(January 17, 2022 at 2:01 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Picking directly antithetical groups for comparison might lead us to believe in a zero sum game more than any two other examples would- but even here, here’s something to consider.
The us attempted to assert its power after the defeat of the confederacy- but if that’s an example of holding and using power then it would be more accurate to say that the us and the remnants of the confederacy shared power - as they were swinging their weight around too. The us didnt -give- anything back.
I agree that it was a somewhat shared power during occupation, but the North clearly held the upper hand. Blacks were seeing massive improvement in freedoms. Southern politicians made it their primary goal to get rid of the northerners until that became a reality in the 1877 election of Rutherford B Hayes. Remember, Tilden (the Democrat) had more electoral votes and there were 20 disputed votes. Hayes needed all of the disputed votes to win, but because it went to a committee, it became a smoke filled room deal where the North agreed to finally end reconstruction if the Democrats gave in to Hayes. That was when they "gave it back".
Quote:Any rate, I think a great approximation for who holds power in a society can be determined by prison demographics. Whatever they happen to be, the people in power are the opposite of that. Power may not actually be zero sum…but human beings can turn anything into a zero sum game, so…you know.
That's an interesting angle I hadn't thought of.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller