Child Labour during the Industrial Revolution

         

            This blog will be about child labour during the Industrial Revolution. The definition of child labour refers to children who work to produce a good or a service which can be sold for money in the marketplace regardless of whether or not they are paid for their work. The word “child” is defined as someone who is dependent on other individuals (Basu, 1999). This definition makes child labour sound not too bad... except for the not getting paid part. It leaves out the high chances of the children who are selling their labour to be physically and verbally abused, who are risking their lives every day they are in that factory all while being paid so little that they can barely support themselves, let alone a family to live.

In different parts of the world, at different stages in history, the labouring child has been a part of the economic life. During the Industrial Revolution, many children were forced to work in the urbanizing cities in the factories while being paid very little, if at all, and were exploited and were forced to work in brutal conditions, some being fatal. Many factory owners hired children from poor households, or children who were orphaned. Although, in some cases, children were hired from working class families to go to the factories (Basu, 1999). Some people debate about the child labour, some saying that if they did not work in the factories, they would be labouring on farmland instead. But there is also evidence of which families had to send their children to work in the factories in order for some income to be going to the home. Many factory owners only hired children because of their great work ethics being; obedience, submissive, likely to respond to punishment and unlikely to form unions. In the developing world, most work undertaken by children was explained as the socialization, education, training, and play of children (Nieuwenhuys, 1996). Some people stated that since the children were busy working in the factories, they became underdeveloped in society because they were not educated or socialized in society.

                Children as young as six would work hard hours for little or no pay. Some children often worked up to nineteen hours a day, but the more commonly known hours of work was between twelve and fourteen hours a day with minimal breaks. Children were only being paid a fraction of what adults were and sometimes, when the factory owners could get away with it, they were paid nothing. As if the owners did not think that these long hours were enough, the children were working in horrible conditions by being around large, heavy and dangerous equipment, which often times injured or killed the children working with and around them (Tuttle, 2001).

                The safety of the children was often in stake when they were in the factories working. They were often neglected and treated cruelly. Younger children were most of the times sent to be assistants to the older workers since they were not able to work the machines because of their young age. Those children were both physically and verbally abused while working under the senior workers. Even children operating machinery and working around in other parts of the factory were subject of abuse or harsh punishments.  An example of what punishments were done to boys would be them being dragged out of their beds naked and dragged to the factory holding their clothes to put on there to make sure they would not be late (Tuttle, 2001).

               In conclusion, people weren't considered immigrants and refugees during the Industrial Revolution. People were considered workers and judged based on their work ethics. Nowadays, immigrants as we call them, come to countries such as Canada to find better opportunity in work, much like how it was during the Industrial Revolution, but the work is much safer, and you get paid for the work you complete.

- Alannah

References:
Nieuwenhuys, Olga (1996). The Paradox of Child Labor and Anthropology. Retrieved From: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2155826?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101256436407

Basu, Kaushik (September 1999). Child Labor: Cause, Consequence, and Cure, with Remarks on International Labor Standards. Retrieved From: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2564873?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101256436407

Tuttle, C (2001). Child Labor during the British Industrial Revolution. Retrieved From: corriganenglish.wcsd.wikispaces.net

Anonymous (February 2010). Child Labor during the British Industrial Revolution. Received From: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tuttle.labor.child.britain

http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002_p7/ak_p7/childlabor.html

Female Immigration during the industrial revolution.

Erika

               

                This blog entry examines the inequality difference men and women working in factories and the workhouse. Immigrant women had the challenges of learning a new language, adjusting to society culture, and providing for their children.  Entering the workforce made women become distant from friends and relatives.  The industrial impacted family life and decrease the sizes of families.  Fertility began to decline among women but immigration increase to replace the number of workers. Immigrant was cheap labour, so France and England employed immigrant women for clothing manufacturing and food processing. Britain was the largest manufacturing was the woolen industry and there were many cotton mills. Fashion trends were changing drastically in the high social class and this increase the need for workers. White middle class women often stopped working after they were married while immigrant women had continued working after marriage.  Employing immigrants replaced the gap between the middle class women not working and the need for production. Middle class women’s husband often could support their family based on his income. Immigrant women were willing to work under dangerous conditions and for low salaries.  They had to endure long shifts hours, repetitive work, high risk of contracting disease and illness, and working in insanitary conditions.  Countries were able to make a fortune off producing lots of products for cheap labour from trading with other countries. England became more powerful which lead in higher control over the working labour force.

The outbreak of the potato famine was booming era for the Irish immigrating. Irish women immigrated to United States because they outnumbered the population of Irish men. Irish women differ from American women who were domestic and preferred being caretakers. Irish women were more independent and were able to make decisions for themselves. Many Irish women did not compelled to factory work and became school teachers. However most Irish women were Catholic and this compelled them from joining feminist organizations. Poor Irish immigration's were often single because they did not married spontaneously. This increased immigration in United States because there were no family responsibilities. Although their quality of life was lower and they face discriminated within society. United States is willing to employed immigration's that lacked language skills and education qualifications, as long they were willing to work for the demand of labour.

 

Diner, Hasia R. Erin's Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Unversity Press, 1983.

Kay, James Phillips. The Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes Employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester. London, England .

Native American Justice: Pre-Contact

                         

     Hello everyone!  You may have noticed that you are in the immigrants and refugees section, and I realize some of you may be thinking, 'Hey, she's not talking about immigration at all.'  Well, that's because in the pre-contact period, when it was only Native Americans on this continent, the concept of immigration didn't really exist.  As a result, I will be talking about Native American justice in the pre-contact period, in a Native American point of view, before the settlers came and imposed their own sets of laws that we still know today. I chose this topic as I have a degree in criminal justice and realized that when obtaining my degree, there wasn't too much emphasis on Native American laws, even though they are extremely important.  To make things a bit easier for you, I will occasionally point out differences between Native American and Euro-Canadian justice, since I realize many of you may not be familiar Euro-Canadian justice to begin with.

     To begin, I think it is important to note that just as we have different laws in different parts of the country, and even continent, so did Native Americans.  Different tribes and cultures created their own laws which were sacred to them (Bell & Napoleon, 2008, p.5).  For example, the Ojibwe people and Iroquois people had distinct laws, with distinct meanings from one another.  They also had different ways of carrying out these laws. Take a look at the Blackfoot tribe, they used elders almost like we use judges today, to arbitrate matters and interpret laws (Bell and Napoleon, 2008, p.261).
    When it came to dealing with deviant behaviour, many tribes actually had very well-developed methods in order to work through it as a community. According to Frideres and Gadacz (2001), the Iroquois probably had the most refined rules, and this was noted at the time of contact with the Europeans (p. 126). They even had their own constitution which was recorded on wampum belts (p. 126).  As I mentioned before, most tribes had different laws; they also had different definitions of deviance and thus, different penalties when individuals violated social norms. Children learned at an early age what the norms were and each breach of law was dealt with appropriately (p. 126).

     There is still a debate whether or not Native Americans also used shaming, and retributive styles of justice along with the more notable healing and restorative aspects. Almost all of the information I found did not include retributive styles. Instead, there was a great sense of reconciliation and healing called for when a crime was committed, since it was seen as a lack of spiritual balance within the person (Proulx, 2003, p.25).  Most of the themes I came across were more more restorative-based, and according to Frideres and Gadacz (2001), included the following:

1. The offended party usually administered the law. This could include the family or the clan.
2. The community was involved only when public peace was threatened, and personal offences were seen as infractions towards the victim and his or her family.
3. Laws were made through tradition and consensus by the community. (This can be compared to how we have the rule of precedent in our current laws.)
4. The laws were tied to the natural environment and only a few actions were universally condemned.
5. The Native American codes of behaviour were based on traditional religions.
6. For peacekeeping purposes, arbitration and ostracism were the norm.
7. There was no legal protection for private property, as the basis for society was communal.

     Just so you can see the differences, our laws today stress the importance of punishment and force as a means of social control and our laws are more individuals-based and strive to protect private property.  Instead of the community agreeing on laws, elected representatives formulate the codes by which we live by.  When someone commits an offence, the offence is not seen as an act against the community, but an act against the state/monarch.  For example, when looking at criminal cases it is referred to as R. v. Oakes, with 'R' referring to the Queen.  Finally, Protestant and Christianity are the main foundations of our laws, and are administered by state representatives though social institutions.  

     In conclusion, from the information I have provided, it appears as though Native Americans were more than competent in determining their own forms of justice, right? Then why, when Native Americans make up under 3 percent of Canada's population, do they represent nearly 40 percent of our prison population (Frideres and Gadacz, 2001, p. 125)?  Well, unfortunately, there are too many reasons to name. One of the main reasons is that Native American laws are seen as inferior when compared to our Euro-Canadian laws (Borrows, 2002, p. 7). When Native Americans lose court cases, it further perpetuates the idea that the Crown is superior, and that Western society is rejecting their beliefs and customs (Ochman, 2008).  Also, the Canadian courts are able to impose Native American laws, but it is very rare to see this happen. Just take a moment to reflect on how many cases you see on the television or the newspaper that actually take into account Native American forms of justice. That being said, there has been a resurgence of restorative justice which utilize sentencing and healing circles as part of the justice process. The focus is not to punish, but to address the harm created by the offender. The courts realize there is an over representation of Native Americans in the justice system and judges must now consider the unique circumstances of Native Americans, systemic background factors that may have contributed to their behaviour, and specific sentencing procedures and sanctions. It's a start, but we still have a long way to go.

J

 ~Shannon
                                                          References

Bell, C., & Napoleon, V. (Eds.). (2008). First Nations cultural heritage and law: Case studies, voices, and perspectives. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Borrows, J. (2002). Recovering Canada: The resurgence of Indigenous law. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Frideres, J. S., & Gadacz, R. R., (2001). Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Contemporary conflicts (6th ed.). Toronto, ON: Prentice Hall.

Ochman, P. (2008). Recent Developments in Canadian Aboriginal Law: Overview of Case Law and of Certain Principles of Aboriginal Law. International Community Law Review, 10(3), 319-350. doi:10.1163/187197308X346832

Proulx, C. (2003). Reclaiming Aboriginal justice, identity, and community. Saskatoon, SK: Purich Publishing, Ltd.

History of educational rights of European women

In the early to mid 19th century European women held the role of caretaker, wives, and sometimes laborers. European women were a little different from women in say Asia or some Islamic countries. They did not for instance have to be covered when going out in to public. European women were seen as people with rights and opinions. Although opinions and legal actions had to be shared through their husbands voice, unless it was a matter that concerned her household. She then had the right to speak on behalf of her husband (Butschek, 2006).

As time went on women began to find more ways of getting equal rights, possibly through their churches or by speaking about other issues than ones concerning their household.  These small but necessary steps are possibly what began the push to equalize gender rights in the society. This struggle would continue, as women would continue to fight for more equal rights over the ages.

As women developed in society they became teachers for their children. Boys who had the privilege of attending school would come home with from school with questions just as they do now. The difference is that back then, women would try to help their children understand their school work with no educational background(Butschek, 2006).

I believe the idea of women attending school may have first seemed attractive to men in the sense that if the mothers of their son's are educated then by them helping their children at home will simply increase the learning ability of the male population. Women were then being considered more and more to have the same rights as men, still through a male dominant lens. You can see how women were slowly starting to make stride in their advancement towards equality.

Education still remained a priority for men until the mid 19th century when in 1886 Zurich, Switzerland allowed women to attend their University, being one of the first to accept female applicants. Although Holland was the first country to pioneer women's education by default of not stating in their regulations that women were prohibited from applying to University.  Unfortunately they did not receive their first female applicant until 1880. Sweden then opened their doors to the female academics in 1870, Denmark in 1875, and Italy in 1876(Lang, 2012).

In conclusion, we must recognize all of the struggled and hardships women in the past have faced throughout time, to achieve what great opportunities are available for women today.

-Denise



References

Lang, H. (2010). Higher education of women in Europe, Europaeischer Hochschulverlag GmbH & CO KG, Bremen, Germany.

Butschek, F. (2006). The role of women in Industrialization, Working paper series by the University of Applied Sciences of bfi Vienna, 25, 14-17.

The Treatment of Immigrants in London

In the book, Immigrants and the Industries of London by Lien Bich Luu, the treatment of immigrants from 1500 to 1700 is described between the pages 141 and 143. It is interesting to compare the reaction of the Londoners to the immigrants in that time period, to the reception of foreigners in Canada today. 


According to Lien Bich Luu, in order to strengthen and expand the industries in London, the city needed immigrants for their skills so that local artists and workers could learn from them. As such, immigrants had to be willing to come to London and teach their skills, as well as stay long enough to pass on these skills to their local apprentices. This meant that, in order for London to acquire the skills that they needed from the immigrants, the immigrants had to happy with the way they were treated by the indigenous population, the government, the law, and the society as a whole.

This image, by William Hogarth, depicts the arrival of black immigrants in London between the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

However, the immigrants received quite a variety of reactions from the Londoners. For the most part, the wealthy portion of the population tended to welcome them quite heartily, while the poor displayed more bitterness and even jealousy. These reactions to the immigrants also depended on the reason and the way in which they arrived in London. These immigrants, or aliens, can mostly be separated into three general groups. First come the Economic Migrants, who had no trouble settling into society. The second group consisted of the Wanderjahre Craftsman. There were no concerns with these craftsman since they usually just went to London for a few years before returning to their native land. However; the third group, the Refugees, had varying receptions. Some were, based on Puritan ideology, met with charity and generous hearts. Others treated the immigrants in general with resentment, due to their privileges and skills. Native craftsman were jealous and attempted several unsuccessful riots, in both 1563 and 1571.

Many immigrants in London, depicted in the map above, felt threatened and unwelcome and eventually left the city for friendlier ones, like Dutch ones.  












Now, there are two types of these immigrants, or aliens. They are classified as either alien friends or alien enemies, depending on whether or not the sovereign to whom the alien was obedient was a friend or enemy of the ruler of London. Alien enemies had no rights or power, and they could be forced to leave England at any time, especially in periods of war and conflict. Alien friends, however, had almost all the rights and privileges of English citizens, and the law protected them. They had to promise allegiance to the crown while they resided in England.


This sounds moderately just; immigrants who were agreeable to the ruler of England were treated very fairly. However, other facts then came to light. The following restrictions were mostly put into place under the reign of Richard III, from 1452 to 1485: Aliens had to pay double the taxes of other citizens. They could employ up to two alien journeymen, but they could not take on any alien apprentices, as they had to pass on their skills to native Londoners. They could not open a shop. They could not own or lease land.

I was speaking to a friend of mine, who lived in Vancouver for several years while helping refugees. I wished to know if his experience with the treatment of immigrants and refugees differed or was similar to the time period of the 1500 to 1700s. Before I explained the treatment of immigrants in London a long time ago, he stated facts of ill-treatment that sounded eerily simmilar to what I had read. He mentioned that many people seemed torn in their treatment of immgrants, especially refugees, in Vancouver. On one hand, they seemed very open to new cultures to make the broader culture of Vancouver more diverse and rich. On the other hand, they did not want these new cultures to overpower their own, and were therefore rather cold at times when it seemed as if the newcomers were settling in a little too well. They felt threatened. This sounds all too similar to the situation between the Londoners a long time ago and their treatment of refugees.

A lot of the problems my friend in Vancouver had with the reception of refugees was based upon the stigmas that have been created about immigrants. One major stigma is that immigrants steal jobs that should be for people who can call the country their own. This is an almost identical situation to the one in 16th century England. Native craftsman were jealous and selfish with the opportunities they claimed as their own. Obviously, people in Vancouver are very unlikely to have any idea about the kinds of situations these refugees are fleeing, and should perhaps hesitate more before casting judgement upon these people who appear to be just snatching jobs away.

In conclusion, it appears that not all that much has changed in the treatment of immigrants from London in the 1500-1700s to present day Canada. Canada prides itself on being so mulicultural and welcoming with boundless opportunities, and yet we turn so quickly to judgement and ethnocentricism when we feel threatened or imposed upon. Perhaps we can take this glimpse into the past to educate ourselves with facts, rather than stigmas and assumptions.

-Selina






References
File:Civitas Londinium or The Agas Map of London.jpg. (n.d.). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civitas_Londinium_or_The_Agas_Map_of_London.jpg
File:FourTimesNoon.jpg. (n.d.). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FourTimesNoon.jpg
Luu, L. (2005). Reception and Treatment of Immigrants. In Immigrants and the industries of London, 1500-1700 (pp. 141-143). Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate.