McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Mgallagh</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Mgallagh"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mgallagh"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T23:14:12Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-04-14T02:13:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;At times, Andrew Ross’s article seemed prophetic. Think about the time that he is writing: 1991. Some of us were just being born. Others were too young to use computers. At this time, computers and the Internet were a new technology. Ross discusses how being a hacker or computer user is becoming “Cooler” and not so nerdy that there was no longer an educational elite that computers were restricted to. Nowadays, the nerd or hacker is a hero and endearing. They are popular in movies, TV shows, and books. Ross’s article is quite prophetic with this.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was hoping Ross would take advantage of a historiographical question that was looming in my head, but he did not. This may be, because it is outside the scope of his article or that they were unanswerable in 1991. One of these is how has the Internet shaped or unshaped social aspects, such as identity. Ross hints at this describing how cybernetic identity is never used up, but he generalized that hackers were upper middle-class white men. Anyone that has played World of Warcraft knows that this is not the case and that on the Internet identity is fluid. A person can be user: CuteLady102 on overstock.com ordering jewelry or cutelady102 on a discussion site for motorcyclists.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another social aspect that was foreseen was the democratization of computer use. At least 90% of Americans have touched a computer. No longer is it only the white middle-class and college educated that use computers. Another correlation that can be drawn from this is that more and more hackers are form diverse backgrounds. Ross mistakenly stated that hackers were not politically motivated. It seems that that is the primary reason for hacking nowadays, which also leads to hackers of diverse backgrounds.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Ross&amp;#039;s section concerning viruses and the public&amp;#039;s response to them interesting. It never occurred to me before, but his connection between computer viruses and HIV was dead on. I think 20 years ago when this article was written that people feared computer viruses because so much was unknown about them as well as computers in general. Today we all have programs to protect against viruses, but we all know they can still happen but it typically is not the end of the world. I think the most interesting thing to me is that we have actually been able to watch this change develop. We have seen the panic and uncertainty over viruses change into something that is now understood and expected when computers and the internet are involved. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the New York Times Magazine online slideshow “A Global Graveyard for Dead Computers in Ghana” very interesting. I had no idea that the medal inside of these computers are more valuable to the people of Ghana than actually using the computers to help with work, schooling, and many other items that we in America use today. What I found interesting and what I didn’t even think of until I saw the slide was Greenpeace’s findings high levels lead, cadmium, antimony, PCB’s and chlorinated dioxins, in the soil- which can hurt the people living in that area depending on how much they are exposed to it. The most shocking part of the slideshow was how young the scavengers were, all in their teenage years from age 11 to 17. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ross’ connection of computer virus to HIV was very original way to look at the subject matter. This article was written in 1991, 20 years ago when HIV and computer hacking/viruses where Americans knowledge of these items was rather limited. “You can’t trust your best friend’s software any more than you can trust his or her bodily fluids – safe software or no software at all!” this draws a very unique connection between the two, like the statement from Saturday Night Live, “Remember, when you connect with another computer, you’re connecting to every other computer that computer has connected to.” While HIV is a very serious topic in which one must protect itself from, computer viruses can be just as important for a individual (or entire government agency) to protect themselves from hackers, which can have very bad outcomes if not properly protected. – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-04-14T02:00:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;At times, Andrew Ross’s article seemed prophetic. Think about the time that he is writing: 1991. Some of us were just being born. Others were too young to use computers. At this time, computers and the Internet were a new technology. Ross discusses how being a hacker or computer user is becoming “Cooler” and not so nerdy that there was no longer an educational elite that computers were restricted to. Nowadays, the nerd or hacker is a hero and endearing. They are popular in movies, TV shows, and books. Ross’s article is quite prophetic with this.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was hoping Ross would take advantage of a historiographical question that was looming in my head, but he did not. This may be, because it is outside the scope of his article or that they were unanswerable in 1991. One of these is how has the Internet shaped or unshaped social aspects, such as identity. Ross hints at this describing how cybernetic identity is never used up, but he generalized that hackers were upper middle-class white men. Anyone that has played World of Warcraft knows that this is not the case and that on the Internet identity is fluid. A person can be user: CuteLady102 on overstock.com ordering jewelry or cutelady102 on a discussion site for motorcyclists.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another social aspect that was foreseen was the democratization of computer use. At least 90% of Americans have touched a computer. No longer is it only the white middle-class and college educated that use computers. Another correlation that can be drawn from this is that more and more hackers are form diverse backgrounds. Ross mistakenly stated that hackers were not politically motivated. It seems that that is the primary reason for hacking nowadays, which also leads to hackers of diverse backgrounds.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Ross&amp;#039;s section concerning viruses and the public&amp;#039;s response to them interesting. It never occurred to me before, but his connection between computer viruses and HIV was dead on. I think 20 years ago when this article was written that people feared computer viruses because so much was unknown about them as well as computers in general. Today we all have programs to protect against viruses, but we all know they can still happen but it typically is not the end of the world. I think the most interesting thing to me is that we have actually been able to watch this change develop. We have seen the panic and uncertainty over viruses change into something that is now understood and expected when computers and the internet are involved. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the New York Times Magazine online slideshow “A Global Graveyard for Dead Computers in Ghana” very interesting. I had no idea that the medal inside of these computers are more valuable to the people of Ghana than actually using the computers to help with work, schooling, and many other items that we in America use today. What I found interesting and what I didn’t even think of until I saw the slide was Greenpeace’s findings high levels lead, cadmium, antimony, PCB’s and chlorinated dioxins, in the soil- which can hurt the people living in that area depending on how much they are exposed to it. The most shocking part of the slideshow was how young the scavengers were, all in their teenage years from age 11 to 17. – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-04-07T04:29:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Pursell reading */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Nye Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In David Nye’s excerpt, he states quite clearly that the use of electric appliances began as a form of novelty or conspicuous display. Table 6.1 only enhances this argument, where it shows that in 1921, the wealthy held the greatest percentages of appliances. They were also the only class with electric ranges. All for novelty, not simplification or the reduction of housework.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye also presents an interesting argument with the increase of bachelor living. It appears that the use of electric appliances allowed for the creation of a bachelor house, because they could perform the work of the housewife. I find this argument to be contradictory though.  If it reduces the amount of work to allow for bachelor to 10 or 12 hours, then it should have a similar effect on women’s work. This is not presented in his piece; rather he shows that women’s work only increased.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Kyle’s comment on Table 6.1, I think we can definitely look at that table as saying that homes wanted the new electrical equipment for novelty, but I think another take on it is that this table shows what electrical equipment was important.  Yes, perhaps 64% of the poor homes buy an iron or 33% buy a vacuum cleaner, but these items, as we discussed in class today, are also making the housework a little easier.  The novelty is there, but so is the change in the difficulty and strenuousness of certain household chores.  &lt;br /&gt;
--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Nye refers to Christine Frederick and the application of Taylorism to household duties when he discusses home economics.  He claims, “Home economics was a required course for girls in the 1920’s.  The appeal of the new domestic science lay in a reconception of the home as a management site controlled by women, who through applied science, would free themselves from drudgery and raise the quality of family life” (Nye 252).  Basically women would be more productive by applying the scientific method to their household chores.  Nye then discusses the impact that electricity had on the homemaker’s duties.  Nye notes, “Long work hours in the home persisted as a result of rising expectations for middle-class women, who were exhorted to prepare more varied meals, vacuum the house more often, maintain a larger wardrobe, do laundry more frequently, and spend more time with the children” (272).  Women were expected to accomplish more because they had the help of electrical appliances, but what appliance would really save more time?  As we discussed in class, with the rise of new electronic appliances, women were expected to have dinner ready for the husband when he returned from work; their clothes were expected to be clean and for everyone to look their best; and the house should be cleaned frequently.  Did these artifacts of technology make housework easier or just change the type of housework?  Dr. McClurken mentioned Leave It to Beaver in class concerning the view of the housewife taking care of her family with all the new household technology.  This reminded me of another 1950’s television show, the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Donna Reed Show&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Donna is the model housewife and model mother.  She does all the cooking and the cleaning all while wearing her pearls, high heels, and one of her best dresses.  Her children are well-behaved and her husband, who is a doctor, comes home every evening to a perfectly cooked dinner.  She is the perfect housewife who uses all of the available technology to ensure her family’s satisfaction and well-being.—Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“New electrical technologies were usually perceived not as tools to build cooperative service institutions, but rather as the key to personal freedom.”  At the end of section 1, Nye makes the argument that electricity suggested the transforming of the home’s environment. By allowing all sorts of tools that helped individuals with daily tasks that minimized time on certain projects, it allowed the “Mrs. Modern Woman” to complete her jobs in a much more efficient and easier manner. The item I found most interesting in this reading was the author’s comment, “The most popular form of electrification was the family Christmas tree.” I found it fascinating that just the invention of lighting the Christmas tree with small multi-colored bright bulbs, it allowed “new force encouraged experimentation” while still allowing people to take pleasure in this newfound tradition that still lasts today. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The advertising campaign that Bruce Barton developed for GE that compared a woman&amp;#039;s (and eventually, a man&amp;#039;s, an industrial worker&amp;#039;s, etc) time and work with the low-cost, high-efficiency machines shows the way in which society had moved from one that valued &amp;quot;&amp;#039;task-oriented concern for a flow of time in life events&amp;#039;...[to one that valued] &amp;#039;the economic, time-oriented perception of efficiency.&amp;quot; (Nye 256) The advent of a Tayloristic, efficiency-motivated home system, particularly as shown in these advertisements, shows the way in which women were suddenly prime targets of advertising. This particular set of advertisements was engineered to make women feel as though working those hours themselves, wasting precious hours of their lives, was an exercise in futility and inefficiency. Women were led to believe that it was for the moral good to buy these products and appliances that would allow them to devote more time to child-rearing; the ideal woman would &amp;quot;not give to sweeping the time that belong[ed] to her children.&amp;quot;(Nye 272) In tying an appliance-based household not only to convenience and luxury but to a woman&amp;#039;s morality and success as a mother likely created a great deal of revenue for GE and other commercial electric companies. -- Nicole S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting to learn how when electrical appliances were first introduced into American homes, it was believed that the roles of women were also going to drastically change. At first, men like Thomas Edison raved about the positives of electrical appliances. Edison believed that the appliances would train a woman’s mind to be more like that of an engineer, and not of a housewife, stating “the woman of the future would become rather a domestic engineer than domestic laborer, with the greatest of all handmaidens, electricity, at her service” (Nye, Page 242). Men like Edison believed that with the help of new electrical appliances, women would no longer have to spend the majority of their days performing labor-filled tasks around the house. While certain electrical appliances definitely did make back-breaking labor easier, they in no way decreased the amount of work that a woman had to do within the confines of her own home. Because the electrical appliances enabled tasks around the house to be done so much more efficiently and quickly, women were then expected to do more around the house each day. While an appliance like the electric washing machine was originally intended to help shorten the amount of time a woman spent washing and drying clothes, it actually did the opposite. Husbands thought, “Well if you can do one day’s laundry so quickly, why don’t you two more days of laundry as well?” It seems to me that these appliances intended for home use were very deceiving in terms of how they were supposed to make the lives of housewives easier; yes, they made the actual physical labor more manageable, but they failed to decrease the amount of time a woman had to spend each day performing tasks around the house. So at the end of the day, as women spent just as much time on housework as they had in the past (if not more), did electrical appliances really make their lives any easier? ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pursell reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting theme that I found in the article on the vibrator was the notion of social camouflage, disguising an objects purpose through its place of use, such as in the medical field, or by the company name, such as the White Cross, which represented social hygiene and the eradication of masturbation and prostitution.  These both suggest decency and moral purity, both of which are not concepts associated with the vibrator.  I wish Maines would have expanded upon the theory of social camouflage, at least with more examples other than abortion pills or the distiller.  Where are other instances that we see social camouflage, and how does that affect the object and its usage?&lt;br /&gt;
--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I can&amp;#039;t speak much about Maine&amp;#039;s choice of social camouflaged technologies, she makes a very sound point. The example that comes to mind for me is mentioned at the beginning of her article when she mentions the cigarette rolling papers. Today, stores are legally allowed to sell all sorts of devices for smoking tobacco, though the majority of the customers of these stores use these items for smoking pot. Maine discusses how the vibrator was marketed as a &amp;quot;professional medical instrument&amp;quot;, which allowed it&amp;#039;s continued production at a time when masturbation was strictly frowned upon. Building on my example from earlier, some smoking devices market their pipes as medical devices for people going through cancer therapy. This keeps the public from getting up in arms about their production since they have a base in the medical field, just like the vibrator did.  Though masturbation was frowned upon, many people regarded it as a victimless crime, in much the same way many people view the consumption of marijuana. By socially camouflaging their devices under the guise of &amp;quot;medical instruments&amp;quot;, companies can get away with marketing socially unacceptable items.  - Will D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maines’ discussion of Social Camouflage of Technology is very interesting.  In talking about the vibrator, she states that “the camouflage of the apparently sexual character of such therapy was accomplished through its medical respectability and through creative definitions both of the diseases for which massage was indicated and of the effects of treatment, (118).”  What other products on the market today share the same camouflage?  -- Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Maines makes an interesting point about the “social camouflage” of certain consumer items.  Her examination of the vibrator’s social camouflage definitely supports the claim that “technologies are socially ‘constructed’” (Pursell 116).  Maines states, “I shall argue here that the electromechanical massage of the female genitalia achieved acceptance during the period in question by both professionals and consumers  . . . because it maintained the social camouflage of sexual massage treatment through its associations with modern professional instrumentation and with prevailing beliefs about electricity as a healing agent” (117).  I agree with Sara that Maines’s argument would have had more credibility had she expanded on “social camouflage.”  The advertisements that Maines discusses definitely help camouflage the purpose of the vibrator.  One ad calls a vibrator, “‘A Gift That Will &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Keep&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Her Young and Pretty’” (Pursell 125.)    Also Maines notes, “Sexuality is never explicit in vibrator advertising; the tone is vague but provocative” (Pursell 125).—Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maines&amp;#039; point on social camoflage was extremely interesting. I had not considered it before but her explanations made perfect sense. The idea that the vibrator began as a medical instrument, and was disguised as one for so long made perfect sense. Although our ideas on sexuality are much more liberal than the 18 and 1900s, I&amp;#039;m sure there are other products in today&amp;#039;s society that are still camoflaged, I am just curious which ones. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maines article was interesting to read.  These women who had hysteria just needed the doctor to help them with the symptoms.  I wonder if it was because “masturbation was socially prohibited”(117) or was it because their husbands didn’t know how and what needed to be done?   I also thought that George H. Taylor’s improvement on the rubbing apparatus looks more like a scale then something you would use to rub any part of the body.--Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with most everybody here about the idea of social camouflage of the vibrator. I do find it interesting how it was able to get by more as a medical instrument than an instrument for personal pleasure. I also found it interesting the medical purposes of the vibrator, for hysteria and other female complications. I think it is important to note the importance of electricity in the vibrator because it allowed it to be more portable and useful for doctors early on and was able to help contribute to their careers. One quote that really struck me was, &amp;quot;Advertisements directed to male purchasers similarly emphasized the machine&amp;#039;s advantages for improving a woman&amp;#039;s appearance and disposition.&amp;quot; (p125). Here we can clearly see Maines&amp;#039; point about social camouflage. I find it quite hard to believe that men were purchasing vibrators to improve the woman&amp;#039;s appearance, but perhaps rather for the act of sexual intercourse itself, but that may just be because of today&amp;#039;s acceptance of sexuality. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a controversial socially camouflaged technology, Maine’s article on the electromechanical vibrator was not the traditional textbook read. I found her argument on marketing these devices interesting, because I assumed this technology was created later in the 20th century (possibly more in the 60s era) rather than in the 19th century. Maine’s argument on marketing vibrators in order to make them be respected medical devices and market them to purpose as fast and efficient treatments was rather interesting. Advertisements were displayed, but only in medium cost range of magazines and were always vague never being explicit. The part on electromechanical vibrators as “cycle restorers” in order to help out women who were late with their menstrual cycles was rather an interesting take on being relevant for medical use. – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-04-07T03:45:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Nye Reading */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Nye Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In David Nye’s excerpt, he states quite clearly that the use of electric appliances began as a form of novelty or conspicuous display. Table 6.1 only enhances this argument, where it shows that in 1921, the wealthy held the greatest percentages of appliances. They were also the only class with electric ranges. All for novelty, not simplification or the reduction of housework.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye also presents an interesting argument with the increase of bachelor living. It appears that the use of electric appliances allowed for the creation of a bachelor house, because they could perform the work of the housewife. I find this argument to be contradictory though.  If it reduces the amount of work to allow for bachelor to 10 or 12 hours, then it should have a similar effect on women’s work. This is not presented in his piece; rather he shows that women’s work only increased.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as Kyle’s comment on Table 6.1, I think we can definitely look at that table as saying that homes wanted the new electrical equipment for novelty, but I think another take on it is that this table shows what electrical equipment was important.  Yes, perhaps 64% of the poor homes buy an iron or 33% buy a vacuum cleaner, but these items, as we discussed in class today, are also making the housework a little easier.  The novelty is there, but so is the change in the difficulty and strenuousness of certain household chores.  &lt;br /&gt;
--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Nye refers to Christine Frederick and the application of Taylorism to household duties when he discusses home economics.  He claims, “Home economics was a required course for girls in the 1920’s.  The appeal of the new domestic science lay in a reconception of the home as a management site controlled by women, who through applied science, would free themselves from drudgery and raise the quality of family life” (Nye 252).  Basically women would be more productive by applying the scientific method to their household chores.  Nye then discusses the impact that electricity had on the homemaker’s duties.  Nye notes, “Long work hours in the home persisted as a result of rising expectations for middle-class women, who were exhorted to prepare more varied meals, vacuum the house more often, maintain a larger wardrobe, do laundry more frequently, and spend more time with the children” (272).  Women were expected to accomplish more because they had the help of electrical appliances, but what appliance would really save more time?  As we discussed in class, with the rise of new electronic appliances, women were expected to have dinner ready for the husband when he returned from work; their clothes were expected to be clean and for everyone to look their best; and the house should be cleaned frequently.  Did these artifacts of technology make housework easier or just change the type of housework?  Dr. McClurken mentioned Leave It to Beaver in class concerning the view of the housewife taking care of her family with all the new household technology.  This reminded me of another 1950’s television show, the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Donna Reed Show&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Donna is the model housewife and model mother.  She does all the cooking and the cleaning all while wearing her pearls, high heels, and one of her best dresses.  Her children are well-behaved and her husband, who is a doctor, comes home every evening to a perfectly cooked dinner.  She is the perfect housewife who uses all of the available technology to ensure her family’s satisfaction and well-being.—Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“New electrical technologies were usually perceived not as tools to build cooperative service institutions, but rather as the key to personal freedom.”  At the end of section 1, Nye makes the argument that electricity suggested the transforming of the home’s environment. By allowing all sorts of tools that helped individuals with daily tasks that minimized time on certain projects, it allowed the “Mrs. Modern Woman” to complete her jobs in a much more efficient and easier manner. The item I found most interesting in this reading was the author’s comment, “The most popular form of electrification was the family Christmas tree.” I found it fascinating that just the invention of lighting the Christmas tree with small multi-colored bright bulbs, it allowed “new force encouraged experimentation” while still allowing people to take pleasure in this newfound tradition that still lasts today. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pursell reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting theme that I found in the article on the vibrator was the notion of social camouflage, disguising an objects purpose through its place of use, such as in the medical field, or by the company name, such as the White Cross, which represented social hygiene and the eradication of masturbation and prostitution.  These both suggest decency and moral purity, both of which are not concepts associated with the vibrator.  I wish Maines would have expanded upon the theory of social camouflage, at least with more examples other than abortion pills or the distiller.  Where are other instances that we see social camouflage, and how does that affect the object and its usage?&lt;br /&gt;
--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I can&amp;#039;t speak much about Maine&amp;#039;s choice of social camouflaged technologies, she makes a very sound point. The example that comes to mind for me is mentioned at the beginning of her article when she mentions the cigarette rolling papers. Today, stores are legally allowed to sell all sorts of devices for smoking tobacco, though the majority of the customers of these stores use these items for smoking pot. Maine discusses how the vibrator was marketed as a &amp;quot;professional medical instrument&amp;quot;, which allowed it&amp;#039;s continued production at a time when masturbation was strictly frowned upon. Building on my example from earlier, some smoking devices market their pipes as medical devices for people going through cancer therapy. This keeps the public from getting up in arms about their production since they have a base in the medical field, just like the vibrator did.  Though masturbation was frowned upon, many people regarded it as a victimless crime, in much the same way many people view the consumption of marijuana. By socially camouflaging their devices under the guise of &amp;quot;medical instruments&amp;quot;, companies can get away with marketing socially unacceptable items.  - Will D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maines’ discussion of Social Camouflage of Technology is very interesting.  In talking about the vibrator, she states that “the camouflage of the apparently sexual character of such therapy was accomplished through its medical respectability and through creative definitions both of the diseases for which massage was indicated and of the effects of treatment, (118).”  What other products on the market today share the same camouflage?  -- Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Maines makes an interesting point about the “social camouflage” of certain consumer items.  Her examination of the vibrator’s social camouflage definitely supports the claim that “technologies are socially ‘constructed’” (Pursell 116).  Maines states, “I shall argue here that the electromechanical massage of the female genitalia achieved acceptance during the period in question by both professionals and consumers  . . . because it maintained the social camouflage of sexual massage treatment through its associations with modern professional instrumentation and with prevailing beliefs about electricity as a healing agent” (117).  I agree with Sara that Maines’s argument would have had more credibility had she expanded on “social camouflage.”  The advertisements that Maines discusses definitely help camouflage the purpose of the vibrator.  One ad calls a vibrator, “‘A Gift That Will &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Keep&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Her Young and Pretty’” (Pursell 125.)    Also Maines notes, “Sexuality is never explicit in vibrator advertising; the tone is vague but provocative” (Pursell 125).—Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maines&amp;#039; point on social camoflage was extremely interesting. I had not considered it before but her explanations made perfect sense. The idea that the vibrator began as a medical instrument, and was disguised as one for so long made perfect sense. Although our ideas on sexuality are much more liberal than the 18 and 1900s, I&amp;#039;m sure there are other products in today&amp;#039;s society that are still camoflaged, I am just curious which ones. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maines article was interesting to read.  These women who had hysteria just needed the doctor to help them with the symptoms.  I wonder if it was because “masturbation was socially prohibited”(117) or was it because their husbands didn’t know how and what needed to be done?   I also thought that George H. Taylor’s improvement on the rubbing apparatus looks more like a scale then something you would use to rub any part of the body.--Pam Petzold&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-29T22:45:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In previous readings, we learned the gender implications of technology and the effects that technology had on gender. In the article by Cowan, it was interesting that Romantics seemed reacted quite negatively towards manufacturing machines. It is not surprising given the ideals held by the Romantics, but it is an interesting perspective. Technology affects art. The boom of technology at the turn of the century may have also led to the creation of the Arts and Crafts Style house, which was popular during this same time period. Ironically, a lot of the detail elements on these homes were manufactured in factories.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family,” section out of the Smith and Clancey reading was interesting to read as an educator, because the use of radios in child play is the equivalent of the modern integration of technology in the classrooms. The theory or idea behind it is that play can lead to innovation. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“People have many different – often surprising – ideas about technology and many different – of times surprising – reactions to technological change.” I completely agree with the statement, when reading this article I thought certain means of technology like diagnosing people based on how their pulse felt was a bit out there. A Social History of American Technology talked about the origins of the word technology. In the 18th century, the term “technology” meant “knowledge of the arts.” All ideas about nature, social status, skill, gender, God, and politics are connected to one another in relation to the history of technology. To me, before I took this class I only thought of technology as modern day inventions such as computers and software. However, I think it is very interesting that this article discusses romantic industrialization and scientific management. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Smith &amp;amp; Clancy section, I found it very interesting take on reading actual passages from the early 20th century on the wireless telegraph and lighting in homes. To read how eager and arrogant society was on those technologies was informative and entertaining. I very much enjoyed reading the passage from Jan. 1913 regarding teaching boys how to install a wireless telegraph station “..may  prove profitable to the boys in after life.” – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-29T22:36:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In previous readings, we learned the gender implications of technology and the effects that technology had on gender. In the article by Cowan, it was interesting that Romantics seemed reacted quite negatively towards manufacturing machines. It is not surprising given the ideals held by the Romantics, but it is an interesting perspective. Technology affects art. The boom of technology at the turn of the century may have also led to the creation of the Arts and Crafts Style house, which was popular during this same time period. Ironically, a lot of the detail elements on these homes were manufactured in factories.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family,” section out of the Smith and Clancey reading was interesting to read as an educator, because the use of radios in child play is the equivalent of the modern integration of technology in the classrooms. The theory or idea behind it is that play can lead to innovation. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“People have many different – often surprising – ideas about technology and many different – of times surprising – reactions to technological change.” I completely agree with the statement, when reading this article I thought certain means of technology like diagnosing people based on how their pulse felt was a bit out there. A Social History of American Technology talked about the origins of the word technology. In the 18th century, the term “technology” meant “knowledge of the arts.” All ideas about nature, social status, skill, gender, God, and politics are connected to one another in relation to the history of technology. To me, before I took this class I only thought of technology as modern day inventions such as computers and software. However, I think it is very interesting that this article discusses romantic industrialization and scientific management. – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-24T06:48:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Pursell article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy.  He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17).  The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city.  Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217).  “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese.  “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, as well as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (217). Before reading Pursell, I did not realize the impact nuclear power had on the American society and how important it was to becoming a part of the American lifestyle. In this section, I also found the letters of correspondence extremely interesting. The statement of work “Nuclear Power: A Woman’s Perspective” had an unique take on address nuclear power to benefit the public’s wellbeing, putting a positive spin on way to address the public in a polite manner. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Video of nuclear blasts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been.  I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions.  It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions.  I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was.  I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these?  Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing.  The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me.  I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing.  Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing.  The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders.  Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there?  In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”&lt;br /&gt;
--Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow!  I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years.  I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia&amp;#039;s nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while &amp;quot;flexing their guns&amp;quot; at the one another.    - Will D&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries.  However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed.  The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation.  In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229).  I think Thompson took that one a little too far.  Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom.  And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn&amp;#039;t know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It looks as though the entire west coast of the United States should still be radio active today. It lit up like a christmas tree! I agree with Mike, it  was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was &amp;quot;4&amp;quot;. Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This video just makes you realize how much pain was inflicted on all of the innocent people of Japan.  Although as a country as a whole there was entirely too much evil at the time.  The fact that the United States took this upon ourselves to maintain order in the world is amazing.  At the same time this is our weapon against the world.  Other than having the strongest army in the world, we have the best technology and have the bomb to back up the army.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of nuclear tests shocked me as well. Though, I was rather confused as to why some of the United Kingdom&amp;#039;s tests were done in the United States? -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The video gave me a different way at looking at the nuclear testing from 1945 to the end of the 20th century. At first when I started the video, I did not exactly understand what was going on, there was no audio sound until after the first 24 seconds of the video. After I saw the nuclear explosion in America and explosion going off in Japan as well did I connect that this video only was going to show me the nuclear explosions from 1945 until 1998. Very interesting take on this video- simple yet very informative. -- Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don&amp;#039;t fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally have always wondered how the radiation really affected the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  Those people who survived the blast and were exposed to the radiation probably passed it on when they had children.  Then the land was demolished, and the environment suffered tremendously.  Water was on short supply from the radiation.  The other impact I always thought about is what if another nation dropped an atomic bomb on the United States.  As bad as September 11 was, I&amp;#039;m sure that the atomic bomb being dropped in New York and the Pentagon would have had a far more devastating impact.  After World War II ended, Japan openly test atomic weapons off the coast of some of the Pacific islands.  The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States all competed in an arms race to see who could build the biggest weapons.  The atomic bomb began a whole new kind of warfare, and began widespread fear of a devastating attack on a country&amp;#039;s civilians.  -Patrick Kramer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This shows how ahead of times the United States was in comparison to other countries.  The fact that we had the ability to inflict this on a country is incredible.  THe people in Japan were devastated by the radiation.  I do feel bad and feel awful for the innocent people that were hurt by the bomb.  The people that were not involved directly in the bombing took the biggest hit.  We needed this to maintain order in the world and stop evil from overtaking society.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to the atomic bomb, there are certainly many people who look back on the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wonder how humans could go to such lengths to destroy one another. Critics of the atomic bomb have called the men whom worked on it “monsters.” Many believe that there had to be some type of alternative to using the atomic bomb. How could one country ruthlessly murder thousands of innocent civilians? Some will simply say that it was necessary in order to end World War II. So, was the use of the atomic bomb truly justified? Was the U.S. simply trying to end the war as quickly and harshly as possible, no matter the cost? That argument is obviously extremely complex and difficult to answer. However, in the present day, I think there is an even more important question that must be answered: Will a situation arise when once again, a country deems that is completely and totally justifiable to use the atomic bomb to massacre thousands of people? Or have we learned from the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When is the use of the bomb justifiable, and under exactly what circumstances? It seems to me that this entire area is completely gray, and the only opinions that really matter are those of world leaders, and not of the common person. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When thinking of the impact of the atomic bomb several things come to mind. By testing the atomic bomb scientists were able to come up with nuclear power pants, which provide a great amount of power for the people around them but are quite dangerous as seen in Japan in the recent weeks and Chernobyl in the 80s. Another thing that comes to mind is the remake of the Hills Have Eyes where the mutants who live in the hills were changed due to the atomic bomb tests in the area. Not a great movie but it&amp;#039;s one instance where the atomic bomb is used as a plot device in movies. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From previous history classes, I knew a large number of civilians died after the Atomic bombs that were dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, after Tuesday’s lecture of the Atomic Bombs, I did not realize the effects of radiation had on the population that survived the initial attack when the bomb first dropped. To have 140,000 people die within 5 years due to the radiation shocks and sadden me.  – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-24T06:34:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Video of nuclear blasts */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Pursell article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy.  He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17).  The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city.  Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217).  “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese.  “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, as well as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (217). Before reading Pursell, I did not realize the impact nuclear power had on the American society and how important it was to becoming a part of the American lifestyle. In this section, I also found the letters of correspondence extremely interesting. The statement of work “Nuclear Power: A Woman’s Perspective” had an unique take on address nuclear power to benefit the public’s wellbeing, putting a positive spin on way to address the public in a polite manner. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Video of nuclear blasts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been.  I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions.  It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions.  I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was.  I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these?  Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing.  The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me.  I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing.  Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing.  The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders.  Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there?  In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”&lt;br /&gt;
--Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow!  I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years.  I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia&amp;#039;s nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while &amp;quot;flexing their guns&amp;quot; at the one another.    - Will D&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries.  However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed.  The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation.  In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229).  I think Thompson took that one a little too far.  Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom.  And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn&amp;#039;t know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It looks as though the entire west coast of the United States should still be radio active today. It lit up like a christmas tree! I agree with Mike, it  was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was &amp;quot;4&amp;quot;. Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This video just makes you realize how much pain was inflicted on all of the innocent people of Japan.  Although as a country as a whole there was entirely too much evil at the time.  The fact that the United States took this upon ourselves to maintain order in the world is amazing.  At the same time this is our weapon against the world.  Other than having the strongest army in the world, we have the best technology and have the bomb to back up the army.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of nuclear tests shocked me as well. Though, I was rather confused as to why some of the United Kingdom&amp;#039;s tests were done in the United States? -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The video gave me a different way at looking at the nuclear testing from 1945 to the end of the 20th century. At first when I started the video, I did not exactly understand what was going on, there was no audio sound until after the first 24 seconds of the video. After I saw the nuclear explosion in America and explosion going off in Japan as well did I connect that this video only was going to show me the nuclear explosions from 1945 until 1998. Very interesting take on this video- simple yet very informative. -- Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don&amp;#039;t fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally have always wondered how the radiation really affected the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  Those people who survived the blast and were exposed to the radiation probably passed it on when they had children.  Then the land was demolished, and the environment suffered tremendously.  Water was on short supply from the radiation.  The other impact I always thought about is what if another nation dropped an atomic bomb on the United States.  As bad as September 11 was, I&amp;#039;m sure that the atomic bomb being dropped in New York and the Pentagon would have had a far more devastating impact.  After World War II ended, Japan openly test atomic weapons off the coast of some of the Pacific islands.  The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States all competed in an arms race to see who could build the biggest weapons.  The atomic bomb began a whole new kind of warfare, and began widespread fear of a devastating attack on a country&amp;#039;s civilians.  -Patrick Kramer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This shows how ahead of times the United States was in comparison to other countries.  The fact that we had the ability to inflict this on a country is incredible.  THe people in Japan were devastated by the radiation.  I do feel bad and feel awful for the innocent people that were hurt by the bomb.  The people that were not involved directly in the bombing took the biggest hit.  We needed this to maintain order in the world and stop evil from overtaking society.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to the atomic bomb, there are certainly many people who look back on the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wonder how humans could go to such lengths to destroy one another. Critics of the atomic bomb have called the men whom worked on it “monsters.” Many believe that there had to be some type of alternative to using the atomic bomb. How could one country ruthlessly murder thousands of innocent civilians? Some will simply say that it was necessary in order to end World War II. So, was the use of the atomic bomb truly justified? Was the U.S. simply trying to end the war as quickly and harshly as possible, no matter the cost? That argument is obviously extremely complex and difficult to answer. However, in the present day, I think there is an even more important question that must be answered: Will a situation arise when once again, a country deems that is completely and totally justifiable to use the atomic bomb to massacre thousands of people? Or have we learned from the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When is the use of the bomb justifiable, and under exactly what circumstances? It seems to me that this entire area is completely gray, and the only opinions that really matter are those of world leaders, and not of the common person. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When thinking of the impact of the atomic bomb several things come to mind. By testing the atomic bomb scientists were able to come up with nuclear power pants, which provide a great amount of power for the people around them but are quite dangerous as seen in Japan in the recent weeks and Chernobyl in the 80s. Another thing that comes to mind is the remake of the Hills Have Eyes where the mutants who live in the hills were changed due to the atomic bomb tests in the area. Not a great movie but it&amp;#039;s one instance where the atomic bomb is used as a plot device in movies. -Megan Mc.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-24T06:27:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Pursell article */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Pursell article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy.  He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17).  The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city.  Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217).  “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese.  “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, as well as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (217). Before reading Pursell, I did not realize the impact nuclear power had on the American society and how important it was to becoming a part of the American lifestyle. In this section, I also found the letters of correspondence extremely interesting. The statement of work “Nuclear Power: A Woman’s Perspective” had an unique take on address nuclear power to benefit the public’s wellbeing, putting a positive spin on way to address the public in a polite manner. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Video of nuclear blasts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been.  I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions.  It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions.  I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was.  I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these?  Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing.  The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me.  I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing.  Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing.  The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders.  Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there?  In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”&lt;br /&gt;
--Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow!  I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years.  I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia&amp;#039;s nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while &amp;quot;flexing their guns&amp;quot; at the one another.    - Will D&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries.  However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed.  The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation.  In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229).  I think Thompson took that one a little too far.  Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom.  And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn&amp;#039;t know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It looks as though the entire west coast of the United States should still be radio active today. It lit up like a christmas tree! I agree with Mike, it  was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was &amp;quot;4&amp;quot;. Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This video just makes you realize how much pain was inflicted on all of the innocent people of Japan.  Although as a country as a whole there was entirely too much evil at the time.  The fact that the United States took this upon ourselves to maintain order in the world is amazing.  At the same time this is our weapon against the world.  Other than having the strongest army in the world, we have the best technology and have the bomb to back up the army.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of nuclear tests shocked me as well. Though, I was rather confused as to why some of the United Kingdom&amp;#039;s tests were done in the United States? -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don&amp;#039;t fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally have always wondered how the radiation really affected the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  Those people who survived the blast and were exposed to the radiation probably passed it on when they had children.  Then the land was demolished, and the environment suffered tremendously.  Water was on short supply from the radiation.  The other impact I always thought about is what if another nation dropped an atomic bomb on the United States.  As bad as September 11 was, I&amp;#039;m sure that the atomic bomb being dropped in New York and the Pentagon would have had a far more devastating impact.  After World War II ended, Japan openly test atomic weapons off the coast of some of the Pacific islands.  The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States all competed in an arms race to see who could build the biggest weapons.  The atomic bomb began a whole new kind of warfare, and began widespread fear of a devastating attack on a country&amp;#039;s civilians.  -Patrick Kramer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This shows how ahead of times the United States was in comparison to other countries.  The fact that we had the ability to inflict this on a country is incredible.  THe people in Japan were devastated by the radiation.  I do feel bad and feel awful for the innocent people that were hurt by the bomb.  The people that were not involved directly in the bombing took the biggest hit.  We needed this to maintain order in the world and stop evil from overtaking society.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to the atomic bomb, there are certainly many people who look back on the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wonder how humans could go to such lengths to destroy one another. Critics of the atomic bomb have called the men whom worked on it “monsters.” Many believe that there had to be some type of alternative to using the atomic bomb. How could one country ruthlessly murder thousands of innocent civilians? Some will simply say that it was necessary in order to end World War II. So, was the use of the atomic bomb truly justified? Was the U.S. simply trying to end the war as quickly and harshly as possible, no matter the cost? That argument is obviously extremely complex and difficult to answer. However, in the present day, I think there is an even more important question that must be answered: Will a situation arise when once again, a country deems that is completely and totally justifiable to use the atomic bomb to massacre thousands of people? Or have we learned from the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When is the use of the bomb justifiable, and under exactly what circumstances? It seems to me that this entire area is completely gray, and the only opinions that really matter are those of world leaders, and not of the common person. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When thinking of the impact of the atomic bomb several things come to mind. By testing the atomic bomb scientists were able to come up with nuclear power pants, which provide a great amount of power for the people around them but are quite dangerous as seen in Japan in the recent weeks and Chernobyl in the 80s. Another thing that comes to mind is the remake of the Hills Have Eyes where the mutants who live in the hills were changed due to the atomic bomb tests in the area. Not a great movie but it&amp;#039;s one instance where the atomic bomb is used as a plot device in movies. -Megan Mc.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-24T06:26:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Pursell article */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Pursell article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 213, it was quite interesting that a main factor in pursuing nuclear energy was not necessarily to improve the quality of life in America. It is proposed that atomic energy was pursued to negate the Soviet Union’s possible use of it to convert developing nations to its side. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith’s essay discusses the advertising of atomic energy.  He claims, “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, and as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (216-17).  The AEC and other governmental agencies had to reassure the public that the new technology could serve another purpose besides destroying a city.  Smith mentions that a AEC deputy director claimed, “‘in its civilian uses the energy of the atom should be described as ‘nuclear energy’ rather than ‘atomic energy’” (Pursell 217).  “Atomic energy” is too closely associated with the mushroom cloud image and the fatalities of the Japanese.  “Nuclear energy” sounds more like an alternative energy source rather than material used in a bomb. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 “Nuclear power plants were to serve as badges of American technological and political superiority at home, as well as adjuncts of atomic diplomacy abroad” (217). Before reading Pursell, I did not realize the impact nuclear power had on the American society and how important it was to becoming a part of the American lifestyle. In this section, I also found the letters of correspondence extremely interesting. The statement of work “Nuclear Power: A Woman’s Perspective” had an unique take on address nuclear power to benefit the public’s wellbeing, putting a positive spin on way to address the public in a polite manner. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Video of nuclear blasts ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The video that was posted on the readings page was incredibly emotional and thought provoking. I had no idea that there were that many tests of nuclear devices, especially by the United States. It seems that once you knew that it worked, i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would not need to keep testing. &lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was particularly harrowing to see how many nuclear explosions there have been.  I agree with Kyle- I had no idea that the United States had done so many explosions.  It seems, when comparing the numbers of explosions in the United States to explosions in Russia, our nearest competitor (1032 to 715) and seemingly biggest fear was nowhere even close to the number of explosions.  I had had the impression that the Cold War and arms race was a lot closer than it actually was.  I do, howevever, have a question, what kinds of explosions were these?  Were these all tests, and if so, what are the magnitudes of those tests?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the video of showing the number for nuclear explosions conducted around the world interesting and a little disturbing.  The fact that the United States conducted over a thousand tests in 53 years, more than most of the other countries combined, was a little disturbing for me.  I agree with Kyle that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs worked that what reason is there to keep testing.  Another thing that caught my attention, shown at the end of the clip, was the location in which other countries were testing.  The U.S. seemed to have kept the majority of their testing in the same location and within our own boarders.  Seeing some countries testing in Scandinavia, Australia, and parts of Africa made me wonder why there?  In some years seeing the amount of lights blink and the number rising gave the feeling of “Holy S^*#.”&lt;br /&gt;
--Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t add much more then what has already been said, but for the record, I will say wow!  I had no idea that we had tested that many times in those 53 years.  I too am curious to know what type of testing some of them were, and what impact, if any, have the more recent tests had. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the major factors contributing to the large amounts of nuclear tests by both the United States and Russia was the constant fear of falling behind one another. Both governments were terrified of the other discovering a new type of atomic weapon, or some other technology, that could win the war for them. The US was aware of Russia&amp;#039;s nuclear tests, and though Russia was slightly behind, there was a lot of fear in the American government of being surpassed technologically, allowing the Russians to launch a pre-emtive strike. With that in mind, the number of atomic tests makes sense, as both nations could figure out new ways of perfecting the bomb, while &amp;quot;flexing their guns&amp;quot; at the one another.    - Will D&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that so many tests had been done, especially after seeing the effects on Japan. I knew testing had been done prior to bombing Japan, and that some testing had been done during the Cold War, but not to that extent. I also did not realize that the United States did so much more testing than any other country. I thought that the competition went back and forth much more than this video showed. I am very curious to know if there were any affects of these tests, and if so what kind. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the video to be rather terrifying, as the numbers went up so did my disbelief. After learning about, as well as seeing the affects of the atomic bombs on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I find it hard to understand why there would be continued testing. I can recognize the fear and paranoia that the U.S and Soviet Union experienced during the Cold war, and yes I realize that it is almost always better to be the side with the bigger stick, but for the U.S to conduct testing of 1000+ bombs simply doesn’t feel right. And of course, I have to wonder what effects all the testing has had on the environment. What did all these tests accomplish? --Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am shocked by the number of tests performed not only by the United States but also by other countries.  However, we should recall the “Atomic Age” and how nuclear energy was publicized as a positive alternative to other energy sources and its effects were downplayed.  The Pursell reading continuously mentioned how the agencies tried to spin the horrible effects of radiation.  In Michael Smith’s article, he mentions the AEC Commissioner, Theos J. Thompson’s idea, “To oppose nuclear technology because low-level radiation might be detrimental struck Thompson as woefully enervated: ‘It is as though we decided not to get out bed anymore because we might slip on the way to the bathroom’” (Pursell 229).  I think Thompson took that one a little too far.  Radiation poisoning is SLIGHTLY more dangerous than slipping on the way to the bathroom.  And I say this with the authority of being a clumsy person.&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn&amp;#039;t know quite how many tests were really being done, but you can especially see the difference during the Cold War period, especially in 1957-1958. We can also clearly see that the United States was the leader in all of these tests, with a close follow by the Soviet Union. We can also see where these tests were done with shows that a lot were done in the Pacific, and a lot were done in the Soviet Union and along the western United States. I think we can take into account the reasoning behind the U.S. nuclear tests as being not only for military use, but for the potential of commercial nuclear power as well. I do wonder though if doing these tests, if there were any considerations in radiation, especially after the results from Japan at the end of World War II. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It looks as though the entire west coast of the United States should still be radio active today. It lit up like a christmas tree! I agree with Mike, it  was little disturbing to know how many of these bombs were actually used since then. While I was watching this, I asked my girl friend how many nuclear bombs she thought have been used since their beginning in 1945. Her reply was &amp;quot;4&amp;quot;. Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This video just makes you realize how much pain was inflicted on all of the innocent people of Japan.  Although as a country as a whole there was entirely too much evil at the time.  The fact that the United States took this upon ourselves to maintain order in the world is amazing.  At the same time this is our weapon against the world.  Other than having the strongest army in the world, we have the best technology and have the bomb to back up the army.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The number of nuclear tests shocked me as well. Though, I was rather confused as to why some of the United Kingdom&amp;#039;s tests were done in the United States? -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this modern day, I believe that many students have been desensitized to the entire process of nuclear power and weapons. It is shown as a very powerful thing in modern media, but it is also shown as a very controlled thing. These conceptions are not too different from what the U.S. was trying to achieve in the 50’s and 60’s, which leads me to believe that in the long run, they were successful.&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don&amp;#039;t fully know or understand the true impact that nuclear weapons can really have on society. And although this may be true, you still see a fear when foreign countries are attempting to create their own nuclear weapons. I think that today though, more people are experiencing the effects nuclear power can have on society ie. the recent Japanese events. But people also are experiencing and using nuclear power for energy, not only for weapons. The atomic bomb has created much power for the United States and any country with nuclear weapons though. And the need for new global policies had to be created to tend to these new powers. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally have always wondered how the radiation really affected the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  Those people who survived the blast and were exposed to the radiation probably passed it on when they had children.  Then the land was demolished, and the environment suffered tremendously.  Water was on short supply from the radiation.  The other impact I always thought about is what if another nation dropped an atomic bomb on the United States.  As bad as September 11 was, I&amp;#039;m sure that the atomic bomb being dropped in New York and the Pentagon would have had a far more devastating impact.  After World War II ended, Japan openly test atomic weapons off the coast of some of the Pacific islands.  The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States all competed in an arms race to see who could build the biggest weapons.  The atomic bomb began a whole new kind of warfare, and began widespread fear of a devastating attack on a country&amp;#039;s civilians.  -Patrick Kramer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This shows how ahead of times the United States was in comparison to other countries.  The fact that we had the ability to inflict this on a country is incredible.  THe people in Japan were devastated by the radiation.  I do feel bad and feel awful for the innocent people that were hurt by the bomb.  The people that were not involved directly in the bombing took the biggest hit.  We needed this to maintain order in the world and stop evil from overtaking society.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to the atomic bomb, there are certainly many people who look back on the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wonder how humans could go to such lengths to destroy one another. Critics of the atomic bomb have called the men whom worked on it “monsters.” Many believe that there had to be some type of alternative to using the atomic bomb. How could one country ruthlessly murder thousands of innocent civilians? Some will simply say that it was necessary in order to end World War II. So, was the use of the atomic bomb truly justified? Was the U.S. simply trying to end the war as quickly and harshly as possible, no matter the cost? That argument is obviously extremely complex and difficult to answer. However, in the present day, I think there is an even more important question that must be answered: Will a situation arise when once again, a country deems that is completely and totally justifiable to use the atomic bomb to massacre thousands of people? Or have we learned from the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? When is the use of the bomb justifiable, and under exactly what circumstances? It seems to me that this entire area is completely gray, and the only opinions that really matter are those of world leaders, and not of the common person. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When thinking of the impact of the atomic bomb several things come to mind. By testing the atomic bomb scientists were able to come up with nuclear power pants, which provide a great amount of power for the people around them but are quite dangerous as seen in Japan in the recent weeks and Chernobyl in the 80s. Another thing that comes to mind is the remake of the Hills Have Eyes where the mutants who live in the hills were changed due to the atomic bomb tests in the area. Not a great movie but it&amp;#039;s one instance where the atomic bomb is used as a plot device in movies. -Megan Mc.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-17T06:04:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Nye */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Nye ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting to note that when Nye discusses the reason for the streetcar&amp;#039;s demise, he states that a major reason is the consolidation of the companies. The consolidation raises rates, because there is no competition. This is also the reason for the lessening amounts of investment. In these suburbs and cities, they are the only provider. Therefore, in order to increase revenues, they will lower the cost of production/investment. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When discussing the social outcomes of the streetcars, Nye states &amp;quot;its tracks pushed through the existing social fabric, pulling apart the urban structure...&amp;quot; The automobile will do this as well and to a much greater degree. It will be possible for suburbs to be farther and farther away pushing the classes farther apart. Eventually, the taxes are so low and the revenues are so low for the streetcars that public transportation becomes unbearable. The automobile helped push the streetcar out of the cities, while pulling apart the classes of people.  ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams.&amp;quot;  Apparently, there must be a lot of trolley cars in the area that we are unaware of.  Wasn&amp;#039;t there talk in recent years of Washington DC bringing back a form of a Trolly/street Car system?  - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye discusses how the automobile differed from public transportation like the subway, in terms of separating the different social classes. Nye goes into further detail, discussing how by the 1920’s, the type of transportation you chose revealed a lot about your social standing and your position in society. Have things really changed today? The type of car one drives still serves as a strong symbol of social status, and public transportation isn’t exactly considered a luxury. However, it isn’t as if all poor people only use public transportation and all rich people only drive expensive luxury cars. I had never actually experienced any real form of public transportation (besides school buses and airplanes) until I visited New York City when I was sixteen years old; it was an eye-opening experience. I learned that the subway is actually incredibly diverse. I saw men and women in expensive business suits, people whom looked like they were blue-collar workers, and people whom looked homeless. However, I still feel that to this day, the way in which one travels to their job or anywhere else in their life is very indicative of their social status.  For instance, if I were raised in a very wealthy family in Washington, D.C., would I really feel the need to ride the bus around the city in order to get to the places that I needed to go? Or would I simply drive the convertible BMU that my parents got me for my sixteenth birthday? Similar to clothes and the type of home one owns, so many people are concerned with obtaining the most socially impressive automobile in order to maintain a respectable place in society. It is this fact that makes me believe that all in all, things have not really changed much since the 1920’s, in terms of the correlation between social status and the type of automobile one drives. The streetcar’s significance in the early twentieth century extended far beyond being just an innovation in the efficiency of transportation; it served as an entirely new way to establish one’s place in society. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this reading was quite interesting in that there were numerous reasons as to why the streetcar failed, especially with the impact that the automobile had on it. One quote that struck me was, &amp;quot;Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams&amp;quot; (p 136). Many of the overcrowding streets were constantly being blamed on the streetcars, but even after the cars changed moved away from rail and had rubber wheels? Why did the trolley car continue to fail after improvements were made upon it? -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though cars were being made, because of the large expenditure of the rails they would have gone out of business anyway.  The innovations in streetcar designs were still being made.  Were they hoping it would make a comeback?  If the innovations made were better, I wonder why they still could not make it!?  ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting the author compares the decline of the streetcar to the automobile to mentioning the decline of other transportation systems, such as the railroads. In my opinion, in no way do I believe railroads are the fastest means or the most efficient way, but I do believe that railroads were much more significant to American history than streetcars. While streetcars had large profits in the earlier years, like the railroad, Americans found more efficient ways of transportation, allowing the first use of major transportation from one city to the next, cutting valuable time to get to the destination.  Railroads in America affected very day life; however the streetcar was an invention that only helped improve other American technologies in the future. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pursell ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 26 questions to decide whether the engineering profession is right seem to be applicable questions to ask even today. By looking at these questions and studying them, one can determine the objectives, goals, and processes used by engineers in the early 20th century.  ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting point I found in the Waddell’s section on Vocational Guidance was how it was essential to the safety and prosperity of the community that engineers be naturally qualified and of good character.  Yes, professionals need to be considered carefully, and certainly engineers have a direct effect on the community, but does the safety prosperity of the community truly rely on the natural qualifications and moral character of its workers?  I think, in fact, it partially does, because we saw an example of this with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge.  There was corruption from Boss Tweed, the faulty cables, and substandard building with not digging completely down to bedrock.  However, the Brooklyn Bridge still safely stands and proved a prosperous investment for Manhattan and Brooklyn.   I thought, though the list of questions was particularly interesting as a way of determining abilities and potential in hopeful engineers.  Was this applied to other professions?  &lt;br /&gt;
--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sinclair claims, “The proofs of that maturation . . . were the readiness of engineers to assume a leading role in the solution of the world’s economic and social problems” (148).  This statement represents the aspect of technology that it should fulfill a need of society.  For example, Thomas Edison created an electrical system through the incandescent lamp.  Sinclair is arguing that engineers create objects that resolve problems in society.  Geoffrey Bennet states, “Kodak had correctly judged that the new generation wanted smaller, easy-to-load and easy-to-use camera . . . . The system was the perfect technical and practical answer to the need, truly in the spirit of George Eastman’s famous slogan, ‘You press the button, we do the rest’” (141).  Eastman made it easy for the common person to take a picture and have the company develop the image. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Waddell notes, “Many young men are graduating from engineering colleges who should have never entered them-and the sooner their mistakes are rectified the better.  It would be much preferable if they had never commenced the study of engineering, and if the requirements of the colleges had been much more severe and the duration of their instruction longer” (156).  Engineering colleges today are much more competitive and selective than in earlier decades.  However, is Waddell being fair that graduates of engineering colleges never should have applied in the first place?  Were the lower standards really producing incompetent engineers? –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was very interesting. Waddell comments that he thinks there should be better qualified engineers and that the education leading up to becoming a successful engineer needs to be more rigorous. I think that with an increasing population and thus increasing competition for the job that it has become more competitive, just not necessarily because the field required better applicants. The questions that were suggested also seemed extremely universal and relevant. Those questions are good, it seems, regardless of the time and can even be twisted to become relevant for other fields. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too like Kyle found the twenty six questions for engineering applicants to be interesting. But were these questions the right questions to be asking? Just because someone could answer a few questions the wrong way, doesn&amp;#039;t mean that they aren&amp;#039;t capable of completing a job. I also found the conditions for why a middle-aged man should stay in the engineering industry to be interesting, as they are what I believe most people today consider before retiring or resigning from work. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 26 questions that were being asked, some would be frowned upon today.  But this was a good way to find out if a potential engineer student was serious about their profession.  I also found it quite interesting that people thought that engineering was a “boring” job.  The engineers that were out of a job were not able to pay their dues to stay members.  I wonder if they received benefits anyway?  They paid into it they should get something out of it.---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography ==&lt;br /&gt;
Bennett’s article contains two photographs that capture towns and their events.  One is during the day and shows the daily activities of a town.  Another is at night and shows all of the houses lit up and all of the boats tied down.  They are more modern photographs and have vivid colors.  On page 146 there are photographs from the 1950’s that are still in color and are a great improvement in color film.  The film/digital camera industry has made great technological improvements, but what comes after digital cameras?  –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sheer quantity of models developed is staggering. Just as impressive, though, is that for many of those new and more expensive models, vital aspects of photography--such as the quality and clarity of the resulting photo--would not be improved, and would oftentimes decrease in quality in successive products. The idea that even moderate success could be claimed by a product that produced poorer images than its predecessors is surprising, but there were instances in which just that happened. The drive to make the camera smaller, more portable, and more attractive actually decreased its ability to perform its function. --NIcole S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this excerpt Bennet writes about the history of coloured photography from the time that artists were painting in the colour on the photos as early as the 1800&amp;#039;s.  Colour has always been a necessary part of photography.  We see too the drive to continually improve the camera to make it a motre sellable product.  Sometimes we see though that perhaps this had a negative effect on the actual quality of the photo.  We continue to attemp to achieve even greater heights in technological advancement, but like Samantha stated what will really come after digital? or have we reached a peak? Sheri Foster&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings of Bennett, I really enjoyed reading about the &amp;quot;tri-pack system&amp;quot; in which he uses to describe George Eastman&amp;#039;s Flexible or roll film. The roll film was revolutionary for the development of the camera. He states on page 133, &amp;quot;though principles were understood, practical problems had prevented this dream from being realized&amp;quot;. This dream was first realized on a coated paper, but later on moved to a transparent celluloid film where it blossomed. Thus the camera and it&amp;#039;s technological advancements would have been hindered without the development of film and plastic. Perhaps plastic deserves more credit for the camera?  -Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout reading the article about the “breakthrough” process of colored cameras, I noticed the Kodak cameras played a very important role throughout the evolution of cameras in America. “Encouraged by the success of the Instamatic camera, Kodak took the logical step of introducing an even small step format...” Statements like this one shows how smart Kodak was in making sure all technologies were up to date in order to have an effective market. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Technology has always had a funny way of evolving and changing with the times.  In my opinion, nothing shapes the market quite like competition does.  It was quite interesting to see how the United States and Japan constantly went back and forth in the camera industry.  Anytime one side made improvements on their camera, the other side fired right back with their own improvements.  Both side continually worked on the size of the cameras themsevles, since most consumers wanted them to be small enough to fit in their pockets.  Both side worked continually on the focus and sharpness to improve photographic quality.  Today, this competition still exists.  Anybody can see this when they walk through Best Buy, since so many digital cameras are on display, with each company trying to add more and more features to their product. -Patrick Kramer&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-17T05:38:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Nye ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting to note that when Nye discusses the reason for the streetcar&amp;#039;s demise, he states that a major reason is the consolidation of the companies. The consolidation raises rates, because there is no competition. This is also the reason for the lessening amounts of investment. In these suburbs and cities, they are the only provider. Therefore, in order to increase revenues, they will lower the cost of production/investment. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When discussing the social outcomes of the streetcars, Nye states &amp;quot;its tracks pushed through the existing social fabric, pulling apart the urban structure...&amp;quot; The automobile will do this as well and to a much greater degree. It will be possible for suburbs to be farther and farther away pushing the classes farther apart. Eventually, the taxes are so low and the revenues are so low for the streetcars that public transportation becomes unbearable. The automobile helped push the streetcar out of the cities, while pulling apart the classes of people.  ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams.&amp;quot;  Apparently, there must be a lot of trolley cars in the area that we are unaware of.  Wasn&amp;#039;t there talk in recent years of Washington DC bringing back a form of a Trolly/street Car system?  - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye discusses how the automobile differed from public transportation like the subway, in terms of separating the different social classes. Nye goes into further detail, discussing how by the 1920’s, the type of transportation you chose revealed a lot about your social standing and your position in society. Have things really changed today? The type of car one drives still serves as a strong symbol of social status, and public transportation isn’t exactly considered a luxury. However, it isn’t as if all poor people only use public transportation and all rich people only drive expensive luxury cars. I had never actually experienced any real form of public transportation (besides school buses and airplanes) until I visited New York City when I was sixteen years old; it was an eye-opening experience. I learned that the subway is actually incredibly diverse. I saw men and women in expensive business suits, people whom looked like they were blue-collar workers, and people whom looked homeless. However, I still feel that to this day, the way in which one travels to their job or anywhere else in their life is very indicative of their social status.  For instance, if I were raised in a very wealthy family in Washington, D.C., would I really feel the need to ride the bus around the city in order to get to the places that I needed to go? Or would I simply drive the convertible BMU that my parents got me for my sixteenth birthday? Similar to clothes and the type of home one owns, so many people are concerned with obtaining the most socially impressive automobile in order to maintain a respectable place in society. It is this fact that makes me believe that all in all, things have not really changed much since the 1920’s, in terms of the correlation between social status and the type of automobile one drives. The streetcar’s significance in the early twentieth century extended far beyond being just an innovation in the efficiency of transportation; it served as an entirely new way to establish one’s place in society. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this reading was quite interesting in that there were numerous reasons as to why the streetcar failed, especially with the impact that the automobile had on it. One quote that struck me was, &amp;quot;Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams&amp;quot; (p 136). Many of the overcrowding streets were constantly being blamed on the streetcars, but even after the cars changed moved away from rail and had rubber wheels? Why did the trolley car continue to fail after improvements were made upon it? -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though cars were being made, because of the large expenditure of the rails they would have gone out of business anyway.  The innovations in streetcar designs were still being made.  Were they hoping it would make a comeback?  If the innovations made were better, I wonder why they still could not make it!?  ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pursell ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 26 questions to decide whether the engineering profession is right seem to be applicable questions to ask even today. By looking at these questions and studying them, one can determine the objectives, goals, and processes used by engineers in the early 20th century.  ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting point I found in the Waddell’s section on Vocational Guidance was how it was essential to the safety and prosperity of the community that engineers be naturally qualified and of good character.  Yes, professionals need to be considered carefully, and certainly engineers have a direct effect on the community, but does the safety prosperity of the community truly rely on the natural qualifications and moral character of its workers?  I think, in fact, it partially does, because we saw an example of this with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge.  There was corruption from Boss Tweed, the faulty cables, and substandard building with not digging completely down to bedrock.  However, the Brooklyn Bridge still safely stands and proved a prosperous investment for Manhattan and Brooklyn.   I thought, though the list of questions was particularly interesting as a way of determining abilities and potential in hopeful engineers.  Was this applied to other professions?  &lt;br /&gt;
--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sinclair claims, “The proofs of that maturation . . . were the readiness of engineers to assume a leading role in the solution of the world’s economic and social problems” (148).  This statement represents the aspect of technology that it should fulfill a need of society.  For example, Thomas Edison created an electrical system through the incandescent lamp.  Sinclair is arguing that engineers create objects that resolve problems in society.  Geoffrey Bennet states, “Kodak had correctly judged that the new generation wanted smaller, easy-to-load and easy-to-use camera . . . . The system was the perfect technical and practical answer to the need, truly in the spirit of George Eastman’s famous slogan, ‘You press the button, we do the rest’” (141).  Eastman made it easy for the common person to take a picture and have the company develop the image. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Waddell notes, “Many young men are graduating from engineering colleges who should have never entered them-and the sooner their mistakes are rectified the better.  It would be much preferable if they had never commenced the study of engineering, and if the requirements of the colleges had been much more severe and the duration of their instruction longer” (156).  Engineering colleges today are much more competitive and selective than in earlier decades.  However, is Waddell being fair that graduates of engineering colleges never should have applied in the first place?  Were the lower standards really producing incompetent engineers? –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was very interesting. Waddell comments that he thinks there should be better qualified engineers and that the education leading up to becoming a successful engineer needs to be more rigorous. I think that with an increasing population and thus increasing competition for the job that it has become more competitive, just not necessarily because the field required better applicants. The questions that were suggested also seemed extremely universal and relevant. Those questions are good, it seems, regardless of the time and can even be twisted to become relevant for other fields. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too like Kyle found the twenty six questions for engineering applicants to be interesting. But were these questions the right questions to be asking? Just because someone could answer a few questions the wrong way, doesn&amp;#039;t mean that they aren&amp;#039;t capable of completing a job. I also found the conditions for why a middle-aged man should stay in the engineering industry to be interesting, as they are what I believe most people today consider before retiring or resigning from work. -Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 26 questions that were being asked, some would be frowned upon today.  But this was a good way to find out if a potential engineer student was serious about their profession.  I also found it quite interesting that people thought that engineering was a “boring” job.  The engineers that were out of a job were not able to pay their dues to stay members.  I wonder if they received benefits anyway?  They paid into it they should get something out of it.---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography ==&lt;br /&gt;
Bennett’s article contains two photographs that capture towns and their events.  One is during the day and shows the daily activities of a town.  Another is at night and shows all of the houses lit up and all of the boats tied down.  They are more modern photographs and have vivid colors.  On page 146 there are photographs from the 1950’s that are still in color and are a great improvement in color film.  The film/digital camera industry has made great technological improvements, but what comes after digital cameras?  –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sheer quantity of models developed is staggering. Just as impressive, though, is that for many of those new and more expensive models, vital aspects of photography--such as the quality and clarity of the resulting photo--would not be improved, and would oftentimes decrease in quality in successive products. The idea that even moderate success could be claimed by a product that produced poorer images than its predecessors is surprising, but there were instances in which just that happened. The drive to make the camera smaller, more portable, and more attractive actually decreased its ability to perform its function. --NIcole S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this excerpt Bennet writes about the history of coloured photography from the time that artists were painting in the colour on the photos as early as the 1800&amp;#039;s.  Colour has always been a necessary part of photography.  We see too the drive to continually improve the camera to make it a motre sellable product.  Sometimes we see though that perhaps this had a negative effect on the actual quality of the photo.  We continue to attemp to achieve even greater heights in technological advancement, but like Samantha stated what will really come after digital? or have we reached a peak? Sheri Foster&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings of Bennett, I really enjoyed reading about the &amp;quot;tri-pack system&amp;quot; in which he uses to describe George Eastman&amp;#039;s Flexible or roll film. The roll film was revolutionary for the development of the camera. He states on page 133, &amp;quot;though principles were understood, practical problems had prevented this dream from being realized&amp;quot;. This dream was first realized on a coated paper, but later on moved to a transparent celluloid film where it blossomed. Thus the camera and it&amp;#039;s technological advancements would have been hindered without the development of film and plastic. Perhaps plastic deserves more credit for the camera?  -Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout reading the article about the “breakthrough” process of colored cameras, I noticed the Kodak cameras played a very important role throughout the evolution of cameras in America. “Encouraged by the success of the Instamatic camera, Kodak took the logical step of introducing an even small step format...” Statements like this one shows how smart Kodak was in making sure all technologies were up to date in order to have an effective market. – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-10T08:36:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Christine Kleinegger */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Christine Kleinegger ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kleinegger’s basic thesis is that the rise of urbanization and technology displaced farm women from their normal duties. Did increases in food production allow urbanization or did urbanization force technology to increase production abilities? On page 174, Kleinegger writes, “Several factors led to the greater mechanization of dairying. The rapidly increasing population in urban centers created a demand for milk far greater than… farm areas could meet.” It is a matter of what caused which, but it is central to this discussion. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion of making the woman an equal business partner is interesting, because it is almost two decades after the 19th Constitutional Amendment. It shows that the women’s equality movement had permeated into rural America just like the modern appliances and utilities had. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kleinegger discusses the magazine, Farmer’s Wife, and notes that it describes the, “woman’s new role as a consumer and her old role as the wife of a producer . . . ‘Out of the Barns and into the Kitchens’ can be understood not just as metaphor for changes that occurred in the nature of women’s work, but also as a literal description of a change . . . in the site of that work” (177).  She also refers to farmwives as “a rural ‘Superwoman’” (179), and quotes the Farmer’s Wife: “‘If you can make your husband think of you as his partner, the rest is easy’” (185).  Were women truly happy in their new roles?  Did these shifts cause problems in families?  Or did everyone adjust easily with the rise of new “labor saving” technology?  –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A theme I noticed in this reading was the romanticization of earlier farm techniques, including butter making, much like with what we had seen with, for example, the introduction of time, or industrialization. Similarly, there was tension between the farm wife and her husband with what their relationship was, as we had seen with the frustrations between factory workers and management. An interesting point is the idea of the daughters leaving the farm if their fathers did not bring in the new technology.  I wonder, though, if we can really completely blame it on that.  It seems as if these are the times when young farm girls go to factories because the farm does not need so many laborers (food mechanization) and new factories in the cities need the cheap labor (as we had seen with, for example the textile industry). It might have not only been that their fathers didn’t give them running water or a kitchen sink, but that there were increased opportunities outside of the farm. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on some of the letters written to the Farmer&amp;#039;s Wife, it appears that the women were content with their new roles. However, I think that if they had been given technology to match what their husbands were using on the farm they would have been much more content. It does not appear that the women were resisting the transition too much, though with every change there is bound to be a certain degree of resistance. I think that the biggest issue the women had were that they no longer felt equal to their husbands. Also, I agree with Sara. I do not think that the lack of household technology necessarily drove the daughters off the farm. It may have been an excuse or the initial push, but they would not have left if there were no opportunities for them elsewhere. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the entire section on the producer vs. consumer conflict (175) to be really interesting. It provided a new view on the economics of Agriculture in the 1920&amp;#039;s and how it might have lead to the Depression, a view I had really considered. However it makes sense because an economy cannot last long when the producer and consumer have two different expectations within the the same household. The provider wants to receive the maximum profit and the consumer wants to acquire the most goods for the least amount of money. However when whatever income you are generating is trying to meet the consumer demands and is pushed lower, than that hurts the entire household, because of the producer/consumer conflict. In order then to meet the demands of the household then more goods are produced, and we have a surplus of goods on the market. Which then causes more problems, such as an over abundance of eggs, which then leads to an over abundance of baked goods. :) However, technology itself played a large role in this because of how it changed these roles. Because of new technologies women were no longer the producers. Instead of churning their own butter, whatever milk was collected was shipped to manufacturers to create better butter there, which the women bought. Even though there is a lot of focus on the big picture, these changes drastically affected the household too. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
I found the evolution of a woman’s responsibilities within her own home (both outside and inside the home), from the 19th to the 20th century very interesting. I had no prior knowledge of how blue-collar farm-working women evolved into housewives whom were arrested to duties pertaining only to the kitchen. The image of the dainty housewife of the 1950’s whose primary concerns only include cooking dinner for her husband before he comes home from work and tending to household matters was surely the final result of this type of farm-to-kitchen evolution. After reading the article, it seemed ironic that in the twentieth century, a century in which women fought for and earned the right to vote, they were actually being somewhat oppressed in a very subversive way. It seems to me that women were actually more independent in the 19th century, as many of their responsibilities relating to the maintenance of a farm were of vital importance. I’m not trying to say that cooking dinner and taking care of the kitchen is unimportant, but in the 19th century women were actually responsible for a large amount of production in the home. If women failed to produce cheese, then the family would not have cheese. However, as the agriculture business became swept by the Industrial Revolution and much of the business became dominated by machinery, capital, mechanization, and most importantly, men, women were no longer expected to serve as an important role on the farm. Gradually, homes relied entirely on consuming products from the nearest store, as production from the home decreased severely. While there has always been a sexual division of labor in the United States, I found it extremely interesting to see how the 20th century forced women to surrender their more physical and masculine responsibilities on the farm, including the production of the family’s food. Women were instead confined to a kitchen and kept inside the home depending on labor-saving devices to get chores and tasks done. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the author, Christine Kleinegger, went back and forth about women and if they share the economic responsibility.  The Banker-Farmer Journal urged women to buy these time saving technologies and either have their own savings or checking account, or to accompany your husband when he makes these decisions.  They pushed this as to gain their business.  The Farmer’s Wife, the popular woman’s magazine, also pushed for these women to buy these devices as well, but they did not think that the wife was as included in the finance part of the household (less than equal partners,p185).  I wonder what the reality of this is and did they have any say at all? -- Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to the points that have already been made, this article is another example of how far society has come.  Reflecting back on our midterm asking whether or not this class speaks about how badly women were treated.  This just goes to show how far we have come and how far society has come as a whole.  Women were used to cleaning, cooking, and taking care of young children.  Today, women are some of the richest people in the world.  -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the tension between consumption and production fascinating. As we discussed in class on Tuesday, there is a fundamental disconnect today between food and its origins, particularly with meat but also with dairy and vegetables. It seems that that disconnect began even with dairy production; as cheese and butter were increasingly produced commercially, consumers had to be reminded of their connection to the finished dairy product--the connection between the milk they sold and the cheese and butter they bought had been lost to such an extent that consumers were buying oleomargarine and undermining their own income potential. - Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the beginning of the first article, about the story written by Susan Keating Glaspell, incredibly interesting. It showed how gendered food preparation in the home became. Since they no longer spent much time in the kitchen the men investigating the murder did not see the clues in the “woman’s work”- Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the ending statement, “labor saving devices failed to liberate women from housework, on the contrary, women spent at least as much time as before meeting higher standards, and the sexual division of labor in the home was reinforced.” While I do agree with the statement concerning the division of labor, the author (in my opinion) puts a negative context on the ending that these devices are not as important as other devices that a household would purchase for more “masculine” duties. A few pages before the final remarks, Nebraska farm women compare the technology they wish for in relation to what their husbands have. At first when reading what they wanted, I did not think about how the devices of technology aimed towards men were more  for becoming more efficient in production by saving time and money along with producing much more. This draws a parallel to that argument that the women make in both devices help men the home/work environment more efficient in the with their technology. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Venus Green ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Green’s discussion, the most powerful pieces of evidence are the data table at the end of the section showing the percentages of workers by race per decade and the testimony of Walter D. Williams, one of the managers. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Green reading about the Bell System reminds me of the readings about the factories and workers.  In the factories the workers were basically extensions of the machines they were overseeing.  Green mentions, “The TSP operator really functioned as an adjunct to a machine rather than as controller of machinery” (258).  So the Bell System found a way to exploit African American women in two ways: putting them in low status jobs, and putting them in jobs that are mechanical in nature. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting to note the idea that African American women should stay at the bottom of the heirachial ladder.  They were given no credit at all for there intelligence, and they couldn&amp;#039;t even be trained properly since white women refused to train them.  On page 264, it states clearly that these women were hired as cheap labor and into positions that were technologically obsolete.  These women were not allowed to reach their potential just based on society&amp;#039;s judgement as a whole, which shows how society&amp;#039;s views and morals impacted the work place especially in a service industry.  They were also segregated and not allowed to reach management positions, which again is society&amp;#039;s role in the workplace.  It is baffling how the interviewee in the section had no facts about African American women&amp;#039;s intelligence, but thought it was fair to treat his workers the way he did.  -Patrick Kramer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually had a phone answering job where when you would answer telephone calls the phone would “beep” and then the customer would be there.  It brought me back to this time where our phone system was the latest and greatest technology, now it’s 10x better.  Now automation has taken over and getting a “real” person on the other end has become difficult.  I also really never thought about how difficult it was for African American women to break into the workforce.  I also found it interesting that white women were the majority of workers at the telephone company, not just for a couple of years, but a couple of decades. ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to what Kyle said, I agree that the most interesting part of the reading was the percentages of workers by race.  Absolutely incredible again how society has changed.  Today everyone has an equal opportunity and there is not a race looked down upon.-Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Venus Green’s statement “The Bell System racial ideology trapped black women” (265) is an excellent use of a metaphor to explain the working environment African American women’s experience in being paid lower-paying salaries, having more stressful demands for their work, and having little to any opportunity for job advancements. Throughout reading the article, I too was shocked at certain comments made, such as statements made about African American women’s lack of intelligence and qualifications. Regardless of laws that were made to say that America (or at least certain states) were not to refuse employment based on race, color, or religion. Regardless of laws, African American women still struggled to be able to work their way up the ladder-managers would leave African American women’s Upgrade and Transfer applications unprocessed, not allowing them to successfully move up. –Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-03-10T08:23:31Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Venus Green */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Christine Kleinegger ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kleinegger’s basic thesis is that the rise of urbanization and technology displaced farm women from their normal duties. Did increases in food production allow urbanization or did urbanization force technology to increase production abilities? On page 174, Kleinegger writes, “Several factors led to the greater mechanization of dairying. The rapidly increasing population in urban centers created a demand for milk far greater than… farm areas could meet.” It is a matter of what caused which, but it is central to this discussion. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion of making the woman an equal business partner is interesting, because it is almost two decades after the 19th Constitutional Amendment. It shows that the women’s equality movement had permeated into rural America just like the modern appliances and utilities had. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kleinegger discusses the magazine, Farmer’s Wife, and notes that it describes the, “woman’s new role as a consumer and her old role as the wife of a producer . . . ‘Out of the Barns and into the Kitchens’ can be understood not just as metaphor for changes that occurred in the nature of women’s work, but also as a literal description of a change . . . in the site of that work” (177).  She also refers to farmwives as “a rural ‘Superwoman’” (179), and quotes the Farmer’s Wife: “‘If you can make your husband think of you as his partner, the rest is easy’” (185).  Were women truly happy in their new roles?  Did these shifts cause problems in families?  Or did everyone adjust easily with the rise of new “labor saving” technology?  –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A theme I noticed in this reading was the romanticization of earlier farm techniques, including butter making, much like with what we had seen with, for example, the introduction of time, or industrialization. Similarly, there was tension between the farm wife and her husband with what their relationship was, as we had seen with the frustrations between factory workers and management. An interesting point is the idea of the daughters leaving the farm if their fathers did not bring in the new technology.  I wonder, though, if we can really completely blame it on that.  It seems as if these are the times when young farm girls go to factories because the farm does not need so many laborers (food mechanization) and new factories in the cities need the cheap labor (as we had seen with, for example the textile industry). It might have not only been that their fathers didn’t give them running water or a kitchen sink, but that there were increased opportunities outside of the farm. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on some of the letters written to the Farmer&amp;#039;s Wife, it appears that the women were content with their new roles. However, I think that if they had been given technology to match what their husbands were using on the farm they would have been much more content. It does not appear that the women were resisting the transition too much, though with every change there is bound to be a certain degree of resistance. I think that the biggest issue the women had were that they no longer felt equal to their husbands. Also, I agree with Sara. I do not think that the lack of household technology necessarily drove the daughters off the farm. It may have been an excuse or the initial push, but they would not have left if there were no opportunities for them elsewhere. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the entire section on the producer vs. consumer conflict (175) to be really interesting. It provided a new view on the economics of Agriculture in the 1920&amp;#039;s and how it might have lead to the Depression, a view I had really considered. However it makes sense because an economy cannot last long when the producer and consumer have two different expectations within the the same household. The provider wants to receive the maximum profit and the consumer wants to acquire the most goods for the least amount of money. However when whatever income you are generating is trying to meet the consumer demands and is pushed lower, than that hurts the entire household, because of the producer/consumer conflict. In order then to meet the demands of the household then more goods are produced, and we have a surplus of goods on the market. Which then causes more problems, such as an over abundance of eggs, which then leads to an over abundance of baked goods. :) However, technology itself played a large role in this because of how it changed these roles. Because of new technologies women were no longer the producers. Instead of churning their own butter, whatever milk was collected was shipped to manufacturers to create better butter there, which the women bought. Even though there is a lot of focus on the big picture, these changes drastically affected the household too. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
	&lt;br /&gt;
I found the evolution of a woman’s responsibilities within her own home (both outside and inside the home), from the 19th to the 20th century very interesting. I had no prior knowledge of how blue-collar farm-working women evolved into housewives whom were arrested to duties pertaining only to the kitchen. The image of the dainty housewife of the 1950’s whose primary concerns only include cooking dinner for her husband before he comes home from work and tending to household matters was surely the final result of this type of farm-to-kitchen evolution. After reading the article, it seemed ironic that in the twentieth century, a century in which women fought for and earned the right to vote, they were actually being somewhat oppressed in a very subversive way. It seems to me that women were actually more independent in the 19th century, as many of their responsibilities relating to the maintenance of a farm were of vital importance. I’m not trying to say that cooking dinner and taking care of the kitchen is unimportant, but in the 19th century women were actually responsible for a large amount of production in the home. If women failed to produce cheese, then the family would not have cheese. However, as the agriculture business became swept by the Industrial Revolution and much of the business became dominated by machinery, capital, mechanization, and most importantly, men, women were no longer expected to serve as an important role on the farm. Gradually, homes relied entirely on consuming products from the nearest store, as production from the home decreased severely. While there has always been a sexual division of labor in the United States, I found it extremely interesting to see how the 20th century forced women to surrender their more physical and masculine responsibilities on the farm, including the production of the family’s food. Women were instead confined to a kitchen and kept inside the home depending on labor-saving devices to get chores and tasks done. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the author, Christine Kleinegger, went back and forth about women and if they share the economic responsibility.  The Banker-Farmer Journal urged women to buy these time saving technologies and either have their own savings or checking account, or to accompany your husband when he makes these decisions.  They pushed this as to gain their business.  The Farmer’s Wife, the popular woman’s magazine, also pushed for these women to buy these devices as well, but they did not think that the wife was as included in the finance part of the household (less than equal partners,p185).  I wonder what the reality of this is and did they have any say at all? -- Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to the points that have already been made, this article is another example of how far society has come.  Reflecting back on our midterm asking whether or not this class speaks about how badly women were treated.  This just goes to show how far we have come and how far society has come as a whole.  Women were used to cleaning, cooking, and taking care of young children.  Today, women are some of the richest people in the world.  -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the tension between consumption and production fascinating. As we discussed in class on Tuesday, there is a fundamental disconnect today between food and its origins, particularly with meat but also with dairy and vegetables. It seems that that disconnect began even with dairy production; as cheese and butter were increasingly produced commercially, consumers had to be reminded of their connection to the finished dairy product--the connection between the milk they sold and the cheese and butter they bought had been lost to such an extent that consumers were buying oleomargarine and undermining their own income potential. - Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the beginning of the first article, about the story written by Susan Keating Glaspell, incredibly interesting. It showed how gendered food preparation in the home became. Since they no longer spent much time in the kitchen the men investigating the murder did not see the clues in the “woman’s work”- Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Venus Green ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Green’s discussion, the most powerful pieces of evidence are the data table at the end of the section showing the percentages of workers by race per decade and the testimony of Walter D. Williams, one of the managers. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Green reading about the Bell System reminds me of the readings about the factories and workers.  In the factories the workers were basically extensions of the machines they were overseeing.  Green mentions, “The TSP operator really functioned as an adjunct to a machine rather than as controller of machinery” (258).  So the Bell System found a way to exploit African American women in two ways: putting them in low status jobs, and putting them in jobs that are mechanical in nature. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting to note the idea that African American women should stay at the bottom of the heirachial ladder.  They were given no credit at all for there intelligence, and they couldn&amp;#039;t even be trained properly since white women refused to train them.  On page 264, it states clearly that these women were hired as cheap labor and into positions that were technologically obsolete.  These women were not allowed to reach their potential just based on society&amp;#039;s judgement as a whole, which shows how society&amp;#039;s views and morals impacted the work place especially in a service industry.  They were also segregated and not allowed to reach management positions, which again is society&amp;#039;s role in the workplace.  It is baffling how the interviewee in the section had no facts about African American women&amp;#039;s intelligence, but thought it was fair to treat his workers the way he did.  -Patrick Kramer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually had a phone answering job where when you would answer telephone calls the phone would “beep” and then the customer would be there.  It brought me back to this time where our phone system was the latest and greatest technology, now it’s 10x better.  Now automation has taken over and getting a “real” person on the other end has become difficult.  I also really never thought about how difficult it was for African American women to break into the workforce.  I also found it interesting that white women were the majority of workers at the telephone company, not just for a couple of years, but a couple of decades. ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to what Kyle said, I agree that the most interesting part of the reading was the percentages of workers by race.  Absolutely incredible again how society has changed.  Today everyone has an equal opportunity and there is not a race looked down upon.-Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Venus Green’s statement “The Bell System racial ideology trapped black women” (265) is an excellent use of a metaphor to explain the working environment African American women’s experience in being paid lower-paying salaries, having more stressful demands for their work, and having little to any opportunity for job advancements. Throughout reading the article, I too was shocked at certain comments made, such as statements made about African American women’s lack of intelligence and qualifications. Regardless of laws that were made to say that America (or at least certain states) were not to refuse employment based on race, color, or religion. Regardless of laws, African American women still struggled to be able to work their way up the ladder-managers would leave African American women’s Upgrade and Transfer applications unprocessed, not allowing them to successfully move up. –Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-02-17T07:05:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== General Questions/comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South.  The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really interesting that in the introductory readings in the first chapter, we read about the ways in which power came to symbolize much more than power, without going too much into what that meant for society. Part V of Chapter 5, with its focus on the social construction of the American power system, focused on non-commodified aspects of electricity, in its uses in wider society. I also saw an interesting parallel, related to what Kyle said above about &amp;quot;civilized people,&amp;quot; between the bar for civilization among peoples and the bar for civilization among First-World individuals themselves, with farmers being lumped in with &amp;quot;less civilized people,&amp;quot; deprived of electricity and without the capacity to handle it--supposedly.-  Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way Nye writes it seems that he is surprised that the US took so much longer to get to United States electrified. Why? I mean, the United States is so much bigger than all of Europe combined that it seems like common sense that it took longer for the US to be electrified. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them.  Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit.  With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased.   --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Sara&amp;#039;s point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don&amp;#039;t think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they&amp;#039;re going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn&amp;#039;t actually safer. --Meagan B. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it&amp;#039;s hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to Meagan&amp;#039;s comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off.  There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same.  - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Sara&amp;#039;s point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting.  There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city.  This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime.  Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime.  The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime.  Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To think that this was the beginning of Broadway is really important.  The &amp;quot;white way&amp;quot; is seen in pictures from the time period, but also you can tell where the most people would be.  The movie industry was also benefiting from electricity, as well as artists and many other people and businesses.  Electricity cultivated the social aspect of everyday life.  When they cut the lights off for a couple of days people requested they be put back on, maybe out of fear that their respective social lives would suffer.  Now people who live near large lighted signs use shades, especially at night, to combat the light.  I wonder if the social aspect of our lives changed when they “turned the lights on” or would it have happened naturally? -- Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very interested to read about how private investment, along with social, political and economic interests played such a heavy role in determining the development of the electrical system. Had electricity been more of a state-sponsored endeavor, it may be that it wouldn&amp;#039;t have become a conspicuous commodity in its earliest stages (being used in the houses of the rich and for display) and may have made it into the average household sooner like it did in Europe. This did, however, allow it to be centralized and standardized more quickly, which helped it grow and spread more variedly. - Scott Birney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye’s mention of Times Square is important because it describes the effect that electricity had on American culture.  He notes, “The tourist came to Times Square not only to see the brilliant lighting, but to witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness” (Nye 69).  The lighting was such a marvelous sight that tourists came to that part of Manhattan just to see the lights; electricity was such a phenomenon to the American people.  He also mentions the later tradition of New Years Eve at Times Square.  Nye comments, “Times Square thus became a ceremonial space filled by a vast crowd from every conceivable class and profession, reduced to momentary equality as they marked the passing of time” (71, 73).  The fact that the invention of a lighting system became a public spectacle proves the innovation of electricity and its influence on society. &lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Meagan&amp;#039;s point on electricity in the world&amp;#039;s fairs, I found this portion of the reading interesting. Nye states: &amp;quot;In a time when the nation was in the throes of rapid industrialization and urbanization, the word&amp;#039;s fair was a shapely actualization of order whose displays could &amp;quot;take people out of their ordinary routines and thus remove them temporarily from their usual positions in the social structure&amp;quot;(34). I feel this is very similar to christmas lights, when we see the lights, it takes us to a winter wonderland and we escape if just for a moment. -Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were issues with the trolleys operating on Sundays, or the Sabbath.  Even the courts could tell that the people were changing their habits and customs.  Can you imagine if we were not allowed to drive on Sundays now? It is also amazing that these families were spending up to 20% of their income on these streetcars.  The streetcars were supposed to assist people, but they were becoming a problem.  Strikes and safety issues were 2 of the main problems with the streetcars.   People were being hit and dragged by the trolleys and overall safety was becoming an issue.  There were many strikes at many of the streetcar companies and scabs were getting hurt, either by stoning or being assaulted, by the striking worker. -- Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Personally, I would have never thought that the trolley would lead to amusement parks.  I have been to parks in Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia and never knew that trolleys at first lead to &amp;quot;trolley parks&amp;quot;.  It is evident that back then companies began to use this form of transportation to their advantage to make money.  People in the growing middle class now had a means to get away for a day.  More than 100 years ago, these parks had fireworks, concerts, dancing pavilions, and picnic grounds.  Sounds like Kings Dominion to me.  Besides transportation to these parks, the addition of electricity allowed for park owners to keep the lights on for visitors at night.  These parks became attractions for the fact that people could stay out later, thus earning the park owners to collect even more money.  It is surprising to see how quickly electricity was able to be used on such a large scale.  -Patrick Kramer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was extremely interesting that the streetcar is one of the main reasons that Sunday changed from a day to rest to a day of “restless activity.” Along with expanding the work week, the street car allowed new areas of real estate to open up and have the working class leave the congested city and move to a suburb. The streetcar alone had a great amount of influence in the growth of the middle class.  On average, most citizens (including both men &amp;amp; women) in big cities rode the street cars between 230-265 times in one year (and 340 times in San Francisco!). Streetcar became the focus of political controversies due to the fact of safety and the amount of resistance at first. However, once it became such a huge part of urban life, people were able to really use the service, with providing better opportunities in entertainment, business, education, and many other factors. -- Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is really interesting about this chapter is that people had the same congestion problems in big cities as we do today. It seems that anywhere there are mass amounts of people in a little space these problems will come up. However, the description that Nye gives about the conditions makes me really happy that electricity came about. I wouldn&amp;#039;t want to be walking in streets with manure. The smell must have been horrible! However, I think this chapter also highlights something we have been talking about in class. Basically why some technologies were adopted, and others weren&amp;#039;t. Nye discusses the trolley cars and talks about how the idea of it has been around for a while, however it just wasn&amp;#039;t used because there was no perceived need for it. (page 88) It wasn&amp;#039;t until someone came along and found a way to make it profitable that it became adopted. Which I guess relates to Kyle&amp;#039;s point about electrical cars, they had found a safer way to start them with the use of gas. Because of that, gas became used, however if someone found a way to start cars with electricity (by not winding them up basically) would we have the same oil concerns we have today? And before I go further into the what ifs, I will just stop. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer.  Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete?  These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased.  The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity.  However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today.   Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye mentions how technology improved the work of farmers and how productivity increased.  Technology also had an effect on the family life of the farmer.  Nye claims, “A TVA study showed that electric lights added two to four hours a day to a family’s potential working time, giving them more flexibility in planning the day’s activities . . . . Refrigerators retarded food spoilage and improved the family diet” (323-24).  It is important that eventually electricity was not restricted to the cities because its use in rural areas increased productivity on farms.  However it also was beneficial in factories.  As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, the use of electricity in factories made it possible for machines to run longer and the factories did not have to be built near rivers.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the most interesting part of this reading to be the comparison between American and European electricity principles. The Europeans were all for getting electricity to every home, especially to rural homes, while America was set on private initiatives. Nye states, &amp;quot;American government only pointed to the problem, and expected farmers to organize and secure electrical service for themselves,&amp;quot; (p 288). Why did the government leave it to the farmers to deal with this alone? Why was electricity so easily accessible in urban areas? Why were rural areas readily able to accept new technologies, but when it came to electricity it was not as important? And once again we look back to man vs. nature when Nye states, &amp;quot;From the viewpoint of conservative critics, rural electrification meant more than sanitation, comfort, and higher production; it threatened the balance between man and nature,&amp;quot; (p. 290). Man already new how to deal with nature agriculturally, they had been doing it now for centuries. But when you alter how man interacts with nature, you may have created another problem all together.--Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the idea that &amp;quot;electricity should kill every danger of frost.&amp;quot; They seemed so hopeful of the new technology and yet farmers still deal with frost problems. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that speaks volumes of the late 19th century mindset that technology and science can explain and then solve any problem. They thought, just as many people today think, that technology is the panacea of the world&amp;#039;s ills. Perhaps it is, but it is as limited as a person&amp;#039;s ability to apply it to solve the problem; then how do you solve the problem that the last solution caused?--JWolfe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people.  You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special.  Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn&amp;#039;t take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society.  As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either.  What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt;&amp;gt; Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country&amp;quot;. So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say &amp;quot;water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation.  So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to &amp;quot;keep up with the times&amp;quot;.  This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it extremely interesting how when electricity was first being introduced to the public it wasn’t seen merely as a great innovation that would make life easier, but was actually expected to catapult society into a utopia. However, I then examined the differences in life before and after electricity; what would it be like to live in a world without lights powered by electricity, and then to one day have someone inform you that you would be able to light your home day and night? That your city would never get dark and that you could now perform an array of household tasks more much more efficiently and quickly? Are there any parallels to the present day in terms of our high hopes for technology? Doesn’t it seem like every new Apple product markets itself as the most wondrous creation the world has ever seen? It seems as if we as a species are never content with the technological innovations we already have. We are constantly looking forward, hoping that the next innovation will make us happier, and more efficient people, instead of utilizing the tools that are already at our disposal. From the reading, it seems as if people were emphatic about electricity for a short while, then quickly accepted it to be a common part of their everyday lives. There aren&amp;#039;t very many people living in the United States these days who rant and rave upon entering a room and turning on a light bulb. On page 186, Nye describes how the public eventually saw electricity as an everyday right, and not something to be thankful for. Most of us wouldn’t even be able to make it through the day without our cell phones, Internet, and iPods. Do we ever stop and think about the electricity powering our homes and appliances? Isn’t it about time we stop praying to get a new iPad or Droid and instead be thankful for the innovations we already have at our disposal? If we don’t, we will always be looking for the “next big thing” instead of appreciating what we already have. Then again, some might argue that the need for constant progress and improvement is simply the nature of technology and innovation. Will there ever be a day when common light bulbs are rendered completely obsolete? Is it inevitable? Are the only truly great inventions and innovations the ones that stand for hundreds of years? ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kevin&amp;#039;s idea of being thankful for the things that we have is spot on. It is important have gratitude for something as commonplace (nowadays) as electricity. Anyone who has been without power for days at a time can attest to the awesome power of flipping a switch and having light and the incredible impotence of flipping the same switch during a blackout and having nothing happen. But isn&amp;#039;t the pursuit of innovation what leads to greater discoveries? If no one wanted an iPad, Apple wouldn&amp;#039;t make one. Capitalism is driven by supply and demand; innovation in a capitalist system is based on the market for that item; no market, no iPad. More importantly, even the simplest things that we take for granted wouldn&amp;#039;t exist if we didn&amp;#039;t have need/desire for them. The commodification of inventions (as demonstrated by electricity) is what keeps inventors inventing and along the way, purely as a side effect or afterthought, maybe makes the world a little better.--JWolfe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most interesting things that I found from this reading was the quote, &amp;quot;As could be heard in everyday metaphors describing the body as an electrical machine that could be overloaded, burned out, recharged, and shorted out.&amp;quot; (p. 184) It reminded me of two things, one being the McEvoy reading about the ecological approach to industry and how the worker&amp;#039;s body is the biological core or the industrial ecosystem. It also reminded me of the constant man vs. nature issue that we have been seeing all throughout this semester with the new technologies that are produced. Nye&amp;#039;s, and the general public&amp;#039;s metaphors really can show the importance of the growing technologies in America through this time. But going back to the main question of what is electricity, is it a commodity? This brings up Nye&amp;#039;s statement, &amp;quot;One consequence of defining it as a commodity was that most farmers were excluded from the electrified world.&amp;quot; (p. 184). The majority of Americans at this time, I believe I read were farmers, thus the majority of American were without electricity, and all because the electricity at the time was privately owned. --Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Electrification in America was in no way an easy or “natural” process. It shaped every aspect of American life involving social, political, and technical interactions. American electrification was primarily a private enterprise, and because electricity was privately owned, it had to make a profit. Adding electricity in homes only allowed the upper class Americans to begin electrification and eventually as time progressed, electrifying homes slowly spreading on. Nye mentions in chapter four that “Electricity was not a mere matter of profits; it helped to define modernity, progress, and physical and social well-being.” – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-02-17T06:36:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== General Questions/comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South.  The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really interesting that in the introductory readings in the first chapter, we read about the ways in which power came to symbolize much more than power, without going too much into what that meant for society. Part V of Chapter 5, with its focus on the social construction of the American power system, focused on non-commodified aspects of electricity, in its uses in wider society. I also saw an interesting parallel, related to what Kyle said above about &amp;quot;civilized people,&amp;quot; between the bar for civilization among peoples and the bar for civilization among First-World individuals themselves, with farmers being lumped in with &amp;quot;less civilized people,&amp;quot; deprived of electricity and without the capacity to handle it--supposedly.-  Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way Nye writes it seems that he is surprised that the US took so much longer to get to United States electrified. Why? I mean, the United States is so much bigger than all of Europe combined that it seems like common sense that it took longer for the US to be electrified. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them.  Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit.  With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased.   --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Sara&amp;#039;s point, I think that electricity did increase perceived safety. I don&amp;#039;t think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they&amp;#039;re going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn&amp;#039;t actually safer. --Meagan B. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it&amp;#039;s hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to Meagan&amp;#039;s comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off.  There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same.  - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Sara&amp;#039;s point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting.  There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city.  This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime.  Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime.  The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime.  Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To think that this was the beginning of Broadway is really important.  The &amp;quot;white way&amp;quot; is seen in pictures from the time period, but also you can tell where the most people would be.  The movie industry was also benefiting from electricity, as well as artists and many other people and businesses.  Electricity cultivated the social aspect of everyday life.  When they cut the lights off for a couple of days people requested they be put back on, maybe out of fear that their respective social lives would suffer.  Now people who live near large lighted signs use shades, especially at night, to combat the light.  I wonder if the social aspect of our lives changed when they “turned the lights on” or would it have happened naturally? -- Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very interested to read about how private investment, along with social, political and economic interests played such a heavy role in determining the development of the electrical system. Had electricity been more of a state-sponsored endeavor, it may be that it wouldn&amp;#039;t have become a conspicuous commodity in its earliest stages (being used in the houses of the rich and for display) and may have made it into the average household sooner like it did in Europe. This did, however, allow it to be centralized and standardized more quickly, which helped it grow and spread more variedly. - Scott Birney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye’s mention of Times Square is important because it describes the effect that electricity had on American culture.  He notes, “The tourist came to Times Square not only to see the brilliant lighting, but to witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness” (Nye 69).  The lighting was such a marvelous sight that tourists came to that part of Manhattan just to see the lights; electricity was such a phenomenon to the American people.  He also mentions the later tradition of New Years Eve at Times Square.  Nye comments, “Times Square thus became a ceremonial space filled by a vast crowd from every conceivable class and profession, reduced to momentary equality as they marked the passing of time” (71, 73).  The fact that the invention of a lighting system became a public spectacle proves the innovation of electricity and its influence on society. &lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Meagan&amp;#039;s point on electricity in the world&amp;#039;s fairs, I found this portion of the reading interesting. Nye states: &amp;quot;In a time when the nation was in the throes of rapid industrialization and urbanization, the word&amp;#039;s fair was a shapely actualization of order whose displays could &amp;quot;take people out of their ordinary routines and thus remove them temporarily from their usual positions in the social structure&amp;quot;(34). I feel this is very similar to christmas lights, when we see the lights, it takes us to a winter wonderland and we escape if just for a moment. -Matthew Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were issues with the trolleys operating on Sundays, or the Sabbath.  Even the courts could tell that the people were changing their habits and customs.  Can you imagine if we were not allowed to drive on Sundays now? It is also amazing that these families were spending up to 20% of their income on these streetcars.  The streetcars were supposed to assist people, but they were becoming a problem.  Strikes and safety issues were 2 of the main problems with the streetcars.   People were being hit and dragged by the trolleys and overall safety was becoming an issue.  There were many strikes at many of the streetcar companies and scabs were getting hurt, either by stoning or being assaulted, by the striking worker. -- Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Personally, I would have never thought that the trolley would lead to amusement parks.  I have been to parks in Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia and never knew that trolleys at first lead to &amp;quot;trolley parks&amp;quot;.  It is evident that back then companies began to use this form of transportation to their advantage to make money.  People in the growing middle class now had a means to get away for a day.  More than 100 years ago, these parks had fireworks, concerts, dancing pavilions, and picnic grounds.  Sounds like Kings Dominion to me.  Besides transportation to these parks, the addition of electricity allowed for park owners to keep the lights on for visitors at night.  These parks became attractions for the fact that people could stay out later, thus earning the park owners to collect even more money.  It is surprising to see how quickly electricity was able to be used on such a large scale.  -Patrick Kramer&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was extremely interesting that the streetcar is one of the main reasons that Sunday changed from a day to rest to a day of “restless activity.” Along with expanding the work week, the street car allowed new areas of real estate to open up and have the working class leave the congested city and move to a suburb. The streetcar alone had a great amount of influence in the growth of the middle class.  On average, most citizens (including both men &amp;amp; women) in big cities rode the street cars between 230-265 times in one year (and 340 times in San Francisco!). Streetcar became the focus of political controversies due to the fact of safety and the amount of resistance at first. However, once it became such a huge part of urban life, people were able to really use the service, with providing better opportunities in entertainment, business, education, and many other factors. -- Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer.  Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete?  These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased.  The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity.  However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today.   Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nye mentions how technology improved the work of farmers and how productivity increased.  Technology also had an effect on the family life of the farmer.  Nye claims, “A TVA study showed that electric lights added two to four hours a day to a family’s potential working time, giving them more flexibility in planning the day’s activities . . . . Refrigerators retarded food spoilage and improved the family diet” (323-24).  It is important that eventually electricity was not restricted to the cities because its use in rural areas increased productivity on farms.  However it also was beneficial in factories.  As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, the use of electricity in factories made it possible for machines to run longer and the factories did not have to be built near rivers.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the most interesting part of this reading to be the comparison between American and European electricity principles. The Europeans were all for getting electricity to every home, especially to rural homes, while America was set on private initiatives. Nye states, &amp;quot;American government only pointed to the problem, and expected farmers to organize and secure electrical service for themselves,&amp;quot; (p 288). Why did the government leave it to the farmers to deal with this alone? Why was electricity so easily accessible in urban areas? Why were rural areas readily able to accept new technologies, but when it came to electricity it was not as important? And once again we look back to man vs. nature when Nye states, &amp;quot;From the viewpoint of conservative critics, rural electrification meant more than sanitation, comfort, and higher production; it threatened the balance between man and nature,&amp;quot; (p. 290). Man already new how to deal with nature agriculturally, they had been doing it now for centuries. But when you alter how man interacts with nature, you may have created another problem all together.--Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the idea that &amp;quot;electricity should kill every danger of frost.&amp;quot; They seemed so hopeful of the new technology and yet farmers still deal with frost problems. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people.  You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special.  Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn&amp;#039;t take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society.  As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either.  What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;gt;&amp;gt;&amp;gt; Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country&amp;quot;. So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say &amp;quot;water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation.  So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to &amp;quot;keep up with the times&amp;quot;.  This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it extremely interesting how when electricity was first being introduced to the public it wasn’t seen merely as a great innovation that would make life easier, but was actually expected to catapult society into a utopia. However, I then examined the differences in life before and after electricity; what would it be like to live in a world without lights powered by electricity, and then to one day have someone inform you that you would be able to light your home day and night? That your city would never get dark and that you could now perform an array of household tasks more much more efficiently and quickly? Are there any parallels to the present day in terms of our high hopes for technology? Doesn’t it seem like every new Apple product markets itself as the most wondrous creation the world has ever seen? It seems as if we as a species are never content with the technological innovations we already have. We are constantly looking forward, hoping that the next innovation will make us happier, and more efficient people, instead of utilizing the tools that are already at our disposal. From the reading, it seems as if people were emphatic about electricity for a short while, then quickly accepted it to be a common part of their everyday lives. There aren&amp;#039;t very many people living in the United States these days who rant and rave upon entering a room and turning on a light bulb. On page 186, Nye describes how the public eventually saw electricity as an everyday right, and not something to be thankful for. Most of us wouldn’t even be able to make it through the day without our cell phones, Internet, and iPods. Do we ever stop and think about the electricity powering our homes and appliances? Isn’t it about time we stop praying to get a new iPad or Droid and instead be thankful for the innovations we already have at our disposal? If we don’t, we will always be looking for the “next big thing” instead of appreciating what we already have. Then again, some might argue that the need for constant progress and improvement is simply the nature of technology and innovation. Will there ever be a day when common light bulbs are rendered completely obsolete? Is it inevitable? Are the only truly great inventions and innovations the ones that stand for hundreds of years? ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the most interesting things that I found from this reading was the quote, &amp;quot;As could be heard in everyday metaphors describing the body as an electrical machine that could be overloaded, burned out, recharged, and shorted out.&amp;quot; (p. 184) It reminded me of two things, one being the McEvoy reading about the ecological approach to industry and how the worker&amp;#039;s body is the biological core or the industrial ecosystem. It also reminded me of the constant man vs. nature issue that we have been seeing all throughout this semester with the new technologies that are produced. Nye&amp;#039;s, and the general public&amp;#039;s metaphors really can show the importance of the growing technologies in America through this time. But going back to the main question of what is electricity, is it a commodity? This brings up Nye&amp;#039;s statement, &amp;quot;One consequence of defining it as a commodity was that most farmers were excluded from the electrified world.&amp;quot; (p. 184). The majority of Americans at this time, I believe I read were farmers, thus the majority of American were without electricity, and all because the electricity at the time was privately owned. --Claire Brooks&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-02-10T07:32:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* James O’Connell – 1911 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the watchmaking article (151-152), I noticed a lot of similarities between the descriptions of the usage of women to work on watches in comparison to using women in the Lowell mills.  The women tend to be more dexterous and can work on smaller, more detailed objects and therefore were more often and willingly hired to work in these situations. It also shows a little bit of the transfer from the apprenticeship/master to the factory—it was frustrating to lose women to marriage in watch making because learning those skills took a long time but as soon as they learned them, the women went off to be married, but in the Lowell system, sending women off to be married was not a problem because they were doing unskilled labor. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting that women were hired because they were more dexterous with their hands and could do certain jobs easier than men, but they still were not paid as well. I know that women in general were not seen as efficient as men, but their reasoning for not paying as well seems faulty. Just becuase they are not doing labor that is physically as hard, they were still more efficient than the men at the jobs they were doing. If pay was measured in dexterity the women would have been making more. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everything above but I also noticed the brief mention of &amp;quot;Nine tenths are American born.&amp;quot; It struck me as rather odd. On one hand it shows the reluctance in accepting immigrants; on the other hand I would&amp;#039;ve thought that immigrants would have been hired more because the belief that they would  accept a lower pay than other workers (and thus frequently used as Scabs.)- Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article interested me in the sense the jobs that women had.  Doing the &amp;quot;smaller&amp;quot; work that required steadier and smaller hands as compared to a man.  Women were left for the less strenuous work along with raising children in some cases.  But women had to learn the craft and use it to adapt to the kind of work they were required to do.  It fascinated me how important women were and still are to society.  It is most certainly true that women can do some work that men definitely could not.  This made women more important to society and culture.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The watchmakers were very talented men and women.  I was not aware that women were allowed to make watches during this time.  It makes sense, their hands and fingers were smaller than a man’s.  I also got a giggle that the reason why they hired these women was because they would want to marry soon and they would not need extra training.  I wonder if a female did not want to get married would they force the female out at a certain point or would they treat the female like they would treat the male?--Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a really interesting read because it made me realize the changing roles of women workers. The reading mentions, &amp;quot;They are preferred to men, on account of their being naturally more dexterous with their fingers, and therefore being found to require less training,&amp;quot; (p. 152). This really shows the difference between European watch manufacturing and the American system of watch manufacturing. In the American system, it does not matter that women are &amp;quot;naturally more dexterous with their fingers&amp;quot; because of the idea of interchangeable parts and machinery had already effected the manufacturing of products. It is interesting to see this difference in workers gender because where the European women are seen as useful workers, American women are not because they do not intend to work once they are married, so it is pointless to hire and train them if they are not going to stay for awhile. And while it is useful to hire women, just because they are the cheaper labor, they still are not able to reach higher posts than those of men. --Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prospect of not using women for the job of watchmaking fully surprises me. Women were left home to do the &amp;quot;easier&amp;quot; tasks such as raising children and being a homemaker to her husband. This was a poor decision on the watch entrprenuer&amp;#039;s part because they could have used the woman&amp;#039;s delicate hands and attention to detail to its fullest potential WHILE paying less. Bringing women into the workforce earlier could have altered the course of women&amp;#039;s rights and manufacturing. Wasn&amp;#039;t the goal of the watch makers to maximize profits? I would have thought someone could have come up with this idea at the time or at least taken a European standpoint of this issue to see the benefits even if it was for a capitalistic (and greedy) goal. --Stephanie Lipscomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The company did an excellent job of taking advantage of using women’s labor in the watch making business by paying them less, and using their argument that men were more “ingenious, stronger, and better mechanics” in order to pay them more. But because this was at a time frame where women were still more accustomed to the domesticated lifestyle, this was a major stepped that the company had in having  “over half skilled artisans” being women.  By having this large amount of skilled women workers, this kind of setting allowed movement towards women working more acceptable in much later years. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the earlier Colonial periods, the degree of civilization was based upon numerous characteristics, such as how the towns were set up, were there towns at all, were the inhabitants naked, did they have social hierarchy? These were the standards utilized by the Spanish, English, and French to justify subjugation, slavery, or conquering. In the industrial age, these ways of categorizing and describing cultures changes with the scientific inquiry and standards of measurement discussed by Adas in his article. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found fault with his argument though that technology becomes the barometer for civilization, because the colonial powers used technology in earlier periods to describe superiority as well. For example, the use of crude guns, gunpowder, metallurgy, and other trades were seen as far superior to the Native technologies and therefore showed their culture’s lower place in the natural order. If anything, the type of technology and the amount of technology used as a barometer for civilization expands, but it did not begin here. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Machines and equations, or their absence, were themselves indicators of the level of development a given society had attained&amp;quot; (7).  Adas claims in his account that technology was the largest factor in measuring how civilized a society was or if they were civilized at all. Adas gave an example of a quote by Mary Kingsley when making his claim that read, &amp;quot;Well, that is just how I feel about the first bit of magnificent machinery I come across; it is the manifestation of the superiority of my race&amp;quot; (5).  I think Adas made a valid argument.  I would agree.  This excerpt was in reference to the British, French, and German being technologically advanced and superior to Africans and Asians, however we can look at the founding of America and the thoughts about indigeneous populations, as well, to understand that technology was a large factor in distinguishing between &amp;quot;civilized&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;savage, primitive&amp;quot; cultures.  Other factors were taken into account as well, such as lack of social organization, conception of private property, and the ways in which the people utilized the resources and space they inhabited.  If we consider that in addition to machinery and the like that we typically classify as &amp;quot;technology,&amp;quot; technology is considered to be  &amp;quot;the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective&amp;quot; (wikipedia).  In this way, technological innovation really did measure the advancement of a civilization.  -Sheri Foster&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Overall comments on primary source readings in Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading the short letters at the end of the reading, we are seeing different ways where people are trying to be more productive by shortening the length of time it takes to do something.  In the Laundress writing, you have them shortening the distance the iron was carried and how far the operator was walking per uniform and they were becoming more effective and productive.  Whereas with the canoe makers, they create these dry bins to reduce the drying time from ten days down to four.  After shipping out the canoes to Macys, 275 of the 500 came back due to warping and cracking.  While everyone wants to find new ways to be more productive, however the logistics involved didn&amp;#039;t quite add up for the canoes.  Shortening the distance someone has to walk to do laundry was clearly a time saver, whereas the canoe makers found out the hard way that canoes need ten days for a reason. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick Taylor’s article on Scientific Management reminded me of the article we read for last week that focused on men as being part of the machine.  It seems to be a common trend in this era that those that run the factory think of men as merely part of the machine, but there is a pushback from workers with unions, strikes, resistance, etc.  Scientific Management controls every movement of the worker, as if it was controlling a machine that can be fixed and adjusted. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There has always been tension between management and employees. The management wants to be in control of the workers because they are invested and want to increase production. The workers are only there because they need a means to support themselves. It seems to me that if the management and the workers were to compromise that everyone would benefit. The workers would be more willing to produce more and work more effectively if the working conditions and pay were better, and the management would have to spend slightly more to pay the workers, but they would save time by preventing strikes. But I guess it is all easier said than done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Sara&amp;#039;s comment men were the machine.  Machines back in the early 1900s were not nearly as effective as the machines we have today.  There was still a huge amount of work that had to be done by man that could not be done by machine.  I could see that the argument would be that the machine would lessen the amount the employer has to pay, but at the same time they were not scientifically advanced at that time to make significant changes.  In other words, they still needed man-power in the early 1900s.  Although today in some ways machine has taken some of the jobs that used to occupy man in today&amp;#039;s society.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the article about Scientific Management was interesting because it altered the way we do things even today.  I don’t agree that every person needed to do a certain job in the amount of time that they designate to the job.  That’s why many people lost their job or were not getting paid for doing a specialty job that now has been streamlined.  The only professions that did not go through this were being a doctor or a lawyer.  You had to go to school for these professions.  When machines were invented it really took a person’s specialty skills and made them feel useless.  Now there are more specialty jobs for people who have the training, certificates, or schooling.---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To this day, I still see Taylorism in the workplace. From my own personal work experience I know that the employees are taught a certain, most efficient way to do things and if that way was altered than a reprimand would be in order. Specifically with machines, this is a way of Taylorism itself. In some professions man-power is seen as useless compared to the precision, efficiency, and cost-friendly aspects of the machine. I believe Taylor set a standard that today is still being followed. --Stephanie Lipscomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping, 1913 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The principals that are discussed in this article may have worked during this time due to the schedules that people would keep. (Work during the day when it was light, and went to sleep when it was dark) This is not the case now, due to the fact that both men and women have to work.  They may work different shifts or they may need to have two jobs. People now do things when they can and take as much time as they need to do the task at home.  There are still some jobs that require timing for everything; it’s just not talked about as it was during this time.  It was new to people so change was not high on people’s priority list.  I can’t lie; I myself have found I sometimes time myself doing certain tasks.  If I didn’t do that then I would never sleep. --  Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Frederick claims, “ ‘Motherliness’ and ‘hominess’ in the past have usually meant drudgery.  True and better homemaking will come from a higher realization of the tremendous possibilities of the homemaker who uses scientific methods instead of rule-of-thumb” (Smith and Clancy 279).  I understand that she emphasizes the use of the scientific method for efficiency in the home in order for homemakers to accomplish the tasks on their to-do lists.  However, did she ever add all of those tasks up and then figure out if the homemaker had any personal down time?  Did making lists with timed tasks really make homemaking less daunting or did women view them with even more disdain?  This sounds like a home version of the perfect factory worker, one who operates like a machine.–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James O’Connell – 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the second to last paragraph of this piece O’Connell writes about how the Taylorism system will wipe out trade and organizations particularly with the low wages. Mr. Taylor’s system showed the benefits (for the employer) of unskilled labor. It was cheaper and if the workers did not keep up with the gauges set by Taylorism they would be fired. And since they were unskilled it would not be that difficult to find another employee to fill his shoes. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find Taylorism at first may sound like a very effective way to get employees to work, but upon thinking about the process, taylorism does not work in the real world, due to the fact that not everyone can keep up with the very best no matter the kind of effort put forth. O’Connell does a good job pointing out that “this system has been tired it has resulted either in labor trouble and failure to install the system, or it has destroyed the labor organization and reduce men to virtual slavery.” –Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1913 Watertown arsenal’s striking workers’ petition to end Taylorism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many men at the Watertown arsenal were more than upset with taylorism.  We see stores everyday (like Lowes recently) cut back on certain aspects of the company to make more money.  In this case, taylorism literally changed the dynamic of the workplace.  Artisans who had practiced their craft for years were no longer able to make a living like they were before.  Men were forced to work at a much faster pace than they were used to, and many men were not even physically able to due the work that was laid in front of them.  The letter also states that with a decrease of skilled artisans in the workplace, the quality of work done decreased with the increase of unskilled workers in the arsenal.&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that caught my eye was the part about the watch.  Since watches were becoming popular during this time period, it is interesting to see that the workers hated them.  Since employers could now time their employees on production rate, there was a scare for the workers for two reasons: 1) because it makes them work much harder than most of them are physically capable of and 2) because employee-employer relations worsened as the employers took a much more direct control of worker&amp;#039;s output.  -Patrick K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1939 textbook on scientific management ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading we can really see the effect that Taylorism had on the efficiency of the workplace. It goes into detail about increase in production in the shortened amount of time by describing what exact changes were made to make this possible. Simply changing distances, training operators, and using a cordless iron made production increase by sixty six percent. Though these numbers make Taylorism seem like a logical way to manage industry, they do not look at the workers themselves and how they were seeming to become mechanized themselves. The human was now becoming apart of the American system of interchangeable parts, as they were doing their specific job and could easily be replaced by another worker with little time of training. It also did not express the workers time stress and hours they worked. Taylorism did indeed have an impact on the efficiency in production but it also came with a bit of mistreatment toward laborers. --Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Satires about efficiency system – Henry Mitchell, Penobscot Indian, 1938 &amp;amp; 1930&amp;#039;s tale of “Highpockets” in Chicago ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highpockets was no ordinary factory worker.  He was the “Energizer Bunny” of the factory.  He works in a mill room, and as the tale goes on, he uses almost his whole body to operate different machines.  He uses both hands, both legs, as well as his head.  The time-study man would continuously say, “‘He’s true blue!  He’s true blue!  The kind of man that gets somewhere in this plant’” (Smith and Clancy 286).  This is what Frank Carlton calls the “model workman”.    Carlton says, “The model workman . . . is the vigorous man who freely expends all of his surplus energy during working-hours and who utilizes his non-working hours only for recuperation and preparation for another day’s work.  It is not the purpose of efficiency engineering to allow the worker to depart . . . with more than a minimum of surplus energy for recreation [and] for family life” (288).  The model workman does not exist.  Humans cannot exhaust themselves at work every day and then go home and eat and then sleep.  Humans need interaction with family and developments of relationships.  They also need time for hobbies.  Following Carlton’s argument then, employers did not view their workers as humans, but as machines; hence the “model workman” standard.–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prof. Frank T. Carlton criticizes Taylorism for what? – 1914 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Prof. Frank T. Carlon, I find many aspects of Taylorism, a managerial philosophy stemming from “scientific management,” extremely troubling. On the surface, proponents of Taylorism may claim that is a positive philosophy, and manages to find the “one best way” to make a product. Taylorism also emphasizes employee efficiency within the workplace – no movement or minute should be wasted. I have a problem with how Taylorism views human beings – as interchangeable, emotionless components of a larger machine. As factories and companies adopted the practices of scientific management, workers were no longer treated as human beings with feelings. Workers were not allowed to talk to one another, because this was viewed as being “inefficient.” I agree with Carlton’s notion that “work and recreation should be blended for each and every individual.” However, an activity like recreation was viewed as being unproductive, and therefore was eliminated from the workplace. I think that many of these employers failed to understand that the human psyche is a very fragile thing, and that if a person is not allowed time for leisure, and time to interact with others in a non-threatening social manner, the person will eventually turn against the company he or she is working for. However, this didn’t seem to bother employers. They knew that if one menial worker quit, they could just as easily hire two more. Once again, this is an example of how Taylorism drove any sense of humanity out of the workplace. These employers were looking for ways to maximize production from their workers, and forgot that an incredibly important part of one’s work and life is recreation, and taking breaks from the daily grind of one’s select occupation. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-02-10T07:21:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the watchmaking article (151-152), I noticed a lot of similarities between the descriptions of the usage of women to work on watches in comparison to using women in the Lowell mills.  The women tend to be more dexterous and can work on smaller, more detailed objects and therefore were more often and willingly hired to work in these situations. It also shows a little bit of the transfer from the apprenticeship/master to the factory—it was frustrating to lose women to marriage in watch making because learning those skills took a long time but as soon as they learned them, the women went off to be married, but in the Lowell system, sending women off to be married was not a problem because they were doing unskilled labor. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting that women were hired because they were more dexterous with their hands and could do certain jobs easier than men, but they still were not paid as well. I know that women in general were not seen as efficient as men, but their reasoning for not paying as well seems faulty. Just becuase they are not doing labor that is physically as hard, they were still more efficient than the men at the jobs they were doing. If pay was measured in dexterity the women would have been making more. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everything above but I also noticed the brief mention of &amp;quot;Nine tenths are American born.&amp;quot; It struck me as rather odd. On one hand it shows the reluctance in accepting immigrants; on the other hand I would&amp;#039;ve thought that immigrants would have been hired more because the belief that they would  accept a lower pay than other workers (and thus frequently used as Scabs.)- Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article interested me in the sense the jobs that women had.  Doing the &amp;quot;smaller&amp;quot; work that required steadier and smaller hands as compared to a man.  Women were left for the less strenuous work along with raising children in some cases.  But women had to learn the craft and use it to adapt to the kind of work they were required to do.  It fascinated me how important women were and still are to society.  It is most certainly true that women can do some work that men definitely could not.  This made women more important to society and culture.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The watchmakers were very talented men and women.  I was not aware that women were allowed to make watches during this time.  It makes sense, their hands and fingers were smaller than a man’s.  I also got a giggle that the reason why they hired these women was because they would want to marry soon and they would not need extra training.  I wonder if a female did not want to get married would they force the female out at a certain point or would they treat the female like they would treat the male?--Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a really interesting read because it made me realize the changing roles of women workers. The reading mentions, &amp;quot;They are preferred to men, on account of their being naturally more dexterous with their fingers, and therefore being found to require less training,&amp;quot; (p. 152). This really shows the difference between European watch manufacturing and the American system of watch manufacturing. In the American system, it does not matter that women are &amp;quot;naturally more dexterous with their fingers&amp;quot; because of the idea of interchangeable parts and machinery had already effected the manufacturing of products. It is interesting to see this difference in workers gender because where the European women are seen as useful workers, American women are not because they do not intend to work once they are married, so it is pointless to hire and train them if they are not going to stay for awhile. And while it is useful to hire women, just because they are the cheaper labor, they still are not able to reach higher posts than those of men. --Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The prospect of not using women for the job of watchmaking fully surprises me. Women were left home to do the &amp;quot;easier&amp;quot; tasks such as raising children and being a homemaker to her husband. This was a poor decision on the watch entrprenuer&amp;#039;s part because they could have used the woman&amp;#039;s delicate hands and attention to detail to its fullest potential WHILE paying less. Bringing women into the workforce earlier could have altered the course of women&amp;#039;s rights and manufacturing. Wasn&amp;#039;t the goal of the watch makers to maximize profits? I would have thought someone could have come up with this idea at the time or at least taken a European standpoint of this issue to see the benefits even if it was for a capitalistic (and greedy) goal. --Stephanie Lipscomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The company did an excellent job of taking advantage of using women’s labor in the watch making business by paying them less, and using their argument that men were more “ingenious, stronger, and better mechanics” in order to pay them more. But because this was at a time frame where women were still more accustomed to the domesticated lifestyle, this was a major stepped that the company had in having  “over half skilled artisans” being women.  By having this large amount of skilled women workers, this kind of setting allowed movement towards women working more acceptable in much later years. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the earlier Colonial periods, the degree of civilization was based upon numerous characteristics, such as how the towns were set up, were there towns at all, were the inhabitants naked, did they have social hierarchy? These were the standards utilized by the Spanish, English, and French to justify subjugation, slavery, or conquering. In the industrial age, these ways of categorizing and describing cultures changes with the scientific inquiry and standards of measurement discussed by Adas in his article. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found fault with his argument though that technology becomes the barometer for civilization, because the colonial powers used technology in earlier periods to describe superiority as well. For example, the use of crude guns, gunpowder, metallurgy, and other trades were seen as far superior to the Native technologies and therefore showed their culture’s lower place in the natural order. If anything, the type of technology and the amount of technology used as a barometer for civilization expands, but it did not begin here. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Machines and equations, or their absence, were themselves indicators of the level of development a given society had attained&amp;quot; (7).  Adas claims in his account that technology was the largest factor in measuring how civilized a society was or if they were civilized at all. Adas gave an example of a quote by Mary Kingsley when making his claim that read, &amp;quot;Well, that is just how I feel about the first bit of magnificent machinery I come across; it is the manifestation of the superiority of my race&amp;quot; (5).  I think Adas made a valid argument.  I would agree.  This excerpt was in reference to the British, French, and German being technologically advanced and superior to Africans and Asians, however we can look at the founding of America and the thoughts about indigeneous populations, as well, to understand that technology was a large factor in distinguishing between &amp;quot;civilized&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;savage, primitive&amp;quot; cultures.  Other factors were taken into account as well, such as lack of social organization, conception of private property, and the ways in which the people utilized the resources and space they inhabited.  If we consider that in addition to machinery and the like that we typically classify as &amp;quot;technology,&amp;quot; technology is considered to be  &amp;quot;the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective&amp;quot; (wikipedia).  In this way, technological innovation really did measure the advancement of a civilization.  -Sheri Foster&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Overall comments on primary source readings in Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading the short letters at the end of the reading, we are seeing different ways where people are trying to be more productive by shortening the length of time it takes to do something.  In the Laundress writing, you have them shortening the distance the iron was carried and how far the operator was walking per uniform and they were becoming more effective and productive.  Whereas with the canoe makers, they create these dry bins to reduce the drying time from ten days down to four.  After shipping out the canoes to Macys, 275 of the 500 came back due to warping and cracking.  While everyone wants to find new ways to be more productive, however the logistics involved didn&amp;#039;t quite add up for the canoes.  Shortening the distance someone has to walk to do laundry was clearly a time saver, whereas the canoe makers found out the hard way that canoes need ten days for a reason. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frederick Taylor’s article on Scientific Management reminded me of the article we read for last week that focused on men as being part of the machine.  It seems to be a common trend in this era that those that run the factory think of men as merely part of the machine, but there is a pushback from workers with unions, strikes, resistance, etc.  Scientific Management controls every movement of the worker, as if it was controlling a machine that can be fixed and adjusted. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There has always been tension between management and employees. The management wants to be in control of the workers because they are invested and want to increase production. The workers are only there because they need a means to support themselves. It seems to me that if the management and the workers were to compromise that everyone would benefit. The workers would be more willing to produce more and work more effectively if the working conditions and pay were better, and the management would have to spend slightly more to pay the workers, but they would save time by preventing strikes. But I guess it is all easier said than done.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Sara&amp;#039;s comment men were the machine.  Machines back in the early 1900s were not nearly as effective as the machines we have today.  There was still a huge amount of work that had to be done by man that could not be done by machine.  I could see that the argument would be that the machine would lessen the amount the employer has to pay, but at the same time they were not scientifically advanced at that time to make significant changes.  In other words, they still needed man-power in the early 1900s.  Although today in some ways machine has taken some of the jobs that used to occupy man in today&amp;#039;s society.  -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the article about Scientific Management was interesting because it altered the way we do things even today.  I don’t agree that every person needed to do a certain job in the amount of time that they designate to the job.  That’s why many people lost their job or were not getting paid for doing a specialty job that now has been streamlined.  The only professions that did not go through this were being a doctor or a lawyer.  You had to go to school for these professions.  When machines were invented it really took a person’s specialty skills and made them feel useless.  Now there are more specialty jobs for people who have the training, certificates, or schooling.---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To this day, I still see Taylorism in the workplace. From my own personal work experience I know that the employees are taught a certain, most efficient way to do things and if that way was altered than a reprimand would be in order. Specifically with machines, this is a way of Taylorism itself. In some professions man-power is seen as useless compared to the precision, efficiency, and cost-friendly aspects of the machine. I believe Taylor set a standard that today is still being followed. --Stephanie Lipscomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping, 1913 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The principals that are discussed in this article may have worked during this time due to the schedules that people would keep. (Work during the day when it was light, and went to sleep when it was dark) This is not the case now, due to the fact that both men and women have to work.  They may work different shifts or they may need to have two jobs. People now do things when they can and take as much time as they need to do the task at home.  There are still some jobs that require timing for everything; it’s just not talked about as it was during this time.  