Productive Individual

 

Children in the 18^th Century

 

     In medieval times, children often took a back seat role in life.  Infant death rate was high, and because of the frequent starvation of the common people, living as a child was difficult.  This lifestyle for children unfortunately was very closely related to the 18^th century lifestyle lived.  In the 18^th century, many children continued to die in infancy, and were mistreated by parents and others; however as the surviving of these children reached adulthood, they would change social life, especially for children,

     The 18^th century, still not immune to deadly diseases and other problems, experienced tough conditions for children.  Due to the illegitimacy explosion, many children were abandoned; the lucky ones were taken to foundling homes, where they could hope for better treatment, though this was not always achieved.  If a child was fortunate enough to be born within the bond of wedlock, and was well off, he or she could be expected to be breast fed by wet nurses.  Many times these nurses cared little for their “patients”.  All children, however, were generally shunned, due to the fact that a great number of infants died.  Doctors urged parents not to get too attached to their children.  If one survived the struggles of infancy, they were in most cases exposed to child work if poor, but if well off, many were exposed to education.  In this regard, the 18^th century had better conditions then those of before.

     As the 18^th century progressed, more and more changes were made to make life better for children.  Catholic and Protestant reformers encouraged reading to instill religious beliefs more effectively.  Also, many European monarchs established public schools.  The result of this establishment of schools was astonishing.  Literacy rates jumped.  For example, in Scotland in 1600, one in six males was literate; by 1800, almost nine of ten Scottish males were literate.  Women’s literacy rates rose as well, though they were still far behind those of men’s.  As this new generation of literates grew, they became increasingly interested in reading.  Books from comedy to the Bible were read.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a great philosophe, encouraged newer views on children in the middle of the century.  He attacked those who treated their children disrespectfully, and encouraged more love, tenderness, and kindness to be shown toward children.  Due to the admonishment of Rousseau and other philosophers, life for children greatly took a turn for the better.  As their life improved, and as they got older, more leisure opportunities became available to them.  Sports such as cockfighting let people take risks.  Urban fairs featured things that had not been seen before, and many people also partook in the drinking of alcohol (as they got older).  All of these activities and programs were meant to improve living; they did just that.

     Though life for children in the early 18^th century was not very good, it gradually improved, due in large part to the efforts of Rousseau and other philosophes.  Children, when not relinquished by their parents, seemed to live better as the century progressed.  As attitudes toward children changed, more opportunities became available.  Because of this change, which started in the 18^th century, children now have life better than before.

 

Reflection: Productive Individual

 

    In this assignment for AP Euro, the class was to analyze children and how they were treated in the 18^th century.  We had been reading about this in class, thus it was fairly simple for me to write.  It was interesting, however, to learn of the horrible lives children had and how they were changed for the better.  I was amazed at the increase in out-of-wedlock children, and even more amazed that many just left their children.  I cannot fathom so many leaving their children now.  I was also astonished that the mortality rate for children was so low.  It is truly sad that so many young children died, without the chance to learn and grow.  In this paper I demonstrated my productivity in synthesizing material, and making sense of it.  I enjoyed the enlightenment I received in writing this essay; however, I disliked the ability that I had to write informally.  This essay simply reinforced my gratitude for how children are treated now.

 

 

Artifact 2: Nationalism and Socialism

 

     The second half of the 19^th century was dominated by two main ideologies; though both were different from one another, they both incorporated some of the same methods to gain support.  Where nationalism was based more on commitment to the nation, socialism was based more on commitment to the worker; both progressed with strong support, though from different social groups.  Ultimately, because of the revisionism of socialism, nationalism became stronger than socialism.

     Nationalism is defined as ones dedication to identification with his/her nation-state; socialism, at the simplest level is more of one’s dedication to identification with the proletariat, and one’s dedication toward worker revolution.  The characteristics of these two ideologies are very different.  Nationalism obviously sounds the more peaceful of the two, and usually was; however, in the United States too much nationalism in the North and South led to war.  Socialism, in its most pure forms, was much more violent, dedicated to revolution.  First in France, with Napoleon III, nationalism, though balanced with authoritarian rule, was successfully put into practice.  Napoleon III greatly improved the French economy by encouraging investment in banks and railroad systems.  Cavour, by taking advantage of the nationalist Garibaldi’s radical attempt to completely unify Italy, successfully directed the leader’s nationalism gained and used it to benefit his united Italy.  Bismarck, another dedicated nationalist, brilliantly fulfilled Prussia’s nationalistic dream of uniting the separate Germany into a whole Germany, with Prussia.  Many countries also gained support by extending the vote to all men and some women.  Socialist leaders such as Marx used nationalism to encourage the international workers to unite and revolt.  When this uprising did not occur, revisionists (though strongly disliked by militant socialists), such as Bernstein suggested that socialists revise Marxists doctrine to fit reality.  Both Nationalists and Socialists attempted one way or another to rally supporters in all ways possible.

     Over the course of the latter half of the 19^th century, both these ideologies went under changes and evolved to fit the times.  Once the strong national feeling was gained toward the nation, nationalism evolved into a manipulation tool, to relieve pressure from mounting problems.  For example, a simple parade with a cheering crowd could distract the average citizen from the increase in Socialism.  In Germany, Bismarck attempted to use the loyalty he gained to attack the Catholic Church in his Kulturkampf, which proved unsuccessful.  He also simply banned all Socialist activity from Germany; because of his support this ban did not cause problems.  In Great Britain, Ireland used nationalism to turn against England.  An evolving Nationalism was turning out to be a problem.  While Nationalism was beginning to be used for more less noble causes, Socialism was also evolving, and becoming less and less revolutionary.  Socialists in many nations joined the finally legal unions, and gained better living conditions.  Revisionist Socialists, building off of the principle that conditions were improving, suggested the doctrine of Socialism be changed to fit reality.  Socialists in Germany, first banned, became the dominating party.  Socialism came to coincide and work with the nation.  Because of changes in everyday living, both ideologies changed.

     Of the two ideologies, Nationalism was the strongest.  Most every world power at the time was based upon loyalty.  The workers never did unite, and Socialists continued to bend their doctrine.  Though Socialist partied became larger, on the international level, Socialism generally declined.  The once militant Marxian Socialism ironically turned into a more national based Socialism that worked with the government.  Nationalism increased among countries, while radical Socialism withered away.

     Obviously, Marx’s Socialism did not come to be, though a newer type did.  Both ideologies; however, used many of the same ways to gain support.  Nationalism was the one that prevailed.  Most countries are now based on this system of Nationalism, hopefully for the better.

 

Reflection: Productive Individual

 

     In this AP Euro essay, I was to compare nationalism and socialism, the 2 despised ideologies of 19^th century conservatives.  This essay was enjoyable to write because it was easy.  I would not have changed a thing about this assignment.  Our class, once again, had been studying this subject, so my mind was concentrated on it.  I knew everything I needed to know.  It was interesting writing about the fairly unknown 19^th century nationalism and socialism for that reason—it is fairly unknown to the general public.  The subject also has its share of violence (which is bad), but keeps you awake.  I learned much about these 2 topics, and demonstrated that I am productive; I remembered what I learned, organized it, and wrote about it.  I compared and contrasted 2 separate ideas, and linked them through words.  I leaned a lot from this paper, (which really helped on the AP test).