Are Traditions Always Best?

In class we have just finished covering the topic of the major political ideologies in the 19th century. An ideology is  a system of ideas or ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. The three ideologies are liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism.  We started off by creating our own definitions for the words, Liberal, conservative, and nationalism. Then in small groups we made a one minute long project about one of the ideologies based on a document that we read on that ideology. The purpose of this activity was to show that each ideology had a different impact on social and political action.

My group did our presentation on liberalism. we used chatter pix to create our video, having images of john Locke, and Adam smith , two British liberal philosophers explaining what liberalism is , and its impact on social and political action during the 19th century.

This project help to define liberalism because it explained that liberals believe in freedom and equality for humans, and that instead of following tradition that strive to create new systems that benefit the society. We also explained through our presentation that liberals believed in a meritocracy, or a system in which men were rewarded for their hard work, and not their social class. The theory of the invisible hand, and god given natural rights were explained in the video. Liberalism influenced social action because liberals wanted to get rid of all social classes, overall getting rid of hierarchy. Liberalism influenced political action because liberals wanted to make the government more equal so that everyone had a say in how they were being governed.

The other two ideologies of this time period were conservatism and nationalism. Conservatives believed in not changing the systems of the government. Conservatism impacted social and political action because conservatives believed in keeping a monarchy, and not changing the social classes. they didn't want to change the way that the government was run because monarchs wanted to stay in power, in fear of what may happen if they change from their traditional ways. They feared that  chaos and bloodshed would be an outcome of trying to change, and in their opinions monarchy was the best was to run the government. Nationalism also impacted social and political action because they promoted the unification of people of the same culture, language and history, and  they didn't want to have any foreign rulers running their government. unlike how Italy and Germany both were countries that weren't under one single rule, but they had the independence of small states, nationalists believed in having one unified country.

Napoleon's Impact

Napoleon Bonaparte was born on August 15th 1769, on the Mediterranean island of Corsica. He started his military career at the age of nine, and after he was commissioned into the artillery, he would soon be a great military leader who promoted education, and shaped his country's laws, but also plunged the world into war. After watching the video, All You Need to Know About Napoleon Bonaparte, we learned that Napoleon had conquered Italy, Australia, Holland, Belgium, Egypt, Sweden, Spain, and many other countries.  During his military career Napoleon had greatly impacted the social, economic and political systems of Europe.

Conquering and having control of all of Europe except for Great Britain ,Napoleon left a big impact when in power. The first impact that napoleon left in Europe was on the social system. He changed the way in which the countries were ordered, they were all now a meritocracy, or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability. He also abolished serfdom, and created a society where more people had rights to property and access to education. Napoleon also left an impact on the economic systems of Europe. He controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals to expand trade. However, when conquering the countries that he did he often looted them of money and expensive possessions, therefore leaving a negative economic impact. Lastly, napoleon left an impact on the political systems of Europe. Because Napoleon had either direct or indirect control over almost all of Europe, the previous rulers of those countries now had less control, and the members of nobility had lost their political power.  According to  Madame De Stael, Napoleon taking over rule of these countries wasn't a positive thing. She says, “His system was to encroach daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence .” She believes that his system was just good at all, but it was just getting in the way and intruding on how France and all of Europe wanted to rule themselves. On the other hand Marshal Michel Ney calls Napoleon an august emperor, and believes that he has left a positive impact. he says, “the times are gone when people were governed by suppressing their rights.” He believes that Napoleons system had brought more rights to the people in which he is ruling, and leaving a positive impact on society. In, The Lost Voices of Napoleon Historians article, John C. Ropes writes, “ Let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities, -- his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity.” He also believes that the impact left by napoleon was positive. Ropes thinks that Napoleon was a great leader, and was devoted to helping society.

