Reply to Can you tell me about upscale southern culture?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Can you tell me about upscale southern culture?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Gucci is kind of tacky and Eurotrashy, no?

My DH is from a Virginia plantation family. We're one of the original families of this area. Their hobbies are Dog shows, horses, boats, that kind of thing.

[b]Oh...and their other hobby is casual racism.[/b][/quote]

think of it as an homage to their history[/quote]

Keep your racist BS to yourself. [/quote]

How exactly do you think dynastic wealth centered around plantations was created?[/quote]

This statement shows that you know noting about southern history.  There was no dynastic wealth after the war; the region was devastated and did not reach any level of economic growth until well into the 20th century.   [/quote]

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25700?utm_campaign=ntwh&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntwg2

Actually they did quite well after the Civil War. Less than two decades after the Civil War, Southern slave-owning dynasties were back on top of the economic ladder, according to an ambitious new analysis from Leah Boustan of Princeton University, Katherine Eriksson of the University of California at Davis and Philipp Ager of the University of Southern Denmark.

Even after the enslaved people on whom their wealth was built were freed, [u]Southern elites passed their advantages to their children through personal networks and social capital[/u].

[b]Unlike in much of the rest of the South, wealthy white families in Sherman’s path often had their land appropriated, seized or destroyed by Union forces. By 1870, affected families had a staggering 40 percent less wealth than similar folks in nearby counties.

“Yet, even in this extreme case, we find that elite sons completely caught up with or even surpassed the sons of comparably wealthy families in neighboring counties,” Boustan, Eriksson and Ager write.[/b]

[u]These white families seem to have drawn upon exceptional social connections[/u], the economists find.

[u]Most notably, they married up. Boustan and her colleagues analyzed sociological indicators such as birth year and name choice to demonstrate that sons of slave owners tended to marry women from families with even more prewar wealth — probably at least in part because of their father-in-law’s network and influence[/u].

[/quote]

This doesn’t prove what you think it does. There are about four things wrong with this statement on its face. Anyway, all they “prove” is that areas in the South that were raided by Sherman weren’t worse off than “comparably” wealthy areas in the long run. They were “on top of the social ladder?” I think they mean “less poor than everyone else.” I’ve never heard anyone seriously make a case that the economy of the South wasn’t devastated by the Civil War (whether or not they got to meet General Sherman).  I used to own a house in a town that Sherman did not touch (it fell early in the war), and the rich landowners in the area were not there pre-Civil War. [/quote]

Try reading the study. I pulled quotes from Washington Post article covering this. We’ll wait until another highly respected Princeton professor develops a study refuting it. I imagine we”ll be waiting quite a while. Oh and the Sherman stuff was to show that even in extreme cases, they recovered and quite quickly. But sure, I’ll bet you can find an anecdote to contrary. you know, that’s why it’s called an anecdote. [/quote]

Just reading what you posted — the excerpt specifically says they’re comparing the areas hit by Sherman to “neighboring counties.”  If they made a broader point, you didn’t post anything that indicated that. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics