During the 1700s views towards children were rather different than today. Although they were changing from previous eras. After the 1750s there was a boom in illegitimate children caused by the increased mobility of young people due to the rise of the cottage industry. This meant that many children were being born outside of marriage. Many of these young single mothers were unable to raise the children themselves and so would leave the child bundled up outside of a hospital, church or foundling home. The child would then be raised in a foundling home. It should also be noted that one-third of these babies were from married couples, suggesting that many families could not afford to raise more children. Even in the best of situations, children raised in a foundling home only had a 50% survival rate.
An example of how to give a baby away.
However, overall, children did not have wonderful survival rates during this time. One in five was likely to die, and the mortality rate was higher in poorer areas. Therefore women would have many children to counteract the deaths, around half of the women of this time had six or more children. The high mortality was due to a lack of medical knowledge (and even concern) by midwives, doctors and parents. At this time, little could be done to save a sick child or prevent one from catching a disease. Unfortunately though, adults did not do much to help the infants and young children to survive. After all, the prospect of losing one's child, would push a person to not grow emotionally attached. Therefore parents would sometimes abuse or neglect their children in a variety of ways.
One was the use of wet nurses by the upper middle class and aristocracy. These higher class women saw nursing their own child as beneath them, and so hired someone else to do the job. Unfortunately, this meant the wet nurse often had to neglect her own child for the newcomer. Additionally, some wet nurses would let their clients' babies die in order to get onto another job. Poorer women tended to nurse their own children, but in some areas of Russia, babies were given just a sweetened rag to suck on. Predictably, this practice resulted in about half of the babies not making it past their first year.
Sweetened rags do not do this.
Additionally, some other parents would outright kill or abandon their child, because a baby meant another mouth to feed which was sometimes not feasible. While the Church did decry infanticide, it was still prevalent. One common method was "overlaying," during which parents would smother the infant they placed in their bed. Other children were left to foundling homes, as previously discussed.
Even if parents wanted to keep the child, the attitude at this in the early 1700s was "spare the rod and spoil the child." However, some thinkers of this time challenged these ideas and called for more love in raising a child such as Rousseau in Emile. Education of children also become more prevalent during this time, although illiteracy still remained common.
Friday in class we talked about Adam Smith, who was an 18th century forerunner of economic liberalism and unregulated capitalism. Recently we were exposed to the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau, who believed that all individuals should act in a way that is best for their community as a whole, or the "general will." Smith's ideas about economics and mercantilism are extensively divergent of what philosophers like Rousseau claimed was best for society. Think of the popular song "Started from the Bottom" by Drake.. (don't worry I got the clean version)
Although Drake may not be the most iconic person to look up to, the message in his song parallels Adam Smith's economic theory. He advocated the practice of free trade, which allowed a person to exchange and to interact with whoever he wished. This was not the case with the relationship between Great Britain and the colonies through mercantilism. The colonies would provide raw materials for the mother country, Britain would manufacture goods and then sell the finished product back to the colonies. This was far from a symbiotic relationship. Britain exploited the colonies, imposed high tariffs for imported goods, and restricted trade with other foreign countries. The whole basis behind mercantilism was to export more than one imports to increase wealth, profits, and power at an international level.
Adam Smith was very critical of this system. He proposed that a free-market economy leads to economic well-being and individual self interest. Government should be limited, or "laissez-faire," in order to allow an individual's potential to shine and to increase the wealth of both the rich and the poor. He created a famous metaphor, that of the "invisible hand," which describes a person's ability to self-regulate the marketplace. People are fully capable of making their own profits and maximizing them, without the need of government intervention. However, government did have 3 duties...
1.) Defend against foreign invasion
2.) Maintain civil order with courts and ensure police protection
3.) Sponsor public works that did not profit private investors
So basically, freedom in economic life is the solution to poverty. If you follow your own self interest and work hard, you can advance and improve your life. A staunch proponent of ruthless individualism, Smith once said that "Individual ambition serves the common good." As Drake describes in his song, "say I never struggled, wasn't hungry, yeah I doubt it." Now he's "on the road making half a million for a show." Now, in the spirit of Christmas, I thought this cartoon was funny...
Now is the moment you've all been waiting for. In addition to Adam Smith, we also talked about marriage and the family in the 18th century. This conversation was awkward; therefore, I will refrain from my usual sexual jokes and going into substantial detail (maturity at its finest). I will "hit on" (lol) the major points...
-Most families married late because they wanted to wait until they could support themselves economically. Many times, this meant waiting for fathers to die in order to secure the inheritance.
-Boys and girls both worked away from home to learn independence. Service to other families was the most common job for single girls, where they were often sexually exploited by their masters.
-Although many people did have premarital sex and many girls did "put out" often (lol), there was a low rate of illegitimate births until 1750. Most people used different forms of contraception, or got married shortly thereafter. Communities condemned and criticized premarital sex. Couples who engaged and were caught were often victims of harsh publicity.
-Between 1750 and 1850, however, there was an illegitimacy explosion. There is much debate about why this occurred, but there are 2 central theories:
1.) The growth of cottage industry created new opportunities for earning a living, opportunities not tied to land. Love became freer and more extensive as cottage industry grew.
2.) The needs of a growing population sent many people to towns and cities in search of employment. Here, people were not victims to village judgement and harsh treatment as they had been in the past. New opportunities for love came about.
Those are the main points... I'm sorry I tried to contain myself as much as possible.
The putting out system in Europe was when people gave their goods to others and then sold them when the others were done assembling them. For example, a country would send some ice cream, some chocolate chips, and glasses, for instance, to other countries to have it made into a delicious milkshake (yumm). It was then returned to them. Then they sold the "milkshake" to others for their enjoyment and to make a profit. The two places were mostly friends with some benefits on each side. Putting out, however euphoric, was quite a risky business.
Putting out started as a private industry, making money on the side with only a few people involved. Then, because there were not enough results, the people expanded their business and put out to a lot more people which made them a lot more money. Since the population explosion (due to lack of deaths), there were many people to provide for so the putting out system was the perfect way to please them!
*** Here is a chart (specifically of England) that shows the death and birth rates:
The putting out system also started because of enclosures (the fencing off of plots). People now had common land or pastures for sheep and oxen to graze which boosted the industries. For example, England was able to increase their wool industry because of this. Because wool doesn't grow on trees, landowners had to keep sheep to shave the wool off of.
Look how cute! :) (Pretend those lines are fences)
The enclosures helped with this. They, however, also had some disappointments. Land was becoming scarce so people found more industries which led to the putting out system.
Who participated in putting out you ask? Well, the lower class workers of all ages who needed money from the enclosure system used it mostly. Even old spinsters put out. Old, young, the system was universal in this aspect. The people were desperate to become like the wealthy, the aspiring Nantucket red panted class. However, many people conflicted due to this lust. Sometimes the ones putting out took away the advantages of pay from the workers who actually assembled it. People wanted to be wealthyThe wealthier class who "just stepped off the boat from Nantucket" (Maura) didn't need to put out to get money. They didn't need the money anyway (all the snobby prepsters!), but they could still put out at their leisure if they had the urge to.
I mean look at them! The wealthy (prepsters in our day and age) had the aura and looks of a financially well off person.
The putting out system however widely practiced, wasn't supported by all. The guilds were jealous of the people using the putting out system. The putter outers were getting everything, while the guilds were getting nothing. They were not as attractive to the customers. While the guilds did have luxurious products, they were expensive. In the putting out system, while there was a plethora of products being sold, they were cheap. There was not a high standard for the products.
So all in all from the land to the sea, from the bees to the birds, the putting out system, with all its benefits and controversies, was just your average run of the mill industry!
Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, 80% of Europeans made their livings as farmers. Unfortunately, ineffective techniques and poor conditions often caused crop failures which inevitably led to famines and poor economies.
This is what I imagine the sad farmers looked like when their crops failed.
The Agricultural Revolution modernized and commercialized farming in Europe with the help of new techniques. The techniques, such as crop rotation and selective farming, were products of the scientific revolution.
Crop Rotation
By alternating growing different types of crops, soil exhaustion and fallow were lessened, improving crop yields.
One of the most important developments of the Agricultural Revolution was the enclosure of the land, particularly in England. Some believed that in order to improve farming, farmers had to consolidate their lands into one fenced in area, rather than occupy several scattered fields.
Opinions differ as to whether or not this consolidation of the lands was beneficial to the common person.
Pro-enclosure:
Supporters of enclosure (the wealthy) believed that this system would improve farming because the new techniques could be easily applied, making farming more efficient. The wealthy land owners benefited directly from this system because they produced higher crop yields and could charge higher rents. After the enclosure acts, many poor farmers lost their own land, so they had to work the land of the wealthy. This gave the laborers relative stability because it provided secure jobs. This officially marked England's transition into a market-oriented agricultural society with the addition of a landless proletariat (working class). England was growing up and on its way to becoming capitalist (aww).
Anti-enclosure:
Adversaries of enclosure believed that this system hindered social mobility. Because the wealthy tended to monopolize the land, they poor seemed to have few opportunities to improve economically. Obsessed with a making a profit, large land owners leased their land to middle-class farmers who relied on the proletariat to work the land. Laborers worked long hours and became entirely dependent on cash wages.
Katie Coyne's Opinion:
I think that, while it seemed as though the lower class had lost its social mobility, life after enclosure was more stable for everyone. Previously, people essentially shared the land (*cough* communism) and farmed rather haphazardly. Their dated techniques provided inconsistent crop yields which led to famines and distress. With the help of the newer techniques and the enclosure, farming became much more lucrative and successful--not to mention famines became less common. While many did not own land themselves, they had stable jobs working the land. I believe that a certain degree of economic stability can eventually lead to social mobility. Once one has a relatively stable job, he can attempt to move up economically. For this reason, I think that, theoretically, the lower and middle classes should have had more social mobility after enclosure than before.
Our knowledge
of imperialism began in freshman year. When the explorers went… well exploring, they did so for the reasons
of Gold, God, and Glory. We were
told time and time again about these pioneers, their explorations, and the many
treasures they discovered. What we had yet to realize was that these men were imperialists
in every sense of the word. Imperialism is the belief in empire-building, in
order to gain more land for the country. Imperialism is the goals of Gold, God,
and Glory put into practice.
The Early 16th Century vs. The 18th Century
Remember Jamestown
and the settlement at Roanoke? Yeah, that’s kind of what’s going on here. England and Spain had the same goal in mind, expansion
of the crown and the monarchy. So they set out to discover new land and claim
it for their country [Because Land = Power
= Money (Thanks Katie)] But… more money equals more problems…
Thanks for the graph Biggie.
It’s like the French and Indian war all
over again. (Refresher- the French and the Indians weren’t fighting against each other… I’m still not over the name)
ANYWAY. A country expands and annoys some people. Columbus annoyed the “Indians”,
just like the colonists annoyed the Native Americans after Thanksgiving…
Basically...
So
what is going on now is not “Round One” of imperialism, we've seen it many times before. And the one thing that binds every part of imperialism is….
Wait for it…
MONEY!
(Shocking, I know.)
Specifically mercantilism, as can be
observed in the Triangle Trade Route.
I'd reccomend putting this on mute and then watching it.
