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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$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: 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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$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=KwalleckMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:14:37ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_12_Questions/Comments325--Week 12 Questions/Comments2009-04-08T02:04:12Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>Nye addresses a lot of interesting points in this week's readings, but I want to focus on one of the topics from today's lecture on the adoption of "labor saving" technological devices like the washing machine and the explosion of small house hold appliances. According to Nye, 3 studies conducted during the 1920s showed that women spent between 51-64 hrs a week doing housework. Studies conducted two generations later show the same data or sometimes an increase in the time that women spend doing house work (Nye 272). While new technological devices like the washing machine drastically reduced that amount of time that it took to complete said tasks, social expectations (i.e. cleaning the house more regularly and spending more time with your kids) coupled with additional technological innovations (having more than two sets of clothing, the invention of other appliances to "shorten" the time one spends cleaning) really only reinforced the time-consuming nature of keeping a home. Work became more gendered as men working in factories were freed from household chores. New technology even allowed women to work in factories because they could still have the time to clean their homes and take care of their children thanks to technological innovation (Nye 272). Yet later on in the chapter, Nye makes that point that since families no longer gathered around the hearth as a source of light and heat, they somewhat lost the closeness of a tight-knit family that relied upon one another in a production-based (now a consumer-based) home (Nye 282). Now technological innovation by no means directly led to the downfall of family values, but it still rings true today that technology does isolate people from one another. Someone can listen to their I-Pod and end up in their own little world totally removed from their surroundings. Since people are relational beings, is technology the Devil? (joking here, but still) -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
wow, how do you go after that one, is technology the devil? I'd say no, because there is a degree of choice in the isolation that comes with the use of the technology, you wouldn't put on your headphones and then expect to have a deep conversation with someone. Also, technology can help provide for social relations as well. Personally, I would feel more disconnected from the world without access to my cell, internet, or lap top. -Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Also, (this relates to part of what Bryan was saying, but may be less extreme) one thing I thought was interesting in this reading was that it showed how electricity affected the family dynamics and how members of the family interacted with each other differently with the introduction of new technologies and appliances. For example, before electricity, it was more common for households to be more open and families tended to gather around a single heat source. However, after light and heat were able to be more easily accessed throughout the household, the family begins to be less centralized. Each member has their own room and their own space, which starts to resemble more how we interact with our own families today. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
My question in a previous posting about the Newport mansions being wired for both gas and electricity was answered in this reading (yay!).On page 242, Nye explains that many of the elite in the 1880's used electricity as a form of conspicuous consumption (no surprise there) and kept old lighting technology as the main light supplier. The new technology was unreliable and expensive.- Kirsten Walleck</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-24T01:46:34Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought it was interesting to read the memoir by Charles Sorensen and then to have that followed by Charles Madison’s description of his service to the Ford assembly line. The first memoir talked about the assembly line in terms of its great achievement in the field of manufacturing and production and proclaims at the end “Under this system man is not a slave to the machine, he is slave without it.” And after reading about Charles Madison’s experience, I’m sure he would stand to disagree. After moving from job to job in search of better pay and a better working experience, he finally decided to rid himself of the deceptive promises that Ford made to its workers and commit to the Dodge factory. It shows a real contrast between the two perspectives. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Nye 133-137 Nye's article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. "[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode." (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle<br />
<br />
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn't realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - "The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired..." (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn't it be nice if people could still use the words "cheap" and "new car parts" in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle<br />
<br />
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle<br />
<br />
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the "zone system of payment," which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
Social Reconstruction- The "anti-auto crusade" discussed in the beginning of the article is very entertaining. The laws, such as the one from Vermont that "required a person to carry a red flag and walk ahead of the car," and the personal attacks on motorists in states all over the country surprised me and made me think about all of the opposition new technology takes (i.e.electricity). I also found it interesting that one law addressed scaring carriage horses. My horse absolutely hates cars and almost kicked his foot through a driver's side window when someone sped past us, so I can only imagine what those horses thought of the weird machinery. Funny how opposition can be seen in politics, social settings, and the environment.--Kirsten Walleck</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-24T01:26:55Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought it was interesting to read the memoir by Charles Sorensen and then to have that followed by Charles Madison’s description of his service to the Ford assembly line. The first memoir talked about the assembly line in terms of its great achievement in the field of manufacturing and production and proclaims at the end “Under this system man is not a slave to the machine, he is slave without it.” And after reading about Charles Madison’s experience, I’m sure he would stand to disagree. After moving from job to job in search of better pay and a better working experience, he finally decided to rid himself of the deceptive promises that Ford made to its workers and commit to the Dodge factory. It shows a real contrast between the two perspectives. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Nye 133-137 Nye's article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. "[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode." (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle<br />
<br />
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn't realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - "The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired..." (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn't it be nice if people could still use the words "cheap" and "new car parts" in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle<br />
<br />
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle<br />
<br />
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the "zone system of payment," which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--Week 6 Questions/Comments2009-02-19T03:59:43Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’ll just start off by saying: I don’t think I’ve ever actually spent that much time thinking about light. When I first starting reading, I thought the whole book was going to be about light. In that regard, I think it would have been helpful to have read the introduction or the first chapter to get a better feel for the book (which I ended up skimming anyways). But with that said, at first I found it surprising that the discussion of light didn’t really mention the practicality of it at all, in terms of its impact on individual households and daily life, but rather a phenomenon that changed the way cities attracted populations and drew attention to itself through the lighting of streets, buildings, and advertisements. It also discussed how it altered the landscape of cities in general and how this was reflected in the paintings and photos of the cities during the night. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
On the same topic of practicality - I didn't even think about the entertainment aspect of light. When the first reading started off with talking about special lighting effects in theater I felt surprised that that would be one of the first international uses for it. Then, as the first long reading continued I was interested by the fact that electricity was really first promoted and advertised at world fairs. This plays to the business aspect of electricity but also the reading indicated that there was a certain expectation for every year's fair to be more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the last. Another non-practical use that seemed to be a main focus for the early years of electricity. – Elle<br />
<br />
The author did get in to how electricity affected daily life, but it wasn’t until it reached the rural areas in the 1930’s that the discussion takes this turn. It allowed for appliances in households and ended up increasing the length of the day because people weren’t depending as much on the natural day and night hours mandated by the sun rise and set. But I wasn’t really surprised that the rural areas were of the last affected by electricity. And the author brought up an interesting point when he described the opposition of electricity in rural areas because of how much it would interfere with the natural order of the farms, in terms of how the daily life of the farm could be managed, and how it could lead to a whole new character of farm life. I guess I just never really thought of electricity with a negative connotation as something that would be considered an “interruption.” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I have always known that electricity was important to our everyday lives, but I honestly never realized to what extent it affected and impacted the daily lives of people in late 1800s and early 1900s. The political impact of electricity at this time seemed really significant because it would decide how centralized and unified electric systems would become. Who would control the new system; and where would it be located, public or private lands, were both major concerns of Americans. Most importantly was that electricity helped to define progress, something that the majority of Americans wanted. It really amazed me all the considerations that were part of bringing electricity to America.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the reading was great, because to me it showed that America was not first to use "lighting" for things (unless I read it wrong)and it seemed much of our ideas came from Europe. Light was a luxury for such a long time I always wondered when it became a "necessity" rather than something for a small group of people. I was also found it interesting how farmers were being looked at differently.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found reading about how there was much debate on private and government controlled generator plants. Also the ideas over water power/dams was interesting. My favorite part was reading about how advertising for specific people, and how much of a manipulation it was and of course still is these days. The impact light had on workers, industry, arts, etc is just amazing to me. Electric in general or electric light is something we take for granted now, what would we do if we did not have it anymore? Would we be able to adapt to it? I am not sure if we really could manage.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
Commenting on the same article that Aislyn did above (pg 182-184), I realized I don't even think about where my electricity comes from. Now-a-days our electricity is very consolidated, each region gets it from a certain place and there are much less small electricity businesses than mentioned in this section of Nye's book. I think the fact that the government was uncertain as to how to treat electricity is a good indication that this was a new and confusing technology that had to be integrated more gradually than some people wished. - Elle<br />
<br />
Also in the reading between pp.182-184, I thought it was funny how worries over privatization of electricity and other utilities were around even back then. Anyone who lives off campus around here has had to deal with the monthly utility bills and the seemingly arbitrary way the rates fluctuate. Throughout this small reading, I just kept being reminded of how dreadful Dominion is in regards to billing. At least it's not a new thing. -Cash<br />
<br />
On a random note - I didn't think about how important the idea of putting multiple telegraph messages on the same wire was until I read the first portion of the reading. The mention of hundreds of entangled wires on electrical poles throughout the city is ridiculous - and so unappealing to the eye - no wonder some people weren't supportive of this new technology. - Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with the rest of the class that this was the most reading on light that I've ever done, and that we often neglect the socio-historical impact of an artifact of technology like electricity. I found the portion about lighting up urban areas particularly interesting because of the variety in lighting choices made available to the owners of different organizations and companies. It's very understandable that some people would object to ruining the more "natural" atmosphere of the cities, and especially natural attractions like Niagara Falls, while it was aesthetically pleasing to many. As lighting became more common-place, it was natural for companies to try and outdo one another in order to attract more attention to their products. We're still trying to "one up" and outdo one another today which speaks a great deal to our human condition for choosing what may be aesthetically pleasing despite not being the best technological advancement in the long run. As we've said in class, technological advancement shouldn't equate to civilization. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I also found the development of the amusement park to be very interesting. As early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries people were attracted to fairs for entertainment purposes. Trolley cars provided transportation to trolley parks at a reasonably cheap price. Nye suggests that the cool breeze from these open window cars attracted large numbers of customers to take rural, scenic tours into the countryside where one could have a picnic, hear a band, got boating, or see the park's various attractions (123). The invention of electricity and an efficient, effective electrical system was crucial to the development of these early theme parks. While it is rather apparent that one might need electricity to reach these country parks before cars became the dominant mode of transportation, I had never considered the far reaching implications of electricity prior to this reading. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think Elle put it nicely when she said that electricity was a "new and confusing technology" and the government didn't know how to treat it. Nye talks about the different speeds and motives of foreign governements to provide electricity to the citizenry and how the priorities in specific countries effected electrification in that country. In South Africa, electricity was used to improve gold, coal, and diamond mining, but not the homes of black workers. In Russia, Lenin pursued full electrification because he thought full socialism could not be attained without it. Electrification seems to have been illustrative of a country's political climate at the time. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I love the section explaining William Dean Howells' "A Traveler from Altruria." He thought because of electricity people could live off the land and travel into cities which were art centers and have the best of both worlds. Its a bit like Ebenezer Howard's City-Garden idea where the town and country model has an urban center but smaller streetcar suburbs along the outside. I know it was probably naive for these men to think it could happen but I like how they viewed electricity as opening up all these possibilities for rural areas almost like they had in Europe. Obviously since industry was on the rise, cities would take more advantage of electricity. Also in this section about rural electricity (or lack there of) it was interesting how people, even Roosevelt, viewed electricity on farms as something undesirable or cheating the system of natural cycles. In many cases, whether to use electricity or not was viewed as a moral question. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The ads promoting electricity are interesting. It is odd now to think about having to convince people of how good electricity is but this was what the ads aimed for. The big message is that, basically, electricity will make your life happier and easier. You can go to baseball games at night and go out on the town or stay in and listen to the radio. They are very area specific as well. The ad for the more urban areas talk about lighting classrooms and office buildings while the rural ad focuses on farm equipment and kitchen wares that have probably already been widely used in the cities. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Nye does a good job explaining the impact of the lighting system on American culture. Nye explains how American’s used these new lighting systems in abstract ways for example, lighting up the statue of liberty and world’s fairs. World’s fairs were used to show people of upper middle class and upper class where the American culture was going. These people found prestige in electrification and considered it a turning point in American culture; to them it showed evolution and progress. I know that we try to stay away from the word progress when it comes to technology, but I am curious if we have had any revolutionary technology that has had such an impact on life since electrification. The only think that comes to mind are computers, which can definitely be considered a revolutionary system, but I am not sure if it has had the quite the same impact as electrification, I am just curious of anyone else’s thoughts. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think the electrification of farms and agricultural regions was a very interesting topic of debate. While the upper classes of individuals found advancement and prestige in electrification, farmers were reluctant. There were definitely mixed emotions about electricity in rural areas. Nye states that in 1920 90% of farmers could not get distributions to their homes and farms (far greater a percentage than European nations who had a majority of their farmers with electricity). Roosevelt found the farmer as the backbone of the nation, and he looked to Jefferson who saw the farmer as “the model for political virtue” (291), based of these ideals, he was hesitant to electrify rural areas. Farmers themselves were not sure about electrification. I found it funny that an Iowa newspaper wrote a piece about how cows would be unable to sleep at night. Other farmers thought that electricity would promote growth, and experimented with electricity and plant life. Edison himself stated that electricity would end frost, drought, and could even melt icebergs! I think this shows a lot about people at the time, and goes along with the idea of controlling nature. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Oftentimes, the fact that many people did not initially accept a technology is overlooked. It is assumed that everyone embraced the new way of doing things with open arms. Some of the concerns people had with technology seem comical to us now. For example, Nye mentions an article in which the author is worried by the thought that cows would not be able to sleep in an electrified town. Technological determinism makes it harder to see the different possible outcomes and the initial hesitation towards a technology. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
One random part of the first reading I found interesting was the section talking about the American world's fairs. I feel like I have read "The (insert some technology or idea) was first introduced at (some city's) world fair," but I have never asked any details about the fair. Reading that section gave me a whole new incite on the importance of the fair itself and the atmosphere surrounding all of the great inventions.-Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found it funny how both the urban and rural markets viewed electricity as a way to make the urban areas more urban and give the rural areas a chance to "move back to the land." Even funnier was that an area based mostly on an agrarian lifestyle would embrace the glitz and modernity of electricity as a way to enhance the farming lifestyle. Maybe it's the fact that I haven't lived in a farming town for almost thirteen years now, but I guess I just don't really associate farming with electricity anymore. (Perspective: My hometown just got wi-fi in its public library like two years ago. It took another two years to explain to most of the Valparaisoans what wi-fi even is.) -Cash<br />
<br />
The adverse reaction to the New York skyline described starting on page 74 made me think of how people see it today. Seeing the New York skyline from the Brooklyn Bridge for the first time is often a optical experience for anyone. It still can be seen as a powerful, beautiful city with a new world of opportunities and confidence. Also, the author talks about tourists coming to "witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness."(69)The fact that people are interested in eye-catching scenes, good or bad, and technological changes has always been known and capitalized upon. It is the same reason people enjoy watching horror films or looking at the Grand Canyon. Anyway, it was interesting to read about how electricity changed the New York City landscape and how it still captivates people.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how technologies can be both democratizing forces and centers of class conflict. For instance, the electric car created specialized sections in cities. The wealthier people were able to move out to suburbs on the city’s edge, but the working class who couldn’t afford the trolley fair remained in the city center. Yet, at the same time, the electric car helped bring about department stores, which “democratized” luxury with their affordable products. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think most of us consider the way the U.S. government is split up into three levels to be a generally good way of diffusing power, so it’s interesting to see how our decentralized political system actually hurt creating a national energy policy. It was left up to private companies to electrify American because the government was caught up in jurisdictional boundaries. Private companies were, of course, quick to advertise but slow to electrify homes (except for the ones belonging to rich people). It wasn’t until the government got involved in the 1930s that rural areas received electricity. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
How reliable was the electricity? I do not think the author addressed that in the reading. I know that the Breakers mansion (owned by the Vanderbilts) in Newport, RI and all of the other Newport mansions were wired for both gas and electricity because of the unreliable nature in the Gilded Age. To what extent was that true? Newport is also on an island and could be considered kind of rural, but not used for farming at this point. That might have contributed to this.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I don't think the electricity could have been completely reliable. Even today if we get a bad storm, we can lose power for some time. What could cause power to go out, other than the causes we face today? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
That is true. Also, I was thinking about the other things the reading said about electricity being cost effective, no odor, cleaner, insurance companies charging less because of the fire risk, etc. was it the same for buildings wired for both? I guess the cost would not be a factor since the Newport/New York crowd were paying exorbitant amounts of money on anything and everything. -Kirsten</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--Week 6 Questions/Comments2009-02-19T03:21:17Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’ll just start off by saying: I don’t think I’ve ever actually spent that much time thinking about light. When I first starting reading, I thought the whole book was going to be about light. In that regard, I think it would have been helpful to have read the introduction or the first chapter to get a better feel for the book (which I ended up skimming anyways). But with that said, at first I found it surprising that the discussion of light didn’t really mention the practicality of it at all, in terms of its impact on individual households and daily life, but rather a phenomenon that changed the way cities attracted populations and drew attention to itself through the lighting of streets, buildings, and advertisements. It also discussed how it altered the landscape of cities in general and how this was reflected in the paintings and photos of the cities during the night. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
On the same topic of practicality - I didn't even think about the entertainment aspect of light. When the first reading started off with talking about special lighting effects in theater I felt surprised that that would be one of the first international uses for it. Then, as the first long reading continued I was interested by the fact that electricity was really first promoted and advertised at world fairs. This plays to the business aspect of electricity but also the reading indicated that there was a certain expectation for every year's fair to be more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the last. Another non-practical use that seemed to be a main focus for the early years of electricity. – Elle<br />
<br />
The author did get in to how electricity affected daily life, but it wasn’t until it reached the rural areas in the 1930’s that the discussion takes this turn. It allowed for appliances in households and ended up increasing the length of the day because people weren’t depending as much on the natural day and night hours mandated by the sun rise and set. But I wasn’t really surprised that the rural areas were of the last affected by electricity. And the author brought up an interesting point when he described the opposition of electricity in rural areas because of how much it would interfere with the natural order of the farms, in terms of how the daily life of the farm could be managed, and how it could lead to a whole new character of farm life. I guess I just never really thought of electricity with a negative connotation as something that would be considered an “interruption.” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I have always known that electricity was important to our everyday lives, but I honestly never realized to what extent it affected and impacted the daily lives of people in late 1800s and early 1900s. The political impact of electricity at this time seemed really significant because it would decide how centralized and unified electric systems would become. Who would control the new system; and where would it be located, public or private lands, were both major concerns of Americans. Most importantly was that electricity helped to define progress, something that the majority of Americans wanted. It really amazed me all the considerations that were part of bringing electricity to America.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the reading was great, because to me it showed that America was not first to use "lighting" for things (unless I read it wrong)and it seemed much of our ideas came from Europe. Light was a luxury for such a long time I always wondered when it became a "necessity" rather than something for a small group of people. I was also found it interesting how farmers were being looked at differently.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found reading about how there was much debate on private and government controlled generator plants. Also the ideas over water power/dams was interesting. My favorite part was reading about how advertising for specific people, and how much of a manipulation it was and of course still is these days. The impact light had on workers, industry, arts, etc is just amazing to me. Electric in general or electric light is something we take for granted now, what would we do if we did not have it anymore? Would we be able to adapt to it? I am not sure if we really could manage.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
Commenting on the same article that Aislyn did above (pg 182-184), I realized I don't even think about where my electricity comes from. Now-a-days our electricity is very consolidated, each region gets it from a certain place and there are much less small electricity businesses than mentioned in this section of Nye's book. I think the fact that the government was uncertain as to how to treat electricity is a good indication that this was a new and confusing technology that had to be integrated more gradually than some people wished. - Elle<br />
<br />
Also in the reading between pp.182-184, I thought it was funny how worries over privatization of electricity and other utilities were around even back then. Anyone who lives off campus around here has had to deal with the monthly utility bills and the seemingly arbitrary way the rates fluctuate. Throughout this small reading, I just kept being reminded of how dreadful Dominion is in regards to billing. At least it's not a new thing. -Cash<br />
<br />
On a random note - I didn't think about how important the idea of putting multiple telegraph messages on the same wire was until I read the first portion of the reading. The mention of hundreds of entangled wires on electrical poles throughout the city is ridiculous - and so unappealing to the eye - no wonder some people weren't supportive of this new technology. - Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with the rest of the class that this was the most reading on light that I've ever done, and that we often neglect the socio-historical impact of an artifact of technology like electricity. I found the portion about lighting up urban areas particularly interesting because of the variety in lighting choices made available to the owners of different organizations and companies. It's very understandable that some people would object to ruining the more "natural" atmosphere of the cities, and especially natural attractions like Niagara Falls, while it was aesthetically pleasing to many. As lighting became more common-place, it was natural for companies to try and outdo one another in order to attract more attention to their products. We're still trying to "one up" and outdo one another today which speaks a great deal to our human condition for choosing what may be aesthetically pleasing despite not being the best technological advancement in the long run. As we've said in class, technological advancement shouldn't equate to civilization. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I also found the development of the amusement park to be very interesting. As early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries people were attracted to fairs for entertainment purposes. Trolley cars provided transportation to trolley parks at a reasonably cheap price. Nye suggests that the cool breeze from these open window cars attracted large numbers of customers to take rural, scenic tours into the countryside where one could have a picnic, hear a band, got boating, or see the park's various attractions (123). The invention of electricity and an efficient, effective electrical system was crucial to the development of these early theme parks. While it is rather apparent that one might need electricity to reach these country parks before cars became the dominant mode of transportation, I had never considered the far reaching implications of electricity prior to this reading. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think Elle put it nicely when she said that electricity was a "new and confusing technology" and the government didn't know how to treat it. Nye talks about the different speeds and motives of foreign governements to provide electricity to the citizenry and how the priorities in specific countries effected electrification in that country. In South Africa, electricity was used to improve gold, coal, and diamond mining, but not the homes of black workers. In Russia, Lenin pursued full electrification because he thought full socialism could not be attained without it. Electrification seems to have been illustrative of a country's political climate at the time. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I love the section explaining William Dean Howells' "A Traveler from Altruria." He thought because of electricity people could live off the land and travel into cities which were art centers and have the best of both worlds. Its a bit like Ebenezer Howard's City-Garden idea where the town and country model has an urban center but smaller streetcar suburbs along the outside. I know it was probably naive for these men to think it could happen but I like how they viewed electricity as opening up all these possibilities for rural areas almost like they had in Europe. Obviously since industry was on the rise, cities would take more advantage of electricity. Also in this section about rural electricity (or lack there of) it was interesting how people, even Roosevelt, viewed electricity on farms as something undesirable or cheating the system of natural cycles. In many cases, whether to use electricity or not was viewed as a moral question. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The ads promoting electricity are interesting. It is odd now to think about having to convince people of how good electricity is but this was what the ads aimed for. The big message is that, basically, electricity will make your life happier and easier. You can go to baseball games at night and go out on the town or stay in and listen to the radio. They are very area specific as well. The ad for the more urban areas talk about lighting classrooms and office buildings while the rural ad focuses on farm equipment and kitchen wares that have probably already been widely used in the cities. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Nye does a good job explaining the impact of the lighting system on American culture. Nye explains how American’s used these new lighting systems in abstract ways for example, lighting up the statue of liberty and world’s fairs. World’s fairs were used to show people of upper middle class and upper class where the American culture was going. These people found prestige in electrification and considered it a turning point in American culture; to them it showed evolution and progress. I know that we try to stay away from the word progress when it comes to technology, but I am curious if we have had any revolutionary technology that has had such an impact on life since electrification. The only think that comes to mind are computers, which can definitely be considered a revolutionary system, but I am not sure if it has had the quite the same impact as electrification, I am just curious of anyone else’s thoughts. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think the electrification of farms and agricultural regions was a very interesting topic of debate. While the upper classes of individuals found advancement and prestige in electrification, farmers were reluctant. There were definitely mixed emotions about electricity in rural areas. Nye states that in 1920 90% of farmers could not get distributions to their homes and farms (far greater a percentage than European nations who had a majority of their farmers with electricity). Roosevelt found the farmer as the backbone of the nation, and he looked to Jefferson who saw the farmer as “the model for political virtue” (291), based of these ideals, he was hesitant to electrify rural areas. Farmers themselves were not sure about electrification. I found it funny that an Iowa newspaper wrote a piece about how cows would be unable to sleep at night. Other farmers thought that electricity would promote growth, and experimented with electricity and plant life. Edison himself stated that electricity would end frost, drought, and could even melt icebergs! I think this shows a lot about people at the time, and goes along with the idea of controlling nature. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Oftentimes, the fact that many people did not initially accept a technology is overlooked. It is assumed that everyone embraced the new way of doing things with open arms. Some of the concerns people had with technology seem comical to us now. For example, Nye mentions an article in which the author is worried by the thought that cows would not be able to sleep in an electrified town. Technological determinism makes it harder to see the different possible outcomes and the initial hesitation towards a technology. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
One random part of the first reading I found interesting was the section talking about the American world's fairs. I feel like I have read "The (insert some technology or idea) was first introduced at (some city's) world fair," but I have never asked any details about the fair. Reading that section gave me a whole new incite on the importance of the fair itself and the atmosphere surrounding all of the great inventions.-Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found it funny how both the urban and rural markets viewed electricity as a way to make the urban areas more urban and give the rural areas a chance to "move back to the land." Even funnier was that an area based mostly on an agrarian lifestyle would embrace the glitz and modernity of electricity as a way to enhance the farming lifestyle. Maybe it's the fact that I haven't lived in a farming town for almost thirteen years now, but I guess I just don't really associate farming with electricity anymore. (Perspective: My hometown just got wi-fi in its public library like two years ago. It took another two years to explain to most of the Valparaisoans what wi-fi even is.) -Cash<br />
<br />
The adverse reaction to the New York skyline described starting on page 74 made me think of how people see it today. Seeing the New York skyline from the Brooklyn Bridge for the first time is often a optical experience for anyone. It still can be seen as a powerful, beautiful city with a new world of opportunities and confidence. Also, the author talks about tourists coming to "witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness."(69)The fact that people are interested in eye-catching scenes, good or bad, and technological changes has always been known and capitalized upon. It is the same reason people enjoy watching horror films or looking at the Grand Canyon. Anyway, it was interesting to read about how electricity changed the New York City landscape and how it still captivates people.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how technologies can be both democratizing forces and centers of class conflict. For instance, the electric car created specialized sections in cities. The wealthier people were able to move out to suburbs on the city’s edge, but the working class who couldn’t afford the trolley fair remained in the city center. Yet, at the same time, the electric car helped bring about department stores, which “democratized” luxury with their affordable products. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think most of us consider the way the U.S. government is split up into three levels to be a generally good way of diffusing power, so it’s interesting to see how our decentralized political system actually hurt creating a national energy policy. It was left up to private companies to electrify American because the government was caught up in jurisdictional boundaries. Private companies were, of course, quick to advertise but slow to electrify homes (except for the ones belonging to rich people). It wasn’t until the government got involved in the 1930s that rural areas received electricity. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
How reliable was the electricity? I do not think the author addressed that in the reading. I know that the Breakers mansion (owned by the Vanderbilts) in Newport, RI and all of the other Newport mansions were wired for both gas and electricity because of the unreliable nature in the Gilded Age. To what extent was that true? Newport is also on an island and could be considered kind of rural, but not used for farming at this point. That might have contributed to this.- Kirsten Walleck</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--Week 6 Questions/Comments2009-02-19T02:46:34Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’ll just start off by saying: I don’t think I’ve ever actually spent that much time thinking about light. When I first starting reading, I thought the whole book was going to be about light. In that regard, I think it would have been helpful to have read the introduction or the first chapter to get a better feel for the book (which I ended up skimming anyways). But with that said, at first I found it surprising that the discussion of light didn’t really mention the practicality of it at all, in terms of its impact on individual households and daily life, but rather a phenomenon that changed the way cities attracted populations and drew attention to itself through the lighting of streets, buildings, and advertisements. It also discussed how it altered the landscape of cities in general and how this was reflected in the paintings and photos of the cities during the night. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
On the same topic of practicality - I didn't even think about the entertainment aspect of light. When the first reading started off with talking about special lighting effects in theater I felt surprised that that would be one of the first international uses for it. Then, as the first long reading continued I was interested by the fact that electricity was really first promoted and advertised at world fairs. This plays to the business aspect of electricity but also the reading indicated that there was a certain expectation for every year's fair to be more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the last. Another non-practical use that seemed to be a main focus for the early years of electricity. – Elle<br />
<br />
The author did get in to how electricity affected daily life, but it wasn’t until it reached the rural areas in the 1930’s that the discussion takes this turn. It allowed for appliances in households and ended up increasing the length of the day because people weren’t depending as much on the natural day and night hours mandated by the sun rise and set. But I wasn’t really surprised that the rural areas were of the last affected by electricity. And the author brought up an interesting point when he described the opposition of electricity in rural areas because of how much it would interfere with the natural order of the farms, in terms of how the daily life of the farm could be managed, and how it could lead to a whole new character of farm life. I guess I just never really thought of electricity with a negative connotation as something that would be considered an “interruption.” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I have always known that electricity was important to our everyday lives, but I honestly never realized to what extent it affected and impacted the daily lives of people in late 1800s and early 1900s. The political impact of electricity at this time seemed really significant because it would decide how centralized and unified electric systems would become. Who would control the new system; and where would it be located, public or private lands, were both major concerns of Americans. Most importantly was that electricity helped to define progress, something that the majority of Americans wanted. It really amazed me all the considerations that were part of bringing electricity to America.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the reading was great, because to me it showed that America was not first to use "lighting" for things (unless I read it wrong)and it seemed much of our ideas came from Europe. Light was a luxury for such a long time I always wondered when it became a "necessity" rather than something for a small group of people. I was also found it interesting how farmers were being looked at differently.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found reading about how there was much debate on private and government controlled generator plants. Also the ideas over water power/dams was interesting. My favorite part was reading about how advertising for specific people, and how much of a manipulation it was and of course still is these days. The impact light had on workers, industry, arts, etc is just amazing to me. Electric in general or electric light is something we take for granted now, what would we do if we did not have it anymore? Would we be able to adapt to it? I am not sure if we really could manage.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
Commenting on the same article that Aislyn did above (pg 182-184), I realized I don't even think about where my electricity comes from. Now-a-days our electricity is very consolidated, each region gets it from a certain place and there are much less small electricity businesses than mentioned in this section of Nye's book. I think the fact that the government was uncertain as to how to treat electricity is a good indication that this was a new and confusing technology that had to be integrated more gradually than some people wished. - Elle<br />
<br />
Also in the reading between pp.182-184, I thought it was funny how worries over privatization of electricity and other utilities were around even back then. Anyone who lives off campus around here has had to deal with the monthly utility bills and the seemingly arbitrary way the rates fluctuate. Throughout this small reading, I just kept being reminded of how dreadful Dominion is in regards to billing. At least it's not a new thing. -Cash<br />
<br />
On a random note - I didn't think about how important the idea of putting multiple telegraph messages on the same wire was until I read the first portion of the reading. The mention of hundreds of entangled wires on electrical poles throughout the city is ridiculous - and so unappealing to the eye - no wonder some people weren't supportive of this new technology. - Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with the rest of the class that this was the most reading on light that I've ever done, and that we often neglect the socio-historical impact of an artifact of technology like electricity. I found the portion about lighting up urban areas particularly interesting because of the variety in lighting choices made available to the owners of different organizations and companies. It's very understandable that some people would object to ruining the more "natural" atmosphere of the cities, and especially natural attractions like Niagara Falls, while it was aesthetically pleasing to many. As lighting became more common-place, it was natural for companies to try and outdo one another in order to attract more attention to their products. We're still trying to "one up" and outdo one another today which speaks a great deal to our human condition for choosing what may be aesthetically pleasing despite not being the best technological advancement in the long run. As we've said in class, technological advancement shouldn't equate to civilization. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I also found the development of the amusement park to be very interesting. As early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries people were attracted to fairs for entertainment purposes. Trolley cars provided transportation to trolley parks at a reasonably cheap price. Nye suggests that the cool breeze from these open window cars attracted large numbers of customers to take rural, scenic tours into the countryside where one could have a picnic, hear a band, got boating, or see the park's various attractions (123). The invention of electricity and an efficient, effective electrical system was crucial to the development of these early theme parks. While it is rather apparent that one might need electricity to reach these country parks before cars became the dominant mode of transportation, I had never considered the far reaching implications of electricity prior to this reading. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think Elle put it nicely when she said that electricity was a "new and confusing technology" and the government didn't know how to treat it. Nye talks about the different speeds and motives of foreign governements to provide electricity to the citizenry and how the priorities in specific countries effected electrification in that country. In South Africa, electricity was used to improve gold, coal, and diamond mining, but not the homes of black workers. In Russia, Lenin pursued full electrification because he thought full socialism could not be attained without it. Electrification seems to have been illustrative of a country's political climate at the time. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I love the section explaining William Dean Howells' "A Traveler from Altruria." He thought because of electricity people could live off the land and travel into cities which were art centers and have the best of both worlds. Its a bit like Ebenezer Howard's City-Garden idea where the town and country model has an urban center but smaller streetcar suburbs along the outside. I know it was probably naive for these men to think it could happen but I like how they viewed electricity as opening up all these possibilities for rural areas almost like they had in Europe. Obviously since industry was on the rise, cities would take more advantage of electricity. Also in this section about rural electricity (or lack there of) it was interesting how people, even Roosevelt, viewed electricity on farms as something undesirable or cheating the system of natural cycles. In many cases, whether to use electricity or not was viewed as a moral question. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The ads promoting electricity are interesting. It is odd now to think about having to convince people of how good electricity is but this was what the ads aimed for. The big message is that, basically, electricity will make your life happier and easier. You can go to baseball games at night and go out on the town or stay in and listen to the radio. They are very area specific as well. The ad for the more urban areas talk about lighting classrooms and office buildings while the rural ad focuses on farm equipment and kitchen wares that have probably already been widely used in the cities. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Nye does a good job explaining the impact of the lighting system on American culture. Nye explains how American’s used these new lighting systems in abstract ways for example, lighting up the statue of liberty and world’s fairs. World’s fairs were used to show people of upper middle class and upper class where the American culture was going. These people found prestige in electrification and considered it a turning point in American culture; to them it showed evolution and progress. I know that we try to stay away from the word progress when it comes to technology, but I am curious if we have had any revolutionary technology that has had such an impact on life since electrification. The only think that comes to mind are computers, which can definitely be considered a revolutionary system, but I am not sure if it has had the quite the same impact as electrification, I am just curious of anyone else’s thoughts. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think the electrification of farms and agricultural regions was a very interesting topic of debate. While the upper classes of individuals found advancement and prestige in electrification, farmers were reluctant. There were definitely mixed emotions about electricity in rural areas. Nye states that in 1920 90% of farmers could not get distributions to their homes and farms (far greater a percentage than European nations who had a majority of their farmers with electricity). Roosevelt found the farmer as the backbone of the nation, and he looked to Jefferson who saw the farmer as “the model for political virtue” (291), based of these ideals, he was hesitant to electrify rural areas. Farmers themselves were not sure about electrification. I found it funny that an Iowa newspaper wrote a piece about how cows would be unable to sleep at night. Other farmers thought that electricity would promote growth, and experimented with electricity and plant life. Edison himself stated that electricity would end frost, drought, and could even melt icebergs! I think this shows a lot about people at the time, and goes along with the idea of controlling nature. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Oftentimes, the fact that many people did not initially accept a technology is overlooked. It is assumed that everyone embraced the new way of doing things with open arms. Some of the concerns people had with technology seem comical to us now. For example, Nye mentions an article in which the author is worried by the thought that cows would not be able to sleep in an electrified town. Technological determinism makes it harder to see the different possible outcomes and the initial hesitation towards a technology. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
One random part of the first reading I found interesting was the section talking about the American world's fairs. I feel like I have read "The (insert some technology or idea) was first introduced at (some city's) world fair," but I have never asked any details about the fair. Reading that section gave me a whole new incite on the importance of the fair itself and the atmosphere surrounding all of the great inventions.-Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found it funny how both the urban and rural markets viewed electricity as a way to make the urban areas more urban and give the rural areas a chance to "move back to the land." Even funnier was that an area based mostly on an agrarian lifestyle would embrace the glitz and modernity of electricity as a way to enhance the farming lifestyle. Maybe it's the fact that I haven't lived in a farming town for almost thirteen years now, but I guess I just don't really associate farming with electricity anymore. (Perspective: My hometown just got wi-fi in its public library like two years ago. It took another two years to explain to most of the Valparaisoans what wi-fi even is.) -Cash<br />
<br />
The adverse reaction to the New York skyline described starting on page 74 made me think of how people see it today. Seeing the New York skyline from the Brooklyn Bridge for the first time is often a optical experience for anyone. It still can be seen as a powerful, beautiful city with a new world of opportunities and confidence. Also, the author talks about tourists coming to "witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness."(69)The fact that people are interested in eye-catching scenes, good or bad, and technological changes has always been known and capitalized upon. It is the same reason people enjoy watching horror films or looking at the Grand Canyon. Anyway, it was interesting to read about how electricity changed the New York City landscape and how it still captivates people.- Kirsten Walleck</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--Week 6 Questions/Comments2009-02-19T01:26:33Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’ll just start off by saying: I don’t think I’ve ever actually spent that much time thinking about light. When I first starting reading, I thought the whole book was going to be about light. In that regard, I think it would have been helpful to have read the introduction or the first chapter to get a better feel for the book (which I ended up skimming anyways). But with that said, at first I found it surprising that the discussion of light didn’t really mention the practicality of it at all, in terms of its impact on individual households and daily life, but rather a phenomenon that changed the way cities attracted populations and drew attention to itself through the lighting of streets, buildings, and advertisements. It also discussed how it altered the landscape of cities in general and how this was reflected in the paintings and photos of the cities during the night. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
On the same topic of practicality - I didn't even think about the entertainment aspect of light. When the first reading started off with talking about special lighting effects in theater I felt surprised that that would be one of the first international uses for it. Then, as the first long reading continued I was interested by the fact that electricity was really first promoted and advertised at world fairs. This plays to the business aspect of electricity but also the reading indicated that there was a certain expectation for every year's fair to be more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the last. Another non-practical use that seemed to be a main focus for the early years of electricity. – Elle<br />
<br />
The author did get in to how electricity affected daily life, but it wasn’t until it reached the rural areas in the 1930’s that the discussion takes this turn. It allowed for appliances in households and ended up increasing the length of the day because people weren’t depending as much on the natural day and night hours mandated by the sun rise and set. But I wasn’t really surprised that the rural areas were of the last affected by electricity. And the author brought up an interesting point when he described the opposition of electricity in rural areas because of how much it would interfere with the natural order of the farms, in terms of how the daily life of the farm could be managed, and how it could lead to a whole new character of farm life. I guess I just never really thought of electricity with a negative connotation as something that would be considered an “interruption.” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I have always known that electricity was important to our everyday lives, but I honestly never realized to what extent it affected and impacted the daily lives of people in late 1800s and early 1900s. The political impact of electricity at this time seemed really significant because it would decide how centralized and unified electric systems would become. Who would control the new system; and where would it be located, public or private lands, were both major concerns of Americans. Most importantly was that electricity helped to define progress, something that the majority of Americans wanted. It really amazed me all the considerations that were part of bringing electricity to America.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the reading was great, because to me it showed that America was not first to use "lighting" for things (unless I read it wrong)and it seemed much of our ideas came from Europe. Light was a luxury for such a long time I always wondered when it became a "necessity" rather than something for a small group of people. I was also found it interesting how farmers were being looked at differently.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found reading about how there was much debate on private and government controlled generator plants. Also the ideas over water power/dams was interesting. My favorite part was reading about how advertising for specific people, and how much of a manipulation it was and of course still is these days. The impact light had on workers, industry, arts, etc is just amazing to me. Electric in general or electric light is something we take for granted now, what would we do if we did not have it anymore? Would we be able to adapt to it? I am not sure if we really could manage.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
Commenting on the same article that Aislyn did above (pg 182-184), I realized I don't even think about where my electricity comes from. Now-a-days our electricity is very consolidated, each region gets it from a certain place and there are much less small electricity businesses than mentioned in this section of Nye's book. I think the fact that the government was uncertain as to how to treat electricity is a good indication that this was a new and confusing technology that had to be integrated more gradually than some people wished. - Elle<br />
<br />
On a random note - I didn't think about how important the idea of putting multiple telegraph messages on the same wire was until I read the first portion of the reading. The mention of hundreds of entangled wires on electrical poles throughout the city is ridiculous - and so unappealing to the eye - no wonder some people weren't supportive of this new technology. - Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with the rest of the class that this was the most reading on light that I've ever done, and that we often neglect the socio-historical impact of an artifact of technology like electricity. I found the portion about lighting up urban areas particularly interesting because of the variety in lighting choices made available to the owners of different organizations and companies. It's very understandable that some people would object to ruining the more "natural" atmosphere of the cities, and especially natural attractions like Niagara Falls, while it was aesthetically pleasing to many. As lighting became more common-place, it was natural for companies to try and outdo one another in order to attract more attention to their products. We're still trying to "one up" and outdo one another today which speaks a great deal to our human condition for choosing what may be aesthetically pleasing despite not being the best technological advancement in the long run. As we've said in class, technological advancement shouldn't equate to civilization. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I also found the development of the amusement park to be very interesting. As early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries people were attracted to fairs for entertainment purposes. Trolley cars provided transportation to trolley parks at a reasonably cheap price. Nye suggests that the cool breeze from these open window cars attracted large numbers of customers to take rural, scenic tours into the countryside where one could have a picnic, hear a band, got boating, or see the park's various attractions (123). The invention of electricity and an efficient, effective electrical system was crucial to the development of these early theme parks. While it is rather apparent that one might need electricity to reach these country parks before cars became the dominant mode of transportation, I had never considered the far reaching implications of electricity prior to this reading. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think Elle put it nicely when she said that electricity was a "new and confusing technology" and the government didn't know how to treat it. Nye talks about the different speeds and motives of foreign governements to provide electricity to the citizenry and how the priorities in specific countries effected electrification in that country. In South Africa, electricity was used to improve gold, coal, and diamond mining, but not the homes of black workers. In Russia, Lenin pursued full electrification because he thought full socialism could not be attained without it. Electrification seems to have been illustrative of a country's political climate at the time. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I love the section explaining William Dean Howells' "A Traveler from Altruria." He thought because of electricity people could live off the land and travel into cities which were art centers and have the best of both worlds. Its a bit like Ebenezer Howard's City-Garden idea where the town and country model has an urban center but smaller streetcar suburbs along the outside. I know it was probably naive for these men to think it could happen but I like how they viewed electricity as opening up all these possibilities for rural areas almost like they had in Europe. Obviously since industry was on the rise, cities would take more advantage of electricity. Also in this section about rural electricity (or lack there of) it was interesting how people, even Roosevelt, viewed electricity on farms as something undesirable or cheating the system of natural cycles. In many cases, whether to use electricity or not was viewed as a moral question. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The ads promoting electricity are interesting. It is odd now to think about having to convince people of how good electricity is but this was what the ads aimed for. The big message is that, basically, electricity will make your life happier and easier. You can go to baseball games at night and go out on the town or stay in and listen to the radio. They are very area specific as well. The ad for the more urban areas talk about lighting classrooms and office buildings while the rural ad focuses on farm equipment and kitchen wares that have probably already been widely used in the cities. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Nye does a good job explaining the impact of the lighting system on American culture. Nye explains how American’s used these new lighting systems in abstract ways for example, lighting up the statue of liberty and world’s fairs. World’s fairs were used to show people of upper middle class and upper class where the American culture was going. These people found prestige in electrification and considered it a turning point in American culture; to them it showed evolution and progress. I know that we try to stay away from the word progress when it comes to technology, but I am curious if we have had any revolutionary technology that has had such an impact on life since electrification. The only think that comes to mind are computers, which can definitely be considered a revolutionary system, but I am not sure if it has had the quite the same impact as electrification, I am just curious of anyone else’s thoughts. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think the electrification of farms and agricultural regions was a very interesting topic of debate. While the upper classes of individuals found advancement and prestige in electrification, farmers were reluctant. There were definitely mixed emotions about electricity in rural areas. Nye states that in 1920 90% of farmers could not get distributions to their homes and farms (far greater a percentage than European nations who had a majority of their farmers with electricity). Roosevelt found the farmer as the backbone of the nation, and he looked to Jefferson who saw the farmer as “the model for political virtue” (291), based of these ideals, he was hesitant to electrify rural areas. Farmers themselves were not sure about electrification. I found it funny that an Iowa newspaper wrote a piece about how cows would be unable to sleep at night. Other farmers thought that electricity would promote growth, and experimented with electricity and plant life. Edison himself stated that electricity would end frost, drought, and could even melt icebergs! I think this shows a lot about people at the time, and goes along with the idea of controlling nature. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Oftentimes, the fact that many people did not initially accept a technology is overlooked. It is assumed that everyone embraced the new way of doing things with open arms. Some of the concerns people had with technology seem comical to us now. For example, Nye mentions an article in which the author is worried by the thought that cows would not be able to sleep in an electrified town. Technological determinism makes it harder to see the different possible outcomes and the initial hesitation towards a technology. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
One random part of the first reading I found interesting was the section talking about the American world's fairs. I feel like I have read "The (insert some technology or idea) was first introduced at (some city's) world fair," but I have never asked any details about the fair. Reading that section gave me a whole new incite on the importance of the fair itself and the atmosphere surrounding all of the great inventions.-Kirsten Walleck</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--Week 4 Questions/Comments2009-02-04T19:34:22Z<p>Kwalleck: /* Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art ==<br />
<br />
<br />
From Susan Danly’s article tracing the railroad in American art, it seems like art was definitely used as one of the primary sources of propaganda and advertising during this time. It mentions how painters were often asked to paint the scenic lure of the railroad as well as how nature and industry kind of combined into this idealistic view of how people could use and overcome sources of nature. One that stood out to me as a show of this idealized harmonization between nature and the industrial railroad was “The Delaware Water Gap” which implied the railroad as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
“…to float upon this tide” seems to be a good example of how technology and development are only necessary when they are deemed so by society. The author points out how only a few years ago (previous to 1870) the land was more natural and not as controlled by people and technology. Those who lived there did so contently. However, with the prospect of the railroad and higher level of “civilization” that has been reached, it is far less desirable to live how the pioneers once did “with his axe and rifle as his sole companions,” (198). In the time that this author is writing, in order to be successful, technology has become a necessity. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Danly's article really made me think about differing opinions on the integration of the railroad. The railroad can be seen as "progress of capitalism," but not everyone wanted this. Various artists and Americans reacted in different ways in regards to embracing or criticizing the railroad's implementation. I think it important to remember when talking about these technological inventions that they were not always immediately accepted. -Elle<br />
<br />
I have little experience interpreting art, let alone introducing it as a learning tool for historical purposes. Susan Danly's writing style in this piece made it easy to match the historical thought to the art that was portrayed at the time. This is great interdisciplinary literature and I gained more understanding about art and history. The reading also related well to the primary documents in our text book. The culture shift and reaction to it was clearly portrayed in news articles and art forms, which shows the passionate opinions the American public had on industrialization and mechanization. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
== Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia ==<br />
<br />
The "overwork" system was used by Weaver - he tried to give incentives to slaves that went beyond the minimum amount of production. As skilled laborers, slaves such as Weaver's iron workers were valuable and less easily replaced, so cruel treatment of slaves was less likely. I think this was really interesting that in this case it seems that technology helped the slaves get better treatment and working conditions (or at least an opportunity to make some money). - Elle<br />
<br />
== Primary Sources on Steam, Space and a New World Order ==</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--Week 3 Questions/Comments2009-01-28T19:10:53Z<p>Kwalleck: /* Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
While I was reading about the slaves, freemen, and women workers I started to think about some of my own jobs and the treatments I have had to endure in the 20th century. I could not imagine what it was like to work under those harsh conditions. Funny enough though piece work and sweat shops are still around today and people are still exploited. Sucks but it is true. People still fight for better hours, pay, and working conditions as did those back many years. Machines or new technology seemed to be a scary concept for the skilled craftsmen or artisan. It also seemed sometimes as new machines were introduced more problems for the worker arose. Aislyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that most of the readings implied that the rapid expansion of technology often was paired with a decrease in (or at least a new strain on) workers rights. This is embodied in the Harper's Ferry piece with the class struggle, and also in the Beaten in Blatimore Shipyard dealing with racial tensions. This rapid growth in technology really ended up dehumanizing the workers. As mentioned in Gender and Papermaking pg 161, there was a new pressure for workers to keep a fast pace, and there was a decrease in conditions. - Elle <br />
<br />
I felt that another important aspect about new technology in factories is that it really stripped the laborers of their value - they no longer used or really even owned their own tools - thus they were at the mercy of greedy owners and hence tensions erupted. pg 183. - Elle<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==<br />
<br />
I found this piece very depressing and shocking. Douglass remembered the incident in grave detail and I did not enjoy reading the ''fight scene,'' as I will call it. The second to last paragraph gave a little light on the situation as he learned a skilled trade, but the end of the recollection fizzled that out all together. I liked how he compared his situation to that of "the grim-visaged pirate upon the high seas." However, that statement leaves the reader with an even more depressing view of his situation and race relations in 1835. Frederick Douglass of course wrote this for the purpose of shock as well as education and he succeeded. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the women described in the Gender and Papermaking piece weren't rushed by the new output and machinery (and I don't really understand how that is the case). - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Elle, it seemed that the work that was done by women wasn't necessarily tied directly to the machinery. They sorted and cut rags, so their work was more dependent on quality not quantity. But at the same time I see your point, because in theory the quantity produced by the machines should increase, so you would think they would get behind and the quality would decline as a result. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When looking at the different technologies that have evolved over time, the selection/rejection process is examined as well as the impact. But, as Judith Mcgaw seems to point out, the human experience is more often left out. We study the impacts of new machines on general social, economic, or political trends. But the creation of machines has different impacts on different individuals as well. Mcgaw points out “improved machines subjected workmen to a more hectic pace, longer hours, and periodic unemployment. Moreover, unlike earlier paper makers, machine tenders and many of their fellow male employees risked being killed or maimed.” I think she also does a good job in addressing the more distinct separations that arise in the male and female work industry as a result of the rise of mechanization. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was not about gender. On page 160-161 Mcgaw discusses the impact of machines on paper mill workers. She notes, "Machines did not replace workers, reduce their level of skill, or subdivide their tasks." However, the machines did increase output of the small number of skilled laborers. This section of the reading that Jessica also pointed out changed my outlook on mechanization. I feel as if we mostly discuss how mechanization took away the need of skilled workers and made tasks simple only requiring awareness. In contrast, Mcgaw claims that in this profession, mechanization "multiplied jobs for skilled paper workers," who were trained while preforming less skilled tasks. So the mechanization trained new skilled workers and utilized the existing workers. Although Mcgaw continues by discussing the deterioration of work conditions, she also notes that there is some improvement in that as well. This just put a different spin on the topic for me. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” ==<br />
<br />
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment. Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--Week 3 Questions/Comments2009-01-28T18:52:48Z<p>Kwalleck: /* Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
While I was reading about the slaves, freemen, and women workers I started to think about some of my own jobs and the treatments I have had to endure in the 20th century. I could not imagine what it was like to work under those harsh conditions. Funny enough though piece work and sweat shops are still around today and people are still exploited. Sucks but it is true. People still fight for better hours, pay, and working conditions as did those back many years. Machines or new technology seemed to be a scary concept for the skilled craftsmen or artisan. It also seemed sometimes as new machines were introduced more problems for the worker arose. Aislyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that most of the readings implied that the rapid expansion of technology often was paired with a decrease in (or at least a new strain on) workers rights. This is embodied in the Harper's Ferry piece with the class struggle, and also in the Beaten in Blatimore Shipyard dealing with racial tensions. This rapid growth in technology really ended up dehumanizing the workers. As mentioned in Gender and Papermaking pg 161, there was a new pressure for workers to keep a fast pace, and there was a decrease in conditions. - Elle <br />
<br />
