I prefer the cited economic and historical facts (I will refer to them as such because that’s what they are) to the sociological and pop cultural reverse engineering of revisionist activists.
I prefer the cited economic and historical facts (I will refer to them as such because that’s what they are) to the sociological and pop cultural reverse engineering of revisionist activists.
Academic Study vs Internet Study
Gladiator vs Soldier
Complex Data Driven Research seeking constantly refined revelations vs Old Timey Emoting Interpretation based on the Simplest models possible to reach absolute preordained conclusions
:laughter:
Social engineering, Legio. In fact, to know about something is to know the facts about how it works. But I'm afraid I'm not Ben Affleck in Paycheck.
-------
More,
https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/img/covers/15556.jpg
"The intimate relationship between capitalism and slavery has been too-long dismissed, and with it, the centrality of African and African American labor to the foundation of our modern economic system. Slavery's Capitalism announces the emergence of a new generation of scholars whose detailed research into every nook and cranny of emerging capitalism reveals the inextricable links between the enslavement of people of African descent and today's global economy."—Leslie Harris, Emory University
The Clear Connection Between Slavery And American Capitalism - Forbes By Dina Gerdeman
(1) It's called the "Gang of the 16" because it bears a striking resemblance to the Chinese "Gang of the Four"Quote:
Slavery’s Capitalism: A New History of American Economic Development.
The ties between slavery and capitalism in the United States weren’t always crystal clear in our history books. For a long time, historians mostly depicted slavery as a regional institution of cruelty in the South, and certainly not the driver of broader American economic prosperity.
Now 16 scholars (1) are helping to set the record straight by exploring the true ties between 19th century economic development and a brutal system of human bondage in the 2016 book Slavery’s Capitalism: A New History of American Economic Development.
Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the hard labor of slaves in places like Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi needs to be kept in view as well. In fact, more than half of the nation’s exports in the first six decades of the 19th century consisted of raw cotton, almost all of it grown by slaves, according to the book, which was edited by Sven Beckert, the Laird Bell Professor of History at Harvard University and visiting professor at HBS, as well as Seth Rockman, Associate Professor of History at Brown University.
The slave economy of the southern states had ripple effects throughout the entire U.S. economy, with plenty of merchants in New York City, Boston, and elsewhere helping to organize the trade of slave-grown agricultural commodities—and enjoying plenty of riches as a result.
“In the decades between the American Revolution and the Civil War, slavery—as a source of the cotton that fed Rhode Island’s mills, as a source of the wealth that filled New York’s banks, as a source of the markets that inspired Massachusetts manufacturers—proved indispensable to national economic development,” Beckert and Rockman write in the introduction to the book. “… Cotton offered a reason for entrepreneurs and inventors to build manufactories in such places as Lowell, Pawtucket, and Paterson, thereby connecting New England’s Industrial Revolution to the advancing plantation frontier of the Deep South. And financing cotton growing, as well as marketing and transporting the crop, was a source of great wealth for the nation’s merchants and banks.”
We asked Beckert—who researches and teaches the history of US capitalism in the 19th century—to discuss the book and to talk about what lessons today’s business leaders can learn from the past.
Dina Gerdeman: The book makes note of the fact that a myth existed for many years: that slavery was “merely a regional institution, surely indispensable for understanding the South, but a geographically confined system of negligible importance to the nation as a whole.” Why do you think for so many years historians made slavery out to be a "southern problem" and didn’t seem to make a strong connection between slavery and things like innovation, entrepreneurship, and finance, which are at the heart of American capitalism?
Sven Beckert: This is an excellent question, and indeed, as you note, quite puzzling. It is puzzling for three reasons: For one, into the early years of the 19th century, slavery was a national institution, and while slavery was never as predominate a system of labor in the North as it was in the South, it was still important.
Second, there were a vast number of very obvious economic links between the slave plantations of the southern states and enterprises as well as other institutions in the northern states: Just think of all these New York and Boston merchants who traded in slave-grown goods. Or the textile industrialists of New England who processed vast quantities of slave-grown cotton. Or the bankers who financed the expansion of the plantation complex.
And third, both the abolitionists as well as pro-slavery advocates talked over and over about the deep links between the southern slave economy and the national economy.
Why did these insights get lost? I think the main reason is ideological and political. For a long time after the Civil War, the nation really did not want to be reminded of either the war or the institution that lay at its root—slavery. A country that saw itself as uniquely invested in human freedom had a hard time coming to terms with the centuries’ long history of enslaving so many of its people.
When slavery became more important to our historical memory, especially in the wake of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the work of reconciling the history of freedom and the history of enslavement involved quarantining the history of slavery to one section of the nation only. That allowed for doing two things simultaneously: It allowed for the belated acknowledgement of the importance, barbarity, and longevity of slavery in the United States. But it also allowed for a continued telling of the story of freedom, since the national story could be told as one in which one section of the United States, the North, fought hard to overcome the retrograde, coercive, and inhumane system of slavery in the other section.
Of course, this story is not completely wrong. Yet what it effectively did was to insulate the national story from the problem of slavery. A focus on the economic links generated around slavery, the story that our book charts, brings the story of enslavement squarely back into the center of the national history as a whole. And this is where it belongs.
Gerdeman: The book says "the relationship of slavery to American capitalism rightfully begins on the plantation." Can you explain how the North benefited from the slave-grown cotton in the South? And how did this "empire of cotton" help create modern capitalism?
Beckert: There are very many economic links between the southern plantation complex and the development of American and global capitalism, involving trade, industry, banking, insurance, shipping, and other industries. The most prominent link developed around cotton.
As you know, the cotton industry was crucial to the world-altering Industrial Revolution as it first unfolded in Great Britain and then spread from there to other parts of the world, including the northern states of the Union. Until 1861, until the American Civil War, almost all cotton used in industrial production was grown by enslaved workers in the southern parts of the United States. Slavery thus played a very important role in supplying an essential raw material for industrial production.
Yet there were further links: British and later U.S. capital financed the expansion of the slavery complex in the American South. Advancing credit was essential for southern planters to be able to purchase land and labor. Northern merchants, moreover, organized the shipment of cotton into global markets.
And of course northern manufacturers, along with their European counterparts, supplied plantations in the South with tools, textiles, and other goods that were necessary to maintain the plantation regime. Plantation slavery, far from being a retrograde system on its way to being ousted by industrial capitalism, saw a second flourishing in the 19th century in the wake of the industrial revolution. And in the United States, cotton was central to that “second slavery.”
Gerdeman: Some argued that with the abolition of slavery, the North was poised to “kill the goose that has laid their golden egg.” Can you explain why that wasn't the case?
Beckert: Slavery was important to a particular moment in the history of capitalism. But there were also severe tensions between the deepening and spread of capitalism and slavery.
For one, slavery was quite unstable. Slaves resisted their enslavements, and slave owners needed to deploy a lot of violence, coercion, and oversight to ensure the stability of the plantation and slave society more broadly. Moreover, slavery did not satisfy the labor needs that emerged in modern industrial enterprises; very little slave labor was used there.
And last but not least, slave owners had a very definite idea about the political economy of the United States, focused on the export of agricultural commodities to world markets, free trade, and the territorial expansion of the slave regime into the American West. That was quite distinct from the increasingly urgent and also powerful political needs of northern industrialists and bankers. They wanted tariff protection and the expansion of free labor into the American West. Both these political economies depended on the control of the federal government.
With the advent of the Republican Party and then especially with the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency, that control became uncertain. As a result, southerners struck out on their own, provoking a violent Civil War that was won by the forces opposed to slavery.
Gerdeman: Do you think today’s business executives could learn any important lessons from this new understanding of the connection between slavery and the American market?
Beckert: Yes, definitely. The most important lesson this history provides is that business leaders whose companies’ history goes back into the antebellum era need to be proactively researching this history and confronting it. No one alive today is responsible for slavery—a crime against humanity. But we all need to face our histories and then try to move forward from that acknowledgement of the past.
More generally, it is crucially important that companies have a full understanding of their supply chains and of the labor conditions that are to be found throughout these chains. If they violate fundamental human rights, companies have the responsibility and also the ability to act.
There were powerful business interests in the 19th century who worked diligently against slavery. Just think of the Tappan brothers of New York, merchants who combined their business with anti-slavery activism. And then there were also entrepreneurs who refused to process slave-grown cotton. These people can serve as examples of what is possible. They show that to have a full understanding of all aspects of one’s business and to aggressively enforce fundamental human norms and rights is possible and necessary.
When you read the letters of businessmen of the 1840s and 1850s, you see numerous efforts to separate business and morality into distinct realms. Merchants and manufacturers in the past did know that slavery was a moral problem, but then they tried to say that such moral considerations were extraneous to the concerns of business. In retrospect we can all agree that these claims are preposterous. Such observations should make everyone today acutely conscious about making rationalizations that seek to insulate business from moral responsibility. History (and historians) don’t look kindly on this.
