Slavery By Another Name

[O Really]

Robert Palmer had a song "Man Smart Woman Smarter" that I always liked. One line in it goes..."a little boy sat down and cried, an old man passing asked him why. He said I can't do what the big boys do...old man sat down and he cried, too." The women are smarter.

And the Monroe quote is a bit like the Forbes guy telling people living in poverty that all they lack ambition.

I dunno, man. I still see the quote as being more like this:
Women are inherently superior to men, and men will never have the same top potential as women; women should aspire to being as good as they can be; if women only want to be as good as men, that's a low goal.

Whether I agree with the statement or not, I don't think Leary's intent, nor the plagiarized Marilyn attribution was negative or condescending to women.

[Vrede too]

I dunno, man. I still see the quote as being more like this:
Women are inherently superior to men, and men will never have the same top potential as women; women should aspire to being as good as they can be; if women only want to be as good as men, that's a low goal.

Whether I agree with the statement or not, I don't think Leary's intent, nor the plagiarized Marilyn attribution was negative or condescending to women.

Ditto. What billy.pilgrim "would have guessed" from Leary is correct.

I can't find the right thread, but this Leary quote is the opposite of what I would have guessed.

Resolved, that the women of this nation in 1876, have greater cause for
discontent, rebellion and revolution than the men of 1776.
—Susan B. Anthony

Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.
—Timothy Leary

https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartm ... ulture-8b0

Why? I think it's quite clever.

Besides, with "ambition" and "lazy" being opposites it's reasonable to guess that the quips' intents are opposite.

[O Really]

Regarding the Forbes guy and people living in poverty "lacking ambition", I'd certainly disagree with the statement on its face, while admitting there is substantial truth. Problem is, that statement is meaningless unless you address the cause of "no ambition." A person isn't likely to have ambition if they don't have the concept that they have a chance/opportunity to be better. If you don't know anybody who has escaped from poverty, and don't have anybody who can show you a path, you're not likely to aspire to escape.

[Vrede too]

And the Monroe quote is a bit like the Forbes guy telling people living in poverty that all they lack ambition.

I searched:
'Forbes guy telling people living in poverty that all they lack ambition'
'Forbes - people living in poverty lack ambition'

I was hoping to expose his silver spoon "ambition", but I struck out. Not doubting you, but do you have a citation? I'd still like to mock him.

[billy.pilgrim]

And the Monroe quote is a bit like the Forbes guy telling people living in poverty that all they lack ambition.

I searched:
'Forbes guy telling people living in poverty that all they lack ambition'
'Forbes - people living in poverty lack ambition'

I was hoping to expose his silver spoon "ambition", but I struck out. Not doubting you, but do you have a citation? I'd still like to mock him.

I meant and should have said, "a Forbes type guy", or a trump, or a Barbara bush, etc

Sorry I wasted your time.

[O Really]

I meant and should have said, "a Forbes type guy", or a trump, or a Barbara bush, etc

... or people I hear all the time complaining about "the homeless"
"Why don't they just get a job - look at all these people hiring..."

[O Really]

Speaking of "Slavery by Another Name," I've been re-reading (listening, actually) "Grapes of Wrath" It's been a long time since I read it for the first time, but I've made references to it for years. (e.g., seeing somebody at a campground that "looks like a bunch of Joads", or somebody on the freeway in an old truck piled to the to with junky stuff, "a Joadmobile.") It was interesting a couple of years ago when we spent some time around Monterrey, went to Cannery Row, went to Steinbeck's house in Salinas, and saw plenty of people working in fields who could be the fictional Joad's descendants.

But the description of how the big farm owners used, abused, and controlled the workers clearly showed a system of involuntary servitude, differing from "slavery" only in that people weren't actually bought and sold. The farm owners would solicit far more people than they needed, and then offer work at a lower rate to the most desperate/hungry, then lower the rate for all. Farms were fairly specialised, so when a harvest was over, there was no more work and the workers were chased off. Incidentally, two of the reasons for that were (1) to keep the workers from staying in one place long enough to be eligible to vote and (2) to limit their ability to organize and/or form community bonds. The owners had the police in their pockets, too, so if a worker was thought be be any kind of trouble, he'd generally be killed or severely beaten.

