Europeanists
Sorry for the delay in getting your next set of prompts together. I had been preparing a workshop I am teaching while working on a paper for a class I am taking. I would not recommend this approach to summer to anyone. But having fun I am. Tonight I am taking my son (Harrison) to see Star Wars in concert tonight at the Giant Center. I think he will have a nice with it plus it will introduce him to a live symphony / chorus for the first time---something quite European.
Here are the questions for the chapter 2. Pick one to blog about. Please read all questions prior to reading though. Due July 24.
1. Discuss 1 political, 1 social, and 1 economic / financial impact of that industrialization had on Europe.
2. What did Trebilcock mean in explaining industrialization as "evolution" and as a "Great Spurt"?
3. Was the industrial revolution a revolution from above or below? Explain and think of the themes you considered in last chapter.
I am hearing the mature sounds of summer outside my windows now-the bugs are getting noiser-this means one thing-school is drawing closer
MZ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
2. Beginning in the 1750's and ending in 1914, industrialization evolved throughout Europe. Grouped in three different waves, this process developed slowly. However it made several impacts on numerous parts of Europe, mainly Britain, Germany, France, Russia and Italy. Industrialization spread consequently then randomly becoming faster at times. In slow-developing countries like Russia and Sweden, they somewhat benefited during these spurts because they developed lately meaning that the others who were advanced in technology could easily increase their low industrial rates rapidly.
2) Industrialization could be considered as the biggest advance for Europe into the twentieth century. However, there are two different outlooks on the time span it took for industrialization to mature. When Trebilcock mentions it as an “evolution,” he is referring to the fact that industrialization is a long and drawn out process. It is written that while some thought the national income for investment must double within thirty years, the statistics showed that these numbers did not double for fifty to eighty years, and even one hundred in the case of the British. In addition, GNP for many countries only rose 2% per year, and this number seems to remain constant for a number of years. The steady growth rate shows that industrialization was a process of revolution and was not instantaneous. On the other hand, Alexander Gerschenkron proposed the idea of the “Great Spurt” out of backwardness. He believes that countries with less development are under great stress because economic inadequacy can cause political and military pressure from their more developed neighbors. But the industrial power of the developed nations forces all other nations to quickly develop their own economy to fend for themselves. Trebilcock provides the examples of Russia and Sweden who had very high rates of industrial growth in the “third wave economies.” By the twentieth century, not only had Russia overtaken its European neighbors in iron production, steel and railways, it had become the largest producer of oil (even though it was only for a short time). However, there were precursors to Russia’s rapid expansion including the serf emancipation and a steady output growth; and when the other third wave economy, Italy, is analyzed, there is no “great spurt” at all. It seems that Gerschenkron’s theory is singular to Russia. Thus, as per the facts, industrialization is more definitely explained through the process of “evolution.”
1) Political: During industrialization, the middle class, as it grew, began to have a great effect upon politics. The middle class acted as a buffer between the wealthy owners of production and the poor working class. They supported law and order as well as parliamentary reform.
Social: Living conditions began to vary greatly during industrialization in Europe. Owners and businessmen lived in splendor, while factory workers and other employees lived in squalor. The poor lived in very small, cramped houses. This caused an increase in diseases spread. Still, industrialization did cause an expansion of the middle class and conditions for the poor improved over time.
Economic: Consumerism was made possible by the advances in manufacturing. Evenmembers of the working classes, themselves divided into hierarchies of skilled and unskilled, could aspire to the middle class. Often, this was achieved generationally as workers pursued lower middle class positions.
3) The Industrial Revolution's own underlying causes can stem back the whole way to 1760 in Great Britain. Though the movement was not spurred by a massive technological advance but rather something we take for granted. Enclosure. English government forced Enclosure on British agriculture beginning in the 1760's which in the end gave the rich land-owning aristocrats the opportunity to take land from the lower class that could not afford to keep a small farm against all the larger farms. They were forced to sell or even just give up their farms. This put thousands of lower class people out of a paying job, so they migrated to the cities. This rapid work force arrival gave factories the workers they needed which in the end spurred the Industrial Revolution in England, which caught on in many other parts of Europe. So yes, this Revolution was one from below, without the new working class of people in cities the revolution could have never taken place because the people to drive it into motion just wouldn't have been there. This movement didn't use the working class, the new working class used the movement as a new way to put food on the table.
It sure is encouraging to read such well thought our responses to the prompt. Moveover, I am also impressed with the level of writing. Your previous English teachers should be thanked as this is one of the key ingredients to this AP course. As far as content and analysis the conclusions you reached about the IR are well taken. As you have written this evolving development in the European strory has many many repercussions. That is the stuff of a solid FRQ or DBQ essay; Revealing the structure of history as messy. It is never just black or white thing...context is critical. For example, I will call out Megan's response. She discussed the IR having a unique implications and impacts on Europeans based on a class variable. As such, the range of perspectives on the IR is broad. (We will do an DBQ on this later in the year). Anyway-great job. Raymond, Aminah, Taylor...keep up the very strong effort. I am reading...I will put up the next chapter's prompts later today.
2) Trebilcock refutes the statement “a picture speaks a thousand words” in his explanation of the evolution of industry. A picture of a furnace, factory, or steel mill merely shows the finished product, a skewed image with no insight toward its content. The picture fails to illustrate how far industrialization has spread in said area, how long it took to do so, how successful it is, and even how representative of the economy this industry is. However, these unanswered questions are what Trebilcock found important, the slow, but steady process, cause, and effect of industrialization--the evolution. He illustrates the concept of this evolution through examples regarding the economy. Europe had a relaxed advance toward industrial economy, an orderly progression. The foundation was set in previous centuries, and doubling the percent of the national income to be devoted to investment took several decades--even close to ten in Britain. On the other hand, he explores whether or not late developers will advance in industry at a faster rate through the “great spurt” hypothesis. Third wave countries would feel the intense pressure of economic inferiority, which could push them to quickly use the advanced technology of the powerful economies to rapidly grow and, since they are already at such a low level, their growth rate would be rather high. This hypothesis proved to be true in Russia, where the rate of industrial growth reached 8%, surpassing many powerful economies. However, it has an indefinite answer as it’s merit rests merely on Russia. Italy, another latecomer and “backward country,” developed significantly slower than the mature, increasingly technological Germany.
Without a question, Industrialization clearly advanced up through the 19th century in Europe. However as Trebilcock explains in this chapter, the rapidity of this process can be viewed in different ways. What Trebilcock means by “evolution” is that this industrialization was a very long process, which didn’t happen overnight. An example of this is the situation of national income, which didn’t increase significantly until almost one hundred years later in countries like Britain. While the income increased gradually over the years between, this significant difference took a long time to develop. With another idea, Gerschenkron supports the concept of “Great Spurt.” This idea encompasses the thought that less advanced countries, which are under great amounts of stress, could advance their industry much more rapidly. This could be possible because they would have great amounts of stress and pressure due to their economic inferiority, and a change would be inevitable. Adding to this, these countries are already at such a low level, that they have nowhere to go but up, and have room for a better rate of industry to develop. While this proves true in Russia, it can not hold true for Italy, therefore, maybe it can not be proven effective.
1. Political: As Napoleon Bonaparte expanded his empire through trade from industrialization, he attempted to weaken Britain by cutting her off from various industries. These industries varied from raw to consumer goods. Bonaparte tried to seize power by controlling the new industrial revolution.
Social: During the industrial revolution, the middle class grew as the upper and lower classes shrank. This changed the way society acted not only socially, but politically and economically as well. Because there were more jobs available in the cities, much of the population changed from rural to urban life.
Economic: Railroads became an essential transportation system during this revolution. The trains became a link for production systems for not only raw materials and goods, but also as a means of moving militia. The railroad system provided industry for smaller, poorer regions of Europe as well. It greatly helped integrate raw materials to these parts of the world.
2. Industrialization as evolution means that ideal results were not achieved in a short period of time, rather they were achieved over many decades. Trebilcock explains that industrial growth and success takes many years to achieve. Britain percent of GNP growth was incredibly low, at less than 2 percent before 1830, while France and Germany had slow industrial growth rates as well. Industrialization as a great spurt means that new technology and industrial rates are so low that new ideas in these fields can only produce high growth rates.
2. starting in the late 18th century european industrialization began to spread its way through europe. the industrialization of europe paved the way for what happened in the 20th century. Trebilcock uses the word evolution to describe how the industrialization of europe was played out. i think that this word fits strongly because the industrialization process was long and slow just like an evolution. the changes at first were not very drastic but just like in the evolution of an animal for example it was steady and continued to grow. for example in the beginnings the GNP growth was lower and became higher and then became steady. this also shows how industrialization was not an instant thing but was slow and steady. an evolution was what the industrialization did for europe, europe evolved
1. Political: The industrialization of Europe greatly impacted politics, especially the role of the middle class. This can best be expressed within Chartism, an ideology which occurred in the mid-19th century and called for various political reforms in England, such as universal male suffrage, annual parliaments, and voting via ballot.
Social: A direct effect of industrialization was urbanization. Most people had no choice other than to work in the factories (which were in cities), that that required a home within a reasonable distance. Also, women and children were forced to work due to the condition of most families, making up 75% of early workers.
Economic: While there was definitely still a problem with poverty, the economic status of nearly everyone slowly improved simply due to the vast availability of employment. In Germany, poverty was nearly eliminated during the 19th century as a result of the large surplus of jobs.
1. In the first wave of Industrialization, the innovations to cotton textiles and iron-making helped to expand wealth largely in Great Britain, but in many other European countries, especially as these were the main foundations of the economy in some areas. Socially, the advent of railways helped to spread people throughout Europe. They now were not so confined to the country they were born in, and this could lead to shared ideas, philosophies, cultures.
Politically, the expansion of industry led to first, better communication between nations, and second, competition, to have the best technology, the most wealth, to establish themselves as not only leading industrial powers, but through that, as super powers in Europe, even the world.
1) During the Industrialization of Europe, the middle class was gaining a bigger role in politics. They had their hands in law and order and also reform of parliament. The middle class’s voice was gaining respect and people started listening. Also during the Industrial Revolution, urbanization was becoming more and more popular. Many people started working in factories, this included women and children as well. The living conditions for these factory workers were not good, as they were usually poor. While on the opposite side of the spectrum, the owners of these factories tended to live lavishly. Economy was improving during the Industrial Revolution because many people found more jobs due to the establishment of many factories. There became a surplus in jobs because things needed to be manufactured in a timely manner.
1. Social: The wealth gap grew exponentially, changing the standard of living. While before the industrial revolution, the agricultural industry created a moderate sameness to an individual's social standards. Now, corporate ownership of factories and agricultural monopolies created a huge gap between the slum worker and indulgent owner.
Political: The middle class gained great power. While the lower class remained nearly powerless, this growing population of the "bourgeoisie" was able to wield considerable power because of their economic mettle.
Economic: Factories became the dominant form of industry. This corporate structure allowed for lower commodity prices and a higher yield of the required product. Thus, contrary to the description of factory worker lives, the standard of living actually improved, as more people were able to afford goods, like food, and clothing. This lowered price also created a higher demand to keep up with the supply and new group of people now able to afford said goods.
Post a Comment