Industrialization, Strayer 17

27/1/2018

I know I say this a lot, but seriously, this stuff is always on the exam! Two pieces of advice: don't exempt this one, and don't get overconfident after the test from last week. I hope I don't have to be more explicit.

Be sure to read Strayer's comments under History and Horse Races. I'd like to have an intelligent CONVERSATION about that.

29 Comments

Bingham

27/1/2018 16:24:53

Here's a nugget for you since I was tardy putting up this forum.

In what ways and with what impact was Latin America linked to the global economy of the nineteenth century?

Latin America exported food products and raw materials to industrializing nations, increasing exports by a factor of ten in the sixty years or so after 1850.

In return for these exports, Latin America imported the textiles, machinery, tools, weapons, and luxury goods of Europe and the United States.

Both Europeans and Americans invested in Latin America, buying up food and raw material-producing assets and building railroads, largely to funnel Latin American products to the coast for export.

Upper-class landowners benefited from the trade as exports flourished and the value of their land soared, while middle-class urban dwellers also grew in number and prosperity.

But the vast majority of the population lived in rural areas, where they suffered the most and benefited the least from exports to the global economy; many lower-class farmers were pushed off their land, ending up either in remote and poor areas or working as dependent laborers for poor wages on the plantations of the wealthy. (Kind of reminds you of the rural/urban divide in America today, huh?)

In Mexico, inequalities made worse by the global economy sparked a nationwide revolution in which middle-class reformers, workers, and peasants overthrew the government and instituted some reforms that benefited the lower classes. (?)

Participation in the global economy did not jump-start a complete Industrial Revolution anywhere in Latin America.

The Latin American economy became dependent upon Europe and America, with its development dependent on investment from and access to the economies of Europe and the United States.

Eleena Sherman

29/1/2018 17:19:14

Hey guys! So, I attempted to do MQ 1, but I'm not sure if I understood the question correctly? The question is:

MQ 1: In what respects did the roots of Industrial Revolution lie within Europe? In what ways did that transformation have global roots?

Europe
1. Many small and competitive system of rival states fostered economic and technological innovation
2.Monarch's need for revenue in absence of effective tax-collecting bureaucracy pushed royals into unusual alliance with merchant classes
-merchants were granted special privileges by government for loans or payments to the state
-Europe was well on its way to a capitalist economy before it experienced industrialization

Global
1. region founds itself in between largest network of exchange in history, with widespread cultural contact being a factor generating change and innovation
-global network they created energized commerce and brought Europeans into contact with other peoples
2. commerce and cross cultural exchange acted together to sustain the technological advances and changes, with Europe extracting resources from its colonial societies
-competition from desirable Asian goods stimulated tech innovation
-Americas and other colonial empires enriched the European heartland, offering a growing market and providing tech and economic growth

I decided to think of it as, What contributed to the start of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, and out of those causes which are more associated with the global world rather then internally within Europe. Let me know what you guys think of my answers!

Julissa Ramirez

29/1/2018 21:49:50

For global ties do you think it's plausible to add
- The desire for high quality and newly available Asian goods played a role in stimulating Europe's Industrial Revolution.
I see this as luxury goods of Asia (global roots)... being part/ contributing to the Industrial Revolution.

Eleena

29/1/2018 17:46:33

MQ 2: What was distinctive about Britain that may help to explain its status as breakthrough point of Industrial Revolution?

WEALTH OF EMPIRE AND GLOBAL COMMERCE
1. imperial possessions in Caribbean, Americas and India made it most commercialized society out of larger European states
2. land lords enclosed land, pushing out small farmers and producing for mass market
3. guilds disappeared allowing employers to run enterprises as they saw fit
4. growing population ensured ready supply of workers who had few alternatives

BRITISH POLITICAL LIFE
1. policy of religious tolerance welcomed people with tech skills regardless of faith keeping their skilled workers
2. checks on royal authority provided freer arena for private enterprise than elsewhere

DISTINCTIVE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
1. whereas science on continent was based on logic and math, british focused on observation, experimentation, and practical commercial applications
2.new scientific discoveries of british led to invention and innovation of tech
3. inventors were in close contact to scienists and their instruments, while around the continent these groups were separate

GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY
1. ready supply of coal and iron located close to each other and the factories
2. island's geography protected from Napoleon's invasions
3. relative fluid society allowed for adjustments in social changes without widespread revolution