The evil cycle generally ended with the start of WWII, when many of the transients went into the military and many other non-agricultural jobs became available.

One of the migrant camps the Joads stayed in was the "Weedpatch Camp", slightly south of Bakersfield. Weedpatch is real, and although the facilities are much better than in 1939, it still provides housing for migrant workers.

Real "Joads" from 1939

[billy.pilgrim]

Speaking of "Slavery by Another Name," I've been re-reading (listening, actually) "Grapes of Wrath" It's been a long time since I read it for the first time, but I've made references to it for years. (e.g., seeing somebody at a campground that "looks like a bunch of Joads", or somebody on the freeway in an old truck piled to the to with junky stuff, "a Joadmobile.") It was interesting a couple of years ago when we spent some time around Monterrey, went to Cannery Row, went to Steinbeck's house in Salinas, and saw plenty of people working in fields who could be the fictional Joad's descendants.

But the description of how the big farm owners used, abused, and controlled the workers clearly showed a system of involuntary servitude, differing from "slavery" only in that people weren't actually bought and sold. The farm owners would solicit far more people than they needed, and then offer work at a lower rate to the most desperate/hungry, then lower the rate for all. Farms were fairly specialised, so when a harvest was over, there was no more work and the workers were chased off. Incidentally, two of the reasons for that were (1) to keep the workers from staying in one place long enough to be eligible to vote and (2) to limit their ability to organize and/or form community bonds. The owners had the police in their pockets, too, so if a worker was thought be be any kind of trouble, he'd generally be killed or severely beaten.

The evil cycle generally ended with the start of WWII, when many of the transients went into the military and many other non-agricultural jobs became available.

One of the migrant camps the Joads stayed in was the "Weedpatch Camp", slightly south of Bakersfield. Weedpatch is real, and although the facilities are much better than in 1939, it still provides housing for migrant workers.

Real "Joads" from 1939

What a book, what a writer.
I reread Grapes of Wrath and 2 others of his relatively recently. About 15 years ago I started rereading classic I had read in my teens and early 20s. There's always more in 2nd and 3rd readings.
One that really stands out about slavery after slavery ended is Zola's Germinal. Have you read it?

[O Really]

One that really stands out about slavery after slavery ended is Zola's Germinal. Have you read it?

Long, long ago. In French. I should read it again to see what it's about.

I started re-reading Steinbeck when we were in Monterrey. I've re-read "Cannery Row," "Tortilla Flat," and "Of Mice and Men" as well as current "Grapes of Wrath." I've enjoyed about as much of this misery as I feel like, though, and will be moving on to somebody else. Not ever "The Jungle", though. That was the most soul-wreaking miserable story I've ever read.

[billy.pilgrim]

One that really stands out about slavery after slavery ended is Zola's Germinal. Have you read it?

Long, long ago. In French. I should read it again to see what it's about.

I started re-reading Steinbeck when we were in Monterrey. I've re-read "Cannery Row," "Tortilla Flat," and "Of Mice and Men" as well as current "Grapes of Wrath." I've enjoyed about as much of this misery as I feel like, though, and will be moving on to somebody else. Not ever "The Jungle", though. That was the most soul-wreaking miserable story I've ever read.

The Jungle was tough reading, Germinal may be tougher

[O Really]

The Jungle was tough reading, Germinal may be tougher

I think next will be something light and frivolous. Lady O has been reading Louise Penney, that seems like a good choice.

[billy.pilgrim]

The Jungle was tough reading, Germinal may be tougher

I think next will be something light and frivolous. Lady O has been reading Louise Penney, that seems like a good choice.

Huck Finn is a good one. Have you read the prequel by Jon Clinch. I thought it was a good read. It's called Finn. Clinch takes a few liberties, but still, poor Huck, his dad really sucks.

[O Really]

One review of "Finn"

"...
Cinch writes Pap Finn to be as bigoted, mean, and drunk as Twain's supporting character, but fleshes him out in his own voice, making him a real character with a past and reasons for his horrible actions, rather than just a foil for Huck. This (albeit limited) sympathy for Finn, as well as Cinch's original characters, is the strength of the novel. The places where Cinch overlaps with Twain (Judge Thatcher, Widow Douglas, etc.) are a bit weaker. It seems almost as if Cinch is too careful with these characters, perhaps afraid to upset Twain purists. Tellingly, Tom Sawyer doesn't appear at all, and most of Huck's appearances are at a younger age than when we first meet him in Twain.

Please do not think you'll love Finn if you loved Twain's books. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn are children's characters, and though their adventures did get a little wild, and even a little political, their stories are nothing like Finn. Cinch's book is almost gothic, the cornerstones of its story are violence, alcoholism, and madness. There are no frolicking adventures here, and what humor there is has a very dark underbelly. Finn is every inch a contemporary adult novel, even if its basis is in children's literature from a previous century. However, it's a very good contemporary novel, and if read as such will likely stay with you in a way most contemporary novels don't. Cinch balances the horrific aspects of his story with just enough hope to keep your turning the pages, and at the end you are left feeling as if it was good that you read that, even if reading it was harder than you'd expected it to be. If you think you have the stomach for it, this is a book I would definitely recommend."

[neoplacebo]

Robert Palmer was an addict, finding the objects of his addiction irresistible.

Well, let's give credit where it's due...he found those things "simply" irresistible. A much finer distinction than merely "irresistible" or "alluring." I myself have found more than once that there are things I just can't resist. The list is long and terrible.

[neoplacebo]

Robert Palmer had a song "Man Smart Woman Smarter" that I always liked. One line in it goes..."a little boy sat down and cried, an old man passing asked him why. He said I can't do what the big boys do...old man sat down and he cried, too." The women are smarter.

And the Monroe quote is a bit like the Forbes guy telling people living in poverty that all they lack ambition.

Yes, but the Palmer line applies equally to the rich or the poor. Except maybe the rich can hire people to fuck for them and just watch.

[Vrede too]

And the Monroe quote is a bit like the Forbes guy telling people living in poverty that all they lack ambition.

Yes, but the Palmer line applies equally to the rich or the poor. Except maybe the rich can hire people to fuck for them and just watch.t

Isn't that what every porn consumer lacking ambition does? . . . Or, so I've heard.

[neoplacebo]

And the Monroe quote is a bit like the Forbes guy telling people living in poverty that all they lack ambition.

Yes, but the Palmer line applies equally to the rich or the poor. Except maybe the rich can hire people to fuck for them and just watch.t

Isn't that what every porn consumer lacking ambition does? . . . Or, so I've heard.

That's what I've heard, too. But, hell, I was ambitious for a long time. These days not so much. I'm still working on ambidextrous and late night ambulatory tactics.

[O Really]

ChatGPT's view on the subject of the effect of migrating people on local culture.

Discuss the effect on local culture by migration of dust bowl refugees into California and Appalachian people into Detroit

The migration of Dust Bowl refugees into California and Appalachian people into Detroit had a significant effect on the local cultures of those areas.

In California, the Dust Bowl migration brought a large number of people from the Great Plains and the South, who brought their cultural traditions and values with them. This had a profound impact on California's culture, particularly in rural areas, where the migrants formed tight-knit communities that preserved their cultural heritage. The migration also led to an increased appreciation for country music and folk songs, which became a staple of California's cultural landscape.

In Detroit, the migration of Appalachian people brought with it a strong work ethic, strong family values, and a deep-rooted appreciation for traditional folk music and storytelling. This had a significant impact on the city's culture, particularly in the automotive industry, where the Appalachian migrants were valued for their hard-working and disciplined nature. The migration also led to the creation of new musical styles, such as bluegrass and gospel, which became popular in Detroit and helped to shape the city's musical identity.

Overall, the migration of Dust Bowl refugees into California and Appalachian people into Detroit had a profound impact on the local cultures of those areas. The migrants brought with them their unique cultural traditions and values, which helped to enrich the local cultures and create new cultural expressions that continue to be an important part of those communities today.

Why would the dust bowl people and the Appalachian people be able to keep their culture instead of assimilating into the cultures of California and Detroit?

The Dust Bowl refugees and Appalachian people were able to maintain their cultural traditions and values despite moving to new areas for a variety of reasons. Here are a few factors that played a role:

Tight-knit communities: The migrants often formed tight-knit communities with other people from their home regions. These communities provided a supportive environment where they could continue to practice their traditions and pass them down to the next generation.

Isolation: In some cases, the migrants lived in isolated rural areas that were separate from the dominant culture of the city. This made it easier for them to maintain their own cultural traditions and values without being heavily influenced by the surrounding culture.

Strong cultural identity: Many of the migrants had a strong cultural identity and a deep attachment to their traditions and values. This helped them to maintain their cultural heritage even in a new environment.

Lack of access to dominant cultural institutions: The migrants often lacked access to the institutions and resources that would have enabled them to assimilate into the dominant culture. This made it easier for them to maintain their own cultural traditions and values.

Overall, the Dust Bowl refugees and Appalachian people were able to maintain their cultural traditions and values in their new homes because of a combination of tight-knit communities, isolation, strong cultural identity, and lack of access to dominant cultural institutions. These factors helped to create a supportive environment where they could continue to practice their traditions and pass them down to the next generation.

Second answer was better than the first. ChatGTP may have gotten a B in a Penn essay, but my results look more like 10-11th grade. Correctly written in regard to grammar and style, but shallow. Or maybe my questions are shallow.

[Vrede too]

Second answer was better than the first. ChatGTP may have gotten a B in a Penn essay, but my results look more like 10-11th grade. Correctly written in regard to grammar and style, but shallow. Or maybe my questions are shallow.

Exactly my thoughts before even reading your assessment, or maybe middle school. I also thought the second part of the second answer was better than the first. I was ready to just smh and give up before getting to that.

[billy.pilgrim]

One review of "Finn"

"...
Cinch writes Pap Finn to be as bigoted, mean, and drunk as Twain's supporting character, but fleshes him out in his own voice, making him a real character with a past and reasons for his horrible actions, rather than just a foil for Huck. This (albeit limited) sympathy for Finn, as well as Cinch's original characters, is the strength of the novel. The places where Cinch overlaps with Twain (Judge Thatcher, Widow Douglas, etc.) are a bit weaker. It seems almost as if Cinch is too careful with these characters, perhaps afraid to upset Twain purists. Tellingly, Tom Sawyer doesn't appear at all, and most of Huck's appearances are at a younger age than when we first meet him in Twain.

Please do not think you'll love Finn if you loved Twain's books. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn are children's characters, and though their adventures did get a little wild, and even a little political, their stories are nothing like Finn. Cinch's book is almost gothic, the cornerstones of its story are violence, alcoholism, and madness. There are no frolicking adventures here, and what humor there is has a very dark underbelly. Finn is every inch a contemporary adult novel, even if its basis is in children's literature from a previous century. However, it's a very good contemporary novel, and if read as such will likely stay with you in a way most contemporary novels don't. Cinch balances the horrific aspects of his story with just enough hope to keep your turning the pages, and at the end you are left feeling as if it was good that you read that, even if reading it was harder than you'd expected it to be. If you think you have the stomach for it, this is a book I would definitely recommend."

I guess I had the stomach. I definitely recommend it.