Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Rezach10McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:11:50ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_11_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 11 Questions/Comments2011-03-31T04:47:43Z<p>Rezach10: /* Cowan Reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cowan Reading ==<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
"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<br />
<br />
I found this reading interesting, especially the first part that discussed the development of the blood pressure cuff. I think sometimes we forget where things came from and do not consider how things would be if we did not have certain items. It is hard for me to imagine that doctors did not want to use a blood pressure cuff, with one of the reasons being it would take away from the intimacy of the doctor/patient relationship. This exact problem is discussed heavily in the medical field today. The blood pressure cuff appears to be the beginning of medical technology, but is it also perhaps the beginning of a drift away from the doctor/patient relationship? --Meagan B.<br />
<br />
I thought that the part about "Technology and Associated Ideas" was really interesting because it explained when "technology" became "technology" and the prior definition and uses of technology. One quote that really struck me was when Cowan says, "Technology has meaning in relation to gender..." (p. 204) explaining that we think of some technologies as male (primarily industrial) and others as female (primarily domestic). Like Kyle said, we did learn that gender had effects on technology and vice versa. Seeing that gender affects technology, Cowan expands to include it in a greater web, connected to nature, social status, skill, God, and politics. All of these are apart of technology and all have an impact on shaping American technology. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
While reading this passage I thought of all the different opinions people could have about technology in general and the development of technology as a whole. It makes me think of the pros and cons. Technology has become a big part of society. To use the example of the evolution of bombs. It impacted the lives of thousands of people, but in the same aspect it kept order in the world in accordance to the United States. I thought about the different outlooks people could have on this issue. People now realize the impact the development of technology has on others along with ourselves. -Jeff<br />
<br />
== Smith and Clancey documents ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
In Smith & 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<br />
<br />
I thought the suggestion in "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home..." about how if only wives and mothers were to spend a few more dollars on electrically lit things, the husband would want to spend more time at home. When there's electricity, the author implied that the children are more eager to see their father, the house is warmer and more cheerful, and the family is more unified. I think this seems to be an awful lot of importance placed on technology, especially when talking about family relations. However, the essay, a prize-winning one, illuminates how important electricity and the developments that came from it were viewed. With only a little technology, the family has been saved and happiness is restored.<br />
-Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
I found the "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion" part to be very interesting because it supports the idea of efficiency that was so useful in American production. I found it interesting that they were speaking towards women and that they relate industry work to domestic work when they say, "Just as you in your home attempt to find the best way of performing your household duties, so, in industry, were attempt to find the best way of doing things required of us," (p. 363). More American women were beginning to work outside the home and the Colonial Radio Corporation was one of the businesses operating training schools to create a more efficient and useful new labor class. -Claire Brooks<br />
<br />
The section on electricity in the home was a reminder of how technology is constantly advancing and making our lives easier. Electricity supplies us with warmth, a way to preserve our food, light, and just about every leisure activity. What this article reminded me of how different our lives would be without it. Classrooms would not have powerpoint presentations or be able to be used at night. Stores with electricity can stay open hours later in order to sell goods to the public. Places are so reliant on electricity that most stores now have a generator just to keep the store running. --Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
Smith and Clancey’s section titled Colonial Motion Saves Wasted Motion, brought two things to mind. It was interesting to me that they were teaching classes full of women for radio repairs. Tools such as screwdrivers, pliers, soldering operations, and nuts and bolts sound like things we would normally be hearing men work with. The second thing this section brought to me was a concept called Operational Excellence, a department I had an internship with at Philadelphia Coca-Cola one summer. OE'S main objective is to reduce operation cost and wastes, without affecting quality, time delivery and cost of products and services one has to offer. Both Smith and Clancey’s section and the concept of Operational Excellence share to goal of creating a way in which to grain optimal production using the least amount of physical activity. :: Mike Roche::<br />
<br />
The essay on electricity in the home was interesting. When it stated the part about fathers would be more apt to spend more time in the home, children would be more eager to see their fathers, and the family is more unified you can't help but feel like you're reading an advertisement. They did a good job of promoting electricity. Although it may sound a tad far fetched to us now for them back then who were just being introduced to electricity these advantages problem seemed likely. If there was a lot of emphasis placed on family togetherness then this was certainly the route to go.<br />
--Sheri Foster</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments2011-03-24T05:10:38Z<p>Rezach10: /* Video of nuclear blasts */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Pursell article ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Video of nuclear blasts ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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^*#.”<br />
--Mike Roche<br />
<br />
I can'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<br />
