Link us Your Love

Link love: the moving craziness edition, part 1. Links are a mess because of that and because #2 is swamped at work and has had all sorts of after work hours “fun” work obligations which have been causing her literal heartburn.  (Is it the catering?  stress?  too much sitting at the computer? She doesn’t know but she’d sure like to find out by not having obligations or heartburn!)

Or else possibly This Week in Patriarchy.  Unfortunately that’s like every week.

file under argh-of-the-day:
so much very horrible news

the paws! the tiny pink toes!!! http://www.breakingcatnews.com/comic/the-woman-has-a-hairball/

This is so true

science headlines we’d like to see http://the-toast.net/2014/08/27/science-headlines-like-see/

bad advisor sure gives good advice
#1 hates riding bicycles but these make good points:
here, it’s a baby … thing:
This has been all over the news, but it’s funny:
 Economics links ahoy!

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/16/i_was_poor_but_a_gop_die_hard_how_i_finally_left_the_politics_of_shame/

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/251fa6410b/women-s-health-experts-speak-out

sometimes the economist is embarrassing .  Also, it’s really weird watching non-economists discuss Time on the Cross because it seems to be taught differently outside of economics.  In Economic History classes the main focus is that slavery was profitable (in one of my classes it was tied with literature on how serfdom was the only way to keep people in Russia from fleeing to Germany, and other forms of slavery and intimidation and horror were used to keep people working when they had better outside options if they could just leave, which they couldn’t).  This profitability argument is in contrast to the “it would have gone away by itself” argument that you sometimes hear crop up.  It wouldn’t have gone away by itself.  Then after slavery was over, they replaced that profitability with prison chain-gangs.  People say that Time on the Cross makes the argument that slaves had it better under slavery, but the focus that I remember was that slavery was awful for all of the reasons that slavery is awful, and instead of getting 40 acres and a mule and government representation as promised and as would have made a big positive difference in the lives of blacks, the South did its best to use terror to create a pseudo-slavery of share-cropping.  Slavery wasn’t “better” because it was a good thing, but share-cropping was almost as bad.  It was a failure of the government to fully reparate and protect the former slaves that lead to bad outcomes post-slavery.  Then it’s tied to Race and Schooling in the South by Bob Margo, which explains the huge economic inequalities caused by segregation.  So Time on the Cross as I learned it (in multiple classes, from different schools, including one from a Fogel student) was really an argument for Affirmative Action.

9 Responses to “Link us Your Love”

  1. Debbie M Says:

    Nice links comparing bike riding to being underprivileged.

    Ugh–when I first moved to Texas, some suburban school district was not letting a boy come to school with hair that covered his ears. He had long hair to cover his head deformity. They got sued and lost in the 1970s, so it’s pissing me off extra hard that this is still happening.

  2. Sarabeth Says:

    Fogel and Engerman definitely make assertions not just about the overall profitability of slavery, but also about the sharing of profits between plantation owners and slaves (they argue that a high proportion of plantation income ‘benefited’ slaves in some sense), and about the quality of life of slaves (which they compare relatively favorably to the non-slave laboring classes). My understanding as a historian–but not a historian of American slavery–is that the profitability thesis has now been validated and assimilated into most scholarship, but the other theses have been discredited.

    • nicoleandmaggie Says:

      It’s just weird how it’s being taught in my field compared to other fields (or maybe the other way around). I don’t remember any sort of “the slaves had it good” argument. Now, I don’t remember if we read the entire book in any of my classes, or just excerpts. It could be that I never got any of the discredited stuff because not even Engerman or Fogel believed it anymore. I do remember a belief that many ex-slaves didn’t have it better in measurable senses (things like income or nutrition) after the war, but that doesn’t mean slavery was better for them, just that the US government failed them post-war. (Also, IIRC, Egypt got into the cotton trade during the war and took away a lot of profitability for the South, so the entire South was in bad shape economically.)

      It’s also weird to think of Fogel having believed that slavery could have ever been a “benefit” to the slaves given his personal life, and it has certainly never been spun as such in any work I’ve seen. Fogel’s reputed to have been something of a civil rights activist within the profession. But he lived a long life and may have changed over time.

      • Sarabeth Says:

        Just to follow up – I don’t think that this work necessarily redounds poorly on Fogel or Engerman as people, and I certainly don’t think that they meant their work as an apology for slavery. On the comparison to non-slaves, the point they are trying to make is not that being a slave was awesome, but that being poor sucked in the 19th century regardless of whether you were slave or free. Unfortunately, their work got sucked into a narrative of slavery-wasn’t-so-bad, even though that wasn’t their intention. Historians have spent a lot of time trying to combat that narrative, which is persistent because white Americans don’t want to feel guilty about racial inequality.

      • nicoleandmaggie Says:

        Yeah, the narrative I got wasn’t just that being poor sucked but that being poor and black in reconstruction south was also bad for health etc. because of failures of the government (promises made, but not kept). Also, depending on supplemental readings, terror, segregation, etc. Economists never teach that slavery wasn’t so bad was its narrative to begin with!

    • Rosa Says:

      the other theses are pretty obviously wrong. Just looking at death rates in sugar-producing areas should disprove any positive quality of life comparisons right away

  3. Comradde PhysioProffe Says:

    Fucke that goddamn ignorant pigge school principal and that hideous leering baldeasse bagge of fucke on Fox.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: