Analyzation of Elizabeth Poole Sandford's "Women in Her Social and Domestic Character"

"Women in Her Social and Domestic Character" was written by Elizabeth Sandford, as Mrs. John Sandford, which (as one shall see) follows her advice of women's roles. It is 1842 in Industrial England, a time of rapid technological changes, not to mention explosive social revolutions. The writer reaches to an audience of middle class men and women, whose gender roles are still quite mixed up and ill-defined. Her intent is to clearly mark out where a woman belongs and what her temperment should be. A woman is a dependent creature, one who needs the husband, and has no place in a business environment, at least according to Mrs. Sandford... It is a reflection of the "prudish" and genteel nature that middle and upper class women are expected to have, but also includes romantic love, which is a shift from previous social requirements of upper class marriages.
To this writer, a middle-class woman's place is in the home, where she is expected to be her husband's everything, from psychiatrist to backscratcher to hostess. It seems that the influences of working class society and revolution force many middle class women to distinguish them from their "inferior" counterparts; the need for a woman to work for financial stability was only for the poorest of the poor, and was highly unacceptable because of this stigma. The Industrial Revolution by-produced such thinking, as more and more became aware of just how poor the poor really were, and Sandford is more than likely to be a product of this era's thinking. However, in today's society where everyone (regardless of sex, race, or preferences) have equal rights, many women and men would shun this notion. Although some feel that society is screwed up because of the gender-bending of rules, it is of the majority's belief that women can do as they wish. The women of the Academy, for example, would never stand for going with the grain, and not against it. To women all over the world, this enclosing of opportunities and rights is outrageous, and judgement on the poor person who even encourages this ancient notion would be extremely harsh to say the very least.

Analyzations of Alexander II's "Imperial Decree, March 3,1861" and Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation"

The author of the "Imperial Decree, March 3, 1861," is of course Alexander II of Russia. The audience is all of Russia, the wealthy, landowning aristocrats, the army, and the peasant class. The purpose is to free all the serfs, and provide some compensation for both classes involved, the landowners (who are now losing their laborers) and the serfs (who have no protection or means of living). It was a step toward reform in Russia, which after a humiliating defeat, forced them to industrialize. It was a necessary move to industrialization, as there was no established middle, working class to take up these jobs or begin these businesses.
The author of the "Emancipation Proclamation" was Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America. This country was engaged in a civil war that was mainly focused on the secession of southern states due to tensions on the issue of slavery. It was issued in the 3rd year of the war, in January 1st, 1863. Like the previous document, it was addressed to all the people of the nation (and not really Russians, but citizens of the Union). It's significance was that it freed all slaves in the country, but it was really intended to validate the Civil War and its causes.
The most obvious difference is that the Russian decree contained provisions for compensations to both parties, whereas the Emancipation (whose direct reason for issuance was not slavery) does not. Alexander justifies his actions by saying that the serfs are subject to inalienable rights and it is long overdue their freedoms, while Lincoln argues that the Union, once forged, cannot be divided and that states who try to secede should be forced to remain in the Union. President Lincoln sees the secessions as armed rebellions, and not legal secessions. To a certain degree, both were effective. But for the most part, Russia and the US had a great deal of problems that followed. It was hard for both countries' slaves to adjust to this new freedom, and a lot of reform and regulations had to be implemented.

Analyzation of the EMS telegraph

The original EMS telegraph was dictated by King Wilhelm I to Heinrich Abeken . The second telegraph, which was released and sent, was doctored by the Prime Minister Otto van Bismarck who received the original telegraph. It was written in Prussia in 1870. It's purpose was to inform the Prime Minister of the details of the conversation between the king and the French ambassador, while the second was to incite a war between the two countries. (It was successful.) The main idea is that Otto van Bismarck would do anything for German unification, and a war with France, would force the southern German states to unite. The southern German states, predominantly Catholic, were reluctant to go further than a few alliances with their northern, predominantly Protestant brothers. By inciting feelings of nationalism, Bismarck unified Germany and "spanked" France. He also managed to win Alsace and Lorraine, a resource rich area between northern France and Germany. He shortened the telegraph, and changed the context behind the words. By telling a briefer story missing important details, both countries seemed to be insulted, which played into his hands of wanting a war. To imagine, if Bismarck had sent out the original telegraph, the Prussian-Franco war would had never happened, and with that Germany would never have been united; without German unification and later nationalism, World War One and Two may be different or possibly never occur! Thanks to Bismarck's catalyst, Germany was united. Although his slyness is a bit on the dirty side of politics, it totally follows the Machiavellian philosophy. "The ends always justify the means."

Analyzation of Napoleon's decree

"The Plebiscite, Article (ii)" was decreed by Napoleon III during the Second Empire around the 4th of December 1851, Champs Elysee, Paris, France. As it was an official decree of the "emperor", it was meant for all French people to read, but most especially the lower classes, and to inform them of three modified articles regarding their enfranchisement. The first two was to clearly define who could vote and the necessity of proving their eligibility, and the last was to regulate the place, days, and time of voting. It was not only a means to clearly define the voting laws, but also to make it seem that Napoleon was not removing any real power of the public. It was a grand illusion of make-believe that the people had any power and that Napoleon respected their wishes. This was one of his attempts to appease and manipulate the public into thinking as such. Napoleon was forced to declare these laws because the masses of people were educated in philosophical thinkings, and many were socialists who's philosophies and beliefs would have never allowed a dictator (as that is was Napoleon essentially was) to rule. He has just abolished the National Assembly; if he had not allowed some sort of election to some sort of "governing" body, there would have been strong suspicions of his quest for power. To justify his actions, Napoleon said that nothing was effectively being done and that everywhere he turned was another roadblock to helping the people. It was of his opinion that the National Assemblymen were trying to begin a civil war that France did not need; ergo, to prevent such terrible bloodshed and tragedy, he got rid of the instigators. France, still weary of the not forgotten Revolution, welcomed this "saving" and played along with his reasoning. It was a puppet democracy that Louis Napoleon held; it seemed like the people held power, but again, they truly did not. He is precursor to today's authoritarian state politics, in the way people power is mockingly applied, but he aimed to prevent a revolution, unlike many of today's authoritarian leaders who came to power because of their calls FOR revolution.

Analyzation of Mazzini's "The Young Italy Oath"

"The Young Italy Oath" conceived and written by Giuseppe Mazzini was a sworn promise to the movement of a unified Italy. Mazzini, a leader amongst Italian "rebels", wrote this as a means to insure dedication to the cause. It is the 1830's in Italy, the beginnings of a nearly three decade fight for unification. Written for hopeful initiates of the Young Italy brotherhood, it conveys the idea that the Italy they and Mazzini are fighting for is a liberal republican Italy in which everyone has EQUAL rights. It is a piece of historical work that displays nationalism as a growing emotion in nations across Europe, inspiring self-determination of ethnic groups. European nationalism in the early 1800's is defined by pride of country, culture, and language. With Mazzini's writing language, it is easy to see why some have called this new nationalism a "secular religion"; Mazzini's oath is not unlike Roman Catholic laypeople's vows of chastity and obedience to the pope. His oath ends with "NOW AND FOREVER" which stamps the label of semi-fanaticism on many nationalist movements. His liberal views were a bit too optimistic in 1831 because his hope of equality among men did not coincide with the political reality of the time in which there were monarchs, popes, and strong middle class voices.

Analyzation of E. Levasseur's "On Parisian Department Stores"

E. Levasseur's "On Parisian Department stores" is a discussion of an economic phenomenon that has become commonplace in today's society- the department store. Levasseur writes about its roots in Paris, the people who built such stores, the economic planning behind it, and the powerful driving force of the consumer. It was most likely written in the early twentieth century in France for historians as an attempt to understand how the industrial revolutions changed European economies. The main idea behind this essay was that the department stores were a successful business anomaly that also crossed over into the social and culture aspects of history. It cleverly explains how and why this consolidated outpost of buyer and seller does this. Upon closer examination, it is a reflection of the mindset of awed historians at the boom of industry and economy during the late 19th century.
It also addresses the gigantic explosion of mass consumerism. It claims the root of this cataclysm is the department store's mission "to combine all commodities as to attract and satisfy customers who will find conveniently together an assortment of a mass of articles corresponding to all their various needs", and was caused by the constant and rapid outturning of products from industries. It is very easy to connect the need for a place to display and sell this enormous amount of manufactured goods. Their audience was of course, the middle classes, first and foremost because they could afford such luxuries, followed by the wealthy upper classes, and somewhat below was the working classes, all of who's desire to be socially accepted and uppant created the new philosophy of the "haves-and-have-nots". The consumer, mainly of middle class living, followed the trends of in vogue and in season, along with the sales and advertisements. From little tiny shops that specialized in certain things to expansive department stores that contained a variety of products (often with competitive brands), the consumer now had a place to say "I got this at Saks Fifth Avenue" and conjure up the idea that item was expensive and the person could easily afford many of it. It introduced brand-conciousness.

Analyzation of "Homes of the London Poor"

"Homes of the London Poor" was written by Octavia Hill. She was practical, no-nonsense woman who believed that reform should come by using the idea behind "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and you feed him for life." This piece of literature is more like a letter to a business friend or an explanatory essay describing her attempt to reform housing starting on a small, personal level. The time and place is most likely after the 1850's in London, England. The audience could be a business friend or to an editor of a journal or a journalist. It discusses Octavia's venture as tenant owner, land lady, and social observer. Her multi-role to the tenants prove to make an interesting discussion, as Ms. Hill invested a great amount of money to fix up the buildings and put trust into the tenants to help maintain the structure. She began classes and established get-togethers in a common room. Octavia Hill set out to prove that reform could be done without wasting tax dollars and that giving an inch won't sacrifice a mile. By being a more involved landlady, she showed that attitudes and lives change. The significance of this document shows a more grassroots movement to effect change. People, especially women, were taking matters into their own hands and providing the evidence and solutions to address the problems. Octavia Hill wanted to provide dignity and a means for social advancement to the youth of London's poor families. In my belief, she was mostly successful. She was able to set up classes for the children of her tenants and in her opinion (which may or may not be reliable) she was able to offer up some way to give "prestige and honor" to the families by personally inviting them to events. Although she and many other philanthropists of the time were more about going and making a direct difference, not many of today's philanthropists can say the same. I believe there are many reasons behind this, and perhaps one of the man ones is the fact that many philanthropic foundations are set up to cover a whole spectrum of "charitable" causes. Besides, many philanthropists just divy out the direct social work to others.

Analyzation of "The Last Conquest of Ireland"

"The Last Conquest of Ireland" John Mitchel

The Great Potato Famine, which this article discusses, was a very horrendous period, in which million suffered and died. All across Europe, villages were literally wiped because of the starvation and deprivation was too much for the already malnourished working class. However, one of the hardest hit places was Ireland, where the writer is a native of. Of course, his right to be biased is a given, and his choice of words are allowed to be an exaggeration. Yet, one must conclude with the prior knowledge of this famine, and how hard pressed Ireland was at the time, one cannot honestly say that this piece is just all exaggeration. The time is 1847, in Galway, Ireland. The audience is the upper classes of England and Europe. Rather than its main purpose to be a spark of outrage, I believe Mitchel's true purpose was to tell of the story and horror he felt and saw in this place where in his memory was one of prosperity. It was a source of information of hard times, and to prompt further discussion of why these hard times were happening. It tells us exactly how poor the poor were, and an insight to the minds of the rich, who felt that the poor were poor because they deserved it.

Analyzation of "The History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain"

"The History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain" Edward Baines

The article ws written in 1835, but was set around the life Richard Arkwright, the inventor of the spinning frame and founder of the cotton factories. It is obviously meant to inspire others to become inventors and entrepreneurs. It's audience was people of all classes, but especially the poorer classes. This biography is a rags-to-riches story. It is a reflection of the entreprenurial spirit of the early Industrial Revolution. Britain was on a high from all the economic growth that the industrial boom gave, and thus encouraged more to invent despite the cost.

Analyzation of "The First National Petition, 1839"

The First National Petition, 1839 Chartists

The English middle class in 1839 felt an urgent need for change. In this demand for change, they wrote this petition and turned it in to their governing body. The purpose is simple: convince the politicians of the ruling party to pass laws and reforms in the benefit of the people. Its ideas were democratic and socialist at the least. It's importance is clearly noted in the fact that it is the first real push from the working classes for a better life. The Chartists want peaceful negotiations and law-making. They were not seeking militant means to achieve their desires. To them, the ends did not jusitfy the means, because already so many of the people they supported was dying, and could barely rise up and fight. Metternich would not see these demands in a positive view; more than not, he would have probably seen this as a threat needed to be put down. Metternich's conservative style meant that power stayed within the wealthy and nobility, and there was definitely to be now power sharing between poor commoners and filthy rich nobles.

Analyzation of "Child Labor: The Mines"

"CHILD LABOR: THE MINES" by John Stuart Mills

Of course, it is known by this particular student that Mills is a writer-activist. His strongly opposed the exploitive factories. However, conditions were usually as bad as described by Mills and sometimes even worse. His audience is the wealthier, upper classes and the politicians. His purpose was simple- reform and regulations for an out of control industrial revolution. Mr. Mills wanted to expose the dreadful conditions in which miners worked. He also wanted to highlight the exploitation of women and children who worked in the mines. It's significance as a first hand account is apparent in his interview with the child. It is a reflection of what many lower middle class citizens felt about factories and their conditions. However, this document is also very biased with the opinions of a social activist, and somewhat cancels out its authenticity.

Analyzation of "Life on the Mississippi" by Mark Twain

The steamboat was necessary to little towns like Mississippi Valley, USA because it was the lifeline, the pride and joy, the only real big thing. Unlike cities or big towns, this community had nothing for recreation. The author Mark Twain was known for his realistic depictions of rural life and adventurous misfits. His "Life on the Mississippi" truthfully depicted what many out-there communities experienced on a daily basis. He also depicted what little boys' in those communities felt and their thought processes (sort of). The time and place is the US of A during the 19th century, in a community far from the big industrializing cities of the east coast, chicago, and the west coast. His audience is a whole spectrum of people, his generation and succeeding generations. To me, he wanted to remind America where it was before this big boom in inudstry, and to share a different world with city-folks. He wanted to reminisce about the innocence of his youth, and how life was very different when he was a young'un. Again, this document provides an idea of what life was like to a person who experienced a dramatic change over their lifetime. That's why this is a PSD. But it gives us the mindset, which was a sort of dreamy, relaxed set. Although we know they worked hard for their sustenance and life was very boring, they enjoyed this sort of unrushed life. It was suited to them.

Analyzation of Child Labor: Discipline in the Textile Mills

John Stuart Mills was a writer and activist who published his findings of conditions of society and its aspects, from treatment of women to chiold labor. We know for a fact that factory labor was horrendous, and that conditions were not always up to par. We also know that factory workers would suffer any condition for a wage to help support their family. So it comes as no surprise the examples given by Mills in his writing, however I cannot disregard the fact that he was probably overexagerrating certain points to horrify his audience. It was the early 19th century in England, right in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. His audience was probably well-to-do middle class and upper class men, along with politicians because he was trying to convince them that labor laws and regulation on the abuses practiced by the factories was needed. The main idea was that the working conditions in the factories needed reform and that all of the measures taken to insure quality work and full aware workers was not justified or even humane. This document, although highly biased, was very influential and not without truths. Its significance as a PSD in that it was a real opening to the social reform movement that many citizens in this country, and in other industrializing countries, realized was needed.

Analyzation of "The Foundry and Engineering Works of the Royal Overseas Trading Company, Factory Rules"

Well, work life in factories was pretty tough. There was poor ventilation and sanitation. It was literally a sweat shop, and was a brothel of exploitation. Run by the clock, season to season, no holidays, minimal breaks, never a vacation, and if you pissed off the overseer or gatekeeper, you were dismissed!These rules were written in Berlin, around 1844. The audience was, of course, factory workers, and the document's purpose was to introduce newly hired workers to the ropes of the factory life. This was to insure that everything in the production process ran as smoothly and as uninterrupted as possible. The main idea of this piece of writing is to educate the factory worker the do's and don'ts of working in the Royal Overseas Trading Company factories. It gives us a taste of the proletarian life, and what was expected of them. It is like the tax and trade records of antiquity; it is like the ancient grafiti on Pompeiian walls and in Roman baths. It gives us a slice of their life; it introduces us to how the mindset of the time formed. By showing us the oppression they felt in another point-of-view, we can more closely examine other contributing reasons why they felt that way. Factory work required attention and promptness. It also required neatness and obedience. This was probably so because of the fact that the work done at the factory demanded a smooth process. It also made for an easier-to-exploit labor force. Compliance to the outlined rules and obligated disciplines were encouraged by fines on a very skin-and-bones wage. Factory owners knew that the workers desperately needed the money they earned, ergo biting back on their urges to protest the exploitation or even to socialize with co-workers. A typical workday in the factory consisted of quiet workers, hard labor attending the machines, and constant surveilance. It was a controlled environment run by the clock and whistle. Factory owners, ruthlessly searching for wealth, wrote these rules to retain the idea that uninterrupted and quiet workers produced more and better goods. These rules were also written more than likely to keep the workers in line, and to teach them a bit of decency. I mean it must be pretty obvious that one should not do natural functions at their work station. Thinking about it, school is like factory life... We must obtain permission to do anything; we cannot lcome and go as we please, and our lives are governed by the damn bell!