Comments for The Making of Modern America: 1877-1945

Comment on Patrick O’Neil Response to Leuchtenberg by joe.robinson93

joe.robinson93 — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:26:24 +0000

I also found Berle’s mention of the U.S. Post Office to be ironic and his overall argument to be unsound. Oftentimes, I think the federal government is the last thing that comes to mind when it comes to efficiency. Berle’s claims of efficiency are questionable, but I do think there needed to be some level of government intervention in order to revitalize the American economy. However, like you, I doubt the general public would have been receptive to widespread government control of the economy. In my post, I made connections between Berle’s extreme alternative and the U.S. economy prior to and during WWII, in which the federal government controlled nearly all aspects of industrial production. What I didn’t consider was the motivation of the American people in these two instances. During WWII, Americans were willing to relinquish some of their economic freedom in order to contribute to a common goal, which would not have been possible to accomplish without their effort. However, in Berle’s case, there would have been no way to ensure that greater government control would have turned the U.S. economy around. You also need to consider that Berle’s plan would have only come to fruition if the more moderate New Deal had failed. I find it hard to believe there would be much support for any plan proposed by the Roosevelt administration if the promises of the New Deal were not met.

Comment on Radio Registry by Patrick O'Neil

Patrick O'Neil — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 18:51:23 +0000

What do we have to review for this assignment?

Comment on Randolf Bourne’s “Trans National America by JakeABerman

JakeABerman — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:36:46 +0000

While it is true that many first-generation immigrants end up speaking their native tongue and don’t quite assimilate, I think an important point about immigration is that, within one or two generations, those immigrant cultures do become assimilated into American culture. Today, someone descended from an Irish immigrant and someone whose family immigrated along with William Bradford are both just as American. Same with the Asian-Americans who immigrated in Bourne’s time (though they may be subject to more racism). While they assimilate, though, they don’t just conform to whatever American culture, to the extent that it exists, but they change the American culture as they assimilate. It is that change which I believe makes American culture what it is.

Comment on Bourne’s Trans-National America- Joe Robinson by Christian Cherau

Christian Cherau — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 04:13:23 +0000

I also found interesting Bourne’s notions of US Culture as being a new type of culture, one which the world had yet to see. He compares this newly-developing American culture to the fairly well-established and unchanging cultures of Europe, each of which is well-defined culturally, geographically, and politically. Bourne says that the development of this new, unique American culture will not be obtained in the same way as the Europeans gains their cultures, which has been put rather interestingly to the modern reader by Bourne, as through “swagger and thrill … to national self-feeling” (92). American culture will instead be defined by a melting pot of sorts, a melting pot of intellect that forms, in Bourne’s eyes, a better culture.

Comment on Patrick O’Neil Response to Bourne’s Trans-National America by joe.robinson93

joe.robinson93 — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:10:04 +0000

I agree with your critique of Bourne’s views on American culture. Although our culture is heavily influenced by the Anglo-Saxon culture of our country’s founders, subsequent waves of immigrants have all played a part in shaping the United States; America has developed its own identity, one which may have not been as well-defined during Bourne’s time as it is today. I also agree with the idea that even though we retain some of our cultural traditions, it does not make us any less American. If anything, this contributes to the uniqueness of American culture.

An interesting aspect of Bourne’s writing is his criticism of the South, which he contends is the most “distinctly American” region in the United States. Bourne blames the stagnant development of the South on the American culture that exists there; he compares this region to Northern states such as Wisconsin and Minnesota, where the cultures of German and Scandinavian immigrants remained distinct but cooperating. I think it’s unreasonable to attribute the positive economic and social development of the North to this cooperation of cultures. There are certainly other factors in play, but Bourne chooses to ignore them in order to support his argument.

Comment on Roosevelt’s The New Nationalism Speech – Christian Cherau by Patrick O'Neil

Patrick O'Neil — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:38:03 +0000

Identifying TR as A&B in Sumner’s essay is a great analogy. TR spends a lot of the speech talking about the welfare of all Americans, but that doesn’t happen in a vacuum. C needs to give something to D, but he won’t do so without being coerced.

I’m not sure that TR’s rhetoric about capital and labor would have been better-received if it came two decades earlier. The early 1900’s were still an era of widespread union fervor and power, and as capital became more important, union membership was even more advantageous, and in some cases necessary, for workers. By 1910, labor would have been seen as a necessary counterbalance to the established power of capital, and TR’s point would be even more powerful.

Comment on Solitude of Self – Jake Berman by Christian Cherau

Christian Cherau — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:01:50 +0000

I agree completely with your thoughts on the content of this speech when compared to the rhetoric of modern-day feminists. After the lecture on Christianity influencing American politics and reform movements, this connection makes sense given the time period. It is still interesting to contrast this to the modern feminism movement, however, so get a sense of how the paradigm has shifted in the 100+ years since Stanton pleaded for women’s suffrage.
More so, however, I want to build on and expand your points about religion. I feel that the arguments Stanton could be framed by any number of social issues of the time, not just the lens of feminism. With religion being a way to reach all around social change, the idea that every man comes into the world on his own and leaves the world his own person. Stanton herself states that once we understand the importance of the solitude of self, “we can…appreciate the loss to a nation when any large class of the people is uneducated and unrepresented.” Had women’s suffrage been already addressed by the time Stanton came to give her speech, it would have been just as meaningful in the quest for equality of immigrants, the poor, or perhaps even the increasingly vote deprived blacks of America.

Comment on The Principles of Scientific Management by JakeABerman

JakeABerman — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:14:24 +0000

The notion that management is a science stood out as being a bit more odd than it did to most people who posted this week. I don’t really see managing as being as much of a science. Yes, there are certain elements that can make managers better at their job, and certain techniques they can employ to ensure they are better at their jobs. Each worker under managers will work differently and respond differently to different managing styles, as well as different managers being suited better or worse to different managing styles. With the vast variety in types of successful managing styles that work in the real world, to compare it to a hard science does not make much sense.

Comment on The Principles of Scientific Management by Christian Cherau

Christian Cherau — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:52:06 +0000

I too found Taylor’s comments about soldiering interesting. In what can today be generalized as motivation, Taylor essentially is describing the differences between workers simply working to get paid (basically an outside motivator), and working because they believe their work is more valuable and worth more pay because of being called a high-valued man, much as “Schmidt” was in Chapter 2. This becomes more of an internal motivator for employees; internal motivators for any individual are likely to drive them to better (and more efficient) accomplishments. This is something we have discussed in our business co-op class here at Northeastern, insofar as finding a job that you are internally motivated to work at will make you more productive and happier than a job in which you only face external motivators, such as wages and managers breathing down your neck.

Comment on The Principles of Scientific Management. by joe.robinson93

joe.robinson93 — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 04:03:20 +0000

I think Taylor’s goal of developing the efficiency of individual workers is achievable to an extent. Today in class we discussed Henry Ford and his ability to ensure the productivity of his workforce in part by creating detailed background checks on each employee. I think a similar system could be applied to Taylor’s theory when it comes to the identification of workers’ skills. Taylor seems more concerned with finding the right jobs for the right people rather than developing the skills of individual workers. He discusses the inefficiency of some pig iron workers who were unable to carry the maximum weight of iron and how they were reassigned to other departments within the company. I think this is what Taylor is talking about in your quote on the masses and given his example, it doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility to treat workers this way.

I agree that the wage raises workers like “Schmidt” received were not enough to justify the increase in output that they generated. That being said, my guess is Taylor would argue that these laborers were being overpaid to begin with (given the lack of efficiency) and that their increased pay more accurately reflects the work that they do.