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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=Smarren25McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:16:41ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-26T03:28:12Z<p>Smarren25: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought it was interesting to read the memoir by Charles Sorensen and then to have that followed by Charles Madison’s description of his service to the Ford assembly line. The first memoir talked about the assembly line in terms of its great achievement in the field of manufacturing and production and proclaims at the end “Under this system man is not a slave to the machine, he is slave without it.” And after reading about Charles Madison’s experience, I’m sure he would stand to disagree. After moving from job to job in search of better pay and a better working experience, he finally decided to rid himself of the deceptive promises that Ford made to its workers and commit to the Dodge factory. It shows a real contrast between the two perspectives. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I too thought that it was interesting; however, unlike Madison I would not disagree. Just by going off of what Dr. McClurken said in class on Tuesday of the rapid pace in which automobiles were being produced after the invention and adjustments were made to the assembly line. To think that anyone would disagree with the methods of the assembly lines and the speedy way in which it produced equipment is just insane. Who wouldn't want to make a car in 93 minutes instead of seven days? Not only did the assembly line help mass produce cars, it also helped during the wartime effort and has proved vital ever since the Model T.--Marren<br />
<br />
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I saw the reading on "The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States" quite interesting because it really outlined how the car was viewed in terms of usefulness. I would have figured that the rural areas would have accepted and adapted the car not as something fun but a means to connect them to more people to be social and improve their way of life by being able to have some of those things that can only be found in a city. Aislyn<br />
<br />
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Nye 133-137 Nye's article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. "[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode." (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle in terms of comparing today's technology with the 1920s; however, I would disagree with the fact that Ford wanted his automobiles to be affordable and even encouraged his workers to buy a car for their family. In other words what I am trying to say is the car was a way to close the social gaps created by finances in the 1920s and cars seemed to be more affordable then where as in today's society it is not the fact that you have a car in which you are judged on but rather what type of car. The same goes for other sorts of technology (I-phones, IPODS, computers, etc.)--Marren<br />
<br />
Nye's article was a good one because he does illustrate the growing gap of the social classes during the 1920's. Not for nothing I can see the gap between the social classes in the 21st century with all sorts of technology.It shows a gap in financial gaps, as well as social classes, and geographic areas are seperated, so the car as well as many others seperate and have a huge impact of life. Aislyn <br />
<br />
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn't realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - "The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired..." (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn't it be nice if people could still use the words "cheap" and "new car parts" in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle<br />
<br />
I was really impress by how the new technologies made the car parts as well as the cars cheaper so that more American could afford them. This really seemed like the one way that new technology was available to most. Yet there were some places and groups that were excluded from being able to purchase the cars. Today it seems that the new technologies are only available to the select few. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle<br />
<br />
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the "zone system of payment," which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
Social Reconstruction- The "anti-auto crusade" discussed in the beginning of the article is very entertaining. The laws, such as the one from Vermont that "required a person to carry a red flag and walk ahead of the car," and the personal attacks on motorists in states all over the country surprised me and made me think about all of the opposition new technology takes (i.e.electricity). I also found it interesting that one law addressed scaring carriage horses. My horse absolutely hates cars and almost kicked his foot through a driver's side window when someone sped past us, so I can only imagine what those horses thought of the weird machinery. Funny how opposition can be seen in politics, social settings, and the environment.--Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's "My Life and Work, 1929". In it, Ford describes the process of developing the ideas behind the Model T, as well as the execution of its production. Throughout its development, you can clearly see the ideas of previous American inventors embedded in the creation of the Model T. Eli Whitney and John Hall's systems of interchangeable parts, the American System of Manufacturing, and Taylor's Scientific Management are all ideas utilized by Ford to create the Model T. - Lon<br />
<br />
Reading about Henry Ford's "My Life and Work" was good because through out the reading I saw how he improved on the ideas of others, which is a good thing. I am not at all a fan of Henry Ford because what I have learned in another class. As a person he was not so good, but what he accomplished for industry was wonderful. Aislyn<br />
The 15 year old girl's essay "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family" is a clear demonstration of how electricity and electrical appliances effectively changed American's day to day lives. It is also an example of how people saw electricity not only as a technological development, but progress for society overall. Fern Van Bramer asserts that through electricity, Americans can now enjoy both happier, and efficient lives. For Van Bramer, the past is literally seen in the dark, while the future is flooded with light and warmth. - Lon<br />
<br />
<br />
The encyclopedia article from 1926 about mass production seems to be informative, but perhaps skeptical? The article first explains what mass production is, “the focusing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed”. Next, the article lists the effects of mass production on society:<br />
1. Increase in industrial control, as distinguished from financial control<br />
2. Highest standard of quality ever attained in output of great quantities. <br />
3. Wide variety of single-purpose machines.<br />
4. The physical load is lifted off men and placed on machines. <br />
Finally, the article makes an interesting ending argument about the need for skilled labor. It seems almost out of place! The article states, “the need for skilled and creative genius is greater under mass production than without it,” then goes on to say, “it has been debated whether there is less or more skills as a consequence of mass production. The present writer’s opinion is that there is more”. Based off of this, I get the feeling that the encyclopedia was almost trying to cover their butt. As we have discussed in class, the rise of mass production meant the decline in skilled workers. It seems as though the author of this article knew this too, but was reluctant to say it. Rather, the argument was justified by a generalization/opinion that in modern times, every field of work requires knowledge and responsibility. Does this suggest that there is no longer a distinction between skilled and unskilled workers? Everyone is just a worker? And what does that mean for the worker? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay, How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family, to be hilarious! The argument of this prizewinning essay states, “if more wives and mothers would only understand that money spent in beautifying their homes is the truest form of economy, fewer fathers and sons would be paying for the bright lights in unwholesome places”. The argument is that light from electricity would motivate men to come home rather than go to “unwholesome places” which allure them solely based off of their bright lights! Rather, Women should embrace electricity so the men can come home to them where they can have a home cooked meal waiting! Very indicative of the time, did people really buy into this!? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
When we learn about Henry Ford and his development of the assembly line and how it brought a lot of progress to American manufacturing it is easy to forget the common people working in the factories. In "Detroit Motors" by Edmund Wilson, a man named Bert describes his experiences working for Ford. The workers are forced to work very long hours, have very short lunch breaks and are kept in a constant fear of loosing their jobs. It seems that in an effort to maximize production not much attention was given to those doing the actual work. This shouldn't be a very big surprise however, since employee rights wasn't considered even a possibility at that point. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Charles Madison's Seven Years of Automotive Servitude also helps to bring to light how Ford's advertisers got the best of many seeking work in his factories. When Charles tried to get a job under the $5-$7/day system he was surprised to learn that it came with fine print. Its kind of a shame that he didn't stay in the drafting room as he could have worked his way up but just like my brother he quit and later came crawling back. The juxtaposition of the harsh "hell" like conditions of Ford and the nicer, slower Dodge are interesting. Ford, being a way more popular company in terms of sales, shows how one can't be nice and slow to get ahead in any industry. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found the passage from Henry Ford's autobiography, "My Life and Work, 1929," very interesting because Ford describes the development of the Model T and assembly line manufacturing process as scientific. Ford's research team made it their goal to reduce the amount of time that it took one to complete a given task. They valued production, and to some degree worker comfort, enough to repeatedly shut down operations in order to make tasks easier. It's interesting to note that while Ford paid his workers well and allowed them the mobility they desired in switching jobs, he was adamant that work had to be done by the book or else the factory would descend into utter chaos. While it may be true that some people legitimately preferred to not have to think while working, it seems unlikely that unskilled work satisfied every factory worker. After all, Ford himself claimed that he could never do the jobs of his employees. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The document on "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion, 1934" is a good example of how the notion of unskilled, assembly line labor permeated all venues of American industry after Ford adopted the principles. It was clever of the company to show its female employees that using the assembly fixtures and improved bins greatly increased their production while reducing the amount of energy they exerted in their work. Did other companies and industries use similar tactics in training their employees in not only how to do their work, but in "proving" that their way was so much better than thinking for one's self? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
There’s a lot to be said about Henry Ford, but let’s keep it simple. He was pretty much a jerk. His autobiography certainly shows some of these jerkass qualities. The fact that he was terrified of repetitive labor himself but imposed it on his workers says a lot. He seemed to believe that being a creative man made him unsuitable for that kind of work, while the ordinary working majority actually <i>craved</i> a job without physical or mental exertion. Also, Ford may have offered his employees high wages, and he may have given jobs to immigrants and African Americans, but there were so many strings attached before anyone got anything. For instance, before being accepted for the Five Dollar Day plan, Ford’s Sociological Department first investigated workers at home. The department encouraged the “right” way of life, which included good morals, sobriety, family values, etc. The department also aimed for the Americanization of immigrants. For instance, it was required that they speak English at all times. With his Sociological Department, Ford expanded control over his laborers from the workplace only over into their personal lives. There was a reason Hitler considered this fellow a hero. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how amateur involvement with the radio actually led to government restriction. The federal government didn’t have much of a place in quickly consolidated technological systems like electricity and telephony. What was the reason that large companies didn’t consolidate radio technology and stations right away? Why were amateurs allowed to become so involved and knowledgeable in radio technology? Even young boys were encouraged to make their own, despite the interference that they could cause on commercial and navy stations. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's account of how things went down in the assembly plants and then reading Charles Sorensen's account of the assembly line. The impression that Ford's article made for me was that he was the main thinker for the changes that we made to accommodate to the efficiency of the assembly line so that mass production would work to the best of its ability; while Sorensen's article explained that the idea of the assembly line was taken from previous ways of moving pieces to work on and that the ideas were a joint effort. "[Ford] was glorified as the originator of the mass production idea. Far from it; he just grew into it, like the rest of us" (321). -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Another thing that I found interesting was Ford's insistence that the average worker could work mind numbing activities day in and day out and be alright with it only because they didn't want to move up in the hierarchy that is job positions. I found the points that he made about the workers in the factory were belittling. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was in the passage by Henry Ford titled "My Life and Work," he writes "the parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buy new ones than to have old ones repaired." The cars he was building would not last forever and would inevitably need repairs or replacements. He made it cheaper to buy new parts, so customers would buy new parts from Ford instead of going to a repair shop. Even after a person purchased a car, the company could still make money from the sale of replacement parts. This demonstrates Ford's shrewd business skills because he was guaranteeing the success of the company. -- Karen Siegmund</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_10_Questions/Comments325--Week 10 Questions/Comments2009-03-26T03:23:08Z<p>Smarren25: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought it was interesting to read the memoir by Charles Sorensen and then to have that followed by Charles Madison’s description of his service to the Ford assembly line. The first memoir talked about the assembly line in terms of its great achievement in the field of manufacturing and production and proclaims at the end “Under this system man is not a slave to the machine, he is slave without it.” And after reading about Charles Madison’s experience, I’m sure he would stand to disagree. After moving from job to job in search of better pay and a better working experience, he finally decided to rid himself of the deceptive promises that Ford made to its workers and commit to the Dodge factory. It shows a real contrast between the two perspectives. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I too thought that it was interesting; however, unlike Madison I would not disagree. Just by going off of what Dr. McClurken said in class on Tuesday of the rapid pace in which automobiles were being produced after the invention and adjustments were made to the assembly line. To think that anyone would disagree with the methods of the assembly lines and the speedy way in which it produced equipment is just insane. Who wouldn't want to make a car in 93 minutes instead of seven days? Not only did the assembly line help mass produce cars, it also helped during the wartime effort and has proved vital ever since the Model T.--Marren<br />
<br />
“The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” explored how people adapted to technology in terms how they saw it to be most useful. The car began to be used for a lot more uses than transportation from place to place. So much so, that it became indistinguishable from other pieces of farming technology in rural areas. I was somewhat surprised that the automobile wasn’t readily adapted in the rural areas, especially since the conception is that rural farms are the most isolated and distanced from the expansions in the cities, including technology and access to consumer goods and department stores. On a side note (addressing some of the legislation aimed at preventing the use cars), the image of cars driving behind people waving red flags in Vermont is slightly entertaining. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I saw the reading on "The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States" quite interesting because it really outlined how the car was viewed in terms of usefulness. I would have figured that the rural areas would have accepted and adapted the car not as something fun but a means to connect them to more people to be social and improve their way of life by being able to have some of those things that can only be found in a city. Aislyn<br />
<br />
From the selection of readings about technological acculturation, I liked the prizewinning essay. I never would have guessed that it was written by a 15 year old. It is suppose to portray what the effects of electricity were on the family in the early 20th century. However, it more shows how the electric company wanted people to think about the effects of electricity. Since it was a contest, people were writing in and describing images of electricity in the home in ways that they thought would be positive for the company (it’s one of those, tell them what you think they want to hear, even if you disagree). Given the prompt was to write about how it “adds to the happiness of the family” obviously people are going to take it a certain direction. I would only wonder how the essays were published in the original sources, was it explained as an essay aimed to address this particular prompt? Or was it used as more of an advertising tool? To suggest something like “see, even the children see a more positive family dynamic, so if you’re not going to do it for yourself, do it for your children…” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Nye 133-137 Nye's article describes the growing gap between the social classes during the 1920s. "[T]he automobile had created a gap between those who drove and those who rode." (133) I find that more and more, new technologies are for the privileged not for all Americans. Thinking about it today - who has the new I-phone? The people who can afford it. Basically new technology does intensify the awareness of who can afford what new gadget (for today, and apparently in the 1920s as well). --Elle<br />
<br />
Nye's article was a good one because he does illustrate the growing gap of the social classes during the 1920's. Not for nothing I can see the gap between the social classes in the 21st century with all sorts of technology.It shows a gap in financial gaps, as well as social classes, and geographic areas are seperated, so the car as well as many others seperate and have a huge impact of life. Aislyn <br />
<br />
My Life and Work, 1929 - Henry Ford The way that Ford describes the Model T is somewhat disturbing to me. Simplicity being the key - I didn't realize a car could run with only 4 main parts - he may be oversimplifying for us (undoubtedly), but the intentions of car producers and marketers has definitely shifted. Imagine if this statement were still true today - "The parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buyy new ones than to have old ones repaired..." (315) Maybe I am just a little bitter about some recent car problems, but wouldn't it be nice if people could still use the words "cheap" and "new car parts" in the same sentence? The assembly line came up several times too and all I could think about was the dis-assembly line (euw). -- Elle<br />
<br />
I was really impress by how the new technologies made the car parts as well as the cars cheaper so that more American could afford them. This really seemed like the one way that new technology was available to most. Yet there were some places and groups that were excluded from being able to purchase the cars. Today it seems that the new technologies are only available to the select few. -- Kellye S<br />
<br />
Full Social History of American Technology - There is definitely a trend that new technology tends to deskill the laborers involved with the old process. For example - the sphygmomanometer vs. the finger - some felt that by adding this new technology, it was taking away from the importance of fine-tuning skills learned to be a doctor. While this is true (in my opinion) it also makes the profession more technical and standardized - which helps everyone in the long run. --Elle<br />
<br />
The short Nye reading was really interesting to me because it showed the political sociological, and economic reasons for the rise of the automobile. One reason that stuck out for me was the fact that riders did not accept the "zone system of payment," which Europeans used (134). Why Europeans like it but not Americans. Anyway, the reading described more about why one piece of technology is chosen over another and specifically discussed the automobile. Just another reason to not believe technological determinism. --Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
Social Reconstruction- The "anti-auto crusade" discussed in the beginning of the article is very entertaining. The laws, such as the one from Vermont that "required a person to carry a red flag and walk ahead of the car," and the personal attacks on motorists in states all over the country surprised me and made me think about all of the opposition new technology takes (i.e.electricity). I also found it interesting that one law addressed scaring carriage horses. My horse absolutely hates cars and almost kicked his foot through a driver's side window when someone sped past us, so I can only imagine what those horses thought of the weird machinery. Funny how opposition can be seen in politics, social settings, and the environment.--Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's "My Life and Work, 1929". In it, Ford describes the process of developing the ideas behind the Model T, as well as the execution of its production. Throughout its development, you can clearly see the ideas of previous American inventors embedded in the creation of the Model T. Eli Whitney and John Hall's systems of interchangeable parts, the American System of Manufacturing, and Taylor's Scientific Management are all ideas utilized by Ford to create the Model T. - Lon<br />
<br />
Reading about Henry Ford's "My Life and Work" was good because through out the reading I saw how he improved on the ideas of others, which is a good thing. I am not at all a fan of Henry Ford because what I have learned in another class. As a person he was not so good, but what he accomplished for industry was wonderful. Aislyn<br />
The 15 year old girl's essay "How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family" is a clear demonstration of how electricity and electrical appliances effectively changed American's day to day lives. It is also an example of how people saw electricity not only as a technological development, but progress for society overall. Fern Van Bramer asserts that through electricity, Americans can now enjoy both happier, and efficient lives. For Van Bramer, the past is literally seen in the dark, while the future is flooded with light and warmth. - Lon<br />
<br />
<br />
The encyclopedia article from 1926 about mass production seems to be informative, but perhaps skeptical? The article first explains what mass production is, “the focusing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed”. Next, the article lists the effects of mass production on society:<br />
1. Increase in industrial control, as distinguished from financial control<br />
2. Highest standard of quality ever attained in output of great quantities. <br />
3. Wide variety of single-purpose machines.<br />
4. The physical load is lifted off men and placed on machines. <br />
Finally, the article makes an interesting ending argument about the need for skilled labor. It seems almost out of place! The article states, “the need for skilled and creative genius is greater under mass production than without it,” then goes on to say, “it has been debated whether there is less or more skills as a consequence of mass production. The present writer’s opinion is that there is more”. Based off of this, I get the feeling that the encyclopedia was almost trying to cover their butt. As we have discussed in class, the rise of mass production meant the decline in skilled workers. It seems as though the author of this article knew this too, but was reluctant to say it. Rather, the argument was justified by a generalization/opinion that in modern times, every field of work requires knowledge and responsibility. Does this suggest that there is no longer a distinction between skilled and unskilled workers? Everyone is just a worker? And what does that mean for the worker? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the essay, How Electricity Effects Economy in the Home and Adds to the Happiness of the Family, to be hilarious! The argument of this prizewinning essay states, “if more wives and mothers would only understand that money spent in beautifying their homes is the truest form of economy, fewer fathers and sons would be paying for the bright lights in unwholesome places”. The argument is that light from electricity would motivate men to come home rather than go to “unwholesome places” which allure them solely based off of their bright lights! Rather, Women should embrace electricity so the men can come home to them where they can have a home cooked meal waiting! Very indicative of the time, did people really buy into this!? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
When we learn about Henry Ford and his development of the assembly line and how it brought a lot of progress to American manufacturing it is easy to forget the common people working in the factories. In "Detroit Motors" by Edmund Wilson, a man named Bert describes his experiences working for Ford. The workers are forced to work very long hours, have very short lunch breaks and are kept in a constant fear of loosing their jobs. It seems that in an effort to maximize production not much attention was given to those doing the actual work. This shouldn't be a very big surprise however, since employee rights wasn't considered even a possibility at that point. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Charles Madison's Seven Years of Automotive Servitude also helps to bring to light how Ford's advertisers got the best of many seeking work in his factories. When Charles tried to get a job under the $5-$7/day system he was surprised to learn that it came with fine print. Its kind of a shame that he didn't stay in the drafting room as he could have worked his way up but just like my brother he quit and later came crawling back. The juxtaposition of the harsh "hell" like conditions of Ford and the nicer, slower Dodge are interesting. Ford, being a way more popular company in terms of sales, shows how one can't be nice and slow to get ahead in any industry. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found the passage from Henry Ford's autobiography, "My Life and Work, 1929," very interesting because Ford describes the development of the Model T and assembly line manufacturing process as scientific. Ford's research team made it their goal to reduce the amount of time that it took one to complete a given task. They valued production, and to some degree worker comfort, enough to repeatedly shut down operations in order to make tasks easier. It's interesting to note that while Ford paid his workers well and allowed them the mobility they desired in switching jobs, he was adamant that work had to be done by the book or else the factory would descend into utter chaos. While it may be true that some people legitimately preferred to not have to think while working, it seems unlikely that unskilled work satisfied every factory worker. After all, Ford himself claimed that he could never do the jobs of his employees. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The document on "Colonial Radio Saves Wasted Motion, 1934" is a good example of how the notion of unskilled, assembly line labor permeated all venues of American industry after Ford adopted the principles. It was clever of the company to show its female employees that using the assembly fixtures and improved bins greatly increased their production while reducing the amount of energy they exerted in their work. Did other companies and industries use similar tactics in training their employees in not only how to do their work, but in "proving" that their way was so much better than thinking for one's self? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
There’s a lot to be said about Henry Ford, but let’s keep it simple. He was pretty much a jerk. His autobiography certainly shows some of these jerkass qualities. The fact that he was terrified of repetitive labor himself but imposed it on his workers says a lot. He seemed to believe that being a creative man made him unsuitable for that kind of work, while the ordinary working majority actually <i>craved</i> a job without physical or mental exertion. Also, Ford may have offered his employees high wages, and he may have given jobs to immigrants and African Americans, but there were so many strings attached before anyone got anything. For instance, before being accepted for the Five Dollar Day plan, Ford’s Sociological Department first investigated workers at home. The department encouraged the “right” way of life, which included good morals, sobriety, family values, etc. The department also aimed for the Americanization of immigrants. For instance, it was required that they speak English at all times. With his Sociological Department, Ford expanded control over his laborers from the workplace only over into their personal lives. There was a reason Hitler considered this fellow a hero. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how amateur involvement with the radio actually led to government restriction. The federal government didn’t have much of a place in quickly consolidated technological systems like electricity and telephony. What was the reason that large companies didn’t consolidate radio technology and stations right away? Why were amateurs allowed to become so involved and knowledgeable in radio technology? Even young boys were encouraged to make their own, despite the interference that they could cause on commercial and navy stations. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Henry Ford's account of how things went down in the assembly plants and then reading Charles Sorensen's account of the assembly line. The impression that Ford's article made for me was that he was the main thinker for the changes that we made to accommodate to the efficiency of the assembly line so that mass production would work to the best of its ability; while Sorensen's article explained that the idea of the assembly line was taken from previous ways of moving pieces to work on and that the ideas were a joint effort. "[Ford] was glorified as the originator of the mass production idea. Far from it; he just grew into it, like the rest of us" (321). -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Another thing that I found interesting was Ford's insistence that the average worker could work mind numbing activities day in and day out and be alright with it only because they didn't want to move up in the hierarchy that is job positions. I found the points that he made about the workers in the factory were belittling. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
One thing I found striking was in the passage by Henry Ford titled "My Life and Work," he writes "the parts could be made so cheaply that it would be less expensive to buy new ones than to have old ones repaired." The cars he was building would not last forever and would inevitably need repairs or replacements. He made it cheaper to buy new parts, so customers would buy new parts from Ford instead of going to a repair shop. Even after a person purchased a car, the company could still make money from the sale of replacement parts. This demonstrates Ford's shrewd business skills because he was guaranteeing the success of the company. -- Karen Siegmund</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_6_Questions/Comments325--Week 6 Questions/Comments2009-02-19T04:13:11Z<p>Smarren25: </p>
<hr />
<div>I’ll just start off by saying: I don’t think I’ve ever actually spent that much time thinking about light. When I first starting reading, I thought the whole book was going to be about light. In that regard, I think it would have been helpful to have read the introduction or the first chapter to get a better feel for the book (which I ended up skimming anyways). But with that said, at first I found it surprising that the discussion of light didn’t really mention the practicality of it at all, in terms of its impact on individual households and daily life, but rather a phenomenon that changed the way cities attracted populations and drew attention to itself through the lighting of streets, buildings, and advertisements. It also discussed how it altered the landscape of cities in general and how this was reflected in the paintings and photos of the cities during the night. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
On the same topic of practicality - I didn't even think about the entertainment aspect of light. When the first reading started off with talking about special lighting effects in theater I felt surprised that that would be one of the first international uses for it. Then, as the first long reading continued I was interested by the fact that electricity was really first promoted and advertised at world fairs. This plays to the business aspect of electricity but also the reading indicated that there was a certain expectation for every year's fair to be more spectacular and awe-inspiring than the last. Another non-practical use that seemed to be a main focus for the early years of electricity. – Elle<br />
<br />
The author did get in to how electricity affected daily life, but it wasn’t until it reached the rural areas in the 1930’s that the discussion takes this turn. It allowed for appliances in households and ended up increasing the length of the day because people weren’t depending as much on the natural day and night hours mandated by the sun rise and set. But I wasn’t really surprised that the rural areas were of the last affected by electricity. And the author brought up an interesting point when he described the opposition of electricity in rural areas because of how much it would interfere with the natural order of the farms, in terms of how the daily life of the farm could be managed, and how it could lead to a whole new character of farm life. I guess I just never really thought of electricity with a negative connotation as something that would be considered an “interruption.” –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
These are all great points brought up, I think we forget how dependent we are on electricity. I remember when I was growing up in Buffalo we had an ice storm and no power for like 9 days. Thankfully at the time we had a gas stove so it did not affect us as bad as others. However, it is the little things like that, which we forget about. To add to Jessica's point about farming, it gave farmers longer hours which meant they could do more work in the fields during the day light, and work in the barns at night time and early morning, so electricity proved to be vital on farms.--Marren<br />
<br />
I have always known that electricity was important to our everyday lives, but I honestly never realized to what extent it affected and impacted the daily lives of people in late 1800s and early 1900s. The political impact of electricity at this time seemed really significant because it would decide how centralized and unified electric systems would become. Who would control the new system; and where would it be located, public or private lands, were both major concerns of Americans. Most importantly was that electricity helped to define progress, something that the majority of Americans wanted. It really amazed me all the considerations that were part of bringing electricity to America.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the reading was great, because to me it showed that America was not first to use "lighting" for things (unless I read it wrong)and it seemed much of our ideas came from Europe. Light was a luxury for such a long time I always wondered when it became a "necessity" rather than something for a small group of people. I was also found it interesting how farmers were being looked at differently.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found reading about how there was much debate on private and government controlled generator plants. Also the ideas over water power/dams was interesting. My favorite part was reading about how advertising for specific people, and how much of a manipulation it was and of course still is these days. The impact light had on workers, industry, arts, etc is just amazing to me. Electric in general or electric light is something we take for granted now, what would we do if we did not have it anymore? Would we be able to adapt to it? I am not sure if we really could manage.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
Commenting on the same article that Aislyn did above (pg 182-184), I realized I don't even think about where my electricity comes from. Now-a-days our electricity is very consolidated, each region gets it from a certain place and there are much less small electricity businesses than mentioned in this section of Nye's book. I think the fact that the government was uncertain as to how to treat electricity is a good indication that this was a new and confusing technology that had to be integrated more gradually than some people wished. - Elle<br />
<br />
Also in the reading between pp.182-184, I thought it was funny how worries over privatization of electricity and other utilities were around even back then. Anyone who lives off campus around here has had to deal with the monthly utility bills and the seemingly arbitrary way the rates fluctuate. Throughout this small reading, I just kept being reminded of how dreadful Dominion is in regards to billing. At least it's not a new thing. -Cash<br />
<br />
On a random note - I didn't think about how important the idea of putting multiple telegraph messages on the same wire was until I read the first portion of the reading. The mention of hundreds of entangled wires on electrical poles throughout the city is ridiculous - and so unappealing to the eye - no wonder some people weren't supportive of this new technology. - Elle<br />
<br />
Playing off of what both Cash said about the expenses which come along with power, it is easy for us to look at these bills and find them outrageous, but let me ask you this, would you rather pay the expensive bill or have no electricity? For me, it is not even a hard question to answer because life without electricity in my opinion would be awful. Not because I am incapable of doing it, just because I am so used to living my everyday life with so many different electronics. I agree with Elle that the multiple telegraph messages were not only a significant invention but also a necessity. Just thinking of how many vital messages over the years were lost makes me cringe.--Marren <br />
<br />
I agree with the rest of the class that this was the most reading on light that I've ever done, and that we often neglect the socio-historical impact of an artifact of technology like electricity. I found the portion about lighting up urban areas particularly interesting because of the variety in lighting choices made available to the owners of different organizations and companies. It's very understandable that some people would object to ruining the more "natural" atmosphere of the cities, and especially natural attractions like Niagara Falls, while it was aesthetically pleasing to many. As lighting became more common-place, it was natural for companies to try and outdo one another in order to attract more attention to their products. We're still trying to "one up" and outdo one another today which speaks a great deal to our human condition for choosing what may be aesthetically pleasing despite not being the best technological advancement in the long run. As we've said in class, technological advancement shouldn't equate to civilization. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I also found the development of the amusement park to be very interesting. As early as the late 19th and early 20th centuries people were attracted to fairs for entertainment purposes. Trolley cars provided transportation to trolley parks at a reasonably cheap price. Nye suggests that the cool breeze from these open window cars attracted large numbers of customers to take rural, scenic tours into the countryside where one could have a picnic, hear a band, got boating, or see the park's various attractions (123). The invention of electricity and an efficient, effective electrical system was crucial to the development of these early theme parks. While it is rather apparent that one might need electricity to reach these country parks before cars became the dominant mode of transportation, I had never considered the far reaching implications of electricity prior to this reading. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think Elle put it nicely when she said that electricity was a "new and confusing technology" and the government didn't know how to treat it. Nye talks about the different speeds and motives of foreign governements to provide electricity to the citizenry and how the priorities in specific countries effected electrification in that country. In South Africa, electricity was used to improve gold, coal, and diamond mining, but not the homes of black workers. In Russia, Lenin pursued full electrification because he thought full socialism could not be attained without it. Electrification seems to have been illustrative of a country's political climate at the time. -Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I love the section explaining William Dean Howells' "A Traveler from Altruria." He thought because of electricity people could live off the land and travel into cities which were art centers and have the best of both worlds. Its a bit like Ebenezer Howard's City-Garden idea where the town and country model has an urban center but smaller streetcar suburbs along the outside. I know it was probably naive for these men to think it could happen but I like how they viewed electricity as opening up all these possibilities for rural areas almost like they had in Europe. Obviously since industry was on the rise, cities would take more advantage of electricity. Also in this section about rural electricity (or lack there of) it was interesting how people, even Roosevelt, viewed electricity on farms as something undesirable or cheating the system of natural cycles. In many cases, whether to use electricity or not was viewed as a moral question. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The ads promoting electricity are interesting. It is odd now to think about having to convince people of how good electricity is but this was what the ads aimed for. The big message is that, basically, electricity will make your life happier and easier. You can go to baseball games at night and go out on the town or stay in and listen to the radio. They are very area specific as well. The ad for the more urban areas talk about lighting classrooms and office buildings while the rural ad focuses on farm equipment and kitchen wares that have probably already been widely used in the cities. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Nye does a good job explaining the impact of the lighting system on American culture. Nye explains how American’s used these new lighting systems in abstract ways for example, lighting up the statue of liberty and world’s fairs. World’s fairs were used to show people of upper middle class and upper class where the American culture was going. These people found prestige in electrification and considered it a turning point in American culture; to them it showed evolution and progress. I know that we try to stay away from the word progress when it comes to technology, but I am curious if we have had any revolutionary technology that has had such an impact on life since electrification. The only think that comes to mind are computers, which can definitely be considered a revolutionary system, but I am not sure if it has had the quite the same impact as electrification, I am just curious of anyone else’s thoughts. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think the electrification of farms and agricultural regions was a very interesting topic of debate. While the upper classes of individuals found advancement and prestige in electrification, farmers were reluctant. There were definitely mixed emotions about electricity in rural areas. Nye states that in 1920 90% of farmers could not get distributions to their homes and farms (far greater a percentage than European nations who had a majority of their farmers with electricity). Roosevelt found the farmer as the backbone of the nation, and he looked to Jefferson who saw the farmer as “the model for political virtue” (291), based of these ideals, he was hesitant to electrify rural areas. Farmers themselves were not sure about electrification. I found it funny that an Iowa newspaper wrote a piece about how cows would be unable to sleep at night. Other farmers thought that electricity would promote growth, and experimented with electricity and plant life. Edison himself stated that electricity would end frost, drought, and could even melt icebergs! I think this shows a lot about people at the time, and goes along with the idea of controlling nature. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Oftentimes, the fact that many people did not initially accept a technology is overlooked. It is assumed that everyone embraced the new way of doing things with open arms. Some of the concerns people had with technology seem comical to us now. For example, Nye mentions an article in which the author is worried by the thought that cows would not be able to sleep in an electrified town. Technological determinism makes it harder to see the different possible outcomes and the initial hesitation towards a technology. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
One random part of the first reading I found interesting was the section talking about the American world's fairs. I feel like I have read "The (insert some technology or idea) was first introduced at (some city's) world fair," but I have never asked any details about the fair. Reading that section gave me a whole new incite on the importance of the fair itself and the atmosphere surrounding all of the great inventions.-Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found it funny how both the urban and rural markets viewed electricity as a way to make the urban areas more urban and give the rural areas a chance to "move back to the land." Even funnier was that an area based mostly on an agrarian lifestyle would embrace the glitz and modernity of electricity as a way to enhance the farming lifestyle. Maybe it's the fact that I haven't lived in a farming town for almost thirteen years now, but I guess I just don't really associate farming with electricity anymore. (Perspective: My hometown just got wi-fi in its public library like two years ago. It took another two years to explain to most of the Valparaisoans what wi-fi even is.) -Cash<br />
<br />
The adverse reaction to the New York skyline described starting on page 74 made me think of how people see it today. Seeing the New York skyline from the Brooklyn Bridge for the first time is often a optical experience for anyone. It still can be seen as a powerful, beautiful city with a new world of opportunities and confidence. Also, the author talks about tourists coming to "witness human fame and notoriety, hope and despair, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness."(69)The fact that people are interested in eye-catching scenes, good or bad, and technological changes has always been known and capitalized upon. It is the same reason people enjoy watching horror films or looking at the Grand Canyon. Anyway, it was interesting to read about how electricity changed the New York City landscape and how it still captivates people.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
It’s interesting to see how technologies can be both democratizing forces and centers of class conflict. For instance, the electric car created specialized sections in cities. The wealthier people were able to move out to suburbs on the city’s edge, but the working class who couldn’t afford the trolley fair remained in the city center. Yet, at the same time, the electric car helped bring about department stores, which “democratized” luxury with their affordable products. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think most of us consider the way the U.S. government is split up into three levels to be a generally good way of diffusing power, so it’s interesting to see how our decentralized political system actually hurt creating a national energy policy. It was left up to private companies to electrify American because the government was caught up in jurisdictional boundaries. Private companies were, of course, quick to advertise but slow to electrify homes (except for the ones belonging to rich people). It wasn’t until the government got involved in the 1930s that rural areas received electricity. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
How reliable was the electricity? I do not think the author addressed that in the reading. I know that the Breakers mansion (owned by the Vanderbilts) in Newport, RI and all of the other Newport mansions were wired for both gas and electricity because of the unreliable nature in the Gilded Age. To what extent was that true? Newport is also on an island and could be considered kind of rural, but not used for farming at this point. That might have contributed to this.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I don't think the electricity could have been completely reliable. Even today if we get a bad storm, we can lose power for some time. What could cause power to go out, other than the causes we face today? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
That is true. Also, I was thinking about the other things the reading said about electricity being cost effective, no odor, cleaner, insurance companies charging less because of the fire risk, etc. was it the same for buildings wired for both? I guess the cost would not be a factor since the Newport/New York crowd were paying exorbitant amounts of money on anything and everything. -Kirsten<br />
<br />
I guess just in general this reading made me think about how much time and energy it took to get to the state of things as they are today. I mean, when I think about electricity and light switches and powering my computer, I don't even hesitate to wonder if there's going to be enough power for the day, or if the lights are going to work. Everything is just so habitual and easy for us that reading about how long it took to bring electricity and light to the masses and how many decisions went into the entire situation (such as, private or public?). Like, reading about how farmers couldn't get service under private utility ownership until the government stepped in isn't something I normally think about. I'm impressed, really, with how far we've come. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised, really, to learn that businessmen were the most organized and "self-concious" focus group on electricity. They knew it was a commodity and knew it would be of great value to the American public and would definitely be quick to advertise it. I did think it was interesting how the groups were broken up into similar educational background as opposed to income and that sometimes the groups would overlap for a large number of reasons such as family background or friendship and association. I find it interesting that companies would have done this especially during this time period. -Kelly W.</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--Week 5 Questions/Comments2009-02-12T01:29:15Z<p>Smarren25: /* Virginia Penny – Watchmaking */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking ==<br />
This was interesting because in Switzerland women have been part of making watches for generations and getting paid a nice living, but in England women were not used in the process until later. It's good to see at least in some places women are needed in industry and get good money for it. It was also interesting that women were preferred over men because they have small hands and are patient, but still don't compare to men in all other areas including pay, skill level, etc. Even though the reading says at one point women could do equally well with men, they still are not regarded as equal.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
The reasons in this article for why men were paid better than women are very antiquated but do reflect the times: they do more difficult work (even though it was stated above that in Switzerland and France women did the same jobs), are more "ingenious", more "thoughtful and contriving", it is the custom to pay women less. It is also of note that America was the only country at the time to have mechanized their watchmaking. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised in the least that women were paid less than the men. This "custom" is one that occurred more often than not in every industry, not just watchmaking. I guess it is a good point though that young women at this time were married off and then quit their jobs - thus, investing in training these young women was a waste of time and money. From a business prospective this does make sense. -Elle<br />
<br />
I found it crazy to see the differences between how European vs. American women are treated when it comes to watch making, I think it really shows the role of women in culture. In Europe, women are preferred to men in the watch making industry, they are said to require less training and to be more intelligent than their male counterparts. In America, women are treated horribly and quite ironically. I say that because women are seen as not intelligent and not strong. This is the justification for paying them only half of what males get paid. However, women are required to work the same hours as males and are required to do equal work. I find that infuriating. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
To be blatantly honest, in agreeing with Elle, I too was not surprised by the lack of pay for the women compared to the men. Also I feel that training these young women was a waste because more often than not they would leave their jobs once they were married. Nonetheless, I do not agree that women should have gotten less pay than men, especially because so many places preferred women over men do in large part to their smaller hands, higher level of patience, as well as the fact that generally women are less careless than men are. As it normally is for women when looking back at times, it is extremely frustrating to see how women were either treated or worse, not even given opportunities to get jobs.--Marren<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men ==<br />
The essay “Machines as the Measure of Men” uses technology and science as a gauge to compare civilizations. Adas argues that technology is the basis that leads a country into global superiority and hegemony. Technological advancement becomes the dividing point between different races and classes and people strive to label the growing gap between the dichotomies of civilized and poorly developed people or countries. But there are different kinds of technology and advancement, some can be in regards to industry or efficiency, others strictly leisure, medical, or cultural. Some are more overlooked than others. I feel like the essay also, ultimately, divides technological progress into a west vs. the rest dichotomy. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Good comment Jessica. I am going to harp on the same sort of thing from this article. I didn't think about technological superiority giving a country a leg up in colonization of other less technologically advanced countries, but this article proves otherwise. Yes, it makes sense that the less developed/industrialized countries will probably want to buy goods from the industrial power houses, but I didn't think about the fact that they could also be forced/coerced into doing so. -Elle<br />
