Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Atlanta, a potential death trap for cyclists.
I have lived in the metropolitan Atlanta area since February 1996. In all of those years, I have never really bothered to acculturate to this place. I don't really want to. I like who I am. I say the word "pop" instead of coke when referring to carbonated soft drinks. I say "you guys" instead of "y'all". Also, I am a cyclist. Being a college student, it is a life filled with expenses. Getting a car in this part of my life isn't worth it to me. Gas prices are rising. Insurance rates are not something I want to deal with. And oh yes, getting the car itself. I don't want to put money down for a car and then make car payments for a long time. I pay rent and tuition, that is as much as I want to pay. I would be under tremendous stress if I were to add car payment, car insurance, gasoline, and potential repairs to that list of bills I must pay. For this reason, I use a bicycle. One of the reasons I am so fed up with the Atlanta area is that it isn't really a bicycle friendly place. I look at places like Portland,OR;New York City;Chicago;San Francisco. In places like San Francisco, cyclists have alot of political clout. Same thing for Portland,OR. With Atlanta, cyclists are basically some "fringe group" in an automobile addicted city. This city has had it wrong from day one. Atlanta wasn't even meant to be a city. It was the railroad terminus, and then it was burned down and rebuilt. It industrialized later than many cities. I industrialized AFTER the automobile was made and therefore, is built for automobiles. The metropolitan Atlanta area doesn't have as much of a bicycle friendly vibe. I get this feeling whenever I try to ride my bicycle. I literally feel like I am going to get hit every time I'm on the road. There aren't enough bicycle lanes in the area. The trails aren't enough. What Atlanta metropolitan area needs is an extensive network of bicycle lanes. I sent a petition to the Student Government Association at Kennesaw State University. My goal is to get the students involved. What the students need to do is get their collective derrieres up and ban together to get things done. The students need to get together and get some things done right. The problem is that the powers that exist pander to those with the most money. Basically, this is how it works. "Soccer moms", "NASCAR dads", limousine conservatives, and good old boys hold the political power in Georgia. Basically, anyone with a car will have more political power than those without one. Kind of ironic considering the state of Georgia has no oil reserves to speak of and gasoline is getting more expensive. It is these kinds of politics that hold the state of Georgia, and specifically metro Atlanta back. Riding a bicycle in the Atlanta area is dangerous because it isn't built for the cyclist. Not enough bicycle lanes. Sometimes drivers speed by and harass cyclists. It has happened to me. I was nearly hit by a motorist. By the law, a bicycle is considered a vehicle and belongs on the street. Unfortunately, this means sharing the road with motorists, and in automobile-dominated Atlanta, there are not enough safe places to ride. What cyclists need is more of their own lanes, reserved for bicycles and scooters. It needs to be safer. This is why cyclists in the Atlanta area need to ban together and get some political clout in. It is happening in Portland and San Francisco, why not Atlanta?
Monday, February 7, 2011
How I really feel about Reagan.
This past weekend, it was the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birthday. Personally, I wasn't too impressed with the tribute. Why? Former President Ronald Reagan isn't a favorite of mine. I would not have voted for him knowing what I know now about him. Some of the things he voted for and were against, well, I didn't agree with most of them. Furthermore, it was the things that disturbed me more that I don't like.
1) He vetoed the Anti-Apartheid Bill
2) Reagan claimed that the Voting Rights Act was a "humiliation to the South".
3) He supported a university that had an anti-interracial dating policy, Bob Jones University. He supported it by granting this private university a tax exemption.
4) He sided with Barry Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Let me tell you something about apartheid in South Africa. It was a dictatorship in which the majority Black population in South Africa was put under many restrictions in comparisons to the White population. Black people were restricted to living in "homelands", they couldn't vote, many people died from the cruelty subjected unto them from the South African police. There were other restrictions too. There were 11 universities reserved for the White population. Only 3 were reserved for the Black population. Around 1976, Blacks made up 2/3 of South Africa's population. Sounds like a gross imbalance to me. Personally, I feel that apartheid should not have existed. It was a system that took the freedom of human beings away. His plan was to veto a bill that would put economic sanctions on South Africa. It was overriden by congress.
Reagan claiming the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "humiliation to the South" is something I am indignant about. I, as an American citizen, demand and require the right to vote, not just for Black people, but for ALL people in the USA, regardless of your race or ethnicity. People like Dr. King went into the streets, protested, marched, and died for my right to vote. I don't see that as a "humiliation". I see it as African-Americans getting the rights they should have gotten in the first place, as USA citizens. If the state government fails to support your right to vote, then in my eyes, the federal government ought to step in and force the state government to behave and support your right to vote, no matter what race or ethnicity you are.
