Live data from Hacker News

A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

historynewsnetwork.org

1–10 of 128 posts

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#4
Go back a few generations for just about every wealthy family in the US, and it's nothing but slave (or highly exploitative) labor building on land and resources stolen from the indians. It's the uncomfortable answer behind the question of "Why do WASPs own everything?". The whole "self-made" myth is nothing but a byproduct of white guilt all the way down.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#5
It's obviously true that nobody achieves things in a vacuum, since we all have some level of "privilege" given to us by our economic circumstances, the level of education available to us, our luckier heritable traits, etc. But for every successful person, there are countless others born to a similar level of privilege who squandered it. The claim that everyone owes their successes to the group ignores this.

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#6
post #4

Go back a few generations for just about every wealthy family in the US, and it's nothing but slave (or highly exploitative) labor building on land and resources stolen from the indians. It's the uncomfortable answer behind the question of "Why do WASPs own everything?". The whole "self-made" myth is nothing but a byproduct of white guilt all the way down.

Native Americans were here for tens of thousands of years. If it was so easy to use Indians’ resources to build a civilization, why didn’t the Indians do it?

Your attitude is illogical cope. How could “WASPs” have gotten rich from stealing from a group of people they vastly outnumbered and who were primitive in comparison?

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#7
post #4

Go back a few generations for just about every wealthy family in the US, and it's nothing but slave (or highly exploitative) labor building on land and resources stolen from the indians. It's the uncomfortable answer behind the question of "Why do WASPs own everything?". The whole "self-made" myth is nothing but a byproduct of white guilt all the way down.

> It's the uncomfortable answer behind the question of "Why do WASPs own everything?"

The correct answer to that question is "they don't".

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#8
post #7
post #4

Go back a few generations for just about every wealthy family in the US, and it's nothing but slave (or highly exploitative) labor building on land and resources stolen from the indians. It's the uncomfortable answer behind the question of "Why do WASPs own everything?". The whole "self-made" myth is nothing but a byproduct of white guilt all the way down.

> It's the uncomfortable answer behind the question of "Why do WASPs own everything?" The correct answer to that question is "they don't".

[dead]

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#9
post #4

Go back a few generations for just about every wealthy family in the US, and it's nothing but slave (or highly exploitative) labor building on land and resources stolen from the indians. It's the uncomfortable answer behind the question of "Why do WASPs own everything?". The whole "self-made" myth is nothing but a byproduct of white guilt all the way down.

Wait, I thought it was the Jews that owned everything?

Or was it the Freemasons?

I can’t even keep track anymore.

I can’t think of a single WASP billionaire though - maybe that’s the mind control at work?

Re: A new myth appeared during the presidential campaign of Andrew Jackson

#10
In the debate between self made and team effort my opinion is “both.”

Nobody starts from zero. Everyone builds on the work of others with help from others.

At the same time, individuals can make unique contributions and are not just interchangeable parts. You see this over and over again in art, music, engineering, science, literature, etc., or really anything requiring skill. People aren’t interchangeable.

I think both positions, when argued exclusively, lead to a false devaluing of most human life. The “great man” theory leads to the idea that 99.999% of humans are mediocre at best and we all exist to serve a tiny number of greats. The “it takes a village” theory leads to the view that everything is a collective product and nobody is unique or special in any way. So you get the idea that 100% of humans are an undifferentiated mass of aggregate labor. That makes people just as disposable as if we are mere peons existing to serve the greats.

I think the reality is that we are an interdependent network of unique contributors.

Post reply on HN