Disney wants you to know slaves built this country

So I guess you agree with the Disney cartoon that Abraham Lincoln was a bad guy, and that his place in history is overrated.

 

So machines that now pick apples and cotton build the country now and not people?

 

Right..and they surely post slavery days since the Italians never were really involved. Respect them for that tbh.

 

In areas where apple picking and cotton picking are significant ways to build the economy, then yes, the mechanisms used to do so are contributing significantly to the economy . . . otherwise they wouldn't exist. By the way, how many of those machines have been enslaved and are working without their consent?

 

Kudos for explaining the patently obvious for our oblivious community here.

 

Not to mention those machines are actually bits of metal with no emotions...

 

I am still waiting for a Republican to start a thread concerning the activities of the Republican Party.

 

So now the machines build the country not people......................

 

Who builds & maintains the machines?

Who is driving the trucks necessary to transport the spare parts & fuel to operate those machines.

Who is doing all the mining all over the world to even source the necessary materials to build those machines?

 

Where would those technocrats be without the labor? Do you even realize how much labor & energy is necessary just to produce a single integrated chip? The necessary raw materials come from all over the world, and are extracted by laborers. It must then be transported by laborers. Manufacturing plants need to be built by laborers. Then the manufacturing can begin, which also requires labor.

And all this is not possible without the infrastructure necessary to facilitate such operations, which requires the largest number of laborers.

I like to imagine how many of the billions of laborers all over the world could have been a Steve Job if given the opportunity. All that brain power, innovation & creativity wasted to serve the interests of capitalists.

Slaves served the interests of the rich. Others struggled to survive by farming. Others were employed by businesses and paid slave wages. There was (and still is) forced prison labor. But slaves built the foundation upon which all capitalists have been able to enrich themselves.

 

Really? When's the last time you started a thread on the activities of the Democratic Party?

 

Yes, and LITERALLY nobody says that Jim Smith, laborer, built Apple Computers.

NOBODY.

Apple Computers would not exist without Steve Jobs. Without Jim Smith, they would have simply paid a different laborer to do the same job that they pay Jim Smith to do. Jim Smith is not special in any way in regards to Apple. He is little more than a useful cog that is lucky that his job has not yet been replaced by a machine.

 

If Jim Smith was forced to work for free, I'd credit Jim Smith for building Apple. No one else would outbid that.

 

So you believe that slaves built this country, not because of their labor, but rather by virtue of being enslaved? Correct me if I am misrepresenting your position, but that does seem like the logical implication of your words because you are crediting Jim Smith not because of his labor, but solely because he was forced to work for free because "no one else would outbid that".

I find that logic to be strange.

 

Nothing strange about circumstance dictating credibility.

 

Circumstance dictating credibility?

Im not sure what that exactly means in this context, but I will stick to the tangible of what you have said rather than the vague abstraction above. Crediting Jim Smith, the laborer, for building Apple Computer not because of his labor, but rather because he was forced to work for free......is employing a strange logic.

 

Why are you excluding the labor involved?
That's why you are so confused. No where did I exclude that.

 

HORRIFIC!

 

What you said was "If Jim Smith was forced to work for free, I'd credit Jim Smith for building Apple."

Lets analyze those words. Are you crediting Jim Smith above because of his labor? No. You credited Jim Smith because he was forced to work for free.

You very explicitly said you'd credit him with building Apple if he was forced to work for free. Obviously labor is involved with Jim Smith the laborer, whether he was forced or not, so nobody is excluding labor from that perspective. Where it is being excluded is when asked whether you would credit Jim Smith for building Apple, you very clearly and succinctly said you would do so IF that labor was forced to work for free. The undeniable implication from that is that you would not credit him with building Apple if it was not forced to work for free.

There is no confusion involved from my end.

 

Ok. Yea I guess that works, why not, the circumstance dictated that.
Does Austrailia credit criminals for building Austrailia, if so is that strange logic as well?

Slaves are not to be excluded from consideration in the claim to building America.

 

Which brings us full circle back to my earlier point...Strange logic.

 

What is doing the manual labor to pick the apples and the cotton?

Who fed and maintained the health of the slaves?
Who provided housing and transportation to the slaves?

This is about the USA not the rest of the world.

 

I hope you're not serious.

Really? This doesn't apply to virtually all parts of the world? Did you forget that the cancer of capitalism has spread globally?

 

Because in our capitalist hierarchical paradigm the top possesses the bulk of the money and hence the status & influence in society. Remember the 'golden rule': those with the gold make all the rules.

It tells us much about a culture that sees its working class as less those that 'lead' them.

And if Steve Jobs was never born, someone else would've done what Steve Jobs did. Both the innovation from mass of scientists and the mass of labor that came before Steve Jobs created Steve Jobs who stood on the shoulders of all those before him. It was bound to happen. It just happened to be 'Steve Jobs'.

That'd be true if ONLY Jim Smith refused to work. But Steve Jobs would have to replace thousands of workers if they refused to work—which is why worker strikes/walk-outs are so effective, and the proof in the pudding of the true value of the workers.

There are thousands directly involved with Apple, plus the millions in the US & overseas indirectly involved that make it possible for Apple to even exist.

Lucky? You mean they'd rather be a working drone than be pursuing a more meaningful & enjoyable path in life?

Capitalists rip apart & subjugate native cultures, they steal & plunder land & natural resources, they force their brutal monetary/capitalist system & servitude upon the native culture, and then claim that the workers are 'lucky' to have those jobs.

Those drone jobs NEED to be replaced by machines. (They're actually worse than picking produce. They get no sunshine & fresh air and aren't exposed to as many toxic chemicals.) The replacement of jobs by machines would create a surplus of labor which could be channeled towards more creative & innovative work (as well as leave much free time to pursue other interests).

If the heavy burden of capitalism didn't dominate the globe, as it does, and those 'useful cogs' had the same socio-economic opportunities as everyone else, ALL boring/tedious/repetitive & most of the dangerous jobs would've been replaced by machines decades ago. (We'd also be flying instead of driving & be completely off fossil fuels.) These workers have great potential. They just don't know it. Capitalists thrive by exploiting (and promoting through the institutions) this weakness because they will always need workers & mindless mass consumption if they are to profit &

But speaking of Steve Jobs, here's a perspective about him (and others like him) that needs to be noted by those who view him as a mythical figure or icon:

From the article, 'Steve Jobs Didn't Really Invent Anything.' Really??
Mark Anderson, CEO of Strategic News Service, states in an interview, “It means a whole lot of stuff that needs to be integrated. We don’t need anything new at all. There’s so much work that needs to be done with the existing tool sets. Steve Jobs didn’t really invent anything at all. But he was great at integrating things into a product. There’s a lot more of that work to do. We have to do it in the phone world and the TV world and the health care world. We have lots of devices and lots of chips and lots of operating systems and lots of content. The bigger question is, how do human beings use it all efficiently?”

Can you see how this perspective actually fits most founders/CEO's & technocrats, particularly Elon Musk?

 

I don't bother reading anti-capitalist claptrap.

I find the purveyors of such to be sophomoric, and I certainly have no interest in engaging so that I can read even more meaningless chatter.