The Bob Jones controversy, well, this is how it was. The IRS started denying private universities tax exemptions if they practiced segregation and discrimination. I agree with this. I see this as a way to get rid of the "separate but equal" vestiges of the old days. Reagan wanted to give this university tax exemptions. Well, Bob Jones University practiced a policy of forbidding interracial dating. Sounds like racism, smells like racism, it is racism.
And Reagan wanting to work with the likes of Barry Goldwater. Let me tell you something about Barry Goldwater. He didn't support the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He felt like the individual states should decide that. Let me tell you this. If history is any indicator, this is what I have to show you: The Deep South state governments were vehemently against such measures to give African-Americans the same rights and privileges as White people. Isn't an African-American as much a citizen of the USA as a White American? The answer is YES. An African-American is as much a citizen as a White American and therefore, should be given the same rights that everyone else gets. Well, the states in the South during the 1960's were not for this. If my eyes, the federal government needed to enforce such measures to make sure ALL of its citizens regardless of race, have the same rights as everyone else. Reagan even went to the place where the 3 civil rights workers were murdered by the police, in Neshoba County, Mississippi, and said that he supported "states' rights". Honestly, I don't trust it. I support making sure the states behave.
That is my say about Reagan.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Civil_Rights.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1953700
1) He vetoed the Anti-Apartheid Bill
2) Reagan claimed that the Voting Rights Act was a "humiliation to the South".
3) He supported a university that had an anti-interracial dating policy, Bob Jones University. He supported it by granting this private university a tax exemption.
4) He sided with Barry Goldwater, who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Let me tell you something about apartheid in South Africa. It was a dictatorship in which the majority Black population in South Africa was put under many restrictions in comparisons to the White population. Black people were restricted to living in "homelands", they couldn't vote, many people died from the cruelty subjected unto them from the South African police. There were other restrictions too. There were 11 universities reserved for the White population. Only 3 were reserved for the Black population. Around 1976, Blacks made up 2/3 of South Africa's population. Sounds like a gross imbalance to me. Personally, I feel that apartheid should not have existed. It was a system that took the freedom of human beings away. His plan was to veto a bill that would put economic sanctions on South Africa. It was overriden by congress.
Reagan claiming the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "humiliation to the South" is something I am indignant about. I, as an American citizen, demand and require the right to vote, not just for Black people, but for ALL people in the USA, regardless of your race or ethnicity. People like Dr. King went into the streets, protested, marched, and died for my right to vote. I don't see that as a "humiliation". I see it as African-Americans getting the rights they should have gotten in the first place, as USA citizens. If the state government fails to support your right to vote, then in my eyes, the federal government ought to step in and force the state government to behave and support your right to vote, no matter what race or ethnicity you are.
The Bob Jones controversy, well, this is how it was. The IRS started denying private universities tax exemptions if they practiced segregation and discrimination. I agree with this. I see this as a way to get rid of the "separate but equal" vestiges of the old days. Reagan wanted to give this university tax exemptions. Well, Bob Jones University practiced a policy of forbidding interracial dating. Sounds like racism, smells like racism, it is racism.
And Reagan wanting to work with the likes of Barry Goldwater. Let me tell you something about Barry Goldwater. He didn't support the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He felt like the individual states should decide that. Let me tell you this. If history is any indicator, this is what I have to show you: The Deep South state governments were vehemently against such measures to give African-Americans the same rights and privileges as White people. Isn't an African-American as much a citizen of the USA as a White American? The answer is YES. An African-American is as much a citizen as a White American and therefore, should be given the same rights that everyone else gets. Well, the states in the South during the 1960's were not for this. If my eyes, the federal government needed to enforce such measures to make sure ALL of its citizens regardless of race, have the same rights as everyone else. Reagan even went to the place where the 3 civil rights workers were murdered by the police, in Neshoba County, Mississippi, and said that he supported "states' rights". Honestly, I don't trust it. I support making sure the states behave.
That is my say about Reagan.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Civil_Rights.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1953700
Friday, February 4, 2011
What colonialism was really about.
I have been to a forum and there are many threads on that forum that suggest that Africa as a continent is some kind of lost cause, and also suggesting that Africa is the way it is because, well, I will tell it as I see it. There are people who truly believe that Africans are "inferior" or "inherently incapable of leadership" or some reason, persons of sub-Saharan African descent are often vilified, thought of as "inferior". There are people who ask such questions such as "why is Africa so poor" or "what is wrong with Africans?", I see the questions come up on forums and this kind of stuff, well, it is time that I have my say on this blog.
