Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=JoshwolfeMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:57:33ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments2011-02-17T07:04:46Z<p>Joshwolfe: /* Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South. The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that in the introductory readings in the first chapter, we read about the ways in which power came to symbolize much more than power, without going too much into what that meant for society. Part V of Chapter 5, with its focus on the social construction of the American power system, focused on non-commodified aspects of electricity, in its uses in wider society. I also saw an interesting parallel, related to what Kyle said above about "civilized people," between the bar for civilization among peoples and the bar for civilization among First-World individuals themselves, with farmers being lumped in with "less civilized people," deprived of electricity and without the capacity to handle it--supposedly.- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
The way Nye writes it seems that he is surprised that the US took so much longer to get to United States electrified. Why? I mean, the United States is so much bigger than all of Europe combined that it seems like common sense that it took longer for the US to be electrified. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==<br />
<br />
<br />
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them. Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit. With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
In regards to Meagan's comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off. There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting. There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city. This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime. Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime. The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime. Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
To think that this was the beginning of Broadway is really important. The "white way" is seen in pictures from the time period, but also you can tell where the most people would be. The movie industry was also benefiting from electricity, as well as artists and many other people and businesses. Electricity cultivated the social aspect of everyday life. When they cut the lights off for a couple of days people requested they be put back on, maybe out of fear that their respective social lives would suffer. Now people who live near large lighted signs use shades, especially at night, to combat the light. I wonder if the social aspect of our lives changed when they “turned the lights on” or would it have happened naturally? -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I was very interested to read about how private investment, along with social, political and economic interests played such a heavy role in determining the development of the electrical system. Had electricity been more of a state-sponsored endeavor, it may be that it wouldn't have become a conspicuous commodity in its earliest stages (being used in the houses of the rich and for display) and may have made it into the average household sooner like it did in Europe. This did, however, allow it to be centralized and standardized more quickly, which helped it grow and spread more variedly. - Scott Birney<br />
<br />
Nye’s mention of Times Square is important because it describes the effect that electricity had on American culture. He notes, “The tourist came to Times Square not only to see the brilliant lighting, but to witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness” (Nye 69). The lighting was such a marvelous sight that tourists came to that part of Manhattan just to see the lights; electricity was such a phenomenon to the American people. He also mentions the later tradition of New Years Eve at Times Square. Nye comments, “Times Square thus became a ceremonial space filled by a vast crowd from every conceivable class and profession, reduced to momentary equality as they marked the passing of time” (71, 73). The fact that the invention of a lighting system became a public spectacle proves the innovation of electricity and its influence on society. <br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
To add to Meagan's point on electricity in the world's fairs, I found this portion of the reading interesting. Nye states: "In a time when the nation was in the throes of rapid industrialization and urbanization, the word's fair was a shapely actualization of order whose displays could "take people out of their ordinary routines and thus remove them temporarily from their usual positions in the social structure"(34). I feel this is very similar to christmas lights, when we see the lights, it takes us to a winter wonderland and we escape if just for a moment. -Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==<br />
<br />
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
There were issues with the trolleys operating on Sundays, or the Sabbath. Even the courts could tell that the people were changing their habits and customs. Can you imagine if we were not allowed to drive on Sundays now? It is also amazing that these families were spending up to 20% of their income on these streetcars. The streetcars were supposed to assist people, but they were becoming a problem. Strikes and safety issues were 2 of the main problems with the streetcars. People were being hit and dragged by the trolleys and overall safety was becoming an issue. There were many strikes at many of the streetcar companies and scabs were getting hurt, either by stoning or being assaulted, by the striking worker. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
Personally, I would have never thought that the trolley would lead to amusement parks. I have been to parks in Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia and never knew that trolleys at first lead to "trolley parks". It is evident that back then companies began to use this form of transportation to their advantage to make money. People in the growing middle class now had a means to get away for a day. More than 100 years ago, these parks had fireworks, concerts, dancing pavilions, and picnic grounds. Sounds like Kings Dominion to me. Besides transportation to these parks, the addition of electricity allowed for park owners to keep the lights on for visitors at night. These parks became attractions for the fact that people could stay out later, thus earning the park owners to collect even more money. It is surprising to see how quickly electricity was able to be used on such a large scale. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
I thought it was extremely interesting that the streetcar is one of the main reasons that Sunday changed from a day to rest to a day of “restless activity.” Along with expanding the work week, the street car allowed new areas of real estate to open up and have the working class leave the congested city and move to a suburb. The streetcar alone had a great amount of influence in the growth of the middle class. On average, most citizens (including both men & women) in big cities rode the street cars between 230-265 times in one year (and 340 times in San Francisco!). Streetcar became the focus of political controversies due to the fact of safety and the amount of resistance at first. However, once it became such a huge part of urban life, people were able to really use the service, with providing better opportunities in entertainment, business, education, and many other factors. -- Megan Gallagher<br />
<br />
<br />
What is really interesting about this chapter is that people had the same congestion problems in big cities as we do today. It seems that anywhere there are mass amounts of people in a little space these problems will come up. However, the description that Nye gives about the conditions makes me really happy that electricity came about. I wouldn't want to be walking in streets with manure. The smell must have been horrible! However, I think this chapter also highlights something we have been talking about in class. Basically why some technologies were adopted, and others weren't. Nye discusses the trolley cars and talks about how the idea of it has been around for a while, however it just wasn't used because there was no perceived need for it. (page 88) It wasn't until someone came along and found a way to make it profitable that it became adopted. Which I guess relates to Kyle's point about electrical cars, they had found a safer way to start them with the use of gas. Because of that, gas became used, however if someone found a way to start cars with electricity (by not winding them up basically) would we have the same oil concerns we have today? And before I go further into the what ifs, I will just stop. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==<br />
<br />
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer. Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete? These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased. The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity. However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today. Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Nye mentions how technology improved the work of farmers and how productivity increased. Technology also had an effect on the family life of the farmer. Nye claims, “A TVA study showed that electric lights added two to four hours a day to a family’s potential working time, giving them more flexibility in planning the day’s activities . . . . Refrigerators retarded food spoilage and improved the family diet” (323-24). It is important that eventually electricity was not restricted to the cities because its use in rural areas increased productivity on farms. However it also was beneficial in factories. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, the use of electricity in factories made it possible for machines to run longer and the factories did not have to be built near rivers.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found the most interesting part of this reading to be the comparison between American and European electricity principles. The Europeans were all for getting electricity to every home, especially to rural homes, while America was set on private initiatives. Nye states, "American government only pointed to the problem, and expected farmers to organize and secure electrical service for themselves," (p 288). Why did the government leave it to the farmers to deal with this alone? Why was electricity so easily accessible in urban areas? Why were rural areas readily able to accept new technologies, but when it came to electricity it was not as important? And once again we look back to man vs. nature when Nye states, "From the viewpoint of conservative critics, rural electrification meant more than sanitation, comfort, and higher production; it threatened the balance between man and nature," (p. 290). Man already new how to deal with nature agriculturally, they had been doing it now for centuries. But when you alter how man interacts with nature, you may have created another problem all together.--Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
I like the idea that "electricity should kill every danger of frost." They seemed so hopeful of the new technology and yet farmers still deal with frost problems. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think that speaks volumes of the late 19th century mindset that technology and science can explain and then solve any problem. They thought, just as many people today think, that technology is the panacea of the world's ills. Perhaps it is, but it is as limited as a person's ability to apply it to solve the problem; then how do you solve the problem that the last solution caused?--JWolfe<br />
<br />
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==<br />
<br />
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people. You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special. Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society. As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either. What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). <br />
>>> Mike Roche<br />
<br />
"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation. So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times". This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting how when electricity was first being introduced to the public it wasn’t seen merely as a great innovation that would make life easier, but was actually expected to catapult society into a utopia. However, I then examined the differences in life before and after electricity; what would it be like to live in a world without lights powered by electricity, and then to one day have someone inform you that you would be able to light your home day and night? That your city would never get dark and that you could now perform an array of household tasks more much more efficiently and quickly? Are there any parallels to the present day in terms of our high hopes for technology? Doesn’t it seem like every new Apple product markets itself as the most wondrous creation the world has ever seen? It seems as if we as a species are never content with the technological innovations we already have. We are constantly looking forward, hoping that the next innovation will make us happier, and more efficient people, instead of utilizing the tools that are already at our disposal. From the reading, it seems as if people were emphatic about electricity for a short while, then quickly accepted it to be a common part of their everyday lives. There aren't very many people living in the United States these days who rant and rave upon entering a room and turning on a light bulb. On page 186, Nye describes how the public eventually saw electricity as an everyday right, and not something to be thankful for. Most of us wouldn’t even be able to make it through the day without our cell phones, Internet, and iPods. Do we ever stop and think about the electricity powering our homes and appliances? Isn’t it about time we stop praying to get a new iPad or Droid and instead be thankful for the innovations we already have at our disposal? If we don’t, we will always be looking for the “next big thing” instead of appreciating what we already have. Then again, some might argue that the need for constant progress and improvement is simply the nature of technology and innovation. Will there ever be a day when common light bulbs are rendered completely obsolete? Is it inevitable? Are the only truly great inventions and innovations the ones that stand for hundreds of years? ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
Kevin's idea of being thankful for the things that we have is spot on. It is important have gratitude for something as commonplace (nowadays) as electricity. Anyone who has been without power for days at a time can attest to the awesome power of flipping a switch and having light and the incredible impotence of flipping the same switch during a blackout and having nothing happen. But isn't the pursuit of innovation what leads to greater discoveries? If no one wanted an iPad, Apple wouldn't make one. Capitalism is driven by supply and demand; innovation in a capitalist system is based on the market for that item; no market, no iPad. More importantly, even the simplest things that we take for granted wouldn't exist if we didn't have need/desire for them. The commodification of inventions (as demonstrated by electricity) is what keeps inventors inventing and along the way, purely as a side effect or afterthought, maybe makes the world a little better.--JWolfe<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting things that I found from this reading was the quote, "As could be heard in everyday metaphors describing the body as an electrical machine that could be overloaded, burned out, recharged, and shorted out." (p. 184) It reminded me of two things, one being the McEvoy reading about the ecological approach to industry and how the worker's body is the biological core or the industrial ecosystem. It also reminded me of the constant man vs. nature issue that we have been seeing all throughout this semester with the new technologies that are produced. Nye's, and the general public's metaphors really can show the importance of the growing technologies in America through this time. But going back to the main question of what is electricity, is it a commodity? This brings up Nye's statement, "One consequence of defining it as a commodity was that most farmers were excluded from the electrified world." (p. 184). The majority of Americans at this time, I believe I read were farmers, thus the majority of American were without electricity, and all because the electricity at the time was privately owned. --Claire Brooks</div>Joshwolfehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments2011-02-17T06:59:53Z<p>Joshwolfe: /* Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South. The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that in the introductory readings in the first chapter, we read about the ways in which power came to symbolize much more than power, without going too much into what that meant for society. Part V of Chapter 5, with its focus on the social construction of the American power system, focused on non-commodified aspects of electricity, in its uses in wider society. I also saw an interesting parallel, related to what Kyle said above about "civilized people," between the bar for civilization among peoples and the bar for civilization among First-World individuals themselves, with farmers being lumped in with "less civilized people," deprived of electricity and without the capacity to handle it--supposedly.- Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
The way Nye writes it seems that he is surprised that the US took so much longer to get to United States electrified. Why? I mean, the United States is so much bigger than all of Europe combined that it seems like common sense that it took longer for the US to be electrified. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==<br />
<br />
<br />
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them. Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit. With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
In regards to Meagan's comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off. There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting. There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city. This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime. Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime. The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime. Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
To think that this was the beginning of Broadway is really important. The "white way" is seen in pictures from the time period, but also you can tell where the most people would be. The movie industry was also benefiting from electricity, as well as artists and many other people and businesses. Electricity cultivated the social aspect of everyday life. When they cut the lights off for a couple of days people requested they be put back on, maybe out of fear that their respective social lives would suffer. Now people who live near large lighted signs use shades, especially at night, to combat the light. I wonder if the social aspect of our lives changed when they “turned the lights on” or would it have happened naturally? -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I was very interested to read about how private investment, along with social, political and economic interests played such a heavy role in determining the development of the electrical system. Had electricity been more of a state-sponsored endeavor, it may be that it wouldn't have become a conspicuous commodity in its earliest stages (being used in the houses of the rich and for display) and may have made it into the average household sooner like it did in Europe. This did, however, allow it to be centralized and standardized more quickly, which helped it grow and spread more variedly. - Scott Birney<br />
<br />
Nye’s mention of Times Square is important because it describes the effect that electricity had on American culture. He notes, “The tourist came to Times Square not only to see the brilliant lighting, but to witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness” (Nye 69). The lighting was such a marvelous sight that tourists came to that part of Manhattan just to see the lights; electricity was such a phenomenon to the American people. He also mentions the later tradition of New Years Eve at Times Square. Nye comments, “Times Square thus became a ceremonial space filled by a vast crowd from every conceivable class and profession, reduced to momentary equality as they marked the passing of time” (71, 73). The fact that the invention of a lighting system became a public spectacle proves the innovation of electricity and its influence on society. <br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
To add to Meagan's point on electricity in the world's fairs, I found this portion of the reading interesting. Nye states: "In a time when the nation was in the throes of rapid industrialization and urbanization, the word's fair was a shapely actualization of order whose displays could "take people out of their ordinary routines and thus remove them temporarily from their usual positions in the social structure"(34). I feel this is very similar to christmas lights, when we see the lights, it takes us to a winter wonderland and we escape if just for a moment. -Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==<br />
<br />
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
There were issues with the trolleys operating on Sundays, or the Sabbath. Even the courts could tell that the people were changing their habits and customs. Can you imagine if we were not allowed to drive on Sundays now? It is also amazing that these families were spending up to 20% of their income on these streetcars. The streetcars were supposed to assist people, but they were becoming a problem. Strikes and safety issues were 2 of the main problems with the streetcars. People were being hit and dragged by the trolleys and overall safety was becoming an issue. There were many strikes at many of the streetcar companies and scabs were getting hurt, either by stoning or being assaulted, by the striking worker. -- Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
Personally, I would have never thought that the trolley would lead to amusement parks. I have been to parks in Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia and never knew that trolleys at first lead to "trolley parks". It is evident that back then companies began to use this form of transportation to their advantage to make money. People in the growing middle class now had a means to get away for a day. More than 100 years ago, these parks had fireworks, concerts, dancing pavilions, and picnic grounds. Sounds like Kings Dominion to me. Besides transportation to these parks, the addition of electricity allowed for park owners to keep the lights on for visitors at night. These parks became attractions for the fact that people could stay out later, thus earning the park owners to collect even more money. It is surprising to see how quickly electricity was able to be used on such a large scale. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
I thought it was extremely interesting that the streetcar is one of the main reasons that Sunday changed from a day to rest to a day of “restless activity.” Along with expanding the work week, the street car allowed new areas of real estate to open up and have the working class leave the congested city and move to a suburb. The streetcar alone had a great amount of influence in the growth of the middle class. On average, most citizens (including both men & women) in big cities rode the street cars between 230-265 times in one year (and 340 times in San Francisco!). Streetcar became the focus of political controversies due to the fact of safety and the amount of resistance at first. However, once it became such a huge part of urban life, people were able to really use the service, with providing better opportunities in entertainment, business, education, and many other factors. -- Megan Gallagher<br />
<br />
<br />
What is really interesting about this chapter is that people had the same congestion problems in big cities as we do today. It seems that anywhere there are mass amounts of people in a little space these problems will come up. However, the description that Nye gives about the conditions makes me really happy that electricity came about. I wouldn't want to be walking in streets with manure. The smell must have been horrible! However, I think this chapter also highlights something we have been talking about in class. Basically why some technologies were adopted, and others weren't. Nye discusses the trolley cars and talks about how the idea of it has been around for a while, however it just wasn't used because there was no perceived need for it. (page 88) It wasn't until someone came along and found a way to make it profitable that it became adopted. Which I guess relates to Kyle's point about electrical cars, they had found a safer way to start them with the use of gas. Because of that, gas became used, however if someone found a way to start cars with electricity (by not winding them up basically) would we have the same oil concerns we have today? And before I go further into the what ifs, I will just stop. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==<br />
<br />
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer. Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete? These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased. The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity. However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today. Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Nye mentions how technology improved the work of farmers and how productivity increased. Technology also had an effect on the family life of the farmer. Nye claims, “A TVA study showed that electric lights added two to four hours a day to a family’s potential working time, giving them more flexibility in planning the day’s activities . . . . Refrigerators retarded food spoilage and improved the family diet” (323-24). It is important that eventually electricity was not restricted to the cities because its use in rural areas increased productivity on farms. However it also was beneficial in factories. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, the use of electricity in factories made it possible for machines to run longer and the factories did not have to be built near rivers.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found the most interesting part of this reading to be the comparison between American and European electricity principles. The Europeans were all for getting electricity to every home, especially to rural homes, while America was set on private initiatives. Nye states, "American government only pointed to the problem, and expected farmers to organize and secure electrical service for themselves," (p 288). Why did the government leave it to the farmers to deal with this alone? Why was electricity so easily accessible in urban areas? Why were rural areas readily able to accept new technologies, but when it came to electricity it was not as important? And once again we look back to man vs. nature when Nye states, "From the viewpoint of conservative critics, rural electrification meant more than sanitation, comfort, and higher production; it threatened the balance between man and nature," (p. 290). Man already new how to deal with nature agriculturally, they had been doing it now for centuries. But when you alter how man interacts with nature, you may have created another problem all together.--Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
I like the idea that "electricity should kill every danger of frost." They seemed so hopeful of the new technology and yet farmers still deal with frost problems. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==<br />
<br />
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people. You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special. Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society. As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either. What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). <br />
>>> Mike Roche<br />
<br />
"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation. So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times". This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
I found it extremely interesting how when electricity was first being introduced to the public it wasn’t seen merely as a great innovation that would make life easier, but was actually expected to catapult society into a utopia. However, I then examined the differences in life before and after electricity; what would it be like to live in a world without lights powered by electricity, and then to one day have someone inform you that you would be able to light your home day and night? That your city would never get dark and that you could now perform an array of household tasks more much more efficiently and quickly? Are there any parallels to the present day in terms of our high hopes for technology? Doesn’t it seem like every new Apple product markets itself as the most wondrous creation the world has ever seen? It seems as if we as a species are never content with the technological innovations we already have. We are constantly looking forward, hoping that the next innovation will make us happier, and more efficient people, instead of utilizing the tools that are already at our disposal. From the reading, it seems as if people were emphatic about electricity for a short while, then quickly accepted it to be a common part of their everyday lives. There aren't very many people living in the United States these days who rant and rave upon entering a room and turning on a light bulb. On page 186, Nye describes how the public eventually saw electricity as an everyday right, and not something to be thankful for. Most of us wouldn’t even be able to make it through the day without our cell phones, Internet, and iPods. Do we ever stop and think about the electricity powering our homes and appliances? Isn’t it about time we stop praying to get a new iPad or Droid and instead be thankful for the innovations we already have at our disposal? If we don’t, we will always be looking for the “next big thing” instead of appreciating what we already have. Then again, some might argue that the need for constant progress and improvement is simply the nature of technology and innovation. Will there ever be a day when common light bulbs are rendered completely obsolete? Is it inevitable? Are the only truly great inventions and innovations the ones that stand for hundreds of years? ~Kevin Gottschalk<br />
<br />
Kevin's idea of being thankful for the things that we have is spot on. It is important have gratitude for something as commonplace (nowadays) as electricity. Anyone who has been without power for days at a time can attest to the awesome power of flipping a switch and having light and the incredible impotence of flipping the same switch during a blackout and having nothing happen. But isn't the pursuit of innovation what leads to greater discoveries? If no one wanted an iPad, Apple wouldn't make one. Capitalism is driven by supply and demand; innovation in a capitalist system is based on the market for that item; no market, no iPad. More importantly, even the simplest things that we take for granted wouldn't exist if we didn't have need/desire for them. The commodification of inventions (as demonstrated by electricity) is what keeps inventors inventing and along the way, purely as a side effect or afterthought, maybe makes the world a little better.--JWolfe<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting things that I found from this reading was the quote, "As could be heard in everyday metaphors describing the body as an electrical machine that could be overloaded, burned out, recharged, and shorted out." (p. 184) It reminded me of two things, one being the McEvoy reading about the ecological approach to industry and how the worker's body is the biological core or the industrial ecosystem. It also reminded me of the constant man vs. nature issue that we have been seeing all throughout this semester with the new technologies that are produced. Nye's, and the general public's metaphors really can show the importance of the growing technologies in America through this time. But going back to the main question of what is electricity, is it a commodity? This brings up Nye's statement, "One consequence of defining it as a commodity was that most farmers were excluded from the electrified world." (p. 184). The majority of Americans at this time, I believe I read were farmers, thus the majority of American were without electricity, and all because the electricity at the time was privately owned. --Claire Brooks</div>Joshwolfehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 2 Questions/Comments2011-01-20T05:35:28Z<p>Joshwolfe: /* American Colonial Wealth (Document A) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw -- "So Much Depends..." ==<br />
<br />
McGaw’s theory of technology accessibility in the frontier of Pennsylvania gives serious doubts to the “Independent spirit” that is postulated in Frederick Jackson Turner’s writings in the 1890’s about the frontier. Turner’s belief was that the self-sufficiency of Americans began with and fermented in the frontier, but McGaw’s data shows otherwise. It shows communities with farmers having other farmers process their textiles, grain, and fruits. Was this due to some farmers having the money or wealth to buy the technology to process or was there a division of labor amongst families in the frontier? ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
McGaw’s comment that our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted really stood out to me. It’s not just colonial America’s technology that is distorted or stereotyped; we all do this every day with virtually every topic. I once asked a student from Germany to tell me about their history classes, and to them WWII was just a conflict, not a huge war. As far as colonial America is concerned, it’s no wonder we have a distorted view when Disney produces movies like Pocahontas and we all grow up watching them. <br />
Also, she discusses the artifacts that farmers in colonial America had and comments that many had the means to produce goods, and in fact did produce, but very few had the materials to process these goods. Is it possible that trading, or the beginning of the market system, was in the works? It was probably easier to send all your wool to somebody who was really good at spinning it than to sit in your house and try to become extremely efficient at multiple tasks. If you have neighbors that can cut down on your work, why not utilize them. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I also was intrigued by the theory that our image of colonial history, and really any history, is distorted. McGaw made an interesting point with her references to the poem about the wheelbarrow and chickens in the garden and how we need to actually be able to point to something to say, yes this person had this object. Her research into inventories seemed like a good place, but I wonder if those are always entirely truthful records. Are there other places to look at what a person owns? What about inventory or sales records for shops of the time? Another important issue is that all these ownerships can greatly vary by region, even by town. When she brought up about how farmers may not have necessarily owned their own tools, I thought that it’s important to remember that they likely couldn’t afford all the tools and borrowed from friends and neighbors, so they might have been at least technologically savvy.<br />
<br />
Also, one of her example areas was York County, Pennsylvania, which is where I’m from, so that was pretty exciting to read examples from. I interned at the county museum, and I know we had A LOT of farm tools. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
In Judith A. McGaw’s writing she explains that even though we had an Industrial Revolution the tools that were being used were still archaic at best. The frontier was not as advanced as we are led to believe it was. I found it interesting that not all frontiersman owned guns, while movies and shows make it look like all people during this time had guns. I wonder how they were able to look after their land without a weapon, or did they make their own too? I also understand that each area, not just a young America, but the world in general had different types of technology for different actions. I also noticed from the inventory items that are shown that some of the people thought that some items were worth putting in their inventory and left off the items that were not of value (to each individual importance of items were subject to their discretion or use). All 3 inventories list books and 2 of the inventories list the Bible, so what they had in common was religion. Technology took a little while to grow on people, but now we can’t stop. --Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
McGaw’s ideas about our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted was extremely interesting. While reading her findings and her ideas, I also began to think about technologies we have today whose images have been distorted or made into something bigger than it is. McGaw’s research “shows that farmers’ possessions reveals that there was no standard array of implements farmers and farm wives owned or needed to own,” (29). The idea that really stood out to me was the idea of necessity. Just because a “new” piece of technology was produced doesn’t mean that if fit the lifestyles or the necessities of everyone. Her research with the counties of Pennsylvania and New Jersey mentions people of different ethnicities and different ways of doing things. During colonial America people owned new technologies based on their needs and way of living. Today we buy the latest technology simply because we want it and feel we have to have it. The iPad for example, looks sweet and awesome, but what is its purpose exactly? Do people in today’s society REALLY NEED it?<br />
~Mike Roche<br />
<br />
McGaw's analysis of historical inventories challenges some of the preconceptions many have about life on the frontier. For one, the notion of the lone farmer tending to his fields and his livestock all by his lonesome is pretty much erased by McGaw's inventory analysis. This lone frontiersman is a very iconic American image, often romanticized in movies, that seems to have rarely existed. According to McGaw's research, farmers of the day couldn't possibly have survived without a community willing to share their tools, resources, and technology with each other. The idea of a self-sufficient farmer, one who grows his own crops, harvests them, and then processes them seems to be somewhat of an American myth rather than actual history. -- Will D.<br />
<br />
I really like McGaw’s point that “farmer’s frequent ownership of axes best documents their openness to new land-making technology”(25). She discusses how barely anyone in the various counties owned axes but then changed their minds and axes became quite prominent. Another interesting point she makes is, “technological progress is always in the eye of the beholder”(26). I think this point echoes the idea that last week’s Pursell reading addressed, that newer technology is not always better. I know that when cell phones became popular, my friends and I were excited. But my parents could not understand why people needed to be in contact with others while shopping, walking to work, or worse, while driving (which is still a bad idea). So in their minds, they did not see the technological advancement of cell phones as progress. Over time they have become more open to cell phones, especially since I’ve been away from home, but they were skeptical at first. ~Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In reading Pursell, she mentions "that there was no standard array of household and farm utensils that virtually all colonists owned or needed to own". I feel this is still very true to this day. While my neighbor has every tool known to man it seems, I have what I feel are the basic necessities. We have some of the same tools in common (hammer, shovel, axe, etc.), but I have what my lifestyle requires, and he has what his lifestyle requires. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
Matthew's point about lifestyle is for me the central argument in the McGaw article. She first talks about how we look at technological innovation completely wrong. Where it isn't just about the plow, but also the farmer who owns the plow. The question we need to ask/analyze is not what was invented and why, but how was it used? Looking through what people owned at that time, provides a look into what people needed to fit that lifestyle. Then we can begin to learn more about what that lifestyle was like. I think after that point she talks about our assumption that people then were technologically self-sufficient.(23) Which according to the data is a false assumption. Because more household had candles than candle molds. The candles were coming from somewhere else, possibly a market of some sort. She bring up various other tools to support this point. Then she turns back to lifestyle, because it was lifestyle which tended to influence what type of tools households owned. She mentioned the Germans in York, influencing the tools the British used, because they were more commonplace. Because someone saw it was being used, they decided to use it too. However, in places which lacked those tools (and Germans apparently) there seemed to be hardly any use of it. So looking into the history of technology is also a study of economy, lifestyle, and communication. - Jenn<br />
