They have made a new edge for the Android os, and create it offered for android mobile phones currently. The android customers do not jailbreak their tablets and smart devices to get and set up Tweakbox.

The simplest method to get tweakbox application setup on android tools is to operate tweakbox application on their android mobile. The 3rd party applications of tweakbox are necessary to set up on android phone to work it. Tweak box Apk download will be accomplished by examining our outstanding overview.

You could acquire and set up Tweakbox.apk on without jailbreak android tablets or smart device. We have included the full info regarding tweakbox android attributes, download and setup procedure detailed so simply follow listed below procedure and delight in tweakbox Apk for android. Tweak BOX for Android should be acquired on every single android smartphone.

Tweakbox for Android- Attributes

• An easy to use application which aids to download applications
• No technical expertise needed to operate on android mobile.
• Internet Link is not needed to utilize tweakbox apk for android.
• Offer the 3rd party paid applications and ready complimentary.
• No Rooting needed utilizing it on Android Phone.
• Set up hacked applications and gaming on Android mobile immediately.
• Open and appreciate utilizing the applications and some video games.
• You could acquire applications, video games, styles, and launchers utilizing this app

This tweakbox android app utilizes much less internet information pack. Get tweakbox apk currently on the android tools you have.

Ways to get Tweakbox Apk for Android?

Make use of the below-detailed procedure to download and install this app on android mobile phone conveniently and you do not should be a need to acquire it. Follow the method and you ready to go.

1. Initially, click the web link under to obtain tweakbox.apk documents on your mobile.
2. Currently move to Setups > Security > Allow “Unidentified Resources”.
3. Currently, move to the acquired data of Tweakbox apk.
4. Touch on the documents and it may reveal you setup web page.
5. Click lower left “Set up” switch and comply with the procedure. The tweak box apk for android may be set up.
6. Wait for Setup, and lastly, you get tweakbox on your android mobile.

Last Verdict

We wish you get this message on “tweakbox android os” helpful and it assists you to understand infinite paid applications free of charge on your android currently.

If you such as this message regarding tweak box for android phone and it aids you to utilize superior applications after that accomplish exchange it with your family and friends on social networks handle and it aids us to get a lovely target market like you.

Berg and Hudson first examined the area of technical and organizational innovation. They critiqued a study by Crafts whom they wrote has been the most widely influential in current assumptions of gradual growth during the industrial revolution. “Crafts calculated that change in investment proportions was very gradual until the early nineteenth century […]. (27). They wrote that in his work, Crafts argued that the cotton industry constituted about half of productivity gains in manufacturing and that it was wrong to consider innovativeness as being pervasive. Berg and Hudson countered that the assumption that the innovative factory sector functioned independently from changes in the rest of the service and manufacturing economy was false. Further, they wrote that the assumption that innovation concerned only capital-intensive equipment which [had] an immediate measurable impact on productivity” was also false. (28) They wrote, “The non-factory, supposedly stagnant sector, often working primarily for domestic markets, pioneered extensive and radical technical and organizational change not recognized by the revisionsists. (31) They also argued the success of cotton and other major exports were dependent on innovation s and transformation in other sectors. Further they argued that “Changes in market and in the competitive climate had an impact on all English capitalists whether they were metropolitan, or provincial] (?)

The two authors were also critical of the source which Craft and others received their information. They argued that the potential for error in the occupational tables of Lindert and Williamson was great, especially in terms of accounting for women and children. “Lindert and Williamson rely on the burial records of adult males as their main source of occupational information. Yet women and children were a vital and growing pillar of the manufacturing workforce during the proto-industrial and early industrial periods.” (28) The role of women and children who worked long hours for low wages probably reached a peak during the industrial revolution, which made it a unique period. “The analyses based only on adult male labor forces are clearly inadequate and distorting,” they wrote. (?)

Berg and Hanson also said the measurement of many gradualists such as craft because they relied on national rather than local and regional statistics. Regional statistics, they argued would demonstrate a more rapid growth than national statistics.

They also wrote that it was also important to understand demographic development to understand economic growth. They wrote, “Accurate identification of the mainsprings of aggregate demographic trends will only come with regional, sect oral, and class breakdowns because different sorts of workers or social groups within different regional cultures probably experienced different stimuli or reacted differently to the same economic trends, thus creating a range of demographic regimes.” (40) Apparently this was another area the gradualists failed to consider.

In conclusion, the authors heavily critiqued the work of N.F.S Crafts and others who supported the notion that gradual rather than rapid economic growth occurred during the Industrial Revolution. By critiquing the gradualists, they hoped to rehabilitate the idea that economic growth occurred rapidly. They wrote that the gradualists underestimated growth by looking at tables that excluded women and children. Further they added that the gradualists measured growth incorrectly because they looked at national statistics rather than regional and local statistics. They asserted that by examining regional specialization and demographic development at the regional and local levels one would obtain more accurate statistics that would inevitable support the notion of rapid economic growth during the industrial revolution.

Social hierarchy is at the core of David Cannadine’s book Ornamentalism. His narrative was on the hierarchal system that existed in the British Empire. Although he tracks the system’s roots back to the eighteenth century, Cannadine claimed that the system flourished between 1850 and 1950.  While Great Britain was becoming an urbanized, capitalistic society, the empire remained largely agricultural which was an ideal setting for the aristocracy. The empire was so vast that the British liked to claim “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” The empire included the four dominions of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa, India and parts of Africa and the Middle East. As the result of its vastness, the empire was varied and diverse.

