Difference between revisions of "325--2011--Week 2 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(New page: McGaw’s theory of technology accessibility in the frontier of Pennsylvania gives serious doubts to the “Independent spirit” that is postulated in Frederick Jackson Turner’s writing...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | == Cross-Document Questions == | |
| − | ~~Kyle Allwine | + | == American Colonial Wealth (Document A) == |
| + | |||
| + | '''I find it so interesting how important it must have been to have one's property appraised back then. The banking system then was not nearly as sophisticated and having so much ready cash must have been a great liability. Also for the need of dividing up and liquidating an estate it must have been critical, as the appraisals done for deceased persons in the article suggest. What other purposes could appraisals have served?''' --JoshW. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''I also noticed from the inventory items that are shown that some of the people thought that some items were worth putting in their inventory and left off the items that were not of value (to each individual importance of items were subject to their discretion or use).''' All 3 inventories list books and 2 of the inventories list the Bible, so what they had in common was religion. Technology took a little while to grow on people, but now we can’t stop. --Pam Petzold | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Thomas Jefferson, Tenche Coxe, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Cooper -- Documents on Factories == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Was TJ a hypocrite?''' '''''Who was "right"? Hamilton/Coxe or Jefferson?''''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''It is quite ironic that Thomas Jefferson learned that manufacturing has its uses and its strength as a profitable enterprise. His farms were in ruin, but his nail business did well garnering a profit for him. Thomas Jefferson is quite picky. He does not want any manufacturing. He only wants what we would call today in history textbooks “Cottage industry.” He states several times that any family can create their own clothing, but that is false.''' A $60 carding machine is out of the league of most yeoman farmers in the South. ~~Kyle Allwine | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the readings by Thomas '''Jefferson, I think he is ok with the idea of technology, but only out of necessity. He thought that the usual day to day manufacturing should continue on but to have factories built in America, would make the people unhappy and the government corrupt.''' Maybe he had a point?? '''Tench Coxe was in favor of large scale manufacturing as was Alexander Hamilton.''' Thomas Jefferson saw that manufacturing was moving to America and could tell he was still on the fence but the money that it was bringing in was a good thing. Leo Marx was against the manufacturing and all but called Jefferson a hypocrite. Jefferson does explain at the beginning in his “Notes on Virginia” that he was for agrarian manufacturing and only taking what we need. I agree with him there, but due to all the advanced technology it is very difficult to turn away from it, due to advertising.''' Could Jefferson stand his ground or were there just too many people who were for manufacturing?''' --Pam Petzold | ||
| + | |||
| + | I find it interesting that '''Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia originally was so opposed to manufacturing advancements. He says, “I doubted whether our labor, employed in agriculture, and aided by the spontaneous energies of the earth, would not procure us more than we could make ourselves of other necessaries” (Smith and Clancey 118).''' Jefferson did not want America to become like industrial England and have to face all of the societal problems that accompany industry. However I think there is a difference between some of the more necessary uses of manufacturing that Jefferson was opposed to and the technological advancements made today. '''''For example, my friend loves his iPad.'' He uses it more than his phone and his laptop combined. And I admit it is a nice piece of technology. However, I do not believe that Americans would have really suffered if the iPad had not been invented.''' Jefferson was opposed to factories that would create more life essentials, e.g. clothing, metals, grains, etc. Finally he realized that factories would make America more independent from Europe which was important following the Revolution. ~Samantha W.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | In my opinion Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite.''' At first he only believes that large scale manufacturing isn't needed, then he returns home after being away for 10 years and finds his crops are dying. Thus he must depend on his nail business. I suspect some of his first thoughts on large scale manufacturing may have been swayed by slavery. Perhaps he foresaw the abolishment of slavery with the abolishment of dependance on agriculture. In any case while he was trying to regenerate his farms with funding from his nail-making business, he says, "My new trade of nail-making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility"(Smith and Clancey 115). Perhaps it was then that he realized that manufacturing their own necessities here in America would make them more independent from other countries. - Matt S. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest minds of his time by far, but it is evident from his attitude that he had no idea what technological advances would come.''' Then again, '''he had reason to not want an "industrial age" to happen so soon.''' During the 18th century, the land was vast across the thirteen colonies, with people living far away from one another. Factory systems and mass production only are able to survive in small areas, due to the fact that the product much reach so many people. Beyond that, agriculture was a sure bet to make money. If the colonies had switched to Britain's factory system, nobody would know the outcome. Here in America, there were vast resources, paired up with cheap land (almost free) and plenty of space to work. He did not want to become economically challenged like Britian had become, but Jefferson did want to see some technological advancement to show that the colonies were out from the shadow of the former controlling country. I only wonder how many others viewed Jefferson's opinion during this time. - Patrick K. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''According to Alexander Hamilton’s “Report of Manufactures” there are three items that represent American manufacturing successfully: scarcity of hands, dearness of labor, & want of capital.''' At the beginning of this document, Hamilton points out the embarrassment of the current system of external trade, and the necessity of enlarging the sphere of American domestic commerce. In this document Hamilton suggests by doing this, it will add additional employment, the use of machinery, and overall promoting unity in America. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton looked for ways to expand American Capital, while Jefferson preferred to keep American Technology to only necessities. Jefferson believed in the political economists in Europe, where each state would endeavor to manufacture for itself. During this time frame, Americans would only identify themselves by states or even counties rather than which country they are from, giving Americans no form of unity among one another. '''While I see Jefferson’s point, I have to be on Hamilton’s side because I believe that manufacturing is a possible way for the states to become unified rather than separate.''' – Megan Gallagher | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Tenche Coxe points out that before the Revolution that manufacturing/industrialization was slow in the colonies. This is probably because England wanted to make money by having the colonies send the raw goods across the Atlantic and then have to pay for the manufactured products instead of making it themselves in the colonies.''' Once they became the United States, however, manufacturing picked up, at least in the North, and the raw materials were often sent from the south to the north, then being sold in the US or to England giving the new nation funds it needed.-Megan Mc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought it was so interesting that Thomas Jefferson seemed to do a complete 180 in his views between his "Notes on Virginia" and the correspondence he was sending to numerous people. '''He went from believing that manufacturing created a corruption a morals to fully supporting it and thinking that we need it. It makes me wonder if that had anything to do with the timing, as the letters were written 10-15 years after his "Notes on Virginia", and also if it had anything to do with Tenche Coxe and/or Hamilton's points of views which were written between.''' Coxe and Hamilton both make similar arguments, yet Hamilton does a little better of a job as he directly lists the benefits of manufacturing and the objectives that manufacturing can take care of. We then see Jefferson again, this time backing manufacturing, yet we can still see that he believes agriculture is a huge part of the contribution to the nation's wealth. --Claire B. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Judith McGaw -- "So Much Depends..." == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''What does McGaw's piece tell us about tool ownership? About our assumptions of colonial life and work? Limitations of this piece?''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''McGaw’s theory of technology accessibility in the frontier of Pennsylvania gives serious doubts to the “Independent spirit” that is postulated in Frederick Jackson Turner’s writings in the 1890’s about the frontier.''' Turner’s belief was that the self-sufficiency of Americans began with and fermented in the frontier, but McGaw’s data shows otherwise. It shows communities with farmers having other farmers process their textiles, grain, and fruits. Was this due to some farmers having the money or wealth to buy the technology to process or was there a division of labor amongst families in the frontier? ~~Kyle Allwine | ||
| + | |||
| + | McGaw’s comment that our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted really stood out to me. It’s not just colonial America’s technology that is distorted or stereotyped; we all do this every day with virtually every topic. I once asked a student from Germany to tell me about their history classes, and to them WWII was just a conflict, not a huge war. As far as colonial America is concerned, it’s no wonder we have a distorted view when Disney produces movies like Pocahontas and we all grow up watching them. | ||
| + | Also, '''she discusses the artifacts that farmers in colonial America had and comments that many had the means to produce goods, and in fact did produce, but very few had the materials to process these goods. Is it possible that trading, or the beginning of the market system, was in the works?''' It was probably easier to send all your wool to somebody who was really good at spinning it than to sit in your house and try to become extremely efficient at multiple tasks. If you have neighbors that can cut down on your work, why not utilize them. --Meagan B. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also was intrigued by the theory that our image of colonial history, and really any history, is distorted. McGaw made an interesting point with her references to the poem about the wheelbarrow and chickens in the garden and how we need to actually be able to point to something to say, yes this person had this object. Her research into inventories seemed like a good place, but I wonder if those are always entirely truthful records. '' '''Are there other places to look at what a person owns? What about inventory or sales records for shops of the time? Another important issue is that all these ownerships can greatly vary by region, even by town.''''' When she brought up about how farmers may not have necessarily owned their own tools, I thought that it’s important to remember that they likely couldn’t afford all the tools and borrowed from friends and neighbors, so they might have been at least technologically savvy. Also, '''one of her example areas was York County, Pennsylvania, which is where I’m from, so that was pretty exciting to read examples from. I interned at the county museum, and I know we had A LOT of farm tools.''' --Sara Krechel | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Judith A. McGaw’s writing she explains that even though we had an Industrial Revolution the tools that were being used were still archaic at best. The frontier was not as advanced as we are led to believe it was. I found it interesting that not all frontiersman owned guns, while movies and shows make it look like all people during this time had guns. I wonder how they were able to look after their land without a weapon, or did they make their own too? I also understand that each area, not just a young America, but the world in general had different types of technology for different actions. --Pam Petzold | ||
| + | |||
| + | McGaw’s ideas about our image of colonial America’s technology is distorted was extremely interesting. While reading her findings and her ideas, I also began to think about technologies we have today whose images have been distorted or made into something bigger than it is. McGaw’s research “shows that farmers’ possessions reveals that there was no standard array of implements farmers and farm wives owned or needed to own,” (29). The idea that really stood out to me was the idea of necessity. Just because a “new” piece of technology was produced doesn’t mean that if fit the lifestyles or the necessities of everyone. Her research with the counties of Pennsylvania and New Jersey mentions people of different ethnicities and different ways of doing things. '''During colonial America people owned new technologies based on their needs and way of living. Today we buy the latest technology simply because we want it and feel we have to have it. The iPad for example, looks sweet and awesome, but what is its purpose exactly? Do people in today’s society REALLY NEED it?'''~Mike Roche | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''McGaw's analysis of historical inventories challenges some of the preconceptions many have about life on the frontier. For one, the notion of the lone farmer tending to his fields and his livestock all by his lonesome is pretty much erased by McGaw's inventory analysis. This lone frontiersman is a very iconic American image, often romanticized in movies, that seems to have rarely existed.''' According to McGaw's research, farmers of the day couldn't possibly have survived without a community willing to share their tools, resources, and technology with each other. The idea of a self-sufficient farmer, one who grows his own crops, harvests them, and then processes them seems to be somewhat of an American myth rather than actual history. -- Will D. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I really like McGaw’s point that “farmer’s frequent ownership of axes best documents their openness to new land-making technology”(25). She discusses how barely anyone in the various counties owned axes but then changed their minds and axes became quite prominent. Another interesting point she makes is, “technological progress is always in the eye of the beholder”(26). I think this point echoes the idea that last week’s Pursell reading addressed, that newer technology is not always better. I know that when cell phones became popular, my friends and I were excited. But my parents could not understand why people needed to be in contact with others while shopping, walking to work, or worse, while driving (which is still a bad idea). So in their minds, they did not see the technological advancement of cell phones as progress. Over time they have become more open to cell phones, especially since I’ve been away