<br />
To change the subject somewhat, what particularly struck me was McGaw's take on frontiersman sort of spearheading the push for industrialization spurred by their technological creativity. Does anyone have a take on this? I have always thought that farmers, ranchers and the like have been looked down upon by "modern" eyes. In truth, they are constantly helping to evolve their industry to make it more efficient, productive and less labor intensive. As jacks-of-all-trades it stands to reason that real genius can be found in their solutions to problems they encounter. One part artist, one part engineer (so why didn't you get a bonus for choosing a farmer in Oregon Trail?). --JoshW.<br />
<br />
McGraw's concern over the lack of cross-disciplinary historical research was very enlightening. Having technological historians only study the plow creates a very narrow view of history which can only be explored so far. Combining that research with research done by, say, and agricultural historian and a commercial historian will paint a much clearer picture of how it was used, who used it and what effect it had on the economy at the time, which can also give us a better picture of where our current economy came from. Her removal of the "pioneering spirit" of the frontier farmer was also interesting. Now knowing that bibles were more scarce than axes and that many "new" inventions created for life on the plains was either engineered out of necessity or was taken from other cultures which had dealt with similar terrain first or simply out of mundane necessity made me wonder what other miss-conceptions there are in our society about our past. - Scott<br />
<br />
In reading McGaw’s article, I was continually amazed by the simple and seemingly obvious mistakes and misunderstandings which could so simply and easily be made by the historian, and the way in which McGaw illustrated that even amongst data sets such as inventories uncertainty remains: does the lack of a bed listed indicate the lack of a bed, or the fact that the bed was securely attached to the house?<br />
The fact that individuals of the colonial period employed a mixture of self-sustainment and third-party aide and manufactures much more closely resembles the modern period than the stereotypical colonial “Jack of all Trades” model has and gives much more of a realistic idea of contemporary objects.-Nicole Steck<br />
<br />
== American Colonial Wealth (Document A) ==<br />
<br />
I find it so interesting how important it must have been to have one's property appraised back then. The banking system then was not nearly as sophisticated and having so much ready cash must have been a great liability. Also for the need of dividing up and liquidating an estate it must have been critical, as the appraisals done for deceased persons in the article suggest. What other purposes could appraisals have served? --JoshW.<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson, Tenche Coxe, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Cooper -- Documents on Factories ==<br />
<br />
It is quite ironic that Thomas Jefferson learned that manufacturing has its uses and its strength as a profitable enterprise. His farms were in ruin, but his nail business did well garnering a profit for him.<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is quite picky. He does not want any manufacturing. He only wants what we would call today in history textbooks “Cottage industry.” He states several times that any family can create their own clothing, but that is false. A $60 carding machine is out of the league of most yeoman farmers in the South.<br />
<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
In the readings by Thomas Jefferson, I think he is ok with the idea of technology, but only out of necessity. He thought that the usual day to day manufacturing should continue on but to have factories built in America, would make the people unhappy and the government corrupt. Maybe he had a point?? Tench Coxe was in favor of large scale manufacturing as was Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson saw that manufacturing was moving to America and could tell he was still on the fence but the money that it was bringing in was a good thing. Leo Marx was against the manufacturing and all but called Jefferson a hypocrite. Jefferson does explain at the beginning in his “Notes on Virginia” that he was for agrarian manufacturing and only taking what we need. I agree with him there, but due to all the advanced technology it is very difficult to turn away from it, due to advertising. Could Jefferson stand his ground or were there just too many people who were for manufacturing? --Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia originally was so opposed to manufacturing advancements. He says, “I doubted whether our labor, employed in agriculture, and aided by the spontaneous energies of the earth, would not procure us more than we could make ourselves of other necessaries” (Smith and Clancey 118). Jefferson did not want America to become like industrial England and have to face all of the societal problems that accompany industry. However I think there is a difference between some of the more necessary uses of manufacturing that Jefferson was opposed to and the technological advancements made today. For example, my friend loves his iPad. He uses it more than his phone and his laptop combined. And I admit it is a nice piece of technology. However, I do not believe that Americans would have really suffered if the iPad had not been invented. Jefferson was opposed to factories that would create more life essentials, e.g. clothing, metals, grains, etc. Finally he realized that factories would make America more independent from Europe which was important following the Revolution. ~Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In my opinion Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. At first he only believes that large scale manufacturing isn't needed, then he returns home after being away for 10 years and finds his crops are dying. Thus he must depend on his nail business. I suspect some of his first thoughts on large scale manufacturing may have been swayed by slavery. Perhaps he foresaw the abolishment of slavery with the abolishment of dependance on agriculture. In any case while he was trying to regenerate his farms with funding from his nail-making business, he says, "My new trade of nail-making is to me <br />
in this country what an additional title of nobility"(Smith and Clancey 115). Perhaps it was then that he realized that manufacturing their own necessities here in America would make them more independent from other countries. - Matt S.<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest minds of his time by far, but it is evident from his attitude that he had no idea what technological advances would come. Then again, he had reason to not want an "industrial age" to happen so soon. During the 18th century, the land was vast across the thirteen colonies, with people living far away from one another. Factory systems and mass production only are able to survive in small areas, due to the fact that the product much reach so many people. Beyond that, agriculture was a sure bet to make money. If the colonies had switched to Britain's factory system, nobody would know the outcome. Here in America, there were vast resources, paired up with cheap land (almost free) and plenty of space to work. He did not want to become economically challenged like Britian had become, but Jefferson did want to see some technological advancement to show that the colonies were out from the shadow of the former controlling country. I only wonder how many others viewed Jefferson's opinion during this time. - Patrick K.<br />
<br />
== Leo Marx's "The Machine" ==<br />
<br />