There are some people who will point to tribalism. There are some people who will point to the value system. Me, I like to do the research and look at the all of the factors and decide for myself. After doing my research, there is one conclusion I have come to: It is so complicated one must struggle to wonder where to begin. Well, this is where I am going to begin.
I am not going to rule out tribalism, because that stuff happens. You have a plethora of ethnic groups in African, all of them with their own languages and traditions. It makes it hard to build up and use resources in a nation. And Africa has alot of good resources, such as gold, oil, diamonds, copper, rubber,etc. However, it also didn't help the borders that you see were drawn without a say from the people. The local persons on the continent of Africa didn't have a say. The rulers from Germany, UK, France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, and Spain drew those borders. The leaders from those nations drew those borders. This stirred up tension.
Looking at some of the history involved, I would say that Africa has inherited some things from its former colonizers. Some of those things include some of the stuff that was built. I will say that there was infrastructure built by the colonizers who ruled Africa. With that being said, there is something one must understand: It was not built for the people. It was only built for the purpose of building up empires for the most part. When the British empire expanded into Africa, railroads were built, but not to connect towns as in places in India. With the exception of South Africa, railroads were built to connect the resources to the ports. This meant an infrastructure that was lacking. It was also built via forced labor in which many people died building the railroads. Infrastructure in general was not built up to standards, and with decolonialization, much of the infrastructure left behind would crumble. Why? The people were not taught how to use it. Colonialism was about MONEY. It wasn't about bringing "civilization", It was about exploiting resources and then using them to help the governments far away. People weren't trained on how to build the infrastructure and how to use it. The role of the Black African was simply to be the laborer. No plans in teaching the skills needed. Well, the infrastructure left behind is rather outdated and not enough skilled workers to update it either.
Another thing to look at is the economies. In many places, cash crops were the main part of the economy. After a long time of growing these cash crops(such as cotton) for profit, the soil declined in quality. It would not yield the abundance it had before. The rule was grow what you don't use and use what you don't grow. This is probably why famines are happening in Africa.
Colonialism in Africa was about money. That is part of why Africa has so many problems. In addition to internal problems, the legacy of colonialism has made things alot worse than they might have been.
There are some people who will point to tribalism. There are some people who will point to the value system. Me, I like to do the research and look at the all of the factors and decide for myself. After doing my research, there is one conclusion I have come to: It is so complicated one must struggle to wonder where to begin. Well, this is where I am going to begin.
I am not going to rule out tribalism, because that stuff happens. You have a plethora of ethnic groups in African, all of them with their own languages and traditions. It makes it hard to build up and use resources in a nation. And Africa has alot of good resources, such as gold, oil, diamonds, copper, rubber,etc. However, it also didn't help the borders that you see were drawn without a say from the people. The local persons on the continent of Africa didn't have a say. The rulers from Germany, UK, France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, and Spain drew those borders. The leaders from those nations drew those borders. This stirred up tension.
Looking at some of the history involved, I would say that Africa has inherited some things from its former colonizers. Some of those things include some of the stuff that was built. I will say that there was infrastructure built by the colonizers who ruled Africa. With that being said, there is something one must understand: It was not built for the people. It was only built for the purpose of building up empires for the most part. When the British empire expanded into Africa, railroads were built, but not to connect towns as in places in India. With the exception of South Africa, railroads were built to connect the resources to the ports. This meant an infrastructure that was lacking. It was also built via forced labor in which many people died building the railroads. Infrastructure in general was not built up to standards, and with decolonialization, much of the infrastructure left behind would crumble. Why? The people were not taught how to use it. Colonialism was about MONEY. It wasn't about bringing "civilization", It was about exploiting resources and then using them to help the governments far away. People weren't trained on how to build the infrastructure and how to use it. The role of the Black African was simply to be the laborer. No plans in teaching the skills needed. Well, the infrastructure left behind is rather outdated and not enough skilled workers to update it either.
Another thing to look at is the economies. In many places, cash crops were the main part of the economy. After a long time of growing these cash crops(such as cotton) for profit, the soil declined in quality. It would not yield the abundance it had before. The rule was grow what you don't use and use what you don't grow. This is probably why famines are happening in Africa.
Colonialism in Africa was about money. That is part of why Africa has so many problems. In addition to internal problems, the legacy of colonialism has made things alot worse than they might have been.