<br />
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'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 "flexing their guns" at the one another. - Will D<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn'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<br />
<br />
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 "4". Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don'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<br />
<br />
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'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's civilians. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 10 Questions/Comments2011-03-24T05:07:30Z<p>Rezach10: /* General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Pursell article ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Video of nuclear blasts ==<br />
<br />
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. <br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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^*#.”<br />
--Mike Roche<br />
<br />
I can'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<br />
<br />
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'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 "flexing their guns" at the one another. - Will D<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I thought this was very interesting. Like Meagan, I didn'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<br />
<br />
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 "4". Needless to say she was off by a few...- Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
== General comments about the impact of the atomic bomb ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
I agree with Kyle, I think that people today don'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<br />
<br />
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'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's civilians. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
In my opinion more worse than good has come to the world due to the creation of the atom bomb. - Matthew Slagle<br />
<br />
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.</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 8 Questions/Comments2011-03-10T04:44:49Z<p>Rezach10: /* Venus Green */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Christine Kleinegger ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Based on some of the letters written to the Farmer'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.<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Venus Green ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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'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's judgement as a whole, which shows how society'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's role in the workplace. It is baffling how the interviewee in the section had no facts about African American women's intelligence, but thought it was fair to treat his workers the way he did. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_8_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 8 Questions/Comments2011-03-10T04:43:12Z<p>Rezach10: /* Christine Kleinegger */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Christine Kleinegger ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Based on some of the letters written to the Farmer'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.<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Venus Green ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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'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's judgement as a whole, which shows how society'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's role in the workplace. It is baffling how the interviewee in the section had no facts about African American women's intelligence, but thought it was fair to treat his workers the way he did. -Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
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</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments2011-02-17T01:10:21Z<p>Rezach10: /* Electricity and the City -- Great White Way */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South. The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==<br />
<br />
<br />
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them. Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit. With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceieved safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
In regards to Meagans comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off. There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
To add to Sara's point I would tend to agree that the general safety of electricity has increased in regard to city lighting. There are many positives when thinking about what good lighting can do in a heavily populated city. This could lead to less car accidents and possible crime. Back home in New Jersey, I grew up in a city where there was a decent amount of crime. The lighting at night definitely helps in regard to crime. Civilians could spot out a crook a lot easier for police. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==<br />
<br />
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==<br />
<br />
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer. Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete? These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased. The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity. However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today. Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
<br />
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==<br />
<br />
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people. You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special. Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society. As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either. What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). <br />
>>> Mike Roche<br />
<br />
"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation. So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times". This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage. -Jeff R.</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 6 Questions/Comments2011-02-17T01:05:40Z<p>Rezach10: /* Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The reading from last week discussing how nations and people view levels of civilization through a lens of technology is supported or enhanced by Nye’s discussion of the World’s Fair. In a walled off section, there was an electricity display with lights. From this point onward, all civilization would be judged based upon whether or not it was lit up at night by Edison’s innovations. In other parts of the fair, they had displays of less civilized people, such as Natives, Mexicans, and Blacks in the Old South. The bar of civilization has been raised.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