I found the idea of technological expression very interesting – the idea that the type of technology one chooses to own can actually convey aspects of their personality seems to be very relevant to our modern world of infinite technological gadgets we can choose to buy or leave on the shelf. For instance, a person whom doesn’t own a cell phone or a computer might be trying to communicate something to society about their willingness or lack thereof to participate in modern communication practices. The same might go for somebody whom doesn’t own a television; how many people have you ever might who claim to not own a television? Have you ever asked why? The answer always seems to be 1 of 2 things – “I don’t have time to watch TV,” or “TV makes you dumb, feeds your mind with banal pop culture, and I simply don’t choose to indulge in it.” By walking into a home and seeing a person with a record player, they might be trying to show their appreciation of vinyl records, and a taste for retro music equipment. The reading also discussed how Karl Marx believed the Industrial Revolution stripped many skilled artisans and craftsmen of their identity and humanity, as they were replaced by assembly lines and machines. However, does it really matter that so many artisans were reduced to being menial workers? Is it sad? Perhaps. Important? Probably not. Isn’t technology all about efficiency and innovation? Is it really important to maintain trades and crafts that humans have traditionally held for hundreds of years in the face of a greater, more efficient and productive machine? If improving and innovating technology is all about getting the job done better and more quickly, then the answer is a resounding “no.” --Kevin G.</div>Joshwolfehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 2 Questions/Comments2011-01-20T05:19:32Z<p>Joshwolfe: /* Judith McGaw -- "So Much Depends..." */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw -- "So Much Depends..." ==<br />
<br />
McGaw’s theory of technology accessibility in the frontier of Pennsylvania gives serious doubts to the “Independent spirit” that is postulated in Frederick Jackson Turner’s writings in the 1890’s about the frontier. Turner’s belief was that the self-sufficiency of Americans began with and fermented in the frontier, but McGaw’s data shows otherwise. It shows communities with farmers having other farmers process their textiles, grain, and fruits. Was this due to some farmers having the money or wealth to buy the technology to process or was there a division of labor amongst families in the frontier? ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
McGaw’s comment that our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted really stood out to me. It’s not just colonial America’s technology that is distorted or stereotyped; we all do this every day with virtually every topic. I once asked a student from Germany to tell me about their history classes, and to them WWII was just a conflict, not a huge war. As far as colonial America is concerned, it’s no wonder we have a distorted view when Disney produces movies like Pocahontas and we all grow up watching them. <br />
Also, she discusses the artifacts that farmers in colonial America had and comments that many had the means to produce goods, and in fact did produce, but very few had the materials to process these goods. Is it possible that trading, or the beginning of the market system, was in the works? It was probably easier to send all your wool to somebody who was really good at spinning it than to sit in your house and try to become extremely efficient at multiple tasks. If you have neighbors that can cut down on your work, why not utilize them. --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I also was intrigued by the theory that our image of colonial history, and really any history, is distorted. McGaw made an interesting point with her references to the poem about the wheelbarrow and chickens in the garden and how we need to actually be able to point to something to say, yes this person had this object. Her research into inventories seemed like a good place, but I wonder if those are always entirely truthful records. Are there other places to look at what a person owns? What about inventory or sales records for shops of the time? Another important issue is that all these ownerships can greatly vary by region, even by town. When she brought up about how farmers may not have necessarily owned their own tools, I thought that it’s important to remember that they likely couldn’t afford all the tools and borrowed from friends and neighbors, so they might have been at least technologically savvy.<br />
<br />
Also, one of her example areas was York County, Pennsylvania, which is where I’m from, so that was pretty exciting to read examples from. I interned at the county museum, and I know we had A LOT of farm tools. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
In Judith A. McGaw’s writing she explains that even though we had an Industrial Revolution the tools that were being used were still archaic at best. The frontier was not as advanced as we are led to believe it was. I found it interesting that not all frontiersman owned guns, while movies and shows make it look like all people during this time had guns. I wonder how they were able to look after their land without a weapon, or did they make their own too? I also understand that each area, not just a young America, but the world in general had different types of technology for different actions. I also noticed from the inventory items that are shown that some of the people thought that some items were worth putting in their inventory and left off the items that were not of value (to each individual importance of items were subject to their discretion or use). All 3 inventories list books and 2 of the inventories list the Bible, so what they had in common was religion. Technology took a little while to grow on people, but now we can’t stop. --Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
McGaw’s ideas about our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted was extremely interesting. While reading her findings and her ideas, I also began to think about technologies we have today whose images have been distorted or made into something bigger than it is. McGaw’s research “shows that farmers’ possessions reveals that there was no standard array of implements farmers and farm wives owned or needed to own,” (29). The idea that really stood out to me was the idea of necessity. Just because a “new” piece of technology was produced doesn’t mean that if fit the lifestyles or the necessities of everyone. Her research with the counties of Pennsylvania and New Jersey mentions people of different ethnicities and different ways of doing things. During colonial America people owned new technologies based on their needs and way of living. Today we buy the latest technology simply because we want it and feel we have to have it. The iPad for example, looks sweet and awesome, but what is its purpose exactly? Do people in today’s society REALLY NEED it?<br />
~Mike Roche<br />
<br />
McGaw's analysis of historical inventories challenges some of the preconceptions many have about life on the frontier. For one, the notion of the lone farmer tending to his fields and his livestock all by his lonesome is pretty much erased by McGaw's inventory analysis. This lone frontiersman is a very iconic American image, often romanticized in movies, that seems to have rarely existed. According to McGaw's research, farmers of the day couldn't possibly have survived without a community willing to share their tools, resources, and technology with each other. The idea of a self-sufficient farmer, one who grows his own crops, harvests them, and then processes them seems to be somewhat of an American myth rather than actual history. -- Will D.<br />
<br />
I really like McGaw’s point that “farmer’s frequent ownership of axes best documents their openness to new land-making technology”(25). She discusses how barely anyone in the various counties owned axes but then changed their minds and axes became quite prominent. Another interesting point she makes is, “technological progress is always in the eye of the beholder”(26). I think this point echoes the idea that last week’s Pursell reading addressed, that newer technology is not always better. I know that when cell phones became popular, my friends and I were excited. But my parents could not understand why people needed to be in contact with others while shopping, walking to work, or worse, while driving (which is still a bad idea). So in their minds, they did not see the technological advancement of cell phones as progress. Over time they have become more open to cell phones, especially since I’ve been away from home, but they were skeptical at first. ~Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In reading Pursell, she mentions "that there was no standard array of household and farm utensils that virtually all colonists owned or needed to own". I feel this is still very true to this day. While my neighbor has every tool known to man it seems, I have what I feel are the basic necessities. We have some of the same tools in common (hammer, shovel, axe, etc.), but I have what my lifestyle requires, and he has what his lifestyle requires. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