I felt that another important aspect about new technology in factories is that it really stripped the laborers of their value - they no longer used or really even owned their own tools - thus they were at the mercy of greedy owners and hence tensions erupted. pg 183. - Elle<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the women described in the Gender and Papermaking piece weren't rushed by the new output and machinery (and I don't really understand how that is the case). - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Elle, it seemed that the work that was done by women wasn't necessarily tied directly to the machinery. They sorted and cut rags, so their work was more dependent on quality not quantity. But at the same time I see your point, because in theory the quantity produced by the machines should increase, so you would think they would get behind and the quality would decline as a result. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When looking at the different technologies that have evolved over time, the selection/rejection process is examined as well as the impact. But, as Judith Mcgaw seems to point out, the human experience is more often left out. We study the impacts of new machines on general social, economic, or political trends. But the creation of machines has different impacts on different individuals as well. Mcgaw points out “improved machines subjected workmen to a more hectic pace, longer hours, and periodic unemployment. Moreover, unlike earlier paper makers, machine tenders and many of their fellow male employees risked being killed or maimed.” I think she also does a good job in addressing the more distinct separations that arise in the male and female work industry as a result of the rise of mechanization. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was not about gender. On page 160-161 Mcgaw discusses the impact of machines on paper mill workers. She notes, "Machines did not replace workers, reduce their level of skill, or subdivide their tasks." However, the machines did increase output of the small number of skilled laborers. This section of the reading that Jessica also pointed out changed my outlook on mechanization. I feel as if we mostly discuss how mechanization took away the need of skilled workers and made tasks simple only requiring awareness. In contrast, Mcgaw claims that in this profession, mechanization "multiplied jobs for skilled paper workers," who were trained while preforming less skilled tasks. So the mechanization trained new skilled workers and utilized the existing workers. Although Mcgaw continues by discussing the deterioration of work conditions, she also notes that there is some improvement in that as well. This just put a different spin on the topic for me. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” ==<br />
<br />
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment. Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-22T03:20:22Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found Kupperman’s article to be interesting in that it compares what the perception of technology would be between the English and the Native American’s. It is clear that the English felt that their technology was superior and that they did not consider the agriculture which they took from the Native Americans to be something of a technological advance. Though their way of life clearly depended on the settled agriculture they took from the Native Americans, they were very reluctant to credit the people who introduced these methods. Instead they believed it was a product of their land, an almost inevitability, and it took the English tools and “industrious men” to turn the land into something profitable. It seems that the difference that arises is in how one interprets agriculture as a form of technology. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
My favorite essay out of the reading was Henry French's essay about tools and how they were used by people. I really enjoyed how he showed that the person and the task are very important when choosing the tool to be used. He continues on in his essay to tell how tools evolved by people using them for different jobs; this later led to the formation of industries that replicated the tools that were being made by individuals and later sold to many. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
<br />
To look at the readings as a whole, I really enjoyed how the advancements of technology and tools in general led to the formation of what we call American technology today. It is also interesting to think how different would our lives be today without these advancements in the technologies of the early Colonists and Native American's. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
<br />
In Leo Marx’s essay “The Machine” he is a clear advocate of the use of machine technology in the United States. He uses a speech delivered by Coxe to bring up many benefits of industrialization and argues why he believes it is a necessary aspect of American economy and politics. He argues that in order to maintain American independence the machine is necessary to increase self-sufficiency. He even goes on to say how the machine is this “root metaphor of being” and how it can be linked to the system of our constitutional government. I think it’s an interesting point because it shows how a machine doesn’t necessarily have to be something technical or mechanical but rather a system of how different parts work together to accomplish something. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
The article “…much good might they receive from the English,” talked about how the Native American’s first perceived the new technologies as they were introduced by the English. It kind of gives you an idea about how different technologies may be received differently as they are transferred from one society to another. It also reminded me of a movie I watched in a sociology class, “The God’s must be crazy,” which was about the culture shock of finding a coke bottle in the desert. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be incredibly eye opening and it truly shows the progression of technologies and the affects it had on the population. The essay on page 63 by Edmund S. Morgan, A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, shows how much work and how many people were required to have a self-sufficient plantation. What is daunting is the Plantation Accounting from 1784 on page 64. It shows how difficult things were. You needed certain tools in order to make certain other tools. With this, you need increased labor which leads to the necessity for slave labor as well as skilled labor to produce the necessities. <br />
<br />
Another essay I found interesting was Irishmen and Spades by Henry French. He makes a good point in that different people work best with different tools for the same task. There is also a difference in the tools used for different locations. It seems as though there was lots of controversy about how to make tools better: if it was lighter, wider, if it was straight, if it was made out of iron, and so on. I think what I am getting is that people are always trying to make things easier and tools are constantly being changed, and manipulated to accomplish different tasks more easily. Based off of this, it is easy to see how large-scale factories eventually came into being. This caused a shift from producing for yourself, as described in A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, to producing for a market leading to increased trade and larger corporations. This shift is shown in Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” but from this comes even more obstacles and an evolution into even more problems. With the rise of factories you have more problems as described in “Amelia,” Some of the Beauties of Our Factory System—Otherwise, Lowell Slavery. Based off of this reading I can see how technology makes things easier for some but often have repercussions for others. My mind goes to the shutting down of factories at home and the exploitation of workers abroad and the constant wars that are going on for resources. It makes me wonder if we are any better off today or if it is a continuous cycle. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I don't think I agree with what others have said about the French essay on Irishmen and Spades. Just because someone has never used a certain tool before doesn't mean they will automatically not be able to learn how. It is a bit unsettling that people would market specific tools to specific nationalities.-- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Midwife's Tale. The fact that midwives made up a large part of the community's healthcare, not just with obstetrics, in the 18th and 19th century is something that is overlooked. Though scorned by many male doctors, midwives were needed for their homeopathic remedies, such as using herbs and common vegetables to cure a patient's ills, contrasting with the doctor's elaborate medicinal remedies. The irony of this is midwives were perhaps more sensible in their treatments than the so-called professionals of the day. This makes sense as many of the most basic tools that doctors use today, like the stethoscope, hadn't been invented. It was also nice to read about how one of the midwives attended autopsies and such, this of course being well before the Victorian age of restricting women due to their delicate natures. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
My favorite essay this week was Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina." When we think about slavery, we generally associate it more so with plantation slavery in the 1800s working out in fields planting, weeding, and harvesting (unskilled labor). Yet this was not the universal case then, and especially not earlier on in the 1600 and 1700s. The notion that slaves were actually skilled laborers who had specific jobs that were vital to the success of their master's plantation makes a lot of sense to me- though I never considered it in great detail before. I think that the most interesting part of Wood's essay was his discussion on how many times slaves became apprentices (often to whites) for skilled labor and were then sold at higher prices to other plantations because of the specific skills that they had acquired. Again, it makes sense that whites would mention their slaves' skills at the slavery block, but it's something that I hadn't thought that much about prior to reading Wood's essay. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
In response to the ongoing discussion about French's "Irishmen and Spades, 1859" I'd like to offer an idea that I think has already been inferred a bit in previous posts. While some people naturally do work better with tools best suited to their physical stature or to the specific environment they're working in, it seems natural to me that French, writing in 1859, would naturally have certain presuppositions and stereotypes of "Old World" immigrants. Irish immigrants and Irish Americans fought in the Civil War to protect their new homeland (North or South) in part to show that they were U.S. citizens. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that French may have presuppositions as to which tool is most efficient in the hands of people of different ancestries. A lot of it reinforces communal identity of what it means to be Irish, Scottish, etc. in the face of persecution for not being "American" and in attempts to retain communal heritage as socialization occurs. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think it would have been really cool to be a midwife. Not that I would be able to stomach it, of course. But women put so much trust in them to deliver their children, the most precious thing to them in the world, and it's just miraculous how much they were able to do without the technology we have today. They were able to create remedies and medications with simple herbs and spices and seemed so advanced, almost, for their time period. They knew a lot more than I think we give them credit for. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
I found the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company, 1846 alarming. The prohibition of talking (with exception to work related topics) was especially shocking. It makes me wonder why workers weren't aware or more proactive about obtaining better rights? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The dichotomy between workers conditions and the development of new technology is fascinating. Although the products these workers make improve other people's lives (like the textile Mill 'Almira' worked in Massachusetts), the technology itself has put workers in bad conditions. Without this technology, are the workers better off? Or are conditions in other industries (like agriculture) just as bad as the conditions put forth by the development of mass industry? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I really liked the essay of "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" because it proves how often people misjudge slave labor and consider them unskilled workers. Like the author noted, they were far from unskilled and without their know-how the early colonial period would have been far from what it ended up as. The colonists wouldn't have had any of the crucial knowledge they needed to cultivate crops like rice without the help of their slaves. - Kelly W<br />
<br />
The Europeans who wrote about Native Americans respected the technology that the Natives had developed, but it was generally thought that Europeans had superior technology. However, the colonists were basically surviving off of food from the Indians. In the introduction of Kupperman's essay, the question is asked how European technology could be glorified while at the same time acknowledging that survival depended on the crucial aid of the Native Americans, especially with agricultural methods. I thought it was interesting that Europeans could maintain their position of superiority and I speculate that it might have something to do with the racial or cultural differences. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found the subject of European, in particular the English, superiority in the first reading section interesting. I have done more research on the settlement of Latin America and saw many differences and similarities between the two. In William Wood’s excerpt, he describes the Indians as being lazy and “fettered in the chains of idleness.” He believed that with the addition of English aid and modeling, the Indians would be “more industrious.” The lazy attributes of the Indians were described in Latin American sources as well. One thing I do not believe they mention in the readings is slavery. How did slavery play a part in the colonization and the technological advancements or changes of North America? <br />
Playing off that and Karen’s comment, there is also no mention of racial differences between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Although it may not have been considered an important addition to this book, I believe that those differences drive advancements in various cultures. Religious differences are mentioned, but only to show the Indians becoming more European and “cured” of superstitions (p. 30). I also find it interesting that the differences are not mentioned in Karen Kupperman’s essay. I just feel that the Europeans obviously found themselves superior and were not going to admit the whole extent to which the Indians improved their technology.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
The essay by Edmund S Morgan was very suprising to me. The plantation owner had everything he needed to keep the plantation alive right in his own backyard. The ideas to leave nothing behind and make it somehow useful, like the way the the plantation owner killed his livestock for food and then used the rest of the parts from the slaughtered animal and use it to make clothing out of. --Paul Kim<br />
<br />
I thought that "Irishmen and Spades: 1859" and "A Gentleman Farmer on Common Farmer's Tools: 1822" worked very well together. French explains in "Irishmen" that the spade was seen as incredibly vital to the farming of the time and location, tying into the supply and demand explanations of "Gentleman Farmer." The latter article also gave an interesting view on how farming seemed to be very by-the-book, down to the author explaining that there are specific tools to use for specific tasks. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that the issue of pride is evident in several of the articles. A culture takes pride in its technological advancements, taking credit and guarding the secrets of innovation closely. In the Irishmen and Spades article, the idea is expressed that the Irish spade is superior to any other and that none but an Irishmen could use it effectively. They take pride in the tool that they have developed and scorn other's attempts to use it. In Kupperman's article, Europeans refuse to acknowledge that Native Americans had developed equal technology to there own. People want their culture to be seen as superior and since technology is often a measure of success, each society wants to think that their accomplishments are the most innovative. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read about European technology intertwining with Native American technology and vice versa. Canoes were adapted into the European culture and firearms adapted into Native culture. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
The article on the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company was interesting. I found most of the rules were very restricting but the others like "no spirituous liquors, smoking, or any kind of amusement, will be allowed in the workshops or yards." The part about liquor and smoking makes sense for a conducive working environment. My question I suppose would be what exactly would "any [other] kind of amusement" be? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the "Midwife's Tale" for the same reasons as Lauren. The extent of a midwife's knowledge is extraordinary. The paragraph in the middle of page 81 describes the job effectively and shows the range of knowledge Lauren mentioned. It states, a midwife "medicates the mysteries of birth, procreation, illness, and death. They touched the untouchable, handled excrement and vomit as well as milk, swaddled the dead as well as the new born..." Throughout the reading, I was surprised at their responsibilities, ability to multi-task, knowledge of medicines, and the cooperation with their communities and patients.- Kirsten Walleck</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-22T01:27:24Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found Kupperman’s article to be interesting in that it compares what the perception of technology would be between the English and the Native American’s. It is clear that the English felt that their technology was superior and that they did not consider the agriculture which they took from the Native Americans to be something of a technological advance. Though their way of life clearly depended on the settled agriculture they took from the Native Americans, they were very reluctant to credit the people who introduced these methods. Instead they believed it was a product of their land, an almost inevitability, and it took the English tools and “industrious men” to turn the land into something profitable. It seems that the difference that arises is in how one interprets agriculture as a form of technology. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
My favorite essay out of the reading was Henry French's essay about tools and how they were used by people. I really enjoyed how he showed that the person and the task are very important when choosing the tool to be used. He continues on in his essay to tell how tools evolved by people using them for different jobs; this later led to the formation of industries that replicated the tools that were being made by individuals and later sold to many. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
<br />
To look at the readings as a whole, I really enjoyed how the advancements of technology and tools in general led to the formation of what we call American technology today. It is also interesting to think how different would our lives be today without these advancements in the technologies of the early Colonists and Native American's. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
<br />
In Leo Marx’s essay “The Machine” he is a clear advocate of the use of machine technology in the United States. He uses a speech delivered by Coxe to bring up many benefits of industrialization and argues why he believes it is a necessary aspect of American economy and politics. He argues that in order to maintain American independence the machine is necessary to increase self-sufficiency. He even goes on to say how the machine is this “root metaphor of being” and how it can be linked to the system of our constitutional government. I think it’s an interesting point because it shows how a machine doesn’t necessarily have to be something technical or mechanical but rather a system of how different parts work together to accomplish something. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
The article “…much good might they receive from the English,” talked about how the Native American’s first perceived the new technologies as they were introduced by the English. It kind of gives you an idea about how different technologies may be received differently as they are transferred from one society to another. It also reminded me of a movie I watched in a sociology class, “The God’s must be crazy,” which was about the culture shock of finding a coke bottle in the desert. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be incredibly eye opening and it truly shows the progression of technologies and the affects it had on the population. The essay on page 63 by Edmund S. Morgan, A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, shows how much work and how many people were required to have a self-sufficient plantation. What is daunting is the Plantation Accounting from 1784 on page 64. It shows how difficult things were. You needed certain tools in order to make certain other tools. With this, you need increased labor which leads to the necessity for slave labor as well as skilled labor to produce the necessities. <br />
<br />
Another essay I found interesting was Irishmen and Spades by Henry French. He makes a good point in that different people work best with different tools for the same task. There is also a difference in the tools used for different locations. It seems as though there was lots of controversy about how to make tools better: if it was lighter, wider, if it was straight, if it was made out of iron, and so on. I think what I am getting is that people are always trying to make things easier and tools are constantly being changed, and manipulated to accomplish different tasks more easily. Based off of this, it is easy to see how large-scale factories eventually came into being. This caused a shift from producing for yourself, as described in A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, to producing for a market leading to increased trade and larger corporations. This shift is shown in Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” but from this comes even more obstacles and an evolution into even more problems. With the rise of factories you have more problems as described in “Amelia,” Some of the Beauties of Our Factory System—Otherwise, Lowell Slavery. Based off of this reading I can see how technology makes things easier for some but often have repercussions for others. My mind goes to the shutting down of factories at home and the exploitation of workers abroad and the constant wars that are going on for resources. It makes me wonder if we are any better off today or if it is a continuous cycle. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I don't think I agree with what others have said about the French essay on Irishmen and Spades. Just because someone has never used a certain tool before doesn't mean they will automatically not be able to learn how. It is a bit unsettling that people would market specific tools to specific nationalities.-- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Midwife's Tale. The fact that midwives made up a large part of the community's healthcare, not just with obstetrics, in the 18th and 19th century is something that is overlooked. Though scorned by many male doctors, midwives were needed for their homeopathic remedies, such as using herbs and common vegetables to cure a patient's ills, contrasting with the doctor's elaborate medicinal remedies. The irony of this is midwives were perhaps more sensible in their treatments than the so-called professionals of the day. This makes sense as many of the most basic tools that doctors use today, like the stethoscope, hadn't been invented. It was also nice to read about how one of the midwives attended autopsies and such, this of course being well before the Victorian age of restricting women due to their delicate natures. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
My favorite essay this week was Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina." When we think about slavery, we generally associate it more so with plantation slavery in the 1800s working out in fields planting, weeding, and harvesting (unskilled labor). Yet this was not the universal case then, and especially not earlier on in the 1600 and 1700s. The notion that slaves were actually skilled laborers who had specific jobs that were vital to the success of their master's plantation makes a lot of sense to me- though I never considered it in great detail before. I think that the most interesting part of Wood's essay was his discussion on how many times slaves became apprentices (often to whites) for skilled labor and were then sold at higher prices to other plantations because of the specific skills that they had acquired. Again, it makes sense that whites would mention their slaves' skills at the slavery block, but it's something that I hadn't thought that much about prior to reading Wood's essay. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
In response to the ongoing discussion about French's "Irishmen and Spades, 1859" I'd like to offer an idea that I think has already been inferred a bit in previous posts. While some people naturally do work better with tools best suited to their physical stature or to the specific environment they're working in, it seems natural to me that French, writing in 1859, would naturally have certain presuppositions and stereotypes of "Old World" immigrants. Irish immigrants and Irish Americans fought in the Civil War to protect their new homeland (North or South) in part to show that they were U.S. citizens. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that French may have presuppositions as to which tool is most efficient in the hands of people of different ancestries. A lot of it reinforces communal identity of what it means to be Irish, Scottish, etc. in the face of persecution for not being "American" and in attempts to retain communal heritage as socialization occurs. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think it would have been really cool to be a midwife. Not that I would be able to stomach it, of course. But women put so much trust in them to deliver their children, the most precious thing to them in the world, and it's just miraculous how much they were able to do without the technology we have today. They were able to create remedies and medications with simple herbs and spices and seemed so advanced, almost, for their time period. They knew a lot more than I think we give them credit for. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
I found the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company, 1846 alarming. The prohibition of talking (with exception to work related topics) was especially shocking. It makes me wonder why workers weren't aware or more proactive about obtaining better rights? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The dichotomy between workers conditions and the development of new technology is fascinating. Although the products these workers make improve other people's lives (like the textile Mill 'Almira' worked in Massachusetts), the technology itself has put workers in bad conditions. Without this technology, are the workers better off? Or are conditions in other industries (like agriculture) just as bad as the conditions put forth by the development of mass industry? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I really liked the essay of "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" because it proves how often people misjudge slave labor and consider them unskilled workers. Like the author noted, they were far from unskilled and without their know-how the early colonial period would have been far from what it ended up as. The colonists wouldn't have had any of the crucial knowledge they needed to cultivate crops like rice without the help of their slaves. - Kelly W<br />
<br />
The Europeans who wrote about Native Americans respected the technology that the Natives had developed, but it was generally thought that Europeans had superior technology. However, the colonists were basically surviving off of food from the Indians. In the introduction of Kupperman's essay, the question is asked how European technology could be glorified while at the same time acknowledging that survival depended on the crucial aid of the Native Americans, especially with agricultural methods. I thought it was interesting that Europeans could maintain their position of superiority and I speculate that it might have something to do with the racial or cultural differences. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found the subject of European, in particular the English, superiority in the first reading section interesting. I have done more research on the settlement of Latin America and saw many differences and similarities between the two. In William Wood’s excerpt, he describes the Indians as being lazy and “fettered in the chains of idleness.” He believed that with the addition of English aid and modeling, the Indians would be “more industrious.” The lazy attributes of the Indians were described in Latin American sources as well. One thing I do not believe they mention in the readings is slavery. How did slavery play a part in the colonization and the technological advancements or changes of North America? <br />
Playing off that and Karen’s comment, there is also no mention of racial differences between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Although it may not have been considered an important addition to this book, I believe that those differences drive advancements in various cultures. Religious differences are mentioned, but only to show the Indians becoming more European and “cured” of superstitions (p. 30). I also find it interesting that the differences are not mentioned in Karen Kupperman’s essay. I just feel that the Europeans obviously found themselves superior and were not going to admit the whole extent to which the Indians improved their technology.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
The essay by Edmund S Morgan was very suprising to me. The plantation owner had everything he needed to keep the plantation alive right in his own backyard. The ideas to leave nothing behind and make it somehow useful, like the way the the plantation owner killed his livestock for food and then used the rest of the parts from the slaughtered animal and use it to make clothing out of. --Paul Kim</div>Kwalleckhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_1_Questions/Comments325--Week 1 Questions/Comments2009-01-15T04:23:01Z<p>Kwalleck: </p>
<hr />
<div>I think the reading sucked..... -- Dr. M<br />
<br />
No, I think the reading was brilliant -- Kelly<br />
<br />
<br />
The essays collected in chapter one attempt to define the term “technology” from different angles. Marx traces the perception technology from one of mechanical arts to a more general and abstract use that categorizes progress. What allowed for the transition in how technology is perceived today? – Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the article, “Do Artifacts Have Politics” the author discusses the importance of considering social and cultural implications of technology within the context of the time in which it was developed. The example of the bridges constructed in New York show how the upper classes benefited from the overpasses and how intentionally other social classes were not included. It’s a good example, but it seems like a similar pattern naturally emerges with any new technology. When first developed, it may be hard for most people to enjoy the benefits. So, my question is, when looking at the social implications of technology does it necessarily have to be the best and newest form in order to be considered a technological advancement or should it be one that is more widely benefited by a larger number of people? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I first want to say, is it me or is the text a little wordy? Seems to me this could be explained a little more easily. Anyway to answer what Jessica said in my opinion progress seems to always be measured by technological advances. In History as I have been thinking about it, our achievement has been linked to some sort of tech advance. I think the transition of mechanical arts to technology came from greed. Like the tomato picking in California, replace the worker with a machine you don't have to pay. Anyway to make money the better, and with the industrial revolution we became a capitalist nation. Now in the 21st century I think we rely on computers, cell phones, calculators, etc way to much. Don't get me wrong I love my computer and phone just as much as the next guy, but I also feel that we have come a long way really fast and that is not always the best. Also maybe why the transition happen is because it's more marketable, everyone can have a piece of technology it's not just for the rich as in early days. I may have made no sence but I am just thinking out loud...Aislyn Cathers<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how technology has been perceived over the years. What actually is considered to be technology is a very complex question, it seems that each generation has there own idea of technology and it is every changing. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found Winner's article very relevant to today. Everything is developed for a reason and typically only benefits the upper class when first introduced. It reminds me of the Ipod, when it first came out I did not know really anyone with one except celebrities, but as objects become more popular and technology improves new and better devices appear and those older ones that seemed so out of reach now become readily available for the majority. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think Langdon Winner's presentation of technology as a political tool is fascinating. However, I think his example of Robert Moses' overpasses being used as a cultural and social divide is an exception rather than a rule. To me, new technology is created for the improvement a single function or group of functions. Normally, it is not designed to specifically alienate certain classes or races of people. -- Laurence (Lon) LeSueur<br />
<br />
Although some technological developments do have some sort of political impact, the motivation for their invention is far different. Certain technological developments aren't created with politics in mind, they're created to improve the world by making it more efficient or pleasant. --Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be very eye opening for me, personally. I don’t think I was thinking of technology the correct way before the reading. I guess it is hard to say that there is a right or wrong way to view something as broad as technology but I do think that I had a narrow sense of the term.--Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Jessica brings up a good point with her question, and I can’t figure out based off of the reading what the answer would be. My instincts would tell me that a form of technology that is more widely benefited by a greater number of people would be more of an advancement than one that is considered “new” or “the best”. This is definitely something to talk about. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
The section "Masculinity and Technology" raises a couple of issues for me that I find very interesting. The author states that if one understands technology and has a skill, then one is truly a man. He explained that with the case of Frederick Douglass. Now, my first question is do we think that's a valid argument? Do we believe that people today still believe that you're wimpy if you don't understand technology? That you're not a real man? The next thing I found interesting was the notion that women are inferior and therefore should not be as technologically fluent. Technology has always been seen as far more masculine and a more manly skill to acquire. But with the dishwasher and the washing machine, and other such advancements, do you believe that the classification that technology = masculine is changing? Or does a large majority of society consider technology to refer to computers and other such items that the stereotype might not be different? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Langdon Walker's article "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" and Donald MacKenzie's article "The Social Shaping of Technology" address the premise that technology itself is not merely technical. Rather, "technological advancement" brings social, economic, and political consequences that often have negative repercussions for different groups of people often lost in the historical narrative. We view the latest technology as the "best" and often do not consider the how "advancement" might effect the way society progresses and develops norms (Robert Moses' parkway overpasses discriminating against the poor and minorities). Similarly, the development of the mechanical tomato harvester by the University of California in the late 1940s put small tomato farmers out of business and cost thousands of people their jobs. As MacKenzie asks, what are the characteristics and qualities that make a certain mode of technology "best"? Who benefits from these new additions? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
In her article, "Problems with 'Skill'" Nina Lerman discusses the hesitancy in using words such as skill, sophistication, and intelligence. Lerman argues that these words carry loaded meanings that people often associate with one's social status, ambition, etc. The term "knowledge" seems better because it covers all types of technology (churning butter to locomotive operation). I find Lerman's argument compelling because I believe that we subconsciously and consciously label people based on their "skilled" or "unskilled" labor. Part of the reason that I decided to take this class is because I knew that there has to be more to technology than just the basic facts of its invention, use, etc. Technology can reinforce stereotypes, social status, economic position, and more importantly, the value we assign to one another as human beings. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The first reading helped me realize that I, and I'm sure others, thought of technology and its modern usage as an older term than it actually was, and that technology to my grandparents' generation meant something completely different from what it means to our generation. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
While I think Winner's article is relevant to the times, I feel the statistics are a bit vague at times. Yes the number of tomato growers have decreased from the thousands to hundreds but how many of them actually use this tomato harvester? And are the farms all big business companies? Also, in Mackenzie's article, I dislike the thought of having to ask "Best for whom?" Does this question really fundamentally matter? Can't something be just as good for someone as it is for another? Does something have to specifically be best for only one category of person or can one aspect of that thing be best for one person but another aspect best for the next? Just because a person is a woman (to use Mackenzie's example) does not mean that person will automatically agree on a technology with all other women. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found MacKenzie’s discussion of “technological determinism” to be interesting. I think it’s a strange idea that there could be only one predetermined way for a technology to advance, and that it does so without any influence from society. I do, however, understand how the technology that succeeds could be considered to be “intrinsically” superior to the technology that “fails.” Hindsight is 20/20, after all. Of course, MacKenzie points out that it’s not necessarily superiority, but rather the early adoption of one technology and the improvements made to it that lead to creating a lasting technology. It sort of reminds me of the PC vs. Mac debate. Isn’t there talk about the PC dying out or something? If that’s the case, it’s likely that the Mac will be considered “intrinsically” superior by future generations. But then there are people who already think that. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Though the essays came from different disciplines, it was interesting to see how they overlapped. For instance, both the philosopher Winner and the sociologist MacKenzie argue against the idea of technological determinism. Historian Lerman and sociologist Latuor challenge the perceptions and handling of technology. Lerman feels that “technological knowledge” consists of simpler things than running machinery and computers, while Latour is disgruntled at the way science and technology studies are separated into categories by critics. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
There are also different interpretations of technology. Leo Marx believes the rise of technology is represented in the replacement of simple tools with electrically and chemically powered things, as well as the replacement of family-owned firms with centralized corporations. Lerman believes that haying and sewing, simpler tasks often learned from family, involve as much “technological knowledge” as operating heavy machinery and programming a computer. -Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
“Do Artifacts have Politics” by Langdon Walker and David Mackenzie’s “The Social Shaping of Technology” bring up interesting arguments revolving around dividing society and cultures. This is not a rule for new inventions rather should be viewed as an exception. Perhaps it is me having a biased opinion but I do not feel that technological advancements should be viewed as a bad thing or as a dividing tool for classes and feel that judging technology is unjust since it is there to help us as a whole and not hurt us.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
As far as technological advancements are concerned I really do not see them as a bad thing. By this I mean I do not feel that inventions were not aimed at hurting people by cutting jobs as much as helping create a more efficient way of getting jobs done. Yes with technological advancements there is always going to be a positive and a negative; however, one can not look too much at the negative if the positive is outweighing the negative. With that being said, I do feel that as a society as a whole we are far more dependent on technology than we should be which is causing problems. Some people lose their minds if they lose their cell phone when in actuality it truly is not that big of a deal.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
The idea that kept screaming out to me throughout the readings was the sterility of technology, despite (or perhaps due to) its innovations or deviations by the various cultures. Marx's explanation of technology as "no specifiable institution," and his seeming rejection of technology's importance to history evoke images of Blade Runner or Brave New World and their scorched earth destruction of anything remotely human. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Mackenzie's point about how everyone sees technology differently is completely unfounded without the generic nature of said technology. It is a wonderful catch-22 situation, quite honestly. We hate anything to be bland and dehumanizing, but we can't innovate on it unless it is essentially a blank slate. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the view that was taken on by the essays of what technology is really defined as. It opened my mind to what is really considered as "technology." In my mind technology is only what we use today, i.e. computers, internet. This has been taught to me through living my life, but what I have not realized was that technology is just about everything through time that has made our lives easier or allowing us to have a better quality of life. i.e. heater etc. -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I also enjoyed how the the term technology is defined differently as time goes on; how technology was seen in the early 20th century compared to the 21st century. New farming machines that replaced mules was seen as new technology in the 20th century. This compared to a laptop of today did not have a relation to me, but as I read these essays they showed me that these are all forms of technology that can be related to each other as a history. -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
I really like the article about the Hybrids. It really struck me how true it is that everything sort of meshes together today. You can start a conversation about one topic and end up on something completely different through a bizarre way of relating ideas. It's kind of neat to me. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I read the text more focused as did that of Sean Marren. I can see his point of view on the advancements of technology a positive thing and to look at both sides to it the good and the bad. From the readings I thought more of the negative, mainly because that is the why I usually think of technological advancements, being less personal and dividing a person from society and the world around them. There was a time where I believe the new technologies were a positive addition to life, as in the 19th Century, but in the early 20th Century as car were becoming more popular it divided families at the same time as being a positive growth for society. The term technology used over time has morphed into completely different meaning, thinking from the reading, it opened my thoughts to more than just the ipod or video games.-- Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
I enjoyed how the readings for this week touched upon the different areas in which technology can be seen (gender, politics, society, etc). The article that I most enjoyed was Langdon Winner's "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" This article made me realize that technology does embody authority and power, which was clearly seen in his example of Robert Moses's road works. Another article in which I found interesting was Carroll Pursell's "Masculinity and Technology." I agree that technology is very much masculinized. An example that Pursell gave was how no one was buying the Edsel because the front end of it "suggested the female vulva."<br />
Here's a link to a picture of a Ford Edsel: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Edsel_Citation_Convertible_1958.jpg<br />
- Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
The reading I find most thought provoking is was the essay by Carroll Pursell. I also have noticed that no one has really commented on it (I think). The issue of gender studies has been a recent issue, as far as I know. Pursell states, “When gender has been raised as an issue, it is women, not men, who have been studied.” (p. 18) The socially constructed idea of masculinity drives historical study, especially as I have seen it in elementary school classrooms. This is a random connection, but I am sure everyone remembers studying the big and powerful guys in social studies (i.e. Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln). Another thing I found interesting was how she described the negative connotation of women with skilled trades resulting in fear of “economic competition and sexual emergence” before the Industrial Revolution, and of course seen during it (p. 18). She makes many strong arguments throughout the essay about why it is important to study gender, both men and women, as a catalyst that changes technology and many other areas. However convincing Carroll Pursell’s argument, I found that her topic sentence in the conclusion worthy of further investigation and confusing to me in comparison to her thesis.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I will have to agree with Kellye in that I enjoyed reading (most of) the essays on technology and the changing perception through the years. The authors’ writing strongly reflected their various background and specializations. Noticing the relationship helped me see each author’s point of view on technology and the relationship between the readings mentioned by Taylor. Overall, the reading provided a great basic knowledge of technology in the context required for this class.- Kirsten Walleck</div>Kwalleck 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