== Electricity and the City -- Great White Way ==<br />
<br />
<br />
An important element of the introduction of electricity that I think we need to talk about is the greatly increased safety of them. Because gas lights were not as bright and tended to flicker, crime was rampant in the streets, even if those streets were lit. With the introduction of the electrically lit streets, the streets were more consistently and evenly lit, so even if the streets were not necessarily safer, at least the perceived safety has increased. --Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
Going off of Sara's point, I think that electricity did increase perceieved safety. I don't think it actually helped with crime rates. If someone is going to commit a crime they're going to find a way to do it whether its dark or not. However, the fact that people could see a little better gave them some confidence and safety, even if it wasn't actually safer. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
I also found it fascinating that electricity and lights played such an important role in the entertainment aspect of society. Of course today most of us decorate in some fashion with holiday lights, but I did not realize that this was going on so early. The idea of the basis of fairs being the best lighted exhibition baffles me. We still have these fairs today, and they are still fairly common, but it's hard to believe that the focus was once electricity. --Meagan B. <br />
<br />
In regards to Meagans comment about the role electricity played in society, I too found it a bit fascinating that once electricity and lights came into play, it seemed that life and everything else just took off. There was no stopping it and once it was fully embraced, the world at the time was never going to be the same. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
== Electricity and transportation -- Crosstown Transfer ==<br />
<br />
Westinghouse had an electric car in 1901? This is quite interesting. According to a little online research, there were many other automobile companies testing electric automobiles, almost one hundred. It is interesting how the best technology does not always win or rather, what we conceive as the best technology. Had electricity and the storage of electricity been more feasible at the time, electric automobiles may have won the technological selection process and modern times would be quite different.~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
== Electricity and Rural America -- Rural Lines==<br />
<br />
This reading also brings up the interesting discussion of the affect of electricity in rural america. As it would be expected, it took much longer for the electric lines and technologies to reach rural america. I believe it has less to do with an unwilling culture and more to do with the lack of private corporations that saw the spread out Midwest and South as feasible markets. ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
An interesting point that Nye brought up in his analysis of rural electrification is the question of what will this do to the farmer. Now that many of the jobs that used to take him and his hired hands hours or days to do can be shortened to a few minutes work, will farming as a profession become obsolete? These fears were certainly justified in those times, but I think the point that softens the blow of this is that farmers’ productivity was merely increased, and greatly. The time it took to do one job, and the number of hands required to do so decreased. The introduction of electricity to the farm may have made the farmers’ job a little easier, and we have certainly seen over the years that a small unit of farmers can have an even higher productivity. However, I think it might be worthwhile to examine the numbers of how many people were farmers at that time compared to what it was 20 or 30 years after rural electrification, or even today. Perhaps those jobs have been lost, but there was a shift in how the country, and world, gets its food, so the cultural and economic dynamic had to change.--Sara Krechel<br />
<br />
<br />
== Building the Electrical System -- What Was Electricity? ==<br />
<br />
In reading the section between pages 182-184, electricity was different things to different people. You have the middle class people that saw it as a new way of life and something special. Reading about the construction of the dams and how they didn't take into consideration flood control or irrigation, it seemed that some of the bigger corporations were taking advantage of this new found technology and were only in it to make a quick profit, instead of looking at the big picture. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
In reading Nye pages 182-184, the electric system was an instant hit with the general public, contrary to what we can say about the early clocks in American society. As the electric system was perfected, the private utilities could produce power more cheaply and wider than public distributers, although connections with Westinghouse, General Electric, and the National Electric Light Association didn’t hurt either. What I found most interesting was the general impression of the electric system which “was one of utopian expectation, viewing electricity not as a commodity but as an enlivening ‘juice’ that could rejuvenate the nervous system and free mankind from toil,” (pg 182). <br />
>>> Mike Roche<br />
<br />
"Corporations were acting with foresight, singleness of purpose and vigor to control the water power of the country". So is Roosevelt saying that in regards to dams being built, it would have been possible to manage without dams? After reading more and more of the passage the book goes on to say "water resources often were developed without regards for needs other than power generation. So there was not even a thought? Or was it just to "keep up with the times". This was an interesting thought that I had after reading the rest of the passage. -Jeff R.</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 5 Questions/Comments2011-02-10T03:01:00Z<p>Rezach10: /* Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I agree with everything above but I also noticed the brief mention of "Nine tenths are American born." It struck me as rather odd. On one hand it shows the reluctance in accepting immigrants; on the other hand I would'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.<br />
<br />
