WTF? stunningly morally obtuse headline from Charlotte Observer: "Black Death had Silver Lining?"
[link:http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/22/3943477/black-deaths-silver-lining.html?sp=/99/100/&ihp=1|
Any history student knows that the Black Death resulted in a lot of "opportunities" for the survivors--to move into new positions, take over vacant land, inherit in lieu of dead brothers, have more food, etc.
But to foreground this today as 1) news, with a focus on 2) how convenient it is that the poor, who today (as is stated later in the interview) might still die because they don't have access to health care, would die during any new plague, leaving us with a "silver lining" of better health and resources for the survivors, scares the f**k out of me.
I mean seriously, is this morally obtuse journalist who titled this suggesting that a peak oil or other type of die off infection/virus event that would disproportionate kill the poor be a silver lining?
Seriously--this info about the Black Death isn't new. We know that the Black Death aided in the end of feudalism and the growth of cities. So why is someone digging this up NOW to say that massive death of the poor is a "silver lining?"
Excerpt:
"Q. What’s the bottom line?
A. The Black Death targeted people who were poor or in poor health. After it passed, there were fewer people, so there was more food and more goods to go around for those who survived. Due to whom the Black Death killed off, or improvements in diet, the result was a population that was at least temporarily healthier than the population before. . . . .
...
Q. Then or now, it seems like there’s a societal implication: Survival of the fittest.
A. There are records that suggest some who became infected survived. Maybe they were lucky enough not to be lethally exposed to it. Maybe they had better access to food and had better nutritional status. Maybe they had better immune systems. If you or I were exposed to bubonic plague today, we would be given antibiotics and would be fine. Where people run into problems is when they don’t have access to good medical care – and that would be disproportionately poor people."
= new reply since forum marked as read
shifted power away from the rich who controlled the land and wealth to the middle/lower class . The lack of manpower to farm the land made labor a valuable community so that the laborers had a degree of mobility and was no longer bound to his plot of land.
Yes, the Black Death destroyed the lower class;but, ironically that shortage increased the value of their labor . If the same happened today, with a plague striking the lower classes disproportionately , the survivors could demand just about anything for their services - maybe even minimum wage
And probably destroy the systems we have today to a great extent for even if the rich and wealthy survive in their noninfected areas, who will be their servants, their valets, their builders of mansions?
By the way, there was LESS FOOD and LESS GOODS to go around immediately following the great plagues because of the simple fact that there was fewer workers and farmers. True, there was an abundance of goods left behind by those that died , but the actual production lines of gathering materials and making them into finished goods suffered until the labor force was reestablished. Starvation usually followed the plagues because of disruptions to the food and production line.
But this could be every Republicans wet dream - think of it - no more of that pesky 47% that screws up their chances of reelection. Only the rich and upper-upper class voting, now that is what I call vote rigging on a grand scale.
