A great leader is required to have many impressive qualities to be considered great. Abraham Lincoln is remembered for countless qualities that helped him to lead America in the best way possible. One of his more prominent achievements is that liberated the slaves from the southern parts of the United States. A leader whose achievement parallels that of Abraham Lincoln is Toussaint Louverture. Louverture was the ruler of Saint Domingue, but his more impressive accomplishments are what he did for his country as ruler, and even before. He, with the help of his army, was crucial in the liberating of the slaves that took up far more than the majority of the population of Saint Dominuge. He also proved to be an extraordinary military commander, and, although harsh, did an incredible job. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered, not only as the leader of Saint Domingue, but more importantly for his liberation of the slaves and his work as military commander.
Tousaint Louverture was born a slave, but was eventually given his freedom an and in 1790 he joined a slave revolt in the northern region of Saint Domingue, and in 1792 he was given the title of military commander. In 1794 he changed who he was fighting against. Previously, he had led his troops against the French, but when the french abolished slavery, he began to support them in hopes that it would end slavery in Saint Domingue. After the French revolution ended, Napoleon sent troops to Saint Domingue to reinstate slavery, and Louverture reacted to this by writing a letter to the French directory. In this letter he demanded that the people of Saint Domingure would not be re-enslaved, and if they would continue trying to enforce this, the people would not hesitate to react and fight back. A powerful line from his letter says "Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look calmly while it was taken from them." This shows how strong his views were against slavery, and how far he was willing to go to protect his people from ever having to suffer through it again.
Toussaint Louverture was a military genius that challenged the seemingly invincible Napoleon Bonaparte. Unfortunatley, some of the choices that he made caused the former slaves to distrust him. The entire economy of Saint Dominuge was based on its sugar plantations, which were responsible for 40% of the worlds coffee. The former slaves had worked on these plantations, and to keep the economy afloat, Louverture required that they continue to work at the plantations, this time for pay. In October 1801, rebels revolted against this requirement by massacring a lot of whites. Louverture reacted by forcing some of the rebels to kill themselves and having his nephew executed. Although this is cruel and extreme, it shows how tough Louverture was and how far he was willing to go to do what he believed was in the best interest for the people he was leading. Another example of his military instincts that benefitted his people was, when the French were coming to the city of Samana to re-enslave the people of Saint Domingue, Louverture and his troops burned the city down to prevent them from succeeding. When the French arrived in the city, "they found nothing but smoldering ruins, where once stood splendid cities." Louverture took risks others may have not, but in the end it is clear that he did what was best for his country.
To have the power to free the slaves and command the military, Toussaint Louverture had to be the ruler of Saint Domingue. As leader he made decisions that created unhappy people, but he believed that they were necessary for the good of the country. An example of this is that he forced the former slaves to continue to work on the plantations they had worked at as slaves. The commission that created Saint Domingues constitution of 1801 was headed by Toussaint Louverture. In the constitution, it promised that all men are free, and plantations should be run as 'families'. His goal in doing this was to motivate his people to be supportive of keeping their positions, explaining the family dynamic as an ideal situation. Four months later, Toussaint Louverture creates a proclamation that goes back on his word. He explains in the proclamation how strict that the plantations should be run, and the extreme consequences for leaving. An example of his extreme views are when he says "as soon as a child can walk, he should be employed on the plantain according to his strength in some useful work…" This is excessive and extreme, and resembles the enslaved Saint Dominuge rather than the new one. Toussaint Louverture was a very important leader, but some of his decisions may not have been the best for his people, and because of this, his leadership of his country isn't as important as his role as liberator of slaves and military commander.
Toussaint Louverture was an incredible man who should be remembered for his great achievements. Similar to Abraham Lincoln, he liberated the slaves of his country of Saint Dominigue, chaing 500,000 peoples lives for the better. He also commanded a military that held its own against Napoleon, who is believed to be the strongest military genius of all time. Lastly, he was the leader of Saint Domininigue, and although he was forced to make decisions that would not make his people happy, his toughness allowed his leadership skills to shine through. The country of Haiti, formally know as Saint Domingue would be nothing and would have achieved nothing with the fearless Toussaint Louverture.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Revolutions of 1830 and 1848: How successful were they?
For this lesson, the class was split into groups, and each group was given a revolution that for the most part occurred in 1830 or 1848. After doing the proper research for their revolution, each group made a survey monkey, a list of about 10 questions about their revolution for the others in the class to take so that they could learn about it. The essential question for this lesson was "Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?" To help us answer this, we all made scale to measure how much of a failure/success a revolution was. With this, it was easier for us to see where each revolution fell on the scale. From the scale, we only concluded that one of the revolutions was a complete revolution. All other revolutions were either a partial failure or even more of a success.
My groups revolution was the Deccemberist revolution of 1825. This revolution took place in 1825, and it was against the new Tsar, Tsar Nicholas. After the Tsar Alexanders death, most people assumed that Constantine, the older brother of Alexander I, would take the throne. Constantine did not have any interest in taking the crown, to the peoples dismay. Before Alexander died, the people planned to assassinated him, already unhappy with the government. When he died the hoped that Constantine would take the throne, because his ideals were the same as the people, an he would have run a government that the people would have wanted. Instead, Tsar Nicholas took the throne, someone who felt very strongly about the military, and did not want a democracy or to the people in lower social classes to have any say in the government, creating another horrible government situation for the people. The people wanted to overthrow Tsar Nicholas, put Constantine in the thrown, receive a constitution and stop the serfdom and poverty that was widely occurring in the nation. The revolt happened when the people revolting crowded around guards, and when told to halt by Nicholas they said that they were for Constantine. Hesitantly, Nicholas saw no other choice but to fire on his own people to stop the revolt from continuing. This was the end of the revolution, and since the people received nothing they wanted and were fired on by their leader, this would be considered a complete failure.
The next revolution that happened was the French revolution of 1830. After Louis XVIII died, his brother, Charles X took over the throne. He believed and absolutism, the thing that Louis XVIII was trying so hard to avoid. When he took the throne in 1824, he took away a lot of the peoples rights like limiting the right to vote and restricting the press. The liberals and radicals were not pleased by this, and used violence to get their message across, resulting in Charles X fleeing to England. After this, Louis Philippe became the citizen king, extending suffrage, which is something the french wanted, but only to the upper class, and because of this the bourgeoisie prospered, but the other people of France did not. This revolution would be, in my opinion, considered in the middle of the spectrum because the people did get some of the things the wanted, but other things, like suffrage, were only given to the upper class. France had another revolution again in 1848, just 18 years after the previous. In this revolution the people were upset that Louis Phillipe did not give them enough rights, so they took to the streets in protest. The government set up national workshops so the people of France had more opportunities for jobs, but in June these workshops were shut down being viewed as a waste of money. After the workshop closed a new constitution was created. The constitution gave voting right to all adult man, and created a one house legislature and a president. Louis Napoleon won this election, but soon he took over the title of emperor ending the republic, but still had a lot of support from the people. In my opinion, I view this revolution more as a success than as a failure because the people got things that they wanted, like being able to vote, and having a better economy, even if it was not all that they wanted. Another revolution was the Revolution of Hungarian Independence 1848. In this revolution, the Austrian empire was ruled by Metternich when a revolt broke out, and when the people supported it Metternich fled. Other places in the empire began wanting freedom as well, and wanted an end to serfdom and a constitution. The government ended up agreeing with these reforms, but unfortunately Austrian troops regained control of Vienna and Prague, and rebels were put in prison executed or exiled. This revolution is closer to a failure than a success, but the people did receive what they were fighting for, if only for a short amount of time. I believe that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were altogether more of a success than a failure. Even though none of the revolutions ended up getting everything they were fighting for, in most cases they received some things, and their countries in the future would possibly learn from what the people wanted in the past, so even if not at that time, someday the people fighting for revolutions may eventually receive it.
My groups revolution was the Deccemberist revolution of 1825. This revolution took place in 1825, and it was against the new Tsar, Tsar Nicholas. After the Tsar Alexanders death, most people assumed that Constantine, the older brother of Alexander I, would take the throne. Constantine did not have any interest in taking the crown, to the peoples dismay. Before Alexander died, the people planned to assassinated him, already unhappy with the government. When he died the hoped that Constantine would take the throne, because his ideals were the same as the people, an he would have run a government that the people would have wanted. Instead, Tsar Nicholas took the throne, someone who felt very strongly about the military, and did not want a democracy or to the people in lower social classes to have any say in the government, creating another horrible government situation for the people. The people wanted to overthrow Tsar Nicholas, put Constantine in the thrown, receive a constitution and stop the serfdom and poverty that was widely occurring in the nation. The revolt happened when the people revolting crowded around guards, and when told to halt by Nicholas they said that they were for Constantine. Hesitantly, Nicholas saw no other choice but to fire on his own people to stop the revolt from continuing. This was the end of the revolution, and since the people received nothing they wanted and were fired on by their leader, this would be considered a complete failure.
The next revolution that happened was the French revolution of 1830. After Louis XVIII died, his brother, Charles X took over the throne. He believed and absolutism, the thing that Louis XVIII was trying so hard to avoid. When he took the throne in 1824, he took away a lot of the peoples rights like limiting the right to vote and restricting the press. The liberals and radicals were not pleased by this, and used violence to get their message across, resulting in Charles X fleeing to England. After this, Louis Philippe became the citizen king, extending suffrage, which is something the french wanted, but only to the upper class, and because of this the bourgeoisie prospered, but the other people of France did not. This revolution would be, in my opinion, considered in the middle of the spectrum because the people did get some of the things the wanted, but other things, like suffrage, were only given to the upper class. France had another revolution again in 1848, just 18 years after the previous. In this revolution the people were upset that Louis Phillipe did not give them enough rights, so they took to the streets in protest. The government set up national workshops so the people of France had more opportunities for jobs, but in June these workshops were shut down being viewed as a waste of money. After the workshop closed a new constitution was created. The constitution gave voting right to all adult man, and created a one house legislature and a president. Louis Napoleon won this election, but soon he took over the title of emperor ending the republic, but still had a lot of support from the people. In my opinion, I view this revolution more as a success than as a failure because the people got things that they wanted, like being able to vote, and having a better economy, even if it was not all that they wanted. Another revolution was the Revolution of Hungarian Independence 1848. In this revolution, the Austrian empire was ruled by Metternich when a revolt broke out, and when the people supported it Metternich fled. Other places in the empire began wanting freedom as well, and wanted an end to serfdom and a constitution. The government ended up agreeing with these reforms, but unfortunately Austrian troops regained control of Vienna and Prague, and rebels were put in prison executed or exiled. This revolution is closer to a failure than a success, but the people did receive what they were fighting for, if only for a short amount of time. I believe that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were altogether more of a success than a failure. Even though none of the revolutions ended up getting everything they were fighting for, in most cases they received some things, and their countries in the future would possibly learn from what the people wanted in the past, so even if not at that time, someday the people fighting for revolutions may eventually receive it.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
60 Seconds of Conservatism, Liberalism and Nationalism
In our ideologies lesson, we focused on the three major ideologies of the 19th century. These were liberalism, conservatism and nationalism. We began our first activity by writing the definitions that we believed went with each ideology. This was to prevent misconceptions, and make clear the differences between how these words were used today and how they were used in the 19th century. Today, someone who is a conservative is viewed as being more strict and close minded, but the definition was very different in the 19th century. Then, it meant someone who wanted to keep the church and monarchy in power, and did not believe in innovation. They believed that if something had worked in the past then they should change it. Since these definitions are so different, they change your opinion on the person who claims to believe it. Because of this, it was important to clarify between what these words are used for today and how they were used in the 18th century. We then were split into groups and given a specific ideology, where we would make a 1 minute video answering the essential question for our ideology. The essential question was; What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action?
My group had the ideology nationalism. For our 1 minute presentation, we chose to do an educreations video where we explained the social impact, the political impact and examples of nationalism during the 19th century. We defined our ideology by saying that it was the bringing together of nations through shared language, culture, and history. This means that the people in a country were brought together and connected by their language, culture and history, and therefore made stronger by this bond. It impacted the social aspect of countries in the 19th century because people were brought together because of their shared culture. An example of this is when the Italians and Germans were ruled by Napoleon, they learned that if they came together as a nation then they would be stronger. It impacted the political action of countries in the 19th century because it was believe that they needed to come together to fulfill their "historic role" as a nation, and progress as a humanity. An example of this is Adresses to German Nations was written to urge the german people to unite for the greater good.