This article interested me in the sense the jobs that women had. Doing the "smaller" 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.<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
"Machines and equations, or their absence, were themselves indicators of the level of development a given society had attained" (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, "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" (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 "civilized" and "savage, primitive" 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 "technology," technology is considered to be "the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective" (wikipedia). In this way, technological innovation really did measure the advancement of a civilization. -Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
== Overall comments on primary source readings in Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
== Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
To add to Sara'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's society. -Jeff R.<br />
<br />
== Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping, 1913 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== James O’Connell – 1911 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1913 Watertown arsenal’s striking workers’ petition to end Taylorism ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1939 textbook on scientific management ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Satires about efficiency system – Henry Mitchell, Penobscot Indian, 1938 & 1930's tale of “Highpockets” in Chicago ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Prof. Frank T. Carlton criticizes Taylorism for what? – 1914 ==<br />
<br />
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</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 5 Questions/Comments2011-02-10T02:57:23Z<p>Rezach10: /* Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I agree with everything above but I also noticed the brief mention of "Nine tenths are American born." It struck me as rather odd. On one hand it shows the reluctance in accepting immigrants; on the other hand I would'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.<br />
<br />
This article interested me in the sense the jobs that women had. Doing the "smaller" 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.<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men, 221-232 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
"Machines and equations, or their absence, were themselves indicators of the level of development a given society had attained" (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, "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" (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 "civilized" and "savage, primitive" 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 "technology," technology is considered to be "the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective" (wikipedia). In this way, technological innovation really did measure the advancement of a civilization. -Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
== Overall comments on primary source readings in Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
== Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
== Christine Frederick, The New Housekeeping, 1913 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== James O’Connell – 1911 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1913 Watertown arsenal’s striking workers’ petition to end Taylorism ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1939 textbook on scientific management ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Satires about efficiency system – Henry Mitchell, Penobscot Indian, 1938 & 1930's tale of “Highpockets” in Chicago ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Prof. Frank T. Carlton criticizes Taylorism for what? – 1914 ==<br />
<br />
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</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 4 Questions/Comments2011-02-03T03:18:25Z<p>Rezach10: /* Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work? A Study of Industrial Accidents” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Danly, RR in American Art ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<< Mike R. >><br />
<br />
McEvoy's take on the relationship between the people that work, and the technologies they operate interested me. He states that it is a "complex,dynamic, exological one that entails elements of sociology and ideology as well as the more direct impacts of technology on worker health". 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.<br />
<br />
== Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work? A Study of Industrial Accidents” ==<br />
<br />
Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I think Bower'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's example, and it seems the only thing thats improved factory conditions is the threat of being sued by injured workers. Seems like it's still a pretty broken system. - Will D.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
These examples of injuries intrigued me. I felt like I was watching that show "100 ways to die". To add to Matthew'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's lack of common sense. I know it sounds terrible but thats just ridiculous.-Jeff R.</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 4 Questions/Comments2011-02-03T03:18:09Z<p>Rezach10: /* Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work? A Study of Industrial Accidents” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Danly, RR in American Art ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<< Mike R. >><br />
<br />
McEvoy's take on the relationship between the people that work, and the technologies they operate interested me. He states that it is a "complex,dynamic, exological one that entails elements of sociology and ideology as well as the more direct impacts of technology on worker health". 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.<br />
<br />
== Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work? A Study of Industrial Accidents” ==<br />
<br />
Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I think Bower'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's example, and it seems the only thing thats improved factory conditions is the threat of being sued by injured workers. Seems like it's still a pretty broken system. - Will D.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
These examples of injuries intrigued me. I felt like I was watching that show "100 ways to die". To add to Matthew'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's lack of common sense. I know it sounds terrible but thats just ridiculous.</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 4 Questions/Comments2011-02-03T03:12:53Z<p>Rezach10: /* Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Danly, RR in American Art ==<br />