It was new to people so change was not high on people’s priority list.  I can’t lie; I myself have found I sometimes time myself doing certain tasks.  If I didn’t do that then I would never sleep. --  Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Frederick claims, “ ‘Motherliness’ and ‘hominess’ in the past have usually meant drudgery.  True and better homemaking will come from a higher realization of the tremendous possibilities of the homemaker who uses scientific methods instead of rule-of-thumb” (Smith and Clancy 279).  I understand that she emphasizes the use of the scientific method for efficiency in the home in order for homemakers to accomplish the tasks on their to-do lists.  However, did she ever add all of those tasks up and then figure out if the homemaker had any personal down time?  Did making lists with timed tasks really make homemaking less daunting or did women view them with even more disdain?  This sounds like a home version of the perfect factory worker, one who operates like a machine.–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== James O’Connell – 1911 ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the second to last paragraph of this piece O’Connell writes about how the Taylorism system will wipe out trade and organizations particularly with the low wages. Mr. Taylor’s system showed the benefits (for the employer) of unskilled labor. It was cheaper and if the workers did not keep up with the gauges set by Taylorism they would be fired. And since they were unskilled it would not be that difficult to find another employee to fill his shoes. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1913 Watertown arsenal’s striking workers’ petition to end Taylorism ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many men at the Watertown arsenal were more than upset with taylorism.  We see stores everyday (like Lowes recently) cut back on certain aspects of the company to make more money.  In this case, taylorism literally changed the dynamic of the workplace.  Artisans who had practiced their craft for years were no longer able to make a living like they were before.  Men were forced to work at a much faster pace than they were used to, and many men were not even physically able to due the work that was laid in front of them.  The letter also states that with a decrease of skilled artisans in the workplace, the quality of work done decreased with the increase of unskilled workers in the arsenal.&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that caught my eye was the part about the watch.  Since watches were becoming popular during this time period, it is interesting to see that the workers hated them.  Since employers could now time their employees on production rate, there was a scare for the workers for two reasons: 1) because it makes them work much harder than most of them are physically capable of and 2) because employee-employer relations worsened as the employers took a much more direct control of worker&amp;#039;s output.  -Patrick K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1939 textbook on scientific management ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading we can really see the effect that Taylorism had on the efficiency of the workplace. It goes into detail about increase in production in the shortened amount of time by describing what exact changes were made to make this possible. Simply changing distances, training operators, and using a cordless iron made production increase by sixty six percent. Though these numbers make Taylorism seem like a logical way to manage industry, they do not look at the workers themselves and how they were seeming to become mechanized themselves. The human was now becoming apart of the American system of interchangeable parts, as they were doing their specific job and could easily be replaced by another worker with little time of training. It also did not express the workers time stress and hours they worked. Taylorism did indeed have an impact on the efficiency in production but it also came with a bit of mistreatment toward laborers. --Claire Brooks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Satires about efficiency system – Henry Mitchell, Penobscot Indian, 1938 &amp;amp; 1930&amp;#039;s tale of “Highpockets” in Chicago ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Highpockets was no ordinary factory worker.  He was the “Energizer Bunny” of the factory.  He works in a mill room, and as the tale goes on, he uses almost his whole body to operate different machines.  He uses both hands, both legs, as well as his head.  The time-study man would continuously say, “‘He’s true blue!  He’s true blue!  The kind of man that gets somewhere in this plant’” (Smith and Clancy 286).  This is what Frank Carlton calls the “model workman”.    Carlton says, “The model workman . . . is the vigorous man who freely expends all of his surplus energy during working-hours and who utilizes his non-working hours only for recuperation and preparation for another day’s work.  It is not the purpose of efficiency engineering to allow the worker to depart . . . with more than a minimum of surplus energy for recreation [and] for family life” (288).  The model workman does not exist.  Humans cannot exhaust themselves at work every day and then go home and eat and then sleep.  Humans need interaction with family and developments of relationships.  They also need time for hobbies.  Following Carlton’s argument then, employers did not view their workers as humans, but as machines; hence the “model workman” standard.–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Prof. Frank T. Carlton criticizes Taylorism for what? – 1914 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Prof. Frank T. Carlon, I find many aspects of Taylorism, a managerial philosophy stemming from “scientific management,” extremely troubling. On the surface, proponents of Taylorism may claim that is a positive philosophy, and manages to find the “one best way” to make a product. Taylorism also emphasizes employee efficiency within the workplace – no movement or minute should be wasted. I have a problem with how Taylorism views human beings – as interchangeable, emotionless components of a larger machine. As factories and companies adopted the practices of scientific management, workers were no longer treated as human beings with feelings. Workers were not allowed to talk to one another, because this was viewed as being “inefficient.” I agree with Carlton’s notion that “work and recreation should be blended for each and every individual.” However, an activity like recreation was viewed as being unproductive, and therefore was eliminated from the workplace. I think that many of these employers failed to understand that the human psyche is a very fragile thing, and that if a person is not allowed time for leisure, and time to interact with others in a non-threatening social manner, the person will eventually turn against the company he or she is working for. However, this didn’t seem to bother employers. They knew that if one menial worker quit, they could just as easily hire two more. Once again, this is an example of how Taylorism drove any sense of humanity out of the workplace. These employers were looking for ways to maximize production from their workers, and forgot that an incredibly important part of one’s work and life is recreation, and taking breaks from the daily grind of one’s select occupation. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-02-03T05:56:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Danly, RR in American Art ==&lt;br /&gt;
It is surprising that the artists were showing picturesque scenes of the railroads. What was their motivation? For some of the artists, they were paid to paint the scenes within the train cars and on the coal cars, but what about the other artists? It may be that the artists did not quite grasp the long-term effects of the train. They saw it as bringing economic prosperity and opening up new lands, which are all positive things. The most obvious answer is the idea of Manifest Destiny.  Some of the paintings, such as Lackawanna Valley, show a transition between modernity and the beautiful pastoral lands, but the changing landscape does not look ugly or repulsive.  In Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way, it is interesting that the smoke is blowing onto the Native Americans. This could be symbolic of many things, but mostly how technology will conquer the West. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kyle and what the motivation was for making the scenes of the railroad picturesque:  I feel that early on, to try and convince people to travel by railway, the artists goal was to paint a picture of something that was beautiful and inviting.  Drawing a picture of a train going through the desert doesn&amp;#039;t have the same appeal to a first time traveler as a picture of a train going past a river with mountains in the background. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to me to see the transition of trying to make positive art work at the beginning of the Railroad’s operation to industrializing the factories and the Railroad lines.  In my opinion the daguerreotypists gave the public images of what the reality of the Railroad situation was.  As cars and planes were becoming more popular with people the last ditch effort by the train companies was to make them more luxurious and comfortable to travel in, plus you had a “beautiful landscape” to appreciate.  Later in the 1920’s – 1930’s we started to see the industrial side of the artists and what the landscape really looked like.  I wonder if the artist drew what they saw, or were paid by some of the Railroad companies to “spice it up” and make it so everyone wanted to travel by train? ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was extremely significant that the railroad was accepted into the 19th century American art world; the visual arts, particularly painting, have always been held in high esteem as being part of the soul of a culture, along with its literature, music, and other art forms. For an innovation such as the railroad, which divided many, and was even seen as a “monster” by some Europeans, it was very surprising to learn that the image of a triumph over nature was being depicted in American art work. In terms of iconic American images, the railroad eventually became just as significant and important as the Appalachian Mountains, or the Statue of Liberty. It was a symbol of rugged American innovation, and the individualistic competitive spirit to build up the West, through oil, gold, and other raw materials. I was baffled that the landscape art world would incorporate an image that is so synonymous with the destruction of trees and nature, as well as commerce and business. Of course the artists also had other motivations, such as creating paintings that would motivate travelers to ride through the beauty of the American landscape (as these artists were no doubt paid by railroad companies). Whether or not these paintings were motivated by money doesn’t really seem important to me. What is important is the fact that the American public fell for the trick. The railroads took on a romantic feeling in the landscapes, and Americans fell in love. Of course, some of those paintings failed to illustrate the horrid travelling conditions that most Americans actually faced when riding on the railroad. Was there any uproar? Did travelers feel cheated when they were thrown from the tracks and were forced to help put the cart back on the tracks? What about the smoke that choked them the entire ride and the violent bumpiness that damaged their backs? Or was the railroad already accepted as a symbol of American ambition and pride? Would others have deemed you unpatriotic had you tried to denounce it? ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how as America’s belief in Manifest Destiny and the Industrial revolution occurred more and more trains appeared on the painter’s canvas. The article points out the contrast of the new industrialization (the trains) and the desire for scenic views (nature). –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it fascinating that no conflict of interest was corrected for or even, it seemed, noted, among the landscape photographers who took the images of the railroad lands to disseminate. Indeed, at the height of the conflicts between RR &amp;amp; indigenous peoples, there was not really any attempt to cover the biases or cloak them in some unswayed manner.--Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the use/ construction of trains and railroads revolutionized transportation in America. The railroads connected the American population in a way not seen before. Miles upon miles of railroad ran across the U.S, connecting rural areas with cities, and allowing access to areas that had previously been incredibly hard to travel. The use of railroads allowed for greater and more efficient transfer of goods and people. In this article I read about yet another innovation brought on by railroads, tourism. Tourism provided railroad companies with another way to make profit. Some of the beautiful paintings presented in the beginning, as well as the later photographs served as advertisements. The beautiful depictions of a natural (only slightly touched) landscape helped to draw in tourists and the later trains (obviously dependent on wealth of passengers) were equipped with luxuries for traveling sightseers. &lt;br /&gt;
However, further into the article the images presented are no longer beautiful, exaggerated representations of the landscape, but instead images that reveal a more realistic, gritty view of trains, stations, and the railroads. By this later point in the railroad’s history it appears to have been hard to ignore the consequences of using such technology. -Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy tended to really emphasize the workplace as an ecological system, of which the worker’s body was the biological core.  He used this analogy at least three times in his essay.  It’s difficult to think of a human body as a part of the machine, but I think that’s the point here. Without a body, the machine simply cannot function.  I thought it was an interesting comparison that McEvoy made with this analogy on page 81 where he says that industrial accidents hurt workers’ bodies like industry hurts the environment.  When it came to the Bowers’ essay, this theory became all the more obvious.  Bowers’ numerical summary of how worker injury takes away from industry is shocking and enlightening, even if it is a little disturbing to see injury quantified in that manner.  Nevertheless, this quantification with McEvoy’s analysis shows the importance of workers’ health and safety and how much money and time is lost should a worker not be taken care of.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Employers escaped liability for a number of years.  In Farwell v. Boston and Worchester Railroad, the employee loses his arm due to another employee’s negligence.  “Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that engineer Farwell had assumed the risk of injury-even at the hands of negligent fellow workers-when he agreed to work on the railroad” (79).  I learned in my Business Law class that assumption of risk is one exception to a suit of negligence.  However, there is no way that Farwell could have assumed or predicted that his co-worker would cause him to lose him arm.  However, McEvoy’s essay mentions numerous times that these work “accidents” were not a major priority to employers.  Safety precautions would be expensive and would cut down on profits.  McEvoy also mentions the view towards the workers as, “The worker’s body became a mere appendage of the machine” (86).  Employers viewed their employees as nothing more than a means of production.  Loss of limbs was considered “normal” which is why working conditions did not immediately change.  -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy was trying to make you understand in his writings that people only saw the capitalism in the industrial areas.  The people during this time didn’t think about what the factories and mills would do to the landscape, they just knew it meant money in their pockets.  I wonder if the people who lived around these areas were having problems getting clean water or breathing clean air?  Of course accidents would happen, but because factories were more concerned in making money people’s health suffered.  Why did it take so long for these factories to understand that a person’s health or life is more important? ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In The Workplace as an Ecological System, McEvoy points out two important things that caught my attention.  The first stresses the role the worker’s body plays as the biological core the ecological system in the workplace.  The relationship between people who work and the technology they operate is complex.  Companies need workers to operate their machinery, but this also requires that workers will be safe while working, as McEvoy points out “the constancy of the body’s vulnerability to injury even as technology changes,” (74).  The second aspect of McEvoy’s essay was the role of technology in the ecological system.  Technology plays an important role in shaping people’s consciousness of occupational hazard by laying out the boundaries between injuries that society perceives as preventable, as inevitable costs of economic like, or as no injury at all.  Therefore, as the worker’s body is at the core of the ecological system in the workplace, technology structures it.  McEvoy explains that technology does this in three ways: “by posing hazards directly, by shaping the social organization that exposes workers to risk, and by influencing society’s awareness of danger to its working population,” (79).  To support this McEvoy references the Farwell vs. Boston and Worcester Railroad case in 1842, in which a worker Nicholas Farwell lost his arm when a locomotive derailed.  During this trial McEvoy mentions “the three great common-law defenses” available to the defendant: assumption of risk, the fellow servant rule, and the rule that any contributory negligence on the part of the injured plaintiff was an absolute bar to recovery.  Together, the three defenses shielded employers from nearly all liability for work injuries, thus granting them near-absolute authority to control the pace and conditions of work.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;&amp;lt; Mike R. &amp;gt;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy&amp;#039;s take on the relationship between the people that work, and the technologies they operate interested me.  He states that it is a &amp;quot;complex,dynamic, exological one that entails elements of sociology and ideology as well as the more direct impacts of technology on worker health&amp;quot;.  This made me wonder, is the relationship between the worker and his technology that complex? I feel that there has to be a simplified relationship between the two to maximize the potential of the worker.  There is a reason why the worker has the job that he does, he can relate to the technology. -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Accidents at the work place are often led to be believed that the incident happened due to the employee’s negligence on the job. Due to liability legal documents big companies have today, employees that suffer major injuries due to working on the job, have less of a chance of having the company take responsibility for the accident that occurred involved with their machinery. According to McEvoy’s article, most work accidents are the result of “employer decisions to intensify production and reduce investment in safety, thus increasing dancer to workers.” In the case of the Triangle fire, 146 workers died due to being unable to use the fire escapes because employer’s locked the door for more efficiently.  The garment company ended up with no sort of punishment &amp;amp; rather received an insurance check. Even though this happened in 1911 and laws &amp;amp; regulations have been changed due to this particular event, companies today are still not held liable for their actions of not providing proper safety equipment. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work?  A Study of Industrial Accidents” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statistics that Bowers presents at the beginning of his essay are alarming.  “On the basis of 20,000 fatalities per year, [the country] is deprived of 380,000 man-years of labor . . . The less serious injuries account for probably 3,000,000 weeks of lost labor annually.  All types of injuries taken together cause an annual loss of time of more than 280,000,000 working days” (102).  With this much at stake, it is amazing that the employers did not implement safer working conditions.  Would the loss of profit from creating safety precautions really outweigh the loss of production from work-related fatalities and injuries? –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the statistics staggering. I have always heard about working conditions or the dangerous of working in a factory from the past, but did not consider that it was still so dangerous. I guess I assumed that with time there would be more precautions in place to help protect the workers in these environments, even though I know that they could not fix the problem fully. I think that the employers have made working conditions safer, but it appears that a lot of the accidents are due to stupidity, which is hard to prevent. However, it did say that employers were hesistant at spending money to implement safer conditions. It would appear that it would be cheaper to have safer working conditions than to lose money from injuries or deaths. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Bower&amp;#039;s statistics have got to be somewhat off. For example, he states that each fatality in the workplace cuts off 20 years of productive labor. While this may cost the dead individual 20 years of productive labor, Bower says himself later on that most companies simply replace that position the next day, probably just hiring another unskilled laborer off the streets. He makes his point, that the lack of strict oversight of new industries and the large amount of unskilled labor employed unavoidably lead to accidents in the workplace. Clearly we have not completely solved this problem today, alluding to Pam&amp;#039;s example, and it seems the only thing thats improved factory conditions is the threat of being sued by injured workers. Seems like it&amp;#039;s still a pretty broken system. - Will D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bowers article hit home for me.  The saw with no guide was the reason my brother-in-law lost one of his fingers.  He did not sue the company because he realized it was his fault, but people everyday don’t see this when they become injured.  Some companies do comply with OSHA and other safety precautions, but there are still some businesses out there that do not.  Why has this still gone on?  I also like Matthew’s comments about the “bright one” that lit a match to look into a gas tank; I guess they learned as they lived. ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These examples of injuries intrigued me.  I felt like I was watching that show &amp;quot;100 ways to die&amp;quot;.  To add to Matthew&amp;#039;s point, how smart do you have to be to know to not light a match and put it inside a gasoline tank?  Obviously productive labor is cut off because of these people&amp;#039;s lack of common sense.  I know it sounds terrible but thats just ridiculous.-Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Throughout modern industry, the human organism is expected to adapt itself to an ever-changing mechanical environment.” The statistics at the beginning of Bowers article is disturbing. In my mind, I never thought to believe that the modern industry today still has common number of incidents involving serious injuries/fatalities, partially due to the kind of laws &amp;amp; regulations we have today. Employee negligence may be the reason for these injuries; however, it is the company who are the ones who must take proper care of their employees rather than the “fear that the expense involved will reduce profits.” Even though the worker who lit the match near the gasoline tank lacked any common sense whatsoever, how was he to know if the tank could hold more gasoline? His thought process was a natural instinct to add some kind of light in order to see. While the result of lighting the match was bad for his, the company could of provided their employees with cheap flashlights, helping to see when it is time to stop filling up the tank of gas- due to the fact that many other employees probably have been in a situations where they were unsure of when to stop filling up the tank. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seemed like a very cold article, there was no regret for the injuries that happened to the workers. The writer simply cared about how much money they were making, listing statistics and such. They also blamed the employee and not the employers. It shows the point of view of the factory owners and men higher up in the companies. The people who worked for them were easily replaced by people who would take the job for less pay. –Megan Mc.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-02-03T05:55:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Danly, RR in American Art ==&lt;br /&gt;
It is surprising that the artists were showing picturesque scenes of the railroads. What was their motivation? For some of the artists, they were paid to paint the scenes within the train cars and on the coal cars, but what about the other artists? It may be that the artists did not quite grasp the long-term effects of the train. They saw it as bringing economic prosperity and opening up new lands, which are all positive things. The most obvious answer is the idea of Manifest Destiny.  Some of the paintings, such as Lackawanna Valley, show a transition between modernity and the beautiful pastoral lands, but the changing landscape does not look ugly or repulsive.  In Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way, it is interesting that the smoke is blowing onto the Native Americans. This could be symbolic of many things, but mostly how technology will conquer the West. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kyle and what the motivation was for making the scenes of the railroad picturesque:  I feel that early on, to try and convince people to travel by railway, the artists goal was to paint a picture of something that was beautiful and inviting.  Drawing a picture of a train going through the desert doesn&amp;#039;t have the same appeal to a first time traveler as a picture of a train going past a river with mountains in the background. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to me to see the transition of trying to make positive art work at the beginning of the Railroad’s operation to industrializing the factories and the Railroad lines.  In my opinion the daguerreotypists gave the public images of what the reality of the Railroad situation was.  As cars and planes were becoming more popular with people the last ditch effort by the train companies was to make them more luxurious and comfortable to travel in, plus you had a “beautiful landscape” to appreciate.  Later in the 1920’s – 1930’s we started to see the industrial side of the artists and what the landscape really looked like.  I wonder if the artist drew what they saw, or were paid by some of the Railroad companies to “spice it up” and make it so everyone wanted to travel by train? ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was extremely significant that the railroad was accepted into the 19th century American art world; the visual arts, particularly painting, have always been held in high esteem as being part of the soul of a culture, along with its literature, music, and other art forms. For an innovation such as the railroad, which divided many, and was even seen as a “monster” by some Europeans, it was very surprising to learn that the image of a triumph over nature was being depicted in American art work. In terms of iconic American images, the railroad eventually became just as significant and important as the Appalachian Mountains, or the Statue of Liberty. It was a symbol of rugged American innovation, and the individualistic competitive spirit to build up the West, through oil, gold, and other raw materials. I was baffled that the landscape art world would incorporate an image that is so synonymous with the destruction of trees and nature, as well as commerce and business. Of course the artists also had other motivations, such as creating paintings that would motivate travelers to ride through the beauty of the American landscape (as these artists were no doubt paid by railroad companies). Whether or not these paintings were motivated by money doesn’t really seem important to me. What is important is the fact that the American public fell for the trick. The railroads took on a romantic feeling in the landscapes, and Americans fell in love. Of course, some of those paintings failed to illustrate the horrid travelling conditions that most Americans actually faced when riding on the railroad. Was there any uproar? Did travelers feel cheated when they were thrown from the tracks and were forced to help put the cart back on the tracks? What about the smoke that choked them the entire ride and the violent bumpiness that damaged their backs? Or was the railroad already accepted as a symbol of American ambition and pride? Would others have deemed you unpatriotic had you tried to denounce it? ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how as America’s belief in Manifest Destiny and the Industrial revolution occurred more and more trains appeared on the painter’s canvas. The article points out the contrast of the new industrialization (the trains) and the desire for scenic views (nature). –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it fascinating that no conflict of interest was corrected for or even, it seemed, noted, among the landscape photographers who took the images of the railroad lands to disseminate. Indeed, at the height of the conflicts between RR &amp;amp; indigenous peoples, there was not really any attempt to cover the biases or cloak them in some unswayed manner.--Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the use/ construction of trains and railroads revolutionized transportation in America. The railroads connected the American population in a way not seen before. Miles upon miles of railroad ran across the U.S, connecting rural areas with cities, and allowing access to areas that had previously been incredibly hard to travel. The use of railroads allowed for greater and more efficient transfer of goods and people. In this article I read about yet another innovation brought on by railroads, tourism. Tourism provided railroad companies with another way to make profit. Some of the beautiful paintings presented in the beginning, as well as the later photographs served as advertisements. The beautiful depictions of a natural (only slightly touched) landscape helped to draw in tourists and the later trains (obviously dependent on wealth of passengers) were equipped with luxuries for traveling sightseers. &lt;br /&gt;
However, further into the article the images presented are no longer beautiful, exaggerated representations of the landscape, but instead images that reveal a more realistic, gritty view of trains, stations, and the railroads. By this later point in the railroad’s history it appears to have been hard to ignore the consequences of using such technology. -Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy tended to really emphasize the workplace as an ecological system, of which the worker’s body was the biological core.  He used this analogy at least three times in his essay.  It’s difficult to think of a human body as a part of the machine, but I think that’s the point here. Without a body, the machine simply cannot function.  I thought it was an interesting comparison that McEvoy made with this analogy on page 81 where he says that industrial accidents hurt workers’ bodies like industry hurts the environment.  When it came to the Bowers’ essay, this theory became all the more obvious.  Bowers’ numerical summary of how worker injury takes away from industry is shocking and enlightening, even if it is a little disturbing to see injury quantified in that manner.  Nevertheless, this quantification with McEvoy’s analysis shows the importance of workers’ health and safety and how much money and time is lost should a worker not be taken care of.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Employers escaped liability for a number of years.  In Farwell v. Boston and Worchester Railroad, the employee loses his arm due to another employee’s negligence.  “Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that engineer Farwell had assumed the risk of injury-even at the hands of negligent fellow workers-when he agreed to work on the railroad” (79).  I learned in my Business Law class that assumption of risk is one exception to a suit of negligence.  However, there is no way that Farwell could have assumed or predicted that his co-worker would cause him to lose him arm.  However, McEvoy’s essay mentions numerous times that these work “accidents” were not a major priority to employers.  Safety precautions would be expensive and would cut down on profits.  McEvoy also mentions the view towards the workers as, “The worker’s body became a mere appendage of the machine” (86).  Employers viewed their employees as nothing more than a means of production.  Loss of limbs was considered “normal” which is why working conditions did not immediately change.  -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy was trying to make you understand in his writings that people only saw the capitalism in the industrial areas.  The people during this time didn’t think about what the factories and mills would do to the landscape, they just knew it meant money in their pockets.  I wonder if the people who lived around these areas were having problems getting clean water or breathing clean air?  Of course accidents would happen, but because factories were more concerned in making money people’s health suffered.  Why did it take so long for these factories to understand that a person’s health or life is more important? ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In The Workplace as an Ecological System, McEvoy points out two important things that caught my attention.  The first stresses the role the worker’s body plays as the biological core the ecological system in the workplace.  The relationship between people who work and the technology they operate is complex.  Companies need workers to operate their machinery, but this also requires that workers will be safe while working, as McEvoy points out “the constancy of the body’s vulnerability to injury even as technology changes,” (74).  The second aspect of McEvoy’s essay was the role of technology in the ecological system.  Technology plays an important role in shaping people’s consciousness of occupational hazard by laying out the boundaries between injuries that society perceives as preventable, as inevitable costs of economic like, or as no injury at all.  Therefore, as the worker’s body is at the core of the ecological system in the workplace, technology structures it.  McEvoy explains that technology does this in three ways: “by posing hazards directly, by shaping the social organization that exposes workers to risk, and by influencing society’s awareness of danger to its working population,” (79).  To support this McEvoy references the Farwell vs. Boston and Worcester Railroad case in 1842, in which a worker Nicholas Farwell lost his arm when a locomotive derailed.  During this trial McEvoy mentions “the three great common-law defenses” available to the defendant: assumption of risk, the fellow servant rule, and the rule that any contributory negligence on the part of the injured plaintiff was an absolute bar to recovery.  Together, the three defenses shielded employers from nearly all liability for work injuries, thus granting them near-absolute authority to control the pace and conditions of work.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;&amp;lt; Mike R. &amp;gt;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy&amp;#039;s take on the relationship between the people that work, and the technologies they operate interested me.  He states that it is a &amp;quot;complex,dynamic, exological one that entails elements of sociology and ideology as well as the more direct impacts of technology on worker health&amp;quot;.  This made me wonder, is the relationship between the worker and his technology that complex? I feel that there has to be a simplified relationship between the two to maximize the potential of the worker.  There is a reason why the worker has the job that he does, he can relate to the technology. -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 Accidents at the work place are often led to be believed that the incident happened due to the employee’s negligence on the job. Due to liability legal documents big companies have today, employees that suffer major injuries due to working on the job, have less of a chance of having the company take responsibility for the accident that occurred involved with their machinery. According to McEvoy’s article, most work accidents are the result of “employer decisions to intensify production and reduce investment in safety, thus increasing dancer to workers.” In the case of the Triangle fire, 146 workers died due to being unable to use the fire escapes because employer’s locked the door for more efficiently.  The garment company ended up with no sort of punishment &amp;amp; rather received an insurance check. Even though this happened in 1911 and laws &amp;amp; regulations have been changed due to this particular event, companies today are still not held liable for their actions of not providing proper safety equipment. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work?  A Study of Industrial Accidents” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statistics that Bowers presents at the beginning of his essay are alarming.  “On the basis of 20,000 fatalities per year, [the country] is deprived of 380,000 man-years of labor . . . The less serious injuries account for probably 3,000,000 weeks of lost labor annually.  All types of injuries taken together cause an annual loss of time of more than 280,000,000 working days” (102).  With this much at stake, it is amazing that the employers did not implement safer working conditions.  Would the loss of profit from creating safety precautions really outweigh the loss of production from work-related fatalities and injuries? –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the statistics staggering. I have always heard about working conditions or the dangerous of working in a factory from the past, but did not consider that it was still so dangerous. I guess I assumed that with time there would be more precautions in place to help protect the workers in these environments, even though I know that they could not fix the problem fully. I think that the employers have made working conditions safer, but it appears that a lot of the accidents are due to stupidity, which is hard to prevent. However, it did say that employers were hesistant at spending money to implement safer conditions. It would appear that it would be cheaper to have safer working conditions than to lose money from injuries or deaths. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Bower&amp;#039;s statistics have got to be somewhat off. For example, he states that each fatality in the workplace cuts off 20 years of productive labor. While this may cost the dead individual 20 years of productive labor, Bower says himself later on that most companies simply replace that position the next day, probably just hiring another unskilled laborer off the streets. He makes his point, that the lack of strict oversight of new industries and the large amount of unskilled labor employed unavoidably lead to accidents in the workplace. Clearly we have not completely solved this problem today, alluding to Pam&amp;#039;s example, and it seems the only thing thats improved factory conditions is the threat of being sued by injured workers. Seems like it&amp;#039;s still a pretty broken system. - Will D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bowers article hit home for me.  The saw with no guide was the reason my brother-in-law lost one of his fingers.  He did not sue the company because he realized it was his fault, but people everyday don’t see this when they become injured.  Some companies do comply with OSHA and other safety precautions, but there are still some businesses out there that do not.  Why has this still gone on?  I also like Matthew’s comments about the “bright one” that lit a match to look into a gas tank; I guess they learned as they lived. ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These examples of injuries intrigued me.  I felt like I was watching that show &amp;quot;100 ways to die&amp;quot;.  To add to Matthew&amp;#039;s point, how smart do you have to be to know to not light a match and put it inside a gasoline tank?  Obviously productive labor is cut off because of these people&amp;#039;s lack of common sense.  I know it sounds terrible but thats just ridiculous.-Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Throughout modern industry, the human organism is expected to adapt itself to an ever-changing mechanical environment.” The statistics at the beginning of Bowers article is disturbing. In my mind, I never thought to believe that the modern industry today still has common number of incidents involving serious injuries/fatalities, partially due to the kind of laws &amp;amp; regulations we have today. Employee negligence may be the reason for these injuries; however, it is the company who are the ones who must take proper care of their employees rather than the “fear that the expense involved will reduce profits.” Even though the worker who lit the match near the gasoline tank lacked any common sense whatsoever, how was he to know if the tank could hold more gasoline? His thought process was a natural instinct to add some kind of light in order to see. While the result of lighting the match was bad for his, the company could of provided their employees with cheap flashlights, helping to see when it is time to stop filling up the tank of gas- due to the fact that many other employees probably have been in a situations where they were unsure of when to stop filling up the tank. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seemed like a very cold article, there was no regret for the injuries that happened to the workers. The writer simply cared about how much money they were making, listing statistics and such. They also blamed the employee and not the employers. It shows the point of view of the factory owners and men higher up in the companies. The people who worked for them were easily replaced by people who would take the job for less pay. –Megan Mc.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-02-03T04:36:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work?  A Study of Industrial Accidents” */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Danly, RR in American Art ==&lt;br /&gt;
