Hello, all.
Just a reminder that I have the following review sessions scheduled - MAKE SURE YOU COME WITH SPECIFIC QUESTIONS!
Tuesday, October 2nd, 10am-12pm, Dulles 250
Tuesday, October 2nd, 3pm-5pm, Dulles 020
Wednesday, October 3rd, 9am-11am, Dulles 250
Since it's now October, we're on a new cycle of blog posts, so all of you are required to complete one activity in the next four weeks. If I suggested to you that more frequent posts would compensate for absences or infrequent in-class participation, you might want to consider doing more.
This week's readings are all about social change in the 19th century. You have three primary sources for this week: George Valentia (p. 186), Testimony for the Factory Act (p. 190), and Temple Wage (p. 225). The Temple Wage is a chart that we'll discuss, so please make sure to bring your book to section.
We'll also be reviewing a bit for the midterm. Remember, it's on Friday.
THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR SECTION:
1) According to Valentia, how do the Brits keep control over the population in India? What does British society in India look like?
2) In Testimony for the Factory Act, what are the main arguments for limiting the workday? What are the arguments against it?
ACTIVITY - due by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 10/3 if you chose to complete this week's activity
Pick a quote (1-2 sentences) from either of the readings. Give us the quote, tell us what you found interesting, surprising, confusing, etc about it, and then tell us one question that it raised for you. Please put your response in the comments section, and remember it only needs to be about 5-6 sentences total.
Good luck with your studying!
Just a reminder that I have the following review sessions scheduled - MAKE SURE YOU COME WITH SPECIFIC QUESTIONS!
Tuesday, October 2nd, 10am-12pm, Dulles 250
Tuesday, October 2nd, 3pm-5pm, Dulles 020
Wednesday, October 3rd, 9am-11am, Dulles 250
Since it's now October, we're on a new cycle of blog posts, so all of you are required to complete one activity in the next four weeks. If I suggested to you that more frequent posts would compensate for absences or infrequent in-class participation, you might want to consider doing more.
This week's readings are all about social change in the 19th century. You have three primary sources for this week: George Valentia (p. 186), Testimony for the Factory Act (p. 190), and Temple Wage (p. 225). The Temple Wage is a chart that we'll discuss, so please make sure to bring your book to section.
We'll also be reviewing a bit for the midterm. Remember, it's on Friday.
THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR SECTION:
1) According to Valentia, how do the Brits keep control over the population in India? What does British society in India look like?
2) In Testimony for the Factory Act, what are the main arguments for limiting the workday? What are the arguments against it?
ACTIVITY - due by 11:59pm on Wednesday, 10/3 if you chose to complete this week's activity
Pick a quote (1-2 sentences) from either of the readings. Give us the quote, tell us what you found interesting, surprising, confusing, etc about it, and then tell us one question that it raised for you. Please put your response in the comments section, and remember it only needs to be about 5-6 sentences total.
Good luck with your studying!
William Harter in the Testimony for the Factory Act, says "If the tending of the machines were a laborious occupation, the difference in the quantity of work might not always be in exact proportion to the difference of working time; but in my mill, and silk-mills in general, the work requires the least imaginable labour." He's saying that very little manual labor is required to run these machines, so 12 hours is nothing and the quality of the products don't depend on the worker's efforts. All he was worried about was producing as many products as he could in a shift. He paid little attention to the health and well-being of his workers. While reading this it got me thinking that wouldn't more accidents occur later on in the shifts where the workers became tired and weren't as alert? Getting a hand or body part stuck in a machines seems like it could happen easily and losing a worker would put a delay in Harter's production rate. Therefore setting him back until he got another person on the machine.
ReplyDeleteMy quote is from the "Testimony for the Factory Act" excerpt, and it says "'We have found undoubted instances of children five years old sent to work thirteen hours a day; and frequently of children nine, ten, and eleven consigned to labour for fourteen and fifteen hours.'" I was surprised that they had children working that many hours in a factory during this time. I knew that children worked, but not for that length of time. They worked longer then than a person working overtime at their typical job in today's society would, and that's ridiculous. This makes me wonder how would our society be different today if children still were able to work like that now?
ReplyDeleteThe quote I found incredibly interesting is from the George Valentia reading.
ReplyDelete"The most rapidly accumulating evil of Bengal is the increase of half caste children. They are forming the first step to colonization, by creating a link of union between the English and the natives."
I just found it baffling that these 'half caste children' would be considered so evil because they are half Indian and half English. How much of a threat would they pose to both cultures if not just uniting them even more? If the United States for example got rid of its half caste children because they were half a different decent, there would be much less people living here. This reading makes me wonder at the exact reasoning behind wanting to keep the Indians and British apart. Was it really so evil to have half Indian, half English children?
Sarah Petersen 10:20
My quote is also from the 'Testimony for the Factory Act'. The medical examiner's description of the health effects on children working in these factories was shocking. "The effects ascertained by the Commissioners in many cases are 'deformity.' and still more 'stunted growth, relaxed muscles, and slender formation:''twisting of the ends of the long bones, relaxation of the ligaments of the knees, ankles, and the like." Professor McDow said that historians think that the living conditions during this time were slightly better than they had been before the Industrial Revolution. It is hard to believe that the living and working circumstances could be worse than this. Were people becoming deformed and crippled before the industrial revolution due to their farm work? Are these health effects being described less dramatic than those of earlier time periods? It is hard to believe.
ReplyDeleteMy quote is from the "Testimony for the Factory Act". "The individual instances in which some one or other of those effects of severe labour are discernible are rather frequent than rare." I found it surprising that such severe conditions were more common than not. I was always aware that the terrible working conditions in the factories occurred but I thought that the extent of which the extreme circumstances occurred were rare. I believed that the worst cases were just the ones discussed most offend but that the average conditions were not as severe. So I was very shocked to discover that this was not the case. According to the testimony of the medical examiner the severe conditions were the norm and this realization was surprising.
ReplyDeleteAnastasia Noffsinger
Quote from "Testimony for the Factory Act (1833)"
ReplyDelete“We have found undoubted instances of children five years old sent to work thirteen hours a day; and frequently children nine, ten, and eleven consigned to labor for fourteen and fifteen hours.” -The Commission of Medical Examiners
I knew that child labor was utilized during the industrial revolution, but I did not realize that children as young as five years old were put to work for thirteen hours a day. Kindergartners about this same age are not even expected to attend school for half of that time in today’s society. I was slightly confused about the portion of the text that followed this quote describing the physical appearance of these children. The text made it seem as though these descriptions were exaggerated rumors, but then turned around to say in some cases these descriptions stand true. I am curious when child labor laws during the industrial revolution were set. What were the regulations outlined in child labor laws?
Vicki F. 11:30
ReplyDeleteThe quote I chose is: "I have observed frequently children carried to factories, unable to walk, and that entirely owing to excessive labour and confinement." This quote shows how bad the conditions were for children in the factories. I knew that there were not enough regulations in the factories, but I didn't know how bad it was for children specifically. I know that families really needed money, but I can't even imagine sending my kids to a factory knowing they would end up crippled. My question is how could parents send their kids into that environment know the outcome?
In "Testimony for the Factory Act", argument for shrinking the working duration of the labors mainly stood on the foundation that long working time resulted in bad physical conditions of the labors. They believed that twelve hours of working redirected the growth of young workers especially these workers under the age of nine. "twisting of the ends of of the long bones, relaxation of the ligaments of the knees, ankles and the like." (P191) "The tediousness and the everlasting sameness in the first process preys much on the spirits, and makes the hands spiritless" (P192) These quotes sent us a brutal fact that in such a "cage", labors were not only harmed physically, but also spiritually vacuumed.
ReplyDeleteConversely, the argument standing on the other side declared that shortening of working time will lead to loss in profit. They believed that the speed of machine production was constant and the amount of product needed was fixed, so the time producing the products should also be fixed and not reducible.
A question is: Why did the industry owners prefer to take a long-term loss incurred by the decline of quality of labor resulting from reduction of physical condition not a short-term loss in money but good to workers?
As recorded in the Testimony for the Factory Act, the Medical Commissioners say, "The representation that these effects are so common and universal as to enable some persons invariably to distinguish factory children from other children is, I have no hesitation in saying, an exaggerated and unfaithful picture of their general condition; at the same time it must be said, that the individual instances in which some one or other of those effects of severe labour are discernible are rather frequent than rare." I found this quote to be very telling because I feel that it speaks to the way that the medical practitioners of this time probably sided with the mill operators. Both were members of the bourgeoise, and so probably felt that they were fighting for the same cause - their own interests. The doctors, though they are here first admitting that long hours in the mills do have a negative effect on the health of workers, this quote shows the medical commissioners also trying to skirt around the issue. I think that this quote proves that the effect on society that the bourgeoise had was quite influential, as they teamed up to maintain their status and keep the working class poor, even when all evidence says that they should do otherwise. This quote made me question the power of the bourgeoise. With their strategic power, were they actually more influential than the nobility?
ReplyDeleteBased on the "Testimony of the Factory Act", the author mentioned "We have found undoubted instances of children five years old sent to work thirteen hours a day and frequently of children nine, ten, and eleven consigned to labour for fourteen and fifteen hours."
ReplyDeleteIt is surprising how people were so ignorant about the children's well-being. Even five-year-old children had to work for thirteen hours. This is equivalent to child abuse. This requirement is extremely cruel and the Factory Act is indeed very much needed in order to protect the children's safety and needs.
From George Valentia, Calcutta
ReplyDelete"The most rapidly accumulating evil of Bengal is the increase of half caste children. They are forming the first step to colonization, by creating a link between the English and the natives. In every country where this intermediate caste has been permitted to rise, it has ultimately tended to the ruin of that country".
It is interesting to me that Valentia feels that the rise of half-blood children will be the decline of the 'comfortable life' of British elites and how he said its the first step toward colonization.. colonization of who? I thought colonization meant people like the British elites getting the indigenous to convert and work for them to help them make money, but it seems like he is saying the British empire would be colonized to this new way of half-blood rule? He doesn't want to give half bloods an education or office positions because he fears they will take over. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read "...than by obliging every father of half caste children, to send them to Europe, prohibiting their return in any capacity whatsoever." What I don't understand is, why was there a British Empire in India at the time and why did they want to send all the half bloods to Europe, where they are from? Is it because the British elite had created an empire in India and they wanted them to go to Europe for that reason? Not sure... overall it reminded me of that general mindset people still hold today, no one wants another group to gain power to take away from their own "comfortable" life, and reminds me of current political debates that go on.
Kristen Hastwell
"The most rapidly accumulating evil of Bengal is the increase of half caste children. They are forming the first step to colonization by creating a link of union between the English and the natives".
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what he means by it would lead to colonization of the English by the takeover of half-blood children because he mentions that they still cannot hold offices. I thought colonization was what the British were doing in India and how they are the ones in power and all under them work and make their lives better, so who is really being colonized? I don't get why he wants all of the half-blood children to be sent to Europe, his home country, and why he is concerned with India so much. From the reading I can tell that the British Empire is expanding and they are in control of India but why would they want to send an uproar of half-bloods to Europe to try to take over there? It was shocking to read that he wants all the half-bloods to be sent to Europe and never to return, like he doesn't care at all that all of those children are half English and he would so quickly abandon them just because their parents interacted with natives of the land. It sounds like just another rich European who wants to remain wealthy and in control and not share any of his wealth or power with people "less" than him. It reminds me of current mindsets of people today in the United States and current political debates as well. It seems like that mindset will never truly go away.