However, the empire converged because all of the societies in the empire involved some hierarchy. According to Cannadine, the dominions were rural aspirational, the Indian Empire was caste-based and princely, the crown colonies in Africa were chiefly and traditional and the realm in the Middle East was Bedouin and tribal. The British aristocracy saw the local leaders such as native princes of India and the tribal chiefs of Africa as their equals. They allowed the British Empire to be indirectly ruled by these native leaders.

A main idea in Cannadine’s book was that social hierarchy remained a big part of British national identity up until the mid-twentieth century. Further, he claimed the social construct became visible by ornamentalism. In terms of ornamentalism, Cannadine meant the titles, honors, parades, celebrations (Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee), fancy clothes, and respect bestowed upon the elite. The titles, in particular reflected a layered hierarchal system. Cannadine wrote, “At the behest of the duke of Buckingham, who was colonial secretary, the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St. George, which had previously been confined to residents of Malta and the Ionian Islands, was re-established and enlarged as the pre-eminent order of chivalry for those who governed, administered and had gone to settle in the British Empire.” (86) In this order, competent administrators became CMG (Call me God.) Governors of second-class colonies were known as KCMG (Kindly Call Me God). Finally, the governors of first-class colonies were know as GCMG (God Calls Me God.”

Though the hierarchal system remained prominent for a century, there were limitations, which Cannadine discussed in chapter ten. According to him, there was a lot of ignorance, self-deception and make believe in the hierarchal system. He wrote, “The supposedly settled herarches of the great dominions, stretching back to before the Conquereor, were recent creation, and Burke’s Colonial Gentry (a registry of aristocrats) was full of inconsistencies, inventions and mistakes.  The apparently  ‘timeless’ India of caste and villages and ruling princes , with their ‘traditional’ Indo-Saracenic palaces, was not only a partial vision in that it ignored towns, the middle classes and the nationalists; it also mistakenly assumed that these three pillars of ‘timeless’ India were unchanging, when in reality they were changing a great deal …(148)

In conclusion, David Cannadine chronicled the rise and fall of the British hierarchal system. According to him, the system was as its height between 1850 and 1950. Though mostly internal, the system became visible through ornamentalism meaning primarily that those at the top of the hierarchy were celebrated with grand titles, parades, celebrations, etc. Further, the system helped to connect the vast empire and to create a British national identity. However, a changing world, and other limitations of the hierarchy led to its decline in the middle of the twentieth century.

The differences in the voices of the two authors were notable. Engels’ used a passionate voice to blame the bourgeoisie for the suffering of the working class. He claimed that the proletarians should revolt to reform society in their favor. Roberts’ however, did not use his voice to blame the bourgeoisie. In fact, he indicated on page 28 that the proletarians would not revolt because they had a strong national identity. He wrote, “the class struggle, as manual workers in general knew it, was apolitical and had place entirely within their own society. They looked up it not in any way as a war against the employers.” Further, at one point, Roberts indicated that the proletarians did not take the views of bourgeoisie such as Engels seriously.

Roberts was more objective than Engels. Instead of using a passion voice to convey his ideas of what Salford was like, he used techniques such as spatial descriptions to explain the condition of Salford society. For example, social rank, Roberts claimed, could be determined by where the proletarian lived. Those living in end housed often had special status. Depending on the street, one side or end might be classed higher than the other.

Possessions

In chapter one of The Classic Slum, Roberts revealed that there was a social hierarchy amongst the working class in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. In chapter two, Roberts elaborated more on the social hierarchy by describing how material items, cleanliness and means of accumulating wealth indicated social prestige.

In The Conditions of the Working Class, Friedrich Engels wrote about the squalid, horrible living conditions in which the proletarians lived. The way he described the landscape, it was easy to imagine that proletarians themselves were mostly dirty and had almost nothing. However, approximately sixty years after Engels wrote his book, Roberts described the working class as almost being obsessed with cleanliness. A dirty home or even a front step meant lower social status. Roberts wrote “Most people kept what they possessed clean in spite of squalor and ever-invading dirt. Some houses sparkled.” (37)

Material items such as watches, clothes, pictures for walls and musical instruments also indicated social status. Those who had more things had more status. One could wander if the significance of material things to the working class was another reason why (besides a strong British identity) they never revolted. Further, could they have realized in some way that the capitalistic society of their day was key in obtaining possessions?

Finally, in the book Private Life, edited by Michelle Perrot, it was quite evident that the middle class, made up of mostly Protestants, had a strong moral code. The morality of the working class was not addressed. However, in chapter two, Roberts, revealed the working class also embraced morality. Roberts wrote, “Prestige, however, was not automatically increased by such proofs of affluence. One needed to know how wealth had been acquired. The fruits of prostitution we condemned.” (36) Here, Roberts indicated that indeed the working class did have a moral code.

Manners and Morals

The morality of the working class extended well beyond that of how one obtained the means to buy material items. In chapter three of The Classic Slum, Roberts gave a more complete description of working class morals and explained how a violation of the working class moral ‘code’ could lower social status. Roberts was able to relate how the working class interacted by examining their moral code.

According to Roberts, gossip played a role in assigning social status amongst the working class. He wrote, “over a period the health, honesty, conduct, history and connections of everyone in the neighborhood would be examined. Each would be criticized, praised, censured openly or by hint and finally allotted by tacit consent a position on the social scale.” (42) Grandmothers had the biggest impact on social status when it came to morals and manners. The older ladies had a tremendous amount of influence in their families—unless they had to leave their homes due to illness or other reason.

Generosity was a form of social insurance. The poor helped each other out without thinking of a reward. By often helping others in the community, a family could help assure that their social status would be maintained in the future.

Birth out of wedlock or birth resulting from incest resulted in lowered status. According to Roberts, fathers kept a close eye on their teenage daughters. He wrote, “Father fixed the number of evenings on which they could go out and required to know precisely where and with whom they had spent their leisure.” (51) Illegitimate births were done for the first decade of the twentieth century. Such moral restrictions may have been beneficial to the working class, but some may not of been.

Men were expected to do all their work outside the home. Most men, albeit a very few, did not do housework. Men wanting good social standing avoided any activity associated with women. The working class frowned on homosexuality. Anyone male interested in the arts, music or even reading was labeled effeminate. Roberts wrote “this linking of homosexuality with culture played some part, I believe, in keeping the lower working class as near-illiterate as they were.” (55) That was one example of how the moral code may have been harmful to the working class. Mostly, though, it is my opinion that the moral as a whole did not harm the working class. It could be debated as to whether or not the moral code was helpful to the working class.

Governors, Pastors and Masters

In chapter four, Roberts analyzed the criminal justice system. Before 1900, people went to prison as punishment and for punishment. However, in 1895 the Gladstone committee on crime decided that prisoners should be treated in such a way that they were both physically and morally improved upon release.  As a result the pastor became active in every day prison life, which included prayer and chapel service. Roberts addressed the question as to whether the reform benefited society—particularly that of the working class.

Roberts thought the committee had good intentions but was skeptical on whether the reforms brought beneficial change. Roberts wrote that the committee overlooked the fact that although rules and regimens could be changed, it was far more difficult to get those running the prison system to administer the rules as intended. He wrote, “Nothing was done to educate the ignorant turnkeys or the general public. Nineteenth-century attitudes on the treatment of prisoners lingered among prison staffs and the community far into the present century and caused untold suffering.” (59)

Despite this observation, prison life did improve while conditions at workhouses stayed the same. The consequence was that men started to prefer prison to the workhouses where inmates performed the hard physical labor breaking up stones. As a result, the working class dominated the population of the prisons.

The Common Scene

In chapter five, Roberts wrote about the financial difficulty his neighborhood encountered in the first quarter of the twentieth century. His family, particularly his mother, experienced the financial burden of Salford firsthand because they sold food and medicine from a corner store and had to turn away many people and put others on credit. Roberts seemed to answer three questions in this chapter. Why did the working class suffer? In what ways did they suffer? How did they cope?

The answer to the first questions was that the working class suffered because they lived on low wages or had no income at all. Many could not find work while others had jobs but were on strike in order to bargain for higher wages. Friedrich Engels had written in his book Conditions of the Working Class that part of the reason the poor had no money or material possessions was that they spent it all in the pubs on payday and then pawned everything they had to survive the week. Roberts, however, did not focus on drink in chapter five.

Little money meant fewer possessions and very little food. Roberts wrote, “the homes of the very poor contained little or no bought furniture. They made do with boxes and slept in their clothes and in what other garments they could beg or filch. Of such people there were millions.” (75) Although the Ladies Health Society formed to promote sanitary conditions provided cleaning supplies to the ‘lowest classes’, Roberts did not indicate that the upper classes helped with them food. I have read before in other sources that the very poor helped to feed those even more in need.

In response to the second question, Roberts wrote how the children suffered.. Many infants died—at times to the relief of parents who had more children than they could feed. Some died in accidents due to a lack of supervision. Many came to school without shoes, had bowed legs from rickets (vitamin D deficiency) or had a bad, social demoting case of head lice. Further, adults often treated themselves better as was the norm for that society. They ate more food and sat in the best furniture.

Roberts family became involved when it came time for people to cope with their situation. Many would pawn their possessions to obtain money for food. However, at times of strike or no income, people would come to his mother asking for credit. In order for her store to avoid bankruptcy, she had to use exceptional judgement as to whom she gave credit. Those ‘put on tick’ generally had better social standing. If the woman (it was always the woman who asked) was turned down, then she would go from store to store.

Food, Drink and Physic

Roberts went into more detail about food and drink in chapter six than he did in chapter five. According to Roberts, in the first part of the century before World War I, a main concern for the working class was food because it was difficult to obtain.

Roberts’ family owned a grocery store, so his family did not have the problems getting food that others in his neighborhood did. Roberts was able to witness the problems with food that the working class had because his family lived in quarters attached to the grocery store.   Throughout chapter six, he answered many questions about the food supply for the working class. They were:  What was the quality of the food like?  Who was to blame? How much did the working class know about the quality?  What was the result of their lack of knowledge? How much did basic items such as flour cost and how much did the working class have to spend?

Roberts did not blame the struggle of the working class to get food on their employers, but he did blame suppliers and some vendors—especially when it came to the quality of food. It was common practice for suppliers to adulterate food and drink such as beer with water and more harmful substances such as formaldehyde. Some vendors (but not his mother) did not hesitate to sell the worst of the rotten meat to the poor, who as James Scmiechen revealed in British Market Halls, often went out in the evening to buy deteriorating food for lower prices. Before food quality laws and before the war, little was done to educate the poor about the quality of food and drink. As a result, the poor often suffered stomach and intestinal ailments as a result of their lack of knowledge.

Considering the wages of the day, the cost of food (and the cost of living in general) was high. Some of the poorest did not know from day to day if they would be able to eat. Fortunately, many of the problems with food were resolved as a result of the war.

Alma Matter

Roberts tackled the question of literacy in chapter seven. How literate was the working class after the Education Acts of 1870 and 1880? Did the Acts improve the rate of literacy for the poor? Roberts’ answer conflicted with that of the historians addressing the question before. He wrote, “Our modern historian writes that by 1900 illiteracy had been virtually wiped out. And another (quoted by Roberts): ‘in the last decade of our period [1890-1900] illiteracy had been razed from the map.” (129) Roberts argued that illiteracy among the poor was still a problem. He claimed the historians used faulty evidence and presented new evidence taken from his research and life experience.

In a footnote appearing on page 129 Roberts wrote that many of his contemporary historians used parish registers as evidence that demonstrated the rate of literacy. However, Roberts wrote that he learned from his experience as teacher for adult non-readers that many had learned to write their name, but were otherwise illiterate. Further, Roberts wrote that his mother, the shopkeeper, estimated that one in six people who came into her store were illiterate. She had a good idea of the literacy of her costumers, because her system of giving credit required reading and writing. Often, she would need to assist an illiterate patron.

Roberts also provided studies that demonstrated that the abolition of illiteracy was not necessarily connected to the Education Acts. He analyzed prison statistics and came up with the fact that illiteracy rates actually went down amongst prisoners before the act of 1870. He speculated that economic prosperity accounted for the increase in literacy. Roberts wrote, “It may be that the economic prosperity after 1850 brought as one of its many material benefits a startling advance in voluntary education.” (130) Further he concluded those 30 years after the Education Act, literacy rates improved by less than 15 percent.

According to Roberts, the reason why illiteracy rates did not improve was that many working class people did not attend school and others dropped out by twelve to provide additional income for their families. Robert’s wrote, “Yet, as late as 1887 inspectors in north-east England alone reported that there were still ‘many thousands of children over vie who have never seen inside a schoolroom.” (129) Further, Roberts had an insider’s point of view as to the quality of the schools. He attended what may have been “one of the worst” schools in the areas. According to Roberts, teachers were under qualified and most likely chosen because of their loyalty to the church and willingness to spread the word of God rather than their educational background and ability.

In conclusion, the evidence from prison statistics and Roberts own life experience was credible in proving that illiteracy was still a problem for the working class. He convinced me that the Education Act of 1870 and 1880 did little to improve literacy rates. From Roberts, I gained the understanding that economic prosperity can be attributed to higher literacy rates.

Culture

In chapter eight it seemed that Roberts addressed all the aspects of working class life that he had not examined in previous chapters. He examined how transportation, entertainment/leisure activities, and politics characterized the working class culture before World War One. This chapter disputed the notion of Engels that the working class had only sex and alcohol for entertainment. Further, unlike Engels, who mostly focused on the activity of adults, Roberts included the activities of children and young adults. Roberts argued that the culture of the working class, made the people more interesting than his contemporaries.

Tramcars, appearing approximately around 1903, made travel half as expensive and much quicker for the lower classes. The new mode of transportation made it possible for the working class to travel out of the slums and into the parts of the city where they could enjoy some quality leisure activities. Children enjoyed going to the parks while others went to museums, libraries and the theater. Also, according to Roberts, tramcars made it possible for the working class to find work beyond their immediate neighborhood.

The leisure activities of music, reading and even gambling helped to educate the working classes. The younger people, who tended to be more literate than their elders, read cheap reading material such as the stories of Frank Richards. At times their reading taught them to figure out social rules (which mostly addressed the etiquette of fighting.) In contrast, older men found incentives to read. Some learned to read so that they could make educated bets on racing horses.  According to Roberts, as with reading, the working classes learned from music and were satisfied with it as a leisure activity. Traveling by tram allowed them to compare between the good singers of professional productions to the bad singers of the local pub. The bad music, Roberts argued, was comparable to the music that was popular when Roberts wrote his book.

In terms of politics, Roberts argued that the working class embraced the national identity of Great Britain with vigor. They celebrated coronations and obsessed about the private lives of the Royal family. As for the favored party, Roberts wrote that the working class preferred the Tories to the Liberals. “In our own constituency the liberal intellectual MP had come and gone and the Tory brewer was back in the saddle…” (184) Most of all, they were unlikely to revolt and the upper classes did not expect them too—at least not in the early part of the twentieth century. Roberts wrote, “If however, one had any secret fear that the working classes might yet rise in “unvanquishable number’ it was overlain by the conviction that, put to patriotic test, they would do precisely what their masters ordered—a belief that the first world war fully bore out.” (184)

In conclusion, Roberts revealed a great deal about the working class in chapter eight of Classic Slum. He thought that working class people of the first part of the twentieth century were more interesting than his contemporaries, but it was just an opinion. However, Roberts characterized the people of that era well. According to him, the working class people were patriotic Tories that had an obsession with the private lives of the Royal family. Further, they were an interesting and cultured people who, given the opportunity, loved to read, listen to music and discuss politics.

The Great Release

Roberts wrote about World War I and how it affected working class society in chapter nine of his book The Classic Slum. He took a pessimistic viewpoint that was evident by the following quote. He wrote, “The first Work war cracked the form of English lower-class and began an erosion of its socio-economic layers that has continued to this day” (186) The question that comes out of this statement is: Did the working class suffer as a result of the first world war?

