In the Wikipedia article, it presents the area as the most, historically and presently, progressive part of the country. Is that true? What are the downsides?
In the Wikipedia article, it presents the area as the most, historically and presently, progressive part of the country. Is that true? What are the downsides?
So, they didn't need slavery or settler colonies? I guess #NotAllAmerica was bad.
It's all pretty bad and based on stolen land, but I think it's unfair to discount the differences between the earliest northeastern settlers actually having some difficulty surviving and having some need to interact with the native people, and then being the area that developed into an industrialized/non-slave economy which is the exact nexus Marx predicted would form the proletariat. Vs the psychotic racist/classist divide instilled by the slave economy of the south, and the explicitly settler-colonialist westward expansion of an established state (and killing all the natives in the way)
Thanks for this explanation. I didn't know these northeast colonies didn't expand westwards at all. That's pretty interesting and does make them different, in addition to industrialization, of course. I guess they still carry some of that cultural history.
I mean the country as a whole expanded westard from that starting point, but obviously not everyone went west. The people who went vs the people who stayed are going to have different material interests and as a result, cultures.
Woah! No. The upper class of the area were anti-slavery in appearance but their businesses and finance still heavily benefited from the slave trade for quite some time. And most of the abolitionists were of the 'free the black people and kick them out' variety.
deleted by creator