Why do Historians tend to disagree so much?
Yb6hh76bn Niall Orr 8th November 2003 200206854 Why do Historians tend to disagree so much? History is the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future. There are many different views as to what history is, but when studying history as events it is not surprising that historians disagree. Anything from American slavery, the Napoleonic Empire, the Industrial Revolution to the Third Reich all has raised much controversy. This is because there are so many answers to the causes and consequences of each. History is based on debates, they are important to discover more about the subject and to get a further insight to a topic. One of the key principles of history is that there is no right of wrong opinion of past events. Disagreement and debates also make history interesting and provides young historians with certain skills. Today, historians will often disagree on a topic because they see themselves not simply as storytellers but as problem solvers, therefore different views on topics arise. If historians thought of themselves as 'storytellers' as they did in the seventeenth century then probably most historians would agree but a lot of the history would be inaccurate. Another reason why so many historians disagree is it is suggested that the past is 'problematic.' History is difficult, therefore
The Industrial Revolution - Just a Few Inventions?
The Industrial Revolution - Just a Few Inventions? The Industrial Revolution is a complex subject, and much more than just a few inventions. The Industrial Revolution had tremendous implications on British society, its way of life, and civilisation in Britain. It was also the brewer of inequality, and it kept the rich as the materialistic few, and the poor as the labouring too-many. Inventions in the Industrial Revolution were just a sketch of the whole picture, the colouring and defining had still to be filled in. There is a web of things that occurred due to the Industrial Revolution. Before the late eighteenth century agriculture was predominant, but then city work in factories became the major form of employment. The Industrial revolution was not just a few inventions; it was the start of a new era, the turning point of British civilisation, a new perspective on life. Britain was way ahead of most of the countries in Europe, mainly because of its overseas empire, and it was therefore one of the first to have an industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution started because of several reasons: there was a high demand for manufactured goods, the population of Britain had increased, therefore the country needed more goods, and there was a rise in living standards. The overseas trade was crucial for industry in Britain. Britain industrialised considerably
Assess Parsons claim that industrialisation led to the movement from a classic extended family to an isolated nuclear family
Jannine Layhe Assess Parsons claim that industrialisation led to the movement from a classic extended family to an isolated nuclear family (20 marks) In the mid 19th century in the UK, factories and new businesses were forming or otherwise known as Industrialisation. This meant that families were moving out of towns to the new towns and cities in search of work. The average family type for those living in the country was the classic extended family, involving a family made up of three or more generations, for example mother, father, grandparents and children. These types of families were far more common pre-industrialisation because the family worked as a unit, because it meant that they could get more done that way, and therefore earn more, but when industrialisation came along families were leaving their close knit units in search for city life. The 'normal' family unit turned into the isolated nuclear family, which would consist of a mother, father and two children, but they are much more independent of each other and just staying together because they would want to. Parsons said that family's pre-industrialisation were extended, because they lived and worked together, and working as a family unit. It was simply easier that way, although there would be more mouths to feed, it would also mean that the family could get more done whilst living together. Also children would
In which ways did the industrial revolution change Britain and the British State and what were the consequences for British citizens?
In which ways did the industrial revolution change Britain and the British State and what were the consequences for British citizens? "An industrial revolution is the term generally applied to the complex of economic changes which are involved in the transformation of a pre-industrial, traditional type of economy, characterized by low productivity and normally stagnant growth rates, to a modern industrialized stage of economic development, in which output per head and standards of living are relatively high, and economic growth is normally sustained." CIPOLLA, C.M. (1975). This essay will critically examine a number of reasons for the take off of the industrial revolution in Britain. It will decisively explain a number of social changes which took place within Britain due to industrialisation. The article will then analyse the reasons why the state and industry would wish to work together and will evaluate the consequences of the industrialisation for the role of the state. Rural Life & New Techniques Life in rural England was hard. Poverty was rife. It was an effort to make ends meet and people were looking for ways of easing the pressures of the struggle to survive. Land enclosure had been taking place for centuries, and only now was it showing signs of it having had any real effect. The enclosures had allowed land to be reclaimed from pasture (and had taken
Were the American Revolution and subsequent constitution influenced more by Lockes idea of the social contract or by Montesquieus concept of checks and balances?
Were the American Revolution and subsequent constitution influenced more by Locke's idea of the social contract or by Montesquieu's concept of checks and balances? "American Consitution being drafted at the Constitutional Convention1 " Were the American Revolution and subsequent constitution influenced more by Locke's idea of the social contract or by Montesquieu's concept of checks and balances? The American Revolution was perhaps the single greatest impact for human rights and libertarian reform in the history of the Modern World; this is of course a controversial statement standing against later movements and revolutions which are depicted to be of greater reward to some, who may regard the French Revolution or social reform movements of the Industrial Revolution to be of far greater influential merit upon the Modern World. The renowned historian who stands against the opening argument is the work of Eric Hobsbawm, who stated "the American Revolution has remained a crucial event in American history, but (except for the countries involved in it and by it) it has left few major traces elsewhere. The French Revolution is a landmark in all countries2". However "The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen3" was not as liberating in conventional thought as it should have been e.g. "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. (Social distinctions may be founded only upon
Was a guilty social conscience the most important factor in the demise of British Bull-baiting?
Was a guilty social conscience the most important factor in the demise of British Bull-baiting? The Sport of Bull-baiting became popular amongst all tiers of society in Britain in the Eighteenth century and provided entertainment for its viewers. At the sports' peak, almost every town in England held a bull-baiting event as it was a great opportunity to raise a town's prestige and also to generate income from tourism. Bull-baiting has rather simple rules: a bull was harnessed and attached to a length of rope which had been tied to a stake in the ground. The bull was deliberated incensed and aggravated before a dog or a group of dogs were released upon the tethered animal with the aim of biting and holding the bull's neck, also known as pinning the bull. Dogs were frequently injured by the bulls and injuries such as broken limbs were common. In turn, the bull was also often injured by the dogs' bites. After the event the bull would be slaughtered by a local butcher and used for its meat. As the spectacle of bull-baiting reached its peak in the late Eighteenth century, a rising number of contemporary writers and thinkers began to consider the cruelty expressed by bull baiting1, and other blood sports from the period such as dog-fighting, cock fighting and bear-baiting. An article published in the Bury Post on the seventh of November, 1845 entitled 'Bull-baiting at Lavenham'
A Discussion of the Differences in the Industrialisation of Belgium and the Netherlands from the 17th Century to the end of the 19th Century.
A Discussion of the Differences in the Industrialisation of Belgium and the Netherlands from the 17th Century to the end of the 19th Century Introduction The Industrial Revolution, which took place from the 17th century to the 19th century was a turning point in the development of the western world. Perhaps the birthplace of modern-day capitalism, it saw industry being taken out of the workshop and into the factory, with machines replacing manual craft work. The first country to industrialise was Great Britain in the 18th Century but the revolution spread to the rest of Europe in the early 19th century, with Belgium becoming the second. The Netherlands Before the Industrial Revolution By the end of the 1700's the Dutch "Golden Age" of industrial and cultural dominance had long since ended. The Dutch nation was no longer able to compete internationally as a major trading and shipping country due to it's low level of industrialisation, limited physical size and lack of resources. It didn't help that it's closest competitors were the more sizeable and resource-laden nations of England and France, who began to dominate. It's other industries, such as the woollen industry based around Leyden and the silk industry were declining too, being much more popular at home than abroad. The most significant Dutch business was in the buying and selling of raw materials as opposed to
Why was Britain the centre of innovation in the process of industrialisation?
Why was Britain the centre of innovation in the process of industrialisation? The eighteenth century witnessed the arrival of widespread industrialisation in Western Europe. Many countries underwent the gradual transition from a predominantly agrarian society to industrial development on an extensive scale and the introduction of the modern factory system. Great Britain was the first European country to experience this profound economic and social transformation and it can be labelled the 'innovator' to the process of industrialisation, the stimulus to development. Why was Britain at the forefront of the progression to advanced society ? David Landes (1969) states that there was a, "piling up of various factors which triggered off a chain reaction." It is indicated that Britain, in this period of time, was propitious for invention and expansion due to a number of determinants, such as, agricultural circumstances, population growth and hence availability of labour, capital and raw materials, improvements in transport, growth in overseas trade, willingness of capitalists to invest, non-conformists, its political system and the recently studied phenomena of proto-industrialisation. By no means is there an order of importance, as each and every one of these factors contributed to Britains ability and facility to industrialise - there existed a fertile soil in which the seed of
Discuss the ways in which the "middle class" emerged in significance in the period 1780-1840's.
Discuss the ways in which the "middle class" emerged in significance in the period 1780-1840's The middle class is a group within society not of the upper and not of the lower classes. It operates according to a self defined enlightened philosophy closely linked to the French revolution. Some historians have questioned its existence as a class, arguments I believe to be largely futile. Additionally to this I will investigate whether this group were indeed guardians of morality a claim I believe to be partly true due to the ignorance from below and arrogant decadence from above. During the late 18th and early nineteenth centuries we have been told, an industrial revolution transformed Britian. "This new and unprecedented process was accompanied by the formation of a novel social group the Middle class"1 this group beneficiary of this process and as such "emerged as the new focus of social and economic power" The wider social acceptance of this middle class came soon after. The introduction of the 1832 reform bill which effectively allowing the middle classes into parliament was formal recognition of this change. This traditionalist view of history is often seen as social fact by historians. In reality it is but one conception of an entire selection of possibilities. The existence of the middle class as central to society directly after the industrial revolution is hugely
American Identity
American 1 What Is an American? Patricia Murdock University of Phoenix American 2 What is an American? This question has many different answers. As defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.), an American is a citizen of the United States, but being an American has a deeper meaning. Reading the letter written by J. Hector St. John Crevecoer paints a clearer picture of what it means to be an American. His words describe the new inhabitants, their way of living, and the land. He paints a virtual picture in writing to express the grandeur of this new society and what he believes is the idea of an American in the New World. America is a Melting Pot founded by different people, from different nations, and from different cultures. As written by Crevecoeur, the different people, cultures, and nations are all qualities that distinguish an American from a European. They come from different backgrounds and bloodlines, and within a mixture of these cultures, the American was born. The different people in the American colonies largely expanded the creation of the American identity. Crevecoeur writes about a colonial community of which each neighbor is from a different religion and country. He states that they worship in different ways but are worshipping a single deity, God. Neighbors are respectful and tolerant of one other even though each have differences, as