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<br />
<br />
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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
== Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety” ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<< Mike R. >><br />
<br />
McEvoy's take on the relationship between the people that work, and the technologies they operate interested me. He states that it is a "complex,dynamic, exological one that entails elements of sociology and ideology as well as the more direct impacts of technology on worker health". 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.<br />
<br />
== Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work? A Study of Industrial Accidents” ==<br />
<br />
Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I think Bower'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's example, and it seems the only thing thats improved factory conditions is the threat of being sued by injured workers. Seems like it's still a pretty broken system. - Will D.<br />
<br />
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</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 3 Questions/Comments2011-01-27T03:24:39Z<p>Rezach10: /* Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-document comments ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==<br />
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.<br />
~Mike Roche<br />
<br />
Regarding the Strike at Harpers Ferry:<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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 & 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<br />
<br />
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In regards to Frederick Douglass, I read that article wondering how common it was back then for a "Master" 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<br />
<br />
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 <br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
This just shows how far we have come, today this is looked down upon in our society. "All men are created equal". 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<br />
<br />
== Steinberg, Dam-breaking in the 19th-Century Merrimack Valley ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== ''Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster'' ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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's than cds and it is killing them where it hurts the most, their wallets. -Jeff<br />
<br />
== ''Great Falls v. James Worster'' ==</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 3 Questions/Comments2011-01-27T03:22:15Z<p>Rezach10: /* ''Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-document comments ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<br />
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==<br />
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.<br />
~Mike Roche<br />
<br />
Regarding the Strike at Harpers Ferry:<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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 & 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<br />
<br />
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In regards to Frederick Douglass, I read that article wondering how common it was back then for a "Master" 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<br />
<br />
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 <br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Steinberg, Dam-breaking in the 19th-Century Merrimack Valley ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== ''Winnipisiogee Lake Company v. Worster'' ==<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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's than cds and it is killing them where it hurts the most, their wallets. -Jeff<br />
<br />
== ''Great Falls v. James Worster'' ==</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_1_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 1 Questions/Comments2011-01-19T01:59:54Z<p>Rezach10: /* Pursell, ''American Technology'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>== New York Times article/timeline ==<br />
<br />
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_%28video_game%29] was the best game at this. Go through the swamp and you may get malaria, but it is faster.''' ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
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. <br />
-Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
'''iPad vs. Books'''<br />
<br />
I found the comparison of the home to a factory interesting. I hadn'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'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'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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Matt about the iPad replacing textbooks, I honestly don't think that it could really happen. I personally hate reading off of the computer and absolutely prefer to have a book in front of me. But even looking at evolving technologies such as the chalkboard, the whiteboard, the smart/interactive board, they all have had an enormous impact on student learning. Yet as a response to Megan, I don't think that chalk boards will be around, possibly whiteboards, yet I don't really think of whiteboards as a replacement of chalkboard. They both have the same purpose, the whiteboard just evolved from the chalkboard. Also, if we think of the ferule (pointer), the laser pointer was evolved from that as well, both being used for the same purpose, yet models of the ferule can be seen still today. So I think that technologies evolve to make old ones better. -Claire B.<br />
<br />
