Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.
Currently locked by: 216.73.216.141
Lock expires at: 2025/08/26 11:32 (8 min)
This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Readings from Pursell ======

==== 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 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 thought that McGaw's research on the different counties within Pennsylvania was very interesting in that each city handled technology slightly differently. I thought that it was very interesting that in every document that he looked at, people owned slightly different things that would all still accomplish a task but in a different way. This was especially true when it came to cooking. While there were stoves in the 18th century, most of the women preferred to do the cooking the way that it always had been done for fear that it would alter the meal and they would have to learn a new task (Pursell, 28). It was interesting to me that even though the technology was available to these people that sometimes they would still prefer to do it as they had always done, because as McGaw says "there is no "one best way to farm" (Pursell, 30). I also liked the way that she explained, as we have learned in class, that technology can include a variety of things and that we should not limit ourselves to only consider technology machines. - Emma Baumgardner
 

When I read this chapter, I agreed with McGraw that are different ways in which we can view technology, especially agricultural technology. I like that she discusses that society as a whole doesn't always need to own all the popular technology that is being offered at the time. She explains that "there was no standard array of household and farm utensils that virtually all colonists owned or needed to own". (Pursell, 22). People were able to survive without kettles, firearms and plows. (Pursell, 22). It's perfectly acceptable to access different technology and not use "the best technology" at a given point in time. I also liked how she gave examples of technological innovations in different part of the United States. - Rachel Kosmacki 

After reading the information in the chapter, I completely agree with McGraw on technology can be used in so many way and how it change sociality. From what she says about agricultural technology, is its what seeded the growth for modern culture. she also discusses that society as a whole doesn't always need to own all the popular technology that is being offered at the time. I also liked the way that she explained that technology can include a variety of things and that we should not limit ourselves to only consider technology machines. - Daryl Murray     

“… early Americans were far more likely to own guns than to possess that other icon of early American life – the Bible…” (McGaw, 14). In class Tuesday, I thought it was interesting how guns were not as popular during the colonial era as once believed. This quote also intrigued me because in historical novels and some history books, early Americans are depicted as gun wielding, bible loving, frontiersmen and the inventories show us the complete opposite from this belief. - Jessie Cavolt  

I liked how McGaw defined technology in 18th and 19th century terms before getting into the analysis. It was amazing how open the definition was on page 22 of Pursell. I also really liked how McGaw took into account the cultural aspects of technology and its evolution during this time period. I never knew that the Germans had such an affect on technology in the mid-atlantic region. - Heidi Schmidt

This essay reminded me of my thoughts towards the technology time line article from last week. In my response I discussed how I never really viewed objects like “pencils” as technology. McGaw points out that we tend to “limit the definition of technology to those things which characterize the technology of our own time (22).” That is exactly what I did when discussing the pencil. It is an interesting concept to learn about these technology advancements that were a huge deal in the past because we leave in such a fast pace world that pushes forward to the next best thing of the future. Reading this essay really made me stop and try to imagine being a frontiersmen or a farmer exposed to pots, churns, stills, plows, herds of cattle etc. (22) and thinking “wow, this is the next big thing.” These items are common to us now but at one point they changed everything. -Kelsey Dean

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 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

McGaw's definition truly broadened the scope of technology in a way that is hard to consider when living in a time where older technology is taken for granted. It seems as though technology is only considered such when it's new or "innovative" or the first of its kind. When Megan P. brought up writing as an ancient technology, I had to take a step back because boy, do we take advantage of that now. I wonder how hip and cool the Greeks were with their pens and font styles, how impressive it was that they could write so fast or in different languages. We've since developed writing to be digital, like on this Wiki page or voice-to-text, which are easier aspects to label as technology. Broadening the definition makes the world open up to all kinds of cool concepts, especially in the background of our everyday lives. --Lindsey M.
==== American Colonial Wealth ====


====== Readings from Smith and Clancey ======
==== Debate over Manufacturing in the Early Republic (Jefferson, Coxe, Hamilton, Cooper) ====

At first, Jefferson was vehemently opposed to establishing large scale factories because he favored agriculture. Jefferson believed farming was the backbone of American economy, not sinking down to the barbaric practices of Europe. Jefferson proposed that large scale factories would endanger the republic fabric of the nation. However, Coxe, refuted Jefferson's arguement. He proposed that machines would bring "immense assistance." (107) Machines would take less time producing items than typical artisans. Hamilton expands on Coxe's point about reduced production time by arguing that machines lessened the necessity of labor. (111) Cooper, a Southerner, opposes machinery because manufacturing expansion would bring social issues as well. He believes that the Europeans have become immoral because of their focus on manufacturing and big cities. Instead, Cooper stresses that America is different from Europe and morally superior. 
 --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2017/01/25 12:43//

When first hearing Jeffersons argument for keeping America mainly an agricultural society, it is extremely compelling. He wants to stay true to what America was at the time and less like the European society they so brutally fought against. But as pointed out through the arguments of his correspondents, being an agricultural society made America dependent on Europe for the items they did not have. Dishes, pots and pans, decorum, and many other household items would have to be imported to the states due to the lack of “factories” to make them. Though Jefferson wants to keep America unique and different from Europe, he couldn’t stop the evolution and progression of the states and the technology they needed. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2017/01/25 14:22// 

I never realized that our founding fathers were at odds about the direction our nation should take, whether agrarian or industrial. Thomas Jefferson represents those who strive for an Agrarian, self sufficient society in his article "Notes on Virginia". Jefferson makes a passionate plea that "those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God" and goes as far to point out that corruption is the product of mass industry (Smith and Clancey 105). On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton appears far more concerned with the financial success of the United States in his "Report on Manufactures". He even takes a jab at the "Jeffersonian" ideal of a mainly agrarian society when he comments "there seems to be a moral certainty, that the trade of a country which is both manufacturing and Agricultural will be more lucrative and prosperous than that of a Country, which is merely Agricultural"(Smith and Clancey 112). The need to pay off debts and assert the US as a powerful nation beat out Jefferson's humble aspirations for a quiet agrarian nation of morally conscious farmers, but at what cost? How would our nation be different today if we had remained an agrarian society and ignored the temptations to industrialize? 
-Heather Taylor

It was interesting seeing the forming argument between Britain and America over the economic fallout that would occur due to the strict policies Britain would possibly enforce against America if they happened to win their political independence. Bringing the American Revolution into perspective and seeing that their political independence would not bring complete independence, including economic independence changes the effectiveness of the war in my mind. The quote that stuck with me and basically stated that economic dependence on Britain would remain an issue regardless of the war's outcome was: "No matter how oppressive a policy the British followed...there was no danger of provoking serious competition from America," (Smith and Clancey 121). Britain did not make it easy for America to win, and wanted to ensure to the world that they still had power over them by flaunting incoming policies to make it difficult for them to develop a worldly economy.  --- //[[kmcgowan@umw.edu|McGowan, Khayla J.]] 2017/01/25 18:28//

Seeing the arguments of the paths our country could have taken at the time is very unique. It is understandable why Thomas Jefferson did not want to follow in the footsteps of the country they just left and stay true to the America he knew. He never wanted to see his people "occupied at a work bench or twirling a distaff." (Smith and Clancey 105) Jefferson desperately wanted to "keep the factories in Europe." (Smith and Clancey 106) In response, Coxe argues that the factories would "multiply the force of hands to a great extent without taking our people from agriculture." These arguments remind me of our debates today. There are always people who fear new ways of doing things or technological advancement; that think the old way of doing things is better. - Madison White

I found it interesting that Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, was originally for keeping manufacturing in Britain. He wanted to keep America agricultural because it there was "an immensity of land courting the industry of the husbandman." (Smith and Clancey 105). He stated that Britain has resorted to manufacturing because that is the best they can do with what they're given. America, on the other hand, has a vast amount of natural resources that can be maximized. I think that Coxe's point is most compelling because he addresses how manufacturing in the states can help relieve the reliance that America has on Britain's manufactured goods. He also addresses his counterarguments by talking about the fears people have regarding switching from a mainly agricultural to a manufacturer society. Using machines to help laborious work become easier will ultimately benefit America in the long run. - Nicole Spreeman

I found this reading about the early division in American history interesting because it shows that that the issues that divide us today can be traced back to the early days of the Republic. The agricultural v. industrial divides can be seen throughout history such as during the Civil War and is still relevant in today's society. - Helen Salita 

I found this reading interesting because it alluded to a phase in American history that I had never really thought about previously. The country had just gained its independence, but I never considered that it wasn’t smooth sailing from there. There were disagreements on how to move forward from a manufacturing standpoint. “… a growing popular feeling that the United States could never be completely independent of Great Britain and other European powers until it achieved economic independence” (Smith and Clancey 104). It seemed only natural that America would progress towards whatever technology could advance production and manufacturing, but Jefferson disagreed with that notion. He wanted to keep factories in Europe and keep the states agrarian. Coxe counters that by saying in order to become truly independent, they must build up factories in America. According to him and Alexander Hamilton, this was how progress was possible. - Cameron Bierkan

I remember learning about Jefferson's agrarian society view in other classes. This idea stated that manufacturing should remain in England, not only due to Jefferson's opinion on having a manufacturing based society, but also because they already had the workmen and factories there as well. Although the idea of having an agricultural society is fair, there is also merit to Coxe's view as well. If there is no one in America who is able to manufacture the desired products of society, then Americans would be completely dependent on England, which is something that the founders definitely wanted to move away from. It is interesting to see how we went from Jefferson's idealized society of agriculture to the society that developed out of the industrial revolution, something he definitely did not imagine for America.. --Kasey Mayer 

I particularly found this piece interesting because although Jefferson argued for America to continue to have a society whose economy would be built up by its agricultural endeavors, while continuing to rely on England for manufacturing (which implies dependance on the mother country) was the author of our Declaration of Independence. I also enjoyed Cooper's argument to avoid American focus on manufacturing because he considered it to have further social implications and would make America equally immoral to England. When reading people's early stances on what was controversial in their time and seeing how eventually those opinions solidified or changed over time is extremely interesting. I like to view it as being ironic, because we can read pieces dated from the early start of the republic and know ourselves ultimately how most of their lives, policies and future involvement in government played out. - Danielle Howard

==== Leo Marx, The Machine ====