No, I meant reverse engineering. As in the case of what you’ve cited here, the explicit approach is one of revision, working backwards in order to write “new history.” Nothing you’ve continued to reference accounts for the material facts I’ve cited affirmatively. Again, central to the pro-slavery premise of American capitalism thriving thanks to slavery, to the revisionism of this “new” history, is the idea of economic development. On the contrary, to the the extent a permanent chattel labor class impacts economic development, it is a negative one.
This is borne out by the facts of history. The financialization of slave value, so often referenced as some kind of “new history,” further trapped the South in this outmoded system that was utterly dependent on the export of a single crop. It was this heavy export dependence that impeded the development of northern industry by cheapening foreign, namely British, textiles. This was a factor in potential British support for the South in the latter’s war against, you know, American capitalism and Christian abolitionists. Long before that, the South used her political power to subjugate economic development to cotton exports, thwarting protectionist measures for American industry, as well as public expenditure on “internal improvements” and infrastructure, in service to her “peculiar institution.” It was the expansion of this Slave Power in the South that led northern business interests to understand theirs were under threat.Quote:
Our recent paper (Markevich and Zhuravskaya 2015) sheds light on this debate. We are the first to conduct a rigorous empirical analysis to assess the effects of serfdom on economic development of the Russian empire throughout the 19th century. Our results strongly confirm the conjecture that serfdom was a crucial factor causing a slowdown of economic development of Eastern Europe and that the difference in timing of the abolition of serfdom is an important reason for the divergence of development paths across the European continent.
This analysis was made possible due to a novel province-level panel dataset of development outcomes that we constructed for the European part of the Russian empire in the 19th century. Using these data, we document a very large (in terms of magnitude) and sharp (in terms of timing) increase in agricultural productivity, peasants’ living standards, and industrial development as a result of the abolition of serfdom.
https://voxeu.org/article/serfdom-an...ic-development
Slavery and US Growth
There haven't been any "facts" presented to support your claim that capitalism and slavery are linked, even in the US. Given that the supporters of such claims are also tend to be supporters of the 1619 narrative, which the creators of 1619 myth admitbis not about historical truth, therevis no reason to believe the claims about the linkage of slavery and capitalism in the absence of facts.
**Deleted rest of post as duplicate***
Can you say the same about the US or Brazil? Russia lacked black slaves working and dying in cotton plantations, and slaves in S. America mines. Without slavery, would the U.S. be the leading economic power? What about Britain? the plantation colonies supplied the mother country dyestuffs, sugar, tobacco, then later coffee and chocolate as well - and cotton, a crucial industrial input. The Atlantic economy in the 1700s was founded on slave labour.Quote:
"Russia would have been about twice as rich by 1913 compared to what it actually was, had it abolished serfdom in 1820 instead of 1861"
Atlantic slavery's impact on European and British economic development.
Edit- indirectly, let's add to this the Brazilian gold. Adam Smith, 1703: "Almost all our gold, it is said, comes from Portugal".The Brazilian gold helped to drive the industrial revolution in England as Portugal used gold collected as taxes from the colonists mainly to pay for industrialized goods (textiles, weapons) from England.Quote:
The results presented above offer evidence that the Atlantic slave trade contributed to the economic development of Europe, as measured by the growth of the urban population. Economic historians studying the British context specifically, have put forth a number of explanations behind why the slave trade and slavery more broadly may have had this stimulatory effect on domestic economic activity. First arguing this was Eric Williams in his seminal 1944 book Capitalism and Slavery, where he argued that the profits from the slave trade figured decisively in funding the Industrial Revolution in England.
Following Williams’ text, a numbers debate ensued, challenging the magnitude of slave trade profits, their importance for overall investment, and structural economic change. The extremely high profit rates initially proffered by scholars of the slave trade have been revised downwards, from as high as 50% to between 7 and 8% (Morgan, 2000). Barbara Solow’s (1985) work revisiting the question of the slave trade’s influence nevertheless comes out strongly in favor of the Williams hypothesis, suggesting that the magnitudes of the slave trade’s contribution to national income and investment to be large and significant. Further, Solow supports the notion that Williams’ thesis can be expanded to European economic growth in general, citing Darity (1982), who calibrates a three-sector trade model showing European gains from the triangular trade and losses for Africa and the Americas.
Direct profits from slave-trading, however, remain just one channel through which the triangle trade may have affected European economic development. Morgan (2000) suggested, for example, that spillovers to sectors upstream and downstream from slavery spurred economic development. Long distance Atlantic trade was critical in the extension and development of credit markets, financial instruments, and the insurance industry, all key sectors for economic growth. Further, among industries downstream from the slave trade and plantation agriculture, cotton textile manufacturing served as the site of critical innovations related to the industrial development in the 19th century (Inikori, 2002; Beckert, 2014; Juhasz, 2018).
A third explanation highlights a market size effect: participation in the slave trade connected European ports to New World markets, increasing effective demand for domestically produced goods (Solow and Engerman, 2004). Tattersfield and Fowles (2011), for example, described how the opening up of the “African trade” to minor British outports allowed local merchants to solidify relationships with West Indian and North American planters, securing access to a previously untapped market for domestic manufactures. The hinterlands of slave trading ports, and of Liverpool in particular, would later become the powerhouses of the Industrial Revolution.
The analysis in this paper provides overall evidence that slave trading positively affected European and British economic development, inconsistent with the notion that the slave trade displaced potentially more lucrative economic activity or that growing ports simply selected into the trade. Relative to the counterfactual of sending fewer slaving voyages or not participating in the slave trade at all, a 10% increase in slave voyages is associated with 1.2% faster city growth, a result that is robust to several alternative specifications and definitions of the treatment and control groups
Further analysis and data collection of other trading activities of non-British ports, historical industrial activity in the UK, the trajectories of British slave ship owners and slave holders, and jurisdictional and geographic variation in the ability to participate in the trade is ongoing to separately assess the contribution of each of these channels.
--------
--------
race and capitalism
Chapter 1- Opening remarks
Chapter 2- Diasporas of Racial Capitalism
Chapter 3 - The Land Question
Chapter 4- Imperialism and its Limits
Chapter 5- Race, Capitalism, and Settler-Colonialism
Chapter 6- Closing remarks
Just read the chapter 5 "On the Reproduction of Race, Capitalism, and Settler Colonialism", page 42, etc. This essay offers some preliminary thoughts on the question of social reproduction as a means of addressing the constitutive triangulation of race, capitalism, and colonialism today.
---------------------
The living legacy of racism and colonialism -and the colonial nostalgia - still flourishes throughout Europe and its former colonies in Americas. On his Facebook broadcast, Jair Bolsonaro's racist comment
"Indians are undoubtedly changing…They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us".
For those who think that "Colonialism was good"(!!!), it's well worth reading, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of ... - Amazon.com
Excerpts,
Quote:
Many natives of Haiti anticipated the fate imposed by their white oppressors: they killed their children and committed mass suicide. The mid-sixteenth-century historian Fernández de Oviedo interpreted the Antillean holocaust thus: "Many of them, by way of diversion, took poison rather than work, and others hanged themselves with their own hands.”
His interpretation founded a school I am amazed to read, in the latest (1970) book by the French technician René Dumont, Cuba: Is It Socialist? "The Indians were not totally exterminated. Their genes subsist in Cuban chromosomes. They felt such an aversion for the tension which continuous work demands that some killed themselves rather than accept forced labor”
Molded into cones and ingots, the viscera of the Cerro Rico— the rich hill— substantially fed the development of Europe. “Worth a Peru” was the highest possible praise of a person or a thing after Pizarro took Cuzco, but once the Cerro had been discovered Don Quixote de la Mancha changed the words: “Worth a Potosi,” he says to Sancho.
The Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, showed his gratitude by bestowing on Potosi the title of Imperial City and a shield with the inscription: "I am rich Potosi, treasure of the world, king of the mountains, envy of kings."
In 1581 Philip II told the audiencia of Guadalajara that a third of Latin America’s Indians had already been wiped out, and that those who survived were compelled to pay the tributes for the dead. The monarch added that Indians were bought and sold; that they slept in the open air; and that mothers killed their children to save them from the torture of the mines.
Greco-Roman slavery was revived in a different world; to the plight of the Indians of the exterminated Latin American civilizations was added the ghastly fate of the blacks seized from African villages to toil in Brazil and the Antilles. The price of the tide of avarice, terror, and ferocity bearing down on these regions was Indian genocide.
While metals flowed unceasingly from Latin American mines, equally unceasing were the orders from the Spanish Court granting paper protection and dignity to the Indians whose killing labor sustained the kingdom. The fiction of legality protected the Indian; the reality of exploitation drained the blood from his body.
The Crown regarded the inhuman exploitation of Indian labor as so necessary that in 1601 Philip III, banning forced labor in the mines by decree, at the same time sent secret instructions ordering its continuation "in case that measure should reduce production".