The reason the green energy industry would work for Texas,
If you know anything about the economy of Texas, you know that this state is rich with petroleum. Ask anyone in Midland or Odessa. Ask people in the Greater Houston area. You have a state that sits atop the Permian Basin, a large oil reserve in west-cetral Texas. Well, I don't believe that oil is the only industry to be striving for in Texas. There is another industry to look to for the future. Look to the green energy industry. It can work for Texas. We are talking about the second biggest state in the USA. One of the sunniest states in the USA. A state with alot of wind in its northern and western parts. Texas already produces the most amount of wind power in the USA. Quite interesting considering that Texas is among the most oil rich states in the USA. Wind power is a competitor of oil. I have heard that oil companies would try to stop the expansion of wind power. I say, expand wind power even more. Texas can do it. It is doing it now. I say do it MORE. Build some more wind farms. Build a plant to manufacture the stuff to build more windmills. Build some windmills out on the Gulf of Mexico. The nation of Denmark is putting windmills out on the North Sea. Why not more for Texas? Solar power can work on a phenomenal level for Texas. Some of the sunniest portions of the USA are in Texas, especially western Texas. With all of the solar radiation, why not?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
The U.S. government role in the drug epidemic
Today, I found a video about how drugs were flowing free from Nicaragua into the poor, African-American neighborhoods in the USA. I have heard about some of the issues concerning the Black Panther Party from the 1970s. Alot of cocaine was allowed to flow into the USA from Central and South America. There was so much cocaine brought into the African-American neighborhoods. Why? To fight the Black Panther Party. They were deemed to be the biggest threat to the security of the USA. If drugs were flowing, well, think about this: You have drugs flowing in and the persons who don't have work use drugs as the escape. People who were busy educating themselves on fighting the struggle against the U.S. government corruption, now could became more concerned with making money, selling drugs. The persons who took their frustrations on the power structure now took their frustrations on each other.
However, this is what I didn't know. I didn't know that the cocaine flowing into the USA was being used to fund a war in Nicaragua. There was a war being fought in Nicaragua during the 1980s. It was a proxy war. Since the USA and the Soviet Union couldn't kill each other in the Cold War, so they used proxy wars. The Sandinistas were being funded by the Soviet Union. This scared the USA because this could mean communism nearby. How did the CIA fund such a war? Well, the USA government was cutting funding for this war. The USA government let cocaine into the African-American neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Why? The CIA needed to fund the contras to fight the Sandinistas. Basically, the government has been willing to sacrifice certain segments of its population to fulfill some kind of hubris, and in this case, it was the Nicaraguan war. This was a big part of the drug war. Ironic. Reagan is talking about drugs being on the streets. His wife saying "just say no". Well, they let the drugs in because they knew people would sell that stuff and it would fund the CIA backed contras in Nicaragua. Basically, the drug war was part of some proxy war. The government was willing to let poor, African-American citizens be sacrificed to fight some mission. When it was found that cocaine could be made into a cheaper, smokable form, called crack. Why is it that crack warrants a tougher punishment than cocaine? Think about this. Crack is basically a condensed version of cocaine. It is cheap, and more accessible to poorer African-American residents in African-American neighborhoods. If there wasn't any purposeful maliciousness towards African-Americans, there was certainly a callous sacrifice of many African-Americans. It was certainly callous and malicious. Lives were lost in the crack epidemic. People were going to prison for longer than ever before. The drug laws were made stricter in the late 1960's. Well, this would cause problems in the 1980s. What good was it to fight that mission if the by-product of it was to have the prisons fill up? Well, alot of money is made building prisons. More money is being made from building prisons that rehabilitating drug addicts.
Please remember, I am not advocating the use of cocaine. I am not advocating the use of crack. Crack will do some bad things to you. Cocaine isn't any better either. However, I am not in favor of putting people in prison for using drugs. In fact, this whole drug war was used to fund a war and other "missions". Basically, because impoverished African-American lives were considered "dispensible". I would argue that this is so because of historical racism in the USA, some lingering racism, and the fact that if these drugs were to flow into poor, White neighborhoods, there might be a large, public outcry. Whites outnumber African-American 5 to 1, and probably around 7 to 1 back in the 1980's. If African-American lives from the poor, urban areas are being lost, fewer people are worrying about it.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The reason Georgia is reeling from a snowstorm
Before I write any more, I am here to say that I am not trying to "bash" the South. This blog entry is not for that reason. This blog entry is to criticize the government in Georgia.
