|
Fried Chicken posted:Surprised it neglects what happened to GA's agriculture sector after they passed their own "immigrant" law Did the farms start to go fallow because Real Americans™ don't want those jobs?
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Did the farms start to go fallow because Real Americans™ don't want those jobs? They took a huge hit because the migrant workers wouldn't come, so there was no one to do the work (at the offered wages) yes. Haven't looked to see if that was a long term thing but I do remember that the season after the law was passed a lot of stuff rotted in the fields because there weren't pickers
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:We talk too much about the Holocaust too and the Trail of Tears, really is an afterthought in the history of America. Sorry if that crimps your big blubbery vagina but its the truth. Dare I say that the presidential/Supreme Court aspect of it had much more effect on this country than the awful conditions on the trail. It effected approximately three states (Georgia, North Carolina and Oklahoma) and there aren't many direct survivors of it. History should be talked as being A) endemic of many similar events which were occurring over a broader period of time and B) in a way that students should be able to use it and apply it to their own situations. Focusing just on what life was like being herded by cavalrymen while your friends and family died is useless wankery. Jesus Christ dude, in one post you just minimized two genocides, dismissed the narratives of their survivors as "useless wankery", and backed it up with casual sexism. It's the shitposting jackpot!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And you trust the trucks and railroads crossing over the same general areas more because... why exactly? And you're not aware of the pipelines that already cross the aquifer et al? I don't trust them; I just haven't seen any indication that they could cause a disaster of that magnitude. If there's pipelines running across critical water resources already, we should move them asap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:They took a huge hit because the migrant workers wouldn't come, so there was no one to do the work (at the offered wages) yes. Haven't looked to see if that was a long term thing but I do remember that the season after the law was passed a lot of stuff rotted in the fields because there weren't pickers Picking stuff is apparently skilled labor. Physically skilled. People just don't have the muscles to do it. God I hated working on the farm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I don't trust them; I just haven't seen any indication that they could cause a disaster of that magnitude.  A trainload of tanker cars full of crude can make quite a mess. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I don't trust them; I just haven't seen any indication that they could cause a disaster of that magnitude. If there's pipelines running across critical water resources already, we should move them asap. Where are you going to get thousands of new trucks and thousands more new railcars to replace all oil pipelines over "critical water resources", again? And what are we going to use to fuel them while you're at it? Also, what "disaster of that magnitude" are you talking about to start with? To clarify, these red lines on this map are existing oil and other liquid product lines:  (The blue are natural gas lines) Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Jesus Christ dude, in one post you just minimized two genocides, dismissed the narratives of their survivors as "useless wankery", and backed it up with casual sexism. It's the shitposting jackpot! The point remains that no single topic can be dwelled on in a survey course that covers about 400 years of history. If 2 days is too little on the trail of tears, how many days should be spent on the Philippines under the US rule? An order of magnitude more civilians died in the Philippine-American war, should a month be spent on that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
I'm a fan of teaching history from a financial POV personally. Adam Tooze's books on the subject are very interesting and put a whole new spin on the topic and puts things in new context. I'm just in his latest and already things make a lot more sense. Lusitania and Zimmerman telegraph always struck me as very light pretext to go to war. That we used those to rally most people and the real reason was to prop up England and France so they could pay back American companies the 2012 equivalent of $560 billion dollars, that makes more sense. But maybe I'm overly cynical and the money had nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The point remains that no single topic can be dwelled on in a survey course that covers about 400 years of history. If 2 days is too little on the trail of tears, how many days should be spent on the Philippines under the US rule? An order of magnitude more civilians died in the Philippine-American war, should a month be spent on that? Should we ignore the Holocaust because Stalin's policies killed more people? Last time I checked, we didn't depopulate and resettle the Philippines with white people as well. Genocide is a distinct act from war, and that hardly comes down to statistics or raw numbers. Of course, if you want raw numbers, there's smallpox...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
No one is saying it is supposed to be ignored. Interactions with native americans is a major topic in APUSH and so the trail of tears is certainly covered, but only briefly because nothing in the entire class is covered more than briefly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No one is saying it is supposed to be ignored. Interactions with native americans is a major topic in APUSH and so the trail of tears is certainly covered, but only briefly because nothing in the entire class is covered more than briefly. Good, but the poster we are replying to is in fact proposing that the time spent on that specific event in a specific program be cut by 2/3 minimum, and considers the trail of tears an "afterthought" that would ideally be mentioned in passing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
quote of the dang day “Chill. At least Trig didn’t eat the dog. Aren’t you the same anti-beef screamers blogging hate from your comfy leather office chairs, wrapped in your fashionable leather belts above your kickin’ new leather pumps you bought because your celebrity idols (who sport fur and crocodile purses) grinned in a tabloid wearing the exact same Louboutins exiting sleek cowhide covered limo seats on their way to some liberal fundraiser shindig at some sushi bar that features poor dead smelly roe?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Good, but the poster we are replying to is in fact proposing that the time spent on that specific event in a specific program be cut by 2/3 minimum, and considers the trail of tears an "afterthought" that would ideally be mentioned in passing. The guy I was responding to complained that he only got "a couple of days talking to it." drat straight cut it by 2/3s minimum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:The guy I was responding to complained that he only got "a couple of days talking to it." drat straight cut it by 2/3s minimum. That's idiotic. You're upset it's being discussed for like 2 hours tops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:quote of the dang day That isn't real, right? Tell me you just made that up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I'm a fan of teaching history from a financial POV personally. Adam Tooze's books on the subject are very interesting and put a whole new spin on the topic and puts things in new context. I'm just in his latest and already things make a lot more sense. Lusitania and Zimmerman telegraph always struck me as very light pretext to go to war. That we used those to rally most people and the real reason was to prop up England and France so they could pay back American companies the 2012 equivalent of $560 billion dollars, that makes more sense. But maybe I'm overly cynical and the money had nothing to do with it. Loan repayment was a smaller one, of many factors. The loans would get paid back no matter who won; otherwise, America would have the legal right to repossess overseas territories in order to secure the loans. No matter what, the loans always get paid, even if France and Britain would have had to pursue a firesale of colonial assets and inflate their way out of debt, as occured throughout the 20s. No, much easier to explain American entrance into WW1 through a racial framework. There were too many disloyal Germans in America, too many Frankfurters and Hamburgers and Berliners. How could we pass up a chance to hand it to the hunnic brute, a volk one step above negroe and one below spaniard in their culture?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:That's idiotic. You're upset it's being discussed for like 2 hours tops. He was upset that it was only discussed for like 2 hours tops. Enough to list it as complaint number one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:He was upset that it was only discussed for like 2 hours tops. Enough to list it as complaint number one. And he should be. Your assertion it should be 40 minutes and no more is insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I'm a fan of teaching history from a financial POV personally. Adam Tooze's books on the subject are very interesting and put a whole new spin on the topic and puts things in new context. I'm just in his latest and already things make a lot more sense. Lusitania and Zimmerman telegraph always struck me as very light pretext to go to war. That we used those to rally most people and the real reason was to prop up England and France so they could pay back American companies the 2012 equivalent of $560 billion dollars, that makes more sense. But maybe I'm overly cynical and the money had nothing to do with it. Money definitely has something to do with it, and I really like some of Tooze's work too. Just remember as you read professional history that historians, like in every other academic field (and most other professions besides), are implicitly making a case that their way of looking at things is super important and everyone else is missing the point. That's rarely really true, and the historian writing it is mostly communicating with fellow scholars who understand that it's going on and take it all in that context. If you want WWI history, you need to combine the above with stuff like the below: Ferguson, Niall The Pity Of War Fussell. Paul The Great War And Modern Memory Kocka, Jürgen, Facing Total War: German Society, 1914-1918 Lafore, Laurence The Long Fuse. An Interpretation of the Origins of World War I (1965, 1971), 282pp. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. "Domestic Factors in German Foreign Policy before 1914," Central European History, VI (1973), in James Sheehan, ed., Imperial Germany (1976). Schroeder, Paul W. "The Risks of Victory. An Historian's Provocation," The National Interest (Winter 2001/02): 22-36. Schroeder, Paul W. "World War I as Galloping Gertie: A Reply to Joachim Remak," Journal of Modern History 44/3 (Sept. 1972): 319-45 You'll get pretty different perspectives. And there are, obviously, a billion others to add on besides. If you're looking for just one that's interesting, well-written, and reasonably short, I would recommend Lafore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