Davis Evans

30/1/2018 14:35:42

I would like to add that:
England was the most highly commercialized of Europe's larger countries
Agricultural innovations freed up labor from the countryside
British aristocrats were more interested in business than their tariffs were placed on foreign goods

Davis Evans

30/1/2018 14:37:57

Corrections to previous comment:
British aristocrats were more interested in business than their European mainland counterparts*
European Govt. placed tariffs on foreign goods*

Alison Wang

30/1/2018 19:22:05

You could also add that the British government favored business men with tariffs on imported Asian goods such as Indian cotton textiles, it had roads and canals that helped create a unified internal market, laws that forbade workers' unions and made it easier to form companies, and that there were patent laws that helped protects the interests of inventors

Lia Stallmann

29/1/2018 17:58:52

here's my attempt at margin question #2: What was distinctive about Britain that may help to explain its status as the breakthrough point of the Industrial Revolution?

1. most commercialized of Europe's larger countries at the time
- had long produced goods for the market
2. British aristocrats were interested and involved in the manufacturing/mining businesses
3. *British commerce had a global outreach (*not a deciding factor but still contributed)
4. policy of religious tolerance encouraged economic innovation (they welcomed workers without consideration of belief)
5. the Scientific Revolution meant more of experiment, observation, and the application of knowledge to commercial uses
- scientists, craftsmen, and entrepreneurs worked together rather than being in separate classes
6. supply of iron ore/coal that were close to each other geographically and to industrial centers
7. the island's geography shielded Britain from the continental invasions that affected other countries involved in the French Revolution

did I approach this correctly/am I missing anything?

Lia

29/1/2018 18:03:51

ok i posted this before i refreshed the page and saw that eleena posted too sorry

hannah hervat

29/1/2018 21:35:49

MQ#6: What were the differences between industrialization in the United States and that in Russia?

-In the 19th century, the United States was a democracy consisting on popular sovereignty while Russia remained an absolute monarchy.

-In Russia, most change was fostered by the state in attempt to "catch up" to European states (who they were behind due to Mogol control) while in the United States change was mostly fostered by the people

-Workers in the United States were treated under better conditions than in Russia

-Russian industrialization experienced a violent socialist revolution that was inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx.

-Slavery was abolished in the United States, but in Russia many peasants were still under feudalism (serfdom). (?)

Eleena

30/1/2018 11:14:44

Hey, so all these points are great! But I wanted to talk about your last point about the peasants living under feudalism? Russia's serfdom and America's slavery were abolished around the same time in the mid 1860's, but their industrialization began at very different times. So Russia had already abolished serfdom when industrialization hit Russia because industrialization came later, while America still had slavery once they began their Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century. I think that this point could be tied into the one where the United States has better living conditions for workers, and could be a counter attack to show how Russia's conditions were worse, but I'm not sure if the point could stand on its own. What do you think?

Eleena

29/1/2018 21:48:05

MQ#5: How did Karl Marx understand the Industrial Revolution? In what ways did his ideas have a lasting impact on the industrializing world of the 19th century?

IDEAS
1. viewed Industrial revolution as class struggle between the owners of industrial capital and the oppressed labor class workers
2. after witnessing brutal conditions of British Industrialization, he concluded that industrial capitalism was an unstable system doomed to collapse in revolutionary upheaval giving birth to a classless society
3. believed could end conflict between rich and the poor
4. believed that industrialization created both social conditions of which he protested against and the enormous amount fo wealth that made socialism possible
-French Revolution was memory that societies could successfully start from scratch
5. began scientific socialism stating that revolution was a certainty and socialist future was inevitable
6. expected industrial societies to polarize into rich and poor classes but didn't foresee development of the middle classes
7. Marx didn't imagine that capitalism could reform into a better standard of living for the workers

IMPACT
1. inspired social movements, establishing political parties and linking them together
2. radical ideas echoed through radical trade unionists and middle class intellectuals in Germany
3. By then, Britain working class movement wasn't revolutionary, instead made Labour Party in the 1890's advocating a reformist program and peaceful democratic transition to socialism abandoning class struggle and revolutionary emphasis of classical marxism
-initially spawned from his ideas, but created new social democratic party, of which was very prominent in Germany facing struggles against the feared communists

I'm not sure if I answered all parts of the question, or maybe I'm missing something or I added something that doesn't answer the question? Thanks!

Davis Evans

30/1/2018 15:02:21

Here's my attempt at MQ 3: How did Britain's middle classes change during the 19th century?
Please let me know if there's anything I'm leaving out

1. the industrial revolution led to the growth of the middle class
2. the lower middle class grew to represent about 20% of the population
3. New employment opportunities arose for both men and women
4. children withdrew from productive labor in order to attend school
5. the 19th century observed the withdrawal and reinstatement of women in the workforce
6. for both men and women, employment in occupations considered middle class became a means of distinguishing oneself from the working class tainted with manual labor

Eleena

30/1/2018 17:30:11

I would break it up into the 3 categories of the middle class, because then you can find more changes within each specific category. You have most of them for the lower middle class, but I would add these to your answer too!

UPPER MIDDLE CLASS
1. rising businessmen readily assimilated into aristocratic way of life

"MIDDLE" MIDDLE CLASS
1. far more numerous, set tone for distinctly middle class society with its own values and outlooks
2. ideas of thrift, hard work, and respectability defined notions of middle class social status
3. notion that enterprising spirit was what distinguished prosperous middle class from Britain's poor
4. women became educators of these values, and expected to be homemakers and moral center of the family as "domesticity" began to define women's role
5. women first withdrew from jobs, but later were reinstated into working positions such as clerking, teaching, and nursing (you have this one)
6. withdrawal of children from productive labor into schools made an increasingly educated work force (you have this one)

LOWER MIDDLE CLASS (you have all of these)
1. proud to distinguish themselves from working class because didn't do manual labor
2. the lower middle class grew to represent about 20% of the population
3. New employment opportunities arose for both men and women

Julissa Ramirez

31/1/2018 19:19:33

For upper class I would add that British aristocracy declined..

Julissa Ramirez

31/1/2018 19:30:43

jUST KIDDING! I was focused on the wrong question

Davis Evans

30/1/2018 15:39:26

I'm not sure what number it is, and, frankly, it doesn't matter:
Why did Marxist socialism not take root in the United states?
1. The nation's advertising agencies, sears roebuck's and Montgomery ward's mail order catalog, and urban department stores led to a middle class "culture of consumption"
2. American industrialists of fabulous wealth became cultural heroes, admired as models of what one could achieve in this land of opportunity
3. Despite class consciousness, no major political party emerged to represent the interests of the working class
4. Ideas of socialism did not appeal to American workers as much as European laborers
5. Relative conservatism of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) excluded radical, unskilled laborers
6. AFL's refusal to align with any political parties led to their having less influence in the political world
7. Massive European immigration created a diverse labor force, undermining class solidarity and making it difficult to sustain class oriented political parties
8. Higher standards of living for American workers: land was cheaper and homes more available
9. By 1910, white collar workers outnumbered laborers, further diluting impulses toward radicalism
10. Socialism came to be defined as "unamerican" in a country that valued individualism and feared "big government"

Please let me know if y'all have any corrections or additions

Davis Evans

30/1/2018 19:58:34

MQ ?: What factors contributed to the making of a revolutionary situation in Russia by the beginning of the 20th century?

1. Russia remained an absolute monarchy with unchecked power belonging to the monarch
2. A vast cultural gulf separated upper classes from working and middle class
3. unlike in western countries, change was stimulated by the state as opposed to emerging from the societies
4. A growing middle class emerged from state induced industrialization and the more educated middle class objected to Russian policies
5. Lack of a legal outlet for grievances
6. Harsh working conditions
7. A growing number of socialist workers founded the Russian Social-Democrat Labor Party, based off marxist theory, became involved in educating workers, union organizing, and eventually revolution
8. A Naval defeat with Japan was the spark that led to the revolution

Please edit this if there's any incorrect or missing information

Eleena

30/1/2018 21:03:30

You've got all the point leading up to the 1905 revolution! But, even though the first revolution that occurred in Russia was in 1905, I think the Revolution of 1917 is even bigger so I would add some of the factors that contributed to the 1917 revolution as well, after the failed attempts of uniting Russia's social classes by the tsar after the revolution of 1905.

1. 1905 revolution forced tsar to make reforms but they failed to tame the working class radicalism or bring social stability
- for example, people still had limited voice under an autocratic government
2. revolutionary parties had impact because provided language where workers expressed their grievances, created links, and made leaders for the revolutionary moment in history
3. WWI was the revolutionary moment with hardships of the war and immense social tension of industrialization, Russia still governing with an autocratic political system sparked Russian Revolution of 1917

Alison Wang

30/1/2018 20:09:09

MQ3: How did the Industrial Revolution transform British society?

This question is pretty broad and I'm probably missing things so feel free to add.

1. British aristocracy (mostly landowners) declined
- elite urban groups gained more wealth, landowners had to make way for those enriched by the Industrial Revolution.
- by the end of the century, landownership had ceased to be the basis of great wealth, and businessmen, rather than aristocrats, led the political parties

2. Britain's industrial economy gave rise to a sizable middle class,
- upper middle class assimilated into aristocratic lifestyles- accepting titles of nobility, sending their sons to prestigious colleges, buying country houses, obtaining seats in Parliament
- "middle" middle classes were liberals politically, favoring constitutional government, private property, free trade, and social reform within limits; characterized by ideas of hard work, thrift, cleanliness (?), and a rigid morality; disdainful of poorer classes and their "idleness, intemperance, thriftlessness, and misconduct"
- women in middle classes were increasingly cast as homemakers, wives, and mothers- should be detached from productive labor, however this was only temporary
- women began to enter teaching, clerical, and nursing positions and also the labor force
- withdrawal of children from the workforce into schools as industrial economies increasingly required a more educated workforce
- in the lower middle class, employment represented a claim on membership in the larger middle class and a means of distinguishing themselves from a working class tainted by manual labor

3. the laboring classes (70% of population) benefited the least from the Industrial Revolution
- rapid urbanization resulted in vast overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, periodic epidemics, few open spaces, and polluted water supplies
- little contact between the rich and poor of industrial cities
- workers had long hours, low wages, monotonous work, and dangerous conditions of labor
- women were favored in textile mills as they accepted lower wages, and male owners thought them to be more suitable for repetitive tasks such as tending the machines
- women were often not offered jobs with opportunities for advancement

Alison Wang

30/1/2018 21:41:05

I'm realizing that this question is basically asking the same thing as MQ4 but including all classes... I guess that's one less question to think about

Seb Covington

30/1/2018 20:22:44

MQ4: How did Britain's middles classes change during the 19th century?

These have already been answered by Davis and Eleena ^^

And I would also add, not sure if it fits, but I saw it.
-Liberal attitudes, favoring constitutional government, free trade, private property, and limited social reforms came into play

Me again

30/1/2018 20:23:26

And Lia

30/1/2018 20:23:52

Sorry it was Alison

Juliana Johnson

30/1/2018 20:50:53

MQ10: Did Latin America follow or diverge from the historical path of Europe during the nineteenth century?

While Latin America was similar to Europe in the aspects of having a middle class, many Europeans were migrating to Latin America, and its rapidly increasing population and rate of urbanization, Latin America diverged from the historical path of Europe during the nineteenth century, with its lack of a truly "European-like" Industrial Revolution and by maintaining an economy dependent on funds from imports and exports to economies in Europe and America.

hannah hervat

30/1/2018 21:29:56

BPQ#3: What did humankind gain from the industrial revolution, and what did it lose?
Gain:
-Increase of the exportation of goods due to new democracies, technological innovation, and new employment opportunities
Loss:
-Dissappearance of older traditions and ways of production
-Horrendous working conditions
-Social and class based conflcits
-Environmental degradation

Alison Wang

30/1/2018 22:48:29

I'm not sure if this is too superficial but you could also say that they gained people? As in the population increased?

hannah

30/1/2018 21:38:35

BPQ#4: In what ways might the industrial revolution be understood as a global rather than simply a European phenomenon?

-Industrial revolution spread beyond Europe

-Influenced by it's network of exchange and its extraction of raw materials and wealth from the Americas

-Impacted areas that didn't have their own industrial revolutions such as Latin America which was defined by it's exports

Matthieu

31/1/2018 10:22:06

its*
just pulling your leg

Bingham

Welcome class of 2020. Some years students collaborate in this space effectively, some years not so much. One thing I know, collaboration significantly enhances learning. If you want access to my thoughts, this is the collaboration space to use. Most people propose an answer to margin questions, big picture question, or anything else related to managing Strayer. Other people can then comment leading to a stronger answer. I'll keep an eye on these pages, and pop in when I think you need me.

Industrialization, Strayer 17

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories