I was making an analogy. The Vanderbilts earned their money is much the same way as a plantation owner, by benefiting from the injustice of the period in which they live. The slave-owner simple brings the moral principle into sharper relief. Your personal attacks are not appreciated.
I made no personal attack, I simply asked a reasonable question. Do you really feel that inferior to the so called "elite"? If so why, what makes them elite? If you are offended by a simple question than my assumption seems to be more astute now.
What such tactics did the Vanderbilts commit. What people were owned by them, how many slaves did they hold or abuse?
The comparison was vague and emotionally charged, why not compare them to Hitler or satan?
I completely understand that most people gain wealth by exploiting something. If they exploit people in this way or that they are truly scumbags. But isn't that the point of discussing them? Isn't that why our history books talk about slavery and Hitler and so on. It isn't glorifying it is passing information of past mistakes on to the next generation so that wecan evolve.
Why do you think a story about jp Morgan or any other robber Barron from the past or present is to sensationalist their godliness?
Hate them, or love them but understand it is important to discuss them, more so then some miner or mother. Because the miners and mothers didn't create the inequality, they simply survived it. Their stories are valuable but so many are unknown, because they were not recorded.
Isn't it also important to understand that there was a climate which offered the opportunity to the various people mentioned in this thread
Aren't those that do not study their history doomed to repeat it?