<br />
I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management ==<br />
The problem of greater National Efficiency is always a problem from the workplace to the government (i think anyway). I can't blame some workers for slacking when the people who are not doing much are getting paid the same, but I guess the question is how do you get everyone working together at the same rate of production? I would think "initiative and incentive" plans would work, but some people would get pissed because they may be doing their best and still not get incentives and that may cause an uneasy tension at work. Planning out all work is ok, and does work because I have done it. It does get boring and there are ways to get around or cut corners on the everyday, and make management think all is getting done. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how new ways of management, a non-mechanical idea, could have just as large of an impact on the workplace as the development of something more concrete. Although, he points out many times that in the new system “the management must take over and perform much of the work which is now left the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could,” (273). So if the management is taking on all these new responsibilities in directing their employees, what did they do before? <br />
Also, the source “An Engineering Student Instructs a Laundress” kinds of points out how little changes in procedures can make a big difference in time management and efficiency. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
== Frederick's The New Housekeeping ==<br />
I found Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" particularly interesting. Frederick argues that by approaching a woman's housework in a scientific manner, she will become 'liberated'. Improving the efficiency of her work would thus remove drudgery from her everyday life. However, I couldn't help but think the exact opposite. By forcing a woman to adhere to rules, regulations, and schedules in her everyday life, doesn't that constrain her within the home even further? By applying scientific management to simple housework, it removes a woman's ability to think and act on her own without being restricted. Frederick also claims that women are "fleeing from housework into professions and outside work" and "refusing to assume the burdens of motherhood". However, I think a woman would rather have the choice between working inside or outside of the home. Applying scientific management to their everyday home lives would further restrain these women to the home. -Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I was thinking the same thing about using the scientific method in the home and how that would take away one of women's only freedom to take care of her home how she wants to. Yes being efficient and getting things done is great and may give some free time to explore other interests, but keeping on a shedule would become boring and if it were me I would end up stopping it. I can see it as having a positive effect on the workplace where there is many people and alot of work to be done. I have myself planned out the next day's agenda for the custodians I used to lead, so they knew exactly what was to be done in how much time. It worked out, and made me see who was slacking and who was good.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
I do not totally agree with Aislyn's statement though I can not totally disagree either. Efficiency and schedules are both good things in their own manner. One can live their life by a schedule and still be efficient, although many times people do not agree. For example with your custodians, if you gave them a list of 5 things to do and they had 8 hours to do them and they got the list done in 6 hours, would that be categorized as being efficient or as being careless, and not spending too much time on each assignment from the list. With that being said, I do not think that a person should have to live their life by the same schedule day in and day out because than it risks workers becoming bored and not doing as well of a job, this is why changing assignments is not a bad thing because it mixes the schedule up and does not allow workers to fall into a routine which bores them.--Marren<br />
<br />
Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" was interesing. Frederick believed that using scientific management to perform simple household tasks would make everyday life within the household run smooth. The fact that she took time out of her day to figure out how many minutes it took her to complete daily tasks is interesting. Was the use of scientific management in everyday task supposed to give a mother more time with her child? What exactly was it supposed to do other than have a person finish cooking and cleaning as quickly as possible? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
== Other documents of Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
I find myself in agreement with the articles against Taylorism. In the "Aresenal Workers Strike, 1913," Maurice Bowen writes that the use of a stop watch "is humiliating and savors too much of the slave driver." I agree with this statement. Forcing people to work at their maximum limit for long hours will not necessarily make for better wages for the employees. - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
While "Indian Canoe Makers vs. An Efficiency Expert" is about the change in factories to make things run quicker etc. I feel it is also a document that describes the decline of traditional customs, in this case for Native Americans. When a traditional craft like canoe making, quilting, instrument making etc is made in factories and taken out of their original setting, cultures that were associated with them start to decline as well or get replaced. Often times, as seen in the article, the new product is not made to the same standards as it originally was. -Lauren Milner</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_5_Questions/Comments325--Week 5 Questions/Comments2009-02-12T00:56:14Z<p>Smarren25: /* Frederick's The New Housekeeping */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Virginia Penny – Watchmaking ==<br />
This was interesting because in Switzerland women have been part of making watches for generations and getting paid a nice living, but in England women were not used in the process until later. It's good to see at least in some places women are needed in industry and get good money for it. It was also interesting that women were preferred over men because they have small hands and are patient, but still don't compare to men in all other areas including pay, skill level, etc. Even though the reading says at one point women could do equally well with men, they still are not regarded as equal.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
The reasons in this article for why men were paid better than women are very antiquated but do reflect the times: they do more difficult work (even though it was stated above that in Switzerland and France women did the same jobs), are more "ingenious", more "thoughtful and contriving", it is the custom to pay women less. It is also of note that America was the only country at the time to have mechanized their watchmaking. - Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I wasn't surprised in the least that women were paid less than the men. This "custom" is one that occurred more often than not in every industry, not just watchmaking. I guess it is a good point though that young women at this time were married off and then quit their jobs - thus, investing in training these young women was a waste of time and money. From a business prospective this does make sense. -Elle<br />
<br />
I found it crazy to see the differences between how European vs. American women are treated when it comes to watch making, I think it really shows the role of women in culture. In Europe, women are preferred to men in the watch making industry, they are said to require less training and to be more intelligent than their male counterparts. In America, women are treated horribly and quite ironically. I say that because women are seen as not intelligent and not strong. This is the justification for paying them only half of what males get paid. However, women are required to work the same hours as males and are required to do equal work. I find that infuriating. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men ==<br />
The essay “Machines as the Measure of Men” uses technology and science as a gauge to compare civilizations. Adas argues that technology is the basis that leads a country into global superiority and hegemony. Technological advancement becomes the dividing point between different races and classes and people strive to label the growing gap between the dichotomies of civilized and poorly developed people or countries. But there are different kinds of technology and advancement, some can be in regards to industry or efficiency, others strictly leisure, medical, or cultural. Some are more overlooked than others. I feel like the essay also, ultimately, divides technological progress into a west vs. the rest dichotomy. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Good comment Jessica. I am going to harp on the same sort of thing from this article. I didn't think about technological superiority giving a country a leg up in colonization of other less technologically advanced countries, but this article proves otherwise. Yes, it makes sense that the less developed/industrialized countries will probably want to buy goods from the industrial power houses, but I didn't think about the fact that they could also be forced/coerced into doing so. -Elle<br />
<br />
I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management ==<br />
The problem of greater National Efficiency is always a problem from the workplace to the government (i think anyway). I can't blame some workers for slacking when the people who are not doing much are getting paid the same, but I guess the question is how do you get everyone working together at the same rate of production? I would think "initiative and incentive" plans would work, but some people would get pissed because they may be doing their best and still not get incentives and that may cause an uneasy tension at work. Planning out all work is ok, and does work because I have done it. It does get boring and there are ways to get around or cut corners on the everyday, and make management think all is getting done. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how new ways of management, a non-mechanical idea, could have just as large of an impact on the workplace as the development of something more concrete. Although, he points out many times that in the new system “the management must take over and perform much of the work which is now left the men; almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management which enable him to do his work better and quicker than he otherwise could,” (273). So if the management is taking on all these new responsibilities in directing their employees, what did they do before? <br />
Also, the source “An Engineering Student Instructs a Laundress” kinds of points out how little changes in procedures can make a big difference in time management and efficiency. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
== Frederick's The New Housekeeping ==<br />
I found Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" particularly interesting. Frederick argues that by approaching a woman's housework in a scientific manner, she will become 'liberated'. Improving the efficiency of her work would thus remove drudgery from her everyday life. However, I couldn't help but think the exact opposite. By forcing a woman to adhere to rules, regulations, and schedules in her everyday life, doesn't that constrain her within the home even further? By applying scientific management to simple housework, it removes a woman's ability to think and act on her own without being restricted. Frederick also claims that women are "fleeing from housework into professions and outside work" and "refusing to assume the burdens of motherhood". However, I think a woman would rather have the choice between working inside or outside of the home. Applying scientific management to their everyday home lives would further restrain these women to the home. -Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
I was thinking the same thing about using the scientific method in the home and how that would take away one of women's only freedom to take care of her home how she wants to. Yes being efficient and getting things done is great and may give some free time to explore other interests, but keeping on a shedule would become boring and if it were me I would end up stopping it. I can see it as having a positive effect on the workplace where there is many people and alot of work to be done. I have myself planned out the next day's agenda for the custodians I used to lead, so they knew exactly what was to be done in how much time. It worked out, and made me see who was slacking and who was good.--Aislyn<br />
<br />
I do not totally agree with Aislyn's statement though I can not totally disagree either. Efficiency and schedules are both good things in their own manner. One can live their life by a schedule and still be efficient, although many times people do not agree. For example with your custodians, if you gave them a list of 5 things to do and they had 8 hours to do them and they got the list done in 6 hours, would that be categorized as being efficient or as being careless, and not spending too much time on each assignment from the list. With that being said, I do not think that a person should have to live their life by the same schedule day in and day out because than it risks workers becoming bored and not doing as well of a job, this is why changing assignments is not a bad thing because it mixes the schedule up and does not allow workers to fall into a routine which bores them.--Marren<br />
<br />
Christine Frederick's "The New Housekeeping, 1913" was interesing. Frederick believed that using scientific management to perform simple household tasks would make everyday life within the household run smooth. The fact that she took time out of her day to figure out how many minutes it took her to complete daily tasks is interesting. Was the use of scientific management in everyday task supposed to give a mother more time with her child? What exactly was it supposed to do other than have a person finish cooking and cleaning as quickly as possible? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
== Other documents of Scientific Management, ~1900-1940 ==<br />
<br />
I find myself in agreement with the articles against Taylorism. In the "Aresenal Workers Strike, 1913," Maurice Bowen writes that the use of a stop watch "is humiliating and savors too much of the slave driver." I agree with this statement. Forcing people to work at their maximum limit for long hours will not necessarily make for better wages for the employees. - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
While "Indian Canoe Makers vs. An Efficiency Expert" is about the change in factories to make things run quicker etc. I feel it is also a document that describes the decline of traditional customs, in this case for Native Americans. When a traditional craft like canoe making, quilting, instrument making etc is made in factories and taken out of their original setting, cultures that were associated with them start to decline as well or get replaced. Often times, as seen in the article, the new product is not made to the same standards as it originally was. -Lauren Milner</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--Week 4 Questions/Comments2009-02-05T04:35:26Z<p>Smarren25: /* Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art ==<br />
<br />
<br />
From Susan Danly’s article tracing the railroad in American art, it seems like art was definitely used as one of the primary sources of propaganda and advertising during this time. It mentions how painters were often asked to paint the scenic lure of the railroad as well as how nature and industry kind of combined into this idealistic view of how people could use and overcome sources of nature. One that stood out to me as a show of this idealized harmonization between nature and the industrial railroad was “The Delaware Water Gap” which implied the railroad as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
“…to float upon this tide” seems to be a good example of how technology and development are only necessary when they are deemed so by society. The author points out how only a few years ago (previous to 1870) the land was more natural and not as controlled by people and technology. Those who lived there did so contently. However, with the prospect of the railroad and higher level of “civilization” that has been reached, it is far less desirable to live how the pioneers once did “with his axe and rifle as his sole companions,” (198). In the time that this author is writing, in order to be successful, technology has become a necessity. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed Danly’s text about art and how it relates to the study of history. I think sometimes we forget to look at art as a document of history. Danly explains art’s significance to the study of history and how it shows the progression of time. She also goes on to talk about how art shows how each person reacted to the changes in technology as well as history as a whole. – Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Danly's article really made me think about differing opinions on the integration of the railroad. The railroad can be seen as "progress of capitalism," but not everyone wanted this. Various artists and Americans reacted in different ways in regards to embracing or criticizing the railroad's implementation. I think it important to remember when talking about these technological inventions that they were not always immediately accepted. -Elle<br />
<br />
As hard as it is to remember since in today's society we look at technology as the greatest thing since sliced bread. What one has to realize that until today's technology rich era technological advancements were not always accepted. As Elle had previously stated technology was something that many people were weary of and often shunned upon. Throughout the integration of the railroad system many people bickered about what it would do to the surrounding areas and what effects they would feel from the rail system.--Marren <br />
<br />
I have little experience interpreting art, let alone introducing it as a learning tool for historical purposes. Susan Danly's writing style in this piece made it easy to match the historical thought to the art that was portrayed at the time. This is great interdisciplinary literature and I gained more understanding about art and history. The reading also related well to the primary documents in our text book. The culture shift and reaction to it was clearly portrayed in news articles and art forms, which shows the passionate opinions the American public had on industrialization and mechanization. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found that Danly's writing on the art and it's relationship to history was interesting and important. I have done quite a bit of art analysis in the past, but she does explain it well and I got some new ideas about it. I agree with Kirsten when she says that the culture shift was portrayed through the art and other media. It's a good way for people all over to see how everyone in the nation feels. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree with Danly's conclusion that the railroad has come to represent a deeply held longing for a picture frame view into the beauty and uncertainty of American nature, while also representing the destruction of the Indians and the spread of many social and environmental problems. Artwork changed over time as these ideas ebbed and flowed throughout American consciousness. Thus it seems that many people used art to express these notions as the railroad represented different definitions of what is "America" or "American." -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The fact that businesses took advantage of art to further their interests isn’t really a surprise. Corporations tend to take advantage of everything that will get them more money, and art has often been used as an expression of ideology. In the case of the railroads, the arts both emphasized the train’s connection to the natural landscape and idealized it as symbol of human progress, power, freedom, and capitalism. Railroad moguls encouraged artists and photographers to emphasize the relationship between railroads and landscape because it combined the beautiful aesthetics meant to attract tourism and a validation of Westward and economic expansion, both benefits to big business. I think in our post-industrial, environmentally concerned society, it’s somewhat difficult for us to understand peaceful coexistence between natural and industrial forces. We see the destructive aspects, not “progress,” and that seemed to become a problem for artists in the 1930s as well. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia ==<br />
<br />
The "overwork" system was used by Weaver - he tried to give incentives to slaves that went beyond the minimum amount of production. As skilled laborers, slaves such as Weaver's iron workers were valuable and less easily replaced, so cruel treatment of slaves was less likely. I think this was really interesting that in this case it seems that technology helped the slaves get better treatment and working conditions (or at least an opportunity to make some money). - Elle<br />
<br />
I was rather taken back by the "overwork" system. Taken back meaning that I have not heard much about workers getting "overtime" or "overwork" in my past reading. I think it was a good thing, also the fact that there was not much physical abuse by the owner on the slaves. I guess the job was hard and dangerous enough without the extra abuse. I also was pleased to see that a slave family could do well for itself. It's a shame that others did not follow Weaver's example but not beating the slaves and using positive incentives to get more out of them. I say a happy worker is a productive worker.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
The essay Slave Ironworkers in Virginia reinforces the same idea from Douglass’ essay that having skills as a slave can give you an advantage. A good question that Charles Dew brings up in the last paragraph is which is better, resistance, running away, and confrontation which could lead to being beaten or sold. Or, is it better to maneuver as best you can within the system to have the best possible life despite the physical and psychological confines of enslavement? I think that Douglass’ article would argue that the former would be better because no matter what, you are still a slave, and freedom is the ultimate goal. For Dew’s article, I think that the latter would be the best possible choice. It really goes into the life of Sam William, how he became a skilled ironworker and was able to over produce for his owner and make his own profit. With this, he was able to provide a good life for his family and keep them from being sold. The idea was, if you are a hard worker and you can get incentives there is no reason for you to try to go against your owner, and therefore your owner wont sell your family, and wont physically harm you. I don’t think there is a right or a wrong answer. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how most of Charles Dew's piece makes it seem as though slaves had a good life and then at the end there is a reminder of their condition of forced servitude when William Green runs away and is caught and sold. Some of the slaves, especially Sam Williams, did the best that they could under the given circumstances, and were probably in a better economic situation than if they had been freed, but there is no doubt that freedom would have been preferred. Sam used his leverage to ensure himself a higher standard of living, but this was no replacement for freedom, especially when there were everyday reminders of enslavement. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
Reading Charles Dew's essay made me wonder if this 'pay for overwork' happened in any other types of industry such as maybe garment making for women. I agree with Karen, when she mentioned how Dew makes it seem like slaves, or at least skilled slaves, had a 'good' life at first but then raises the questions about resisting the system versus maneuvering through it. Also the sections about what Sam Williams Jr bought for his family is very interesting not only in the fact that he was able to aquire these items but the pricing of them in 1850s. For instance, the 8 3/4 yds of fabric that he bought for his daughter for 1.75 sounds pretty good considering one is lucky if they find fabric that is $1.75/yard. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Dew's essay presents the idea of positive reinforcement in regard to slave treatment. His final question proposes two options slaves had. They could resist their masters and actively oppose the system they were a part of in order to gain complete freedom, or they could attempt to maneuver within their limited freedoms in order to earn as much freedom as possible. Knowing slavery's eventual outcome, the question is easier to answer, but how would a slave conceptualize his choices during the height of slavery in the South? For some, I'm sure that resistance was the best option. If you could see no end to your life as a slave, actively opposing your master in order to change your surroundings would have been a good choice. However, Dew shows us that by working with your master, rather than against him, slaves were able to create more agency for themselves. For Dew, any form of freedom (gained by 'overwork' earning pay) was better than none at all. - Lon<br />
<br />
Dew's essay brings up many great debates on slave life prior to being granted freedom and many of the answers are not ones that can/were ever answered. It is impossible for any of us to sit here and debate which route we would have taken as slaves since we were never put into slaves shoes and deal with the everyday life that they had to. I agree with Lon, in terms of gaining freedom no matter how you did it would be significant; however, I feel that Dew is correct in saying that overworking and gaining freedom through gaining respect would most likely be the easier way, as well as perhaps more accomplished for the slaves and their owner when being granted freedom.--Marren<br />
<br />
This article defiantly shed more light on the concept introduced in Douglass' essay. It can be a good thing to have certain skills as a slave. However, having a skill can not always be a good thing. In this particular article, having a skill really seemed to benefit Dew. I wonder how many other cases were similar to this one? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
This may seem kind of naive but I never thought about the different forms of punishment based on slave skill. Normally when we're taught about slavery and the ways masters punished them when they misbehaved or something you automatically think of whipping or beatings. But realizing how valuable skilled slaves were and how detrimental it could be if you harmed a skilled slave is something I had never thought of. It makes sense to want to try to keep them on your good side so that they remain a financial asset. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Not to overkill the topic, but I'd like to return to the "overwork" system that Dew presents in his article. What I find so interesting about this system is that it existed. Too often in our study of history we're taught that things happened through one dominant narrative. It's true that slaves were held in bondage and treated terribly by their white masters. The overwork system draws parallels to when slaves would do the bare minimum amount of work as a form of passive resistance. If their masters saw them as incompetent, lazy, or generally needing "higher" guidance, then slaves often played into these stereotypes to resist their master's ownership of them. In the same way, it seems that overwork was another form of passive resistance. While it directly contradicts the stereotypes about slaves, it accomplished the same end through different means. Namely, slaves earned income that they could keep. A man could furnish his own home and buy things for his family. Slaves could retain their humanity and passively resist the system which tried to strip their humanity from them. Although both examples are different, they are both equally viable forms of passive resistance to slavery. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I would I have liked to see more of a discussion of sources. I noticed two mentions of how the author divined his information, two specific letters and the "Negro Record" at the forge. I would like to know if all of the authors beliefs about what happened at the forge came from the record, or if there were other sources. I know its a selection, so that discussion may exist in the full version, but I would have liked to see it in the selection. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