from home, but they were skeptical at first. ~Samantha W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''In reading Pursell, he mentions "that there was no standard array of household and farm utensils that virtually all colonists owned or needed to own".''' I feel this is still very true to this day. While my neighbor has every tool known to man it seems, I have what I feel are the basic necessities. We have some of the same tools in common (hammer, shovel, axe, etc.), but I have what my lifestyle requires, and he has what his lifestyle requires. - Matthew Beere | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Matthew's point about lifestyle is for me the central argument in the McGaw article. She first talks about how we look at technological innovation completely wrong. Where it isn't just about the plow, but also the farmer who owns the plow. The question we need to ask/analyze is not what was invented and why, but how was it used?''' Looking through what people owned at that time, provides a look into what people needed to fit that lifestyle. Then we can begin to learn more about what that lifestyle was like. '''I think after that point she talks about our assumption that people then were technologically self-sufficient.(23) Which according to the data is a false assumption. Because more household had candles than candle molds. The candles were coming from somewhere else, possibly a market of some sort.''' She bring up various other tools to support this point. Then she turns back to lifestyle, because it was lifestyle which tended to influence what type of tools households owned. She mentioned the Germans in York, influencing the tools the British used, because they were more commonplace. Because someone saw it was being used, they decided to use it too. However, in places which lacked those tools (and Germans apparently) there seemed to be hardly any use of it. So looking into the history of technology is also a study of economy, lifestyle, and communication. - Jenn | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''To change the subject somewhat, what particularly struck me was McGaw's take on frontiersman sort of spearheading the push for industrialization spurred by their technological creativity. Does anyone have a take on this? I have always thought that farmers, ranchers and the like have been looked down upon by "modern" eyes. In truth, they are constantly helping to evolve their industry to make it more efficient, productive and less labor intensive. As jacks-of-all-trades it stands to reason that real genius can be found in their solutions to problems they encounter. One part artist, one part engineer (''so why didn't you get a bonus for choosing a farmer in Oregon Trail''?).''' --JoshW. | ||
| + | |||
| + | McGraw's concern over the lack of cross-disciplinary historical research was very enlightening. '''Having technological historians only study the plow creates a very narrow view of history which can only be explored so far. Combining that research with research done by, say, and agricultural historian and a commercial historian will paint a much clearer picture of how it was used, who used it and what effect it had on the economy at the time, which can also give us a better picture of where our current economy came from.''' Her removal of the "pioneering spirit" of the frontier farmer was also interesting. Now knowing that bibles were more scarce than axes and that many "new" inventions created for life on the plains was either engineered out of necessity or was taken from other cultures which had dealt with similar terrain first or simply out of mundane necessity made me wonder what other miss-conceptions there are in our society about our past. - Scott | ||
| + | |||
| + | In reading McGaw’s article, I was continually amazed by the simple and seemingly obvious mistakes and misunderstandings which could so simply and easily be made by the historian, and the way in which McGaw illustrated that even amongst data sets such as inventories uncertainty remains: does the lack of a bed listed indicate the lack of a bed, or the fact that the bed was securely attached to the house? | ||
| + | The fact that individuals of the colonial period employed a mixture of self-sustainment and third-party aide and manufactures much more closely resembles the modern period than the stereotypical colonial “Jack of all Trades” model has and gives much more of a realistic idea of contemporary objects.-Nicole Steck | ||
| + | |||
| + | Beginning reading McGraw’s article, I found the comment, “…secondary literature tells us little about which tools, practices, and knowledge early farmers and farm wives customarily employed.” Up until this year, I was never taught the difference between primary and secondary sources. I found it interesting that looking at ownership of these tools, and inventory lists was the way McGraw approach it to find out what she needed, allowing a direct look at the material content of technology that American commonly employed. I found it interesting that items need greatly at the beginning of the century were completely useless just by the mid-centuries, such as the example of the carts versus a wagon. At first a wagon was looked as a luxury then created into a necessity for the agricultural world. '''I wonder will items that we use everyday, such as cell phones, become useless by 2050?''' – Megan Gallagher | ||
| + | |||
| + | It continuously amazes me how our technology continues to reinvent and expand upon itself. American society has gone from spreading the "necessity" of axes for cutting down logs for a country home to killing entire forests so we can expand our lavish and comfortable lifestyle. We recognized the importance of clearing land for homes back then, and we've expanded and "improved" upon this venture for today's living standards. Ideas and society deemed "necessities" have been a priority that's grown throughout the many years. It's just interesting to see that inventions AND these percieved necessities have been elaborated in a similar process. -Stephanie Lipscomb | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought it was interesting how McGraw approached early technology. She makes a point to detail what exactly technology could be/could have been which really surprised me with her definitions. Generally, in thinking of technology, I only really think of tools, but she made it clear that not only tools, but land organization, plant and animal behavior, and the understandings of both were included in the early technology of the colonies, just to name a few. '''It was also interesting to see which factors actually influenced the growth of technology in the colonies during this time, such as ethnic background, rise of the market economy, selective tech transfer from Europe, and how much the frontier influenced the industrialization of America'''. I would have never thought that the frontier could have in any way influenced the industrialization at all, but McGraw makes that clear in her essay. I also wondered why there was such a selection in tech transfer from Europe, but with immigrants from different countries, an established technology by one of the various countries is obviously going to be more favorable than some of the others. -Claire B. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have learned over the last few years of taking history courses to no longer assume that the beliefs or views on history that I have learned over the years growing up are accurate. In Mcgaw’s article she points out the differences between the data she has collected on tool ownership in the eighteenth century in the mid Atlantic, and our established notions of tool ownership at that time. It was incredibly interesting to learn that 20 percent of colonial homes lacked a kettle or a pot. Even more so, that only 60 percent of frontiersmen owned firearms. I find it extremely hard to picture a frontiersman battling the wilderness without a gun. Then again, perhaps all a frontiersman needed was his trusty axe. -Kathleen Mead | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Leo Marx's "The Machine" == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''I found the idea of technological expression very interesting – the idea that the type of technology one chooses to own can actually convey aspects of their personality seems to be very relevant to our modern world of infinite technological gadgets we can choose to buy or leave on the shelf.''' For instance,''' ''a person whom doesn’t own a cell phone or a computer might be trying to communicate something to society about their willingness or lack thereof to participate in modern communication practices. The same might go for somebody whom doesn’t own a television; how many people have you ever might who claim to not own a television? Have you ever asked why? The answer always seems to be 1 of 2 things – “I don’t have time to watch TV,” or “TV makes you dumb, feeds your mind with banal pop culture, and I simply don’t choose to indulge in it.”''''' By walking into a home and seeing a person with a record player, they might be trying to show their appreciation of vinyl records, and a taste for retro music equipment. The reading also discussed how Karl Marx believed the Industrial Revolution stripped many skilled artisans and craftsmen of their identity and humanity, as they were replaced by assembly lines and machines. However, does it really matter that so many artisans were reduced to being menial workers? Is it sad? Perhaps. Important? Probably not. Isn’t technology all about efficiency and innovation? Is it really important to maintain trades and crafts that humans have traditionally held for hundreds of years in the face of a greater, more efficient and productive machine? If improving and innovating technology is all about getting the job done better and more quickly, then the answer is a resounding “no.” --Kevin G. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is fascinating how Marx intrigues the psyche with his literature. He takes a serious look at the contradictions between America's devotion to technological advances and rural happiness. I believe these ideas are still true in today's society. As humans we must become more technologically sound to keep up with our culture, yet some of these new technologies put people out of work. However, as technology progresses so does the human creativity, creativity that will make more jobs for people. The transformations from generation to generation show us that our futures now rest upon our dependance of knowledge in technology. Yes, we will try to preserve as much of the past as possible, but as the older generations pass and new generations arise new traits and skills will be necessary to survive! - Matt S. | ||
