Readings: The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano
Taylor, chaps. 12-13
Points of Entry:
The Lives of Colonial Cities:
The Great Awakening
Gender and the Colonial World:
Questions for discussion:
Where do you think the "engines" of colonial history lie: in the country or in the cities?
How did the colonial frontier and cities shape gender/racial/ethnic identities?
The engines of colonial history lie both in the country and in the cities. The country offered an outlet for unskilled laborers who could not find work in the overpopulated regions of Europe. The country was arguably the greatest contributor towards colonial history, since they drew the most people to the new world in the first place. Also, the country, as the site of agriculture, was the source of unfinished products and crops. The cities served as a connection between the country and the mother nations that ran them. Thus, the cities aided the royal and parliamentary governments in running the colonies, and thus giving them the power to shape colonial history.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Louisiana and St. Lawrence Valley territories, where the frontiers were vast and difficult to cultivate and the cities were small and weak, there were fewer divisions along the lines of gender, race and ethnicity. The French grudgingly conceded that they did not enjoy the abundance of human resources that the English had, so they made do with what they had. The French were known to have interracial marriages with greater casualness than the English did, leaving a weaker divide along the lines of race. There were simply to few white women for male French colonists to marry. Also, the exacting toll of labor in these regions made both men and women to assume similar duties, such as field work. This diluted differences along the lines of gender. While contemptuous of the natives, the French accepted that they needed them to maintain secure trade routes. The French were outwardly respectful towards the Indians, so ethnic identities also diminished, as some French colonists came to partially absorb native customs. The English colonies on the other hand had a fairer balance between males and females and had a less exacting workload. Men did not have to cross racial boundaries to start families and women didn't have to perform the work of men, keeping the status of women securely below that of men. The more fertile land of New England, the middle colonies and the Chesapeake allowed the English to be more independent than the French were. The English had no reason to depend upon or negotiate with the Indians, and because of this, they could largely retain their culture.
I am inclined to think both the cities and the country were the "engines" of colonial history. The country provided the goods and the cities provided the ideas and neither could have existed without the other. I also think there was a North/South and an East/West divide. The North had the big cities (Boston, NY, Philadelphia). The South had the plantations. The cities were all in the East while the frontier was the West. Every area was important in defining what America was. But in the end, the important decisions about the structure of America were made in the conventions in the cities.
ReplyDeleteI think the gender divide was much smaller on the frontier than in the cities. This is because, in as far as there were any women there at all, they had to do just as much work as the men. That is typical in a setting where there are too few people for the jobs at hand. Frontieir settings are probably very egalitarian because of this. That doesn't of course include Native Americans who were not "Americans" and were essentially dehumanized. Racial and ethnic differences were possibly smaller in the cities, because slavery (for instance) was a country thing on the plantations and not so much of a city thing.
I think that the "engines" of colonial history lie in both the country and the city. In the country you found the confrontations the colonists had with the natives and what those confrontations implied for the cities. Also in the countryside you found the big plantations that allowed for the great economic growth the Americas were experiencing. In the cities you found the more "civilized" ways of living. This is where all the legislation was conducted based on th encounters the people on the countryside endured. The country and the cities were interconnected in developing colonial history.
ReplyDeleteThe colonial frontier helped equalize some relationships during this time. On the frontier men and women had a more equalized standing, because they both had to do the same type of workload to be able to survive in this type of atmosphere. In the cities men were above women because they held jobs that women could not. Racial and ethnic identities remained pretty much the same in both places. White men were still white men wherever they went. Maybe the only difference was that in the frontier the colonists were more willing to coexist with Natives because they needed to survive harsh situations and the Natives were experts at that.
The United States, in my opinion, has a strong connection to both city and country since both were vital to its growth. Each bred its own ideas and customs. The country contributed to the booming plantations and farm work that helped to fund and keep afloat the growing country. While the cities invited merchants and artisans. It would also be the place where the ports were found, which meant easier communication to the other countries. However the reason why they both are "engines" to the growth of the US is because they both worked together to feed one another. The country would make the raw materials while the cities would buy it and sell it. This concept of reliance and dependence is still used into todays world.
ReplyDeleteThe frontier and cities of a growing US helped to shape the gender and race divide that was spurring. Each place had a different divide. For example the frontier was a white's only prospect. This meant that only europeans would be taking the new land that was "available" to them.Along the way they ran into many Natives, who were very hostile to the new comers, therefore there was a hatred and racism towards the Natives. The Europeans, who already hated the Natives, became even more violent in their attempts to get rid of them; as to make sure there was no interference when getting their land. Africans were for the most part out of the picture, when it came to receiving the land, as the majority were slaves. Women on the other hand were more accepted as an equal on the trek to find new land. This was because the struggle to cross the country was too hard, and there were too few people to really say that women could not help. In the city, however, where most things were stationary, the gender and racial divide was somewhat different. Because the men were able to have a steady job and things were more settled, women were supposed to play the subordinate role, and not be able to work. Race however was not as much an issue, even though racism was there.
In response to the second question, being a colonist was a hard job. The coming of cities to this rural area where more and more money was stretched to its limits and the family was scraping to get by, the real gender identities transformed into the modern belief of housewife and breadwinner. The women had to stay home to keep house, raise the children, tend the land, and have dinner ready. Meanwhile, the men were expected to travel far from home to a factory job and come home with the bacon.
ReplyDeleteThe racial identities of this time also were transformed by cities. Since there was an increase in need of labor, more immigrants came to fill the gap. Because of this major influx of immigrants there were different cultures that would live right next door to each other in cramped spaces. There was more of a racial divide between the white european workers versus the rest of the types of immigrants.
To me it seems like both the cities and country paved way for colonial development. In the country, which most was in the south, plantations throughout the south. In the norther part of the colonies which were mainly cities is where ideas and ways of living emerged. The two had to go hand and hand. The countries produced goods in the plantations, and the cities were where they would export to across the Atlantic.
ReplyDeleteMen and women had different roles. Women had a less role than men did. Slavery was more of a southern thing, due to plantations. There were not many interactions between the natives and clonist.
The engine for Colonial development was clearly the country side for the facts that before Europeans of any kind came to the America's cities in the New World were few and far between that is not to say they did not exist "examples such as Tenochitlan, Cahokia etc... Also when Europeans did finally reach the America's much of the economies were based on such agricultural staples as Tobacco, sugar cane, and other various natural resources such as furs and gold and silver that did not give colonists the initial urge to build great cities. later though towards the end of the 17th century we see the rise and slow but ever increasing importance of cities in America such as Boston and the resurgence of Mexico City.
ReplyDeleteColonial frontiers and cities shaped gender issues much more liberally than what was thought the norm in Europe with many women owning property and filing lawsuits in such colonies as New England and New Holland while on racial issues the better turned to the worse with wide exploitation of African and Indian labor and sadly a common hatred that crossed major economic classes to to unite the white race as one while expecting Africans to do extremely back breaking degrading labor.
The engines of colonial history leading to modern times could be found both in the cities and the country. The cities were where you found the county's founding. Intellectuals populated the cities and formulated the laws and social norms that would shape the country. In addition, cities began to urge to industrialize to create a name for themselves in the European community. The country side, however, was also an engine of colonial times. It was the country side were the idea of the West and expansion began. The cities had the formulation of ideas and the country supported the cities through supplies. As more people came to the Americas they both populated the cities and the country. When there was no longer room they began expanding, but it was primarily due to the ideas and beliefs created in the country.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the cities could have been perceived as more advanced or civilized than the countryside/frontier, their gender roles were relatively stuck in the old ways. The gender divide was much more apparent in the cities compared to the frontier. The men had their status and the woman had theirs. This was partially due to the fact that during this period the women were mostly confined to the duties of the home while the men had work and outside duties. It was the frontier were men and women were more equal. This was due to the fact that the conditions were much more challenging. Women had to help the men to survive. The racial and ethnic identities were much more similar between the cities and frontiers. This was because almost all colonists believed that they were some what superior over the Natives or slaves. This was due to a number of reasons: religion, capital, etc.
The country and the city are contingent on each other for colonial growth. However, when families moved from the country to the city, roles began to change. In the country, the men and women worked equally and had similar jobs. In the city, the development of spheres took place. The men were responsible for the “public sphere” and worked out in the city and brought money home. The “private sphere” belonged to the women who tended to the home and family. These gender roles continued on throughout American culture.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to the “engines” of colonial history, I believe both the city and the country held important roles. The city was important because it kept life moving forward. It also allowed people who lived there to have time for themselves that they feel they deserved after working hard at their city jobs. From the city we get ideas that lead to more ideas which lead to even more ideas, as compared to the country where there is usually only one idea and no one speaks out against it. The city was defiantly more progressive and liberal than the country but I believe the country holds more importance. The country is where the basis of the city comes from. Although it does not reward the hard worker for their labor, it allowed the idea of leisure time to formulate. Without the strict conservative views of the country there would be no city.
ReplyDeleteGender roles in the frontier weren’t very different from one another. Both men and women worked hard at what they did and came together at the end of the day to share the fruits of their labor. Most people who lived and worked in the country didn’t rely on the help of slaves so race wasn’t much of an issue. In the cities, gender and race did play a role in shaping ones identity. Men were seen as the head of the house and the ones in charge. Women usually couldn’t make a name for themselves or live independently. African Slaves found it difficult to break away from the daily back breaking labor. The identities formed of most people in the city were already molded and set up for them, they didn’t really have a say in who they wanted to be.
The "engines" of colonial history lie in both the city and the country. You honestly can't have one without the other. The country provides society with resources (mainly food and other manufactured goods). The city gives society politics (government) and ways as to how everything should work. The city and the country are basically two threads that tie together in many ways.
ReplyDeleteColonial frontiers and cities shaped gender/racial/ethnic identities by stabilizing classes in society. At first, it started off with all women being weak (only good for domestic purposes) and anyone who is not white being inferior to the whites. After colonial frontiers turned into cities and cities into capitalistic societies, based on a person's class rank they can either be respected, looked down upon, or stereotyped whether you're a man, woman, white or any other color.
In trying to decide whether the engines of colonial history lied in either the city or country, I would say that it was an equal share from both sides. The cities provided a way for fast-paced living to take place and a place for buying and selling of products to occur. The country was a place for the products to be produced and not interfere with the way of the city life. Both the city and the country benefited the new way of life because it gave people the opportunity to decide which way of life was better for them and gave them the space that they needed in order to keep living and prospering.
ReplyDeleteColonial frontiers and cities shaped the several identities by equalling the playing field for the deifferent social classes in society. Women at first were seen as the weaker sex and unable to do the same things as men. People saw others that were different than them in skin color, height and even in physical appearance and this separated the people for quite some time, but eventually they saw that what was separating them was silly and the differences were put aside for some time.