
The patterns you see today go all the way back to the old days of this nation.
It isn't perfect, but it can offer an insight to why the poverty rates and murder rates are low, and education is superlative. And for those who want to put race into this, Thomas Sowell has an explanation for that too. Not everything is as Black and White as it seems.
A big part of it boils down to cultural differences, economic differences, and history. Education in the Deep South lags because it has always been that way. It was like that from the days of slavery. The South might have generated alot of wealth from the cotton, sugar cane, tobacco, and the sale/trade of slaves. However, most of the population was poor. The Deep South, going back to the antebellum days, had a higher murder rate than New England did. The "honor culture" was a big part of it.
The patterns you see today go all the way back to the old days of this nation.
i agree, but the people in the rest of the country don't understand this. they seem to think that the south's politics are the cause of its social problems, rather than the result of its social problems.
i agree, but the people in the rest of the country don't understand this. they seem to think that the south's politics are the cause of its social problems, rather than the result of its social problems.
I don't think many people want to understand this at all. The way the South has worked, things feed off of each other. The politics isn't just a result of the social problems, but a result of trying to hold onto a very feudalistic way of doing things.
While New England did have slavery for a time, New England states voluntarily abolished it. The Deep South didn't volunteer to do this. In fact, some of the states were willing to declare war to keep this institution around. It goes back to divide and conquer. How do you convince those, who are poor, and don't even own slaves themselves, to fight for you to keep your slaves? You try to distract them. This goes back to the days of indentured servitude. African and European servants would often run away together and also organized a rebellion against the ruling class. What happened? This scared the ruling, and the ruling class used race and color are the barometer for deciding who gets what. Servitude became permanent, and Europeans would no longer be subjected to it. Africans would be made slaves permanently. Divide and conquer.
Go forward to slavery. Please consider that Black slaves were counted as property. Therefore, the amount of illiteracy existing was never really accounted for. If you were to add both the poor Whites and enslaved Blacks, this is the result: a majority of the population illiterate. As to why there was little investment in education, well, consider the nature of the feudalistic plantation society. Slaves were forbidden to learn how to read, and those in power never invested much in building schools. Those who got wealthy off of being planters paid for private tutors or sent their children away for education. Outside of the largest cities(such as New Orleans), education was not considered a priority.
Basically, power is kept via the masses not being very well educated. The power take advantage of social problems, such as poverty and lack of education,and then try to pit people against each other. This works to keep the powerful in power.
I don't think many people want to understand this at all. The way the South has worked, things feed off of each other. The politics isn't just a result of the social problems, but a result of trying to hold onto a very feudalistic way of doing things.
While New England did have slavery for a time, New England states voluntarily abolished it. The Deep South didn't volunteer to do this. In fact, some of the states were willing to declare war to keep this institution around. It goes back to divide and conquer. How do you convince those, who are poor, and don't even own slaves themselves, to fight for you to keep your slaves? You try to distract them. This goes back to the days of indentured servitude. African and European servants would often run away together and also organized a rebellion against the ruling class. What happened? This scared the ruling, and the ruling class used race and color are the barometer for deciding who gets what. Servitude became permanent, and Europeans would no longer be subjected to it. Africans would be made slaves permanently. Divide and conquer.
Go forward to slavery. Please consider that Black slaves were counted as property. Therefore, the amount of illiteracy existing was never really accounted for. If you were to add both the poor Whites and enslaved Blacks, this is the result: a majority of the population illiterate. As to why there was little investment in education, well, consider the nature of the feudalistic plantation society. Slaves were forbidden to learn how to read, and those in power never invested much in building schools. Those who got wealthy off of being planters paid for private tutors or sent their children away for education. Outside of the largest cities(such as New Orleans), education was not considered a priority.
Basically, power is kept via the masses not being very well educated. The power take advantage of social problems, such as poverty and lack of education,and then try to pit people against each other. This works to keep the powerful in power.