I learned quite a lot about the other two ideologies, Conservatism and Liberalism, by the other groups 60 second presentations. I learned that conservatism supported the church and the monarchy, and opposed innovation and reform. People who believe in conservatism believe completely in tradition, and not changing it. They do not believe in meritocracy, and instead believe in aristocracy. They thought that innovation led to bloodshed and fighting, so they were very much against it. They supported tradition and thought that it was the only trustworthy way to have social and political action. I learned that Liberalism is the idea that enforces preserving the rights of the people. Adam Smiths "invisible hand" is an example of Liberalism because people have the right to do what they want. Unlike conservatism, Liberalism supported meritocracy, meaning that people were elected based on their skills and not their social class.
My group had the ideology nationalism. For our 1 minute presentation, we chose to do an educreations video where we explained the social impact, the political impact and examples of nationalism during the 19th century. We defined our ideology by saying that it was the bringing together of nations through shared language, culture, and history. This means that the people in a country were brought together and connected by their language, culture and history, and therefore made stronger by this bond. It impacted the social aspect of countries in the 19th century because people were brought together because of their shared culture. An example of this is when the Italians and Germans were ruled by Napoleon, they learned that if they came together as a nation then they would be stronger. It impacted the political action of countries in the 19th century because it was believe that they needed to come together to fulfill their "historic role" as a nation, and progress as a humanity. An example of this is Adresses to German Nations was written to urge the german people to unite for the greater good.
I learned quite a lot about the other two ideologies, Conservatism and Liberalism, by the other groups 60 second presentations. I learned that conservatism supported the church and the monarchy, and opposed innovation and reform. People who believe in conservatism believe completely in tradition, and not changing it. They do not believe in meritocracy, and instead believe in aristocracy. They thought that innovation led to bloodshed and fighting, so they were very much against it. They supported tradition and thought that it was the only trustworthy way to have social and political action. I learned that Liberalism is the idea that enforces preserving the rights of the people. Adam Smiths "invisible hand" is an example of Liberalism because people have the right to do what they want. Unlike conservatism, Liberalism supported meritocracy, meaning that people were elected based on their skills and not their social class.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Praised and Despised: Napoleon Bonaparte's Role in History
Napoleon Bonaparte is know widely for his impacts on France, and eventually all of Europe. Although he was flawless in the tactics of war, other faults such as greed would ultimately lead to a bitter downfall. Though we often think of him as a fearless tyrant, he had impacts on the social, political and economic systems of Europe that will never be forgotten. In the time that Napoleon ruled France, he invaded and conquered many European countries.
Many people have strong opinions on Napoleon and his life, each vastly different from the others. Madame de Stael was a women who despised Napoleon and all that he stood for. She believed that he was a vicious tyrant, who persuaded men by force and viewed all other ways incorrect. She thought that he intruded "daily upon France's liberty and England's independence." Madame de Stael believed that Napoleons government was against virtue, dignity, religion and enthusiasm. As a member of the nobility and the daughter of King Louis XVI's former financial advisor, her background gives an obvious explanation as to why she would be against a government that is not run in this way.
Marshal Michel Ney praised Napoleon and viewed him as a hero. He believed that Napoleon was a savior of France and that the people should worship him for this. Since he was from the middle class, he was previously against a government that suppressed its people, and embraced one that gave its people freedom and their rights. Napoleon impacted the social system of Europe by creating a new form of government, one that put the previous nobility out of power. For some, this game them more rights and freedoms because they were not being ruled by these people. For others, this brought down their social class and took away some of their rights as well as their wealth. Towards the end his time ruling, he began to embrace and continue his domination in extreme ways, and changes the social system by making all men below him and not considering them in his ruling, and caused the people to fear him. He eventually believe that failure was possible and his egotistic and overly confident personality was, in my opinion, the ultimate cause for his downfall.
On the spectrum of good and evil, I personally believe that Napoleon Bonaparte lies somewhere in the middle. He was a military genius the world has yet to see again, and may never see again. Instead of people being judged by only their social class, he judged them by their skills, giving more people a chance to reach success. He conquered a lot of Europe, but he had a lot of positive impacts in these countries. With all of his great qualities, I believe that Napoleon was also overly confident. He was fully aware of his genius and used it to his advantage. I think that towards the end of his reign he became encompassed in his success and become delusional, believing that he could do anything and there was no way that he could fail. During this time I believe that he did more bad that good, acting as a tyrant rather than a leader giving equality to all. Regardless of his bad qualities, it is without question that Napoleon was a genius, and deserves all the fame and time studying him that we do today. Whether you agree or disagree with his actions, there is no arguing with the fact that he is an important part of our worlds history.
Many people have strong opinions on Napoleon and his life, each vastly different from the others. Madame de Stael was a women who despised Napoleon and all that he stood for. She believed that he was a vicious tyrant, who persuaded men by force and viewed all other ways incorrect. She thought that he intruded "daily upon France's liberty and England's independence." Madame de Stael believed that Napoleons government was against virtue, dignity, religion and enthusiasm. As a member of the nobility and the daughter of King Louis XVI's former financial advisor, her background gives an obvious explanation as to why she would be against a government that is not run in this way.
Marshal Michel Ney praised Napoleon and viewed him as a hero. He believed that Napoleon was a savior of France and that the people should worship him for this. Since he was from the middle class, he was previously against a government that suppressed its people, and embraced one that gave its people freedom and their rights. Napoleon impacted the social system of Europe by creating a new form of government, one that put the previous nobility out of power. For some, this game them more rights and freedoms because they were not being ruled by these people. For others, this brought down their social class and took away some of their rights as well as their wealth. Towards the end his time ruling, he began to embrace and continue his domination in extreme ways, and changes the social system by making all men below him and not considering them in his ruling, and caused the people to fear him. He eventually believe that failure was possible and his egotistic and overly confident personality was, in my opinion, the ultimate cause for his downfall.
On the spectrum of good and evil, I personally believe that Napoleon Bonaparte lies somewhere in the middle. He was a military genius the world has yet to see again, and may never see again. Instead of people being judged by only their social class, he judged them by their skills, giving more people a chance to reach success. He conquered a lot of Europe, but he had a lot of positive impacts in these countries. With all of his great qualities, I believe that Napoleon was also overly confident. He was fully aware of his genius and used it to his advantage. I think that towards the end of his reign he became encompassed in his success and become delusional, believing that he could do anything and there was no way that he could fail. During this time I believe that he did more bad that good, acting as a tyrant rather than a leader giving equality to all. Regardless of his bad qualities, it is without question that Napoleon was a genius, and deserves all the fame and time studying him that we do today. Whether you agree or disagree with his actions, there is no arguing with the fact that he is an important part of our worlds history.
All You Need To Know About Napoleon Bonaparte
The Lost Voices of Napoleonic History: http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html
Thursday, October 9, 2014
A Candy Economy: Representing Capitalism, Socialism and Communism with Hershey's Kisses!
We represented communism, socialism and capitalism in class in a more simplistic way, using Hershey's kisses. The simulation started with the teacher, representing the ruler, handing out the candy. The majority of the class received 3 Hershey's kisses, but some received 10. This showed how some people started with unfair advantages. We then played rock paper scissor, and the winner took a Hershey's kiss from the loser. Obviously, the people who had 10 Hershey's kisses had a better chance of staying in the game longer, and didn't have to work as hard as others to get the same result. In the end, some people ended up with a lot of Hershey's kisses, and a lot of people ended up with none. This represented capitalism. Everyone had a "fair" chance in getting a lot of Hershey's kisses, except for those who started with 10. In theory, this system seems fair, and in some ways it is. The majority of people have the same chance to get a lot of Hershey's kisses, and those who ended up with a lot mostly won a lot at rock paper scissor to get them. But, some people who started with 10 didn't have to win that many games to stay at the top. We then all sat down, some of us had no Hershey's kisses left, and some had more than 10. The teacher then collected all of our Hershey's kisses, and gave each person 3. We then had the opportunity to play rock paper scissor again if we wanted to get more Hershey's kisses. Some people chose to do this, but the majority of the class stayed seated, content with their 3, not wanting to risk losing them. Some people who played ended up with more than 3, and some ended up with less. This represented socialism. Each person was given the same amount of Hershey's kisses, and they had the opportunity to try and get more. You also had the option to stay with the 3 that you had. This is fair because everyone gets the same amount, but can try and get more if they want. Some people who try and get more end up with less than they had to begin with, but that is a risk that they took in trying to get more. It is not fair because the people who tried to get more Hershey's kisses ended up with less than those who did no work. The teacher than once again collected all of our chocolates and gave each person three, but this time there was no opportunities to play for more. This represented communism. Each person received the same amount. It was fair because nobody had any more than anyone else, but it wasn't fair because some people worked harder than others and had the same as them. All three of these systems have their faults, and none give equality to everyone.
Karl Marx and Adam Smith were two men who had vastly different ideas on how to create a steady economy. Adam Smiths theory was "the invisible hand". He believed that the government should not intervene with the economy, and allow people to deal with it themselves. He believed that they would do whatever was necessary to create competition between people so they would all have enough money. An "invisible hand" would guide the economy without the help of the government. In theory, this works flawlessly, but if put into practice, it may take longer for the economy to get to this point, and most governments would feel it necessary to step in to help guide it rather then letting the people do it themselves. Smith created his theory mainly to benefit the poor. If the people had to compete with each other, they would be more inclined to sell higher quality products at lower prices, so the poor could afford it and have more options. Marx also believed in helping the poor, because his theory was communism. He stated that what happened in our class experiment would happen with a society, going from capitalism to socialism and finally ending with communism, creating a classless, equal society. He saw how some people were working hard in capitalism and failing, and others weren't working hard at all and were still wealthy. He did not believe that this was fair, and wanted to create a society where everyone was given the same amount of money so that nobody was poor, or too wealthy.
I believe that The Invisible Hand is the best theory. I think that in this theory, people would receive what they deserve. Those who work harder would receive more money, and those who do not would not receive as much money. The theory still allows for everyone to have enough money, and the competition would help more people to have enough, and nobody to have much more than others. This theory would also allow higher quality things to be sold at lower prices because of how competitive the economy would be. This would allow people with less money to still be able to afford nicer things. The theory also does not include the government, so the people in the society completely control their economy, and all have a say in it.
The Invisible Hand- 60 Second Adventures in Economics
Karl Marx and Adam Smith were two men who had vastly different ideas on how to create a steady economy. Adam Smiths theory was "the invisible hand". He believed that the government should not intervene with the economy, and allow people to deal with it themselves. He believed that they would do whatever was necessary to create competition between people so they would all have enough money. An "invisible hand" would guide the economy without the help of the government. In theory, this works flawlessly, but if put into practice, it may take longer for the economy to get to this point, and most governments would feel it necessary to step in to help guide it rather then letting the people do it themselves. Smith created his theory mainly to benefit the poor. If the people had to compete with each other, they would be more inclined to sell higher quality products at lower prices, so the poor could afford it and have more options. Marx also believed in helping the poor, because his theory was communism. He stated that what happened in our class experiment would happen with a society, going from capitalism to socialism and finally ending with communism, creating a classless, equal society. He saw how some people were working hard in capitalism and failing, and others weren't working hard at all and were still wealthy. He did not believe that this was fair, and wanted to create a society where everyone was given the same amount of money so that nobody was poor, or too wealthy.
I believe that The Invisible Hand is the best theory. I think that in this theory, people would receive what they deserve. Those who work harder would receive more money, and those who do not would not receive as much money. The theory still allows for everyone to have enough money, and the competition would help more people to have enough, and nobody to have much more than others. This theory would also allow higher quality things to be sold at lower prices because of how competitive the economy would be. This would allow people with less money to still be able to afford nicer things. The theory also does not include the government, so the people in the society completely control their economy, and all have a say in it.
The Invisible Hand- 60 Second Adventures in Economics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulyVXa-u4wE&feature=youtu.be
Mini Bio- Karl Marx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IMc5mhbZk&feature=youtu.be
Sunday, October 5, 2014
What's in it for me? : Why Women Went to Lowell Mills
For many New England teenage girls in the 1800's, they wanted nothing more than to be able to go to the Lowell Mills to work. The Lowell Experiment was created to be a more humane version of the factories of England, and they used may precautions to ensure this outcome. A lot of amazing things were promised to the farm girls who had never been out of their town. Freedom, independence and a way to earn money were tactics used to persuade the girls to leave their small towns and their families, and come to Lowell. The families were convinced by knowing they would have one less mouth to feed, and extra money that could be sent home. It was also stressed that all girls who worked in the factory would have to mantain dignity and morality to keep their job. The Lowell Exerpiment also created a paternal system that was similar to the dynamic between families so the Mills would seem more appealing to parents. There was a lot of rules that the girls had to follow, including a 10 pm curfew, required church on Sundays and a strict behavioral code. At the boardinghouse where the girls lived, there was a boardinghouse keeper, who regulated the behavior outside of the mill hours. The strict rules and the money being brought home convinced many families to allow their daughters to go to the mills. The daughters were convinced to come to Lowell because most had never left the town that they lived in, and Lowell seemed like an incredible city full of adventure, and the young girls wanted to see the world. Going to Lowell would give the girls a lot more independence than they had ever had, and since they were only teenagers, they wanted independence.
For the most part, everything promised above was given at Lowell Mills. But, there was a lot of downsides to going to Lowell. The conditions in Lowell were almost incomparable to the conditions of Britian because they were so much better, but there was still some danger. Accidents of girls getting hurt or dying because of the machines did occur in Lowell. In the documentary Daughters of Free Men, the girls suffer from a large wage cut, and they do not make enough money to pay for their boardinghouse rent. The girls wrote speeches and petitions against the wage cut, and they eventually went on strike because of it. Instead of raising their wages, the mill owner hired new girls. This was an unfortunate side of the Lowell Experiment because it showed how the girls were replaceable, and no matter what they did, they couldn't raise their wages even if it was unfair. With that said, the girls were very educated because in their free time they went to lectures, and they became proper young women in Lowell even if it wasn't what people had done before them.
Since teenage girls moving away from home to work was such a new concept in the 1800s, people had different opinions and views on the mill girls. The mill girls showed that it was possible to have teenagers girls work and live away from home and still be very respectable girls. They were all very educated and wrote essays and speeches, and were perceived but other people as smart and educated. Some peoples opinions changed when the girls petitioned and went on strike so that they could get higher wages. Some people believes that this is not what young woman should be doing, and they thought less of them.
While their were pros and cons to going to work at Lowell Mills, most girls from the time seemed to believe that the pros outweighed the cons, and eagerly went to work there regardless of the sometimes dangerous conditions and the wage cuts that they had to endure. The girls got a lot of freedom, and the ability to live in a city, and make extra money for themselves and to send home to their families.
For the most part, everything promised above was given at Lowell Mills. But, there was a lot of downsides to going to Lowell. The conditions in Lowell were almost incomparable to the conditions of Britian because they were so much better, but there was still some danger. Accidents of girls getting hurt or dying because of the machines did occur in Lowell. In the documentary Daughters of Free Men, the girls suffer from a large wage cut, and they do not make enough money to pay for their boardinghouse rent. The girls wrote speeches and petitions against the wage cut, and they eventually went on strike because of it. Instead of raising their wages, the mill owner hired new girls. This was an unfortunate side of the Lowell Experiment because it showed how the girls were replaceable, and no matter what they did, they couldn't raise their wages even if it was unfair. With that said, the girls were very educated because in their free time they went to lectures, and they became proper young women in Lowell even if it wasn't what people had done before them.
Since teenage girls moving away from home to work was such a new concept in the 1800s, people had different opinions and views on the mill girls. The mill girls showed that it was possible to have teenagers girls work and live away from home and still be very respectable girls. They were all very educated and wrote essays and speeches, and were perceived but other people as smart and educated. Some peoples opinions changed when the girls petitioned and went on strike so that they could get higher wages. Some people believes that this is not what young woman should be doing, and they thought less of them.
While their were pros and cons to going to work at Lowell Mills, most girls from the time seemed to believe that the pros outweighed the cons, and eagerly went to work there regardless of the sometimes dangerous conditions and the wage cuts that they had to endure. The girls got a lot of freedom, and the ability to live in a city, and make extra money for themselves and to send home to their families.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
MOSI Google Hangout- 21st Century Field Trip!
In class, we had the opportunity to video chat with a museum in England called MOSI that specializes in the machines that were used during the industrial revolution. To prepare for the chat, we first took a look at the museums website. We read articles and viewed the pictures so we were more aware of what to expect. We discussed what we saw on the website and it helped us to start off with a basic knowledge of the museum. We then watched a video of the museum, with Jamie, the man who would be hosting our chat. We wrote down the vocabulary from the video, so that during the chat we could use it and be aware of what it meant if Jamie used it. The vocabulary was mainly machines and tasks that were done during the revolution, so learning what these were helped even more to get a visual of what the factories were like. After this, we had a good amount of background knowledge on the factories and machines, so we began to form questions that we could as Jamie during the chat.This way, we wouldn't forget anything we were curious about or didn't understand during the chat, because we would have all the questions down. The questions that I chose were "What were the potential injuries that could occur from factory workers?" and "How much has cotton process changed from the 1700s until now?"
Although I was absent the day of class that we did the chat, I still feel that it helped me. From the videos and notes I have seen from it, I have learned a great amount about what happened during it. I have watched videos of what happened during the chat and gotten notes of what was talked about, and I feel a lot more informed about the textile process than I previously was. I was aware that there was a large amount of injuries and sickness that came with working at the mills, but I didn't think that it was to the extent that Jamie explained it as. Many of the health problems were caused because people would breath in cotton fibers. I had never previously thought that this was an issue, but this caused people to have bad lungs, and after years, people would sometimes die because of their lungs. Children would clean the machines while they worked, and the young girls hair would sometimes get pulled into the machines and they would get scalped. Something else that had never occurred to me that might be a problem was peoples hearing. Some people even went deaf because of the noise of the machines. Because the factories were so overcrowded, it was easy for disease to spread. The main focus was never on the cleanliness or hygiene of the factories, so this created an even larger risk for disease. Besides disease, the machines were very unsafe and there was a large risk for injuries, especially in young children who didn't know better. One job of children was to clean the sped frame, and sometimes their hands would go in between the machines and mangle their hands and fingers. Children were sometimes crushed by the machines,and it was rare that they would survive. It surprised me to see learn that if you were injured and sick and could not work, you had to live on the street. I was shocked to learn about this cruel treatment.
Even though I wasn't there to have this experience first hand, I learned a lot from it. I think that it is incredible that with todays technology we have the opportunity to virtually tour a museum in a different country, and speak with an expert on the subject. Even 10 years ago this experience would have been impossible, and I am so thankful that I live when it is. It has helped me to get a better understanding of the textile industry and life during the industrial revolution. I think that I am more of a visual learner, so having this interactive experience rather than reading information from a textbook helped me to grasp the ideas a lot better. I would love to have similar experiences throughout the school year and I think that they would be very beneficial to my learning.
Although I was absent the day of class that we did the chat, I still feel that it helped me. From the videos and notes I have seen from it, I have learned a great amount about what happened during it. I have watched videos of what happened during the chat and gotten notes of what was talked about, and I feel a lot more informed about the textile process than I previously was. I was aware that there was a large amount of injuries and sickness that came with working at the mills, but I didn't think that it was to the extent that Jamie explained it as. Many of the health problems were caused because people would breath in cotton fibers. I had never previously thought that this was an issue, but this caused people to have bad lungs, and after years, people would sometimes die because of their lungs. Children would clean the machines while they worked, and the young girls hair would sometimes get pulled into the machines and they would get scalped. Something else that had never occurred to me that might be a problem was peoples hearing. Some people even went deaf because of the noise of the machines. Because the factories were so overcrowded, it was easy for disease to spread. The main focus was never on the cleanliness or hygiene of the factories, so this created an even larger risk for disease. Besides disease, the machines were very unsafe and there was a large risk for injuries, especially in young children who didn't know better. One job of children was to clean the sped frame, and sometimes their hands would go in between the machines and mangle their hands and fingers. Children were sometimes crushed by the machines,and it was rare that they would survive. It surprised me to see learn that if you were injured and sick and could not work, you had to live on the street. I was shocked to learn about this cruel treatment.
Even though I wasn't there to have this experience first hand, I learned a lot from it. I think that it is incredible that with todays technology we have the opportunity to virtually tour a museum in a different country, and speak with an expert on the subject. Even 10 years ago this experience would have been impossible, and I am so thankful that I live when it is. It has helped me to get a better understanding of the textile industry and life during the industrial revolution. I think that I am more of a visual learner, so having this interactive experience rather than reading information from a textbook helped me to grasp the ideas a lot better. I would love to have similar experiences throughout the school year and I think that they would be very beneficial to my learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)