One could make a very strong case that once the Civil War ended, Lincoln’s concerns about corporatization materialized. Gold was discovered in California in 1848 but the great middle of the nation remained untamed. After 1865, there was a mad dash at exploitation. We gave away millions of acres to the railroads, we passed a mining law in 1872 still in effect that permits anyone to exploit public land for its mineral wealth, we dammed rivers and drilled wells for massive agriculture before we had the slightest clue about effects, we gave away timberland and grazing lands for pennies on the dollar. Easterners and city folk visit the west and see its grandeur but what they don’t understand is what they are really seeing is a pale reflection of what the land looked like in the 1870s. Sure, dozens of families become wealthy but the exploitation of the wealth of the American west did not really benefit the majority of the US population. We’re told that it did. That’s the popular story we’re fed from birth but in truth the ecological damage done to the west by development that was too rapid and too mindless has left us with many serious problems that may never get resolved. Perhaps if we hadn’t killed off a few million Indians and listened to what they had to say about the land we might not be facing the ecological disasters we are today. Development is a double edged sword. Sure, it generates wealth and gives people jobs but how often do we ask ourselves at what cost?
Someone posted that on IMDb. It immediately clicked with me and I said “perfect description”. But I am a little further to the left than most of the posters here, even the ones who are on the left. So, fellow dopers, what do you think of the comments above?
Ok. Arguing with that post is like arguing with someone who claims “Farts are really butterflies”. There’s so much stupid/crazy going on that it’s hard to know where to start.
Let’s just start with the most obvious: opening the West had benefits beyond benefitting robber barons. Does the idiot who wrote the post you quoted not see a benefit in having ports on the West Coast rather than having to sail goods south around Tierra Del Fuego? And that opening those ports didn’t provide a crap-ton of jobs? Does he not see any benefits to the “average person” from transcontinental shipping?
Are you sure? I thought he was referring to Bob Gates and Elon Musk. You know, all those West Coast one per centers.
And when the post refers to the environmental crisis we are still dealing with today, I think the dude means that building dams in the 19th century is responsible for global warming today.
I think he is off when he says that “we were all taught that the U.S. Population benefitted” from railroads and stuff. Who was taught that? I recall vividly being taught in school that millions of Americans fled propserity on the East Coast to chase their dreams of poverty and desperation in Calfornia from 1849. That gold rush was one of the greatest contractions of Ameican wealth in history, far worse than the Great Depression. Thank God all those depraved little people were saved by natural and Eco-friendly things like homeopathy, yoga and avoiding vaccines!
TLDR: whoever composed that quote in the OP has no brain.
I’d say they overlapped separate issues like capitalism, environmentalism, and Native American rights. It makes it seem like they weren’t really focused on any issue but were just making a generic protest.
Well yes, he does take an extreme position, I will admit that.
1- If they had to sail around Tierra Del Fuego well good point over all I think but what about the Panama Canal? Unless I am mistaken that does not have any significant large scale harm to the environment. I think a better example would be would we be willing to travel slower by trains to reduce all the pollution from all the large planes we fly. Or basic questions like how do you like having running water, electricity, heat, & AC in pretty much every home in america. Or the convenience of grocery stores. It’s a balancing act. And it is my opinion that it is tipped too far in favor of Capitalism.
2- Job creation is another loaded term with me since most jobs function to make other people rich. I’m not saying let’s bring back the USSR, I just probably don’t have the patriotic enthusiasm for job creation that you have.
OK well you and I are clearly not going to agree on this but I do thank you for taking the time to read it and to give your response. I more or less wanted to get reactions from people so thanks.
Well if you want to get really technical about it, I am the ones who gave those names, I was trying to give an idea of the type of families he was mentioning. I would say secondly there were probably lots and lots of families like that in the West but they probably didn’t make quite as much $$$ so we don’t know them by name today.
The Panama Canal that wasn’t started until 1903 and didn’t open until 1915? That Panama Canal? You’re right. That would have been a much better option in 1865. :rolleyes:
And yet , here you are on the computer, typing and wasting electricity. Why aren’t you out planting trees?
“Loaded Term”? You think that people who were out of work, before the creation of welfare (in the 1930s) and literally starving in the streets were better off without jobs on the East Coast, than they were with jobs on the West Coast? Seriously?
Oh, I see you are taking the exact literal text of what he was saying. I was looking at it more as an example of overall problems.
Wow, it seem that your POV is:
1- Polemic
2- Slightly confrontational
3- Indulging in red herring extreme shades black and white thinking
No, I don’t think that. What I do think is that (1) most rich people inherent their wealth to begin with, if not directly in $$$, though many do, they inherent the benefit of a stable family and good schools K-12 and an expensive top level university after that. (2)Most really rich people only get that way by having lots of other people working to make them rich. (3) There for – some type – of a more equitable income distribution would be preferable. That is my opinion of course. I am sure many would disagree.
Oh, I see you are now tapdancing away from what you wrote
Wow…it seems to me that you
1- Don’t actually know what “polemic” means
2- You’re avoiding answering the question by assigning motives that you have no evidence for.
3- You’re repeating the same point as you often make: Whatever YOU want (electricity for your computer, but not for anyone else’s air conditioning, in this case) is good and right, but any choice different than what YOU PERSONALLY make
A- What in the world are you talking about? How does this apply to 1865?
B- “Most really rich people only get that way by having lots of other people working for them…”. So in 1865, getting “lots” of people working for you meant that “lots” (I appreciate the specificity of your term. Well done!) of people out of work now had jobs.
C- Your economic understanding as demonstrate by this post is somewhere below a Sesame Street level. It would be laughed at by people as diverse as Karl Marx, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman. Even Karl Marx himself didn’t believe that Rich always meant “teh evul”
Oops…to finish the sentence that I truncated above,
3- You’re repeating the same point as you often make: Whatever YOU want (electricity for your computer, but not for anyone else’s air conditioning, in this case) is good and right, but any choice different than what YOU PERSONALLY make is totally baaaaaaad because…reasons! Black and white thinking! Extreme black and white thinking!
1- Once again, I am not talking specifically about the 1800’s
2- I am not leaving SDMB
3- You are not leaving SDMB
4- You will have plenty of other occasions to ridicule me and make fun of my Marxist ideals, lots and lots of time, we dont need to do it all today, in this one thread. Besides this thread was just to get people’s – reaction – to the OP. Your reaction has been duly noted.
1- Again? That’s the first time you mentioned that you were talking about something other than the 1860s. But since your OP was about whether it was teh baaaad to open the west so quickly in 1865, you don’t have much of a leg to stand on.
I don’t see any way to honestly claim that you’re not talking about the 1860s
2- I didn’t ask you to.
3- This is true
Marx would be appalled by your…“ideals”. He was wildly wrong, but he had a coherent economic theory (that doesn’t actually…work or describe reality…but linear and coherent), unlike your Robert163 theory of economics that says “Robert163 wants it, it’s good for ecologically and economically, but if he doesn’t want it, it’s bad”.
I won’t bring this point up again, lest I fall afoul of the “badgering people” rule that’s occasionally applied, but one last time: You’re still not addressing any of my points and are trying to distract people with your lack of responsiveness by talking about how I post, rather than what I said.