Overall, there were both positive and negative aspect of all the impacts the Napoleon had left on Europe. I think that his impact on the political systems was negative, because he changed the way that the government was set up , and made it so the rulers now had less power over their own countries. Also, I believe that Napoleon’s impact on the Economic systems were positive. this is because he had greatly expanded trade by building new roads and canals, and overall helped the economic systems of Europe. Lastly, I think that Napoleon left both a negative and positive impact on the political systems of Europe. These impacts were negative because he had abolished monarchy, and had completely changed the way the the governments of the countries were run. While he was introducing a new way of ruling, he had also gotten rid of the way that most countries were used to and comfortable with running their government, and could often be hard to switch  back to a monarchy if that is what they wanted to do. However these impacts were also positive because he had increased the rights for citizens, and because of the abolishment of monarchy citizens now had more of a say in society.


Napoleon Primary Source Readings: http://www.edline.net/files/_5HGnA_/24e6ed80deb5ecaa3745a49013852ec4/Unit_3A_Activity_1_Primary_Source_Readings.pdf

Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

I Have Too Much Chocolate!

In History class we began to learn about capitalism, socialism, and communism, and in order to do so we did an activity during class with Hershey Kisses. Each student got three pieces of candy except for two who got ten. This unequal distribution of the candy was to show that not everyone has equal wealth, and few are much richer than others. We then played rock paper scissors, and every time someone lost the game they would lose a piece of candy, and every time they won they would gain a piece of candy. Once you had no more candy you would sit down and stop playing, but you couldn't stop playing unless you did lose all your candy. Those who had a lot of candy didn't want to keep playing because they feared they would lose it all if they did. I lost all my chocolates in the first three games that i played, but from watching the other students continue to play after I was out , I could tell that they were being selfish with their candy, and they didn't want to lose any of it. After only a few students still remained, the chocolate was then collected and redistributed so that everyone in the class had an equal amount, three candies. Those who were “poor” or had no chocolates were happy that now they had some, but those who were “rich” or had a lot of candy, were now upset, and felt like the redistribution was unfair because they now had less than they did before. The purpose of this activity was to chow Marx’s theory of redistribution, to create a classless society. He believed that people wouldn't be selfish, and they could all agree to have their money redistributed so that everyone was equally wealthy.

Like our teacher wanted to help us by redistributing the candy so that we were all equal, Karl Marx, and Adam smith both wanted to help the poor, but they had two very different approaches. Marx believed in Capitalism, socialism, and communism, and that everyone would start off with their own amount of money and there would be a freedom of competition, which would them result in an unequal distribution of wealth. Therefore, the government would have to take ownership, and then redistribute to everyone, which would result in a classless society where the government is no longer needed. Smith believed something very different. He developed a theory called The Invisible Hand. Smith said that if society was left alone, they would fix the problem themselves. They would try to get the most for their money, creating competition between businesses, the “invisible hand” will push people to the better deals. Smith thought that if people would just stop trying to regulate the government it would regulate itself. Because of this competition there would be lower prices on goods, and more options for the poor, and therefore they will be able to afford more. Businesses will be forced to lower their prices, or they will fail to make profit. Marx didn't think people would be selfish with their money and that they would be willing to share so that everyone was equal, whereas Smith believed the opposite, that people would be selfish with their money, and because of that the economy would regulate itself.

In my opinion , based the activity that we did in class, I believe that while Smith’s theory may not be perfect, it would definitely be more effective than Marx’s theory, especially in today’s society. If the government were to collects and redistribute everything, it wouldn't be as easy as it was for us to do so with the Hershey kisses. People would protest, and not agree to give up their money to share it with other people who didn't earn it like that person did. I believe that this int a fair way to help the poor either because it is taking away from someone else.  Letting the economy regulate itself is a more fair and effective way to help the poor. If the government  were to get involved and try to fix situations by giving everyone equal wealth it would most likely make bigger problems, so by not getting involved and letting things play out on their own it avoids this risk of bigger problems developing. By natural competition between businesses the poor will be able to have more price options for the same product and therefore they will be able to afford what they need. Smith’s Ideas are a way to help the poor without affecting anyone else. His theory is much like they way that our country run today however, there truly isnt a perfect way to fix these problems  Overall, both Marx and Smith had ideas of ways to fix economic problems and help the poor, and both of these theories were very different and had both positive and negative aspects within them.

