Group #1-
The Work Year in 17th Century Lille, France
Testimony of an Agricultural Worker's Wife
Group #2
La Rochefoucauld Describes the Putting-Out System
The Peterloo Massacre
Group #3
The Clothier's Delight
Allom, Thomas (1804-1872)
Swainson Birley Cotton Mill near Preston, Lancashire, 1834. This interior view of the mill shows men and women operating power looms.
Group 3: This artwork by Allom Thomas depicts women working in the textile mills. The arrival of women into textile mills led to social changes in Europe. During the Industrial Revolution, the textile industry became the second largest employer of women. Many male workers were upset by women in the workforce because it challenged traditional gender roles. Women had to balance the additional income that factory work could earn them with caring for children, in order to maintain their obligations at home as well.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Sydonne's comment about working women, during the industrial revolution a working woman not only made their husband feel inadequate but it also showed the social status of the family. The revolution created a middle class for the first time, and if a wife was working it showed that the family was either classified as the lower middle class, or that they were apart of the lower class.
DeleteIn addition to Reagan talking about how women working signified social structure, it also hindered movement up the social ladder. For the first time, people were able to climb the social hierarchy, but working women hurt lower class families' ability to do so. As a symbol of poverty, a woman would presumably have to quit her job so that her family could potentially move into the middle class. However, if she quit, the family would lose a valuable income and could even sink them deeper into poverty, forcing the family to remain stagnant in the lower class.
DeleteGroup 3: Allom Thomas's artwork also reflects a technological change in Europe. During the Industrial Revolution, textile machinery, such as the power loom, was developed which revolutionized the cotton industry. Rapid mechanization of this industry led to lower production costs and the demand for cotton products increased to due to a cultural change towards comfort in clothing. Also, cotton was easier to clean than wool. In British society, the new innovation of power looms allowed the cotton industry to be a leading factor in Britain's industrialization.
ReplyDeleteNew technological advances did heavily impact the revolution. Workers in factories were able to be more productive because they were creating more and more output as the work they put in became easier. In addition to power looms, the spinning mule was invented as well to spin more thread and fabric. In addition to Sydonne's comment about wool, cotton was also preferred because it was lighter and breathed better than wool. This is another reason the cotton industry was a leading factor in industrialization in Britain.
DeleteThis boom in the English textile industry could also potentially explain the reason why the Industrial Revolution tended to stay in the northern regions of Europe. For example, Italy did not experience the Revolution on the scale that G. Britain did. The climate in Britain greatly differs from Italy; a cooler, rainy climate versus a mild, Mediterranean climate forces the British to constantly be looking for improvements to fabric. With the increased productivity in cotton - a better material for clothes, which were in greater demand in colder Britain - as well as vast supplies in coal and oil, the British experienced this industrial boom in contrast to that of Italy.
DeleteGroup 3: The Clothier's Delight is about the textile company owners' exploitation of their workers. The rhyme reflects the Industrial Revolution because during that time people were forced to work in hard conditions with little pay. The rhyme emphasizes the gap between the rich and the poor which grew during the Industrial Revolution. The line which says that the textile magnates heaped riches by "griping and grinding the poor," alludes to the various strategies that merchants used to keep wages down. The terrible wages of factory workers led to poor living conditions during the Industrial Revolution. Laboring poor lived in dilapidated tennaments and many children were abandoned. These poor conditions in the workplace would lead to poor relief, which Great Britain was the first state to nationally enforce.
ReplyDeleteJust like Sydonne said, merchants tried everything to keep wages as low as possible. The line that says, "We’ll make the poor weavers work at a low rate;
DeleteWe’ll find fault where there’s no fault, and so we will bate," talks about how they will force the poor laborers to work at low wages, and then find false faults to make the wages even lower. It is almost as if the wealthier merchants are bragging about how they have more money than the poor laborers.
Group #1: The Work Year in 17th Century Lille, France: This document is just a list of dates of holidays that there was no work. It is obvious that it is in Catholic France due to the Catholic holidays. It is pre industrial revolution since it is from the 17th century and Louis XIV was king. It shows that workers (farmers) had more days off back then than industrial factory workers during the industrial revolution.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't necessarily mean that pre-industrial workers had more days off, but that they had many more religious holidays than we do now. We don'tt celebrate any saints birthdays or deaths but holidays like presidents day and MLK day. It also says they had sundays off, which in industrial societies many factory workers had 7 day weeks until unions started to grow in power.
DeleteIt was pretty common for people to have sunday in all european countries. If you remember with James I in England the issue was if it was right to let people "play". Certainly no good calvinist would work.
DeleteIn response to Sydonne's last comment, where she talked about exploitation is completely true. In The Clothier's Delight it talks about how they would, "find fault where there is no fault" showing that they would exploit their workers to try and find ways that they could reduce their wages.
ReplyDeleteGood comments. Especially Tucker and Kaylee's above comments.
DeleteIn response to Sydonne's first comment about the women working in the picture, this proves and shows how the middle class was growing due to the new increase of women in the workforce. The Industrial Revolution coincided with a period when the idea of 'seperate spheres' was becoming very popular. Because businesses were mostly not conducted from home any more, the home was increasingly seen as the woman's realm, and the world of business as the man's realm, whereas in previous centuries they were much more closely intertwined, with wives and children involved in whatever business it happened to be.
ReplyDeleteGroup #1: Testimony of an Agricultural Worker's Wife: In this document, the wife states that working in the fields is easier than working in the factory. She says that she would much rather work in the fields. She also says that there are only a certain number of field jobs available. This shows a big difference from pre industrial times where everyone could have a job in the fields. We learned that factory jobs were limited too so this shows how unemployment is now a possibility in this industrialized period.
ReplyDeleteIn response to George's comment about how the wife states that working in the fields was easier than working in the factory, maybe she stated this because it was completely different to her. She, her mother and her grandmother before all probably worked in the field and were used to the work. As the new age began it was harder and required more skill to work in factories.
Deletein response to caleb's comment about the woman working in the field, i feel like the woman did prefer to work in the field, however she wasnt restricted to farming because she was unskilled, but rather that men didnt want women to work in the factories. the men felt that women should mind the house while the men went to the factories to make the money.
DeleteI agree with both Caleb and Libby that the woman preferred the work because it seemed easier, even though that's all she knew. But, it was also convenient for her as a mother because she only had to take a year off when she was very pregnant, and after the child was born. She could carry the child with her and care for it as she worked. Also, she made a higher wage than the average woman.
DeleteGroup #1: Testimony of an Agricultural Worker's Wife: In this document, the wife talks about buying food. This is new to people and has come about in the industrial revolution. In pre industrial life, peasants buying food was unheard of. They only ate what they could grow. She says that they grow some food but nearly enough to feed their family, she has to go buy additional food for them to eat. In pre industrial times, her family probably would have died because they could only eat what they grew.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to George's comment about buying food, this shows how the transition from the agricultural age to the industrial age affected farmers. As people moved into cities for jobs, less and less people remained in rural areas which hurt local businesses and less food was there.
DeleteThat's probably one cause of the infamous bread riots throughout Europe is less farmers growing food. When everyone is only subsisting, there is hardly any surplus, so when this family who is growing food has to buy more food it just drives demand up and prices up
Deletenice thread here. Everyone did a nice thoughtful job.
DeleteThe Clothier's Delight:
ReplyDelete"We live at our pleasure, and take our delight;
Which we get by griping and grinding the poor."
This excerpt can also relate to how the king and nobles treated the poor in France before the French Revolution.
Swainson Birley Cotton Mill:
This view shows the working conditions of the men and women workers. It shows how little space the workers had to work in. It also shows the technological advantages the Industrial Revolution brought.