It is well known that a deep economic depression put many people into poverty around the western world in the1930s, the era that followed the one Roberts described. It is also well known that the First World War, with its trench warfare and new weapons, was the worst ever fought in history. Many sons, husbands were lost or maimed. The patriotic, poor working class man, lured by the prospect of regular meals, left in mass to serve the country. While the men were gone, someone had to take their places. Some of these jobs that had been closely guarded by those who held them were now open for anyone to take. Also new American machinery made it possible for unskilled people to work jobs that previously required a great deal of skill. Those that previously held the skilled jobs had a place at the top of the hierarchy. When unskilled workers took over jobs once held by skilled people, the skilled people lost their place in society and the hierarchy was threatened. That might be one example of what Roberts meant by socioeconomic erosion.

However, Roberts’ idea that the working class suffered a socioeconomic erosion can be questioned. Roberts, himself wrote that in 1916 “abject poverty began to disappear from the neighborhood. Children looked better fed. There were far fewer prosecutions for child neglect.” (203) The conditions of the working class seemed to be improving. If this was true, how could the socioeconomic world of the middle class be eroded?

In conclusion, Roberts argued that the working class suffered a socioeconomic erosion as a result of the First World War. However, I disagreed. He didn’t provide enough evidence to support his view. As terrible as the war was, I believe that the war may have actually benefited working class society. Roberts own quote on page 203 helped to convince me that things were better, not worse for the working class after the war started. ]]> Julie Lorenzen http://julielorenzen.net/?p=38 2018-04-24T18:07:53Z 2005-04-30T18:07:19Z

Chapter two was about the treaty of 1707 that made Scotland part of Great Britain. The main point was that although the Scots feared the worse for their country, their country ended up better off—especially since they had better access to England’s markets. The treaty seemed to be the springboard for the enlightenment.

In Chapter three, Herman’s main point was that Francis Hutcheson was one of two people who helped to prove that the proper study of Mankind is Man. He developed an altruistic philosophy that dealt with man as a moral being whose purposes was to seek happiness by helping others.

Chapter four introduced the other Scottish man whose interest in the study of mankind contributed greatly to the Scottish enlightenment—Lord Kames.  Born Henry Home, Kames earned his name by becoming a judge in the Court of Session. Kames believed that society, government, etc. formed to protect man’s property. Unlike Hutcheson, Kames was more cynical and focused on self-interest rather than altruism.
Also, one of Kames’ biggest contributions to the enlightenment was the library he created.

In chapter five, Herman discussed the differences between the highlands and the lowlands in eighteenth-century Scotland. The people in the highlands were organized in to clans with chiefs as leader. Kames called the Highlands a “pastoral society.” Its inhabitants were primarily herdsman. They also tended to be Catholic and spoke Gaelic unlike those in the lowlands who were Presbyterian and spoke English. In contrast to the pastoral society of the north, Glasgow and Edinburgh, part of the lowlands, were starting to show all the signs of being a commercial society. In chapter five, Herman explained the differences between the two lands that made the conflict written about in chapter six possible.

In chapter six, Herman provided all the details of the Jacobin revolt of 1745 and explained how the revolt united the two parts of Scotland. In the end the Jacobins lost and suffered terribly at the hands of the Duke of Cumberland who led the opposing army to victory. He actively sought out Jacobites and had them executed. In addition, parliament banned the traditional dress of the Highlanders. Also the military spirit of the Highlands disappeared, which made the Highlanders who fought and died at Culloden symbols of something missing from Scottish identity.

Herman titled chapter seven Profitable Ventures. His main point was that the defeat of Jacobitism led to the beginning of the Scottish enlightenment. The Scottish economy grew immensely. Herman asserted that the Scots were the first group of people to experience an economic boom in the modern, capitalistic era.

The contributions of Adam Smith and his friends served as the main topic of chapter eight. Smith became famous by writing The Theory of Moral Sentiments.  He was part of a group of religious moderates who reformed the Kirk, the Presbyterian establishment. As a result, an opposing Presbyterian, John Witherspoon who saw the moderates as elitists, ended up in America.

In chapter nine, Herman revealed that Ulster Scots were the first of the three primary groups that appeared in America. They arrived in 1713. The Lowlanders followed and the Highlanders. Many of the Highlanders were refuges from the 1745 conflict. Herman’s main point was that that as the result of Scottish settlements in the east and in Appalachia, “the Great Awakening transformed the culture of colonial America […]. (202)

Chapter ten was entitled Lights from the North: Scots, Liberals, and Reform. The main point was that Scotland provided thinkers, politicians, inventors and writers that gave confidence to Great Britain. The Scots, Herman asserted, help to remake British politics, galvanize educational institutions, and redo the British infrastructure.

One of the main points of chapter eleven was that Sir Walter Scott single –handedly changed the course of literature in the early nineteenth century.  By doing so, he gave Scotland a new identity that lasted until the industrial age.

In chapter 12, Herman’s main point was that the Scots contributed significantly to fields of mechanical engineering (improvements to Newcomen steam engines), medicine (medical training, public health, obstetrics). According to Herman, the Scots also were experts at transportation and proved it by creating roads, railways and the Caledonian Canal. Also with his improvements to the steam engine, Watts urbanized industrial activity. ]]> Julie Lorenzen http://julielorenzen.net/?p=42 2018-04-24T18:09:09Z 2004-08-13T18:08:42Z

She grew up in Austria during World War II and after the war spent some time in Italy as a result of a Red Cross program designed to help malnourished Austrian children. As an adult, she volunteered at Mother Theresa’s New Delhi mission in the early 1960s, argued with then Chief Justice Earl Warren as a newly wed 21-year-old at a dinner party, helped to oversee the renovation of the Governor’s mansion during Dick Celeste’s terms, and changed the role of First Lady from a silent supporter to an active political partner. Working with her Women’s Core Circle, Dagmar dealt with issues of childcare and pay equity, and strived to provide business opportunities to women and minorities. She also gave birth to and raised six children.

Her life changed drastically when her husband, Dick, told her that he loved another woman and wanted a divorce in1994. Ironically, she received the news just after she had just edited the chapter describing their pan-European courtship and what she called a fairy tale wedding August 24, 1962. He remarried in October 1995. Despite being devastated to the point of being hospitalized a few months for depression, Dagmar managed to recover enough to start writing again and appears more insightful than bitter—most of the time—when discussing her ex-husband. Her insightfulness can be observed in essays providing a “post-divorce perspective” that precede each chapter.

The book’s title of We Can Do Together and the chapter titles come from Dick Celeste’s 1981 campaign song Have You Ever Seen the Sun Rise on Ohio by Joe Ashley that Dagmar commissioned to be a wedding anniversary gift for Dick in 1977. She writes  “throughout our marriage the “we” in We Can Do Together changed from the “we” of Dick and Dagmar . . . to the “we” of the extended group of political and personal supporters. The “we” has also come to represent, for me, women’s energy so essential to my own survival—from my own mother, Theodora Braun, my grandmothers, Dora and Josephine, and my sister, Dorly … and my own loyal women friends who have comforted and inspired me in so many ways. (xv-xvi)” The appreciation Dagmar feels toward the woman in her life comes through strongly throughout the book.

In conclusion, We Can Do Together is the well-written work of a feisty and brilliant woman. Her book should be valued by all Ohioans, but will most likely be appreciated by feminists, historians, and Democrats. This First Lady’s book is first rate. ]]> Julie Lorenzen http://www.julielorenzen.net/?p=53 2018-04-24T18:13:58Z 2004-08-05T18:13:23Z

For the remainder of this paper, I will discuss the importance of Homewood to Wideman, how he represented it as a community and how three of his main characters within that community, Brother, Lucy and Carl, seemed to come together to form a family. Since both communities and families are institutions studied by sociologists, I will use a sociological perspective to discuss how Wideman represented the ‘family’ of Brother, Lucy and Carl and the community of Homewood in his book Sent for You Yesterday.

I found it fascinating that even though it was apparent in Sent for You Yesterday that John Edgar Weidman identified strongly with his African American heritage, by the time he graduated from college, he learned to suppress various aspects of his culture in order to succeed as an African American in a predominantly white world. For example, he replaced the black dialect of his youth with Standard English and learned not to wear his “tie below the belt” like they did in Homewood. In his article From Oxford to Homewood: The Long Journey Home of an African American Scholar, Raymond Janifer wrote:

[Wideman] never allowed his outward behavior, speech, or dress to project his membership in the traditional African-American ethnic culture. Matriculating at the University of Pennsylvania while he was still learning to master the art of suppressing his ethnicity he also began to develop the tragic realization of how difficult a task it would be to suppress his emotional attachment to the traditional African-American ethnic culture of Homewood which had nurtured him. (4)

Janifer also noted that “although [Wideman] put Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on his application his psychic address had been in the predominantly African-american ghetto called Homewood.” (4) In the 1970s, Wideman took an eight -year hiatus to examine the traditions and culture of Homewood and relearn what Raymond E. Janifer, called the “Black English Vernacular.” The result of that hiatus was the Homewood Trilogy which also included included Damballah  (1981) and Hiding Place  (1981).  Janifer wrote “In his series of interconnected stories about the Homewood, Pennsylvania ghetto where he grew up, Wideman’s African American characters speaking primarily in the Black English Vernacular regularly utilize their folklore and traditions as a dominating and sustaining force.” (1)

Near the end of the book, from pages 195 –207, Wideman had Carl making dinner for Lucy and Doot, Carl’s nephew, in Lucy’s house while Lucy shared the African-American tradition of telling stories by describing to Doot what Homewood used to be like. Lucy’s  thoughts on Homewood are well represented  in the following paragraph where she is speaking to Doot about their communtiy:

“Couldn’t do nothing but stare all moony-eyed at you and wonder if you’d be different. Looked for something different in your eyes. Looked for the old folks in there. […] Brother didn’t even have skin, but he stopped people’s eyes. He was solid, real, like all a them. They made Homewood. Walking around, doing the things they had to do. Homewood wasn’t bricks and boards. Homewood was them singing and living and getting where they needed to get. They made these streets. That’s why Homewood was real once. Cause they were real. And we gave it all up. […]  Nothing left to give the ones we supposed to be saving Homewood for. Nothing but empty hands and sad stories.” (198)

The above passage is brilliant because it describes Brother and the other people who made Homewood a community. Here, Lucy shared what she felt about Homewood in the past and present and also passed what is known as an “oral tradition” to Doot by telling him the history of Homewood.