Matthew's point about lifestyle is for me the central argument in the McGaw article. She first talks about how we look at technological innovation completely wrong. Where it isn't just about the plow, but also the farmer who owns the plow. The question we need to ask/analyze is not what was invented and why, but how was it used? Looking through what people owned at that time, provides a look into what people needed to fit that lifestyle. Then we can begin to learn more about what that lifestyle was like. I think after that point she talks about our assumption that people then were technologically self-sufficient.(23) Which according to the data is a false assumption. Because more household had candles than candle molds. The candles were coming from somewhere else, possibly a market of some sort. She bring up various other tools to support this point. Then she turns back to lifestyle, because it was lifestyle which tended to influence what type of tools households owned. She mentioned the Germans in York, influencing the tools the British used, because they were more commonplace. Because someone saw it was being used, they decided to use it too. However, in places which lacked those tools (and Germans apparently) there seemed to be hardly any use of it. So looking into the history of technology is also a study of economy, lifestyle, and communication. - Jenn<br />
<br />
To change the subject somewhat, what particularly struck me was McGaw's take on frontiersman sort of spearheading the push for industrialization spurred by their technological creativity. Does anyone have a take on this? I have always thought that farmers, ranchers and the like have been looked down upon by "modern" eyes. In truth, they are constantly helping to evolve their industry to make it more efficient, productive and less labor intensive. As jacks-of-all-trades it stands to reason that real genius can be found in their solutions to problems they encounter. One part artist, one part engineer (so why didn't you get a bonus for choosing a farmer in Oregon Trail?). --JoshW.<br />
<br />
== American Colonial Wealth (Document A) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson, Tenche Coxe, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Cooper -- Documents on Factories ==<br />
<br />
It is quite ironic that Thomas Jefferson learned that manufacturing has its uses and its strength as a profitable enterprise. His farms were in ruin, but his nail business did well garnering a profit for him.<br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson is quite picky. He does not want any manufacturing. He only wants what we would call today in history textbooks “Cottage industry.” He states several times that any family can create their own clothing, but that is false. A $60 carding machine is out of the league of most yeoman farmers in the South.<br />
<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
In the readings by Thomas Jefferson, I think he is ok with the idea of technology, but only out of necessity. He thought that the usual day to day manufacturing should continue on but to have factories built in America, would make the people unhappy and the government corrupt. Maybe he had a point?? Tench Coxe was in favor of large scale manufacturing as was Alexander Hamilton. Thomas Jefferson saw that manufacturing was moving to America and could tell he was still on the fence but the money that it was bringing in was a good thing. Leo Marx was against the manufacturing and all but called Jefferson a hypocrite. Jefferson does explain at the beginning in his “Notes on Virginia” that he was for agrarian manufacturing and only taking what we need. I agree with him there, but due to all the advanced technology it is very difficult to turn away from it, due to advertising. Could Jefferson stand his ground or were there just too many people who were for manufacturing? --Pam Petzold<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia originally was so opposed to manufacturing advancements. He says, “I doubted whether our labor, employed in agriculture, and aided by the spontaneous energies of the earth, would not procure us more than we could make ourselves of other necessaries” (Smith and Clancey 118). Jefferson did not want America to become like industrial England and have to face all of the societal problems that accompany industry. However I think there is a difference between some of the more necessary uses of manufacturing that Jefferson was opposed to and the technological advancements made today. For example, my friend loves his iPad. He uses it more than his phone and his laptop combined. And I admit it is a nice piece of technology. However, I do not believe that Americans would have really suffered if the iPad had not been invented. Jefferson was opposed to factories that would create more life essentials, e.g. clothing, metals, grains, etc. Finally he realized that factories would make America more independent from Europe which was important following the Revolution. ~Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In my opinion Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. At first he only believes that large scale manufacturing isn't needed, then he returns home after being away for 10 years and finds his crops are dying. Thus he must depend on his nail business. I suspect some of his first thoughts on large scale manufacturing may have been swayed by slavery. Perhaps he foresaw the abolishment of slavery with the abolishment of dependance on agriculture. In any case while he was trying to regenerate his farms with funding from his nail-making business, he says, "My new trade of nail-making is to me <br />
in this country what an additional title of nobility"(Smith and Clancey 115). Perhaps it was then that he realized that manufacturing their own necessities here in America would make them more independent from other countries. - Matt S.<br />
<br />
== Leo Marx's "The Machine" ==<br />
<br />
I found the idea of technological expression very interesting – the idea that the type of technology one chooses to own can actually convey aspects of their personality seems to be very relevant to our modern world of infinite technological gadgets we can choose to buy or leave on the shelf. For instance, a person whom doesn’t own a cell phone or a computer might be trying to communicate something to society about their willingness or lack thereof to participate in modern communication practices. The same might go for somebody whom doesn’t own a television; how many people have you ever might who claim to not own a television? Have you ever asked why? The answer always seems to be 1 of 2 things – “I don’t have time to watch TV,” or “TV makes you dumb, feeds your mind with banal pop culture, and I simply don’t choose to indulge in it.” By walking into a home and seeing a person with a record player, they might be trying to show their appreciation of vinyl records, and a taste for retro music equipment. The reading also discussed how Karl Marx believed the Industrial Revolution stripped many skilled artisans and craftsmen of their identity and humanity, as they were replaced by assembly lines and machines. However, does it really matter that so many artisans were reduced to being menial workers? Is it sad? Perhaps. Important? Probably not. Isn’t technology all about efficiency and innovation? Is it really important to maintain trades and crafts that humans have traditionally held for hundreds of years in the face of a greater, more efficient and productive machine? If improving and innovating technology is all about getting the job done better and more quickly, then the answer is a resounding “no.” --Kevin G.</div>Joshwolfe Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38