Liberal Forum

Vegas » 14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm

First, this is way too long for most, if not all, lefties to read. It's above your garde level, so don't even bother. Just skip down to the last sentence. 

7% of the South's population, in 1860, owned 3 million of the 4 million slaves. There were 5 million whites, in the South, that were dirt poor. They are rarely mentioned, but their conditions were just as deplorable as the slaves. In fact, many of these poor whites worked for the 7% to police the slaves. It was work, so...

Before the civil war, from the beginning, this has mostly been the case. Planters and industrialists were the few, slave labor pitted against white labor was the mass. The few ruled the mass. This has always been the case since before America broke free of Britain. 

Is today different? Well, obviously slavery has been abolished. However, the wealth is still condensed to the few. But here is the thing. Though the wealth is condensed to the few, the interpretation of wealth has broadened. Back then, a slaveowner, planter, industrialists were wealthy, everyone else was dirt poor. The middle-class whites emerged by being employed by the rich to police the slaves. If you look at things now, wealth is far more subjective than back then:

• A man with 20 million dollars is pretty well off. However, according to Gates, Musk, Besos, etc...20 million dollars is nothing. 
• A man who makes 500k is doing well. However, to the guy with 20 million, 500k is nothing. 
• A college graduate making 100k is doing well. However, the guy with 500K may look at that is less wealthy. 

In short, the middle-class (lower and upper), only emerged because of the 7% of the slave owners and from the "few" before.