Women, Slaves and the Industrial Revolution

Discussion in 'History' started by wellwisher, Jul 31, 2016.

  1. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    I am going to put a unique spin on history, that is rarely discussed. I was born in Lowell, Massachusetts, which was one of the model cities, built to jump start the American industrial revolution. This originally wooded and farm location was chosen, because it had a good size river, with a significant elevation drop; waterfalls, over several miles. It was an ideal place to generate water power for the anticipated factories that would go there. The founders dammed the river, and hand dug a series of canals, using Irish immigrant labor, to create the water power grid for all the expected factories; Venice of the West.

    The early industrial revolution, at this location, was based on textiles, which is thread, cloth and clothes. What made this time in history, unique, besides the new technology, was textiles was a spin off of sewing, with sewing considered traditional women's work. Since most of the factories were making textiles and textile products, and since textiles was considered sewing, there was a huge demand for women to work in the factories. The result was a migration from the farms to the cities, with women playing a pivotal role in making the industrial revolution possible.

    Lowell became the first city with public education for women, among other firsts for women. This was not due to government regulation. Rather it was due to free market forces. Free education was given as a benefit to the female employees, who worked hard to make the revolution possible and businesses profitable. A smarter work force was better for everyone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Another key component for jump starting the Industrial revolution in America was slave labor; picking cotton for the textile industries. The cheap slave labor, although usually seem as dark and gloomy, was critical for making the industrial revolution possible. If labor costs had been higher, so the price of cotton was too high, it may not have been cost effective for the founders to raise the money to take this leap of faith in an industrial revolution. The city was incorporated in 1826. Once the factories were up and running and unit costs came down and profit went up, it became possible to handle an increase in cotton costs. There was no more need for slavery.

    The women and descendant of slaves should both celebrate their untold pivotal contributions to the jump starting of the industrial revolution.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I find that your take in history is far from unique and usually mirrors standard right-wing talking points; false, but understandable from a propaganda perspective.
    OK, so you appear to be trying to argue that it is not a good thing for people to be educated and only people who work should be educated. Do you think that we should put children into work camps?
    So, your position is that slavery is acceptable as long as white people get ahead.
    I think that women and the descendants of slaves do realize this. The problem is that people like you don't really want to acknowledge this. You want to sweep it into the rug of history, but not actually pay people, today, for their contributions. You don't want to try to reverse the still lingering effects of the propaganda of slavery. You don't want to try to reverse the still lingering effects of views towards women that keep them in very specific jobs.

    I note that you skip over all the health problems related to weaving. You want people to think of the past as rosy so that they ignore all the benefits that went straight to white men and that still flow mostly to white men, and mostly to the richest of white men who got their wealth from the families that benefited in the past.

    Your view of history is not unique. It is a sick and twisted distortion that is a window into your soul.
     
    Daecon, origin and joepistole like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,555
    All the public education in Lowell as everywhere else was due to government taxation and government provision of infrastructure, much of what was made available to adult women working in the mills created in response to union organizing and other political activity opposed to "market forces".

    One of the major and influential complaints of the women who worked in the mills of Lowell was that the 73 hour work week and enforced Church attendance time prevented their furthering their education.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    I was being optimistic; glass was half full, but your soul is so dark.

    The bottom line is nobody who worked or slaved at that time is still alive. We can honor their contributions or try to spin that time into an extortion scam for the present. I was thinking more about honoring the past when I wrote this.

    You are using the Senator Warren argument, which is flawed. The government is not the great provider. Where did the government get the money to do these things? Would the government do anything without pay and revenue? The answer is no. The government, so they would not sit on their hands, got the money from taxation. This means the government did not do anything but only acted as a mercenary. The taxes were provided for by the tax payers. The taxpayers built the infrastructure.

    Where did the tax payers get the money to pay taxes. This came from jobs. Who provided these jobs? At that time is was mostly small businesses; farmers, paying fees. After the farmers provided jobs, for the taxes so the government would get off its hands and build the infrastructure, businesses invested money to build industries, which provide more jobs for even more taxes.