Georgia, a major transportation hub thanks to its capital and largest city, Atlanta. Well, one would think the government would try and take better care of Atlanta, as it is a major hub for trucks and aeroplanes, but not this winter, and not since Perdue the good old boy was governor. I didn't vote for Perdue. I didn't want this man for governor. I voted for someone else. My father voted for someone else. Unfortunately, Perdue is who we got for governor. Even worse yet, Nathan Deal is the governor of Georgia. I voted AGAINST him. Unfortunately, I am stuck with him as the governor of Georgia. And low and behold, a snowstorm hits metropolitan Atlanta on 9 January 2011. I can understand why the schools close whenever snow hits the ground in Georgia. No one wants to put money in the budget for snow/ice removal equipment. I will admit there are quite a few people who don't know how to drive in snow or ice because Georgia rarely gets any to begin with, and in small amounts(about an inch or 2). Well, there is a need for snow removal equipment in Georgia. Some might argue that it would cost money to buy stuff you would rarely use. Well, here is an idea. Why not put money in the budget for a week of snow/ice removal equipment. Even if it's just salt, put some salt trucks on the roads and keep going. If not used that year, let it roll over for next year and keep it in good working condition. You can even pay people to shovel the snow manually if needed, if you don't want to use snow plow trucks. If not that, call in some salt/plowing trucks from Ohio or Illinois for single use. How much work does it take to do that? Unfortunately, Georgia state politics are bad. Georgia is one of the most corrupt states in the USA. The governor, Nathan Deal, was one of the most corrupt congressmen in the USA. He resigned for a reason. I don't want him for a governor, period. We don't need a corrupt congressman for a governor. Unfortunately, that is who we are stuck with. We had Perdue for many years too. He was known for porkbarrell spending. He cut some of the HOPE Scholarship. Zell Miller created the HOPE scholarship when he was governor. It paid for alot of things if you went to college. When Perdue got his hands on it, he trimmed some of it. I am going to stop here, different subject for a different post. Perdue didn't look out for Atlanta or even cared about Atlanta at all. MARTA needs to be state funded and Perdue said NO. The Georgia Department of Transportation is known for corruption as far as who gets contracts. The reason Georgia is reeling from the past snow storm is because of corruption and the backwards mentality of the state government.
Georgia, a major transportation hub thanks to its capital and largest city, Atlanta. Well, one would think the government would try and take better care of Atlanta, as it is a major hub for trucks and aeroplanes, but not this winter, and not since Perdue the good old boy was governor. I didn't vote for Perdue. I didn't want this man for governor. I voted for someone else. My father voted for someone else. Unfortunately, Perdue is who we got for governor. Even worse yet, Nathan Deal is the governor of Georgia. I voted AGAINST him. Unfortunately, I am stuck with him as the governor of Georgia. And low and behold, a snowstorm hits metropolitan Atlanta on 9 January 2011. I can understand why the schools close whenever snow hits the ground in Georgia. No one wants to put money in the budget for snow/ice removal equipment. I will admit there are quite a few people who don't know how to drive in snow or ice because Georgia rarely gets any to begin with, and in small amounts(about an inch or 2). Well, there is a need for snow removal equipment in Georgia. Some might argue that it would cost money to buy stuff you would rarely use. Well, here is an idea. Why not put money in the budget for a week of snow/ice removal equipment. Even if it's just salt, put some salt trucks on the roads and keep going. If not used that year, let it roll over for next year and keep it in good working condition. You can even pay people to shovel the snow manually if needed, if you don't want to use snow plow trucks. If not that, call in some salt/plowing trucks from Ohio or Illinois for single use. How much work does it take to do that? Unfortunately, Georgia state politics are bad. Georgia is one of the most corrupt states in the USA. The governor, Nathan Deal, was one of the most corrupt congressmen in the USA. He resigned for a reason. I don't want him for a governor, period. We don't need a corrupt congressman for a governor. Unfortunately, that is who we are stuck with. We had Perdue for many years too. He was known for porkbarrell spending. He cut some of the HOPE Scholarship. Zell Miller created the HOPE scholarship when he was governor. It paid for alot of things if you went to college. When Perdue got his hands on it, he trimmed some of it. I am going to stop here, different subject for a different post. Perdue didn't look out for Atlanta or even cared about Atlanta at all. MARTA needs to be state funded and Perdue said NO. The Georgia Department of Transportation is known for corruption as far as who gets contracts. The reason Georgia is reeling from the past snow storm is because of corruption and the backwards mentality of the state government.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Mississippi, the American banana republc?
I have dabbled a bit in the study of politics and government. For this blog post, it is also helpful to be knowledgeable in geography and history. Why? I am about to discuss the state of Mississippi.
Where can I start? Well, I guess I will start by mentioning that Mississippi stands out from alot of other states. It is the poorest(or among the poorest) state in the USA. It has one of the highest violent crime rates in the USA. It also has a very dubious history. Mississippi, alot with the rest of the Southeastern USA, has a history rife with racial oppression, slavery, and good old boy ways of doing things. Today, it is among the poorest, possibly THE poorest state in the USA. Corruption happens alot in Mississippi. Good old boy politics seems to be very common in Mississippi. Here is a link to it: http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Mississippi_government_corruption
Mississippi is also the least urbanized in the USA, where less than half of the population lives in urban areas. There is only one city of 100,000 people or higher, which is the capital of Mississippi, Jackson. Mississippi's population isn't that much lower than Iowa's population. Around 2,967,297 versus 3,046,355 for Iowa. Iowa's largest city, Des Moines, has over 190,000 residents with 2 other cities, Cedar Rapids and Davenport, having populations of 100,000 or higher. Also, Iowa has 7 cities with populations between 50,000 and 90,000 people. Mississippi only has 2. Iowa only has 79,058 more residents than Mississippi and yet the differences in population distribution are stark between the two states.
Why is Mississippi like this? Well, I would argue that history has something to do with this. Historically, Mississippi was a slave state. Mississippi had a higher percentage of slaves than it did free persons around the time of the Civil War. 55 percent of Mississippi's population was enslaved. However, most White people in Mississippi DID NOT OWN SLAVES. The average White Mississippian didn't own slaves. Out of a population of roughly 791,000, there were about 31,000 slaves owners. Out of that, only about 5,000 slave owners owned more than 20 slaves. Only about 317 slave owners had about 100 slaves. If you do the math, this means roughly 317 people owned 31,700 people. It must also be noted that 436,000 persons out of the 791,000 residents were slaves. If you were to divide this by the 31,000 slave owners, this would be about 14 slaves to every slave owner. 31,000 people owning 436,000 people. 5,000 of those slave owners owning at least 20 slaves. Out of those 5,000, 317 having at least 100 slaves. 5,000 people effectively controlled the state of Mississippi because money meant power. Wealth meant power. Slaves were considered property, therefore, 5,000 people had the majority of the "wealth". They effectively controlled Mississippi.
History part 2. With 5,000 people controlling the state of Mississippi, you had a serious wealth imbalance. It is also appropriate to note that it is around this time when many wealthy Mississippians felt threatened. Many felt that with the election of Abraham Lincoln, slavery would be ended. Many elite people stood up and admitted that the reason they wanted to secede from the Union was to maintain and expand slavery. Nowadays there are some people who say "states rights". Yes, the right of a state to maintain slavery. When you think about this, why? It wasn't about human rights. It was about the MONEY. It is like is says in the Bible. The love of money is the root of all evil. 1st Timothy verses 6-10. These slave owners cared about money not people. It was about the money. It is safe to say that the South lost the Civil War and slavery was eventually ended.
However, there is something interesting to note. Mississippi had a dynamic not unlike that of a banana republic. What is a banana republic? A banana republic is nation that is politically unstable with heavy dependence on limited agriculture, and ruled by a small group of elites. Though not as politically unstable as many places that are referred to as "banana republics", Mississippi has some elements not unlike it. It has been traditionally controlled by the few and the elite. Corruption has been known to occur in Mississippi. Political instability, however, has been known to occur in Mississippi. During the late 1700's, Spain and Britain were trying to take control of Mississippi. You had instability during the Civil Rights era as African-Americans were fighting for their civil rights in Mississippi. This doesn't compare to what has happened in places like Guatemala, but it does leave much to think about. Though not quite a banana republic, Mississippi is historically known for having elements of "banana republic".
