Re: [Pen-l] Wages of whiteness in 18th and 19th centure pyschic or real

[Gar Lipow <gar.lipow@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Jim Devine<jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> All the econ. history I've read indicates that after the Brits were kicked
> out, white workers were more prosperous in the US than in the "old
> country."  This encouraged labor-saving technical change, along with
> immigration from Europe.  US workers as being able to get land for
> themselves, which allowed access to democratic rights like voting (for free
> males).
>
> I see the the "construction of whiteness" as a result, a symptom, of settler
> colonialism in what's now the US, which you describe well.
>

OK so "construction of whiteness" was  symptom rather than a cause of
settler colonialism. But where does economic history suggest that this
prosperity came from? Would the following be A) a true statement B) a
false statement C) such a gross oversimplification that it can't
really be assigned a truth value?

"The prosperity that fueled settler colonialism after the British were
kicked out of  half of North America was large based on land and
natural resources taken from indigenous nations."

Largely true? Largely false? Too oversimplified to be a useful basis
for discussion?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l