    The slaves and the women played a critical role in expansing the private sector and the tax base, so the private sector could provide both jobs and taxes so the mercenary government would serve the people as needed and directed.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,555
    You can read what they wrote, such as when they were trying to unionize.
    By taxing rich people, who owned property etc.
    In Lowell as almost everywhere else, what educational infrastructure existed was and is paid for via property taxes. And there wasn't much of it. The women who worked in the mills owned little or no local property, and had little or no time to become educated at whatever meagre infrastructure was available to them.
     
  9. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    The way I looking at this was from the POV of the R&D needed for the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was not based on buying a McDonalds franchise, where everything is set up for you ready to go. The beginning of the industrial revolution was a concept that started small. In the Lowell area it started with company call the Merrimack Manufacturing Company, who built a second factory at the Lowell site, using private funding. Government does not have a clue when it comes to seeing the future. It was like launching the computer industries in the 1980-1990's; private investors. The need for labor, during these early times, favors the workers. They needed to lure people and women off the farms.

    As companies become profitable, competition increases, while government interference, increases costs. People with money, can give campaign contributions to politicians in exchange for better zoning deals and/or them making it more expensive for the competition. As an example, kickbacks from the solar companies influenced politicians to regulate oil, to make it easier to develop solar. This is when labor starts to get screwed, since oil now has higher operating costs. Oil had to invest in R&D and made fracking possible driving costs down.

    If you owned a company that employs 1000 workers, they all depend on you. If your regulatory costs go up, and your profits go down; all else the same, how do you justify yourself working 20 hours a day, for nothing? Why not sell off the company and enjoy life? If you close the company, good people will lose their jobs. You need to keep fighting by increasing the price, finding cheaper supplies, become more efficient, and lower labor costs; hours and less benefits, so the business stays in the black and everyone can keep their jobs.

    The free market is not like government who can print money or raise taxes, and grow even when inefficient and wasteful. The VA would go bankrupt, in the free market. There would be massive layoffs. Only in government, can waste and inefficiency can grow and get promoted.

    In the early days, it was not doom and gloom for the mill girls. Things change when politics becomes the hired gun and begins to tamper with the free market system; rigged system based on campaign contributions.
     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And you think that it is acceptable to enslave women and non-whites in order to get progress done.
    You seem to be completely ignorant of this history. The worst part is that oil companies get far more government dollars in the USA than solar companies.
    Why is it that capitalists are the biggest whiners? They want a system where businesses routinely go out of business, but then they whine when things actually make businesses go under. If oil production isn't profitable, then don't produce oil. Why are these pro-capitalist nutjobs so bad at capitalism?

    wellwisher really wants the good old days of weaver's lung and slavery. He wants the good old days of no regulations so that we can have lead power to dye your food red. The rest of us want reasonable costs of business.
     
  11. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    The oil companies pay taxes, from which they get a refund. The analogy if a criminal steals your wallet, takes $100 and gives you back $20, he does not give you anything, since that $20 was already yours. The solar companies got government handouts, which they then partly kick back to the Democratic party. This is different math. This more like the pick pocket sharing the $100 he stole, with his friends, who them give him stolen property.

    You also make the mistake of judging history from the present, like the armchair quarterback on the Monday talking about the game on Sunday. The past does not have the advantage of knowing the future, the way the present as the advantage of knowing the past. Those people were using water power even before it was considered environmentally friendly. They were not even aware of this feather in their cap because the future had not started the fad.
     
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It's sad that wellwisher thinks that makes sense.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,543
    Welcome to the Republican Party. Welcome to Donald Trump. It's just so bizarre, it's difficult to believe. But this is the modern Republican Party.
     
  14. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    I noticed that my words were bunched together by some type of glitch.

    I view the Industrial Revolution, not by the modern tendency of the Monday morning quarterback, but with an attitude of real time R&D. The beginning of the industrial revolution was a fuzzy goal, with the solution not yet to be fully defined. They were not deliberately trying to kill their workforce, since that is not how you get the job done. However, there are unintended consequences, when you can't buy off the shelf like a franchise.

    The left has been trained to confuse the past and the present, so you can blame past, using the standards of the present, as though the past already knew the future. It may seem alien, when I try to leave the past in the past.

    During the Republican convention, Trump had the mother of one of the soldiers killed in Benghazi, giving a talk. The Democrats countered this with the father and mother of the Captain who earned the medal of honor. The media only focused on one of these two data points. It gave about 70 seconds to the Benghazi solider and days to the other. This is how the left rewrites history into its own agenda. It made the lessor two evils, look worse by ignoring all the data that was available. Trump did nothing but make a comment, while Hillary was directly responsible for the death of the other solider, running the video scam for Obama. Left wing politic and media deliberately confusing history, based on their agenda.

    It is tough trying to discuss history, with those who are not even aware of the problem. Agenda and fantasy is not history. Would everyone be happier if Trump was more of a scam artist, who says the proper things, pretending to care, while scamming behind the scenes?
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yet there were clear goals: make money off of labor. And there were ways that this was done: forcing people into cities through literal force or through laws. This doesn't make all laws bad, but it shows that this great "free market" did not arise from free enterprise.
    Many hard-core "conservatives" try to forget the past entirely and replace it with something else. Must be that reality has a left-wing bias. Many of these people likely get confused when people talk about the actual history of the world as opposed to the fantasy that they read in USA conservative publications.
    That is clearly false. There was a lot of coverage of both conventions.
    So what is the actual history here? The Republican controlled Congress cut funds to protect embassies like the one in Benghazi, leaving nothing that could be done to protect it. And this is exactly what their own three investigations discovered. It is objectively stupid to pretend that Benghazi involves something that Hillary Clinton did wrong, as objectively stupid as pointing to the history of the Republican party on slavery and ignoring the entire 20th Century.
    Again, there are a number of Republican lead investigations that came to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong. If you want to claim that the Republican party is left wing, then even you should realize that you have no credibility.

    Exactly. Take you, for instance: you keep bringing up the history of the Republican party during the Civil War to claim that the Republican party is pro-black, while you ignore all the racist stuff that the party did after the Civil War. So either you are clueless about the real problem or a deliberately lying racist.
     
  16. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    The Ambassador at Benghazi asked for extra assistance months before the attack. The writing was already on the walls because Obama and Hillary had made the region unstable. The Obama administration was running for reelection, using the narrative that all was well in the middle east, due to keen judgement of President Obama and Secretary Hillary. Obama and Hillary would not meet the request for beefed up security, since this would contradict their narrative, which was based on false history.

    If we assume their claim that the attack on the Embassy, was due to a video, was an honest assessment of the situation, this shows how ill equipped Hillary and Obama were/are. They had the best access to information, yet came up with the wrong conclusion. The wrong conclusion would be verified in the following years.

    They fought hard to perpetuate false history even telling the mother of the falling soldier the video did it. This demonstrates why Hillary will be a disaster; she is clueless. She may not have done this intentionally people did get hurt; involuntary man slaughter. Mitt Romney at that time, predicted terrorism within hours of the attack. He was smarter than the entire Obama Administration, combined, in that case. This turned out to be correct, yet the main stream media or propaganda wing of the Democratic party went with the false history ; video. Do you remember how Mitt got attacked for being right and Obama got praise for being wrong, while false history was in vogue?

    You need to be careful of Hillary and main stream media propaganda, since they are using the same tactic of teaching false history. This can also happen by ignoring and/or stressing certain data points; only one family of fallen soldier focused on (70 seconds versus 1 week).

    Hillary's server problem is part of a pattern of clueless behavior. She uses the dumb blonde defense and gets away with it. What other blunders are in store for the country if she is president? She has shown she will use false history to perpetuate bad choices and blunders. This can cause long term problems for the country.

    What history books do you read? The Republican party was the original anti-slavery party. The Democrat party was the party that wanted to maintain slavery. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president; he freed the slave. When slavey was outlawed, the southern Democrats became the party of segregation and the KKK. The civil rights marches in the 1950's and 1960's were done in democratic controlled states where racism was the worse. Governor George Wallace of Alabama was a democrat.

    President Nixon, in the 1960's was able to convert many of the traditional southern democratic states into becoming Republican. This happened after the Civil rights act when the democratic segregation stronghold of the south, had been made illegal. The Democratic party lure of racism was not longer effective. The false history tries to equate the modern republican south with the entire history of the south. You appear to have been taught that.