Choosing the Mill Life

During industrialization in America mill owners did all that they could to hire workers, especially young girls to come work at their mills, and doing so wasn't always the easiest thing. Unlike Britain, the U.S. didn't have an abundant supply of cheap labor, land was plentiful and people preferred life on the farms. Because of this lack of workers willing to come and work at the mills, industrialists look to change the way that manufacturing was viewed, they proved to families that there were many more positives of working at the mills than negatives. In order to do this the Lowell Experiment was created.

The Lowell Experiment was an industrial project that focused on the positives of industrialization, while trying to avoid the negative ones. This experiment was a system that would be used to convince girls to come to work at the mills, and it was based on a paternal system that emphasized that the girls would be protected and taken care of just like their own family would take of them.  Many aspects of the mill life motivated girls to work in the Lowell mills, including , being able to earn their own money and pay for their own clothes, and having the independence of living away from home. However, just because the girl herself was convinced to work at the Lowell mills, that didn't mean that she was going to . The parents also had to be convinced to let their own daughter live away from home at the mills, and the Lowell Experiment did just that. The corporation set rules on the girls, making church mandatory, and giving them a curfew that must be obeyed, along with a code for behavior. By ensuring that the girls were going to be safe and taken care of like family, parents were often convinced to let their daughter’s work in the mills. Also, in the article, A World in Transition, it explains that because of industrialization, and the expansion of trade from new roads and canals, farmers were going out of business and woman were looking for work off the farm. Because of this families were willing to let their daughters work at the mills so that they could make money to send home to their families, and because the girls were being cared for, it meant that they would have one less mouth to feed.  

Often times because of the successfulness of the Lowell Experiment girls would be sent  to work at the mills, and along with that decision there were many costs and many benefits. Based on the video, Daughters of Free Men, some benefits that came out of working in the mills included, the opportunity for education, the money for the girls to buy their own clothing, and they got evenings and Sundays off from work. Also some costs of working in the mills that were evident in the film included, girls being unkind, cruel overseers, and the spread of gossip. There were false expectations when going to the mills that everyone would be kind and friendly. The working conditions of the mills were also some costs, for example, the mills were loud and the air was dusty, there was a high potential for injury, and they were malnourished, they had to sneak out of the mills just if they wanted a drink of water. Lastly, the fear of wage cuts, bells running their lives and having four to six girls in one room were some costs of working in the mills.

Many factors of industrialization, and opportunities for women, reflected the attitudes towards women during the 1800’s.The fact that mills were one of the only working opportunities outside of the farm shows that people didn't think that women were fit for laborious jobs and physical work. In the reading, A World in Transition, it shows that women didn't have as many rights as men at the time, and were not treated equally to men. Also, women were restricted from work after they got married, proving that they were thought to have the job of taking care of their families. Woman had started to be given more opportunities, but were still restricted to what they could do.

Overall, industrialization was a big turning point for woman, for they now had more opportunities to be independent and work outside of their homes, and off of the farms. The Lowell experiment made it possible for the families of the girls to realize this , and that sending their daughters to the mills was the right choice. It stressed that there were so many positives, even though there may have been some negative aspects, but the experiment worked, and many woman went to live their lives in the Lowell mills having opportunity to make their own living.

Virtual Field Trip to English Mills

As part of learning about the industrial revolution, and factory conditions in England, we did a live chat with two museum workers, Jamie and Darren who showed us around the Museum of Science & industry in Manchester England.  From this we learned a lot about the conditions of factories and the lives of the people who worked there during the industrial revolution. In order to prepare for this chat,  we did a investigated the museum website to learn more about the museum, and Richard Arkwright, the inventor of the spinning frame.We also watched a video introduction of Jamie showing the mills, and the process of making cloth, and all the machines that are involved in that process. While watching this video we took notes of all the vocab in which we heard, and later found the definitions, so we would be more familiar with the terms that they would be using during our live chat. The last thing we did to prepare was write some questions that we could ask Jamie during our video chat.

From the chat I learned a lot about the textile process and the dangers of working in a mill. We got to see many machines, and even watch some of them in action. The textile process was very long, and required lots of machines, and workers. People would work in the mills as long as they could so that they could get out of poverty. The process started with kids taking the tangles and the dirt out of the cotton, which was first done by using a brush, but later there was a machine that was created to complete this part of the process.

This is a picture of the bobbins on the machines that children would have to clean while the machine was being operated. 

There were both positives and negatives of industrialization of textile production during this time period. The mills brought in lots of jobs that lead people out of poverty, however there were many negative consequences and health risks that came with industrialization. First diseases were spreading as a cause of urbanization, and when someone got sick they would be unable to work. Also working in the mills brought loads of risks to worker’s health, such as loss of hearing from the loud noises that the machines would make, and lung diseases from the constant inhalation of cotton fibers, which was especially a problem if you worked in the room where the cotton was being pulled apart. Along with that, the machines themselves weren't safe and often would cause severe injuries. because children would clean the machine while they were being operated, there was a big risk of a hand getting caught and mangles, or long hair and clothing to get pulled into the machines. the machines caused many injuries and even deaths of the children in the mills. Lastly, woman working machines had to change the shuttles of that machine every six minutes, and to do so they would have to suck a piece of thread that had cancer causing oils on it through the whole of the shuttle. This caused them to be breathing in fibers causing lung cancer, swallowing oils that caused mouth and throat cancers, and often times they would chip their teeth on the hard wooden shuttles if they weren't careful.

Overall the experience of chatting with an outside expert all the way from england was really amazing, and the chat was very informative. Doing this google chat really helped me to get a better understanding of the work that would be done in the mills, and all the dangers and health risks that went along with it. I learned a lot about the daily lives of mill workers and the textile process that i hadn't known before.  I think that this live chat is a really great way to learn a lot no matter what topic it is, and it would be fun to do it in the future.

A Day in the Life of a Museum Curator

As part of our industrial revolution unit, we did an in class project where we became museum curators and created a museum exhibit based on what we had learned from documents about our assigned topic. A curator is a person who compiles information along with visuals to create a museum exhibit. My groups topic was about, the evolution of spinning, and was based an excerpt of ,Observation on the Loss of Woolen Spinning.

The first step of the curating process was to become familiar with our topic, and to do so we had to analyze the documents about our topic. We did some research on each of our documents, whether they were illustrations or pieces or writing to find out more about them. Another part of the analysis process was to find out specific citation information about each document, so we could properly cite each in our final exhibit. Analysis is important to the curating process because it helps you to obtain the information in which you would like the viewers of your exhibit to learn.

Our exhibit shows the various changes and stages of the loom from the hand loom all the way to the textile mills. The first source, of the woman spinning on a hand loom shows that spinning could be done in a home, and often is what most women did all day long. The second source, the Almond Loom is a more advanced and improved version of the original loom.The third stage of spinning, the mechanized loom was invented to spin more than one piece of thread, and increase productivity. And lastly, textile mills were the final product of spinning during the industrial revolution. In our exhibit, we also included a chart showing how these improvements in spinning technology contributed to the population boom in London.  We came up with our title because it is based on Dory’s quote from the movie, Finding Nemo,“Just keep Swimming”, and because our poster is about spinning we substituted the word swimming for spinning, and included a picture of Dory so that viewers would understand the reference. After viewing our poster we wanted to people to know that because of the industrial revolution, spinning evolved, and because of that more jobs were available in factories, which overall was a big contributing factor to London’s population boom.