US Historical Politics chat: How do you assign blame for the economy from January 1920 to July 1921? I'm unsure that lower interest rates would have prevented, and not accelerated, the decline in prices and output experienced during this period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:US Historical Politics chat: How do you assign blame for the economy from January 1920 to July 1921? I'm unsure that lower interest rates would have prevented, and not accelerated, the decline in prices and output experienced during this period. I assign the blame to the fact that the gold standard was being used.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I'm a fan of teaching history from a financial POV personally. Adam Tooze's books on the subject are very interesting and put a whole new spin on the topic and puts things in new context. I'm just in his latest and already things make a lot more sense. Lusitania and Zimmerman telegraph always struck me as very light pretext to go to war. That we used those to rally most people and the real reason was to prop up England and France so they could pay back American companies the 2012 equivalent of $560 billion dollars, that makes more sense. But maybe I'm overly cynical and the money had nothing to do with it. Do you also believe France's opposition to the Iraq War was because they were actually getting paid by Saddam?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I assign the blame to the fact that the gold standard was being used. Except the gold reserve ratio rose from 40.9 to 61.7 percent during this period due to importation of gold? computer parts posted:Do you also believe France's opposition to the Iraq War was because they were actually getting paid by Saddam? France was opposed to Iraq because the Iraq War upset French interests in the region, particularly those in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Do you also believe France's opposition to the Iraq War was because they were actually getting paid by Saddam? War costs money, yo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Except the gold reserve ratio rose from 40.9 to 61.7 percent during this period due to importation of gold? Right, the entire concept of the gold standard was bad and we shouldn't have been on it then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Right, the entire concept of the gold standard was bad and we shouldn't have been on it then. By 'gold standard,' do you mean 'pound sterling as global reserve currency'? Gold standard was a fairly intelligent and effective policy during the pre-WW2 era. What do you posit for the explanation as to why America experienced capital inflow during this period, while also experiencing a 40% decline in prices and 4% fall in outputs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:By 'gold standard,' do you mean 'pound sterling as global reserve currency'? Gold standard was a fairly intelligent and effective policy during the pre-WW2 era. What do you posit for the explanation as to why America experienced capital inflow during this period, while also experiencing a 40% decline in prices and 4% fall in outputs? The gold standard was only intelligent in the context of totally gaming it the way the French did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:By 'gold standard,' do you mean 'pound sterling as global reserve currency'? Gold standard was a fairly intelligent and effective policy during the pre-WW2 era. What do you posit for the explanation as to why America experienced capital inflow during this period, while also experiencing a 40% decline in prices and 4% fall in outputs? No, I mean the fact that the dollar was tied to a certain amount of gold during that time period (when, incidentally, most European currencies were not gold-tied due to the problems of war). This was bad for planning purposes and for attempting to manipulate the economy in beneficial ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, I mean the fact that the dollar was tied to a certain amount of gold during that time period (when, incidentally, most European currencies were not gold-tied due to the problems of war). This was bad for planning purposes and for attempting to manipulate the economy in beneficial ways. Aha! Now to read up on colonial gold production and labor in the post-war period. Initial suspicion: demobilization and labor unrest resulting from ww1 led to colonial unrest in production territories, thus capital flight to US via wholesale purchase of gold through New York. If America gave up the gold standard during this period, it would be assuming responsibility for the collapse of the European colonial system. Far better to remain on the gold standard than watch the world balkanize in the 20s while demand for American goods collapses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Loan repayment was a smaller one, of many factors. The loans would get paid back no matter who won; otherwise, America would have the legal right to repossess overseas territories in order to secure the loans. No matter what, the loans always get paid, even if France and Britain would have had to pursue a firesale of colonial assets and inflate their way out of debt, as occured throughout the 20s. Yeah, how well did that work out with the loans we made to Russia at that time period? And the concern that Tooze is laying out is that if England and/or France would no longer exist, not that they would be in a poor position to pay back after the war. computer parts posted:Do you also believe France's opposition to the Iraq War was because they were actually getting paid by Saddam? How about we cut to the chase and you lay out your framework and evidence against Tooze's argument while I finish the book, rather than playing silly "you are too credulous" games. Panzeh posted:The gold standard was only intelligent in the context of totally gaming it the way the French did. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Aha! Now to read up on colonial gold production and labor in the post-war period. Initial suspicion: demobilization and labor unrest resulting from ww1 led to colonial unrest in production territories, thus capital flight to US via wholesale purchase of gold through New York. We'd already figured out that we needed the Federal Reserve before World War I started. If we hadn't been all up on adhering to the gold standard through the beginning of the Great Depression, we could have kept the economy running better through having access to more powerful means of control. Going off of it after or during WWI would have meant we could get away with it since no other major countries were able to be on gold, but we were still getting all of theirs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:
I don't even know who Tooze is other than your one line about him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't even know who Tooze is other than your one line about him. He's the dude who wrote that great book on how the economy actually worked around and during the Nazi rule in Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We'd already figured out that we needed the Federal Reserve before World War I started. If we hadn't been all up on adhering to the gold standard through the beginning of the Great Depression, we could have kept the economy running better through having access to more powerful means of control. Going off of it after or during WWI would have meant we could get away with it since no other major countries were able to be on gold, but we were still getting all of theirs. Exactly. What happens to all the well-armed, well-organized, recently repatriated colonial levies who worked the global gold fields? Now that is a truly freightening thought, and far more adverse to American interests than continued use of gold specie. Imagine how many more loans would have been defaulted upon had America gone off the gold standard post-war. computer parts posted:I don't even know who Tooze is other than your one line about him. He's written the best primer for understanding Chinese policy that I know of. Fried Chicken posted:Yeah, how well did that work out with the loans we made to Russia at that time period? And the concern that Tooze is laying out is that if England and/or France would no longer exist, not that they would be in a poor position to pay back after the war. Are we discussing London and Paris no longer existing as financial centers, or the collapse of their colonial empires? My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't even know who Tooze is other than your one line about him. So you have no idea the actual research and argument behind what I was talking about, but decided to play it off as loony nonsense with a glib comment just because? Here is the book, by the way Here is the NY Times review of it, and here is a summary of it and his WW2 counterpart at the Atlantic
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So you have no idea the actual research and argument behind what I was talking about, but decided to play it off as loony nonsense with a glib comment just because? No, France had interests in Iraq at the time and I'm wondering if you agree that that was a motivation for them opposing the war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Exactly. What happens to all the well-armed, well-organized, recently repatriated colonial levies who worked the global gold fields? Now that is a truly freightening thought, and far more adverse to American interests than continued use of gold specie. Imagine how many more loans would have been defaulted upon had America gone off the gold standard post-war. Ah but my friend, we were already transitioning from specie holdings to bullion holdings in that time period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Ah but my friend, we were already transitioning from specie holdings to bullion holdings in that time period. Right, and who would be left to purchase American goods in assets acceptable to Americans?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Right, and who would be left to purchase American goods in assets acceptable to Americans? Everyone. They had no other choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 07:18
|
|