    In current times; 2016, the places in the country, where the plight of the blacks is worse; poverty, low employment and violence, is in Democratic party controlled cities. Look at Chicago, NY, Baltimore. You seem to have been conditions do believe false history and are blind to real time data. It may be hard to discuss an important R&D phase of history, when false history is so prevalent.

    I bring up the Democratic party and slavery and segregation, because they have taught the blacks to fixate on slavery, as means to shake down the system. Based on that assumption, I am showing that not all whites were the same during slavery. The only ones that owe them for slavery are the Democrats, since the Republicans were helping the blacks become free from slavery, and have already paid their dues. False history is trying to disguise the real criminals, who continue to provide the worse environments for the blacks in the large cities they control.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2016
  17. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    So everyone is to blame except for the Republican controlled congress that pays for the military and rejected increased security for embassies in the region? I'm loving this very relaxed personal responsibility thing that you believe in.
    You seem to be referencing facts not in evidence.
    Romney was "attacked" (if one calls a correction an attack) because he, like you, falsely said that the Obama administration never said that terrorism might be a factor. I know you desperately want there to be some smoking gun here, but there really is nothing.

    And what would you call the 22 million emails that the Bush administration deleted?
    Hmm, I wonder what racism you'll present us with next, let me guess....
    This would be nice except for the fact that racists left the Democratic party because they abandoned racism and then they found a home in the Republican party. The Republican party then began using race as an issue to woo white voters until... well, they're still doing it. Have you never heard of the "Southern Strategy"? This is not some kind of secret history, many Republicans have admitted it and apologized for it. But many are still trying to use it.
    No, you bring it up because it is part of the conservative playbook. It's very boring, even though it's racist.

    Right. So black people should love the Republicans for helping them out of slavery and into lynching.
     
  18. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    I think you got it backwards. If you look at the highly publicized shootings of black people, over the past year or two, the shooting at the southern black church, was the only one that did not preach revenge, or try to leverage the shooting into political lobbying. The southern Republicans party, after Civil rights laws, helped change the attitudes of the southern whites, and made black people feel safer.

    Those killed in Democratic controlled cities, triggered insecurity in all the blacks, leading to riots and looting. The liberal base is not seeing the reality of this situation. They are conditioned to blame the people who are not in charge. To them, even though Democrats control Chicago, somehow the minority of Republicans are the problem leading to all the shootings.

    Don't take my word for it. Look up the 10 worse cities for blacks in America, and which of the two parties control those cities.
     
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You have got to be kidding. The Republican party welcomed everyone who left the Democratic party because of the support for those laws within the Democratic party. The Republican party fought those laws tooth and nail. The Republican party is still fighting those laws; they still enact racist laws--laws designed to be racist--as shown in recent court cases brought forward because of those laws.

    You like to repeat your cherry-picked facts in order to hide your own racism. You would like us all to pretend that cities don't sit within states and that the states don't sit within the USA.
     
  20. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

    Content of character is based on what is inside the person. Character is not something you are born with but is something developed through effort. Character is not genetic, but skin color is. Which party made quota laws, whose laws judge people by the color of the skin and by sex, and not by the content of character? If these rules were based on character, they would be color and sex blind.

    The Democrats have decided to do the opposite of what King saw as the ideal future. King saw the dividing line not black and white skin, but people of high and low moral character, since there are good whites and good blacks, and evil whites and evil blacks.

    You mistake the Republican, treating everyone as equal, as racism. Racism only exists when there are more than one set of rules, based on race. While a racist government institutes such policies. This happens when the Democrats are in charge. They have not changed.

    If I believe we are all the same, I would not give special treatment to anyone, since that would cheating or cronyism. If we are all the same, we should compete as we are. If I believed some people were better and some people were second rate, I might give the second rate a handicap and head start to make it fair. I would not give a head start to someone who is equal.

    Do the math; If A = B, then A +C cannot equal B, unless C =0 or B > A.