It was clear to me that John Edgar Wideman felt a strong connection to Homewood even though his family moved to a predominantly white neighborhood in Pittsburgh when he was eight or nine years old so that he could attend a better school.  However, according to a source on Blackboard’s External Links, “both of his parents’families had deep roots in [Homewood which was] founded by Wideman’s great-grandmother Sylbela Owens, who was a slave, and her owner’s son Charlie Bell.  In his article, The Language From Home, which was about writing about Homewood, Wideman wrote “I examine minutely the place I come from, repeat its stories, sing its songs, preserve its language and values, because they make me what I am and because if I don’t, who will?” (1)

Wideman’s “roots” can be felt in his novel when he used the dialect of his town, wrote about the music that could be heard in the streets and described places such as Cassina Way as “rows of wooden shanties built to hold the flood of black migrants up from the South.” (20) Further, Wideman gave Cassina Way character by calling it “a narrow, cobbled alley teeming with life.” (20) Homewood might have been a poor neighborhood, but Wideman was able to represent it with rich details colorful characters like Samantha, a beautiful woman who had a lot of kids, who described herself as an “educated Negro.” (133)

Out of all the characters in the book, Brother, the albino African American, stood out the most. There were many interesting aspects of the ghost-like character that didn’t speak, sang scat and had dreams of trains. However, aspect of Brother that most reminds me of the term community was his name. According to The Student Sociologist’s Handbook, “most communities use the nomenclature of the family; for example the various liberation movements—black, gay, lesbian, female—use the terms sister or brother with one another in their attempts to become communities.”  (11) It is possible that Wideman named “Brother” the way he did because he wanted Brother to be a symbol of the community.

Before I discuss how Brother, Lucy and Carl came together as a family, I will provide a definition of community and explain how Wideman’s representation of Homewood as a community matches that definition.  According to the authors of a website put up by Murray State, community is “a group of people who share a common sense of identity and interact with one another on a sustained basis.”

Brother, Carl, and Lucy shared a common sense of identity because they were all African Americans who lived in the same neighborhood. They also spent a lot of time together. However, the only place in the book where the three characters are shown spending time together was on page 90 at the Elks Club where Brother mysteriously demonstrated that he could play the piano. However, on the same page Wideman indicated that the three spent quite a bit of time together as a group. He wrote, “The three of them, Lucy, Brother and Carl, were out that night. Nineteen forty-one because the war had just begun. The three musketeers drinking and smoking a little reefer […]” Wideman indicated that the three spent a lot of time together by calling Brother, Lucy and Carl “the three musketeers”, a reference that is often used to describe a group of three people who spend a lot of time together.

It is also evident that the three different pairs of Brother and Carl, Brother and Lucy, and Lucy and Carl all interacted at regular intervals. I will describe in the next few paragraphs how the interactions between these pairs made the three characters seem like family. I viewed Brother, Carl, and Lucy as being a family that formed as a result of being part of the same community. When viewing the three from the sociological definition of family, the two of the three pairs do not seem to fit. According to the Murray State website, family is defined in this way:

Family: A group of individuals related to one another by blood ties, marriage or adoption. Members of families form an economic unit, the adult members of which are responsible for the upbringing of children. All societies involve some form of family, although the form the family takes is widely variable.  In modern industrial societies the main family form is the nuclear family, although a variety of extended family relationships are also found.

If foster families could be added to the above definition then Lucy and Brother would fit because Mr. and Mrs. Tate took them both into their home.  (I don’t believe the Tates ever formally adopted Brother and Lucy.) The Tates formed an economic unit, and Mr. and Mrs.Tate provided the house and the financial support (although taking in Lucy and Brother most likely qualified the Tates for government support.) However, it is unclear how responsible the elder Tates were in bringing up Lucy and Brother. On page 79 Wideman wrote, “Never could quite figure out who’s keeping who over [at the Tate home]. They take care the old lady and she takes care of them. Since Tate died the three them been together and they gets along.” However, Lucy appeared to be more of a mother figure than Mrs. Tate.

When Lucy and Brother were first introduced to the reader, I thought that Lucy was Brother’s mother because she was described as pushing him up and down the street in a baby buggy. Later it is revealed that Brother is actually older than Lucy. However, throughout the book Lucy assumes the role, a social psychological term, of mother while taking care of “Brother Tate.” In my earlier response to Sent for You Yesterday I wrote:

“Lucy made sure that [brother’s] skin was well protected with a hat and protected his fragile reputation by concealing the frilly hat with the hood of the buggy. She helped to make sure Brother was clean and assumed the full domestic responsibilities of the Tate household when Mrs. Tate became mentally incapacitated after Albert Wilkes was shot to death by policemen while playing the piano in their home.

Although Brother and Lucy fit into the above-mentioned definition of family, it is harder to use the definition to support the idea that Carl was part of Brother and Lucy’s family. One could use the definition to argue that Carl wasn’t part of their family—especially when examining Carl’s relationship with Brother and Lucy respectively. Although Carl and Brother seemed like brothers because of how much time they spent together, they weren’t blood-related and they didn’t live in the same household.

I thought of Brother, Lucy and Carl as a family not in terms of reproduction and socialization as much as unit of social acceptance, respect and caring—aspects that one most often relies on family to provide. According to Sociology: A Very Short Introduction  by Steve Bruce, “in the 1950s sociologists such as Talcott Parsons argued that the primary role of the family was to provide warmth and comfort and companionship.”  (91)

Brother, who was an Albino, seemed to find warmth and comfort in the French’s kitchen and sought out Carl’s companionship by appearing on his doorstop early in the morning. Brother was probably identified with Carl’s family more than with most of his neighbors because the French family had lighter skin than most others in the neighborhood. Being lighter skinned probably made the French family less disposed to be prejudiced against Brother than others whose skin was darker. Even though Brother, being a mythic-like character, stood out, it was hard to think about Brother without thinking of Carl because they spent so much time together. On page 37, Carl’s mother, Freeda, noted that “she’d seen them together a million times.”

Robert A. Nisbet was another sociologist whose views supported my idea that Brother, Lucy and Carl could be considered a family. According to Pauline Bart and Linda Frankel, Nisbet viewed community as being similar to family. “That is, it ‘encompasses all forms of relationship which are characterized by a high degree of personal intimacy, emotional depth, moral commitment, social cohesion, and continuity in time. Community is a fusion of feeling and thought, of tradition and commitment, of membership and volition.’” (11)

When put into the context above, Freeda, Carl’s mother, definitely saw Brother as part of the family as revealed on pages 36-39. In an act of intimacy, she would pat his head and as far as continuity in time, Freeda, noted that she could not remember a time in Homewood without Brother, and she was accustomed to seeing Brother out on the step in the mornings when she went out early with her cup of coffee.  When Freeda was not upset when she found him eating cornflakes in her kitchen at 3 a.m. in the morning, it reflected a degree of social cohesion. It was ok with her that he was there because he always seemed to be in her kitchen. On page 36 she noted how Brother looked a lot like her son. “Carl and Brother like two peas in a pod. They walked and listened alike. Her son handsome and Brother pug ugly but they looked alike. Both of their narrow shoulders to get the mannish John French weight into their steps. Both had those potbellies and bony arms. […] Neither one looked colored.” (36-37)

When she noted much the two boys looked a like, it seemed like she was recognizing that the two were like blood-related brothers, who often share similar physical traits. On page 37, Freeda seems to acknowledge Brother as part of her family by thinking “Brother almost like one of her own children.” I couldn’t find a place in the book where either Brother or Carl acknowledged each other as brothers, but because Freeda, Carl’s mother, acknowledged Brother as being “one of her own,” I had the impression that the two boys were like brothers.

Lucy and Carl’s relationship was more difficult to analyze. They seemed to have an occasional sexual relationship and cared deeply for one another, but they didn’t marry and they didn’t live together. Although neither character seemed romantically involved with someone else, it was unclear on whether they were girlfriend or boyfriend or just good friends with the occasional benefit of sex.

Most sociological definitions refer to family include both socialization and reproduction. According to Bruce, the family “remains the primary unit of reproduction and socialization and, for most of us, it remains a source of great satisfaction and psychic stability.” (88) Lucy and Carl did not reproduce, but the sexual experience they received from each other can be viewed as a type of socialization and a source of satisfaction. Also, the sexual encounters between the two characters always seemed to serve the purpose of providing a “physic stability” (in reference to the earlier quote by Bruce) because the first three experiences occurred after Albert Wilkes was killed in Lucy’s home, after Carl injured himself in the garden, and after Carl came home from World War II.

If Carl had married Lucy then he would have been Lucy’s husband and Brother’s brother-in-law.  The three characters then would have been clearly considered by our society as family.

Lucy indicated fear (of what exactly I am unsure) as being the reason she didn’t marry Carl. Perhaps it is because she basically became the head of her family at the age of thirteen (when Albert Wilkes died) and really never was able to observe Mr. and Mrs. Tate in order to realize what the benefits of marriage were.

Fear is most likely the main reason Carl and Lucy didn’t marry, but there are sociological perspectives why Lucy and Carl didn’t wed. Families are changing in today’s society. Divorce is more prevalent and more people are living alone.  According to a study published in The Encyclopedia of Sociology, “collectively Americans are spending smaller proportions of their lives in families of any description than they did in the past.” (927).  Further Steve Bruce wrote:

The development of contraceptive technology broke the link between sexual fulfillment and reproduction. Increasing individual affluence (and, for those who did not personally prosper, the creation of a welfare state) made it much easier for people not to band together in small units pooling resources and made it easier for us to dissolve those units when we no longer liked them. (90)

I feel the above quote at least in part explains why families have changed. It is likely that Carl and Lucy didn’t use any form of birth control during their first and second encounters because they were teenagers and the encounters were not planned. However, it is possible that Lucy went on birth control when she became more mature—after Carl came home from World War II. Also, Lucy inherited the Tate home and most likely some inheritance, making it possible for her to live on her own. Certainly, the situation of Carl and Lucy never marrying is not uncommon.

In conclusion, in Sent for you Yesterday John Edgar Wideman wrote about Homewood, Pennsylvania, an African-American community where he spent his first few years of life. Although Wideman spent most of life outside of Homewood and learned to suppress his ”roots” in college, it was evident that he felt a strong connection with Homewood. He provided a representation of a poor, but lively community that was filled with rich details and strong characters like Samantha. Although the character of Brother stood out the most because of all his odd attributes which included being a ghost-like albino, it was hard to think of him without thinking of Lucy, who was also taken into the Tate home, and Carl, Brother’s good friend and Lucy’s lover. Although Carl was not a part of Brother and Lucy’s family by sociological definitions, the three formed a family within their community by having comforting and socially cohesive relationships with one another.

i  Grace Paley and Alice Munro also wrote about where they are from in The Collected Stories and Selected Stories, respectively
ii  I noted that the quotation could be attributed to Canby, page 88, but not the article it came from.