Talk:Essay:Greatest Myths of American History

2008-09-02T21:01:28Z

LughR:

== Triangular Trade? ==

Manufactured goods from Europe to Africa. Slaves from Africa to the Americas. Sugar, timber and cotton to Europe from the Americas. A gross oversimplifiction, perhaps, but how is this not "triangular trade?" Moreover, how would the author of this little point-form "essay" describe the Atlantic system in place of the "triangular trade" model - and what sort of "conservative insight" is being offered with this contribution? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:38, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== The term was invented by an historian more than 100 years later. - Clueless. ==

Whoever wrote this is clueless as to what historians do - and one of the things that they do is look at the past, analyze events and then come up with typologies and taxonomies and categorizations and even just plain old names and titles for those events. Even if no-one in the 17th and 18th centuries used the term "triangular trade," that doesn't mean such a thing did not exist - nobody called the Middle Ages "the Middle Ages" until much later, but we can still point to a certain time and call it so. An overwhelming amount of documentary evidence exists to justify thinking about the Atlantic system this way - after all, do you think the Africans just gave away a valuable economic resource such as slave labor? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:43, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

: You ignore the main point: no actual, specific triangular trade route has ever been found. This term was a creative suggestion by a historian over 100 years later, one that apparently captured your imagination. Africa was too poor at the time to engage in any meaningful purchase of goods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::And you ignore basic economic history. Africa was by no means poor - it was rich in the resource that drove the Atlantic system - the labor of enslaved human beings. How else would the colonies have been able to grow the cotton and sugar? And you're evading the most important part of the argument towards the existence of "triangular" trade system - the fact that something had to be traded for that slave labor - often guns, but also other types of manufactured goods. Maybe you should read "Capitalism and Slavery" by Williams, or the introduction to "The Black Jacobins" by CLR James- or if you find those too difficult, the article on the slave trade in the Encyclopedia Britannica. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 11:29, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::: You still ignore the main point, which I've now repeated several times, and I'm not going to waste my time further on this discussion until you address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::This is me addressing your main point: - the fact that the label was created years later is irrelevant to your argument, such as it is. Historians often create labels for things years, decades and centuries after they happen. In all likelihood, nobody called the Barbarian invasions "the Barbarian invasions" (historians now use the term "migrations," anyways...) as they were happening. And I have addressed your other "main point" - that Africa was too poor to participate in a "triangular" mode of trade - above. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 11:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

What exactly do you mean by "trade route"? Isn't the "route" the ocean? [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 11:56, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Thomas Jefferson ==
Um, since when has Thomas Jefferson not written the Declaration of Independence? Do we have a citation or some proof otherwise? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 11:34, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, I've figured out what your problem is... ==

...I think - you read somewhere that there is no evidence that no one ship ever completed all three sides of the triangle, and therefore you think that the triangle never existed - or something to that effect. But the triangle as a model still holds true even in the light of that understanding - material goods to Africa's west coast; slaves to the New World; cotton, sugar, timber etc. back to Europe. Even if different ships are taking cars of different parts of that network, the network itself still existed. If the Europeans could not use goods from the Americas to trade for slaves in Africa, the system collapses. If the Africans could not provide the slave labor that produced the cheap cotton that was an important part of the manufactured goods being traded with Africa, the system falls apart. And if the European economy was not being driven by resources created by slave labor in the New World, the system would fall apart. Likewise, without cheap food - especially salted cod - brought down from North America to feed the slaves in the Caribbean, the system would have fallen apart. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 12:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I think the "no ship" evidence was from a review of New England records, ie American orginating ships. So, for complete quesswork: could it not be that Europeans took goods to Africa to trade for slaves and then slaves to America to trade for raw materials (Triangular). Once America had developed enough to produce its own finished goods slavers from America could increase profit by cutting out the middle man (Europe) and deal direct. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 13:14, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Says who?==
Aschlafly, you appear to have written this. If you want to make such a statement, shouldn't each point have at least a few citations proving that someone actually makes the arguments that you say are myths? [[User:LughR|LughR]] 17:01, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservative insights

2008-07-21T17:15:02Z

LughR: grammar/copyedit - how come none of these points have real sources?

'''Conservative insights''' are truths discovered or ideas implemented, for the benefit of all, as a result of the [[conservative]] movement:

* that [[Reagan]]'s public exhortation to "tear down this wall" would result, merely a few years later, in tearing down the Berlin Wall<ref>Not only did [[liberals]] oppose Reagan's statement, but they felt it was foolish and senselessly provocative.</ref>
* that decreasing taxes would increase government revenue<ref>See, e.g., the [[Laffer Curve]]</ref>
* that more guns leads to less crime<ref>See [[John Lott]]</ref>
* that "[[Choose Life]]" license plates would be popular and productive
* that, with little investigation, serious flaws can be found in scientists' self-serving experiments<ref> see [[Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study]]</ref>
* that [[abstinence]] education leads to falling rates of teen pregnancy and STDs

(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

User:LughR

2008-07-14T20:54:38Z

LughR: New page: Hello.

Hello.

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Myths of American History

Conservative insights

User:LughR