It is surprising that the artists were showing picturesque scenes of the railroads. What was their motivation? For some of the artists, they were paid to paint the scenes within the train cars and on the coal cars, but what about the other artists? It may be that the artists did not quite grasp the long-term effects of the train. They saw it as bringing economic prosperity and opening up new lands, which are all positive things. The most obvious answer is the idea of Manifest Destiny.  Some of the paintings, such as Lackawanna Valley, show a transition between modernity and the beautiful pastoral lands, but the changing landscape does not look ugly or repulsive.  In Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way, it is interesting that the smoke is blowing onto the Native Americans. This could be symbolic of many things, but mostly how technology will conquer the West. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kyle and what the motivation was for making the scenes of the railroad picturesque:  I feel that early on, to try and convince people to travel by railway, the artists goal was to paint a picture of something that was beautiful and inviting.  Drawing a picture of a train going through the desert doesn&amp;#039;t have the same appeal to a first time traveler as a picture of a train going past a river with mountains in the background. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting to me to see the transition of trying to make positive art work at the beginning of the Railroad’s operation to industrializing the factories and the Railroad lines.  In my opinion the daguerreotypists gave the public images of what the reality of the Railroad situation was.  As cars and planes were becoming more popular with people the last ditch effort by the train companies was to make them more luxurious and comfortable to travel in, plus you had a “beautiful landscape” to appreciate.  Later in the 1920’s – 1930’s we started to see the industrial side of the artists and what the landscape really looked like.  I wonder if the artist drew what they saw, or were paid by some of the Railroad companies to “spice it up” and make it so everyone wanted to travel by train? ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was extremely significant that the railroad was accepted into the 19th century American art world; the visual arts, particularly painting, have always been held in high esteem as being part of the soul of a culture, along with its literature, music, and other art forms. For an innovation such as the railroad, which divided many, and was even seen as a “monster” by some Europeans, it was very surprising to learn that the image of a triumph over nature was being depicted in American art work. In terms of iconic American images, the railroad eventually became just as significant and important as the Appalachian Mountains, or the Statue of Liberty. It was a symbol of rugged American innovation, and the individualistic competitive spirit to build up the West, through oil, gold, and other raw materials. I was baffled that the landscape art world would incorporate an image that is so synonymous with the destruction of trees and nature, as well as commerce and business. Of course the artists also had other motivations, such as creating paintings that would motivate travelers to ride through the beauty of the American landscape (as these artists were no doubt paid by railroad companies). Whether or not these paintings were motivated by money doesn’t really seem important to me. What is important is the fact that the American public fell for the trick. The railroads took on a romantic feeling in the landscapes, and Americans fell in love. Of course, some of those paintings failed to illustrate the horrid travelling conditions that most Americans actually faced when riding on the railroad. Was there any uproar? Did travelers feel cheated when they were thrown from the tracks and were forced to help put the cart back on the tracks? What about the smoke that choked them the entire ride and the violent bumpiness that damaged their backs? Or was the railroad already accepted as a symbol of American ambition and pride? Would others have deemed you unpatriotic had you tried to denounce it? ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy tended to really emphasize the workplace as an ecological system, of which the worker’s body was the biological core.  He used this analogy at least three times in his essay.  It’s difficult to think of a human body as a part of the machine, but I think that’s the point here. Without a body, the machine simply cannot function.  I thought it was an interesting comparison that McEvoy made with this analogy on page 81 where he says that industrial accidents hurt workers’ bodies like industry hurts the environment.  When it came to the Bowers’ essay, this theory became all the more obvious.  Bowers’ numerical summary of how worker injury takes away from industry is shocking and enlightening, even if it is a little disturbing to see injury quantified in that manner.  Nevertheless, this quantification with McEvoy’s analysis shows the importance of workers’ health and safety and how much money and time is lost should a worker not be taken care of.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Employers escaped liability for a number of years.  In Farwell v. Boston and Worchester Railroad, the employee loses his arm due to another employee’s negligence.  “Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that engineer Farwell had assumed the risk of injury-even at the hands of negligent fellow workers-when he agreed to work on the railroad” (79).  I learned in my Business Law class that assumption of risk is one exception to a suit of negligence.  However, there is no way that Farwell could have assumed or predicted that his co-worker would cause him to lose him arm.  However, McEvoy’s essay mentions numerous times that these work “accidents” were not a major priority to employers.  Safety precautions would be expensive and would cut down on profits.  McEvoy also mentions the view towards the workers as, “The worker’s body became a mere appendage of the machine” (86).  Employers viewed their employees as nothing more than a means of production.  Loss of limbs was considered “normal” which is why working conditions did not immediately change.  -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy was trying to make you understand in his writings that people only saw the capitalism in the industrial areas.  The people during this time didn’t think about what the factories and mills would do to the landscape, they just knew it meant money in their pockets.  I wonder if the people who lived around these areas were having problems getting clean water or breathing clean air?  Of course accidents would happen, but because factories were more concerned in making money people’s health suffered.  Why did it take so long for these factories to understand that a person’s health or life is more important? ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In The Workplace as an Ecological System, McEvoy points out two important things that caught my attention.  The first stresses the role the worker’s body plays as the biological core the ecological system in the workplace.  The relationship between people who work and the technology they operate is complex.  Companies need workers to operate their machinery, but this also requires that workers will be safe while working, as McEvoy points out “the constancy of the body’s vulnerability to injury even as technology changes,” (74).  The second aspect of McEvoy’s essay was the role of technology in the ecological system.  Technology plays an important role in shaping people’s consciousness of occupational hazard by laying out the boundaries between injuries that society perceives as preventable, as inevitable costs of economic like, or as no injury at all.  Therefore, as the worker’s body is at the core of the ecological system in the workplace, technology structures it.  McEvoy explains that technology does this in three ways: “by posing hazards directly, by shaping the social organization that exposes workers to risk, and by influencing society’s awareness of danger to its working population,” (79).  To support this McEvoy references the Farwell vs. Boston and Worcester Railroad case in 1842, in which a worker Nicholas Farwell lost his arm when a locomotive derailed.  During this trial McEvoy mentions “the three great common-law defenses” available to the defendant: assumption of risk, the fellow servant rule, and the rule that any contributory negligence on the part of the injured plaintiff was an absolute bar to recovery.  Together, the three defenses shielded employers from nearly all liability for work injuries, thus granting them near-absolute authority to control the pace and conditions of work.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;&amp;lt; Mike R. &amp;gt;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McEvoy&amp;#039;s take on the relationship between the people that work, and the technologies they operate interested me.  He states that it is a &amp;quot;complex,dynamic, exological one that entails elements of sociology and ideology as well as the more direct impacts of technology on worker health&amp;quot;.  This made me wonder, is the relationship between the worker and his technology that complex? I feel that there has to be a simplified relationship between the two to maximize the potential of the worker.  There is a reason why the worker has the job that he does, he can relate to the technology. -Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work?  A Study of Industrial Accidents” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statistics that Bowers presents at the beginning of his essay are alarming.  “On the basis of 20,000 fatalities per year, [the country] is deprived of 380,000 man-years of labor . . . The less serious injuries account for probably 3,000,000 weeks of lost labor annually.  All types of injuries taken together cause an annual loss of time of more than 280,000,000 working days” (102).  With this much at stake, it is amazing that the employers did not implement safer working conditions.  Would the loss of profit from creating safety precautions really outweigh the loss of production from work-related fatalities and injuries? –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the statistics staggering. I have always heard about working conditions or the dangerous of working in a factory from the past, but did not consider that it was still so dangerous. I guess I assumed that with time there would be more precautions in place to help protect the workers in these environments, even though I know that they could not fix the problem fully. I think that the employers have made working conditions safer, but it appears that a lot of the accidents are due to stupidity, which is hard to prevent. However, it did say that employers were hesistant at spending money to implement safer conditions. It would appear that it would be cheaper to have safer working conditions than to lose money from injuries or deaths. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Bower&amp;#039;s statistics have got to be somewhat off. For example, he states that each fatality in the workplace cuts off 20 years of productive labor. While this may cost the dead individual 20 years of productive labor, Bower says himself later on that most companies simply replace that position the next day, probably just hiring another unskilled laborer off the streets. He makes his point, that the lack of strict oversight of new industries and the large amount of unskilled labor employed unavoidably lead to accidents in the workplace. Clearly we have not completely solved this problem today, alluding to Pam&amp;#039;s example, and it seems the only thing thats improved factory conditions is the threat of being sued by injured workers. Seems like it&amp;#039;s still a pretty broken system. - Will D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bowers article hit home for me.  The saw with no guide was the reason my brother-in-law lost one of his fingers.  He did not sue the company because he realized it was his fault, but people everyday don’t see this when they become injured.  Some companies do comply with OSHA and other safety precautions, but there are still some businesses out there that do not.  Why has this still gone on?  I also like Matthew’s comments about the “bright one” that lit a match to look into a gas tank; I guess they learned as they lived. ---Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These examples of injuries intrigued me.  I felt like I was watching that show &amp;quot;100 ways to die&amp;quot;.  To add to Matthew&amp;#039;s point, how smart do you have to be to know to not light a match and put it inside a gasoline tank?  Obviously productive labor is cut off because of these people&amp;#039;s lack of common sense.  I know it sounds terrible but thats just ridiculous.-Jeff R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Throughout modern industry, the human organism is expected to adapt itself to an ever-changing mechanical environment.” The statistics at the beginning of Bowers article is disturbing. In my mind, I never thought to believe that the modern industry today still has common number of incidents involving serious injuries/fatalities, partially due to the kind of laws &amp;amp; regulations we have today. Employee negligence may be the reason for these injuries; however, it is the company who are the ones who must take proper care of their employees rather than the “fear that the expense involved will reduce profits.” Even though the worker who lit the match near the gasoline tank lacked any common sense whatsoever, how was he to know if the tank could hold more gasoline? His thought process was a natural instinct to add some kind of light in order to see. While the result of lighting the match was bad for his, the company could of provided their employees with cheap flashlights, helping to see when it is time to stop filling up the tank of gas- due to the fact that many other employees probably have been in a situations where they were unsure of when to stop filling up the tank. – Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-01-27T05:20:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-document comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A theme I noticed in the Steinberg article and the letters from Harpers Ferry was a disconnection between the owners of the machinery and the workers.  The owners don’t necessarily realize the day-to-day workings of the machine and the demands of the workers, but the workers fail to see big picture ideas.  The tension between the two causes many problems eventually, and this reaction hurts overall production.  In short, industrial capitalism pitted the laborer against the owners of capital. In direct contrast, McGaw mentions that the introduction of the machine forged new bonds between the worker and owner because they both shared a responsibility for mechanization.  My question is can the worker and owner actually bond over this? It seems that those two groups would have different and contrasting motives, which would actually sever any bond, as is suggested in Steinberg’s article and the one on Harper’s Ferry.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
The introduction of new machinery required people of very little skilled labor to operate them.  A young man who had spent his whole life working the fields could enter the armory and earn up to sixty dollars a month.  Needless to say this did not go over well with the rest of the workers at the Musket Factory.  Not only did their skills seem useless but the old ways of working had changed too.  The formerly tolerated abuse of workers coming and going to suit the pleasure of each worker were over.  Workers were now required to work full time and during fixed hours and the masters of the shop kept log books showing the time actually spent working.  Machinery not only changed production but also changed ways of living.&lt;br /&gt;
~Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the Strike at Harpers Ferry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who are Lt. Col Talcott and Jno. C. Spencer?  Talcott appears to run an Armory?  Am I reading correctly that the workers were actually being paid the same amount of money each month, regardless of how much they worked (and in this reading, it sounds as if they could take a week off and still get paid)? Were the workers that went on strike, striking because they were now required to work set hours and their hours would be logged, or was this correspondence written as part of a set of guidelines? - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notes authored by H. K. Craig and Lt. Col. Talcott, regarding workers at the Harpers Ferry Armory during an 1842 strike illustrate the decreasing need for able-bodied workers; indeed, Craig notes that the end of the strike will present “an opportunity of culling our ranks.” (Smith &amp;amp; Clancey 153) With fewer workers necessary, the workforce was increasingly being thinned by management who no need for such a great quantity of workers. The loss in funds from days-long paid absences additionally reinforced the need for a culling of the ranks. -Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notes on Harper&amp;#039;s Ferry Strike seems to point to gross mismanagement of government funds, which still seems to be a problem.  A liaison between workers and management could benefit both parties by organizing the current chaotic work schedules and inserting some type of quality control. As in all business supply and demand will dictate production. That being said it seems like the workers are cutting their own throat by striking. Implementing new processes and manufacturing techniques is progress and the workforce must adapt. Competitions for the few jobs in the armory should provide a very skilled workforce and purge the system of it&amp;#039;s excess baggage. - Matt Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned during the class lecture on Tuesday, the shift of the process of manufacturing goods from being produced one by one via a master craftsman to being mass produced by implementing the American Manufacturing System was not looked upon agreeable by all Americans. Of course those who were most likely to be against the adoption of this manufacturing system were the skilled craftsmen. The correspondence between H.K. Craig and Lt. Col. Talcott, in regards to the Strike at Harper’s Ferry, is a great example of this. In his letter Lt. Col. Talcott outlines the ways of working that the employees at the armory are used to. They worked as it suited them, choosing to be absent or come in at their own convenience. They were also used to working only a few hours and still being paid a good wage. Before the American Manufacturing System caught on this way of working was possible. The craftsmen who had the necessary skills spent many years learning, training in, and perfecting their abilities. To be a master craftsman meant to be in demand, and so a craftsman could work at his own pace and still earn a good wage. However, as seen in Lt. Col. Talcott’s letter under the new system this way of working was no longer possible. An employee only needed to work with one machine and one part of the whole, thus it was entirely possible to get by with unskilled laborers alone.  -Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage for me was quite interesting.  Aside from the beatings that Frederick took, there is an unspoken message about african americans in the work force.  During this time in American history, work was often done by expert craftsmen, which Douglass had to work for.  He spoke of working for four white apprentices, which worked alongside of black craftsmen.  Unfortunately, many white apprentices had ill-feelings with the african american men for taking the jobs of white men.  This passage reminded me of Irish immigrants in 1845 due to the patato famine, and taking the worst jobs in America out of despiration.  Blacks would want to be free even more as a result of how they were treated in the workplace, with the hope that becoming a master craftsman would gain them some respect.  -Patrick K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to Frederick Douglass, I read that article wondering how common it was back then for a &amp;quot;Master&amp;quot; to stand up for their slave and to go as far as to see what could be done about the way Mr Douglass was treated. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most people, I was appalled at reading about the types of working conditions Frederick Douglass faced as he learned his craft as a calker in Baltimore. He claimed to have 75 masters that he had to answer to, often all at once. However, as I thought more about it, I realized that perhaps not much has changed in the American workplace to this very day. Of course, physical assault is no longer permitted and slavery has long since been abolished, but there is still a strong, some would even say intimidating corporate hierarchy that exists in almost any white-collar setting. Douglass expressed his disdain for having to answer to several masters all at once, and how overwhelmed he felt. Is this really so different from the modern day office setting, in which workers lowest on the totem pole have to answer to several different bosses, one in a different and often times higher position than the next? Bosses are no longer able to verbally assault workers in the way Douglass was abused, but there still seems to be polite, as well as subversive discrimination taking place in the white-collar working world. We are now in an era where white people can actually claim that they face “reverse discrimination” due to affirmative action. However, I personally believe that discrimination against females and minorities still exists in the hiring and promotion process, no matter how disguised it may be. We may like to think we have come a long way since the days of Frederick Douglass working in Baltimore, but perhaps there is still much more that can be done to make the workplace a more worker-friendly and less intimidating environment. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beatings and abuse of Frederick Douglas as tragic as they are was a sign of the times. It seems like Mr. Douglas was a decent man trying to improve his stature by working hard and learning new skills. His master rewarded him with a second chance and he grabbed it and he succeeded in making a comfortable life for himself as a slave. He used his skills to contract himself out and do side jobs that helped him gain self-respect. This new found self-respect gave him a glimpse at the freedom he so desired. The battle for respect and upward mobility in society is not always a fair fight. Mr. Douglas&amp;#039;s insight into his current situation seem to ignite his passion for liberty and gave him hope for the future. - Matt Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need for female labor allowed the women to stay at home and still be paid by the paper mills. This kind of phenomenon is completely absent from modern factories. Perhaps the married women took off more often, because their husbands objected to them working. Another theory could be that the married women were expected to be home more often, so they left for months at a time to take care of household things. For example, the piece talks about a sick friend, but maternity leave and sick children could also be to blame.  ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw makes an important point, that there were some jobs that the machines could not manage, which is why female workers were an important, though interchangeable, factor to paper production.  Some of the tasks that women performed that machines could not included, “handling dry paper without wrinkling or tearing some sheets, . . . hand counting . . . and rag processing” (Smith and Clancey 165, 169).  McGaw also makes the claim that, “Continuities in women’s manual labor with dramatic changes in men’s mechanized jobs . . . concluded that God or nature had assigned women their work and that society should not alter it” (Smith and Clancey 167-68).  She also notes that skilled men were competing against machines, but that women’s jobs were “safe” because it was difficult for machines to accomplish their tasks (168).  It is almost as if the lack of skill required for women’s jobs actually provided them with jobs.  The lack of technology brought women into the workforce. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This just shows how far we have come, today this is looked down upon in our society.  &amp;quot;All men are created equal&amp;quot;.  Men of all races can make a living, and sometimes not even be needed to do the work required of them.  With the evolution of technology people can do the work through computers and other resources of technology.  Our world is changing and fast. -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the McGraw article, the author makes an excellent point of stating the downsides to mechanization by affecting the “atmosphere and safety” of the workers, stating “The noise, isolation, dust, odor, and dampness of mechanized milled impaired works’ health and affected the quality of their working lives… the dangers of the new machines were highly visible.” Working in these kinds of environments had to make workers very alert and cautious. There was a large amount of fatalities, and more commonly injuries involving loss of fingers, hands, and arms. Women at this time earned less, and were much more exposed to dangerous working conditions. During this timeframe of history, it was becoming more acceptable for women to work in factories, therefore, leaving women with less of options and had more of an obligation to get a job regardless of its high risk &amp;amp; little pay. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Steinberg, Dam-breaking in the 19th-Century Merrimack Valley ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought that Steinberg made a good example of how not everyone will really be happy about technological development when he discussed farmers’ reaction to dams being built.  Not many of them were pleased with the damns, and it actually hurt their production and property because they are not represented in the workforce that wants a dam, so they get left behind in that development. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A man similar to James Worster was George Young.  Young was very persistent in his resistance to the Lake Company.  He bought land right near the Company’s water source so that he could claim damages against it, though he did not directly claim that as the reason.  He also rented a factory that was powered by the Lake Company.  He claimed that it did not supply ample water power.  Young’s unhappiness led to violence against the dam and resulted in legal proceedings (Steinberg 54-55).  His resistance against the company exemplified the opposition many felt towards the monopoly the company had over the water industry, because as Sara said, the dam ruined a lot of others’ production.  The Lake Company wanted to gain as much control in the society as possible and Worster and Young took a stand against the Company. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless to the efforts made by James Worster and George Young, and the rest of group of large opposition, the Lake Company still was successful in allowing the factories to in Lowell and Lawrence. Even though this ended up being a failure to those who were against the dams, in the closing statement of the article, Steinberg states, “the opposition to its plans is a reminder of the importance of the struggle over nature to industrial capitalism.” This statement alone shows that technological development will happen regardless of measures that people try to go through prevent it. In building the dams, this advancement in technology was needed to take place, regardless of the fact that it’s natural resources were beneficial to factories located in another state. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There may have been more motivations for the Lake Company to control the water levels then just for the mills in Massachusetts. By flooding the smaller mills and depleting them of water at different times, they destroy the small competition for labor and for textiles. There were few if any anti-trust laws at this time to prevent the mills in Massachusetts from eliminating all competition. Also, by being a separate corporation, it does not appear that the large Lowell mills are behind it. They may not have been, but there is more evidence to suggest that they were. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not surprising that such a conflict arose involving the water company. Often when large transformations occur everyone does not benefit equally. Those who benefit well tend to become the target for those who do not. Typically those who have more money get the upper hand and leave everyone else behind. From what I have seen, systems favor those with money because it benefits from what they are doing in some manner. However, that is not to say that the poorer class was completely the victim either. It seemed that they put themselves in a poor position by trying to gain money from the water company flooding land. The water company may have been acting somewhat selfishly in sending water to larger factories, but that is also how business works. They had to place their time and money where they would be gaining the largest benefit, which that is still how things operate today. Recently in my home town large power lines were placed in the middle of farm lands to provide power to other states. The residents were extremely unhappy and petitioned, but could not compare to the power of the electric company. Citizens have to adapt to the technological and economic changes that occur around them because there does not appear to be many other options.  --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to what was said previously, of course everyone is not going to be happy with the evolution of technology.  A perfect example for today would be everyone ripping music off the internet.  The musicians and record companies are losing so much money over this.  This is causing the record companies to sell more mp3&amp;#039;s than cds and it is killing them where it hurts the most, their wallets. -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Great Falls v. James Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-01-27T04:58:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Steinberg, Dam-breaking in the 19th-Century Merrimack Valley */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-document comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A theme I noticed in the Steinberg article and the letters from Harpers Ferry was a disconnection between the owners of the machinery and the workers.  The owners don’t necessarily realize the day-to-day workings of the machine and the demands of the workers, but the workers fail to see big picture ideas.  The tension between the two causes many problems eventually, and this reaction hurts overall production.  In short, industrial capitalism pitted the laborer against the owners of capital. In direct contrast, McGaw mentions that the introduction of the machine forged new bonds between the worker and owner because they both shared a responsibility for mechanization.  My question is can the worker and owner actually bond over this? It seems that those two groups would have different and contrasting motives, which would actually sever any bond, as is suggested in Steinberg’s article and the one on Harper’s Ferry.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
The introduction of new machinery required people of very little skilled labor to operate them.  A young man who had spent his whole life working the fields could enter the armory and earn up to sixty dollars a month.  Needless to say this did not go over well with the rest of the workers at the Musket Factory.  Not only did their skills seem useless but the old ways of working had changed too.  The formerly tolerated abuse of workers coming and going to suit the pleasure of each worker were over.  Workers were now required to work full time and during fixed hours and the masters of the shop kept log books showing the time actually spent working.  Machinery not only changed production but also changed ways of living.&lt;br /&gt;
~Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the Strike at Harpers Ferry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who are Lt. Col Talcott and Jno. C. Spencer?  Talcott appears to run an Armory?  Am I reading correctly that the workers were actually being paid the same amount of money each month, regardless of how much they worked (and in this reading, it sounds as if they could take a week off and still get paid)? Were the workers that went on strike, striking because they were now required to work set hours and their hours would be logged, or was this correspondence written as part of a set of guidelines? - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notes authored by H. K. Craig and Lt. Col. Talcott, regarding workers at the Harpers Ferry Armory during an 1842 strike illustrate the decreasing need for able-bodied workers; indeed, Craig notes that the end of the strike will present “an opportunity of culling our ranks.” (Smith &amp;amp; Clancey 153) With fewer workers necessary, the workforce was increasingly being thinned by management who no need for such a great quantity of workers. The loss in funds from days-long paid absences additionally reinforced the need for a culling of the ranks. -Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notes on Harper&amp;#039;s Ferry Strike seems to point to gross mismanagement of government funds, which still seems to be a problem.  A liaison between workers and management could benefit both parties by organizing the current chaotic work schedules and inserting some type of quality control. As in all business supply and demand will dictate production. That being said it seems like the workers are cutting their own throat by striking. Implementing new processes and manufacturing techniques is progress and the workforce must adapt. Competitions for the few jobs in the armory should provide a very skilled workforce and purge the system of it&amp;#039;s excess baggage. - Matt Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned during the class lecture on Tuesday, the shift of the process of manufacturing goods from being produced one by one via a master craftsman to being mass produced by implementing the American Manufacturing System was not looked upon agreeable by all Americans. Of course those who were most likely to be against the adoption of this manufacturing system were the skilled craftsmen. The correspondence between H.K. Craig and Lt. Col. Talcott, in regards to the Strike at Harper’s Ferry, is a great example of this. In his letter Lt. Col. Talcott outlines the ways of working that the employees at the armory are used to. They worked as it suited them, choosing to be absent or come in at their own convenience. They were also used to working only a few hours and still being paid a good wage. Before the American Manufacturing System caught on this way of working was possible. The craftsmen who had the necessary skills spent many years learning, training in, and perfecting their abilities. To be a master craftsman meant to be in demand, and so a craftsman could work at his own pace and still earn a good wage. However, as seen in Lt. Col. Talcott’s letter under the new system this way of working was no longer possible. An employee only needed to work with one machine and one part of the whole, thus it was entirely possible to get by with unskilled laborers alone.  -Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage for me was quite interesting.  Aside from the beatings that Frederick took, there is an unspoken message about african americans in the work force.  During this time in American history, work was often done by expert craftsmen, which Douglass had to work for.  He spoke of working for four white apprentices, which worked alongside of black craftsmen.  Unfortunately, many white apprentices had ill-feelings with the african american men for taking the jobs of white men.  This passage reminded me of Irish immigrants in 1845 due to the patato famine, and taking the worst jobs in America out of despiration.  Blacks would want to be free even more as a result of how they were treated in the workplace, with the hope that becoming a master craftsman would gain them some respect.  -Patrick K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to Frederick Douglass, I read that article wondering how common it was back then for a &amp;quot;Master&amp;quot; to stand up for their slave and to go as far as to see what could be done about the way Mr Douglass was treated. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most people, I was appalled at reading about the types of working conditions Frederick Douglass faced as he learned his craft as a calker in Baltimore. He claimed to have 75 masters that he had to answer to, often all at once. However, as I thought more about it, I realized that perhaps not much has changed in the American workplace to this very day. Of course, physical assault is no longer permitted and slavery has long since been abolished, but there is still a strong, some would even say intimidating corporate hierarchy that exists in almost any white-collar setting. Douglass expressed his disdain for having to answer to several masters all at once, and how overwhelmed he felt. Is this really so different from the modern day office setting, in which workers lowest on the totem pole have to answer to several different bosses, one in a different and often times higher position than the next? Bosses are no longer able to verbally assault workers in the way Douglass was abused, but there still seems to be polite, as well as subversive discrimination taking place in the white-collar working world. We are now in an era where white people can actually claim that they face “reverse discrimination” due to affirmative action. However, I personally believe that discrimination against females and minorities still exists in the hiring and promotion process, no matter how disguised it may be. We may like to think we have come a long way since the days of Frederick Douglass working in Baltimore, but perhaps there is still much more that can be done to make the workplace a more worker-friendly and less intimidating environment. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beatings and abuse of Frederick Douglas as tragic as they are was a sign of the times. It seems like Mr. Douglas was a decent man trying to improve his stature by working hard and learning new skills. His master rewarded him with a second chance and he grabbed it and he succeeded in making a comfortable life for himself as a slave. He used his skills to contract himself out and do side jobs that helped him gain self-respect. This new found self-respect gave him a glimpse at the freedom he so desired. The battle for respect and upward mobility in society is not always a fair fight. Mr. Douglas&amp;#039;s insight into his current situation seem to ignite his passion for liberty and gave him hope for the future. - Matt Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need for female labor allowed the women to stay at home and still be paid by the paper mills. This kind of phenomenon is completely absent from modern factories. Perhaps the married women took off more often, because their husbands objected to them working. Another theory could be that the married women were expected to be home more often, so they left for months at a time to take care of household things. For example, the piece talks about a sick friend, but maternity leave and sick children could also be to blame.  ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw makes an important point, that there were some jobs that the machines could not manage, which is why female workers were an important, though interchangeable, factor to paper production.  Some of the tasks that women performed that machines could not included, “handling dry paper without wrinkling or tearing some sheets, . . . hand counting . . . and rag processing” (Smith and Clancey 165, 169).  McGaw also makes the claim that, “Continuities in women’s manual labor with dramatic changes in men’s mechanized jobs . . . concluded that God or nature had assigned women their work and that society should not alter it” (Smith and Clancey 167-68).  She also notes that skilled men were competing against machines, but that women’s jobs were “safe” because it was difficult for machines to accomplish their tasks (168).  It is almost as if the lack of skill required for women’s jobs actually provided them with jobs.  The lack of technology brought women into the workforce. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This just shows how far we have come, today this is looked down upon in our society.  &amp;quot;All men are created equal&amp;quot;.  Men of all races can make a living, and sometimes not even be needed to do the work required of them.  With the evolution of technology people can do the work through computers and other resources of technology.  Our world is changing and fast. -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Steinberg, Dam-breaking in the 19th-Century Merrimack Valley ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought that Steinberg made a good example of how not everyone will really be happy about technological development when he discussed farmers’ reaction to dams being built.  Not many of them were pleased with the damns, and it actually hurt their production and property because they are not represented in the workforce that wants a dam, so they get left behind in that development. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A man similar to James Worster was George Young.  Young was very persistent in his resistance to the Lake Company.  He bought land right near the Company’s water source so that he could claim damages against it, though he did not directly claim that as the reason.  He also rented a factory that was powered by the Lake Company.  He claimed that it did not supply ample water power.  Young’s unhappiness led to violence against the dam and resulted in legal proceedings (Steinberg 54-55).  His resistance against the company exemplified the opposition many felt towards the monopoly the company had over the water industry, because as Sara said, the dam ruined a lot of others’ production.  The Lake Company wanted to gain as much control in the society as possible and Worster and Young took a stand against the Company. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless to the efforts made by James Worster and George Young, and the rest of group of large opposition, the Lake Company still was successful in allowing the factories to in Lowell and Lawrence. Even though this ended up being a failure to those who were against the dams, in the closing statement of the article, Steinberg states, “the opposition to its plans is a reminder of the importance of the struggle over nature to industrial capitalism.” This statement alone shows that technological development will happen regardless of measures that people try to go through prevent it. In building the dams, this advancement in technology was needed to take place, regardless of the fact that it’s natural resources were beneficial to factories located in another state. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There may have been more motivations for the Lake Company to control the water levels then just for the mills in Massachusetts. By flooding the smaller mills and depleting them of water at different times, they destroy the small competition for labor and for textiles. There were few if any anti-trust laws at this time to prevent the mills in Massachusetts from eliminating all competition. Also, by being a separate corporation, it does not appear that the large Lowell mills are behind it. They may not have been, but there is more evidence to suggest that they were. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not surprising that such a conflict arose involving the water company. Often when large transformations occur everyone does not benefit equally. Those who benefit well tend to become the target for those who do not. Typically those who have more money get the upper hand and leave everyone else behind. From what I have seen, systems favor those with money because it benefits from what they are doing in some manner. However, that is not to say that the poorer class was completely the victim either. It seemed that they put themselves in a poor position by trying to gain money from the water company flooding land. The water company may have been acting somewhat selfishly in sending water to larger factories, but that is also how business works. They had to place their time and money where they would be gaining the largest benefit, which that is still how things operate today. Recently in my home town large power lines were placed in the middle of farm lands to provide power to other states. The residents were extremely unhappy and petitioned, but could not compare to the power of the electric company. Citizens have to adapt to the technological and economic changes that occur around them because there does not appear to be many other options.  --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to what was said previously, of course everyone is not going to be happy with the evolution of technology.  A perfect example for today would be everyone ripping music off the internet.  The musicians and record companies are losing so much money over this.  This is causing the record companies to sell more mp3&amp;#039;s than cds and it is killing them where it hurts the most, their wallets. -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Great Falls v. James Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-01-27T04:58:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-document comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A theme I noticed in the Steinberg article and the letters from Harpers Ferry was a disconnection between the owners of the machinery and the workers.  The owners don’t necessarily realize the day-to-day workings of the machine and the demands of the workers, but the workers fail to see big picture ideas.  The tension between the two causes many problems eventually, and this reaction hurts overall production.  In short, industrial capitalism pitted the laborer against the owners of capital. In direct contrast, McGaw mentions that the introduction of the machine forged new bonds between the worker and owner because they both shared a responsibility for mechanization.  My question is can the worker and owner actually bond over this? It seems that those two groups would have different and contrasting motives, which would actually sever any bond, as is suggested in Steinberg’s article and the one on Harper’s Ferry.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
The introduction of new machinery required people of very little skilled labor to operate them.  A young man who had spent his whole life working the fields could enter the armory and earn up to sixty dollars a month.  Needless to say this did not go over well with the rest of the workers at the Musket Factory.  Not only did their skills seem useless but the old ways of working had changed too.  The formerly tolerated abuse of workers coming and going to suit the pleasure of each worker were over.  Workers were now required to work full time and during fixed hours and the masters of the shop kept log books showing the time actually spent working.  Machinery not only changed production but also changed ways of living.&lt;br /&gt;
~Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the Strike at Harpers Ferry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who are Lt. Col Talcott and Jno. C. Spencer?  Talcott appears to run an Armory?  Am I reading correctly that the workers were actually being paid the same amount of money each month, regardless of how much they worked (and in this reading, it sounds as if they could take a week off and still get paid)? Were the workers that went on strike, striking because they were now required to work set hours and their hours would be logged, or was this correspondence written as part of a set of guidelines? - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notes authored by H. K. Craig and Lt. Col. Talcott, regarding workers at the Harpers Ferry Armory during an 1842 strike illustrate the decreasing need for able-bodied workers; indeed, Craig notes that the end of the strike will present “an opportunity of culling our ranks.” (Smith &amp;amp; Clancey 153) With fewer workers necessary, the workforce was increasingly being thinned by management who no need for such a great quantity of workers. The loss in funds from days-long paid absences additionally reinforced the need for a culling of the ranks. -Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notes on Harper&amp;#039;s Ferry Strike seems to point to gross mismanagement of government funds, which still seems to be a problem.  A liaison between workers and management could benefit both parties by organizing the current chaotic work schedules and inserting some type of quality control. As in all business supply and demand will dictate production. That being said it seems like the workers are cutting their own throat by striking. Implementing new processes and manufacturing techniques is progress and the workforce must adapt. Competitions for the few jobs in the armory should provide a very skilled workforce and purge the system of it&amp;#039;s excess baggage. - Matt Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned during the class lecture on Tuesday, the shift of the process of manufacturing goods from being produced one by one via a master craftsman to being mass produced by implementing the American Manufacturing System was not looked upon agreeable by all Americans. Of course those who were most likely to be against the adoption of this manufacturing system were the skilled craftsmen. The correspondence between H.K. Craig and Lt. Col. Talcott, in regards to the Strike at Harper’s Ferry, is a great example of this. In his letter Lt. Col. Talcott outlines the ways of working that the employees at the armory are used to. They worked as it suited them, choosing to be absent or come in at their own convenience. They were also used to working only a few hours and still being paid a good wage. Before the American Manufacturing System caught on this way of working was possible. The craftsmen who had the necessary skills spent many years learning, training in, and perfecting their abilities. To be a master craftsman meant to be in demand, and so a craftsman could work at his own pace and still earn a good wage. However, as seen in Lt. Col. Talcott’s letter under the new system this way of working was no longer possible. An employee only needed to work with one machine and one part of the whole, thus it was entirely possible to get by with unskilled laborers alone.  -Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage for me was quite interesting.  Aside from the beatings that Frederick took, there is an unspoken message about african americans in the work force.  During this time in American history, work was often done by expert craftsmen, which Douglass had to work for.  He spoke of working for four white apprentices, which worked alongside of black craftsmen.  Unfortunately, many white apprentices had ill-feelings with the african american men for taking the jobs of white men.  This passage reminded me of Irish immigrants in 1845 due to the patato famine, and taking the worst jobs in America out of despiration.  Blacks would want to be free even more as a result of how they were treated in the workplace, with the hope that becoming a master craftsman would gain them some respect.  -Patrick K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to Frederick Douglass, I read that article wondering how common it was back then for a &amp;quot;Master&amp;quot; to stand up for their slave and to go as far as to see what could be done about the way Mr Douglass was treated. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most people, I was appalled at reading about the types of working conditions Frederick Douglass faced as he learned his craft as a calker in Baltimore. He claimed to have 75 masters that he had to answer to, often all at once. However, as I thought more about it, I realized that perhaps not much has changed in the American workplace to this very day. Of course, physical assault is no longer permitted and slavery has long since been abolished, but there is still a strong, some would even say intimidating corporate hierarchy that exists in almost any white-collar setting. Douglass expressed his disdain for having to answer to several masters all at once, and how overwhelmed he felt. Is this really so different from the modern day office setting, in which workers lowest on the totem pole have to answer to several different bosses, one in a different and often times higher position than the next? Bosses are no longer able to verbally assault workers in the way Douglass was abused, but there still seems to be polite, as well as subversive discrimination taking place in the white-collar working world. We are now in an era where white people can actually claim that they face “reverse discrimination” due to affirmative action. However, I personally believe that discrimination against females and minorities still exists in the hiring and promotion process, no matter how disguised it may be. We may like to think we have come a long way since the days of Frederick Douglass working in Baltimore, but perhaps there is still much more that can be done to make the workplace a more worker-friendly and less intimidating environment. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beatings and abuse of Frederick Douglas as tragic as they are was a sign of the times. It seems like Mr. Douglas was a decent man trying to improve his stature by working hard and learning new skills. His master rewarded him with a second chance and he grabbed it and he succeeded in making a comfortable life for himself as a slave. He used his skills to contract himself out and do side jobs that helped him gain self-respect. This new found self-respect gave him a glimpse at the freedom he so desired. The battle for respect and upward mobility in society is not always a fair fight. Mr. Douglas&amp;#039;s insight into his current situation seem to ignite his passion for liberty and gave him hope for the future. - Matt Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need for female labor allowed the women to stay at home and still be paid by the paper mills. This kind of phenomenon is completely absent from modern factories. Perhaps the married women took off more often, because their husbands objected to them working. Another theory could be that the married women were expected to be home more often, so they left for months at a time to take care of household things. For example, the piece talks about a sick friend, but maternity leave and sick children could also be to blame.  ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw makes an important point, that there were some jobs that the machines could not manage, which is why female workers were an important, though interchangeable, factor to paper production.  Some of the tasks that women performed that machines could not included, “handling dry paper without wrinkling or tearing some sheets, . . . hand counting . . . and rag processing” (Smith and Clancey 165, 169).  McGaw also makes the claim that, “Continuities in women’s manual labor with dramatic changes in men’s mechanized jobs . . . concluded that God or nature had assigned women their work and that society should not alter it” (Smith and Clancey 167-68).  She also notes that skilled men were competing against machines, but that women’s jobs were “safe” because it was difficult for machines to accomplish their tasks (168).  It is almost as if the lack of skill required for women’s jobs actually provided them with jobs.  The lack of technology brought women into the workforce. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This just shows how far we have come, today this is looked down upon in our society.  &amp;quot;All men are created equal&amp;quot;.  Men of all races can make a living, and sometimes not even be needed to do the work required of them.  With the evolution of technology people can do the work through computers and other resources of technology.  Our world is changing and fast. -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Steinberg, Dam-breaking in the 19th-Century Merrimack Valley ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought that Steinberg made a good example of how not everyone will really be happy about technological development when he discussed farmers’ reaction to dams being built.  Not many of them were pleased with the damns, and it actually hurt their production and property because they are not represented in the workforce that wants a dam, so they get left behind in that development. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A man similar to James Worster was George Young.  Young was very persistent in his resistance to the Lake Company.  He bought land right near the Company’s water source so that he could claim damages against it, though he did not directly claim that as the reason.  He also rented a factory that was powered by the Lake Company.  He claimed that it did not supply ample water power.  Young’s unhappiness led to violence against the dam and resulted in legal proceedings (Steinberg 54-55).  His resistance against the company exemplified the opposition many felt towards the monopoly the company had over the water industry, because as Sara said, the dam ruined a lot of others’ production.  The Lake Company wanted to gain as much control in the society as possible and Worster and Young took a stand against the Company. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There may have been more motivations for the Lake Company to control the water levels then just for the mills in Massachusetts. By flooding the smaller mills and depleting them of water at different times, they destroy the small competition for labor and for textiles. There were few if any anti-trust laws at this time to prevent the mills in Massachusetts from eliminating all competition. Also, by being a separate corporation, it does not appear that the large Lowell mills are behind it. They may not have been, but there is more evidence to suggest that they were. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not surprising that such a conflict arose involving the water company. Often when large transformations occur everyone does not benefit equally. Those who benefit well tend to become the target for those who do not. Typically those who have more money get the upper hand and leave everyone else behind. From what I have seen, systems favor those with money because it benefits from what they are doing in some manner. However, that is not to say that the poorer class was completely the victim either. It seemed that they put themselves in a poor position by trying to gain money from the water company flooding land. The water company may have been acting somewhat selfishly in sending water to larger factories, but that is also how business works. They had to place their time and money where they would be gaining the largest benefit, which that is still how things operate today. Recently in my home town large power lines were placed in the middle of farm lands to provide power to other states. The residents were extremely unhappy and petitioned, but could not compare to the power of the electric company. Citizens have to adapt to the technological and economic changes that occur around them because there does not appear to be many other options.  --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to what was said previously, of course everyone is not going to be happy with the evolution of technology.  A perfect example for today would be everyone ripping music off the internet.  The musicians and record companies are losing so much money over this.  This is causing the record companies to sell more mp3&amp;#039;s than cds and it is killing them where it hurts the most, their wallets. -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Great Falls v. James Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-01-27T04:57:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-document comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A theme I noticed in the Steinberg article and the letters from Harpers Ferry was a disconnection between the owners of the machinery and the workers.  The owners don’t necessarily realize the day-to-day workings of the machine and the demands of the workers, but the workers fail to see big picture ideas.  The tension between the two causes many problems eventually, and this reaction hurts overall production.  In short, industrial capitalism pitted the laborer against the owners of capital. In direct contrast, McGaw mentions that the introduction of the machine forged new bonds between the worker and owner because they both shared a responsibility for mechanization.  My question is can the worker and owner actually bond over this? It seems that those two groups would have different and contrasting motives, which would actually sever any bond, as is suggested in Steinberg’s article and the one on Harper’s Ferry.--Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==&lt;br /&gt;
The introduction of new machinery required people of very little skilled labor to operate them.  A young man who had spent his whole life working the fields could enter the armory and earn up to sixty dollars a month.  Needless to say this did not go over well with the rest of the workers at the Musket Factory.  Not only did their skills seem useless but the old ways of working had changed too.  The formerly tolerated abuse of workers coming and going to suit the pleasure of each worker were over.  Workers were now required to work full time and during fixed hours and the masters of the shop kept log books showing the time actually spent working.  Machinery not only changed production but also changed ways of living.&lt;br /&gt;
~Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the Strike at Harpers Ferry:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Who are Lt. Col Talcott and Jno. C. Spencer?  Talcott appears to run an Armory?  Am I reading correctly that the workers were actually being paid the same amount of money each month, regardless of how much they worked (and in this reading, it sounds as if they could take a week off and still get paid)? Were the workers that went on strike, striking because they were now required to work set hours and their hours would be logged, or was this correspondence written as part of a set of guidelines? - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notes authored by H. K. Craig and Lt. Col. Talcott, regarding workers at the Harpers Ferry Armory during an 1842 strike illustrate the decreasing need for able-bodied workers; indeed, Craig notes that the end of the strike will present “an opportunity of culling our ranks.” (Smith &amp;amp; Clancey 153) With fewer workers necessary, the workforce was increasingly being thinned by management who no need for such a great quantity of workers. The loss in funds from days-long paid absences additionally reinforced the need for a culling of the ranks. -Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The notes on Harper&amp;#039;s Ferry Strike seems to point to gross mismanagement of government funds, which still seems to be a problem.  A liaison between workers and management could benefit both parties by organizing the current chaotic work schedules and inserting some type of quality control. As in all business supply and demand will dictate production. That being said it seems like the workers are cutting their own throat by striking. Implementing new processes and manufacturing techniques is progress and the workforce must adapt. Competitions for the few jobs in the armory should provide a very skilled workforce and purge the system of it&amp;#039;s excess baggage. - Matt Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned during the class lecture on Tuesday, the shift of the process of manufacturing goods from being produced one by one via a master craftsman to being mass produced by implementing the American Manufacturing System was not looked upon agreeable by all Americans. Of course those who were most likely to be against the adoption of this manufacturing system were the skilled craftsmen. The correspondence between H.K. Craig and Lt. Col. Talcott, in regards to the Strike at Harper’s Ferry, is a great example of this. In his letter Lt. Col. Talcott outlines the ways of working that the employees at the armory are used to. They worked as it suited them, choosing to be absent or come in at their own convenience. They were also used to working only a few hours and still being paid a good wage. Before the American Manufacturing System caught on this way of working was possible. The craftsmen who had the necessary skills spent many years learning, training in, and perfecting their abilities. To be a master craftsman meant to be in demand, and so a craftsman could work at his own pace and still earn a good wage. However, as seen in Lt. Col. Talcott’s letter under the new system this way of working was no longer possible. An employee only needed to work with one machine and one part of the whole, thus it was entirely possible to get by with unskilled laborers alone.  -Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This passage for me was quite interesting.  Aside from the beatings that Frederick took, there is an unspoken message about african americans in the work force.  During this time in American history, work was often done by expert craftsmen, which Douglass had to work for.  He spoke of working for four white apprentices, which worked alongside of black craftsmen.  Unfortunately, many white apprentices had ill-feelings with the african american men for taking the jobs of white men.  This passage reminded me of Irish immigrants in 1845 due to the patato famine, and taking the worst jobs in America out of despiration.  Blacks would want to be free even more as a result of how they were treated in the workplace, with the hope that becoming a master craftsman would gain them some respect.  -Patrick K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to Frederick Douglass, I read that article wondering how common it was back then for a &amp;quot;Master&amp;quot; to stand up for their slave and to go as far as to see what could be done about the way Mr Douglass was treated. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most people, I was appalled at reading about the types of working conditions Frederick Douglass faced as he learned his craft as a calker in Baltimore. He claimed to have 75 masters that he had to answer to, often all at once. However, as I thought more about it, I realized that perhaps not much has changed in the American workplace to this very day. Of course, physical assault is no longer permitted and slavery has long since been abolished, but there is still a strong, some would even say intimidating corporate hierarchy that exists in almost any white-collar setting. Douglass expressed his disdain for having to answer to several masters all at once, and how overwhelmed he felt. Is this really so different from the modern day office setting, in which workers lowest on the totem pole have to answer to several different bosses, one in a different and often times higher position than the next? Bosses are no longer able to verbally assault workers in the way Douglass was abused, but there still seems to be polite, as well as subversive discrimination taking place in the white-collar working world. We are now in an era where white people can actually claim that they face “reverse discrimination” due to affirmative action. However, I personally believe that discrimination against females and minorities still exists in the hiring and promotion process, no matter how disguised it may be. We may like to think we have come a long way since the days of Frederick Douglass working in Baltimore, but perhaps there is still much more that can be done to make the workplace a more worker-friendly and less intimidating environment. ~Kevin Gottschalk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beatings and abuse of Frederick Douglas as tragic as they are was a sign of the times. It seems like Mr. Douglas was a decent man trying to improve his stature by working hard and learning new skills. His master rewarded him with a second chance and he grabbed it and he succeeded in making a comfortable life for himself as a slave. He used his skills to contract himself out and do side jobs that helped him gain self-respect. This new found self-respect gave him a glimpse at the freedom he so desired. The battle for respect and upward mobility in society is not always a fair fight. Mr. Douglas&amp;#039;s insight into his current situation seem to ignite his passion for liberty and gave him hope for the future. - Matt Slagle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need for female labor allowed the women to stay at home and still be paid by the paper mills. This kind of phenomenon is completely absent from modern factories. Perhaps the married women took off more often, because their husbands objected to them working. Another theory could be that the married women were expected to be home more often, so they left for months at a time to take care of household things. For example, the piece talks about a sick friend, but maternity leave and sick children could also be to blame.  ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw makes an important point, that there were some jobs that the machines could not manage, which is why female workers were an important, though interchangeable, factor to paper production.  Some of the tasks that women performed that machines could not included, “handling dry paper without wrinkling or tearing some sheets, . . . hand counting . . . and rag processing” (Smith and Clancey 165, 169).  McGaw also makes the claim that, “Continuities in women’s manual labor with dramatic changes in men’s mechanized jobs . . . concluded that God or nature had assigned women their work and that society should not alter it” (Smith and Clancey 167-68).  She also notes that skilled men were competing against machines, but that women’s jobs were “safe” because it was difficult for machines to accomplish their tasks (168).  It is almost as if the lack of skill required for women’s jobs actually provided them with jobs.  The lack of technology brought women into the workforce. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This just shows how far we have come, today this is looked down upon in our society.  &amp;quot;All men are created equal&amp;quot;.  Men of all races can make a living, and sometimes not even be needed to do the work required of them.  With the evolution of technology people can do the work through computers and other resources of technology.  Our world is changing and fast. -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Steinberg, Dam-breaking in the 19th-Century Merrimack Valley ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought that Steinberg made a good example of how not everyone will really be happy about technological development when he discussed farmers’ reaction to dams being built.  Not many of them were pleased with the damns, and it actually hurt their production and property because they are not represented in the workforce that wants a dam, so they get left behind in that development. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A man similar to James Worster was George Young.  Young was very persistent in his resistance to the Lake Company.  He bought land right near the Company’s water source so that he could claim damages against it, though he did not directly claim that as the reason.  He also rented a factory that was powered by the Lake Company.  He claimed that it did not supply ample water power.  Young’s unhappiness led to violence against the dam and resulted in legal proceedings (Steinberg 54-55).  His resistance against the company exemplified the opposition many felt towards the monopoly the company had over the water industry, because as Sara said, the dam ruined a lot of others’ production.  The Lake Company wanted to gain as much control in the society as possible and Worster and Young took a stand against the Company. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There may have been more motivations for the Lake Company to control the water levels then just for the mills in Massachusetts. By flooding the smaller mills and depleting them of water at different times, they destroy the small competition for labor and for textiles. There were few if any anti-trust laws at this time to prevent the mills in Massachusetts from eliminating all competition. Also, by being a separate corporation, it does not appear that the large Lowell mills are behind it. They may not have been, but there is more evidence to suggest that they were. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not surprising that such a conflict arose involving the water company. Often when large transformations occur everyone does not benefit equally. Those who benefit well tend to become the target for those who do not. Typically those who have more money get the upper hand and leave everyone else behind. From what I have seen, systems favor those with money because it benefits from what they are doing in some manner. However, that is not to say that the poorer class was completely the victim either. It seemed that they put themselves in a poor position by trying to gain money from the water company flooding land. The water company may have been acting somewhat selfishly in sending water to larger factories, but that is also how business works. They had to place their time and money where they would be gaining the largest benefit, which that is still how things operate today. Recently in my home town large power lines were placed in the middle of farm lands to provide power to other states. The residents were extremely unhappy and petitioned, but could not compare to the power of the electric company. Citizens have to adapt to the technological and economic changes that occur around them because there does not appear to be many other options.  --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to what was said previously, of course everyone is not going to be happy with the evolution of technology.  A perfect example for today would be everyone ripping music off the internet.  The musicians and record companies are losing so much money over this.  This is causing the record companies to sell more mp3&amp;#039;s than cds and it is killing them where it hurts the most, their wallets. -Jeff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless to the efforts made by James Worster and George Young, and the rest of group of large opposition, the Lake Company still was successful in allowing the factories to in Lowell and Lawrence. Even though this ended up being a failure to those who were against the dams, in the closing statement of the article, Steinberg states, “the opposition to its plans is a reminder of the importance of the struggle over nature to industrial capitalism.” This statement alone shows that technological development will happen regardless of measures that people try to go through prevent it. In building the dams, this advancement in technology was needed to take place, regardless of the fact that it’s natural resources were beneficial to factories located in another state. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Great Falls v. James Worster&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-01-20T05:52:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Thomas Jefferson, Tenche Coxe, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Cooper -- Documents on Factories */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-Document Questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith McGaw -- &amp;quot;So Much Depends...&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw’s theory of technology accessibility in the frontier of Pennsylvania gives serious doubts to the “Independent spirit” that is postulated in Frederick Jackson Turner’s writings in the 1890’s about the frontier. Turner’s belief was that the self-sufficiency of Americans began with and fermented in the frontier, but McGaw’s data shows otherwise. It shows communities with farmers having other farmers process their textiles, grain, and fruits. Was this due to some farmers having the money or wealth to buy the technology to process or was there a division of labor amongst families in the frontier? ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw’s comment that our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted really stood out to me. It’s not just colonial America’s technology that is distorted or stereotyped; we all do this every day with virtually every topic. I once asked a student from Germany to tell me about their history classes, and to them WWII was just a conflict, not a huge war. As far as colonial America is concerned, it’s no wonder we have a distorted view when Disney produces movies like Pocahontas and we all grow up watching them. &lt;br /&gt;
Also, she discusses the artifacts that farmers in colonial America had and comments that many had the means to produce goods, and in fact did produce, but very few had the materials to process these goods. Is it possible that trading, or the beginning of the market system, was in the works? It was probably easier to send all your wool to somebody who was really good at spinning it than to sit in your house and try to become extremely efficient at multiple tasks. If you have neighbors that can cut down on your work, why not utilize them. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also was intrigued by the theory that our image of colonial history, and really any history, is distorted.  McGaw made an interesting point with her references to the poem about the wheelbarrow and chickens in the garden and how we need to actually be able to point to something to say, yes this person had this object.  Her research into inventories seemed like a good place, but I wonder if those are always entirely truthful records.  Are there other places to look at what a person owns? What about inventory or sales records for shops of the time? Another important issue is that all these ownerships can greatly vary by region, even by town.  When she brought up about how farmers may not have necessarily owned their own tools, I thought that it’s important to remember that they likely couldn’t afford all the tools and borrowed from friends and neighbors, so they might have been at least technologically savvy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, one of her example areas was York County, Pennsylvania, which is where I’m from, so that was pretty exciting to read examples from.  I interned at the county museum, and I know we had A LOT of farm tools. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Judith A. McGaw’s writing she explains that even though we had an Industrial Revolution the tools that were being used were still archaic at best.  The frontier was not as advanced as we are led to believe it was.  I found it interesting that not all frontiersman owned guns, while movies and shows make it look like all people during this time had guns.  I wonder how they were able to look after their land without a weapon, or did they make their own too?  I also understand that each area, not just a young America, but the world in general had different types of technology for different actions.  I also noticed from the inventory items that are shown that some of the people thought that some items were worth putting in their inventory and left off the items that were not of value (to each individual importance of items were subject to their discretion or use).  All 3 inventories list books and 2 of the inventories list the Bible, so what they had in common was religion.  Technology took a little while to grow on people, but now we can’t stop.  --Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw’s ideas about our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted was extremely interesting.  While reading her findings and her ideas, I also began to think about technologies we have today whose images have been distorted or made into something bigger than it is.  McGaw’s research “shows that farmers’ possessions reveals that there was no standard array of implements farmers and farm wives owned or needed to own,” (29).  The idea that really stood out to me was the idea of necessity.  Just because a “new” piece of technology was produced doesn’t mean that if fit the lifestyles or the necessities of everyone.  Her research with the counties of Pennsylvania and New Jersey mentions people of different ethnicities and different ways of doing things.  During colonial America people owned new technologies based on their needs and way of living.  Today we buy the latest technology simply because we want it and feel we have to have it.  The iPad for example, looks sweet and awesome, but what is its purpose exactly?  Do people in today’s society REALLY NEED it?&lt;br /&gt;
~Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw&amp;#039;s analysis of historical inventories challenges some of the preconceptions many have about life on the frontier. For one, the notion of the lone farmer tending to his fields and his livestock all by his lonesome is pretty much erased by McGaw&amp;#039;s inventory analysis. This lone frontiersman is a very iconic American image, often romanticized in movies, that seems to have rarely existed. According to McGaw&amp;#039;s research, farmers of the day couldn&amp;#039;t possibly have survived without a community willing to share their tools, resources, and technology with each other. The idea of a self-sufficient farmer, one who grows his own crops, harvests them, and then processes them seems to be somewhat of an American myth rather than actual history. -- Will D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like McGaw’s point that “farmer’s frequent ownership of axes best documents their openness to new land-making technology”(25).  She discusses how barely anyone in the various counties owned axes but then changed their minds and axes became quite prominent.  Another interesting point she makes is, “technological progress is always in the eye of the beholder”(26).  I think this point echoes the idea that last week’s Pursell reading addressed, that newer technology is not always better.  I know that when cell phones became popular, my friends and I were excited. But my parents could not understand why people needed to be in contact with others while shopping, walking to work, or worse, while driving (which is still a bad idea).  So in their minds, they did not see the technological advancement of cell phones as progress.  Over time they have become more open to cell phones, especially since I’ve been away from home, but they were skeptical at first. ~Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Pursell, she mentions &amp;quot;that there was no standard array of household and farm utensils that virtually all colonists owned or needed to own&amp;quot;.  I feel this is still very true to this day.  While my neighbor has every tool known to man it seems, I have what I feel are the basic necessities. We have some of the same tools in common (hammer, shovel, axe, etc.), but I have what my lifestyle requires, and he has what his lifestyle requires. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew&amp;#039;s point about lifestyle is for me the central argument in the McGaw article. She first talks about how we look at technological innovation completely wrong. Where it isn&amp;#039;t just about the plow, but also the farmer who owns the plow. The question we need to ask/analyze is not what was invented and why, but how was it used? Looking through what people owned at that time, provides a look into what people needed to fit that lifestyle. Then we can begin to learn more about what that lifestyle was like. I think after that point she talks about our assumption that people then were technologically self-sufficient.(23) Which according to the data is a false assumption. Because more household had candles than candle molds. The candles were coming from somewhere else, possibly a market of some sort. She bring up various other tools to support this point. Then she turns back to lifestyle, because it was lifestyle which tended to influence what type of tools households owned. She mentioned the Germans in York, influencing the tools the British used, because they were more commonplace. Because someone saw it was being used, they decided to use it too. However, in places which lacked those tools (and Germans apparently) there seemed to be hardly any use of it. So looking into the history of technology is also a study of economy, lifestyle, and communication. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To change the subject somewhat, what particularly struck me was McGaw&amp;#039;s take on frontiersman sort of spearheading the push for industrialization spurred by their technological creativity. Does anyone have a take on this? I have always thought that farmers, ranchers and the like have been looked down upon by &amp;quot;modern&amp;quot; eyes. In truth, they are constantly helping to evolve their industry to make it more efficient, productive and less labor intensive. As jacks-of-all-trades it stands to reason that real genius can be found in their solutions to problems they encounter. One part artist, one part engineer (so why didn&amp;#039;t you get a bonus for choosing a farmer in Oregon Trail?). --JoshW.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGraw&amp;#039;s concern over the lack of cross-disciplinary historical research was very enlightening. Having technological historians only study the plow creates a very narrow view of history which can only be explored so far. Combining that research with research done by, say, and agricultural historian and a commercial historian will paint a much clearer picture of how it was used, who used it and what effect it had on the economy at the time, which can also give us a better picture of where our current economy came from. Her removal of the &amp;quot;pioneering spirit&amp;quot; of the frontier farmer was also interesting. Now knowing that bibles were more scarce than axes and that many &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; inventions created for life on the plains was either engineered out of necessity or was taken from other cultures which had dealt with similar terrain first or simply out of mundane necessity made me wonder what other miss-conceptions there are in our society about our past. - Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading McGaw’s article, I was continually amazed by the simple and seemingly obvious mistakes and misunderstandings which could so simply and easily be made by the historian, and the way in which McGaw illustrated that even amongst data sets such as inventories uncertainty remains: does the lack of a bed listed indicate the lack of a bed, or the fact that the bed was securely attached to the house?&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that individuals of the colonial period employed a mixture of self-sustainment and third-party aide and manufactures much more closely resembles the modern period than the stereotypical colonial “Jack of all Trades” model has and gives much more of a realistic idea of contemporary objects.-Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning reading McGraw’s article, I found the comment, “…secondary literature tells us little about which tools, practices, and knowledge early farmers and farm wives customarily employed.” Up until this year, I was never taught the difference between primary and secondary sources. I found it interesting that looking at ownership of these tools, and inventory lists was the way McGraw approach it to find out what she needed, allowing a direct look at the material content of technology that American commonly employed. I found it interesting that items need greatly at the beginning of the century were completely useless just by the mid-centuries, such as the example of the carts versus a wagon. At first a wagon was looked as a luxury then created into a necessity for the agricultural world. I wonder will items that we use everyday, such as cell phones, become useless by 2050? – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== American Colonial Wealth (Document A) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it so interesting how important it must have been to have one&amp;#039;s property appraised back then. The banking system then was not nearly as sophisticated and having so much ready cash must have been a great liability. Also for the need of dividing up and liquidating an estate it must have been critical, as the appraisals done for deceased persons in the article suggest. What other purposes could appraisals have served? --JoshW.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thomas Jefferson, Tenche Coxe, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Cooper -- Documents on Factories ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite ironic that Thomas Jefferson learned that manufacturing has its uses and its strength as a profitable enterprise. His farms were in ruin, but his nail business did well garnering a profit for him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thomas Jefferson is quite picky. He does not want any manufacturing. He only wants what we would call today in history textbooks “Cottage industry.” He states several times that any family can create their own clothing, but that is false. A $60 carding machine is out of the league of most yeoman farmers in the South.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings by Thomas Jefferson, I think he is ok with the idea of technology, but only out of necessity.  He thought that the usual day to day manufacturing should continue on but to have factories built in America, would make the people unhappy and the government corrupt.  Maybe he had a point??  Tench Coxe was in favor of large scale manufacturing as was Alexander Hamilton.  Thomas Jefferson saw that manufacturing was moving to America and could tell he was still on the fence but the money that it was bringing in was a good thing.  Leo Marx was against the manufacturing and all but called Jefferson a hypocrite.  Jefferson does explain at the beginning in his “Notes on Virginia” that he was for agrarian manufacturing and only taking what we need.  I agree with him there, but due to all the advanced technology it is very difficult to turn away from it, due to advertising. Could Jefferson stand his ground or were there just too many people who were for manufacturing?    --Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting that Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia originally was so opposed to manufacturing advancements. He says, “I doubted whether our labor, employed in agriculture, and aided by the spontaneous energies of the earth, would not procure us more than we could make ourselves of other necessaries” (Smith and Clancey 118).  Jefferson did not want America to become like industrial England and have to face all of the societal problems that accompany industry.  However I think there is a difference between some of the more necessary uses of manufacturing that Jefferson was opposed to and the technological advancements made today.  For example, my friend loves his iPad.  He uses it more than his phone and his laptop combined.  And I admit it is a nice piece of technology.  However, I do not believe that Americans would have really suffered if the iPad had not been invented.  Jefferson was opposed to factories that would create more life essentials, e.g. clothing, metals, grains, etc.  Finally he realized that factories would make America more independent from Europe which was important following the Revolution. ~Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. At first he only believes that large scale manufacturing isn&amp;#039;t needed, then he returns home after being away for 10 years and finds his crops are dying. Thus he must depend on his nail business. I suspect some of his first  thoughts on large scale manufacturing may have been swayed by slavery. Perhaps he foresaw the abolishment of slavery with the abolishment of dependance on agriculture. In any case while he was trying to regenerate his farms with funding from his nail-making business, he says, &amp;quot;My new trade of nail-making is to me &lt;br /&gt;
in this country what an additional title of nobility&amp;quot;(Smith and Clancey 115). Perhaps it was then that he realized that manufacturing their own necessities here in America would make them more independent from other countries. - Matt S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest minds of his time by far, but it is evident from his attitude that he had no idea what technological advances would come.  Then again, he had reason to not want an &amp;quot;industrial age&amp;quot; to happen so soon.  During the 18th century, the land was vast across the thirteen colonies, with people living far away from one another.  Factory systems and mass production only are able to survive in small areas, due to the fact that the product much reach so many people.  Beyond that, agriculture was a sure bet to make money.  If the colonies had switched to Britain&amp;#039;s factory system, nobody would know the outcome.  Here in America, there were vast resources, paired up with cheap land (almost free) and plenty of space to work.  He did not want to become economically challenged like Britian had become, but Jefferson did want to see some technological advancement to show that the colonies were out from the shadow of the former controlling country.  I only wonder how many others viewed Jefferson&amp;#039;s opinion during this time. - Patrick K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to Alexander Hamilton’s “Report of Manufactures” there are three items that represent American manufacturing successfully: scarcity of hands, dearness of labor, &amp;amp; want of capital. At the beginning of this document, Hamilton points out the embarrassment of the current system of external trade, and the necessity of enlarging the sphere of American domestic commerce. In this document Hamilton suggests by doing this, it will add additional employment, the use of machinery, and overall promoting unity in America. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton looked for ways to expand American Capital, while Jefferson preferred to keep American Technology to only necessities. Jefferson believed in the political economists in Europe, where each state would endeavor to manufacture for itself. During this time frame, Americans would only identify themselves by states or even counties rather than which country they are from, giving Americans no form of unity among one another. While I see Jefferson’s point, I have to be on Hamilton’s side because I believe that manufacturing is a possible way for the states to become unified rather than separate. – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leo Marx&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Machine&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the idea of technological expression very interesting – the idea that the type of technology one chooses to own can actually convey aspects of their personality seems to be very relevant to our modern world of infinite technological gadgets we can choose to buy or leave on the shelf. For instance, a person whom doesn’t own a cell phone or a computer might be trying to communicate something to society about their willingness or lack thereof to participate in modern communication practices. The same might go for somebody whom doesn’t own a television; how many people have you ever might who claim to not own a television? Have you ever asked why? The answer always seems to be 1 of 2 things – “I don’t have time to watch TV,” or “TV makes you dumb, feeds your mind with banal pop culture, and I simply don’t choose to indulge in it.” By walking into a home and seeing a person with a record player, they might be trying to show their appreciation of vinyl records, and a taste for retro music equipment. The reading also discussed how Karl Marx believed the Industrial Revolution stripped many skilled artisans and craftsmen of their identity and humanity, as they were replaced by assembly lines and machines. However, does it really matter that so many artisans were reduced to being menial workers? Is it sad? Perhaps. Important? Probably not. Isn’t technology all about efficiency and innovation? Is it really important to maintain trades and crafts that humans have traditionally held for hundreds of years in the face of a greater, more efficient and productive machine? If improving and innovating technology is all about getting the job done better and more quickly, then the answer is a resounding “no.”  --Kevin G.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-01-20T05:52:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Judith McGaw -- &amp;quot;So Much Depends...&amp;quot; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Cross-Document Questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judith McGaw -- &amp;quot;So Much Depends...&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw’s theory of technology accessibility in the frontier of Pennsylvania gives serious doubts to the “Independent spirit” that is postulated in Frederick Jackson Turner’s writings in the 1890’s about the frontier. Turner’s belief was that the self-sufficiency of Americans began with and fermented in the frontier, but McGaw’s data shows otherwise. It shows communities with farmers having other farmers process their textiles, grain, and fruits. Was this due to some farmers having the money or wealth to buy the technology to process or was there a division of labor amongst families in the frontier? ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw’s comment that our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted really stood out to me. It’s not just colonial America’s technology that is distorted or stereotyped; we all do this every day with virtually every topic. I once asked a student from Germany to tell me about their history classes, and to them WWII was just a conflict, not a huge war. As far as colonial America is concerned, it’s no wonder we have a distorted view when Disney produces movies like Pocahontas and we all grow up watching them. &lt;br /&gt;
Also, she discusses the artifacts that farmers in colonial America had and comments that many had the means to produce goods, and in fact did produce, but very few had the materials to process these goods. Is it possible that trading, or the beginning of the market system, was in the works? It was probably easier to send all your wool to somebody who was really good at spinning it than to sit in your house and try to become extremely efficient at multiple tasks. If you have neighbors that can cut down on your work, why not utilize them. --Meagan B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also was intrigued by the theory that our image of colonial history, and really any history, is distorted.  McGaw made an interesting point with her references to the poem about the wheelbarrow and chickens in the garden and how we need to actually be able to point to something to say, yes this person had this object.  Her research into inventories seemed like a good place, but I wonder if those are always entirely truthful records.  Are there other places to look at what a person owns? What about inventory or sales records for shops of the time? Another important issue is that all these ownerships can greatly vary by region, even by town.  When she brought up about how farmers may not have necessarily owned their own tools, I thought that it’s important to remember that they likely couldn’t afford all the tools and borrowed from friends and neighbors, so they might have been at least technologically savvy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, one of her example areas was York County, Pennsylvania, which is where I’m from, so that was pretty exciting to read examples from.  I interned at the county museum, and I know we had A LOT of farm tools. --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Judith A. McGaw’s writing she explains that even though we had an Industrial Revolution the tools that were being used were still archaic at best.  The frontier was not as advanced as we are led to believe it was.  I found it interesting that not all frontiersman owned guns, while movies and shows make it look like all people during this time had guns.  I wonder how they were able to look after their land without a weapon, or did they make their own too?  I also understand that each area, not just a young America, but the world in general had different types of technology for different actions.  I also noticed from the inventory items that are shown that some of the people thought that some items were worth putting in their inventory and left off the items that were not of value (to each individual importance of items were subject to their discretion or use).  All 3 inventories list books and 2 of the inventories list the Bible, so what they had in common was religion.  Technology took a little while to grow on people, but now we can’t stop.  --Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw’s ideas about our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted was extremely interesting.  While reading her findings and her ideas, I also began to think about technologies we have today whose images have been distorted or made into something bigger than it is.  McGaw’s research “shows that farmers’ possessions reveals that there was no standard array of implements farmers and farm wives owned or needed to own,” (29).  The idea that really stood out to me was the idea of necessity.  Just because a “new” piece of technology was produced doesn’t mean that if fit the lifestyles or the necessities of everyone.  Her research with the counties of Pennsylvania and New Jersey mentions people of different ethnicities and different ways of doing things.  During colonial America people owned new technologies based on their needs and way of living.  Today we buy the latest technology simply because we want it and feel we have to have it.  The iPad for example, looks sweet and awesome, but what is its purpose exactly?  Do people in today’s society REALLY NEED it?&lt;br /&gt;
~Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGaw&amp;#039;s analysis of historical inventories challenges some of the preconceptions many have about life on the frontier. For one, the notion of the lone farmer tending to his fields and his livestock all by his lonesome is pretty much erased by McGaw&amp;#039;s inventory analysis. This lone frontiersman is a very iconic American image, often romanticized in movies, that seems to have rarely existed. According to McGaw&amp;#039;s research, farmers of the day couldn&amp;#039;t possibly have survived without a community willing to share their tools, resources, and technology with each other. The idea of a self-sufficient farmer, one who grows his own crops, harvests them, and then processes them seems to be somewhat of an American myth rather than actual history. -- Will D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like McGaw’s point that “farmer’s frequent ownership of axes best documents their openness to new land-making technology”(25).  She discusses how barely anyone in the various counties owned axes but then changed their minds and axes became quite prominent.  Another interesting point she makes is, “technological progress is always in the eye of the beholder”(26).  I think this point echoes the idea that last week’s Pursell reading addressed, that newer technology is not always better.  I know that when cell phones became popular, my friends and I were excited. But my parents could not understand why people needed to be in contact with others while shopping, walking to work, or worse, while driving (which is still a bad idea).  So in their minds, they did not see the technological advancement of cell phones as progress.  Over time they have become more open to cell phones, especially since I’ve been away from home, but they were skeptical at first. ~Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading Pursell, she mentions &amp;quot;that there was no standard array of household and farm utensils that virtually all colonists owned or needed to own&amp;quot;.  I feel this is still very true to this day.  While my neighbor has every tool known to man it seems, I have what I feel are the basic necessities. We have some of the same tools in common (hammer, shovel, axe, etc.), but I have what my lifestyle requires, and he has what his lifestyle requires. - Matthew Beere&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matthew&amp;#039;s point about lifestyle is for me the central argument in the McGaw article. She first talks about how we look at technological innovation completely wrong. Where it isn&amp;#039;t just about the plow, but also the farmer who owns the plow. The question we need to ask/analyze is not what was invented and why, but how was it used? Looking through what people owned at that time, provides a look into what people needed to fit that lifestyle. Then we can begin to learn more about what that lifestyle was like. I think after that point she talks about our assumption that people then were technologically self-sufficient.(23) Which according to the data is a false assumption. Because more household had candles than candle molds. The candles were coming from somewhere else, possibly a market of some sort. She bring up various other tools to support this point. Then she turns back to lifestyle, because it was lifestyle which tended to influence what type of tools households owned. She mentioned the Germans in York, influencing the tools the British used, because they were more commonplace. Because someone saw it was being used, they decided to use it too. However, in places which lacked those tools (and Germans apparently) there seemed to be hardly any use of it. So looking into the history of technology is also a study of economy, lifestyle, and communication. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To change the subject somewhat, what particularly struck me was McGaw&amp;#039;s take on frontiersman sort of spearheading the push for industrialization spurred by their technological creativity. Does anyone have a take on this? I have always thought that farmers, ranchers and the like have been looked down upon by &amp;quot;modern&amp;quot; eyes. In truth, they are constantly helping to evolve their industry to make it more efficient, productive and less labor intensive. As jacks-of-all-trades it stands to reason that real genius can be found in their solutions to problems they encounter. One part artist, one part engineer (so why didn&amp;#039;t you get a bonus for choosing a farmer in Oregon Trail?). --JoshW.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
McGraw&amp;#039;s concern over the lack of cross-disciplinary historical research was very enlightening. Having technological historians only study the plow creates a very narrow view of history which can only be explored so far. Combining that research with research done by, say, and agricultural historian and a commercial historian will paint a much clearer picture of how it was used, who used it and what effect it had on the economy at the time, which can also give us a better picture of where our current economy came from. Her removal of the &amp;quot;pioneering spirit&amp;quot; of the frontier farmer was also interesting. Now knowing that bibles were more scarce than axes and that many &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; inventions created for life on the plains was either engineered out of necessity or was taken from other cultures which had dealt with similar terrain first or simply out of mundane necessity made me wonder what other miss-conceptions there are in our society about our past. - Scott&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading McGaw’s article, I was continually amazed by the simple and seemingly obvious mistakes and misunderstandings which could so simply and easily be made by the historian, and the way in which McGaw illustrated that even amongst data sets such as inventories uncertainty remains: does the lack of a bed listed indicate the lack of a bed, or the fact that the bed was securely attached to the house?&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that individuals of the colonial period employed a mixture of self-sustainment and third-party aide and manufactures much more closely resembles the modern period than the stereotypical colonial “Jack of all Trades” model has and gives much more of a realistic idea of contemporary objects.-Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Beginning reading McGraw’s article, I found the comment, “…secondary literature tells us little about which tools, practices, and knowledge early farmers and farm wives customarily employed.” Up until this year, I was never taught the difference between primary and secondary sources. I found it interesting that looking at ownership of these tools, and inventory lists was the way McGraw approach it to find out what she needed, allowing a direct look at the material content of technology that American commonly employed. I found it interesting that items need greatly at the beginning of the century were completely useless just by the mid-centuries, such as the example of the carts versus a wagon. At first a wagon was looked as a luxury then created into a necessity for the agricultural world. I wonder will items that we use everyday, such as cell phones, become useless by 2050? – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== American Colonial Wealth (Document A) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it so interesting how important it must have been to have one&amp;#039;s property appraised back then. The banking system then was not nearly as sophisticated and having so much ready cash must have been a great liability. Also for the need of dividing up and liquidating an estate it must have been critical, as the appraisals done for deceased persons in the article suggest. What other purposes could appraisals have served? --JoshW.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Thomas Jefferson, Tenche Coxe, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Cooper -- Documents on Factories ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is quite ironic that Thomas Jefferson learned that manufacturing has its uses and its strength as a profitable enterprise. His farms were in ruin, but his nail business did well garnering a profit for him.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thomas Jefferson is quite picky. He does not want any manufacturing. He only wants what we would call today in history textbooks “Cottage industry.” He states several times that any family can create their own clothing, but that is false. A $60 carding machine is out of the league of most yeoman farmers in the South.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings by Thomas Jefferson, I think he is ok with the idea of technology, but only out of necessity.  He thought that the usual day to day manufacturing should continue on but to have factories built in America, would make the people unhappy and the government corrupt.  Maybe he had a point??  Tench Coxe was in favor of large scale manufacturing as was Alexander Hamilton.  Thomas Jefferson saw that manufacturing was moving to America and could tell he was still on the fence but the money that it was bringing in was a good thing.  Leo Marx was against the manufacturing and all but called Jefferson a hypocrite.  Jefferson does explain at the beginning in his “Notes on Virginia” that he was for agrarian manufacturing and only taking what we need.  I agree with him there, but due to all the advanced technology it is very difficult to turn away from it, due to advertising. Could Jefferson stand his ground or were there just too many people who were for manufacturing?    --Pam Petzold&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting that Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia originally was so opposed to manufacturing advancements. He says, “I doubted whether our labor, employed in agriculture, and aided by the spontaneous energies of the earth, would not procure us more than we could make ourselves of other necessaries” (Smith and Clancey 118).  Jefferson did not want America to become like industrial England and have to face all of the societal problems that accompany industry.  However I think there is a difference between some of the more necessary uses of manufacturing that Jefferson was opposed to and the technological advancements made today.  For example, my friend loves his iPad.  He uses it more than his phone and his laptop combined.  And I admit it is a nice piece of technology.  However, I do not believe that Americans would have really suffered if the iPad had not been invented.  Jefferson was opposed to factories that would create more life essentials, e.g. clothing, metals, grains, etc.  Finally he realized that factories would make America more independent from Europe which was important following the Revolution. ~Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite. At first he only believes that large scale manufacturing isn&amp;#039;t needed, then he returns home after being away for 10 years and finds his crops are dying. Thus he must depend on his nail business. I suspect some of his first  thoughts on large scale manufacturing may have been swayed by slavery. Perhaps he foresaw the abolishment of slavery with the abolishment of dependance on agriculture. In any case while he was trying to regenerate his farms with funding from his nail-making business, he says, &amp;quot;My new trade of nail-making is to me &lt;br /&gt;
in this country what an additional title of nobility&amp;quot;(Smith and Clancey 115). Perhaps it was then that he realized that manufacturing their own necessities here in America would make them more independent from other countries. - Matt S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest minds of his time by far, but it is evident from his attitude that he had no idea what technological advances would come.  Then again, he had reason to not want an &amp;quot;industrial age&amp;quot; to happen so soon.  During the 18th century, the land was vast across the thirteen colonies, with people living far away from one another.  Factory systems and mass production only are able to survive in small areas, due to the fact that the product much reach so many people.  Beyond that, agriculture was a sure bet to make money.  If the colonies had switched to Britain&amp;#039;s factory system, nobody would know the outcome.  Here in America, there were vast resources, paired up with cheap land (almost free) and plenty of space to work.  He did not want to become economically challenged like Britian had become, but Jefferson did want to see some technological advancement to show that the colonies were out from the shadow of the former controlling country.  I only wonder how many others viewed Jefferson&amp;#039;s opinion during this time. - Patrick K.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Leo Marx&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Machine&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the idea of technological expression very interesting – the idea that the type of technology one chooses to own can actually convey aspects of their personality seems to be very relevant to our modern world of infinite technological gadgets we can choose to buy or leave on the shelf. For instance, a person whom doesn’t own a cell phone or a computer might be trying to communicate something to society about their willingness or lack thereof to participate in modern communication practices. The same might go for somebody whom doesn’t own a television; how many people have you ever might who claim to not own a television? Have you ever asked why? The answer always seems to be 1 of 2 things – “I don’t have time to watch TV,” or “TV makes you dumb, feeds your mind with banal pop culture, and I simply don’t choose to indulge in it.” By walking into a home and seeing a person with a record player, they might be trying to show their appreciation of vinyl records, and a taste for retro music equipment. The reading also discussed how Karl Marx believed the Industrial Revolution stripped many skilled artisans and craftsmen of their identity and humanity, as they were replaced by assembly lines and machines. However, does it really matter that so many artisans were reduced to being menial workers? Is it sad? Perhaps. Important? Probably not. Isn’t technology all about efficiency and innovation? Is it really important to maintain trades and crafts that humans have traditionally held for hundreds of years in the face of a greater, more efficient and productive machine? If improving and innovating technology is all about getting the job done better and more quickly, then the answer is a resounding “no.”  --Kevin G.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-01-13T04:34:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* Pursell, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Technology&amp;#039;&amp;#039; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== New York Times article/timeline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With regard to the technology in education article, it has been proven in multiple different studies that project or problem-based learning is essential for students. The education system of paper and pencil is obsolete. Why do we no longer send letters, because we have email? Why do we give our students worksheets, because no one wants to break the mold or can do to policy? The design of schools has changed very little since the one-room school houses of the early 20th century. There has been over a hundred years of advancement in technology, but yet students still sit at desks with pencil and paper.  Not only are kids learning a lot outside the classrooms, but also they are experiencing a lot. Students watch TV, they go on walks, they get on the computer, they eat, and they sleep, but do they know why, how, what, who, and when? Are they taking what they learn in the classroom and applying it to the outside world? I doubt students leave math class and see the golden proportions of the Fibonacci sequence in seashells, but scientists do. Cross-curriculum and cross subject education must go beyond the classroom.   Failure-based learning is an odd concept, because it seems almost unrealistic. Yes, not all mistakes are life changing, but you cannot always just hit restart. There must be real circumstances and consequences within these. Oregon trail was the best game at this. Go through the swamp and you may get malaria, but it is faster. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the comparison of the home to a factory interesting.  I hadn&amp;#039;t thought of it in that way before (where homes are where things are produced and reproduced), just as things are done in a factory. While going through the Evolution of Classroom Technology, I sat here thinking for a bit if the iPad could really be the end of the textbook.  Books have been around for hundreds of years and are still in print today, so I can&amp;#039;t really imagine the iPad eventually replacing textbooks. At the end of the day, I will still have books sitting on my shelf that don&amp;#039;t need to be plugged in and recharged. While it may be convenient to have everything in one place, what happens when the battery dies and you have to replace the entire device? - Matt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the concept of the history of technology was well portrayed in “The Evolution of the Classroom.” Classroom technology has truly evolved over the centuries, and it ties well with what Pursell talked about with technology joining, not merely replacing, previous technology.  We still have classrooms that use pointers, slide projectors, blackboards, etc; while that technology has evolved, the previous technology has not necessarily become obsolete.   --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Matt. I feel like books will be around for a long time. After all, they have lasted this long. The kindle and other readers like it might make it easier to own a bunch of texts but I personally like the having the book in my hand rather than read something on the computer. (Sorry trees). One of the earlier slides that mentioned how books might one day be obsolete was from 1925 the film strip projector with a quote from Thomas Edison. It kind of reminded me of other quotes about other inventions like automobiles and tvs being just a fad. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The New York Times article, “The Learning Machines,” was very successful in portraying the development of classroom technology in America, from the hornbook to the laptop and iPad.  As the years have progressed, technology has advanced from print to electronic means of learning.  The article represents one of Pursell’s points that it is important that “Understanding the role of technology in our lives, in the past as in the present and future . . . it is, in fact, largely what we choose to make of it” (Pursell 2).  Some of the devices created in earlier years are still used today, however, they have been modified.  We as a society choose to continue to use blackboards instead of only whiteboards in classrooms despite the fact that the whiteboard is the newer form of technology.  Newer does not always mean better.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the NY Times Timeline, there was over 200 years of a gap showing the evolution of technology from the Horn-Book to the Ferule. While disciplining students though the acts of violence is not accepted by today’s social norms, there has not been an extreme amount of change from the 1890s chalk boards, which are still used in today’s classrooms as an acceptable teaching resource. What I found most interesting was the Magic Lantern in 1870, being similar to overhead projectors. While they are different, I see the Overhead projector as an updated form of technology rather than a completely new form of technology. In my opinion, most basic objects are still used in classrooms, but with proper changes to make them better. Do you think that in 100 years from now that chalk boards- over even white boards will still be used in classrooms? Do you believe that there will be new forms which will completely replace the old technology, or do you believe technologies will evolve over time in order to make them better, thus leading to new technologies? – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pursell, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Technology&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pursell’s introduction to American Technology made the fascinating, and often-overlooked, point that homes and doctor’s offices are also production-based or -fueled areas; the idea of homes being locales at which production regularly occurs coincides with Pursell’s description of the rise of Women’s History. With Women’s History, the actions of women and the stereotypical “sphere of womanhood” are unveiled, studied, and valued; in acknowledging that homes are also locations of production, the actions of women and the importance of those actions are again noted. Doctor’s offices being locations of production also struck me as interesting, because it is only within the past few years that there have begun to be complaints about the perceived “production line”-- very rote--style of care; however, even before patients “lost” their individuality and began to be seen as statistics and numbers (particularly in large clinics and emergency rooms), doctors’ offices were indeed places of production. --Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mistakes that Joseph Corn points out are very interesting, but I’m also failing to see in part why they are mistakes. Yes, we assume that new technology will replace what we currently use because doesn’t it eventually? Record players are still sold in select stores, but they are more expensive than a simple ipod and thus have essentially been replaced. We also assume that technology will only solve problems which I believe stems from ancient times. I think that when humans first began any improvements or instruments that were created were made for a purpose, or to solve problems. Pots were needed to hold food, arrows to kill animals, homes to protect from weather, ect. It is only natural to carry those thoughts forward and apply them to current times. Although everything is changing, humans are generally quite adverse to change and prefer to keep some common threads. --Meagan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the introduction I came away with a few broad questions about the nature of our ever-evolving and improving technology; For instance, despite all of the destruction various technologies have caused since the beginning of time (from axes cutting down forests, to the invention of the pistol, to the atomic bomb) isn&amp;#039;t it fair to say that the technological improvements human beings have created over time have ultimately led to an increased survival rate, increased efficiency and production in the workplace and more personal happiness? People have said that since the creation of social networking sites (tools that are supposed to bring us closer together) personal relationships have actually gotten weaker as we no longer have to rely on actually meeting one another face to face to interact. Is technology really helping us or do we just believe it is? I also couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that technology seems to be a field dominated almost entirely by male inventors - what role have women played in the field of American technology or have men alone made the most advancements in the field? This trend would be somewhat understandable within the social contexts of the early and mid-20th century, but does this trend still exist today? If so, why?     -Kevin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the introduction of Pursell’s book a few things really stuck out to me and made me wonder.  I had a hard time fully comprehending the concept of “technological determinism,” the assumption that technology determines what happens in society.  In respect to the false assumptions that Joseph Corn points out I agree with Meagan that new technology does eventually replaces its elder.  I believe another example of that would be the introduction of DVD, which has almost completely done away with the VHS, and now the Blu-Ray (both DVD and DVD player) is slowly phasing out regular DVD players.  Another part of the introduction that stuck out to me was the small paragraph about “smart” cars and both the good and bad of introducing new technology.  How if we introduced “smart” cars then auto repair shops, insurance companies, and others who benefit from car repairs, are suffer from this new technology.  This concept brought to mind the concept of hybrid cars.  If we introduced all hybrid cars pollution and greenhouse gas emissions would decrease, but the oil and gas companies would suffer because of it.  With this in mind, I wonder how many other new technologies have been created or thought of, and haven’t been produced because of the pros and cons this new technology brings with it?  ~Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting about how one development hurts other industries, as with the example of “smart” cars taking away from repair shops, insurance companies, etc. However, I think we also need to recognize that this isn’t necessarily always a bad thing. In Mike Roche’s example of hybrid cars, if we compare the health and survival of the environment to the oil and gas companies, does it really need to be a negative thing that those companies die out or at least decrease in power? In the end, doesn’t the health of our world outweigh those corporations? It doesn’t seem that this can be the only example where one development has a largely more positive than negative impact. This is something that Pursell touches on a few times, where can we draw the line in technology’s positive and negative impact on social history? --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Pursell reading presents some very interesting points. When reading the first few pages I agreed with the three mistakes made when predicting the future of technology that were pointed out by John Corn. Technology continues to develop, but is the technology actually superior? Is the technology actually a step forward? The author suggests that technology is both good and bad. He points to the example of the axe.  The axe is a tool that certainly helped in the development of our civilization today, however at the same time perhaps it was too efficient a tool. &lt;br /&gt;
The reading made me reflect on something that has been bothering me for awhile, I have to wonder if we as a society are being tricked by the technology/ products that we consume in this day and age. I’ve noticed that the VCR I have had since the age of four has managed to outlive my DVD players. Why is it that the cell phone my parents purchased in the early 2000s has a better battery life and holds up better to being dropped than the cell phone I recently purchased? &lt;br /&gt;
The timeline of technology in the classrooms surprised me. It was strange to see what year a piece of equipment was created and to then try to remember what grade I was in when my classroom actually had the equipment. The interactive whiteboard for example was listed as having been created in 1999, I don’t remember actually coming in contact with one until the beginning of my senior year of high school. &lt;br /&gt;
-Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading the Pursell introduction, and like Matt I also thought about the iPad and the assumption that it will be the &amp;quot;end of the textbook.&amp;quot; Personally, I don&amp;#039;t think it will be the end of the textbook. It is like Matt said, a textbook doesn&amp;#039;t need recharging... whereas an iPad will. That is not to say the iPad won&amp;#039;t have an influence in how we learn, because I think it will. Most likely though it will be through something that isn&amp;#039;t defined yet. Which brings me to the point that really struck me in this reading. Quite early on (page 2) Pursell brings up a couple of assumptions about technology and promptly debunks them. The one that struck me the most was the second one, where we assume the only change that will take place is the replacement of the old with the new. In this case the old being books, and the new being the iPad. Personally, I don&amp;#039;t think the iPad will be the culmination of technology.(I keep holding out for the [http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-04/memory-hacker Brain Chips] to hit the market, which will actually create and solve more problems)  As society grows and changes and faces new problems, the technology will follow. As it has done, for mankind. We create what we need. From something as simple as fire, to something as complex as the iPad. -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pursell claims, “It is not uncommon for the same events to be ‘good’ for some people and ‘bad’ for others at the same time” (8).  He also mentions the development of the atomic bomb.  It is a great advancement in science and technology, yet it is not necessarily always a good advancement.  The United States used it in World War II as a means to catalyze the end of war; so it was beneficial to the Americans.  However, the effects of the bomb on the victims were deadly and more than anyone could have predicted.  It is a powerful weapon and if the wrong people use it (e.g. terrorists), there could be horrific consequences, e.g. nuclear war between countries.  This is where the cultural side to technology plays a role.  A society can choose whether or not to use certain forms of technology.  The existence of a specific technology does not always require utilization.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading through Pursell&amp;#039;s introduction was a pleasure. Its an easy read and successfully makes me not only think about about what she is saying, but also causes me to reflect on how her points are relevent in my life. Her three falacies on page 2 (new tech replaces old, new tech will be only change, new tech will only solve problems) reflect perfectly modern advertising techniques (almost every commercial contains at least 2 of those 3). Her focus on the context of the origins of older technologies, why they were made and how thier viewed by their creators, was fascinating. They builders of the pyramids didn&amp;#039;t think to themselves, &amp;quot;Yeah, these are nice but just wait till next year when when get those new blocks of stone. We can totally renovate these things and really bring them up to date.&amp;quot; Planned obsolescence has only really become a modern mode of thought. I feel like she really &amp;quot;gets&amp;quot; modern society. I really look forward to reading the rest of this book and the sections she included in her book.  -- Scott Birney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the term “Technology Determinism” (meaning technology shaping what happens in society) very interesting because I never looked at technology shaping society in that kind of manner. As I began to think about it when I continued to read, I noticed that technology had a great effect on society, such as the amount of work available for laborers, or changes in other fields of history that help develop new technologies. Depending on your perspective, certain technologies can be viewed as a good or bad thing. Pursell states, “new technologies not only solve problems, they create them as well.” I completely agree with this statement. When was the last time you spent too many hours on the internet looking at useless information when you could have been more productive by doing schoolwork? While the internet is a great resource for us 99% of the time, using facebook only prevents us from other responsibilities. The use of this technology can create a problem if none of your schoolwork is done. What are other examples of technology being a positive and negative factor on society? –Megan Gallagher&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>325--2011--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2011-01-13T04:34:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mgallagh: /* New York Times article/timeline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== New York Times article/timeline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With regard to the technology in education article, it has been proven in multiple different studies that project or problem-based learning is essential for students. The education system of paper and pencil is obsolete. Why do we no longer send letters, because we have email? Why do we give our students worksheets, because no one wants to break the mold or can do to policy? The design of schools has changed very little since the one-room school houses of the early 20th century. There has been over a hundred years of advancement in technology, but yet students still sit at desks with pencil and paper.  Not only are kids learning a lot outside the classrooms, but also they are experiencing a lot. Students watch TV, they go on walks, they get on the computer, they eat, and they sleep, but do they know why, how, what, who, and when? Are they taking what they learn in the classroom and applying it to the outside world? I doubt students leave math class and see the golden proportions of the Fibonacci sequence in seashells, but scientists do. Cross-curriculum and cross subject education must go beyond the classroom.   Failure-based learning is an odd concept, because it seems almost unrealistic. Yes, not all mistakes are life changing, but you cannot always just hit restart. There must be real circumstances and consequences within these. Oregon trail was the best game at this. Go through the swamp and you may get malaria, but it is faster. ~~Kyle Allwine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the comparison of the home to a factory interesting.  I hadn&amp;#039;t thought of it in that way before (where homes are where things are produced and reproduced), just as things are done in a factory. While going through the Evolution of Classroom Technology, I sat here thinking for a bit if the iPad could really be the end of the textbook.  Books have been around for hundreds of years and are still in print today, so I can&amp;#039;t really imagine the iPad eventually replacing textbooks. At the end of the day, I will still have books sitting on my shelf that don&amp;#039;t need to be plugged in and recharged. While it may be convenient to have everything in one place, what happens when the battery dies and you have to replace the entire device? - Matt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the concept of the history of technology was well portrayed in “The Evolution of the Classroom.” Classroom technology has truly evolved over the centuries, and it ties well with what Pursell talked about with technology joining, not merely replacing, previous technology.  We still have classrooms that use pointers, slide projectors, blackboards, etc; while that technology has evolved, the previous technology has not necessarily become obsolete.   --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Matt. I feel like books will be around for a long time. After all, they have lasted this long. The kindle and other readers like it might make it easier to own a bunch of texts but I personally like the having the book in my hand rather than read something on the computer. (Sorry trees). One of the earlier slides that mentioned how books might one day be obsolete was from 1925 the film strip projector with a quote from Thomas Edison. It kind of reminded me of other quotes about other inventions like automobiles and tvs being just a fad. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The New York Times article, “The Learning Machines,” was very successful in portraying the development of classroom technology in America, from the hornbook to the laptop and iPad.  As the years have progressed, technology has advanced from print to electronic means of learning.  The article represents one of Pursell’s points that it is important that “Understanding the role of technology in our lives, in the past as in the present and future . . . it is, in fact, largely what we choose to make of it” (Pursell 2).  Some of the devices created in earlier years are still used today, however, they have been modified.  We as a society choose to continue to use blackboards instead of only whiteboards in classrooms despite the fact that the whiteboard is the newer form of technology.  Newer does not always mean better.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the NY Times Timeline, there was over 200 years of a gap showing the evolution of technology from the Horn-Book to the Ferule. While disciplining students though the acts of violence is not accepted by today’s social norms, there has not been an extreme amount of change from the 1890s chalk boards, which are still used in today’s classrooms as an acceptable teaching resource. What I found most interesting was the Magic Lantern in 1870, being similar to overhead projectors. While they are different, I see the Overhead projector as an updated form of technology rather than a completely new form of technology. In my opinion, most basic objects are still used in classrooms, but with proper changes to make them better. Do you think that in 100 years from now that chalk boards- over even white boards will still be used in classrooms? Do you believe that there will be new forms which will completely replace the old technology, or do you believe technologies will evolve over time in order to make them better, thus leading to new technologies? – Megan Gallagher&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pursell, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Technology&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pursell’s introduction to American Technology made the fascinating, and often-overlooked, point that homes and doctor’s offices are also production-based or -fueled areas; the idea of homes being locales at which production regularly occurs coincides with Pursell’s description of the rise of Women’s History. With Women’s History, the actions of women and the stereotypical “sphere of womanhood” are unveiled, studied, and valued; in acknowledging that homes are also locations of production, the actions of women and the importance of those actions are again noted. Doctor’s offices being locations of production also struck me as interesting, because it is only within the past few years that there have begun to be complaints about the perceived “production line”-- very rote--style of care; however, even before patients “lost” their individuality and began to be seen as statistics and numbers (particularly in large clinics and emergency rooms), doctors’ offices were indeed places of production. --Nicole Steck&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mistakes that Joseph Corn points out are very interesting, but I’m also failing to see in part why they are mistakes. Yes, we assume that new technology will replace what we currently use because doesn’t it eventually? Record players are still sold in select stores, but they are more expensive than a simple ipod and thus have essentially been replaced. We also assume that technology will only solve problems which I believe stems from ancient times. I think that when humans first began any improvements or instruments that were created were made for a purpose, or to solve problems. Pots were needed to hold food, arrows to kill animals, homes to protect from weather, ect. It is only natural to carry those thoughts forward and apply them to current times. Although everything is changing, humans are generally quite adverse to change and prefer to keep some common threads. --Meagan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the introduction I came away with a few broad questions about the nature of our ever-evolving and improving technology; For instance, despite all of the destruction various technologies have caused since the beginning of time (from axes cutting down forests, to the invention of the pistol, to the atomic bomb) isn&amp;#039;t it fair to say that the technological improvements human beings have created over time have ultimately led to an increased survival rate, increased efficiency and production in the workplace and more personal happiness? People have said that since the creation of social networking sites (tools that are supposed to bring us closer together) personal relationships have actually gotten weaker as we no longer have to rely on actually meeting one another face to face to interact. Is technology really helping us or do we just believe it is? I also couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that technology seems to be a field dominated almost entirely by male inventors - what role have women played in the field of American technology or have men alone made the most advancements in the field? This trend would be somewhat understandable within the social contexts of the early and mid-20th century, but does this trend still exist today? If so, why?     -Kevin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the introduction of Pursell’s book a few things really stuck out to me and made me wonder.  I had a hard time fully comprehending the concept of “technological determinism,” the assumption that technology determines what happens in society.  In respect to the false assumptions that Joseph Corn points out I agree with Meagan that new technology does eventually replaces its elder.  I believe another example of that would be the introduction of DVD, which has almost completely done away with the VHS, and now the Blu-Ray (both DVD and DVD player) is slowly phasing out regular DVD players.  Another part of the introduction that stuck out to me was the small paragraph about “smart” cars and both the good and bad of introducing new technology.  How if we introduced “smart” cars then auto repair shops, insurance companies, and others who benefit from car repairs, are suffer from this new technology.  This concept brought to mind the concept of hybrid cars.  If we introduced all hybrid cars pollution and greenhouse gas emissions would decrease, but the oil and gas companies would suffer because of it.  With this in mind, I wonder how many other new technologies have been created or thought of, and haven’t been produced because of the pros and cons this new technology brings with it?  ~Mike Roche&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting about how one development hurts other industries, as with the example of “smart” cars taking away from repair shops, insurance companies, etc. However, I think we also need to recognize that this isn’t necessarily always a bad thing. In Mike Roche’s example of hybrid cars, if we compare the health and survival of the environment to the oil and gas companies, does it really need to be a negative thing that those companies die out or at least decrease in power? In the end, doesn’t the health of our world outweigh those corporations? It doesn’t seem that this can be the only example where one development has a largely more positive than negative impact. This is something that Pursell touches on a few times, where can we draw the line in technology’s positive and negative impact on social history? --Sara Krechel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Pursell reading presents some very interesting points. When reading the first few pages I agreed with the three mistakes made when predicting the future of technology that were pointed out by John Corn. Technology continues to develop, but is the technology actually superior? Is the technology actually a step forward? The author suggests that technology is both good and bad. He points to the example of the axe.  The axe is a tool that certainly helped in the development of our civilization today, however at the same time perhaps it was too efficient a tool. &lt;br /&gt;
The reading made me reflect on something that has been bothering me for awhile, I have to wonder if we as a society are being tricked by the technology/ products that we consume in this day and age. I’ve noticed that the VCR I have had since the age of four has managed to outlive my DVD players. Why is it that the cell phone my parents purchased in the early 2000s has a better battery life and holds up better to being dropped than the cell phone I recently purchased? &lt;br /&gt;
The timeline of technology in the classrooms surprised me. It was strange to see what year a piece of equipment was created and to then try to remember what grade I was in when my classroom actually had the equipment. The interactive whiteboard for example was listed as having been created in 1999, I don’t remember actually coming in contact with one until the beginning of my senior year of high school. &lt;br /&gt;
-Kathleen Mead&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading the Pursell introduction, and like Matt I also thought about the iPad and the assumption that it will be the &amp;quot;end of the textbook.&amp;quot; Personally, I don&amp;#039;t think it will be the end of the textbook. It is like Matt said, a textbook doesn&amp;#039;t need recharging... whereas an iPad will. That is not to say the iPad won&amp;#039;t have an influence in how we learn, because I think it will. Most likely though it will be through something that isn&amp;#039;t defined yet. Which brings me to the point that really struck me in this reading. Quite early on (page 2) Pursell brings up a couple of assumptions about technology and promptly debunks them. The one that struck me the most was the second one, where we assume the only change that will take place is the replacement of the old with the new. In this case the old being books, and the new being the iPad. Personally, I don&amp;#039;t think the iPad will be the culmination of technology.(I keep holding out for the [http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-04/memory-hacker Brain Chips] to hit the market, which will actually create and solve more problems)  As society grows and changes and faces new problems, the technology will follow. As it has done, for mankind. We create what we need. From something as simple as fire, to something as complex as the iPad. -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pursell claims, “It is not uncommon for the same events to be ‘good’ for some people and ‘bad’ for others at the same time” (8).  He also mentions the development of the atomic bomb.  It is a great advancement in science and technology, yet it is not necessarily always a good advancement.  The United States used it in World War II as a means to catalyze the end of war; so it was beneficial to the Americans.  However, the effects of the bomb on the victims were deadly and more than anyone could have predicted.  It is a powerful weapon and if the wrong people use it (e.g. terrorists), there could be horrific consequences, e.g. nuclear war between countries.  This is where the cultural side to technology plays a role.  A society can choose whether or not to use certain forms of technology.  The existence of a specific technology does not always require utilization.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading through Pursell&amp;#039;s introduction was a pleasure. Its an easy read and successfully makes me not only think about about what she is saying, but also causes me to reflect on how her points are relevent in my life. Her three falacies on page 2 (new tech replaces old, new tech will be only change, new tech will only solve problems) reflect perfectly modern advertising techniques (almost every commercial contains at least 2 of those 3). Her focus on the context of the origins of older technologies, why they were made and how thier viewed by their creators, was fascinating. They builders of the pyramids didn&amp;#039;t think to themselves, &amp;quot;Yeah, these are nice but just wait till next year when when get those new blocks of stone. We can totally renovate these things and really bring them up to date.&amp;quot; Planned obsolescence has only really become a modern mode of thought. I feel like she really &amp;quot;gets&amp;quot; modern society. I really look forward to reading the rest of this book and the sections she included in her book.  -- Scott Birney&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mgallagh</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />