| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| 325:questions:week_2_questions_comments-325_17 [2017/01/26 14:24] – [Judith McGaw, So Much Depends...] collins | 325:questions:week_2_questions_comments-325_17 [2019/09/04 18:51] (current) – [Judith McGaw, "So Much Depends..."] kjenkin3 |
|---|
| ====== Readings from Pursell ====== | ====== Readings from Pursell ====== |
| | I enjoyed McGaw's view on technology and found it to be very interesting. She did a great job of returning to the question "What accounts for America's sudden, rapid, and comparatively successful early nineteenth century industrialization?(p.30)" The first week of class, I learned that practically everything is technology in some way. McGaw emphasized this in a more indirect way. I also enjoyed her view on more simplistic ideas. There is no need to continue reinventing different things, as she says "avoid the high cost of unnecessarily reinventing the wheel"(p.30). =-- Erika M. |
| ==== Judith McGaw, "So Much Depends..." ==== | ==== Judith McGaw, "So Much Depends..." ==== |
| | |
| I found McGaw's **definition of technology to be very interesting. McGaw points out that "agricultural technology includes far more than machines, implements, and the knowledge of how to use them"** (Pursell, 22). McGaw then went on to explain how technology in regards to this specific period should include knowledge of plant and animal behavior, as well as the "procedures devised for storing crops and housing livestock" (Pursell, 22). Technology, as we have already been learning in class, is much more than our phones or our computers. It's definition, in the broadest terms, encompasses a lot. McGaw's argument highlights just how far the definition of technology, and the importance of various technologies, can reach. **It begs the question as to why we no longer consider many of these things to be technology today.** - Shannon K. | I found McGaw's **definition of technology to be very interesting. McGaw points out that "agricultural technology includes far more than machines, implements, and the knowledge of how to use them"** (Pursell, 22). McGaw then went on to explain how technology in regards to this specific period should include knowledge of plant and animal behavior, as well as the "procedures devised for storing crops and housing livestock" (Pursell, 22). Technology, as we have already been learning in class, is much more than our phones or our computers. It's definition, in the broadest terms, encompasses a lot. McGaw's argument highlights just how far the definition of technology, and the importance of various technologies, can reach. **It begs the question as to why we no longer consider many of these things to be technology today.** - Shannon K. |
| | |
| |
| I also found McGaw's widened definition of technology interesting. When she discussed how previous accounts and discussions revolving around colonial farming typically discount the technology as "primitive" and without "technological change," I was reminded of an idea that I had come across in a reading for another class (22). In that reading, Plato discusses what he calls the "new technology" of writing. The idea that back in ancient Greece, people thought of writing as a kind of technology fits in with McGaw's argument that we should resist defining the technology of past ages through the narrower lens of the age in which are currently. - Megan P. | I also found McGaw's widened definition of technology interesting. When she discussed how previous accounts and discussions revolving around colonial farming typically discount the technology as "primitive" and without "technological change," I was reminded of an idea that I had come across in a reading for another class (22). In that reading, Plato discusses what he calls the "new technology" of writing. The idea that back in ancient Greece, people thought of writing as a kind of technology fits in with McGaw's argument that we should resist defining the technology of past ages through the narrower lens of the age in which are currently. - Megan P. |
| |
| I found several things from this chapter very interesting. First of which McGaw states,"I acknowledged there was **no such thing as a representative colonial farm, farm community, or farm region** (18)." I did not realize how ignorant I was to agree with most who have a unified vision of what the early 18th/19th century American farmer was like, when in reality, farmers were diverse based on region and culture. I enjoyed reading about McGaw's primary source for evidence, probate inventories, as well as the different flaws and drawbacks that comes from analyzing those documents, especially in regards to gendered items. What I find most interesting, though, is when defining technology, McGraw chose to include the "knowledge" of different agricultural practices as a piece of technology itself. Definitely widens the umbrella for what could fall under the term. -Angie Sanchez | I found several things from this chapter very interesting. First of which McGaw states,"I acknowledged there was **no such thing as a representative colonial farm, farm community, or farm region** (18)." I did not realize how ignorant I was to agree with most who have a unified vision of what the early 18th/19th century American farmer was like, when in reality, farmers were diverse based on region and culture. I enjoyed reading about McGaw's primary source for evidence, probate inventories, as well as the different flaws and drawbacks that comes from analyzing those documents, especially in regards to gendered items. What I find most interesting, though, is when defining technology, McGraw chose to include the "knowledge" of different agricultural practices as a piece of technology itself. Definitely widens the umbrella for what could fall under the term. -Angie Sanchez |
| | |
| | I was very curious about farm culture and tools during colonial times and McGaw actually answered some of my questions. However, I was mainly curious as to whether or not any farming practices were adopted from any native americans from the areas and whether these practices were adopted or altered to allow for better farming. |
| | -Thomas Lanier |
| |
| I admire what McGaw is attempting to do in dissecting the way that historians and history students learn about technological innovation. McGaw makes the observation on page 13 that we focus on “famous firsts” as opposed to evaluating how technology evolves over time. **I agree that historians have a tendency to generalize the behavior of different societies over the course of time. While generalizations can be useful to get a snapshot of a particular era, they can be misleading if that information is used to dictate the bigger picture.** For this reason, I thought that McGaw did the correct thing in deciding that there is no representative farm. This helped her come to the conclusion after her analysis of probate inventories that technological diversity is what paved the way for nineteenth-century technological innovation. -Yousef Nasser | I admire what McGaw is attempting to do in dissecting the way that historians and history students learn about technological innovation. McGaw makes the observation on page 13 that we focus on “famous firsts” as opposed to evaluating how technology evolves over time. **I agree that historians have a tendency to generalize the behavior of different societies over the course of time. While generalizations can be useful to get a snapshot of a particular era, they can be misleading if that information is used to dictate the bigger picture.** For this reason, I thought that McGaw did the correct thing in deciding that there is no representative farm. This helped her come to the conclusion after her analysis of probate inventories that technological diversity is what paved the way for nineteenth-century technological innovation. -Yousef Nasser |
| | |
| | I think that McGaw's approach to technology is a very interesting one. By evaluating many counties in several states we see the different varieties of tools and methods that the settlers used to get through day to day life. I also love the discussion about the diversity of tool ownership between counties due to different needs. For instance McGaw stated that Burlington and Hunterdon counties were least likely to own axes as plows, while in York and Westmoreland were far more likely too.(pg.25) This was intriguing to me because even though they are neighboring states the tools they have and the methods that they use to harness them are widely different. Ultimately this demonstrates the degree of change that the United States was going through in this time period. |
| | -Kendell Jenkins |
| |
| I found it that McGaw's research into the fact that most farmers lacked some of the tools we would take for granted or expect that a farmer to own to lead to "reveal eighteenth-century Mid-Atlantic farmers to have been a distinctly innovative lot."(Pursell, 24). Which brought to mind of a discussion about the purpose of fences in another class, in which fences in terms of farming were used more to keep animals out of the fields rather than in them to protect the crops. - Laurabeth Downs | I found it that McGaw's research into the fact that most farmers lacked some of the tools we would take for granted or expect that a farmer to own to lead to "reveal eighteenth-century Mid-Atlantic farmers to have been a distinctly innovative lot."(Pursell, 24). Which brought to mind of a discussion about the purpose of fences in another class, in which fences in terms of farming were used more to keep animals out of the fields rather than in them to protect the crops. - Laurabeth Downs |