The inventions listed were items that we do not think about everyday as even important anymore. I agree with Megan on the fact that years from now many of the items on this list will not be used often at all. Most students in college for instance use a laptop over pen and paper, and the chalkboard is very rarely used as powerpoint presentations have grown in popularity. I am not saying that they do not carry any importance, but they are not the first choice of use by students and/or teachers. As technology advances, the classroom itself will evolve in an attempt to make the lives of the students and teachers easier. I personally think that it is only a matter of time before the ipad does actually replace text books, or laptops replace using pen and paper, or the projection screen is used on a blank wall without a blackboard. Technology will continue to develop as long as the society that we live in wants the most effecient way to learn in the classroom. - Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading about the idea of “The evolution of the classroom.” '''Among many other things, technology has had a large impact on the classroom. We basically have access to any information imaginable with just a click of a button right inside of our schools.''' When presented with the question of whether or not the ipad will replace books I would have to disagree. Although technology has greatly influenced the ways in which we learn we have still clung to traditional ways and ideas in our school system. I believe tradition will have a voice in the ipad vs. book scenario as well. We have available to us now mechanisms in which we can have all of our reading materials on other devices, however we also tend to hold very tight to our traditions. '''I don’t think any technology will ever entirely replace certain things in our lives. There’s just something about “sitting down with a good book” that an ipad doesn’t quite match up to.''' While it may be convenient to have our entire world stored in a screen that can be accessed with a click, technology also presents problems as well, such as battery life and what might happen if the device broke, etc. We must also consider the idea of funding. While change and evolution can be positive we must consider that there are other things in our school system we should be putting money into rather than revising things that don’t need it. An old saying comes to mind, “Don’t fix it if it’s not broken.” ''' Surely students wouldn’t be expected to own an ipad to replace a book and schools can’t possibly purchase an ipad for every student.''' In addition, discipline and lack of attention would have to become a problem when students have access to so many other things that will take away from their educational experience. These are just a few things to consider when debating this technological evolution inside of the classroom. -Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
Why would it not be possible for ipads to replace textbooks? It has already started with other books. The "Kindle" is a new invention that is similar to the ipad in the fact that it enables readers to read right from the device. Although it does not have all of the applications that the ipad has, it still allows the reader to go and download a specific book and have it available to them on the kindle for a small price. It also could save tons of time, by that I mean while people are waiting online at the bookstore or waiting for a book to arrive in the mail, one can just simply download the necessary textbook. I disagree with Claire's statement that it could not happen. Americans today are obsessed with simplifying different situations. Online shopping instead of going out to a store, online banking, etc. Technology is changing in its ability to make lives easier. -Jeff<br />
<br />
== Pursell, ''American Technology'' ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Corn's mistakes or fallacies'''<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Pursell makes a lot of good points throughout his introduction, touching on the good vs. bad of technology depending on who's using it, and the improvements to everyday life. Pursell cites Joseph Corn's beliefs that people follow believe three fallacies in regards to their understanding of development of technology and it's impact in America. Corn claims that all three of the fallacies (total revolution, social continuity, technological fix) many people tend to believe are "false", claiming that new technologies join rather than replace older technology. However, some of these improvements contradict Corn's fallacy of technological fix. Take medicine for example, outbreaks of smallpox or measles used to devastate communities. However, one day science discovered a cure and boom. Problem solved. This is true in some circumstances, however almost all technology becomes obsolete and is replaced contrary to the Corn's fallacy of total revolution, such as Kathleen's example of the VCR. -Will<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Pursell introduction, and like Matt I also thought about the iPad and the assumption that it will be the "end of the textbook." Personally, I don't think it will be the end of the textbook. It is like Matt said, a textbook doesn't need recharging... whereas an iPad will. That is not to say the iPad won't have an influence in how we learn, because I think it will. Most likely though it will be through something that isn'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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading through Pursell'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't think to themselves, "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." Planned obsolescence has only really become a modern mode of thought. I feel like she really "gets" modern society. I really look forward to reading the rest of this book and the sections she included in her book. -- Scott Birney<br />
<br />
'''What is the history of the history of technology?'''<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how in the introduction Pursell made a point to show how different types of history (ex. social & cultural) all are incorporated within the history of technology itself. This is able to show how technology has had an impact on America. One of the quotes that I found pretty intriguing was at the beginning in reference to technology, "History does not determine our future, but it provides us with both the material and the understanding with which we built that future" (p. 1). The future is not determined from what technology we already have, but it does shape what our futures could be. -Claire B <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Is technology good? Bad? A wash?'''<br />
<br />
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'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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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. '''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? -Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I feel that technology is good for our society. It proves that our society is growing stronger. I bet that people from hundreds of years ago would be amazed with the steps that our society has made in technology. Take this class for example, our class participation grade is based on logging into this blog and commenting on a discussion. I am not sure about my fellow classmates, but I would much prefer to comment through wiki than have to write a paper to hand in. As I stated in my previous comment technology simplifies our lives for the best. We are able to make our stressful lives easier. As times change and our generation grows older, technology will only grow stronger.<br />
