|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 29, 2023 1:26:34 GMT
Victorian Manchester was not the birthplace of the industrial revolution, but was certainly an important part of it as were many other poverty stricken towns and cities. Even in affluent areas poverty was the norm, many of the wealthy minority were of the opinion the poor enjoyed being poor because they didn't know any better. This was the case until the 1950's probably. Hasn't anyone read Orwell's 'The Road to Wigan Pier'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 29, 2023 1:27:19 GMT
1) Life expectancy would have increased a hell of a lot more if many families didn't have to live in slum tenements, a whole family to a damp room. 2) Killer diseases could have been eradicated without slum tenements, low wages, and appalling working conditions. 1) Yes we know that, but it was likely because as an example, the Irish rural farmer was on the verge of starving and immigrated over to the place which had the jobs. The overcrowding was far from intentional. Industrialists often donated money to build schools and universities, and Manchester University was one such place.
2) No they could not. I have a fascinating video fir you here, to demonstrate my argument of why not. If you were a chemist, you would recognise the following tool of your trade.
1) Maybe, the Irish rural farmer shouldn't have been on the verge of starvation. The same laissez faire bullshit that saw families living in slums in the UK was responsible for his predicament too. The Irish were British citizens. How could so many British citizens have died from starvation at a time when Britain had a massive world empire? If that doesn't tell you where all the wealth was going, I don't know what will. 2) Really? Cures for deadly diseases wouldn't have been found were it not for the slums and appalling working conditions and pay? I suspect that half those diseases were caused by living conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 29, 2023 3:43:07 GMT
1) Yes we know that, but it was likely because as an example, the Irish rural farmer was on the verge of starving and immigrated over to the place which had the jobs. The overcrowding was far from intentional. Industrialists often donated money to build schools and universities, and Manchester University was one such place.
2) No they could not. I have a fascinating video fir you here, to demonstrate my argument of why not. If you were a chemist, you would recognise the following tool of your trade.
1) Maybe, the Irish rural farmer shouldn't have been on the verge of starvation. The same laissez faire bullshit that saw families living in slums in the UK was responsible for his predicament too. The Irish were British citizens. How could so many British citizens have died from starvation at a time when Britain had a massive world empire? If that doesn't tell you where all the wealth was going, I don't know what will. 2) Really? Cures for deadly diseases wouldn't have been found were it not for the slums and appalling working conditions and pay? I suspect that half those diseases were caused by living conditions. 1) It was never a rich man's profession, the farming of the land. Levels of poverty related to the backwardness of the technology.
2) Cholera was a huge killer, and was made worse by the poor sanitation. It's just they had no idea of the connection until the scientists proved it, and then they made amends fast. The Victorian era was distinct from what went before in the moral practices of the society. They were very religious and aimed at high standards.The bad people were the aristocracy of the century before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 29, 2023 7:36:41 GMT
Subsistence farming gives you what it says on the tin - a subsistence. The movement off the land and into industrialised cities was the best thing that ever happened to the poor in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 29, 2023 11:11:04 GMT
Subsistence farming gives you what it says on the tin - a subsistence. The movement off the land and into industrialised cities was the best thing that ever happened to the poor in the UK. That's right, Doc. The slums, hunger, and widespread prostitution were character building. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 29, 2023 11:15:17 GMT
1) Maybe, the Irish rural farmer shouldn't have been on the verge of starvation. The same laissez faire bullshit that saw families living in slums in the UK was responsible for his predicament too. The Irish were British citizens. How could so many British citizens have died from starvation at a time when Britain had a massive world empire? If that doesn't tell you where all the wealth was going, I don't know what will. 2) Really? Cures for deadly diseases wouldn't have been found were it not for the slums and appalling working conditions and pay? I suspect that half those diseases were caused by living conditions. 1) It was never a rich man's profession, the farming of the land. Levels of poverty related to the backwardness of the technology.
2) Cholera was a huge killer, and was made worse by the poor sanitation. It's just they had no idea of the connection until the scientists proved it, and then they made amends fast. The Victorian era was distinct from what went before in the moral practices of the society. They were very religious and aimed at high standards.The bad people were the aristocracy of the century before.
Really? 'The bad people' were only about in the previous century? Have you actually watched your own video link? Take another look at the conditions people were living in. It wasn't enough that the elite was plundering a third of the world, they had to exploit their own people to the absolute maximum as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Dec 29, 2023 11:47:49 GMT
Subsistence farming gives you what it says on the tin - a subsistence. The movement off the land and into industrialised cities was the best thing that ever happened to the poor in the UK. That's right, Doc. The slums, hunger, and widespread prostitution were character building. You give subsistence farming a go and then tell us how you get on... there is a reason that every country on the globe has moved away from that idea.. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 29, 2023 12:05:09 GMT
1) It was never a rich man's profession, the farming of the land. Levels of poverty related to the backwardness of the technology.
2) Cholera was a huge killer, and was made worse by the poor sanitation. It's just they had no idea of the connection until the scientists proved it, and then they made amends fast. The Victorian era was distinct from what went before in the moral practices of the society. They were very religious and aimed at high standards.The bad people were the aristocracy of the century before.
Really? 'The bad people' were only about in the previous century? Have you actually watched your own video link? Take another look at the conditions people were living in. It wasn't enough that the elite was plundering a third of the world, they had to exploit their own people to the absolute maximum as well. I did not say only and I was only thinking of this patch in history. In the 10-12th centuries England was getting better with the rise of the church, but then we had that Henry 8th and the dissolution of the monasteries, indicating a pretty bad time, and this carried on but was particularly bad by the 18th century. What had happened was the aristocracy had just become too powerful at the expense of everyone else. A university researcher from our area did a study of the diet of people in the 18th century, where he found through scientific analysis of bones and the like that the slaves were better fed than the farmer.
The trouble with the way you react here is you react from the standpoint of having received a Marxist education, thinking life before capitalists was some sort of idyllic rural bliss. This was promulgated by William Morris and his art critic elitist John Ruskin from Oxford. This thesis developed from the Romantic period in art which was around 1830s time. John Constable was a key proponent of this style. At a time the Victorians were building the future in the industrial revolution the upper class saw these mills as dirty and smelly and even Satanic. You see there was a tussle going on for power. The middle class factory owners were getting very rich, and money buys you power and influence. This is the irony of your position. If you side with Marx you inadvertently side with those who would work the peasants to their death a century earlier.
William Morris wrote many propaganda books on this. I've got a link here if you want to study them further with an example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 29, 2023 12:05:48 GMT
That's right, Doc. The slums, hunger, and widespread prostitution were character building. You give subsistence farming a go and then tell us how you get on... there is a reason that every country on the globe has moved away from that idea.. Why don't you try working 14 hour days in dangerous conditions for subsistence wages and tell us how you get on. There's a reason why slum conditions and widespread prostitution are largely a thing of the past in the UK. And it has nothing to do with people like you. What sort of person actually celebrates the oppression of his ancestors? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 29, 2023 12:08:19 GMT
Really? 'The bad people' were only about in the previous century? Have you actually watched your own video link? Take another look at the conditions people were living in. It wasn't enough that the elite was plundering a third of the world, they had to exploit their own people to the absolute maximum as well.
The trouble with the way you react here is you react from the standpoint of having received a Marxist education, thinking life before capitalists was some s
Eh? I received a Marxist education? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 29, 2023 12:18:28 GMT
Compared to their continental counterparts the British working-class lived like royalty, at least from around the middle-19C on. By that point the worst of the slums were being eradicated (or re-populated by immigrants principally from Eastern Europe or Ireland) while their diet consisted of the produce and fruits of Empire. Tinned salmon from British Coloumbia, frozen beef from Argentina, butter and lamb from New Zealand, bananas and citrus fruit from the West Indies, white bread from Canadian wheat, peaches and sherry from South Africa, tea from Ceylon and so on.
All the while their German counterparts would still be accommodated in Wohnkaserne, subsisting on a diet of dark bread, potatoes, turnips and the occasional piece of fatty Speck. washed down with ersatz coffee made from acorns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 29, 2023 12:19:23 GMT
The trouble with the way you react here is you react from the standpoint of having received a Marxist education, thinking life before capitalists was some s
Eh? I received a Marxist education? All the Brits have. It is so infused in our culture now, but was not back then when they knew the reality of it. Rural life was extremely hard and unforgiving. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 29, 2023 12:20:35 GMT
Compared to their continental counterparts the British working-class lived like royalty, at least from around the middle-19C on. By that point the worst of the slums were being eradicated (or re-populated by immigrants principally from Eastern Europe or Ireland) while their diet consisted of the produce and fruits of Empire. Tinned salmon from British Coloumbia, frozen beef from Argentina, butter and lamb from New Zealand, bananas and citrus fruit from the West Indies, white bread from Canadian wheat, peaches and sherry from South Africa, tea from Ceylon and so on. All the while their German counterparts would still be accommodated in Wohnkaserne, subsisting on a diet of dark bread, potatoes, turnips and the occasional piece of fatty Speck. washed down with ersatz coffee made from acorns. LOL!!!! The British working class lived like royalty!!!! Sorry, I didn't make it past that sentence. They lived in slums. They worked long hours in dangerous conditions for subsistence wages. Old people were often found starved to death on the streets, there being no pension system. Prostitution was widespread. Incest was widespread. Families were split up and packed off to workhouses. And when the people took to the streets to demand better at Peterloo, they were mown down by the cavalry. They did receive special treatment in one sense, though. At least, they weren't tied to cannons and blown to pieces by the army in the same way their Indian counterparts were. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 29, 2023 12:21:35 GMT
Eh? I received a Marxist education? All the Brits have. It is so infused in our culture now, but was not back then when they knew the reality of it. Rural life was extremely hard and unforgiving. Brits are taught egalitarianism, not Marxism. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 29, 2023 12:34:36 GMT
A little remedial reading is called for in your case Darling.
Start with EP Thompson's 'The Making of the English Working Class' perhaps followed up by Roberts's 'The Classic Slum'. Hoggarts' 'The Uses of Literacy' could also be helpful. I'm assuming you've already read Engels but his depiction of the very worst of early 19C Manchester pre-dates the period I refer to.
For a continental perspective, you could do worse than visit Dresden's Stadtmuseum which has a very educational exhibition on the life of the working class in 19C industrial Saxony.
The world is your oyster when you set out on a voyage of discovery!
|
|