I would argue that Mississippi is the way it is now because, historically, it has had elements similar to being a banana republic. Many of these habits have carried into today. Mississippi is not very urbanized because of its settlement patterns. Before, the majority of its population lived along the river bottoms in western Mississippi. Vast majority of the economy was based on agriculture, mainly cotton. After the Civil War, more people settled the frontier lands in Mississippi's forests, many cutting town trees for timber, and clearing land for agricultural use. The Gulf Coast of Mississippi was known for mainly fishing and vacationing until World War II when shipbuilding started taking place there. The Dixie Mafia has been known to run strong down there. There was literally not much in the way of industry for most of its history, having been dominated by a plantation economy, with little room for industrialization. Mississippi hasn't provided the as many opportunities for industrial work as other residents. It is of no surprise that Chicago's African-American population is descedended from migrants who came from Mississippi. There was little work to be found. If you wanted to do more, you had to leave. African-Americans were escaping the lack of opportunities and the Jim Crow version of racism in Mississippi. In Mississippi, voting was nearly impossible for an African-American. Though African-Americans made up a majority of the population for the first half of the 20th century, most African-Americans couldn't vote. You had the grandfather clause, which basically said, if your grandfather voted, so could you. The vast majority of African-Americans were descended from slaves, who could not vote. This excluded African-Americans from voting. Other restrictions included literacy tests, which could be given in any language. Other tactics included a poll tax. I would say this kind of racism was passed down from the days of the plantation economy, where the few dominated the many, with complete power. The thought process was that is racism. Under the slave system, slave owners and slavery sympathizers viewed African-Americans as inferior to Whites. This kind of feeling persisted well after slavery ended. Reconstruction came and African-Americans were able to vote, for a short time. This was only because the South was controlled by the military. One person told me that in a way it signed the death warrant for African-Americans, arguing that the slave owners were upset that their slaves were let free and that many people would take their anger out on African-Americans. I have a different perspective. Different topic for a different post. Lets focus on this topic. After Reconstruction ended in 1876, the Southern states, including Mississippi, were left to do what they wanted. African-Americans were reduced to the status of second-class citizenship, and in many cases, being treated as bad as animals. Many people felt that by taking the rights of African-Americans away, it was "restoring the natural order of things with the White man on top and the Black man on the bottom". That is how alot of people felt. This kind of racism came from the days of slavery and manifested itself after the end of slavery in other ways, such as Jim Crow laws. Mississippi has a traditionalistic political culture where the government has a paternalistic, custodial role, which is meant to keep the current order of things, where change is very slow to come. Participation in civic affairs is not expected. Explains why corruption has been a problem in Mississippi. Mississippi is the 3RD MOST CORRUPT state in the USA. It ranks #5 uin public corruption. Louisiana, strangely enough, with its well-known record of corruption, is the 19th most corrupt state in the USA. It is important to note that it ranks #4 in public corruption while having much lower levels of racketeering, fraud, counterfeit, and embezzlement. Mississippi ranks #3 in embezzlement, 17th most corrupt in racketeering and extortion, 16th with forgery and counterfeit, and 22nd in fraud. Louisiana is outranked by Mississippi in every category of corruption EXCEPT PUBLIC CORRUPTION. Other than that, I can understand how Mississippi is so corrupt. Plantation politics, not unlike that of a banana republic. Could Mississippi be the American banana republic? You decide for yourself.
Where can I start? Well, I guess I will start by mentioning that Mississippi stands out from alot of other states. It is the poorest(or among the poorest) state in the USA. It has one of the highest violent crime rates in the USA. It also has a very dubious history. Mississippi, alot with the rest of the Southeastern USA, has a history rife with racial oppression, slavery, and good old boy ways of doing things. Today, it is among the poorest, possibly THE poorest state in the USA. Corruption happens alot in Mississippi. Good old boy politics seems to be very common in Mississippi. Here is a link to it: http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Mississippi_government_corruption
Mississippi is also the least urbanized in the USA, where less than half of the population lives in urban areas. There is only one city of 100,000 people or higher, which is the capital of Mississippi, Jackson. Mississippi's population isn't that much lower than Iowa's population. Around 2,967,297 versus 3,046,355 for Iowa. Iowa's largest city, Des Moines, has over 190,000 residents with 2 other cities, Cedar Rapids and Davenport, having populations of 100,000 or higher. Also, Iowa has 7 cities with populations between 50,000 and 90,000 people. Mississippi only has 2. Iowa only has 79,058 more residents than Mississippi and yet the differences in population distribution are stark between the two states.
Why is Mississippi like this? Well, I would argue that history has something to do with this. Historically, Mississippi was a slave state. Mississippi had a higher percentage of slaves than it did free persons around the time of the Civil War. 55 percent of Mississippi's population was enslaved. However, most White people in Mississippi DID NOT OWN SLAVES. The average White Mississippian didn't own slaves. Out of a population of roughly 791,000, there were about 31,000 slaves owners. Out of that, only about 5,000 slave owners owned more than 20 slaves. Only about 317 slave owners had about 100 slaves. If you do the math, this means roughly 317 people owned 31,700 people. It must also be noted that 436,000 persons out of the 791,000 residents were slaves. If you were to divide this by the 31,000 slave owners, this would be about 14 slaves to every slave owner. 31,000 people owning 436,000 people. 5,000 of those slave owners owning at least 20 slaves. Out of those 5,000, 317 having at least 100 slaves. 5,000 people effectively controlled the state of Mississippi because money meant power. Wealth meant power. Slaves were considered property, therefore, 5,000 people had the majority of the "wealth". They effectively controlled Mississippi.