After being museum curators, we were museum visitors, and we viewed each of the other museum exhibits created by our classmates. These exhibits were very informational, and helped us to learn a lot more about the industrial revolution. From group B’s exhibit, I learned that the steam engine was used in locomotives to help increase transportation speeds, and to transport coal for trade. Their exhibit had a creative title, used lots of color, and had audio as part of the presentation.  From group C’s exhibit, I learned that the industrialization caused pollution to the air and waterways, and that the air smelt and the river was an opaque brown. Their exhibit had a river with the different events along it to make it easy to follow, and included a lot of very good information. From group D’s exhibit, I learned all about the child labor during the industrial revolution, and how children worked in coal mines, and in factories, and they did strenuous work that stunted their growth. This exhibit did a really good job persuading the audience that working conditions during industrialization were not good at all for children. Group E’s exhibit talked about slavery. One interesting thing i learned was that the demand for slaves was now higher than the demand for cotton. overall, I learned a lot about the industrialization that I didn't know before by create my museum exhibit, and viewing the ones made by my classmates.

From Farms to Factories

Imagine not having cell phones, the internet, heated homes, or even electricity. Thats, what life would be like if it weren't for the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was a big turning point in history, that changed the world, and still to this day affects everyone’s lives. If it had not taken place our lives and the world around us would be very different. In class we read about many different factors of the revolution, and took notes on our essential question, what is so revolutionary about industrialization? We also watched a video by John Green titled, “Coal, Steam, and the Industrial Revolution” which talked about how the revolution led to the inventions of many of the things that we use in our everyday lives, and it created the foundation for our modern technology. Two main components of industrialization that made it is revolutionary were people, and technology.  

The first ingredient to industrialization was people. Many people contributes to the revolution with their inventions and innovations. Improved farming was a big part of the revolution. Lord Charles Townshend came up with the idea of planting turnips to restore the soil, which helped to harvest better crops. Jethro Tull also contributed to the industrialization. because of his invention of the seed drill, planting could be done more efficiently and less people were needed to work on farms. The lack of need for farmers caused people to need to find jobs elsewhere, in the city working in factories. Another big part of the revolution was enclosure. Rich landowners were taking over and fencing off land formerly owned by peasant farmers. Therefore, the farmers being pushed off of their land were forced to work in factories. Lastly, declining death rates was an ingredient to the revolution. Because of the improvements in agriculture, more food was available, decreasing the risk of famines. Now that people were stronger and healthier, the population increased, leaving more people to need jobs in the factories. People were a big part of industrialization because they decreased the amount of farmers needed, and increased the amount of people available to work in factories.

The second ingredient to industrialization was technology. Many new technological advances and discoveries were part of the reason that industrialization was so revolutionary. The steam engine was the first big component. In 1712, Thomas Newcomen invented the steam engine to pump water out of mines. Steam engines were later used for various purposes, such as powering trains and boats, which led to the faster transportation, and transferring of goods. Another big big part of the revolution was improved iron. Coal played a large role in the production of iron, and because they found a way to take out impurities within the coal, they were able to create higher quality and less expensive iron.  This higher quality iron was then used all over the world especially in building railroads and textile machines. lastly, innovations in textiles was an ingredient to the revolution. John Kay’s invention of the flying shuttle allowed weavers to work at faster speeds. James Hargreaves then invented the spinning jenny which spun many threads at once. Richard Arkwright then created the water frame which used power to speed up the production even more. Now that these machines were no longer for household use, long seeds were built to house machines and workers. These machines were later powered by a steam engine and could produce what an entire industry of a district used to produce. Because of these new advances in technology, there were faster production speeds, and more available jobs in factories  the creation of revolutionary new machines. Overall, the industrialization was so revolutionary because of the huge advancements that were created, and people and technology were two key ingredients, that changed the lives of everyone, and evolved into the technology that we have today.