A huge majority of the South were illiterate. The wealthy landowners sent their sons up north to get educated. The girls were taught to read and a minority of them also were sent up north to get educated.
The rest got taught the basics and the Blacks were taught labor skills.
The north and south were like two separate countries pre-Civil war.
A huge majority of the South were illiterate. The wealthy landowners sent their sons up north to get educated. The girls were taught to read and a minority of them also were sent up north to get educated.
The rest got taught the basics and the Blacks were taught labor skills.
The north and south were like two separate countries pre-Civil war.
It is like I said, education for the masses in the South was basically put on the back burner. Those who had the money got educated. The poor barely had anything, and Blacks weren't allowed to read or write in the times of slavery.
It goes to how the feudalism of the plantation societies worked.
Basically, power is kept via the masses not being very well educated. The power take advantage of social problems, such as poverty and lack of education,and then try to pit people against each other. This works to keep the powerful in power.
Your post is long, and I agree with the majority of it.
But I'd suggest that:
(A) Initially, slavery was the work of the British; it was simply inherited and perpetuated by the Americans. I'm suggesting that modern (as well as historical) southern politics were heavily influenced by the choices made by the British crown during the early settlement of the region.
(B) In the south, even the wealthy were poorly educated. Education for the white landowners was primarily about religion, and that influence remains to this day. It was only the most elite who went north for education, and oftentimes that was to become a priest. The typical 'wealthy land owner' had an education that was driven by local protestant churches.
(C) The sustained slavery + Jim Crow racism was, as much as anything else, driven by white fear. Fear of slave uprisings at first, and in later years, fears of the assimilation between white and black culture. You can see that at work all the way to the school desegregation of the 60's.
I don't know what was exactly on the minds of historical white southerners, but I do have some skepticism about whether or not they were part of a scheme to oppress blacks for economic reasons. I picture it like a snowball effect -- each generation of whites was complicit in some level of black oppression, because they were terrified of what would happen if blacks were freed. (see: Haiti Revolution)
Your post is long, and I agree with the majority of it.
But I'd suggest that:
(A) Slavery was the work of the British; it was simply inherited and perpetuated by the Americans.
(B) In the south, even the "elites" were poorly educated. Education for the white landowners was primarily about religion, and that influence remains to this day. It was only the most elite who went north for education. The typical 'wealthy land owner' had an education that was driven by local protestant churches.
Elites did not invest much into education. However, with religion, II look at it like this. In northern states, worship was far different than in the South, and so were the Christian denominations. Education in New England, I would say covered alot of things, including religion. One thing to consider is that schools run by churches in the north most likely taught more than in the South. A part of it reflects education requirements. There wasn't as many education pre-requisites to be a Baptist minister as there might be for an Anglican or a Catholic priest.
And slavery was being practiced long before the British. Spanish, French, and Portuguese practiced it too.
(C) The sustained slavery + Jim Crow racism was, as much as anything else, driven by white fear. Fear of slave uprisings at first, and in later years, fears of the assimilation between white and black culture. You can see that at work all the way to the school desegregation of the 60's.
Didn't know you had written this one.
Jim Crow did alot to hold back education, and it was driven by divide and conquer, which was sustained by the fears that many Whites had of Blacks soon after freedom came. It was a way to keep power. When you have a government that isn't doing alot for the people, one way to keep it in power is to keep the poor masses fighting among one another.
It is like I said, education for the masses in the South was basically put on the back burner. Those who had the money got educated. The poor barely had anything, and Blacks weren't allowed to read or write in the times of slavery.
It goes to how the feudalism of the plantation societies worked.
Not all. Some Blacks did rise above slavery and held higher status than some Whites even.
They were few in numbers but they did exist. That I learned in college when I took a class that focused on the Civil War era. I found it fascinating and really opened my eyes that what is taught in K-12 about that time in history is very biased and left a lot out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
