Difference between revisions of "426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Stansell) |
(→Mintz & Kellogg) |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
'''Strength''': In response to Stephen's question concerning Wright's statement, I believe that the factory system did not in fact "destroy family life." While certainly any environment has the potential to cause hardship on family life, the factory did, as Mintz and Kellogg discuss, provide opportunities for increased family togetherness. For instance, children were allowed to live at home longer and were not send off to live somewhere else and learn a trade at an early age. Additionally, working in the factories allowed for a shard sense of family identity and promoted the common good. While this idea certainly leaves room for jealousy and contempt for having to sacrifice for the greater good, it appears that many families were strengthened by their shared work and economic dependence. While today we may view child labor as having a negative impact on family life, it was a common practice, if these families were farmers, all of their children would have been contributing to the economic benefit of the family in some way. Therefore, I believe that it was really what each family chose to make of the situation that meant division or cohesion and that factory life did not inherently destroy the life of American families. --Sarah Gardner | '''Strength''': In response to Stephen's question concerning Wright's statement, I believe that the factory system did not in fact "destroy family life." While certainly any environment has the potential to cause hardship on family life, the factory did, as Mintz and Kellogg discuss, provide opportunities for increased family togetherness. For instance, children were allowed to live at home longer and were not send off to live somewhere else and learn a trade at an early age. Additionally, working in the factories allowed for a shard sense of family identity and promoted the common good. While this idea certainly leaves room for jealousy and contempt for having to sacrifice for the greater good, it appears that many families were strengthened by their shared work and economic dependence. While today we may view child labor as having a negative impact on family life, it was a common practice, if these families were farmers, all of their children would have been contributing to the economic benefit of the family in some way. Therefore, I believe that it was really what each family chose to make of the situation that meant division or cohesion and that factory life did not inherently destroy the life of American families. --Sarah Gardner | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Diversity": I found it interesting that the portrayal of the working-class family was more varied in Mintz and Kellogg's book when previous readings within the book portray families as homogenous. Did anyone catch the diversity of the role of not just the family, but also the ethnicity of families that were discussed? --Joe C. | ||
== Stansell == | == Stansell == | ||