History part 2. With 5,000 people controlling the state of Mississippi, you had a serious wealth imbalance. It is also appropriate to note that it is around this time when many wealthy Mississippians felt threatened. Many felt that with the election of Abraham Lincoln, slavery would be ended. Many elite people stood up and admitted that the reason they wanted to secede from the Union was to maintain and expand slavery. Nowadays there are some people who say "states rights". Yes, the right of a state to maintain slavery. When you think about this, why? It wasn't about human rights. It was about the MONEY. It is like is says in the Bible. The love of money is the root of all evil. 1st Timothy verses 6-10. These slave owners cared about money not people. It was about the money. It is safe to say that the South lost the Civil War and slavery was eventually ended.
However, there is something interesting to note. Mississippi had a dynamic not unlike that of a banana republic. What is a banana republic? A banana republic is nation that is politically unstable with heavy dependence on limited agriculture, and ruled by a small group of elites. Though not as politically unstable as many places that are referred to as "banana republics", Mississippi has some elements not unlike it. It has been traditionally controlled by the few and the elite. Corruption has been known to occur in Mississippi. Political instability, however, has been known to occur in Mississippi. During the late 1700's, Spain and Britain were trying to take control of Mississippi. You had instability during the Civil Rights era as African-Americans were fighting for their civil rights in Mississippi. This doesn't compare to what has happened in places like Guatemala, but it does leave much to think about. Though not quite a banana republic, Mississippi is historically known for having elements of "banana republic".
I would argue that Mississippi is the way it is now because, historically, it has had elements similar to being a banana republic. Many of these habits have carried into today. Mississippi is not very urbanized because of its settlement patterns. Before, the majority of its population lived along the river bottoms in western Mississippi. Vast majority of the economy was based on agriculture, mainly cotton. After the Civil War, more people settled the frontier lands in Mississippi's forests, many cutting town trees for timber, and clearing land for agricultural use. The Gulf Coast of Mississippi was known for mainly fishing and vacationing until World War II when shipbuilding started taking place there. The Dixie Mafia has been known to run strong down there. There was literally not much in the way of industry for most of its history, having been dominated by a plantation economy, with little room for industrialization. Mississippi hasn't provided the as many opportunities for industrial work as other residents. It is of no surprise that Chicago's African-American population is descedended from migrants who came from Mississippi. There was little work to be found. If you wanted to do more, you had to leave. African-Americans were escaping the lack of opportunities and the Jim Crow version of racism in Mississippi. In Mississippi, voting was nearly impossible for an African-American. Though African-Americans made up a majority of the population for the first half of the 20th century, most African-Americans couldn't vote. You had the grandfather clause, which basically said, if your grandfather voted, so could you. The vast majority of African-Americans were descended from slaves, who could not vote. This excluded African-Americans from voting. Other restrictions included literacy tests, which could be given in any language. Other tactics included a poll tax. I would say this kind of racism was passed down from the days of the plantation economy, where the few dominated the many, with complete power. The thought process was that is racism. Under the slave system, slave owners and slavery sympathizers viewed African-Americans as inferior to Whites. This kind of feeling persisted well after slavery ended. Reconstruction came and African-Americans were able to vote, for a short time. This was only because the South was controlled by the military. One person told me that in a way it signed the death warrant for African-Americans, arguing that the slave owners were upset that their slaves were let free and that many people would take their anger out on African-Americans. I have a different perspective. Different topic for a different post. Lets focus on this topic. After Reconstruction ended in 1876, the Southern states, including Mississippi, were left to do what they wanted. African-Americans were reduced to the status of second-class citizenship, and in many cases, being treated as bad as animals. Many people felt that by taking the rights of African-Americans away, it was "restoring the natural order of things with the White man on top and the Black man on the bottom". That is how alot of people felt. This kind of racism came from the days of slavery and manifested itself after the end of slavery in other ways, such as Jim Crow laws. Mississippi has a traditionalistic political culture where the government has a paternalistic, custodial role, which is meant to keep the current order of things, where change is very slow to come. Participation in civic affairs is not expected. Explains why corruption has been a problem in Mississippi. Mississippi is the 3RD MOST CORRUPT state in the USA. It ranks #5 uin public corruption. Louisiana, strangely enough, with its well-known record of corruption, is the 19th most corrupt state in the USA. It is important to note that it ranks #4 in public corruption while having much lower levels of racketeering, fraud, counterfeit, and embezzlement. Mississippi ranks #3 in embezzlement, 17th most corrupt in racketeering and extortion, 16th with forgery and counterfeit, and 22nd in fraud. Louisiana is outranked by Mississippi in every category of corruption EXCEPT PUBLIC CORRUPTION. Other than that, I can understand how Mississippi is so corrupt. Plantation politics, not unlike that of a banana republic. Could Mississippi be the American banana republic? You decide for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
