“The top map is voting patterns in this 2008 election– the bottom map is cotton production in 1860…”
amazing. great demonstration of when graphical representations let us understand information in a clearer way. of course, i’d like to see some other maps as well - population density, racial distribution, etc, to get a clearer view of the correlation, but it’s still quite interesting. (pin the tail, big ups to dave for the link.)
I’m really not sure I follow your correlation … are you trying to say that 1860 cotton production (typically by slave labor) somehow impacts 2008 election? Why on earth would the areas that were densest for cotton production in 1860 also be those that were densest for democratic voters in 2008?
I can’t be the only one that sees a logical fallacy in this observation and conclusion. What, do you somehow think that all the slaves on those cotton farms just plopped down and set up family shop right after emancipation and that they have been there ever since … just scraping by?
Someone should tell you … that just isn’t so. Most slaves went migratory after emancipation, trying to find their families. True, many stayed nearby because cotton farming was all they knew and the past masters exploited that fact to essentially continue slave labor … just without the beatings … and without giving any real care to the laborers.