By taking advantage of his iron working skills, Sam Williams was able to improve his living conditions and protect his family from being separated; he was also able to build up a fairly massive savings fund. Not only that, he could get away with purposely taking off work for a month. While the Williams family was better off than many field workers, they were still slaves. Fair living conditions or not, there were always reminders that no matter how skilled slaves were, they were still seen as nothing more than property. Whites were more than willing to, “if necessary, let every tree in the country bend with Negro meat (178).” Needless to say, Sam knew not to push his master too far. Sam’s position raises an interesting point, which the Dew brought up, regarding the “proper” actions of a slave. Should slaves make the best of their situation and work towards improving their living conditions and protecting their family, or should they resist slavery and work towards freedom? Frederick Douglass wrote that as his station improved his desire for freedom grew, but to contradict this, it appears Sam was as content as he could be as a slave. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Primary Sources on Steam, Space and a New World Order ==<br />
<br />
The articles about the first railroads really portrayed a controversy over railroads, which seemed to be a double-edged sword for those at the time. The first article spoke about how the steam locomotion was really a basis for our national identity. It cause the nation to be liberalized and bound together by trade and commerce, it was a means of excitement and unity. Charles Fraser brought up another side to this theory. Based off of his article it shows that the idea of the railroad as a unifying and harmonious force is a utopic idea and that there are negative aspects that would come out of it. He specifically speaks of the widening gap between the rich and the poor that was a result of the railroads. He also brings up the fact that the railroads meant the destruction of life and property. Further articles showed how the railroads accelerated the forced removal of Native Americans and the extinction of the buffalo. Do you think that it was worth it? Had canals been chosen as the preferred mode of transportation, would that mean the same repercussions for the Native Americans and the buffalo. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In the Editorial about Railroads and Missionaries, I found what the writer said to be interesting and slightly ironic. He is putting down the religious folks who feel money (apparently American money) should be directed to the conversion of the world instead of building things like railroads. The writer points out that without technology being developed, like the railroad, missionaries would not be able to reach their audiences, which is a good point. However, he takes it a step further in saying that 'railroads and railroads alone' are what will civilize India and China and bring 'proper' Christianity to people etc. This is where the writer starts grasping as railroads bringing missionaries and Bibles probably wouldn't singlehandedly stop massacres from occurring. In fact, as the next excerpt on buffalo and the railroad points out, railroads and other technology can actually help to start massacres. In this instance, railroads brought whites to Native American land and helped to destroy entire ways of life. Obviously there is the question of to what end should progress be pushed in the whole early American technology phase.- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The Plenty Coups memoir stuck out to me the most out of all of the articles. You see a lot happening in that one trip east -- you get a glimpse at how horrible road conditions were during early travel (especially out west) when Plenty Coups mentions the muddy ground after/during the rainstorm, and how much quicker it seemed to be on a train than in a coach. Although it was maybe going only 25mph, it obviously was much more convenient and that is evident in Plenty Coups discussion of "outdistancing the birds." But you can also see how the railroad almost became a tool for the white population of America to expand westward. It was a machine that entranced the Native American population (much like rifles earlier on) and it was almost a way to manipulate them into saying "sure thing, go ahead and rip my tribe to bits and build track on my land." It's interesting to see how much was actually going on at this time and what all resulted from this railroad craze. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
These essays about RR expansion gave my thoughts a different view on this time in American history. In class on tuesday gave me the impression that all was well with the RR expansion and that there were really no negative effects. Either I didnt focus on them or wasnt listening to it. The Plenty Coups Travels to Washington took my attention the most. The Native Americans were aware of what was going on and had an open mind towards it, but then in the end the Americans ruined it. It is more than an issue with the technological growth but as well as a disappointment to the Americans taking it so far. They had plenty of land, but took what belonged to someone else. I feel terrible for the Native American to work with the President on an issue and keep the agreement, but for the President not to follow through with his word is a disgrace. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
After reading the Native American pieces at the end, I began to wonder if this was really about railroads or about broader systems of oppression. It seems like the buffalo would have been decimated and the tribes in Yellowstone undermined with or without the railroad- perhaps the railroad sped up these affects, but I feel like they were inevitable. -- Matt Struth</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--Week 4 Questions/Comments2009-02-05T04:15:20Z<p>Smarren25: /* Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art ==<br />
<br />
<br />
From Susan Danly’s article tracing the railroad in American art, it seems like art was definitely used as one of the primary sources of propaganda and advertising during this time. It mentions how painters were often asked to paint the scenic lure of the railroad as well as how nature and industry kind of combined into this idealistic view of how people could use and overcome sources of nature. One that stood out to me as a show of this idealized harmonization between nature and the industrial railroad was “The Delaware Water Gap” which implied the railroad as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
“…to float upon this tide” seems to be a good example of how technology and development are only necessary when they are deemed so by society. The author points out how only a few years ago (previous to 1870) the land was more natural and not as controlled by people and technology. Those who lived there did so contently. However, with the prospect of the railroad and higher level of “civilization” that has been reached, it is far less desirable to live how the pioneers once did “with his axe and rifle as his sole companions,” (198). In the time that this author is writing, in order to be successful, technology has become a necessity. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Danly's article really made me think about differing opinions on the integration of the railroad. The railroad can be seen as "progress of capitalism," but not everyone wanted this. Various artists and Americans reacted in different ways in regards to embracing or criticizing the railroad's implementation. I think it important to remember when talking about these technological inventions that they were not always immediately accepted. -Elle<br />
<br />
As hard as it is to remember since in today's society we look at technology as the greatest thing since sliced bread. What one has to realize that until today's technology rich era technological advancements were not always accepted. As Elle had previously stated technology was something that many people were weary of and often shunned upon. Throughout the integration of the railroad system many people bickered about what it would do to the surrounding areas and what effects they would feel from the rail system.--Marren <br />
<br />
I have little experience interpreting art, let alone introducing it as a learning tool for historical purposes. Susan Danly's writing style in this piece made it easy to match the historical thought to the art that was portrayed at the time. This is great interdisciplinary literature and I gained more understanding about art and history. The reading also related well to the primary documents in our text book. The culture shift and reaction to it was clearly portrayed in news articles and art forms, which shows the passionate opinions the American public had on industrialization and mechanization. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found that Danly's writing on the art and it's relationship to history was interesting and important. I have done quite a bit of art analysis in the past, but she does explain it well and I got some new ideas about it. I agree with Kirsten when she says that the culture shift was portrayed through the art and other media. It's a good way for people all over to see how everyone in the nation feels. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree with Danly's conclusion that the railroad has come to represent a deeply held longing for a picture frame view into the beauty and uncertainty of American nature, while also representing the destruction of the Indians and the spread of many social and environmental problems. Artwork changed over time as these ideas ebbed and flowed throughout American consciousness. Thus it seems that many people used art to express these notions as the railroad represented different definitions of what is "America" or "American." -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The fact that businesses took advantage of art to further their interests isn’t really a surprise. Corporations tend to take advantage of everything that will get them more money, and art has often been used as an expression of ideology. In the case of the railroads, the arts both emphasized the train’s connection to the natural landscape and idealized it as symbol of human progress, power, freedom, and capitalism. Railroad moguls encouraged artists and photographers to emphasize the relationship between railroads and landscape because it combined the beautiful aesthetics meant to attract tourism and a validation of Westward and economic expansion, both benefits to big business. I think in our post-industrial, environmentally concerned society, it’s somewhat difficult for us to understand peaceful coexistence between natural and industrial forces. We see the destructive aspects, not “progress,” and that seemed to become a problem for artists in the 1930s as well. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia ==<br />
<br />
The "overwork" system was used by Weaver - he tried to give incentives to slaves that went beyond the minimum amount of production. As skilled laborers, slaves such as Weaver's iron workers were valuable and less easily replaced, so cruel treatment of slaves was less likely. I think this was really interesting that in this case it seems that technology helped the slaves get better treatment and working conditions (or at least an opportunity to make some money). - Elle<br />
<br />
I was rather taken back by the "overwork" system. Taken back meaning that I have not heard much about workers getting "overtime" or "overwork" in my past reading. I think it was a good thing, also the fact that there was not much physical abuse by the owner on the slaves. I guess the job was hard and dangerous enough without the extra abuse. I also was pleased to see that a slave family could do well for itself. It's a shame that others did not follow Weaver's example but not beating the slaves and using positive incentives to get more out of them. I say a happy worker is a productive worker.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
The essay Slave Ironworkers in Virginia reinforces the same idea from Douglass’ essay that having skills as a slave can give you an advantage. A good question that Charles Dew brings up in the last paragraph is which is better, resistance, running away, and confrontation which could lead to being beaten or sold. Or, is it better to maneuver as best you can within the system to have the best possible life despite the physical and psychological confines of enslavement? I think that Douglass’ article would argue that the former would be better because no matter what, you are still a slave, and freedom is the ultimate goal. For Dew’s article, I think that the latter would be the best possible choice. It really goes into the life of Sam William, how he became a skilled ironworker and was able to over produce for his owner and make his own profit. With this, he was able to provide a good life for his family and keep them from being sold. The idea was, if you are a hard worker and you can get incentives there is no reason for you to try to go against your owner, and therefore your owner wont sell your family, and wont physically harm you. I don’t think there is a right or a wrong answer. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how most of Charles Dew's piece makes it seem as though slaves had a good life and then at the end there is a reminder of their condition of forced servitude when William Green runs away and is caught and sold. Some of the slaves, especially Sam Williams, did the best that they could under the given circumstances, and were probably in a better economic situation than if they had been freed, but there is no doubt that freedom would have been preferred. Sam used his leverage to ensure himself a higher standard of living, but this was no replacement for freedom, especially when there were everyday reminders of enslavement. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
Reading Charles Dew's essay made me wonder if this 'pay for overwork' happened in any other types of industry such as maybe garment making for women. I agree with Karen, when she mentioned how Dew makes it seem like slaves, or at least skilled slaves, had a 'good' life at first but then raises the questions about resisting the system versus maneuvering through it. Also the sections about what Sam Williams Jr bought for his family is very interesting not only in the fact that he was able to aquire these items but the pricing of them in 1850s. For instance, the 8 3/4 yds of fabric that he bought for his daughter for 1.75 sounds pretty good considering one is lucky if they find fabric that is $1.75/yard. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Dew's essay presents the idea of positive reinforcement in regard to slave treatment. His final question proposes two options slaves had. They could resist their masters and actively oppose the system they were a part of in order to gain complete freedom, or they could attempt to maneuver within their limited freedoms in order to earn as much freedom as possible. Knowing slavery's eventual outcome, the question is easier to answer, but how would a slave conceptualize his choices during the height of slavery in the South? For some, I'm sure that resistance was the best option. If you could see no end to your life as a slave, actively opposing your master in order to change your surroundings would have been a good choice. However, Dew shows us that by working with your master, rather than against him, slaves were able to create more agency for themselves. For Dew, any form of freedom (gained by 'overwork' earning pay) was better than none at all. - Lon<br />
<br />
This article defiantly shed more light on the concept introduced in Douglass' essay. It can be a good thing to have certain skills as a slave. However, having a skill can not always be a good thing. In this particular article, having a skill really seemed to benefit Dew. I wonder how many other cases were similar to this one? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
This may seem kind of naive but I never thought about the different forms of punishment based on slave skill. Normally when we're taught about slavery and the ways masters punished them when they misbehaved or something you automatically think of whipping or beatings. But realizing how valuable skilled slaves were and how detrimental it could be if you harmed a skilled slave is something I had never thought of. It makes sense to want to try to keep them on your good side so that they remain a financial asset. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Not to overkill the topic, but I'd like to return to the "overwork" system that Dew presents in his article. What I find so interesting about this system is that it existed. Too often in our study of history we're taught that things happened through one dominant narrative. It's true that slaves were held in bondage and treated terribly by their white masters. The overwork system draws parallels to when slaves would do the bare minimum amount of work as a form of passive resistance. If their masters saw them as incompetent, lazy, or generally needing "higher" guidance, then slaves often played into these stereotypes to resist their master's ownership of them. In the same way, it seems that overwork was another form of passive resistance. While it directly contradicts the stereotypes about slaves, it accomplished the same end through different means. Namely, slaves earned income that they could keep. A man could furnish his own home and buy things for his family. Slaves could retain their humanity and passively resist the system which tried to strip their humanity from them. Although both examples are different, they are both equally viable forms of passive resistance to slavery. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I would I have liked to see more of a discussion of sources. I noticed two mentions of how the author divined his information, two specific letters and the "Negro Record" at the forge. I would like to know if all of the authors beliefs about what happened at the forge came from the record, or if there were other sources. I know its a selection, so that discussion may exist in the full version, but I would have liked to see it in the selection. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Primary Sources on Steam, Space and a New World Order ==<br />
<br />
The articles about the first railroads really portrayed a controversy over railroads, which seemed to be a double-edged sword for those at the time. The first article spoke about how the steam locomotion was really a basis for our national identity. It cause the nation to be liberalized and bound together by trade and commerce, it was a means of excitement and unity. Charles Fraser brought up another side to this theory. Based off of his article it shows that the idea of the railroad as a unifying and harmonious force is a utopic idea and that there are negative aspects that would come out of it. He specifically speaks of the widening gap between the rich and the poor that was a result of the railroads. He also brings up the fact that the railroads meant the destruction of life and property. Further articles showed how the railroads accelerated the forced removal of Native Americans and the extinction of the buffalo. Do you think that it was worth it? Had canals been chosen as the preferred mode of transportation, would that mean the same repercussions for the Native Americans and the buffalo. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In the Editorial about Railroads and Missionaries, I found what the writer said to be interesting and slightly ironic. He is putting down the religious folks who feel money (apparently American money) should be directed to the conversion of the world instead of building things like railroads. The writer points out that without technology being developed, like the railroad, missionaries would not be able to reach their audiences, which is a good point. However, he takes it a step further in saying that 'railroads and railroads alone' are what will civilize India and China and bring 'proper' Christianity to people etc. This is where the writer starts grasping as railroads bringing missionaries and Bibles probably wouldn't singlehandedly stop massacres from occurring. In fact, as the next excerpt on buffalo and the railroad points out, railroads and other technology can actually help to start massacres. In this instance, railroads brought whites to Native American land and helped to destroy entire ways of life. Obviously there is the question of to what end should progress be pushed in the whole early American technology phase.- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The Plenty Coups memoir stuck out to me the most out of all of the articles. You see a lot happening in that one trip east -- you get a glimpse at how horrible road conditions were during early travel (especially out west) when Plenty Coups mentions the muddy ground after/during the rainstorm, and how much quicker it seemed to be on a train than in a coach. Although it was maybe going only 25mph, it obviously was much more convenient and that is evident in Plenty Coups discussion of "outdistancing the birds." But you can also see how the railroad almost became a tool for the white population of America to expand westward. It was a machine that entranced the Native American population (much like rifles earlier on) and it was almost a way to manipulate them into saying "sure thing, go ahead and rip my tribe to bits and build track on my land." It's interesting to see how much was actually going on at this time and what all resulted from this railroad craze. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
These essays about RR expansion gave my thoughts a different view on this time in American history. In class on tuesday gave me the impression that all was well with the RR expansion and that there were really no negative effects. Either I didnt focus on them or wasnt listening to it. The Plenty Coups Travels to Washington took my attention the most. The Native Americans were aware of what was going on and had an open mind towards it, but then in the end the Americans ruined it. It is more than an issue with the technological growth but as well as a disappointment to the Americans taking it so far. They had plenty of land, but took what belonged to someone else. I feel terrible for the Native American to work with the President on an issue and keep the agreement, but for the President not to follow through with his word is a disgrace. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
After reading the Native American pieces at the end, I began to wonder if this was really about railroads or about broader systems of oppression. It seems like the buffalo would have been decimated and the tribes in Yellowstone undermined with or without the railroad- perhaps the railroad sped up these affects, but I feel like they were inevitable. -- Matt Struth</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_4_Questions/Comments325--Week 4 Questions/Comments2009-02-05T04:15:04Z<p>Smarren25: /* Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Danly, The Railroad in American Art ==<br />
<br />
<br />
From Susan Danly’s article tracing the railroad in American art, it seems like art was definitely used as one of the primary sources of propaganda and advertising during this time. It mentions how painters were often asked to paint the scenic lure of the railroad as well as how nature and industry kind of combined into this idealistic view of how people could use and overcome sources of nature. One that stood out to me as a show of this idealized harmonization between nature and the industrial railroad was “The Delaware Water Gap” which implied the railroad as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
“…to float upon this tide” seems to be a good example of how technology and development are only necessary when they are deemed so by society. The author points out how only a few years ago (previous to 1870) the land was more natural and not as controlled by people and technology. Those who lived there did so contently. However, with the prospect of the railroad and higher level of “civilization” that has been reached, it is far less desirable to live how the pioneers once did “with his axe and rifle as his sole companions,” (198). In the time that this author is writing, in order to be successful, technology has become a necessity. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Danly's article really made me think about differing opinions on the integration of the railroad. The railroad can be seen as "progress of capitalism," but not everyone wanted this. Various artists and Americans reacted in different ways in regards to embracing or criticizing the railroad's implementation. I think it important to remember when talking about these technological inventions that they were not always immediately accepted. -Elle<br />
<br />
As hard as it is to remember since in today's society we look at technology as the greatest thing since sliced bread. What one has to realize that until today's technology rich era technological advancements were not always accepted. As Elle had previously stated technology was something that many people were weary of and often shunned upon. Throughout the integration of the railroad system many people bickered about what it would do to the surrounding areas and what effects they would feel from the rail system. <br />
<br />
I have little experience interpreting art, let alone introducing it as a learning tool for historical purposes. Susan Danly's writing style in this piece made it easy to match the historical thought to the art that was portrayed at the time. This is great interdisciplinary literature and I gained more understanding about art and history. The reading also related well to the primary documents in our text book. The culture shift and reaction to it was clearly portrayed in news articles and art forms, which shows the passionate opinions the American public had on industrialization and mechanization. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
I found that Danly's writing on the art and it's relationship to history was interesting and important. I have done quite a bit of art analysis in the past, but she does explain it well and I got some new ideas about it. I agree with Kirsten when she says that the culture shift was portrayed through the art and other media. It's a good way for people all over to see how everyone in the nation feels. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I agree with Danly's conclusion that the railroad has come to represent a deeply held longing for a picture frame view into the beauty and uncertainty of American nature, while also representing the destruction of the Indians and the spread of many social and environmental problems. Artwork changed over time as these ideas ebbed and flowed throughout American consciousness. Thus it seems that many people used art to express these notions as the railroad represented different definitions of what is "America" or "American." -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The fact that businesses took advantage of art to further their interests isn’t really a surprise. Corporations tend to take advantage of everything that will get them more money, and art has often been used as an expression of ideology. In the case of the railroads, the arts both emphasized the train’s connection to the natural landscape and idealized it as symbol of human progress, power, freedom, and capitalism. Railroad moguls encouraged artists and photographers to emphasize the relationship between railroads and landscape because it combined the beautiful aesthetics meant to attract tourism and a validation of Westward and economic expansion, both benefits to big business. I think in our post-industrial, environmentally concerned society, it’s somewhat difficult for us to understand peaceful coexistence between natural and industrial forces. We see the destructive aspects, not “progress,” and that seemed to become a problem for artists in the 1930s as well. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Charles Dew, Slave Ironworkers in Virginia ==<br />
<br />
The "overwork" system was used by Weaver - he tried to give incentives to slaves that went beyond the minimum amount of production. As skilled laborers, slaves such as Weaver's iron workers were valuable and less easily replaced, so cruel treatment of slaves was less likely. I think this was really interesting that in this case it seems that technology helped the slaves get better treatment and working conditions (or at least an opportunity to make some money). - Elle<br />
<br />
I was rather taken back by the "overwork" system. Taken back meaning that I have not heard much about workers getting "overtime" or "overwork" in my past reading. I think it was a good thing, also the fact that there was not much physical abuse by the owner on the slaves. I guess the job was hard and dangerous enough without the extra abuse. I also was pleased to see that a slave family could do well for itself. It's a shame that others did not follow Weaver's example but not beating the slaves and using positive incentives to get more out of them. I say a happy worker is a productive worker.-Aislyn<br />
<br />
The essay Slave Ironworkers in Virginia reinforces the same idea from Douglass’ essay that having skills as a slave can give you an advantage. A good question that Charles Dew brings up in the last paragraph is which is better, resistance, running away, and confrontation which could lead to being beaten or sold. Or, is it better to maneuver as best you can within the system to have the best possible life despite the physical and psychological confines of enslavement? I think that Douglass’ article would argue that the former would be better because no matter what, you are still a slave, and freedom is the ultimate goal. For Dew’s article, I think that the latter would be the best possible choice. It really goes into the life of Sam William, how he became a skilled ironworker and was able to over produce for his owner and make his own profit. With this, he was able to provide a good life for his family and keep them from being sold. The idea was, if you are a hard worker and you can get incentives there is no reason for you to try to go against your owner, and therefore your owner wont sell your family, and wont physically harm you. I don’t think there is a right or a wrong answer. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how most of Charles Dew's piece makes it seem as though slaves had a good life and then at the end there is a reminder of their condition of forced servitude when William Green runs away and is caught and sold. Some of the slaves, especially Sam Williams, did the best that they could under the given circumstances, and were probably in a better economic situation than if they had been freed, but there is no doubt that freedom would have been preferred. Sam used his leverage to ensure himself a higher standard of living, but this was no replacement for freedom, especially when there were everyday reminders of enslavement. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
Reading Charles Dew's essay made me wonder if this 'pay for overwork' happened in any other types of industry such as maybe garment making for women. I agree with Karen, when she mentioned how Dew makes it seem like slaves, or at least skilled slaves, had a 'good' life at first but then raises the questions about resisting the system versus maneuvering through it. Also the sections about what Sam Williams Jr bought for his family is very interesting not only in the fact that he was able to aquire these items but the pricing of them in 1850s. For instance, the 8 3/4 yds of fabric that he bought for his daughter for 1.75 sounds pretty good considering one is lucky if they find fabric that is $1.75/yard. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
Dew's essay presents the idea of positive reinforcement in regard to slave treatment. His final question proposes two options slaves had. They could resist their masters and actively oppose the system they were a part of in order to gain complete freedom, or they could attempt to maneuver within their limited freedoms in order to earn as much freedom as possible. Knowing slavery's eventual outcome, the question is easier to answer, but how would a slave conceptualize his choices during the height of slavery in the South? For some, I'm sure that resistance was the best option. If you could see no end to your life as a slave, actively opposing your master in order to change your surroundings would have been a good choice. However, Dew shows us that by working with your master, rather than against him, slaves were able to create more agency for themselves. For Dew, any form of freedom (gained by 'overwork' earning pay) was better than none at all. - Lon<br />
<br />
This article defiantly shed more light on the concept introduced in Douglass' essay. It can be a good thing to have certain skills as a slave. However, having a skill can not always be a good thing. In this particular article, having a skill really seemed to benefit Dew. I wonder how many other cases were similar to this one? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
This may seem kind of naive but I never thought about the different forms of punishment based on slave skill. Normally when we're taught about slavery and the ways masters punished them when they misbehaved or something you automatically think of whipping or beatings. But realizing how valuable skilled slaves were and how detrimental it could be if you harmed a skilled slave is something I had never thought of. It makes sense to want to try to keep them on your good side so that they remain a financial asset. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
Not to overkill the topic, but I'd like to return to the "overwork" system that Dew presents in his article. What I find so interesting about this system is that it existed. Too often in our study of history we're taught that things happened through one dominant narrative. It's true that slaves were held in bondage and treated terribly by their white masters. The overwork system draws parallels to when slaves would do the bare minimum amount of work as a form of passive resistance. If their masters saw them as incompetent, lazy, or generally needing "higher" guidance, then slaves often played into these stereotypes to resist their master's ownership of them. In the same way, it seems that overwork was another form of passive resistance. While it directly contradicts the stereotypes about slaves, it accomplished the same end through different means. Namely, slaves earned income that they could keep. A man could furnish his own home and buy things for his family. Slaves could retain their humanity and passively resist the system which tried to strip their humanity from them. Although both examples are different, they are both equally viable forms of passive resistance to slavery. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I would I have liked to see more of a discussion of sources. I noticed two mentions of how the author divined his information, two specific letters and the "Negro Record" at the forge. I would like to know if all of the authors beliefs about what happened at the forge came from the record, or if there were other sources. I know its a selection, so that discussion may exist in the full version, but I would have liked to see it in the selection. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Primary Sources on Steam, Space and a New World Order ==<br />
<br />
The articles about the first railroads really portrayed a controversy over railroads, which seemed to be a double-edged sword for those at the time. The first article spoke about how the steam locomotion was really a basis for our national identity. It cause the nation to be liberalized and bound together by trade and commerce, it was a means of excitement and unity. Charles Fraser brought up another side to this theory. Based off of his article it shows that the idea of the railroad as a unifying and harmonious force is a utopic idea and that there are negative aspects that would come out of it. He specifically speaks of the widening gap between the rich and the poor that was a result of the railroads. He also brings up the fact that the railroads meant the destruction of life and property. Further articles showed how the railroads accelerated the forced removal of Native Americans and the extinction of the buffalo. Do you think that it was worth it? Had canals been chosen as the preferred mode of transportation, would that mean the same repercussions for the Native Americans and the buffalo. - Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In the Editorial about Railroads and Missionaries, I found what the writer said to be interesting and slightly ironic. He is putting down the religious folks who feel money (apparently American money) should be directed to the conversion of the world instead of building things like railroads. The writer points out that without technology being developed, like the railroad, missionaries would not be able to reach their audiences, which is a good point. However, he takes it a step further in saying that 'railroads and railroads alone' are what will civilize India and China and bring 'proper' Christianity to people etc. This is where the writer starts grasping as railroads bringing missionaries and Bibles probably wouldn't singlehandedly stop massacres from occurring. In fact, as the next excerpt on buffalo and the railroad points out, railroads and other technology can actually help to start massacres. In this instance, railroads brought whites to Native American land and helped to destroy entire ways of life. Obviously there is the question of to what end should progress be pushed in the whole early American technology phase.- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
The Plenty Coups memoir stuck out to me the most out of all of the articles. You see a lot happening in that one trip east -- you get a glimpse at how horrible road conditions were during early travel (especially out west) when Plenty Coups mentions the muddy ground after/during the rainstorm, and how much quicker it seemed to be on a train than in a coach. Although it was maybe going only 25mph, it obviously was much more convenient and that is evident in Plenty Coups discussion of "outdistancing the birds." But you can also see how the railroad almost became a tool for the white population of America to expand westward. It was a machine that entranced the Native American population (much like rifles earlier on) and it was almost a way to manipulate them into saying "sure thing, go ahead and rip my tribe to bits and build track on my land." It's interesting to see how much was actually going on at this time and what all resulted from this railroad craze. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
These essays about RR expansion gave my thoughts a different view on this time in American history. In class on tuesday gave me the impression that all was well with the RR expansion and that there were really no negative effects. Either I didnt focus on them or wasnt listening to it. The Plenty Coups Travels to Washington took my attention the most. The Native Americans were aware of what was going on and had an open mind towards it, but then in the end the Americans ruined it. It is more than an issue with the technological growth but as well as a disappointment to the Americans taking it so far. They had plenty of land, but took what belonged to someone else. I feel terrible for the Native American to work with the President on an issue and keep the agreement, but for the President not to follow through with his word is a disgrace. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
After reading the Native American pieces at the end, I began to wonder if this was really about railroads or about broader systems of oppression. It seems like the buffalo would have been decimated and the tribes in Yellowstone undermined with or without the railroad- perhaps the railroad sped up these affects, but I feel like they were inevitable. -- Matt Struth</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--Week 3 Questions/Comments2009-01-29T04:30:52Z<p>Smarren25: /* Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
While I was reading about the slaves, freemen, and women workers I started to think about some of my own jobs and the treatments I have had to endure in the 20th century. I could not imagine what it was like to work under those harsh conditions. Funny enough though piece work and sweat shops are still around today and people are still exploited. Sucks but it is true. People still fight for better hours, pay, and working conditions as did those back many years. Machines or new technology seemed to be a scary concept for the skilled craftsmen or artisan. It also seemed sometimes as new machines were introduced more problems for the worker arose. Aislyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that most of the readings implied that the rapid expansion of technology often was paired with a decrease in (or at least a new strain on) workers rights. This is embodied in the Harper's Ferry piece with the class struggle, and also in the Beaten in Blatimore Shipyard dealing with racial tensions. This rapid growth in technology really ended up dehumanizing the workers. As mentioned in Gender and Papermaking pg 161, there was a new pressure for workers to keep a fast pace, and there was a decrease in conditions. - Elle <br />
<br />
I felt that another important aspect about new technology in factories is that it really stripped the laborers of their value - they no longer used or really even owned their own tools - thus they were at the mercy of greedy owners and hence tensions erupted. pg 183. - Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle's point about industry. I was surprised that the more technology thrived and advanced the less attention was paid to the rights of the workers. If I think about it I guess I can understand why this happened; machines are doing the work and now industries care more about the machines rather than the work that runs the machine. It was different when industry relied on skilled workers to perform a task, but once machines began to take over the craftsmen positions, those machines became the focal point of the industry. I guess I never really paid much attention to this topic or issue... -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==<br />
I think my favorite part about this reading was the surprise on behalf of the factory when the workers began to strike. It just amuses me that they thought their working conditions were wonderful and didn't understand why someone would ever want to strike. But also, I think it's important to note when the General says that the men can be replaced easily as if they were just machines themselves. We learn that they believed that factory workers could be replaced with little to no effort but this is an actual instance when the workers were threatened with it. I'm surprised they held their ground after that. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree, I really like this reading. It really showed the difference of opinions between the workers and those in charge. It is much closer to reality, the boss always seems to think things are better than they really are. The workers really had to fight hard to stand up for themselves so that they would not be replaced.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The only thing more surprising than H.K. Craig's apparent ignorance about the employee unrest, was the revelation that those same employees could be easily replaced (as Kelly pointed out above) just like the machinery. In both of these writings exhibit a desperate struggle to defend their positions as the newly-created middle management. With the new division of labor, came the need to manage that labor. And as these letters show, these managers immediately began defending the system that gives them their standing. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==<br />
<br />
I found this piece very depressing and shocking. Douglass remembered the incident in grave detail and I did not enjoy reading the ''fight scene,'' as I will call it. The second to last paragraph gave a little light on the situation as he learned a skilled trade, but the end of the recollection fizzled that out all together. I liked how he compared his situation to that of "the grim-visaged pirate upon the high seas." However, that statement leaves the reader with an even more depressing view of his situation and race relations in 1835. Frederick Douglass of course wrote this for the purpose of shock as well as education and he succeeded. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me the most in Douglass' story was when the white carpenters suddenly decided to abandon their work until Gardner fired the blacks. The idea that blacks would replace poor whites in certain economic spheres undoubtedly contributed to this decision. I find all of this fascinating because in the first few centuries of the existence of the "New World," Europeans generally worked well amongst Native Americans and blacks. Intermarriage was more frequent, and relationships formed through shared experiences (i.e. the workplace). However, as time progressed European-Americans became increasingly fanatical about preserving their ethnic identities as slavery became associated with one's color through legislative acts and as Europeans no longer needed the assistance of Native Americans to survive in the "New World." Although Douglass' incident is not directly related to the trends listed above, he is clearly indirectly effected like so many other blacks and Native Americans through the assertion of the WASP mentality that began to permeate society in the 18th and 19th centuries. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
<br />
The essay “Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard” by Frederick Douglass shows the importance of skill, even as a slave. His story begins in the shipyard of Mr. Gardner where he was supposed to learn calking, however due to a rushed order by the Mexican government for ships, he ended up doing whatever anyone needed at any given time. The whites feared that once blacks gained a skill, they would take jobs from the whites. Due to this fear, the whites threatened to quit and Douglass ended up badly beaten. <br />
Master Hugh owned Douglas, and when he learned of what happened he allowed Douglas to work for Mr. Price where he was taught calking. In a year he was able to command high wages and sought his own employment. This shows how far a skill could get you at that time. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I may be different from those who already commented on this essay. While I find it depressing, I also find it inspirational to those who were in the same position. I realize that it isn't easy to gain a skill and those who are qualified and willing to give a black or a slave a skill are limited. But at the same time it shows how far a skill can get you, even if you have to give your wages to a master, at least you are making your own work and able to demand a wage and know that you are worth something. Is that not comparable to how it is today? -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I read the other essays just as an assigned reading, but this essay drew my attention much more. The last paragraph Douglas describes how he feels "compelled" to give his master his wages. It is as if no matter the kindness his maters gave him, he felt that they were 'pirates' who stole from him. He felt that this act was immoral. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
In response to Maggie, I felt that when Master Hugh became livid that Douglass was harassed and beaten to an inch of his life, that it wasn't so much for the wrong doing that happened to Douglass as much that he could have lost his slave, the person who worked for him and gave him his weekly earnings. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I just found this reading so depressing. I was however, surprised at the skill that Douglass was able to master, even while the poor white were against him. It still surprises me that they would want to give that much skill to a black person. Wouldnt they rather the poor whites had the skill? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In response to the argument of showing the work skills to blacks over whites, I feel that many people felt that blacks would work harder than the poor whites would at this time since they had just been given these new opportunities. This is why I think they tended to lean more towards the blacks over the poor whites, plus they would not have to treat the black workers as well as they would have to treat the white workers.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the women described in the Gender and Papermaking piece weren't rushed by the new output and machinery (and I don't really understand how that is the case). - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Elle, it seemed that the work that was done by women wasn't necessarily tied directly to the machinery. They sorted and cut rags, so their work was more dependent on quality not quantity. But at the same time I see your point, because in theory the quantity produced by the machines should increase, so you would think they would get behind and the quality would decline as a result. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When looking at the different technologies that have evolved over time, the selection/rejection process is examined as well as the impact. But, as Judith Mcgaw seems to point out, the human experience is more often left out. We study the impacts of new machines on general social, economic, or political trends. But the creation of machines has different impacts on different individuals as well. Mcgaw points out “improved machines subjected workmen to a more hectic pace, longer hours, and periodic unemployment. Moreover, unlike earlier paper makers, machine tenders and many of their fellow male employees risked being killed or maimed.” I think she also does a good job in addressing the more distinct separations that arise in the male and female work industry as a result of the rise of mechanization. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was not about gender. On page 160-161 Mcgaw discusses the impact of machines on paper mill workers. She notes, "Machines did not replace workers, reduce their level of skill, or subdivide their tasks." However, the machines did increase output of the small number of skilled laborers. This section of the reading that Jessica also pointed out changed my outlook on mechanization. I feel as if we mostly discuss how mechanization took away the need of skilled workers and made tasks simple only requiring awareness. In contrast, Mcgaw claims that in this profession, mechanization "multiplied jobs for skilled paper workers," who were trained while preforming less skilled tasks. So the mechanization trained new skilled workers and utilized the existing workers. Although Mcgaw continues by discussing the deterioration of work conditions, she also notes that there is some improvement in that as well. This just put a different spin on the topic for me. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
As with Kirsten, I found that the interesting part of this essay dealt not with gender. What I found interesting was the detailed description of the working conditions that the men and women had to deal with in paper mills. The hot damp rooms would breed all sorts of bacteria and fungi, I'm sure of it. On page 162 McGraw writes, "accidents involving paper-making machines, rag cutters, and machine shop tools caused fewer fatalities, but affected more workers, most of whom lost fingers, hands, or arms." This sums up that the working conditions for the paper mill workers were harsh. Dealing with the gender issue of the article, McGraw later writes that men would use the loss of a finger as a way to scale his manliness for he would be able to find ways around his handicap and keep working. That I found interesting. - Melissa Graham <br />
<br />
I found the sections comparing men and women in the paper industry to be the most enlightening. For instance, it is common knowledge that men earned more than women but McGaw provided some numbers. While less than 5% of men working in the mills earned less than $6 per week, 70% of women earned less than that amount. However, women's hours did not go up, nor did their working conditions change from a pre-industrial setting. Men worked alone but women worked in groups. Women's most common danger in the workplace was not from machinery but from working around dangerous substances in the rag room. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Judith McGaw’s article title Gender and Papermaking because she touches on one question that has been in the back of my head for some time. She makes a point to show that we study the impact of inventions on our history. How that machine changed American industry or even our lives today, but we usually look over the impact that invention had on the person who invented it. This is a key to the study of any invention and I think it also sheds more light on the invention itself. – Jimmy Conroy <br />
<br />
The part of this essay that I found most interesting was McGaw's description of the relationships between male employers and employees. So often we associate this area of history with the "us vs. them" mentality and this seems to have become the dominant historical narrative. Yet Smith gives numerous examples of how male employers and employees bonded with one another over notions of manhood, through pranking, and establishing personal "man to man" contracts with one another. While it's undeniable that employers exploited their employees in numerous ways, it would be a mistake to assume that, despite increasing alienation in the factories, men did not value their "skilled" labor that they held in common with one another and that their employers needed in order to maintain factory production. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think the concept of equality based on shared masculinity is interesting. A sense of equality was reached and was not like other boss/worker relationships in which the boss is in a clear position of power and lords it over the employees. It also made protests more individualized. Workers were more likely to have control over their circumstances and to have their issues addressed because of their relative equality, which kept large-scale protests down. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” ==<br />
<br />
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment. Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I would agree with you Jessica that the amount of work that got done using machines or some other new technology was close to the same as without it. I supose in the early years you would have a lot of down time with new technology so things did not get done as fast. That really can't be said for now in the 21st century. I would think as new technology came in people would not want to use it correctly, kinda like making the machine look bad, and say see we don't need it in an effort to save their jobs. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I noticed in this essay, along with the counter-intuitive nature mechanization seemed to have at first, was the interactions between employers and employees. Smith compares it to the relationship between slaves and masters in the South, which I guess makes sense as there really was no labor rights at this time. The bosses were still able to work their employees to the bone but workers still were able to determine where they worked or how they worked, apparently much like slaves did, and could get away with it. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised at Smith's argument highlighting slaves' agency in the Slave-Slaveholder relationship. This is my first U.S. History class at UMW, so it may be common knowledge to others, but I had never thought about slaves having negotiating power when it came to their work. However, as Smith explains, it makes perfect sense. Slaves were in large demand, but short supply. By having a "push-and-pull" relationship, slave owners were able to capitalize on free labor without sacrificing their investment. - Lon<br />
<br />
I would like to explore the extent to which slaves exercised their limited agency. Where they aware of their high demand and the large sums owners had invested in them? To what extend did they communicate amongst other slaves in order to get more from their owners? - Lon<br />
<br />
No, Lon, you're not alone in your understanding of slave/owner relationships. I didn't realize, either, that slaves used to negotiate with their masters about their labor; I actually didn't think they had that much power in the slave/master relationship. Was this common? -Kelly W<br />
<br />
In response to Lon's question I think that the answer is that in both the case of slavery and the factory workers, they were aware that they didn't have any direct power, but they manipulated their actions to get the point across. It was a subtle way of obtaining influence, of which both groups were acutely aware. I also agree with Jessica's comment that it seemed as though the only thing the new technology did at first was to create more leisure time for workers. They were producing the same amount at a much faster rate. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I agree with both Kelly, Lon, and Karen. First with Lon that the whole push-pull idea makes perfect sense because the slave labor was based on such a supply and demand still that it does fit together and give the slaves a little piece of the power with their masters. Kelly, from what I understand it did become quite common because after all the more you attempted to keep a slave happy the better work they would do for their masters. Karen is correct in saying that there was no direct power because of the push-pull factor these two groups held over the other one. A lot of this dealt with how each group was treated.--Sean Marren</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_3_Questions/Comments325--Week 3 Questions/Comments2009-01-29T04:26:39Z<p>Smarren25: /* Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-Document Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
While I was reading about the slaves, freemen, and women workers I started to think about some of my own jobs and the treatments I have had to endure in the 20th century. I could not imagine what it was like to work under those harsh conditions. Funny enough though piece work and sweat shops are still around today and people are still exploited. Sucks but it is true. People still fight for better hours, pay, and working conditions as did those back many years. Machines or new technology seemed to be a scary concept for the skilled craftsmen or artisan. It also seemed sometimes as new machines were introduced more problems for the worker arose. Aislyn<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that most of the readings implied that the rapid expansion of technology often was paired with a decrease in (or at least a new strain on) workers rights. This is embodied in the Harper's Ferry piece with the class struggle, and also in the Beaten in Blatimore Shipyard dealing with racial tensions. This rapid growth in technology really ended up dehumanizing the workers. As mentioned in Gender and Papermaking pg 161, there was a new pressure for workers to keep a fast pace, and there was a decrease in conditions. - Elle <br />
<br />
I felt that another important aspect about new technology in factories is that it really stripped the laborers of their value - they no longer used or really even owned their own tools - thus they were at the mercy of greedy owners and hence tensions erupted. pg 183. - Elle<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle's point about industry. I was surprised that the more technology thrived and advanced the less attention was paid to the rights of the workers. If I think about it I guess I can understand why this happened; machines are doing the work and now industries care more about the machines rather than the work that runs the machine. It was different when industry relied on skilled workers to perform a task, but once machines began to take over the craftsmen positions, those machines became the focal point of the industry. I guess I never really paid much attention to this topic or issue... -- Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
== Strike at Harpers Ferry ==<br />
I think my favorite part about this reading was the surprise on behalf of the factory when the workers began to strike. It just amuses me that they thought their working conditions were wonderful and didn't understand why someone would ever want to strike. But also, I think it's important to note when the General says that the men can be replaced easily as if they were just machines themselves. We learn that they believed that factory workers could be replaced with little to no effort but this is an actual instance when the workers were threatened with it. I'm surprised they held their ground after that. -Kelly W.<br />
<br />
I agree, I really like this reading. It really showed the difference of opinions between the workers and those in charge. It is much closer to reality, the boss always seems to think things are better than they really are. The workers really had to fight hard to stand up for themselves so that they would not be replaced.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The only thing more surprising than H.K. Craig's apparent ignorance about the employee unrest, was the revelation that those same employees could be easily replaced (as Kelly pointed out above) just like the machinery. In both of these writings exhibit a desperate struggle to defend their positions as the newly-created middle management. With the new division of labor, came the need to manage that labor. And as these letters show, these managers immediately began defending the system that gives them their standing. -Sean B.<br />
<br />
== Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore ==<br />
<br />
I found this piece very depressing and shocking. Douglass remembered the incident in grave detail and I did not enjoy reading the ''fight scene,'' as I will call it. The second to last paragraph gave a little light on the situation as he learned a skilled trade, but the end of the recollection fizzled that out all together. I liked how he compared his situation to that of "the grim-visaged pirate upon the high seas." However, that statement leaves the reader with an even more depressing view of his situation and race relations in 1835. Frederick Douglass of course wrote this for the purpose of shock as well as education and he succeeded. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me the most in Douglass' story was when the white carpenters suddenly decided to abandon their work until Gardner fired the blacks. The idea that blacks would replace poor whites in certain economic spheres undoubtedly contributed to this decision. I find all of this fascinating because in the first few centuries of the existence of the "New World," Europeans generally worked well amongst Native Americans and blacks. Intermarriage was more frequent, and relationships formed through shared experiences (i.e. the workplace). However, as time progressed European-Americans became increasingly fanatical about preserving their ethnic identities as slavery became associated with one's color through legislative acts and as Europeans no longer needed the assistance of Native Americans to survive in the "New World." Although Douglass' incident is not directly related to the trends listed above, he is clearly indirectly effected like so many other blacks and Native Americans through the assertion of the WASP mentality that began to permeate society in the 18th and 19th centuries. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
<br />
The essay “Beaten in a Baltimore Shipyard” by Frederick Douglass shows the importance of skill, even as a slave. His story begins in the shipyard of Mr. Gardner where he was supposed to learn calking, however due to a rushed order by the Mexican government for ships, he ended up doing whatever anyone needed at any given time. The whites feared that once blacks gained a skill, they would take jobs from the whites. Due to this fear, the whites threatened to quit and Douglass ended up badly beaten. <br />
Master Hugh owned Douglas, and when he learned of what happened he allowed Douglas to work for Mr. Price where he was taught calking. In a year he was able to command high wages and sought his own employment. This shows how far a skill could get you at that time. -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I may be different from those who already commented on this essay. While I find it depressing, I also find it inspirational to those who were in the same position. I realize that it isn't easy to gain a skill and those who are qualified and willing to give a black or a slave a skill are limited. But at the same time it shows how far a skill can get you, even if you have to give your wages to a master, at least you are making your own work and able to demand a wage and know that you are worth something. Is that not comparable to how it is today? -Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I read the other essays just as an assigned reading, but this essay drew my attention much more. The last paragraph Douglas describes how he feels "compelled" to give his master his wages. It is as if no matter the kindness his maters gave him, he felt that they were 'pirates' who stole from him. He felt that this act was immoral. --Maggie Wroe<br />
<br />
In response to Maggie, I felt that when Master Hugh became livid that Douglass was harassed and beaten to an inch of his life, that it wasn't so much for the wrong doing that happened to Douglass as much that he could have lost his slave, the person who worked for him and gave him his weekly earnings. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I just found this reading so depressing. I was however, surprised at the skill that Douglass was able to master, even while the poor white were against him. It still surprises me that they would want to give that much skill to a black person. Wouldnt they rather the poor whites had the skill? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== Judith McGaw, Gender and Papermaking ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the women described in the Gender and Papermaking piece weren't rushed by the new output and machinery (and I don't really understand how that is the case). - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Elle, it seemed that the work that was done by women wasn't necessarily tied directly to the machinery. They sorted and cut rags, so their work was more dependent on quality not quantity. But at the same time I see your point, because in theory the quantity produced by the machines should increase, so you would think they would get behind and the quality would decline as a result. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
When looking at the different technologies that have evolved over time, the selection/rejection process is examined as well as the impact. But, as Judith Mcgaw seems to point out, the human experience is more often left out. We study the impacts of new machines on general social, economic, or political trends. But the creation of machines has different impacts on different individuals as well. Mcgaw points out “improved machines subjected workmen to a more hectic pace, longer hours, and periodic unemployment. Moreover, unlike earlier paper makers, machine tenders and many of their fellow male employees risked being killed or maimed.” I think she also does a good job in addressing the more distinct separations that arise in the male and female work industry as a result of the rise of mechanization. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
What I found to be the most interesting part of this essay was not about gender. On page 160-161 Mcgaw discusses the impact of machines on paper mill workers. She notes, "Machines did not replace workers, reduce their level of skill, or subdivide their tasks." However, the machines did increase output of the small number of skilled laborers. This section of the reading that Jessica also pointed out changed my outlook on mechanization. I feel as if we mostly discuss how mechanization took away the need of skilled workers and made tasks simple only requiring awareness. In contrast, Mcgaw claims that in this profession, mechanization "multiplied jobs for skilled paper workers," who were trained while preforming less skilled tasks. So the mechanization trained new skilled workers and utilized the existing workers. Although Mcgaw continues by discussing the deterioration of work conditions, she also notes that there is some improvement in that as well. This just put a different spin on the topic for me. -Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
As with Kirsten, I found that the interesting part of this essay dealt not with gender. What I found interesting was the detailed description of the working conditions that the men and women had to deal with in paper mills. The hot damp rooms would breed all sorts of bacteria and fungi, I'm sure of it. On page 162 McGraw writes, "accidents involving paper-making machines, rag cutters, and machine shop tools caused fewer fatalities, but affected more workers, most of whom lost fingers, hands, or arms." This sums up that the working conditions for the paper mill workers were harsh. Dealing with the gender issue of the article, McGraw later writes that men would use the loss of a finger as a way to scale his manliness for he would be able to find ways around his handicap and keep working. That I found interesting. - Melissa Graham <br />
<br />
I found the sections comparing men and women in the paper industry to be the most enlightening. For instance, it is common knowledge that men earned more than women but McGaw provided some numbers. While less than 5% of men working in the mills earned less than $6 per week, 70% of women earned less than that amount. However, women's hours did not go up, nor did their working conditions change from a pre-industrial setting. Men worked alone but women worked in groups. Women's most common danger in the workplace was not from machinery but from working around dangerous substances in the rag room. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading Judith McGaw’s article title Gender and Papermaking because she touches on one question that has been in the back of my head for some time. She makes a point to show that we study the impact of inventions on our history. How that machine changed American industry or even our lives today, but we usually look over the impact that invention had on the person who invented it. This is a key to the study of any invention and I think it also sheds more light on the invention itself. – Jimmy Conroy <br />
<br />
The part of this essay that I found most interesting was McGaw's description of the relationships between male employers and employees. So often we associate this area of history with the "us vs. them" mentality and this seems to have become the dominant historical narrative. Yet Smith gives numerous examples of how male employers and employees bonded with one another over notions of manhood, through pranking, and establishing personal "man to man" contracts with one another. While it's undeniable that employers exploited their employees in numerous ways, it would be a mistake to assume that, despite increasing alienation in the factories, men did not value their "skilled" labor that they held in common with one another and that their employers needed in order to maintain factory production. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I think the concept of equality based on shared masculinity is interesting. A sense of equality was reached and was not like other boss/worker relationships in which the boss is in a clear position of power and lords it over the employees. It also made protests more individualized. Workers were more likely to have control over their circumstances and to have their issues addressed because of their relative equality, which kept large-scale protests down. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
== Merritt Roe Smith, “The Political Economy of Pacing” ==<br />
<br />
In “The Political Economy of Pacing” it seems to me like technology and mechanization were actually detrimental to the amount of work that got accomplished. When these advancements occur, it is so that more can be produced at the same rate. However, unless I’m miss-interpreting the article it sounds like the workers used technology to complete the same amount of work in less time. So counter-intuitively, the mechanization of processes wasn’t as economically advantageous as it could have been given the mindset of the workers utilizing the new equipment. Is that basically what this author is getting at? –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I would agree with you Jessica that the amount of work that got done using machines or some other new technology was close to the same as without it. I supose in the early years you would have a lot of down time with new technology so things did not get done as fast. That really can't be said for now in the 21st century. I would think as new technology came in people would not want to use it correctly, kinda like making the machine look bad, and say see we don't need it in an effort to save their jobs. Aislyn<br />
<br />
I noticed in this essay, along with the counter-intuitive nature mechanization seemed to have at first, was the interactions between employers and employees. Smith compares it to the relationship between slaves and masters in the South, which I guess makes sense as there really was no labor rights at this time. The bosses were still able to work their employees to the bone but workers still were able to determine where they worked or how they worked, apparently much like slaves did, and could get away with it. -Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I was quite surprised at Smith's argument highlighting slaves' agency in the Slave-Slaveholder relationship. This is my first U.S. History class at UMW, so it may be common knowledge to others, but I had never thought about slaves having negotiating power when it came to their work. However, as Smith explains, it makes perfect sense. Slaves were in large demand, but short supply. By having a "push-and-pull" relationship, slave owners were able to capitalize on free labor without sacrificing their investment. - Lon<br />
<br />
I would like to explore the extent to which slaves exercised their limited agency. Where they aware of their high demand and the large sums owners had invested in them? To what extend did they communicate amongst other slaves in order to get more from their owners? - Lon<br />
<br />
No, Lon, you're not alone in your understanding of slave/owner relationships. I didn't realize, either, that slaves used to negotiate with their masters about their labor; I actually didn't think they had that much power in the slave/master relationship. Was this common? -Kelly W<br />
<br />
In response to Lon's question I think that the answer is that in both the case of slavery and the factory workers, they were aware that they didn't have any direct power, but they manipulated their actions to get the point across. It was a subtle way of obtaining influence, of which both groups were acutely aware. I also agree with Jessica's comment that it seemed as though the only thing the new technology did at first was to create more leisure time for workers. They were producing the same amount at a much faster rate. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I agree with both Kelly, Lon, and Karen. First with Lon that the whole push-pull idea makes perfect sense because the slave labor was based on such a supply and demand still that it does fit together and give the slaves a little piece of the power with their masters. Kelly, from what I understand it did become quite common because after all the more you attempted to keep a slave happy the better work they would do for their masters. Karen is correct in saying that there was no direct power because of the push-pull factor these two groups held over the other one. A lot of this dealt with how each group was treated.--Sean Marren</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-22T04:46:19Z<p>Smarren25: /* Cross Article Observations */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Native Americans and Technology Transfer ==<br />
<br />
I found Kupperman’s article to be interesting in that it compares what the perception of technology would be between the English and the Native American’s. It is clear that the English felt that their technology was superior and that they did not consider the agriculture which they took from the Native Americans to be something of a technological advance. Though their way of life clearly depended on the settled agriculture they took from the Native Americans, they were very reluctant to credit the people who introduced these methods. Instead they believed it was a product of their land, an almost inevitability, and it took the English tools and “industrious men” to turn the land into something profitable. It seems that the difference that arises is in how one interprets agriculture as a form of technology. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
The article “…much good might they receive from the English,” talked about how the Native American’s first perceived the new technologies as they were introduced by the English. It kind of gives you an idea about how different technologies may be received differently as they are transferred from one society to another. It also reminded me of a movie I watched in a sociology class, “The God’s must be crazy,” which was about the culture shock of finding a coke bottle in the desert. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The Europeans who wrote about Native Americans respected the technology that the Natives had developed, but it was generally thought that Europeans had superior technology. However, the colonists were basically surviving off of food from the Indians. In the introduction of Kupperman's essay, the question is asked how European technology could be glorified while at the same time acknowledging that survival depended on the crucial aid of the Native Americans, especially with agricultural methods. I thought it was interesting that Europeans could maintain their position of superiority and I speculate that it might have something to do with the racial or cultural differences. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found the subject of European, in particular the English, superiority in the first reading section interesting. I have done more research on the settlement of Latin America and saw many differences and similarities between the two. In William Wood’s excerpt, he describes the Indians as being lazy and “fettered in the chains of idleness.” He believed that with the addition of English aid and modeling, the Indians would be “more industrious.” The lazy attributes of the Indians were described in Latin American sources as well. One thing I do not believe they mention in the readings is slavery. How did slavery play a part in the colonization and the technological advancements or changes of North America? <br />
Playing off that and Karen’s comment, there is also no mention of racial differences between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Although it may not have been considered an important addition to this book, I believe that those differences drive advancements in various cultures. Religious differences are mentioned, but only to show the Indians becoming more European and “cured” of superstitions (p. 30). I also find it interesting that the differences are not mentioned in Karen Kupperman’s essay. I just feel that the Europeans obviously found themselves superior and were not going to admit the whole extent to which the Indians improved their technology.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read about European technology intertwining with Native American technology and vice versa. Canoes were adapted into the European culture and firearms adapted into Native culture. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I find it funny that one of the explorers writes about how foolish the Indians were to be living on iron mines without even realizing it. He goes on to say how “disadvantageous [their] ignorance and inconsiderate contempt of the useful arts is (34).” Obviously, he considers European technology to be superior, but then he sings the praises of the canoe. He talks about how light and quick and just plain amazing they are, yet he avoids praising the Indians who invented it. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== French ==<br />
<br />
My favorite essay out of the reading was Henry French's essay about tools and how they were used by people. I really enjoyed how he showed that the person and the task are very important when choosing the tool to be used. He continues on in his essay to tell how tools evolved by people using them for different jobs; this later led to the formation of industries that replicated the tools that were being made by individuals and later sold to many. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Another essay I found interesting was Irishmen and Spades by Henry French. He makes a good point in that different people work best with different tools for the same task. There is also a difference in the tools used for different locations. It seems as though there was lots of controversy about how to make tools better: if it was lighter, wider, if it was straight, if it was made out of iron, and so on. I think what I am getting is that people are always trying to make things easier and tools are constantly being changed, and manipulated to accomplish different tasks more easily. Based off of this, it is easy to see how large-scale factories eventually came into being. This caused a shift from producing for yourself, as described in A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, to producing for a market leading to increased trade and larger corporations. This shift is shown in Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” but from this comes even more obstacles and an evolution into even more problems. With the rise of factories you have more problems as described in “Amelia,” Some of the Beauties of Our Factory System—Otherwise, Lowell Slavery. Based off of this reading I can see how technology makes things easier for some but often have repercussions for others. My mind goes to the shutting down of factories at home and the exploitation of workers abroad and the constant wars that are going on for resources. It makes me wonder if we are any better off today or if it is a continuous cycle. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I don't think I agree with what others have said about the French essay on Irishmen and Spades. Just because someone has never used a certain tool before doesn't mean they will automatically not be able to learn how. It is a bit unsettling that people would market specific tools to specific nationalities.-- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I agree with Lauren here, after all elderly people who grew up in a non computer, non cell phone era, uncolored television have learned how to not only use some of these newer technologies so why could someone not learn to use a tool. Being someone who works construction over the summer, I can personally attest to the argument that someone could pick up a tool and by watching someone use it teach themselves. I do not fully disagree that it would be challenging; however, I believe that it is unjust to give so little credit to these men working.--Sean Marren <br />
<br />
In response to the ongoing discussion about French's "Irishmen and Spades, 1859" I'd like to offer an idea that I think has already been inferred a bit in previous posts. While some people naturally do work better with tools best suited to their physical stature or to the specific environment they're working in, it seems natural to me that French, writing in 1859, would naturally have certain presuppositions and stereotypes of "Old World" immigrants. Irish immigrants and Irish Americans fought in the Civil War to protect their new homeland (North or South) in part to show that they were U.S. citizens. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that French may have presuppositions as to which tool is most efficient in the hands of people of different ancestries. A lot of it reinforces communal identity of what it means to be Irish, Scottish, etc. in the face of persecution for not being "American" and in attempts to retain communal heritage as socialization occurs. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I thought that "Irishmen and Spades: 1859" and "A Gentleman Farmer on Common Farmer's Tools: 1822" worked very well together. French explains in "Irishmen" that the spade was seen as incredibly vital to the farming of the time and location, tying into the supply and demand explanations of "Gentleman Farmer." The latter article also gave an interesting view on how farming seemed to be very by-the-book, down to the author explaining that there are specific tools to use for specific tasks. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Marx's "The Machine" ==<br />
<br />