-Jeff<br />
<br />
'''Rethinking technology and production'''<br />
<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Technology Determinism'''<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I also agree with Megan G. about technological determinism. I did not think that technology could ever determine what will happen in society, but I already did think that society could determine technology, as society will create what they need in order to survive. When Pursell mentioned advertising in relation to technological determinism I began to understand the concept and continuing on about job availability. -Claire B<br />
<br />
The 3 key mistakes that Joseph Corn used are very true. I like technology just as much as the next guy, but you would think that picking up a phone and dialing somebody’s number to speak with them over the phone would be easier and faster than to text them. Cell phones have become personal impersonal devices. I also believe that people wait for the latest and greatest items so they can “keep up with” society and their environment. I also believe that the manufactures are there to make money and replacing older versions of items with new and improved technological items is a cycle. What would we all do without cell phones or even computers now? I also find it interesting that Steinberg said that “the enrichment of a few at the expense of many.” This is still true today because not everyone can afford the best technology, but there are so many people in the world that it does not matter who can afford it and who cannot. Christine Kleinegger also suggested that mechanization was “contentious, contingent and heavily gendered”. Toward men or women? Both genders were working in factories and on the farm, but women were also working in the home. According to the author, Pursell, women managed complicated technological systems. From cooking dinner (which we now have microwaves and convention ovens) to washing dishes (automatic dishwashers), women were using technology gendered or not it assisted them and it shows no sign of slowing. Will there be an end to what we can do with technology, and when that happens where will we look next? --Pam Petzold</div>Rezach10https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--2011--Week_1_Questions/Comments325--2011--Week 1 Questions/Comments2011-01-19T01:50:34Z<p>Rezach10: /* New York Times article/timeline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== New York Times article/timeline ==<br />
<br />
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_%28video_game%29] was the best game at this. Go through the swamp and you may get malaria, but it is faster.''' ~~Kyle Allwine<br />
<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
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. <br />
-Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
'''iPad vs. Books'''<br />
<br />
I found the comparison of the home to a factory interesting. I hadn'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'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'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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Matt about the iPad replacing textbooks, I honestly don't think that it could really happen. I personally hate reading off of the computer and absolutely prefer to have a book in front of me. But even looking at evolving technologies such as the chalkboard, the whiteboard, the smart/interactive board, they all have had an enormous impact on student learning. Yet as a response to Megan, I don't think that chalk boards will be around, possibly whiteboards, yet I don't really think of whiteboards as a replacement of chalkboard. They both have the same purpose, the whiteboard just evolved from the chalkboard. Also, if we think of the ferule (pointer), the laser pointer was evolved from that as well, both being used for the same purpose, yet models of the ferule can be seen still today. So I think that technologies evolve to make old ones better. -Claire B.<br />
<br />
The inventions listed were items that we do not think about everyday as even important anymore. I agree with Megan on the fact that years from now many of the items on this list will not be used often at all. Most students in college for instance use a laptop over pen and paper, and the chalkboard is very rarely used as powerpoint presentations have grown in popularity. I am not saying that they do not carry any importance, but they are not the first choice of use by students and/or teachers. As technology advances, the classroom itself will evolve in an attempt to make the lives of the students and teachers easier. I personally think that it is only a matter of time before the ipad does actually replace text books, or laptops replace using pen and paper, or the projection screen is used on a blank wall without a blackboard. Technology will continue to develop as long as the society that we live in wants the most effecient way to learn in the classroom. - Patrick Kramer<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading about the idea of “The evolution of the classroom.” '''Among many other things, technology has had a large impact on the classroom. We basically have access to any information imaginable with just a click of a button right inside of our schools.''' When presented with the question of whether or not the ipad will replace books I would have to disagree. Although technology has greatly influenced the ways in which we learn we have still clung to traditional ways and ideas in our school system. I believe tradition will have a voice in the ipad vs. book scenario as well. We have available to us now mechanisms in which we can have all of our reading materials on other devices, however we also tend to hold very tight to our traditions. '''I don’t think any technology will ever entirely replace certain things in our lives. There’s just something about “sitting down with a good book” that an ipad doesn’t quite match up to.''' While it may be convenient to have our entire world stored in a screen that can be accessed with a click, technology also presents problems as well, such as battery life and what might happen if the device broke, etc. We must also consider the idea of funding. While change and evolution can be positive we must consider that there are other things in our school system we should be putting money into rather than revising things that don’t need it. An old saying comes to mind, “Don’t fix it if it’s not broken.” ''' Surely students wouldn’t be expected to own an ipad to replace a book and schools can’t possibly purchase an ipad for every student.''' In addition, discipline and lack of attention would have to become a problem when students have access to so many other things that will take away from their educational experience. These are just a few things to consider when debating this technological evolution inside of the classroom. -Sheri Foster<br />
<br />
Why would it not be possible for ipads to replace textbooks? It has already started with other books. The "Kindle" is a new invention that is similar to the ipad in the fact that it enables readers to read right from the device. Although it does not have all of the applications that the ipad has, it still allows the reader to go and download a specific book and have it available to them on the kindle for a small price. It also could save tons of time, by that I mean while people are waiting online at the bookstore or waiting for a book to arrive in the mail, one can just simply download the necessary textbook. I disagree with Claire's statement that it could not happen. Americans today are obsessed with simplifying different situations. Online shopping instead of going out to a store, online banking, etc. Technology is changing in its ability to make lives easier. -Jeff<br />
<br />
== Pursell, ''American Technology'' ==<br />
<br />
'''Joseph Corn's mistakes or fallacies'''<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
Pursell makes a lot of good points throughout his introduction, touching on the good vs. bad of technology depending on who's using it, and the improvements to everyday life. Pursell cites Joseph Corn's beliefs that people follow believe three fallacies in regards to their understanding of development of technology and it's impact in America. Corn claims that all three of the fallacies (total revolution, social continuity, technological fix) many people tend to believe are "false", claiming that new technologies join rather than replace older technology. However, some of these improvements contradict Corn's fallacy of technological fix. Take medicine for example, outbreaks of smallpox or measles used to devastate communities. However, one day science discovered a cure and boom. Problem solved. This is true in some circumstances, however almost all technology becomes obsolete and is replaced contrary to the Corn's fallacy of total revolution, such as Kathleen's example of the VCR. -Will<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Pursell introduction, and like Matt I also thought about the iPad and the assumption that it will be the "end of the textbook." Personally, I don't think it will be the end of the textbook. It is like Matt said, a textbook doesn't need recharging... whereas an iPad will. That is not to say the iPad won't have an influence in how we learn, because I think it will. Most likely though it will be through something that isn'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'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<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading through Pursell'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't think to themselves, "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." Planned obsolescence has only really become a modern mode of thought. I feel like she really "gets" modern society. I really look forward to reading the rest of this book and the sections she included in her book. -- Scott Birney<br />
<br />
'''What is the history of the history of technology?'''<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how in the introduction Pursell made a point to show how different types of history (ex. social & cultural) all are incorporated within the history of technology itself. This is able to show how technology has had an impact on America. One of the quotes that I found pretty intriguing was at the beginning in reference to technology, "History does not determine our future, but it provides us with both the material and the understanding with which we built that future" (p. 1). The future is not determined from what technology we already have, but it does shape what our futures could be. -Claire B <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Is technology good? Bad? A wash?'''<br />
<br />
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'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'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<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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. '''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? -Kathleen Mead<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
'''Rethinking technology and production'''<br />
<br />
'''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<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Technology Determinism'''<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
I also agree with Megan G. about technological determinism. I did not think that technology could ever determine what will happen in society, but I already did think that society could determine technology, as society will create what they need in order to survive. When Pursell mentioned advertising in relation to technological determinism I began to understand the concept and continuing on about job availability. -Claire B<br />
<br />
The 3 key mistakes that Joseph Corn used are very true. I like technology just as much as the next guy, but you would think that picking up a phone and dialing somebody’s number to speak with them over the phone would be easier and faster than to text them. Cell phones have become personal impersonal devices. I also believe that people wait for the latest and greatest items so they can “keep up with” society and their environment. I also believe that the manufactures are there to make money and replacing older versions of items with new and improved technological items is a cycle. What would we all do without cell phones or even computers now? I also find it interesting that Steinberg said that “the enrichment of a few at the expense of many.” This is still true today because not everyone can afford the best technology, but there are so many people in the world that it does not matter who can afford it and who cannot. Christine Kleinegger also suggested that mechanization was “contentious, contingent and heavily gendered”. Toward men or women? Both genders were working in factories and on the farm, but women were also working in the home. According to the author, Pursell, women managed complicated technological systems. From cooking dinner (which we now have microwaves and convention ovens) to washing dishes (automatic dishwashers), women were using technology gendered or not it assisted them and it shows no sign of slowing. Will there be an end to what we can do with technology, and when that happens where will we look next? --Pam Petzold</div>Rezach10 Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38