1. The city life prevented children from getting the education and proper care that they needed. Their only role modes were their parents, who usually were drunk or incompetent, working long hours, which left no time for parenting. The children then picked up the bad habits of those around them, becoming lazy, drunk, and prone to violence and theft. Because they didn't know any better, the children continued the cycle of poverty, because they had little opportunity in the city.
Many immigrants decided to stay in America even though they could return to their own country because they had gotten used to the American life. Many had found jobs in which they earn a decent amount of money, while others had spent so much time in America that they learned the language and other things they would not have known in their own counrty. The Italian bootblack openned his own business and made a considerable amount of money. He decided not to return home because he had so many possibilities in America. In th end, many immigrants earned things in America that would not earn back at home, so they stayed in America even when given the chance to return to their own country.
How did the Children's Aid Society help the children of the outcast poor?
The Children's Aid Society attempted to alleviate the effects of pauperism by placing outcast children in farmer's homes. Thus, farmers benefitted as they were given an ample source of labor and children were given the opportunity to grow up in a safe, family-oriented environment with food, shelter, etc.
To what extent did the vast overcrowding and lack of social aptitude associated with lower class society contribute to the growing level of crime within large cities.
Why do you think overcrowding was the main influence of pauperism in an age of urbanization, where better homes and cities could be constructed quickly to avoid overcrowding? And do you think expanding cities and homes would actually help to stop pauperism?
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Homework: 1/25/07 Giulia responding to Lakshmi's question
Q: What is a Settlement and why did the Settlement movement originate in England?
A: A Settlement is the period of adjustment that occurs following a migrant or refugee's arrival in a new country, as they become established and independent in their new society. When the immigrants arrive they will need somewhere to live, money to live off of, and information and orientation on services including schools, transport and health services. During the Settlement movement, access to employment and education, the development and enhancement of English language skills, and the formation of individual and family social networks, were important. The Settlement movement originated in England because during the poverty slums of 19th century London, a number of social reformers had pressed for change. Settlers objectives were to create a spirit of community through education, through social reform.
How did the Children's Aid Society help the children of the outcast poor?
The aim of the Childrens Aid Society was to group the children of the poor and the immigrants (or both) and ship them out of the city to a farm. This was supposed to lessen the strain of extremely large populations in major cities. Also, farmers were happy to have extra hands to help around the farms. This society helped many children by moving them to much cleaner, safer enviornments. Cities were commonly characterized by their slums and their large criminal population. By getting these children out of that environment, they were also away from all of those bad influences. Farmwork was also consistant and less dangerous then city work.
The neglect of the poor by generations past is in fact directly responsible for their hardships in the late 19th century. It's responsible because the actions and beliefs of each generation would carry on to the preceeding generation without any notable change. Previously, the richer classes' disregard of the lower class was not as significant in hindering there ifestyle or survival due to there minimal proximity to each other. As the country became more urbanized, this distance between the rich and poor became nonexistent and the upper class was now responsible for the employment and financial status of the lower class. After this urbinization the rich classes' ignorance toward the lower class finally started to have a significant effect on their lifestyle and began to contribute to their financial and social struggles within urban areas.
Why did the people who lived in the apartments with quite a few other families that resulted with so many bad things happening to thiem, such as illness and curruption, stay in that kind of environment? Why would they not want to try to get out of such a situation?
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Homework: 1/25/07 mary's response to molly's question
If the children grew up with bad influences and bad examples such as the paupers then they may not have known any better, known what else to do besides being "sharpers, beggars, thieves, burglars, and prostitutes", or known that they could do better if they tried. With the parents basically giving up on themselves it taught the children that they probably wouldnt't be able to go anywhere in their lives either. It is what they had burned into their brain since birth. They grew up with it, knew it, and became comfortable with it because its what they knew and understood.
Many immigrants did not want to go back because once they did make money like in the situation with the Italian Bootblack they got sucked into the money making and became like the wealthy....they couldn't get enough and wanted more...or just for the simple fact that is was not just the money but the "system" that was sucking them in and they could not mroe they were stuck
Why did the people who lived in the apartments with quite a few other families that resulted with so many bad things happening to them, such as illness and curruption, stay in that kind of environment? Why would they not want to try to get out of such a situation?
1)They felt as if they were stuck in a system that wouldn't allow them to leace that type of environment.2) they did try, however the jobs they took were low paying, and the working hours were strenuous, later they realized that the jobs they were taking were going to get them nowhere and the decided to "make the best of a bad bargain" and stay in that environment.
According to the account of the Polish sweatshop girl, her and her friend Ella each made five dollars a week. They had a room to themselves, and according to the chart on page 229, they lived comfortably making that amout of money. Using the information presented, were the wages and living conditions really that horrible? Couldnt people get jobs and still live comfortably like Ella and the polish girl had?
Molly's question: Reply from Mrs. Barao I like the idea that you are questioning what you are reading. It is good to remember that just because this is a primary source, and just because it has been published does not mean that the author was accurate in his portrayal of poverty.
Mrs. Barao Responding to Noelle who responded to Kiara:
Be careful when putting everyone in the same category. Not all parents were preoccupied with vices, some, eventually would beat the odds and make it out of the cycle of poverty and others would take advantage of the aid offerred by charity organizations in the cities.
Mrs. Barao's response to Meyer's response. Did the way this primary source was written bother you? It bothered me because the author made it seem like the benevolent farmer was happy to give these children a chance in the countryside as opposed to the awful city. In fact, some of these farmers needed more laborers and couldn't afford to pay them, and having children work solved their problem. It kind of reminded me of proslavery arguments where the plantation owners argued that the slaves were better off on the plantations than they would be free in the cities because they were outside in clean air as opposed to being in an unhealthy factory atmosphere. Also, I became suspicious when reading this because the author's intent was clear, he wanted to convey the fact that the farmers were self sacrificing, good people with the best intentions in regards to the children, as opposed to the evil cities, and he pushed this far enough for me to suspect his motives.
Children who lived in the city only did what they saw around them, including stealing and drinking. These are the things that their parents did and so, they thought of it as acceptable. In addition, what they learned at church on Sundays, would be contradicted at home and in their neighborhoods and so they did not follow the lessons they learned at church. All these things led to them developing a bad character.
Q: Why do you think overcrowding was the main influence of pauperism in an age of urbanization, where better homes and cities could be constructed quickly to avoid overcrowding? And do you think expanding cities and homes would actually help to stop pauperism?
A: 1)Over crowding was he main influence of pauperism in the age of urbanizion because having too many people left few jobs for others, which lead to many jobless and homeless poeple. 2) The number of homes and cities wouldn't end overcrowding or pauperism. it would probably stay the same. because immigrants would stilll come to America in hopes of jobs, and beter lives.
)