In three centuries Potosi’s Cerro Rico consumed 8 million lives. The Indians, including women and children, were torn from their agricultural communities and driven to the Cerro. Of every ten who went up into the freezing wilderness, seven never returned. Luis Capoche, an owner of mines and mills, wrote that "the roads were so covered with people that the whole kingdom seemed on the move.” The Spaniards scoured the countryside for hundreds of miles for labor.
Many died on the way, before reaching Potosi, but it was the terrible work conditions in the mine that killed the most people. Soon after the mine began operating, in 1550, the Dominican monk Domingo de Santo Tomás told the Council of the Indies that Potosi was a “mouth of hell” which swallowed Indians by the thousands every year, and that rapacious mine owners treated them “like stray animals.” Later Fray Rodrigo de Loaysa said:
"These poor Indians are like sardines in the sea. Just as other fish pursue the sardines to seize and devour them, so everyone in these lands pursues the wretched Indians.”
While Indian labor legislation was debated in endless documents and Spanish jurists displayed their talents in an explosion of ink, in Latin America the law “was respected but not carried out.” In practice "the poor Indian is a coin with which one can get whatever one needs, as with gold and silver, and get it better,” as Luis Capoche put it. Many people claimed mestizo status before the courts to avoid being sent to the mines and sold and resold in the market. The mita labor system was a machine for crushing Indians.
Ideological justifications were never in short supply. The bleeding of the New World became an act of charity, an argument for the faith. With the guilt, a whole system of rationalizations for guilty consciences was devised. The Indians were used as beasts of burden because they could carry a greater weight than the delicate Ilama, and this proved that they were in fact beasts of burden. The viceroy of Mexico felt that there was no better remedy for their "natural wickedness" than work in the mines.
Juan Ginés de Sepülveda, a renowned Spanish theologian, argued that they deserved the treatment they got because their sins and idolatries were an offense to God. The Count de Buffon, a French naturalist, noted that Indians were cold and weak creatures in whom "no activity of the soul" could be observed.
The Abbé De Paw invented a Latin America where degenerate Indians lived side by side with dogs that couldn’t bark, cows that couldn’t be eaten, and impotent camels.
Voltaire’s Latin America was inhabited by Indians who were lazy and stupid, pigs with navels on their backs, and bald and cowardly lions. Bacon, De Maistre, Montesquieu, Hume, and Bodin declined to recognize the "degraded men" of the New World as fellow humans.
Hegel spoke of Latin America’s physical and spiritual impotence and said the Indians died when Europe merely breathed on them.
In the seventeenth century Father Gregorio Garcia detected Semitic blood in the Indians because, like the Jews, “they are lazy, they do not believe in the miracles of Jesus Christ, and they are ungrateful to the Spaniards for all the good they have done them.”
When Bartolomé de las Casas upset the Spanish Court with his heated denunciations of the conquistadors’ cruelty in 1557, a member of the Royal Council replied that Indians were too low in the human scale to be capable of receiving the faith.
Chicago-Area Leaders Call for Illinois to Abolish History Classes
"Concerned that current school history teaching leads to white privilege and a racist society, state Rep. La Shawn K. Ford, D-Chicago, will join local leaders today at noon at the Robert Crown Center in Evanston to call on the state to stop its current history teaching practices until appropriate alternatives are developed."
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...asses/2315752/
If you're suggesting it's a false comparison, there isn't much left to discuss, unfortunately. The premise was empirically proven. Wright similarly engaged Beckert's and Rockman's key claims, debunking them on their terms. With the latter unmoored from fact, the premises underpinning this "new history of capitalism" amount to articles of faith. As for the British case, the New England and Middle colonies are a driver for growth independent of slavery, in line with Wright's conclusions. Population growth in the New England and Middle colonies was also noted to have been largely independent of international trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicus
Slavery, the British Atlantic Economy and the Industrial Revolution
Today, on this Glorious Day of My Birth, enjoy a dose of encouragement:
goodies
Welp, that was quick
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Magazine for Kids
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
After reading the recent posts I see the point. If slavery was so essential to the South one would think they would have been willing to shatter the union, fight a war where there best strategy was survive long enough to force a peace, and than continue that war years after it was clearly lost while there economies and lands and people were devastated.
That southerners, even the majority of them who were non slave owners were unwilling to wage such a war over slavery, is as clear proof as any thinker would need that slavery just wasn’t that important.
Ah... here we go again with the progressives.
I saw the ads for a series that seemed interesting: Lovecraft Country. It didn't seem to be too thematically close with Lovecraft but I didn't mind that, it seemed a potentially interesting horror series to keep an eye on, in case I want to follow it.
And then, I found an article today that puts race front and center in the series and praises it for the black cast. I have not even noticed the cast was all black. Not everyone sees race in everything as many vile progressives think!
Do I hold it against the series? Nope. If the series is not crap, I don't mind watching it. But I would watch it for the entertainment value, not to show how woke I am. If I like it, I will like it for the story and the characters, not the color of their skin.
But good story is much more than "bashing the uuuvvviiill America"
I agree with you that the story needs to be first and foremost above politics. And as a big Lovecraft fan (his mythos not him personally), I'm interested to see which way they go with this. But to be fair, America was a terrible place for Black folks in the late 40s and 50s. So if there's some bashing of White American culture at the time, it's completely justified.
Are you trolling or did you just not realize your complaint about not solely seeing race is solely focused on race?
How do you know it was progressives? People from all sides of the political spectrum have been reimagining Shakespeare for centuries. Often using different races. Long before progressives were a label.
Better question. Are you as perturbed by the English equivalent progressives who sought to abolish slavery and child prostitution in 1800s England? Or is it just people making a the world better while you live that irks you?
It's solely focused on progressives, with nothing to do about race. I would complain the same (and I do) about other crap the progressives do. Which is why this rant thread exists.
If you don't like us ranting on progressives, then you will be disappointed.
Because progressives do that crap all the time and craptitles like "Awesome! New series has colored main cast! That was the series we needed!!!! Far less important details include that series is about lovecraft" are used by progressives.
What that has to do with my complain?!
Do you think my problem is that they used dark-skinned people in a series? Nope.
I am not complaining they used black people in that series as this is not Lovecraft's stories but inspired by them. My problem is not with that series. I may watch it as it seems an interesting series.
As I explained in my post my problem is with the progressives that literally judge the book by it's color.
I don't give a poop about them using black people (including their struggles in USA in the 50s) in the horror setting.
Nope.
Nooope, it's just people making the world a worse place in front of my eyes that irks me. You know, slacktivists, many progressives, people that go "awesome new series! Forget unimportant things like the story or the casting. This is a must see for no other reason other than the color of the skin of the protagonists" and other people that make the world a much worse place.
Please, don't join the people that make the world a worse place.
I see. Getting angry about people plugging a TV show you say you are going to watch because an article trying to raise buzz about it discussed one of the ways it was unique and in zeitgeist rather that discussing the plot and other things you wanted seems pretty silly. It's not season 8 GoT. Remain calm.
Question: It sounds like they discussed the casting, just not in the way you wanted in this one blurb, but if they did forget about the story (which if they mentioned Lovecraftian sounds like they didnt) why "may you watch it"?
To hate some more or?
This seems like an overblown complaint, and have you considered renaming the thread more appropriately:
The Latest Anti Liberal Whine Thread seems more in line with the content. Why imply you are crazed and angry when you could just call it what it is.
Because the idea of Lovecraft-influenced (but not remake) series in the 50s sounds like a seriously good idea. I watched some seasons of American Horror Story and this one shapes up to be better and the actors, at least from the trailers seem to be more to my liking than the AHS cast. Nothing wrong with the actors of AHS, they were not bad actors. I just prefer the Lovecraft country cast from the few things I watched. It also seems a better series (judging by the trailer) according to my taste. I can't place it exactly, but the "atmosphere", cast, theme, costumes etc seem better here. Or at least more to my liking.
HOWEVER... If I want to have a serious discussion about the series, I would use the appropriate forum (arts) and thread. This is about ranting over the progressives. Nothing to do with the series itself.
Of course this is an overblown complaint! This is a rant thread.
While posting here I mostly want to just vent and go all "See how progressives ruin EVERYTHING!?!" and then accuse the progressives of this and that. What we miss is an anti-rightwing rant thread where I can vent against the other side and go all "See how alt-rights ruing EVERYTHING!?!?" and then accuse the ultra-conservatives, Trump-cultists, anti-vaxers etc of this and that.
Alhoon I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
For the analogy to be correct, it would have to be the "Latest anti-conservative rant thread" and in it, ordinary, fairly middle of the road conservatives would, by hook or by crook, be implicated in the doings of the far right and every individual F*&^ up by any insignificant self proclaimed conservative would be presented as a piece in a collage meant to revile conservatives in general.