In Leo Marx’s essay “The Machine” he is a clear advocate of the use of machine technology in the United States. He uses a speech delivered by Coxe to bring up many benefits of industrialization and argues why he believes it is a necessary aspect of American economy and politics. He argues that in order to maintain American independence the machine is necessary to increase self-sufficiency. He even goes on to say how the machine is this “root metaphor of being” and how it can be linked to the system of our constitutional government. I think it’s an interesting point because it shows how a machine doesn’t necessarily have to be something technical or mechanical but rather a system of how different parts work together to accomplish something. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be incredibly eye opening and it truly shows the progression of technologies and the affects it had on the population. The essay on page 63 by Edmund S. Morgan, A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, shows how much work and how many people were required to have a self-sufficient plantation. What is daunting is the Plantation Accounting from 1784 on page 64. It shows how difficult things were. You needed certain tools in order to make certain other tools. With this, you need increased labor which leads to the necessity for slave labor as well as skilled labor to produce the necessities. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Midwife's Tale ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Midwife's Tale. The fact that midwives made up a large part of the community's healthcare, not just with obstetrics, in the 18th and 19th century is something that is overlooked. Though scorned by many male doctors, midwives were needed for their homeopathic remedies, such as using herbs and common vegetables to cure a patient's ills, contrasting with the doctor's elaborate medicinal remedies. The irony of this is midwives were perhaps more sensible in their treatments than the so-called professionals of the day. This makes sense as many of the most basic tools that doctors use today, like the stethoscope, hadn't been invented. It was also nice to read about how one of the midwives attended autopsies and such, this of course being well before the Victorian age of restricting women due to their delicate natures. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I think it would have been really cool to be a midwife. Not that I would be able to stomach it, of course. But women put so much trust in them to deliver their children, the most precious thing to them in the world, and it's just miraculous how much they were able to do without the technology we have today. They were able to create remedies and medications with simple herbs and spices and seemed so advanced, almost, for their time period. They knew a lot more than I think we give them credit for. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the "Midwife's Tale" for the same reasons as Lauren. The extent of a midwife's knowledge is extraordinary. The paragraph in the middle of page 81 describes the job effectively and shows the range of knowledge Lauren mentioned. It states, a midwife "medicates the mysteries of birth, procreation, illness, and death. They touched the untouchable, handled excrement and vomit as well as milk, swaddled the dead as well as the new born..." Throughout the reading, I was surprised at their responsibilities, ability to multi-task, knowledge of medicines, and the cooperation with their communities and patients.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
== Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" and Edmund Morgan==<br />
<br />
<br />
My favorite essay this week was Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina." When we think about slavery, we generally associate it more so with plantation slavery in the 1800s working out in fields planting, weeding, and harvesting (unskilled labor). Yet this was not the universal case then, and especially not earlier on in the 1600 and 1700s. The notion that slaves were actually skilled laborers who had specific jobs that were vital to the success of their master's plantation makes a lot of sense to me- though I never considered it in great detail before. I think that the most interesting part of Wood's essay was his discussion on how many times slaves became apprentices (often to whites) for skilled labor and were then sold at higher prices to other plantations because of the specific skills that they had acquired. Again, it makes sense that whites would mention their slaves' skills at the slavery block, but it's something that I hadn't thought that much about prior to reading Wood's essay. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I really liked the essay of "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" because it proves how often people misjudge slave labor and consider them unskilled workers. Like the author noted, they were far from unskilled and without their know-how the early colonial period would have been far from what it ended up as. The colonists wouldn't have had any of the crucial knowledge they needed to cultivate crops like rice without the help of their slaves. - Kelly W<br />
<br />
The essay by Edmund S Morgan was very suprising to me. The plantation owner had everything he needed to keep the plantation alive right in his own backyard. The ideas to leave nothing behind and make it somehow useful, like the way the the plantation owner killed his livestock for food and then used the rest of the parts from the slaughtered animal and use it to make clothing out of. --Paul Kim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules and Regulations/Textiles/Working Conditions in Industries ==<br />
<br />
I found the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company, 1846 alarming. The prohibition of talking (with exception to work related topics) was especially shocking. It makes me wonder why workers weren't aware or more proactive about obtaining better rights? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The dichotomy between workers conditions and the development of new technology is fascinating. Although the products these workers make improve other people's lives (like the textile Mill 'Almira' worked in Massachusetts), the technology itself has put workers in bad conditions. Without this technology, are the workers better off? Or are conditions in other industries (like agriculture) just as bad as the conditions put forth by the development of mass industry? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The article on the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company was interesting. I found most of the rules were very restricting but the others like "no spirituous liquors, smoking, or any kind of amusement, will be allowed in the workshops or yards." The part about liquor and smoking makes sense for a conducive working environment. My question I suppose would be what exactly would "any [other] kind of amusement" be? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Did anyone else think the overly serious tone of "Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company: 1846" was a little self-parodic? No talking permitted except on subjects relating to their work? I understand wanting to make sure your employees are serious about their jobs, but this whole article just seemed like overkill to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I’m trying to decide if the editors were being sarcastic when they wrote, “Almira’s criticism [of the textile mills in Lowell] is perhaps more muted” than Amelia’s. “Muted” isn’t exactly the word I would use to describe what Almira writes. It’s obviously propaganda for the company, particularly since it was published in the company’s paper. Amelia’s account is much more unpleasant (and more in line with what I’ve read about 1840s working conditions), and makes me wonder if Almira got a nice little bonus for writing that the joys of working in Lowell far outweigh the disadvantages. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cross Article Observations ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that the issue of pride is evident in several of the articles. A culture takes pride in its technological advancements, taking credit and guarding the secrets of innovation closely. In the Irishmen and Spades article, the idea is expressed that the Irish spade is superior to any other and that none but an Irishmen could use it effectively. They take pride in the tool that they have developed and scorn other's attempts to use it. In Kupperman's article, Europeans refuse to acknowledge that Native Americans had developed equal technology to there own. People want their culture to be seen as superior and since technology is often a measure of success, each society wants to think that their accomplishments are the most innovative. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
To look at the readings as a whole, I really enjoyed how the advancements of technology and tools in general led to the formation of what we call American technology today. It is also interesting to think how different would our lives be today without these advancements in the technologies of the early Colonists and Native American's. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
After looking at all of the articles as a whole I would have to agree with what Jimmy has said and would also like to add that I think that is sad how reliant we have become on technology. When there is a cell phone tower down people freak out like it is Armageddon. It just makes one thing, is it possible that our society as a whole has become so technologically advanced that we can not function without the use of what we consider everyday technology such as a computer, cell phone, blackberry?--Sean Marren</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-22T04:46:06Z<p>Smarren25: /* Cross Article Observations */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Native Americans and Technology Transfer ==<br />
<br />
I found Kupperman’s article to be interesting in that it compares what the perception of technology would be between the English and the Native American’s. It is clear that the English felt that their technology was superior and that they did not consider the agriculture which they took from the Native Americans to be something of a technological advance. Though their way of life clearly depended on the settled agriculture they took from the Native Americans, they were very reluctant to credit the people who introduced these methods. Instead they believed it was a product of their land, an almost inevitability, and it took the English tools and “industrious men” to turn the land into something profitable. It seems that the difference that arises is in how one interprets agriculture as a form of technology. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
The article “…much good might they receive from the English,” talked about how the Native American’s first perceived the new technologies as they were introduced by the English. It kind of gives you an idea about how different technologies may be received differently as they are transferred from one society to another. It also reminded me of a movie I watched in a sociology class, “The God’s must be crazy,” which was about the culture shock of finding a coke bottle in the desert. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The Europeans who wrote about Native Americans respected the technology that the Natives had developed, but it was generally thought that Europeans had superior technology. However, the colonists were basically surviving off of food from the Indians. In the introduction of Kupperman's essay, the question is asked how European technology could be glorified while at the same time acknowledging that survival depended on the crucial aid of the Native Americans, especially with agricultural methods. I thought it was interesting that Europeans could maintain their position of superiority and I speculate that it might have something to do with the racial or cultural differences. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found the subject of European, in particular the English, superiority in the first reading section interesting. I have done more research on the settlement of Latin America and saw many differences and similarities between the two. In William Wood’s excerpt, he describes the Indians as being lazy and “fettered in the chains of idleness.” He believed that with the addition of English aid and modeling, the Indians would be “more industrious.” The lazy attributes of the Indians were described in Latin American sources as well. One thing I do not believe they mention in the readings is slavery. How did slavery play a part in the colonization and the technological advancements or changes of North America? <br />
Playing off that and Karen’s comment, there is also no mention of racial differences between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Although it may not have been considered an important addition to this book, I believe that those differences drive advancements in various cultures. Religious differences are mentioned, but only to show the Indians becoming more European and “cured” of superstitions (p. 30). I also find it interesting that the differences are not mentioned in Karen Kupperman’s essay. I just feel that the Europeans obviously found themselves superior and were not going to admit the whole extent to which the Indians improved their technology.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read about European technology intertwining with Native American technology and vice versa. Canoes were adapted into the European culture and firearms adapted into Native culture. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I find it funny that one of the explorers writes about how foolish the Indians were to be living on iron mines without even realizing it. He goes on to say how “disadvantageous [their] ignorance and inconsiderate contempt of the useful arts is (34).” Obviously, he considers European technology to be superior, but then he sings the praises of the canoe. He talks about how light and quick and just plain amazing they are, yet he avoids praising the Indians who invented it. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== French ==<br />
<br />
My favorite essay out of the reading was Henry French's essay about tools and how they were used by people. I really enjoyed how he showed that the person and the task are very important when choosing the tool to be used. He continues on in his essay to tell how tools evolved by people using them for different jobs; this later led to the formation of industries that replicated the tools that were being made by individuals and later sold to many. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Another essay I found interesting was Irishmen and Spades by Henry French. He makes a good point in that different people work best with different tools for the same task. There is also a difference in the tools used for different locations. It seems as though there was lots of controversy about how to make tools better: if it was lighter, wider, if it was straight, if it was made out of iron, and so on. I think what I am getting is that people are always trying to make things easier and tools are constantly being changed, and manipulated to accomplish different tasks more easily. Based off of this, it is easy to see how large-scale factories eventually came into being. This caused a shift from producing for yourself, as described in A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, to producing for a market leading to increased trade and larger corporations. This shift is shown in Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” but from this comes even more obstacles and an evolution into even more problems. With the rise of factories you have more problems as described in “Amelia,” Some of the Beauties of Our Factory System—Otherwise, Lowell Slavery. Based off of this reading I can see how technology makes things easier for some but often have repercussions for others. My mind goes to the shutting down of factories at home and the exploitation of workers abroad and the constant wars that are going on for resources. It makes me wonder if we are any better off today or if it is a continuous cycle. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I don't think I agree with what others have said about the French essay on Irishmen and Spades. Just because someone has never used a certain tool before doesn't mean they will automatically not be able to learn how. It is a bit unsettling that people would market specific tools to specific nationalities.-- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I agree with Lauren here, after all elderly people who grew up in a non computer, non cell phone era, uncolored television have learned how to not only use some of these newer technologies so why could someone not learn to use a tool. Being someone who works construction over the summer, I can personally attest to the argument that someone could pick up a tool and by watching someone use it teach themselves. I do not fully disagree that it would be challenging; however, I believe that it is unjust to give so little credit to these men working.--Sean Marren <br />
<br />
In response to the ongoing discussion about French's "Irishmen and Spades, 1859" I'd like to offer an idea that I think has already been inferred a bit in previous posts. While some people naturally do work better with tools best suited to their physical stature or to the specific environment they're working in, it seems natural to me that French, writing in 1859, would naturally have certain presuppositions and stereotypes of "Old World" immigrants. Irish immigrants and Irish Americans fought in the Civil War to protect their new homeland (North or South) in part to show that they were U.S. citizens. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that French may have presuppositions as to which tool is most efficient in the hands of people of different ancestries. A lot of it reinforces communal identity of what it means to be Irish, Scottish, etc. in the face of persecution for not being "American" and in attempts to retain communal heritage as socialization occurs. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I thought that "Irishmen and Spades: 1859" and "A Gentleman Farmer on Common Farmer's Tools: 1822" worked very well together. French explains in "Irishmen" that the spade was seen as incredibly vital to the farming of the time and location, tying into the supply and demand explanations of "Gentleman Farmer." The latter article also gave an interesting view on how farming seemed to be very by-the-book, down to the author explaining that there are specific tools to use for specific tasks. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Marx's "The Machine" ==<br />
<br />
In Leo Marx’s essay “The Machine” he is a clear advocate of the use of machine technology in the United States. He uses a speech delivered by Coxe to bring up many benefits of industrialization and argues why he believes it is a necessary aspect of American economy and politics. He argues that in order to maintain American independence the machine is necessary to increase self-sufficiency. He even goes on to say how the machine is this “root metaphor of being” and how it can be linked to the system of our constitutional government. I think it’s an interesting point because it shows how a machine doesn’t necessarily have to be something technical or mechanical but rather a system of how different parts work together to accomplish something. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be incredibly eye opening and it truly shows the progression of technologies and the affects it had on the population. The essay on page 63 by Edmund S. Morgan, A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, shows how much work and how many people were required to have a self-sufficient plantation. What is daunting is the Plantation Accounting from 1784 on page 64. It shows how difficult things were. You needed certain tools in order to make certain other tools. With this, you need increased labor which leads to the necessity for slave labor as well as skilled labor to produce the necessities. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Midwife's Tale ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Midwife's Tale. The fact that midwives made up a large part of the community's healthcare, not just with obstetrics, in the 18th and 19th century is something that is overlooked. Though scorned by many male doctors, midwives were needed for their homeopathic remedies, such as using herbs and common vegetables to cure a patient's ills, contrasting with the doctor's elaborate medicinal remedies. The irony of this is midwives were perhaps more sensible in their treatments than the so-called professionals of the day. This makes sense as many of the most basic tools that doctors use today, like the stethoscope, hadn't been invented. It was also nice to read about how one of the midwives attended autopsies and such, this of course being well before the Victorian age of restricting women due to their delicate natures. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I think it would have been really cool to be a midwife. Not that I would be able to stomach it, of course. But women put so much trust in them to deliver their children, the most precious thing to them in the world, and it's just miraculous how much they were able to do without the technology we have today. They were able to create remedies and medications with simple herbs and spices and seemed so advanced, almost, for their time period. They knew a lot more than I think we give them credit for. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the "Midwife's Tale" for the same reasons as Lauren. The extent of a midwife's knowledge is extraordinary. The paragraph in the middle of page 81 describes the job effectively and shows the range of knowledge Lauren mentioned. It states, a midwife "medicates the mysteries of birth, procreation, illness, and death. They touched the untouchable, handled excrement and vomit as well as milk, swaddled the dead as well as the new born..." Throughout the reading, I was surprised at their responsibilities, ability to multi-task, knowledge of medicines, and the cooperation with their communities and patients.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
== Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" and Edmund Morgan==<br />
<br />
<br />
My favorite essay this week was Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina." When we think about slavery, we generally associate it more so with plantation slavery in the 1800s working out in fields planting, weeding, and harvesting (unskilled labor). Yet this was not the universal case then, and especially not earlier on in the 1600 and 1700s. The notion that slaves were actually skilled laborers who had specific jobs that were vital to the success of their master's plantation makes a lot of sense to me- though I never considered it in great detail before. I think that the most interesting part of Wood's essay was his discussion on how many times slaves became apprentices (often to whites) for skilled labor and were then sold at higher prices to other plantations because of the specific skills that they had acquired. Again, it makes sense that whites would mention their slaves' skills at the slavery block, but it's something that I hadn't thought that much about prior to reading Wood's essay. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I really liked the essay of "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" because it proves how often people misjudge slave labor and consider them unskilled workers. Like the author noted, they were far from unskilled and without their know-how the early colonial period would have been far from what it ended up as. The colonists wouldn't have had any of the crucial knowledge they needed to cultivate crops like rice without the help of their slaves. - Kelly W<br />
<br />
The essay by Edmund S Morgan was very suprising to me. The plantation owner had everything he needed to keep the plantation alive right in his own backyard. The ideas to leave nothing behind and make it somehow useful, like the way the the plantation owner killed his livestock for food and then used the rest of the parts from the slaughtered animal and use it to make clothing out of. --Paul Kim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules and Regulations/Textiles/Working Conditions in Industries ==<br />
<br />
I found the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company, 1846 alarming. The prohibition of talking (with exception to work related topics) was especially shocking. It makes me wonder why workers weren't aware or more proactive about obtaining better rights? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The dichotomy between workers conditions and the development of new technology is fascinating. Although the products these workers make improve other people's lives (like the textile Mill 'Almira' worked in Massachusetts), the technology itself has put workers in bad conditions. Without this technology, are the workers better off? Or are conditions in other industries (like agriculture) just as bad as the conditions put forth by the development of mass industry? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The article on the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company was interesting. I found most of the rules were very restricting but the others like "no spirituous liquors, smoking, or any kind of amusement, will be allowed in the workshops or yards." The part about liquor and smoking makes sense for a conducive working environment. My question I suppose would be what exactly would "any [other] kind of amusement" be? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Did anyone else think the overly serious tone of "Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company: 1846" was a little self-parodic? No talking permitted except on subjects relating to their work? I understand wanting to make sure your employees are serious about their jobs, but this whole article just seemed like overkill to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I’m trying to decide if the editors were being sarcastic when they wrote, “Almira’s criticism [of the textile mills in Lowell] is perhaps more muted” than Amelia’s. “Muted” isn’t exactly the word I would use to describe what Almira writes. It’s obviously propaganda for the company, particularly since it was published in the company’s paper. Amelia’s account is much more unpleasant (and more in line with what I’ve read about 1840s working conditions), and makes me wonder if Almira got a nice little bonus for writing that the joys of working in Lowell far outweigh the disadvantages. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cross Article Observations ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that the issue of pride is evident in several of the articles. A culture takes pride in its technological advancements, taking credit and guarding the secrets of innovation closely. In the Irishmen and Spades article, the idea is expressed that the Irish spade is superior to any other and that none but an Irishmen could use it effectively. They take pride in the tool that they have developed and scorn other's attempts to use it. In Kupperman's article, Europeans refuse to acknowledge that Native Americans had developed equal technology to there own. People want their culture to be seen as superior and since technology is often a measure of success, each society wants to think that their accomplishments are the most innovative. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
To look at the readings as a whole, I really enjoyed how the advancements of technology and tools in general led to the formation of what we call American technology today. It is also interesting to think how different would our lives be today without these advancements in the technologies of the early Colonists and Native American's. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
After looking at all of the articles as a whole I would have to agree with what Jimmy has said and would also like to add that I think that is sad how reliant we have become on technology. When there is a cell phone tower down people freak out like it is Armageddon. It just makes one thing, is it possible that our society as a whole has become so technologically advanced that we can not function without the use of what we consider everyday technology such as a computer, cell phone, blackberry?</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_2_Questions/Comments325--Week 2 Questions/Comments2009-01-22T04:16:51Z<p>Smarren25: /* French */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Native Americans and Technology Transfer ==<br />
<br />
I found Kupperman’s article to be interesting in that it compares what the perception of technology would be between the English and the Native American’s. It is clear that the English felt that their technology was superior and that they did not consider the agriculture which they took from the Native Americans to be something of a technological advance. Though their way of life clearly depended on the settled agriculture they took from the Native Americans, they were very reluctant to credit the people who introduced these methods. Instead they believed it was a product of their land, an almost inevitability, and it took the English tools and “industrious men” to turn the land into something profitable. It seems that the difference that arises is in how one interprets agriculture as a form of technology. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
The article “…much good might they receive from the English,” talked about how the Native American’s first perceived the new technologies as they were introduced by the English. It kind of gives you an idea about how different technologies may be received differently as they are transferred from one society to another. It also reminded me of a movie I watched in a sociology class, “The God’s must be crazy,” which was about the culture shock of finding a coke bottle in the desert. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
The Europeans who wrote about Native Americans respected the technology that the Natives had developed, but it was generally thought that Europeans had superior technology. However, the colonists were basically surviving off of food from the Indians. In the introduction of Kupperman's essay, the question is asked how European technology could be glorified while at the same time acknowledging that survival depended on the crucial aid of the Native Americans, especially with agricultural methods. I thought it was interesting that Europeans could maintain their position of superiority and I speculate that it might have something to do with the racial or cultural differences. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
I found the subject of European, in particular the English, superiority in the first reading section interesting. I have done more research on the settlement of Latin America and saw many differences and similarities between the two. In William Wood’s excerpt, he describes the Indians as being lazy and “fettered in the chains of idleness.” He believed that with the addition of English aid and modeling, the Indians would be “more industrious.” The lazy attributes of the Indians were described in Latin American sources as well. One thing I do not believe they mention in the readings is slavery. How did slavery play a part in the colonization and the technological advancements or changes of North America? <br />
Playing off that and Karen’s comment, there is also no mention of racial differences between the Europeans and the Native Americans. Although it may not have been considered an important addition to this book, I believe that those differences drive advancements in various cultures. Religious differences are mentioned, but only to show the Indians becoming more European and “cured” of superstitions (p. 30). I also find it interesting that the differences are not mentioned in Karen Kupperman’s essay. I just feel that the Europeans obviously found themselves superior and were not going to admit the whole extent to which the Indians improved their technology.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read about European technology intertwining with Native American technology and vice versa. Canoes were adapted into the European culture and firearms adapted into Native culture. -Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
I find it funny that one of the explorers writes about how foolish the Indians were to be living on iron mines without even realizing it. He goes on to say how “disadvantageous [their] ignorance and inconsiderate contempt of the useful arts is (34).” Obviously, he considers European technology to be superior, but then he sings the praises of the canoe. He talks about how light and quick and just plain amazing they are, yet he avoids praising the Indians who invented it. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== French ==<br />
<br />
My favorite essay out of the reading was Henry French's essay about tools and how they were used by people. I really enjoyed how he showed that the person and the task are very important when choosing the tool to be used. He continues on in his essay to tell how tools evolved by people using them for different jobs; this later led to the formation of industries that replicated the tools that were being made by individuals and later sold to many. --Jimmy Conroy<br />
<br />
Another essay I found interesting was Irishmen and Spades by Henry French. He makes a good point in that different people work best with different tools for the same task. There is also a difference in the tools used for different locations. It seems as though there was lots of controversy about how to make tools better: if it was lighter, wider, if it was straight, if it was made out of iron, and so on. I think what I am getting is that people are always trying to make things easier and tools are constantly being changed, and manipulated to accomplish different tasks more easily. Based off of this, it is easy to see how large-scale factories eventually came into being. This caused a shift from producing for yourself, as described in A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, to producing for a market leading to increased trade and larger corporations. This shift is shown in Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” but from this comes even more obstacles and an evolution into even more problems. With the rise of factories you have more problems as described in “Amelia,” Some of the Beauties of Our Factory System—Otherwise, Lowell Slavery. Based off of this reading I can see how technology makes things easier for some but often have repercussions for others. My mind goes to the shutting down of factories at home and the exploitation of workers abroad and the constant wars that are going on for resources. It makes me wonder if we are any better off today or if it is a continuous cycle. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I don't think I agree with what others have said about the French essay on Irishmen and Spades. Just because someone has never used a certain tool before doesn't mean they will automatically not be able to learn how. It is a bit unsettling that people would market specific tools to specific nationalities.-- Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I agree with Lauren here, after all elderly people who grew up in a non computer, non cell phone era, uncolored television have learned how to not only use some of these newer technologies so why could someone not learn to use a tool. Being someone who works construction over the summer, I can personally attest to the argument that someone could pick up a tool and by watching someone use it teach themselves. I do not fully disagree that it would be challenging; however, I believe that it is unjust to give so little credit to these men working.--Sean Marren <br />
<br />
In response to the ongoing discussion about French's "Irishmen and Spades, 1859" I'd like to offer an idea that I think has already been inferred a bit in previous posts. While some people naturally do work better with tools best suited to their physical stature or to the specific environment they're working in, it seems natural to me that French, writing in 1859, would naturally have certain presuppositions and stereotypes of "Old World" immigrants. Irish immigrants and Irish Americans fought in the Civil War to protect their new homeland (North or South) in part to show that they were U.S. citizens. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that French may have presuppositions as to which tool is most efficient in the hands of people of different ancestries. A lot of it reinforces communal identity of what it means to be Irish, Scottish, etc. in the face of persecution for not being "American" and in attempts to retain communal heritage as socialization occurs. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I thought that "Irishmen and Spades: 1859" and "A Gentleman Farmer on Common Farmer's Tools: 1822" worked very well together. French explains in "Irishmen" that the spade was seen as incredibly vital to the farming of the time and location, tying into the supply and demand explanations of "Gentleman Farmer." The latter article also gave an interesting view on how farming seemed to be very by-the-book, down to the author explaining that there are specific tools to use for specific tasks. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== Marx's "The Machine" ==<br />
<br />
In Leo Marx’s essay “The Machine” he is a clear advocate of the use of machine technology in the United States. He uses a speech delivered by Coxe to bring up many benefits of industrialization and argues why he believes it is a necessary aspect of American economy and politics. He argues that in order to maintain American independence the machine is necessary to increase self-sufficiency. He even goes on to say how the machine is this “root metaphor of being” and how it can be linked to the system of our constitutional government. I think it’s an interesting point because it shows how a machine doesn’t necessarily have to be something technical or mechanical but rather a system of how different parts work together to accomplish something. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be incredibly eye opening and it truly shows the progression of technologies and the affects it had on the population. The essay on page 63 by Edmund S. Morgan, A Virginian Describes His Self-Sufficient Plantation, shows how much work and how many people were required to have a self-sufficient plantation. What is daunting is the Plantation Accounting from 1784 on page 64. It shows how difficult things were. You needed certain tools in order to make certain other tools. With this, you need increased labor which leads to the necessity for slave labor as well as skilled labor to produce the necessities. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Midwife's Tale ==<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading the Midwife's Tale. The fact that midwives made up a large part of the community's healthcare, not just with obstetrics, in the 18th and 19th century is something that is overlooked. Though scorned by many male doctors, midwives were needed for their homeopathic remedies, such as using herbs and common vegetables to cure a patient's ills, contrasting with the doctor's elaborate medicinal remedies. The irony of this is midwives were perhaps more sensible in their treatments than the so-called professionals of the day. This makes sense as many of the most basic tools that doctors use today, like the stethoscope, hadn't been invented. It was also nice to read about how one of the midwives attended autopsies and such, this of course being well before the Victorian age of restricting women due to their delicate natures. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I think it would have been really cool to be a midwife. Not that I would be able to stomach it, of course. But women put so much trust in them to deliver their children, the most precious thing to them in the world, and it's just miraculous how much they were able to do without the technology we have today. They were able to create remedies and medications with simple herbs and spices and seemed so advanced, almost, for their time period. They knew a lot more than I think we give them credit for. -Kelly W<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the "Midwife's Tale" for the same reasons as Lauren. The extent of a midwife's knowledge is extraordinary. The paragraph in the middle of page 81 describes the job effectively and shows the range of knowledge Lauren mentioned. It states, a midwife "medicates the mysteries of birth, procreation, illness, and death. They touched the untouchable, handled excrement and vomit as well as milk, swaddled the dead as well as the new born..." Throughout the reading, I was surprised at their responsibilities, ability to multi-task, knowledge of medicines, and the cooperation with their communities and patients.- Kirsten Walleck<br />
<br />
<br />
== Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" and Edmund Morgan==<br />
<br />
<br />
My favorite essay this week was Peter H. Wood's "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina." When we think about slavery, we generally associate it more so with plantation slavery in the 1800s working out in fields planting, weeding, and harvesting (unskilled labor). Yet this was not the universal case then, and especially not earlier on in the 1600 and 1700s. The notion that slaves were actually skilled laborers who had specific jobs that were vital to the success of their master's plantation makes a lot of sense to me- though I never considered it in great detail before. I think that the most interesting part of Wood's essay was his discussion on how many times slaves became apprentices (often to whites) for skilled labor and were then sold at higher prices to other plantations because of the specific skills that they had acquired. Again, it makes sense that whites would mention their slaves' skills at the slavery block, but it's something that I hadn't thought that much about prior to reading Wood's essay. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
I really liked the essay of "Slavery and Arts in South Carolina" because it proves how often people misjudge slave labor and consider them unskilled workers. Like the author noted, they were far from unskilled and without their know-how the early colonial period would have been far from what it ended up as. The colonists wouldn't have had any of the crucial knowledge they needed to cultivate crops like rice without the help of their slaves. - Kelly W<br />
<br />
The essay by Edmund S Morgan was very suprising to me. The plantation owner had everything he needed to keep the plantation alive right in his own backyard. The ideas to leave nothing behind and make it somehow useful, like the way the the plantation owner killed his livestock for food and then used the rest of the parts from the slaughtered animal and use it to make clothing out of. --Paul Kim<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules and Regulations/Textiles/Working Conditions in Industries ==<br />
<br />
I found the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company, 1846 alarming. The prohibition of talking (with exception to work related topics) was especially shocking. It makes me wonder why workers weren't aware or more proactive about obtaining better rights? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The dichotomy between workers conditions and the development of new technology is fascinating. Although the products these workers make improve other people's lives (like the textile Mill 'Almira' worked in Massachusetts), the technology itself has put workers in bad conditions. Without this technology, are the workers better off? Or are conditions in other industries (like agriculture) just as bad as the conditions put forth by the development of mass industry? -- Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
The article on the Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company was interesting. I found most of the rules were very restricting but the others like "no spirituous liquors, smoking, or any kind of amusement, will be allowed in the workshops or yards." The part about liquor and smoking makes sense for a conducive working environment. My question I suppose would be what exactly would "any [other] kind of amusement" be? - Melissa Graham<br />
<br />
Did anyone else think the overly serious tone of "Rules and Regulations of the Matteawan Company: 1846" was a little self-parodic? No talking permitted except on subjects relating to their work? I understand wanting to make sure your employees are serious about their jobs, but this whole article just seemed like overkill to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I’m trying to decide if the editors were being sarcastic when they wrote, “Almira’s criticism [of the textile mills in Lowell] is perhaps more muted” than Amelia’s. “Muted” isn’t exactly the word I would use to describe what Almira writes. It’s obviously propaganda for the company, particularly since it was published in the company’s paper. Amelia’s account is much more unpleasant (and more in line with what I’ve read about 1840s working conditions), and makes me wonder if Almira got a nice little bonus for writing that the joys of working in Lowell far outweigh the disadvantages. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Cross Article Observations ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that the issue of pride is evident in several of the articles. A culture takes pride in its technological advancements, taking credit and guarding the secrets of innovation closely. In the Irishmen and Spades article, the idea is expressed that the Irish spade is superior to any other and that none but an Irishmen could use it effectively. They take pride in the tool that they have developed and scorn other's attempts to use it. In Kupperman's article, Europeans refuse to acknowledge that Native Americans had developed equal technology to there own. People want their culture to be seen as superior and since technology is often a measure of success, each society wants to think that their accomplishments are the most innovative. - Karen Siegmund<br />
<br />
To look at the readings as a whole, I really enjoyed how the advancements of technology and tools in general led to the formation of what we call American technology today. It is also interesting to think how different would our lives be today without these advancements in the technologies of the early Colonists and Native American's. --Jimmy Conroy</div>Smarren25https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=325--Week_1_Questions/Comments325--Week 1 Questions/Comments2009-01-15T02:56:09Z<p>Smarren25: </p>
<hr />
<div>I think the reading sucked..... -- Dr. M<br />
<br />
No, I think the reading was brilliant -- Kelly<br />
<br />
<br />
The essays collected in chapter one attempt to define the term “technology” from different angles. Marx traces the perception technology from one of mechanical arts to a more general and abstract use that categorizes progress. What allowed for the transition in how technology is perceived today? – Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
In the article, “Do Artifacts Have Politics” the author discusses the importance of considering social and cultural implications of technology within the context of the time in which it was developed. The example of the bridges constructed in New York show how the upper classes benefited from the overpasses and how intentionally other social classes were not included. It’s a good example, but it seems like a similar pattern naturally emerges with any new technology. When first developed, it may be hard for most people to enjoy the benefits. So, my question is, when looking at the social implications of technology does it necessarily have to be the best and newest form in order to be considered a technological advancement or should it be one that is more widely benefited by a larger number of people? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I first want to say, is it me or is the text a little wordy? Seems to me this could be explained a little more easily. Anyway to answer what Jessica said in my opinion progress seems to always be measured by technological advances. In History as I have been thinking about it, our achievement has been linked to some sort of tech advance. I think the transition of mechanical arts to technology came from greed. Like the tomato picking in California, replace the worker with a machine you don't have to pay. Anyway to make money the better, and with the industrial revolution we became a capitalist nation. Now in the 21st century I think we rely on computers, cell phones, calculators, etc way to much. Don't get me wrong I love my computer and phone just as much as the next guy, but I also feel that we have come a long way really fast and that is not always the best. Also maybe why the transition happen is because it's more marketable, everyone can have a piece of technology it's not just for the rich as in early days. I may have made no sence but I am just thinking out loud...Aislyn Cathers<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how technology has been perceived over the years. What actually is considered to be technology is a very complex question, it seems that each generation has there own idea of technology and it is every changing. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found Winner's article very relevant to today. Everything is developed for a reason and typically only benefits the upper class when first introduced. It reminds me of the Ipod, when it first came out I did not know really anyone with one except celebrities, but as objects become more popular and technology improves new and better devices appear and those older ones that seemed so out of reach now become readily available for the majority. --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think Langdon Winner's presentation of technology as a political tool is fascinating. However, I think his example of Robert Moses' overpasses being used as a cultural and social divide is an exception rather than a rule. To me, new technology is created for the improvement a single function or group of functions. Normally, it is not designed to specifically alienate certain classes or races of people. -- Laurence (Lon) LeSueur<br />
<br />
Although some technological developments do have some sort of political impact, the motivation for their invention is far different. Certain technological developments aren't created with politics in mind, they're created to improve the world by making it more efficient or pleasant. --Lon LeSueur<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the reading to be very eye opening for me, personally. I don’t think I was thinking of technology the correct way before the reading. I guess it is hard to say that there is a right or wrong way to view something as broad as technology but I do think that I had a narrow sense of the term.--Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Jessica brings up a good point with her question, and I can’t figure out based off of the reading what the answer would be. My instincts would tell me that a form of technology that is more widely benefited by a greater number of people would be more of an advancement than one that is considered “new” or “the best”. This is definitely something to talk about. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
The section "Masculinity and Technology" raises a couple of issues for me that I find very interesting. The author states that if one understands technology and has a skill, then one is truly a man. He explained that with the case of Frederick Douglass. Now, my first question is do we think that's a valid argument? Do we believe that people today still believe that you're wimpy if you don't understand technology? That you're not a real man? The next thing I found interesting was the notion that women are inferior and therefore should not be as technologically fluent. Technology has always been seen as far more masculine and a more manly skill to acquire. But with the dishwasher and the washing machine, and other such advancements, do you believe that the classification that technology = masculine is changing? Or does a large majority of society consider technology to refer to computers and other such items that the stereotype might not be different? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Langdon Walker's article "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" and Donald MacKenzie's article "The Social Shaping of Technology" address the premise that technology itself is not merely technical. Rather, "technological advancement" brings social, economic, and political consequences that often have negative repercussions for different groups of people often lost in the historical narrative. We view the latest technology as the "best" and often do not consider the how "advancement" might effect the way society progresses and develops norms (Robert Moses' parkway overpasses discriminating against the poor and minorities). Similarly, the development of the mechanical tomato harvester by the University of California in the late 1940s put small tomato farmers out of business and cost thousands of people their jobs. As MacKenzie asks, what are the characteristics and qualities that make a certain mode of technology "best"? Who benefits from these new additions? -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
In her article, "Problems with 'Skill'" Nina Lerman discusses the hesitancy in using words such as skill, sophistication, and intelligence. Lerman argues that these words carry loaded meanings that people often associate with one's social status, ambition, etc. The term "knowledge" seems better because it covers all types of technology (churning butter to locomotive operation). I find Lerman's argument compelling because I believe that we subconsciously and consciously label people based on their "skilled" or "unskilled" labor. Part of the reason that I decided to take this class is because I knew that there has to be more to technology than just the basic facts of its invention, use, etc. Technology can reinforce stereotypes, social status, economic position, and more importantly, the value we assign to one another as human beings. -Bryan Lees<br />
<br />
The first reading helped me realize that I, and I'm sure others, thought of technology and its modern usage as an older term than it actually was, and that technology to my grandparents' generation meant something completely different from what it means to our generation. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
While I think Winner's article is relevant to the times, I feel the statistics are a bit vague at times. Yes the number of tomato growers have decreased from the thousands to hundreds but how many of them actually use this tomato harvester? And are the farms all big business companies? Also, in Mackenzie's article, I dislike the thought of having to ask "Best for whom?" Does this question really fundamentally matter? Can't something be just as good for someone as it is for another? Does something have to specifically be best for only one category of person or can one aspect of that thing be best for one person but another aspect best for the next? Just because a person is a woman (to use Mackenzie's example) does not mean that person will automatically agree on a technology with all other women. --Lauren Milner<br />
<br />
I found MacKenzie’s discussion of “technological determinism” to be interesting. I think it’s a strange idea that there could be only one predetermined way for a technology to advance, and that it does so without any influence from society. I do, however, understand how the technology that succeeds could be considered to be “intrinsically” superior to the technology that “fails.” Hindsight is 20/20, after all. Of course, MacKenzie points out that it’s not necessarily superiority, but rather the early adoption of one technology and the improvements made to it that lead to creating a lasting technology. It sort of reminds me of the PC vs. Mac debate. Isn’t there talk about the PC dying out or something? If that’s the case, it’s likely that the Mac will be considered “intrinsically” superior by future generations. But then there are people who already think that. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Though the essays came from different disciplines, it was interesting to see how they overlapped. For instance, both the philosopher Winner and the sociologist MacKenzie argue against the idea of technological determinism. Historian Lerman and sociologist Latuor challenge the perceptions and handling of technology. Lerman feels that “technological knowledge” consists of simpler things than running machinery and computers, while Latour is disgruntled at the way science and technology studies are separated into categories by critics. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
There are also different interpretations of technology. Leo Marx believes the rise of technology is represented in the replacement of simple tools with electrically and chemically powered things, as well as the replacement of family-owned firms with centralized corporations. Lerman believes that haying and sewing, simpler tasks often learned from family, involve as much “technological knowledge” as operating heavy machinery and programming a computer. -Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
“Do Artifacts have Politics” by Langdon Walker and David Mackenzie’s “The Social Shaping of Technology” bring up interesting arguments revolving around dividing society and cultures. This is not a rule for new inventions rather should be viewed as an exception. Perhaps it is me having a biased opinion but I do not feel that technological advancements should be viewed as a bad thing or as a dividing tool for classes and feel that judging technology is unjust since it is there to help us as a whole and not hurt us.--Sean Marren<br />
<br />
As far as technological advancements are concerned I really do not see them as a bad thing. By this I mean I do not feel that inventions were not aimed at hurting people by cutting jobs as much as helping create a more efficient way of getting jobs done. Yes with technological advancements there is always going to be a positive and a negative; however, one can not look too much at the negative if the positive is outweighing the negative. With that being said, I do feel that as a society as a whole we are far more dependent on technology than we should be which is causing problems. Some people lose their minds if they lose their cell phone when in actuality it truly is not that big of a deal.--Sean Marren</div>Smarren25 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