    The approach of the democrats is, give extras based on the color of the skin. This implies they don't see the blacks as equal; B>A so C is needed. This is traditional democratic thinking. Changing the blacks from the back of the bus, to the front of the bus, still separates people by skin color and sets up a difference source of racial division. It should be the good kids get to sit in the front of the bus, and the bad kids in the back of the bus, since being good takes more effort; more character development.

    The Democrat reward the looters in the race riots, because of skin color; nothing is done. The Republican don't reward evil, since they will judge by this evil character and not color of the skin, like Dr King suggested. Republicans are better at math and character judgements.

    Hillary is judged by democrats by the D (Democrat) next to her name, and not the content of her character. It goes along with superficial judgements.
     
  21. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Why do conservatives always have to lie about King? King clearly wanted things like affirmative action and laws to actually build a society where people can be treated as equals instead of sweeping problems under the rug.
     
  22. wellwisher

    Messages:
    4,865
    The Democrats, since before the Civil War, used two sets of rules. One set of rules for the whites, and one set of rules for the blacks. They reversed the two sets of rules after the Civil rights laws were enacted. But this choice served to perpetuate segregation. It is like saying the blacks previously had to go to the back of the bus. Now to be fair, the whites have to be in the back of the bus. With this solution, the two are still segregated, even if reversed. King wanted people of all color to be in both places; one set of rules. The white and blacks of character would be in front, and the white and blacks of low character in the back of the bus. Character is something you develop. One is not born with character. Character is a choice. One get to choose where they end up in the bus.

    The analogy is a parent that has two sons or two daughters. They begin by preferring one child over the other, and let it be known to both, who they prefer. This causes spoiled bullying in one child, who can do no wrong in the eyes of parent. It also leads to resentment in the child that is left out of the parent's attention. The parent then decides to be fair and switch. They now deny all the attention to the one who used to get it, and give it exclusively to the other, even of he is being resentful and mean. This causes resentment in the child who always had the attention, who had been made dependent by it. It does not create peace between the two children but pits them against each other.

    King was wiser, due to his religious training as a preacher. He said judge both children by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. This means the parent should reward good behavior, regardless of the child. It should not be about a preferred child, who is always preferred, even if they are mean and have behavioral problems. It is about preferring the good each child can do. Kings choice was not about unconditional love for one and unconditional reserve for the other. Rather it was about conditional love based on good character. This is the type of behavior, in the future, who will be fair and kind.

    Feminism is more about unconditional love. But it is reserved but for one of the two children, no matter what they do. King was religious and from an era of a more masculine culture, where love was conditional and based on character and good works, no matter which child did this.

    If you look at the riots, from which the black lives matter group spawned, the Democrats did not judge by character. They judged by the color of the skin, with the Justice Department ignoring the penalties of the law for those who looted and showed no character; preferred spoiled child can do no wrong. It sounds like the mother of a preferred child, who will protect her spoiled brat, will just ignore her other children.

    The Republicans are more consistent with judging actions based on character. You do not reward those who break the law, even if you can come up with an abstraction to justify it; illegal immigration. The reason is, equality means one set of laws for all. The peaceful citizens of character, get to decide their own fate and will never see the crap end of the law stick. This is how you lead all the children to the promised land.

    Rewarding by skin color, regardless of character; looters and those who break and enter, gives reward to criminals based on skin color. While reward for character puts each person in control of where they sit on the bus. The reason is character is something you develop; type of education. Skin color is generic and can't be controlled.
     
  23. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    See, there you go cherry-picking again. You know that the Democratic Party before the Civil War is radically different than the one after the Civil War. You also know that the same thing is true of the Republican Party. Everyone should know that the 20th Century is the century in which the Democratic Party rejected racism while the Republican Party embraced it. Even prominent Republicans admit this, even though they lie about the continued racism.

    By continuing to harp on this Civil War crap, you are simply being racist.

    The way you use your parenting metaphor also reveals your sick and disgusting nature. You call trying to help people "rewarding" them, so that you can ignore the part of parenting where parents help children based on the needs of those children. Helping people based on their needs is something that King definitely talked about. That the Republican Party and their conservative attitude was no help to black people or poor people in general was also something he definitely talked about.

    Please take your lies and hate somewhere else.
     

Share This Page