Difference between revisions of "325--2011--Week 3 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
B4ssm4st3r (Talk | contribs) (→Frederick Douglass, Beaten in Baltimore) |
(→Cross-document comments) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
A theme I noticed in the Steinberg article and the letters from Harpers Ferry was a disconnection between the owners of the machinery and the workers. The owners don’t necessarily realize the day-to-day workings of the machine and the demands of the workers, but the workers fail to see big picture ideas. The tension between the two causes many problems eventually, and this reaction hurts overall production. In short, industrial capitalism pitted the laborer against the owners of capital. In direct contrast, McGaw mentions that the introduction of the machine forged new bonds between the worker and owner because they both shared a responsibility for mechanization. My question is can the worker and owner actually bond over this? It seems that those two groups would have different and contrasting motives, which would actually sever any bond, as is suggested in Steinberg’s article and the one on Harper’s Ferry.--Sara Krechel | A theme I noticed in the Steinberg article and the letters from Harpers Ferry was a disconnection between the owners of the machinery and the workers. The owners don’t necessarily realize the day-to-day workings of the machine and the demands of the workers, but the workers fail to see big picture ideas. The tension between the two causes many problems eventually, and this reaction hurts overall production. In short, industrial capitalism pitted the laborer against the owners of capital. In direct contrast, McGaw mentions that the introduction of the machine forged new bonds between the worker and owner because they both shared a responsibility for mechanization. My question is can the worker and owner actually bond over this? It seems that those two groups would have different and contrasting motives, which would actually sever any bond, as is suggested in Steinberg’s article and the one on Harper’s Ferry.--Sara Krechel | ||
| + | Two of this weeks readings stayed with me the most, the two being the accounts of the strike at Harper's Ferry and the essay by Judith A. McGraw. The former really highlights the disconnect that developed over the early course of the industrial age in America between workers and managers. Before machines, craftsmen were their own bosses and had tight familial relations with their workers. When increased production demanded more machine work, fixed hours, lack of empathy and reduced labor caused the once-proud craftsmen to become resentful. This resentment was not even noticed by the management until the workers went on strike. Managers were more concerned over production and efficiency, while craftsmen and laborers were lamenting the standardization and serialization of their life's work. Like McGraw points out, craftsmen are a very proud stock of people and this new change in work ethic (fixed hours, standardization of work, reduced skilled labor, etc.) drove the once treasured craftsmen to bitter resentment. A resentment that often went totally unnoticed by the higher-ups until violence or severe, organized protests emerged because of it. It is this lack of attention given by the managers towards their employees that is fascinating to me. This is the exact moment when workers really became numbers instead of people and the industrial society we know today really became manifest. - Scott Briney | ||
== Strike at Harpers Ferry == | == Strike at Harpers Ferry == | ||