I find it interesting where it says in The Clothier's Delight that as long as there workers are working then they will continue to be rich. It makes you see how even though they are so harsh on the worker, their wealth is totally dependent on them. They have to be able to control these workers so that they cant understand that. The rhyme says how if trade is good then theyll say its bad and if its bad theyll say its good all to keep the workers in control.
ReplyDeleteGroup 3: The picture contrast with the work the country women did when they worked in the fields and gardens. Urban women increasingly worked in the factories. In France, women accounted for 35% of the industrial workforce, whereas only a small percentage of women worked in factories.
ReplyDeleteAs Reagan said, the picture shows the differences of the working women in the country and the city. While not many women worked in factories at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, many women and children will be working in factories by the end of it. The division of spheres will take place.
DeleteGroup 3: When it says,"When they bring home their work onto us, they complain and say that their wages will not them maintain.." in the Clothiers delight, it shows how during the Industrial revolution the middle and lower class suffered greatly from the changing prices. The living cost continued to increase while their wages stuck making it extremely hard for them to keep up. That is one of the reasons that wives had to start working so that they could have enough money to support their families. This excerpt also shows how the people over the factories continued to grow wealthy and not struggle economically like the people actually doing the work were.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even though the factories did produce harmful price changes, it also gave the lower class new opportunities. As long as the woman of the family did not have to start working (a sign of poverty), factories provide workers with a path to ascend the social hierarchy through promotions. Historically, workers were farmers or candlestick makers or blacksmiths their entire lives; with the new factory system however, workers could potentially receive promotions within the factory en route to escaping poverty and the lower class.
DeleteGroup 3: In response to George with the work year in the 17th century, I agree with George that it is a list of dates of holidays with no work, but in relation to our current section, this shows how things had changed overtime. In the late 1700s to 1800s there were food riots and less food for the growing population and the people didn't have the luxury of feasting or even those 44 days off. Back in the 17th century with Louis XIV things were many based on farming and land, instead of industry.
ReplyDeleteGroup 1
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGroup 2: La Rochefoucauld Describes the Putting-Out System
ReplyDeleteThe article describes how poor farmers participated in the putting out system. The article shows how subcontracting was a big part of the system. This is true, because farmers bring their goods to the market and then agents buy for merchants who then ship the goods to various places. Also, I am able to see how the putting out system is a very important factor in the lives of rural farmers during the 1700s. The farmer works all week long to produce crops just to bring them to the market. Furthermore, this opens my eyes to why farmers will respond so harshly towards industrialization and the destruction of the system.
Along with what Dilys saying. The farmers had become used to this live style and many refused to adapt to the new industrial economy. They lost their main income when the putting out system basically went extinct with big jobs in cities taking over the producing of goods. There only choices were to support themselves with own goods or move and work around cities.
DeleteGroup 2: The Peterloo Massacre
ReplyDeleteThe article describes how the effects of the French Revolution induced riots. Rioters advocated against food, suffrage, and representation. Even after the Revolution, people were still upset with the structure of the government representing its failure. The riot was more about politics than famine. However, because the industrial revolution precedes the French revolution, it exacerbates famine, but people are still ultimately upset with the structure of the government. This shows one of the many negative aspects of the Revolution: people obviously were still not in agreement with the government.
Along with what Dilys says about the people still being upset with the government. Henry Hunt was still speaking out for annual parliaments and universal suffrage. Then the military came to arrest him and this sent the crowd into a frenzy. Which then lead to the killing of people in the crowd. This showed how people were still angry at the government for not being the way they want it.
DeleteThe government showed that it would not tolerate the protest of it's laws by sending in the military but the crowd did not become frenzied until the soldiers went to take the flags and had already began killing people which turned what would have been a peaceful protest in to a massacre.
DeleteThis riot which lead to a massacre reminds me of riots that occurred during the French Revolution, especially the women's march to Versailles. While, as Dilys said, the event at Peterloo was less about famine and more about political injustice, the Women's March was essentially just demanding more food. Still, the Women who marched wanted their voice to be heard, and the protestors in 1819 wanted the same thing, just in the form of suffrage. Also as Dilys says, both riots illustrate the people of France's continued disagreement with their government.
DeleteThe difference being that the King had been killed in France. Notice not only that this is in England, but that a crowd of 60,000 to 80,000 had gathered. Where? Manchester!!!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGroup 3: Thomas Allom depicted how not only men but also women worked in the textile mills during the Industrial Revolution. In the picture, the woman is pictured below the man. I feel like this represents how even though woman were becoming more present in the workplace, that doesn't mean they were treated as men's equal. They were still not recognized as the same social status as men.
ReplyDeleteGroup one: testimony of an agricultural workers wife: i thought this document was interesting because it was given as a testimony before a parliamentary committee studying the employment women and children in British agriculture. Although she says working in the fields is hard work, she says she enjoys it and it isnt too hard enough to hurt her. she also tells about how little money they make to feed a family of nine. this document could seem biased because she could have said the work wasnt too hard in order for her and her sons to be able to still work in the fields and bring in all the money they can. if she had said the work was hard, she and her children might not have been allowed to work in the fields any more and be forced into factories in the cities. she could be making these claims in order to keep a steady (small) income.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that the document could have been biased. She implies that she needs every bit of her small income, including her sons wages to care for their family. She made sure to tell the audience that her husband is sober and the hard work she is forced to do never "hurt" her or her children. She wants to have the same livelihood, so she is trying to appeal to the logical aspects of the parliaments emotions showing that they can handle hard work in order to survive.
DeleteI never really noticed that, she does seem to try to convince people that farm work is better and the factories are sucking the life out of their family.
DeleteGroup one: the work year: i thought it was interesting that most of the holidays were feasts, or holidays that people usually feast on. during this time in france food wasnt easily attained for some people because they couldnt afford it, and then they were forced to take off work (so they didnt get paid) in order to eat this huge meal of food (that they didnt have).
ReplyDeleteGroup 3: In the Clothier's Delight, the merchants in the Clothing Trade try their hardest to create low wages for the poor laborers in order to profit themselves. They will get richer and "hoard up their bags of silver and gold" while the poor get cheated with low pay and harder jobs. They almost seem to be gloating about their higher pay and social status, and how they can manipulate the poor to work for lower wages.
ReplyDeleteGroup 2:Puttiing out system: The sentence " Among those who do the buying there are many agents who buy for merchants and then the goods pass to America, Italy, and Spain". This showed how the putting out system could support small farmers out in the country side. This all came crashing down when all these goods could be produced in one place in the city. So their job just became more work then it was worth to the merchant. Which lead to many being out of luck and the move to the city more popular.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the decline of the putting out system did not just hurt the sellers, but also hurt some buyers. Especially since America, Spain, and Italy for the most part had not yet industrialized. Spain's dependence on outside goods especially interests me because a similar predicament of depending on other areas for food and materials was a factor in the decline of Spain's once prosperous empire in the late 1500s.
DeleteVery thoughtful thread. Good job guys.
DeleteGroup 2: La Rochefoucauld Describes the Putting-Out System
ReplyDeleteA line in this passage that caught my attention was "Goods are sold in the Hall, which is all that remains of the palace of the former Dukes of Normandy..." because it seems as though it alludes to the fall of the French monarchy in 1792, eve though it was written a decade earlier. Still, the shift in France's governing body from a monarchy to a republic had major social and economic effects on the country. One of the main reasons France did not industrialize in the 1770s alongside Great Britain was the huge division in ideas among the French which lead to the French Revolution in 1789. France's problems continued in the Napoleonic Era,in which one of France's main obstacles to industrialization was the Napoleonic Wars that lasted up until the Vienna Settlement officially ended them in 1815.
Group 2: The Peterloo massacre showed how the government was not willing to yield to the wants of the people by not lowering the price of food which had risen during the time of war. The massacre occured when a large protest led by Mr. Hunt began in a park where many people had flags of the desires of the protesters the military came in to take Hunt into custody and he went peacefully but when the military went to take the flags from the crowd hundreds of people were killed by trampling and by the swords of the soldiers.
ReplyDeleteI found this massacre to contradict the storming of the Bastille. For while both events stemmed from wanting lower prices we can see that in the Peterloo massacre the civilians were murdered by the soldiers first. The people were more submissive as even Hunt offered himself peacefully. while in the Bastille the people were very aggressive and struck first. In Peterloo the gaurds came to the people while in Bastille the people came to the guards
DeleteGroup 2
DeleteAnother nice thread.
DeleteGroup 2: The putting out system describes how life was changing in France for the more rural farmers in the fact that they can no longer sell to the few people that still are around them they have to take their cotton to a market that is far away in a city symbolizing the transition from a rural agricultural lifestyle to a urban more industrialized life also with the invention of new machines what takes these farmers all day to cultivate and only at the end of the week bring in machines will be able to many times more work in a much shorter amount of time and bringing more profit in.
ReplyDeleteThe putting out system was generally applied to small farmers as Dylan said. so mainly lower class and this is seen because in the document the small farmers even have all their family members to help even the wife, which shows that they are definitely lower class.
DeleteGroup 2
DeleteGroup one. The work year. I feel this list shows how prevalent the Church was in French society. 44 days were taken off for religious holidays, including Sundays. This shows how influential the church was rather than after the Civil War and the "dechristianzation" of France.
ReplyDeleteGroup 2: IN the putting out system document I found it wierd that most of the cotting clothing in France was being shipped to America when America is the country that provides the European countries cotton. Its basically like America gives France cotton only to get cotton back. I think it would be cheaper to run textile mills in America and produce cotton clothing there.
ReplyDeleteIn the painting The Third of May by Goya, the viewer is drawn to the one man standing with his arms raised and in clean white clothes. During this time a "v" is a symbol of peace and this man is standing with his arms raised into a "v." Also during this time peoples facials expressions told the story, and this mans face shows the viewer that this man is sad and very fearful he, along with the other men, stare down the end of the barrels in their faces. The man represents Christ in a way because of the way he is standing in as a martyr for the rest of them, which is represented by his bloodless white clothing. While you may not be able to see the faces of Napoleons army that are about to kill these Spaniards, you can clearly see the reelection of their nonchalant-ness in the faces of the victims. To the troops, these men seem worthless and meaningless, but the viewer is led to feel differently when they see the faces of these men.
ReplyDeleteIn Mazzini's On Nationality, he was for Italian unification but also wants European unification. He believes that this "new unity" can only be achieved if everyone gets in board with it and that those who use violence against it are only worsening the issue. The people believe that it is a social issue keeping them from unification and I agree with that because of the social changes that the Industrial Revolution brought about. It changed things politically, religiously, and brought an end to the distribution of wealth. It not only created the middle class but it also changed the social role that women and children had inside of the families and on the way that people were treated within the business that were created. Europe must unify all of these things together in the way that they make things, such as relationships healthier. They have to have a sense of nationalism but the kind that you get from unifying in a healthy way.
ReplyDeletePetofi's "The National Song of Hungary is 1848," speaks about liberalism in a way. Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of liberty and equality. You see these ideas when he says things such as:"shall we be slaves? Or shall we be free," atlas! Till now we were but slaves," and "sleep not in freedoms soil." Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manefesto the same year that Petofi wrote this. I believe these two can be tied together because both liberalism and communism are a step towards equality among all people, however communism is a much more exaggerated form of liberalism.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for a great post. I'd like to know more about these topics and hope that I can receive more insight into this topic.
Click Here : 2005 Cat 140H (1312) w/7895 Hrs For Sale at $108k