Difference between revisions of "325--2011--Week 9 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Geoffrey Bennett, “Colour Comes to All,” The Story of Popular Photography) |
(→Nye) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Nye discusses how the automobile differed from public transportation like the subway, in terms of separating the different social classes. Nye goes into further detail, discussing how by the 1920’s, the type of transportation you chose revealed a lot about your social standing and your position in society. Have things really changed today? The type of car one drives still serves as a strong symbol of social status, and public transportation isn’t exactly considered a luxury. However, it isn’t as if all poor people only use public transportation and all rich people only drive expensive luxury cars. I had never actually experienced any real form of public transportation (besides school buses and airplanes) until I visited New York City when I was sixteen years old; it was an eye-opening experience. I learned that the subway is actually incredibly diverse. I saw men and women in expensive business suits, people whom looked like they were blue-collar workers, and people whom looked homeless. However, I still feel that to this day, the way in which one travels to their job or anywhere else in their life is very indicative of their social status. For instance, if I were raised in a very wealthy family in Washington, D.C., would I really feel the need to ride the bus around the city in order to get to the places that I needed to go? Or would I simply drive the convertible BMU that my parents got me for my sixteenth birthday? Similar to clothes and the type of home one owns, so many people are concerned with obtaining the most socially impressive automobile in order to maintain a respectable place in society. It is this fact that makes me believe that all in all, things have not really changed much since the 1920’s, in terms of the correlation between social status and the type of automobile one drives. The streetcar’s significance in the early twentieth century extended far beyond being just an innovation in the efficiency of transportation; it served as an entirely new way to establish one’s place in society. ~Kevin Gottschalk | Nye discusses how the automobile differed from public transportation like the subway, in terms of separating the different social classes. Nye goes into further detail, discussing how by the 1920’s, the type of transportation you chose revealed a lot about your social standing and your position in society. Have things really changed today? The type of car one drives still serves as a strong symbol of social status, and public transportation isn’t exactly considered a luxury. However, it isn’t as if all poor people only use public transportation and all rich people only drive expensive luxury cars. I had never actually experienced any real form of public transportation (besides school buses and airplanes) until I visited New York City when I was sixteen years old; it was an eye-opening experience. I learned that the subway is actually incredibly diverse. I saw men and women in expensive business suits, people whom looked like they were blue-collar workers, and people whom looked homeless. However, I still feel that to this day, the way in which one travels to their job or anywhere else in their life is very indicative of their social status. For instance, if I were raised in a very wealthy family in Washington, D.C., would I really feel the need to ride the bus around the city in order to get to the places that I needed to go? Or would I simply drive the convertible BMU that my parents got me for my sixteenth birthday? Similar to clothes and the type of home one owns, so many people are concerned with obtaining the most socially impressive automobile in order to maintain a respectable place in society. It is this fact that makes me believe that all in all, things have not really changed much since the 1920’s, in terms of the correlation between social status and the type of automobile one drives. The streetcar’s significance in the early twentieth century extended far beyond being just an innovation in the efficiency of transportation; it served as an entirely new way to establish one’s place in society. ~Kevin Gottschalk | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought that this reading was quite interesting in that there were numerous reasons as to why the streetcar failed, especially with the impact that the automobile had on it. One quote that struck me was, "Later, when street congestion worsened, such reasoning led to the idea that since automobiles were fast and speeded up traffic flow, the slower trolley cars must be responsible for traffic jams" (p 136). Many of the overcrowding streets were constantly being blamed on the streetcars, but even after the cars changed moved away from rail and had rubber wheels? Why did the trolley car continue to fail after improvements were made upon it? -Claire Brooks | ||
== Pursell == | == Pursell == | ||
