Peasants and Potatoes

"More efficient methods of land use [in 19th century Europe] were accompanied by the rapid development of improved strains of wheat and other traditional crops... Far and away the most important of the new crops, however, was the potato (also originally imported from America), which could be grown on poor soil, was comparatively insensitive to the vicissitudes of weather, and yielded from two to four times as much food as grain crops. Although cultivated throughout Europe, the potato became the staple diet of poorer peasants in the northern and central regions along a broad front from Ireland to Russia, a dependence which was to prove a disaster when the potato crop failed." (2)  --Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism and Reform, 1850-1890

Potatoes originally came from South America. They were
brought by Spanish explorers to Spain in the mid-16th
century. From there, the crop gradually spread throughout
Europe. 

Having had plenty of exposure to Polish cuisine and its heavy reliance on potatoes, I am curious to discover what Polish and other peasants of northern Europe ate before the arrival of the potato around 1600!

Why I Cancelled My Facebook Account

"Professors can take comfort that those students surfing Facebook during class are simply demonstrating the skill of what Davidson calls 'continuous partial attention,' which is essential for thriving in today's world." --Rick Ostrander, "Learning to Surf: A College Provost Encounters the Digital Revolution" in Books and Culture (March/April 2013); Ostrander is reviewing Cathy Davidson's Now You See It: How the Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn

I think Davidson is confused about "continuous partial attention." She has misconstrued an is with an ought. That students are coming to classrooms with this "skill" is undeniable. I see it in my elementary age students. Unfortunately, I see it in myself. I see it in myself as I have again walked into the university classroom in my mid-30s. Can I concentrate on my studies so well as I could fifteen years ago? I observe myself trying to write history papers on my laptop while the latest current events tempt me from a couple of clicks away. Are the Red Sox winning? Have they scored since I last checked fifteen minutes ago? Who's that singing on Pandora right now?

I seem to have developed the skill of "continuous partial attention" over the years as technology plays an ever more essential role in my everyday life. As a teacher of students with this skill already well-developed, I use the skill everyday. I teach a lesson, watch two students loudly talking in the corner and think about whether I should take away their computer game time yet for not paying attention, listen to a child on the other end of the room calling out to me that he has a bloody nose, and try to figure out why the projector isn't working properly--all at the same time! Students seem to have less ability to pay attention for any length of time. This leads them into a myriad of distractions for themselves, classmates, and teachers. Perhaps this skill is required in today's world after all... at least in some professions. But should it be? Is this the sort of society we want to create for ourselves?

After observation of both my students and myself, I can say that both the scholarly work I produce at the university while using "continuous partial attention" and the products of my students who extensively utilize this skill are much poorer as a result. It takes me longer to read a history article and I retain less content. It takes me longer to write a history paper and the quality is lower besides. I can say the same for the research products of my elementary students. I am certainly not qualified to answer this question, but I still wonder: is the human brain capable of producing high-level results when utilizing "continuous partial attention"? I've no doubt that the brain could adapt through evolution to new conditions that required such a skill over a span of, say, 10, 000 years... but the Internet technology that has spurred this whole discussion has been around for around twenty years.

Whatever evolution may yet do, my brain has not adapted well to the necessity for "continuous partial attention" in order to thrive in today's world. Furthermore, I want to accomplish more genuine experiences in my lifetime than the extensive use of this skill will permit. I want to read plenty of history, philosophy, and literature--and actually understand all that I read because I am able to focus my concentration on it. I want my scholarly work output to represent my mind working at its highest capabilities. This will mean bringing my fullest concentration to one task at a time--and going against the grain of technology in our culture. My brain now being reprogrammed.

I never used Facebook much while I had it. However, I see it as a major culprit--or perhaps more a symbolic culprit--in causing the spread of "continuous partial attention" in our society. I will, at least, be existentially carving out my own sphere in which I will be taking control of the technology in my life--before the technology takes control of me. Thus, Facebook has been excised.

Trade Is A "Nice and Delicate Lady"

"[Oxenbridge] Thacher compared trade to a 'nice and delicate lady; she must be courted and won by soft and fair addresses. She will not bear the rude hand of the ravisher.'" (276) --Margaret Ellen Newell, From Dependency to Independence: Economic Revolution in Colonial New England

"L'incroyable et la merveilleuse" by
L. Massard and Theophile Fragonard.
Clearly this is a picture of neither
English or American lovers. However,
the period, 1790s, is somewhat close. And,
most of all, who knows romance better
than the French?
From: NYPL Picture Collection Online

Thacher wrote this in a 1764 pamphlet entitled Sentiments of a British American. It was written in response to the Revenue and Sugar Acts passed by the British Parliament in that year. Both laws established a long list of new import duties and trade restrictions for Americans. Like the Stamp Act of the following year, they were intended for the generation of revenue for the British government, which was in debt from its expenses incurred in the recent Seven Years War (i.e., the French and Indian War). They were also intended to curtail what Britain saw as a growing economic threat from New England. Shipping, especially to the West Indies, had become a major part of the New England economy. New Englanders had also taken up household industry and processing of agricultural and natural products as a way to build wealth. They turned to small scale industry such as wool hats and potash production as a way to supplement the meager wealth allowed by the rocky, poor soil on their farms. Many ironworks had also sprouted across New England. Britain saw all of this as a competitive threat to their own industry. With the new laws and regulations in 1764, Britain was restoring a proper mercantile relationship of dependency between America and Britain.

Before Thacher proposed the vivid metaphor quoted above for how to approach trade, he had explained in his pamphlet how a single duty on molasses would negatively impact many other areas of commercial activity. He explained how the molasses duty would adversely affect the rum distilling, whaling, fishing, shipbuilding, timber and provisions trades in New England. (Newell, 276) Thacher proposed a minimum of trade regulations and as much free trade as possible for New England merchants.

Thus, trade is a "nice and delicate lady" who won't tolerate any rough handling. You'd better keep an eye on her though, because she always wants to be free to consort with those offering the best terms. If you attempt to control her, you'd better watch out because she won't have any compunctions about sneaking out on you (i.e. smuggling). I have obviously extended Thacher's metaphor a little farther than he intended! But I would like to ask Oxenbridge just one question if I could: What does it mean for the government to make love to trade?

Paper Money Is Like A Good Wife

"[John] Wise [an Ipswich, MA minister] and other writers acknowledged that commodity prices had risen since paper money came into use and that some merchants occasionally discounted public bills slightly. But, Wise pointed out, these were minor faults that the advantages attending paper money more than made up for. 'Gentlemen! You must do by your bills, as all Wise Men do by their Wives,' he noted facetiously: 'Make the best of them.' Since paper money was integral to the colonial economy, Bay Colonists would do well to 'set them High in your Estimation,' since complaints about the bills' weakness would only serve to devalue them more. He predicted that public faith, consistent policy, and a committed provincial government would eventually stabilize paper money's value in related specie." (194) --Margaret Ellen Newell, From Dependency to Independence: Economic Revolution in Colonial New England

In the first half of the 18th century in New England, one of the most contested political issues was whether and how much paper money should be issued by the colonial governments. Proponents of paper money argued that it facilitated internal trade within the colony by making assets more liquid. The consequently increased internal trade could create new wealth as well as develop and diversify the New England economy. They advocated free trade and few economic regulations. This would create a more robust and self-sufficient colonial economy. Paper money advocates included farmers, country traders, and large landowners.

A bill from 1690 in Massachusetts. This bill
was from one of the first emissions of paper
money by the General Court.
From: http://www.celebrateboston.com/

Opponents of paper money had a strict understanding of the value of money--the only money worthy of the name was specie--i.e., gold and silver. They argued that paper money allowed New England consumers of British goods to get into too much debt. They did not believe that an imbalance of trade between the colonies and Britain was economically healthy (throughout the colonial period, colonists' imports surpassed their natural resource exports in value). Anti-paper money figures tended to be wealthy merchants involved in the Atlantic trade. Therefore, they had plenty of access to specie and did not have to worry about the liquidity of their assets.

Massachusetts was compelled to finance a series of wars in the 1690s and early 1700s through issuing paper money. The way this worked was that the colonial government would print the money, then use it to pay soldiers and war suppliers. These people could in turn purchase goods from others with the paper. Its value was upheld by the fact that the colonial government made taxes payable with the paper money. However, if the war became expensive, it was very easy to print too much money--more money than could be taxed back into the government in any reasonable period of time. At this point, paper money would begin to depreciate--it was a fear that people would try to pay their creditors (who were often merchants) using depreciated paper money that added another argument against paper. But people like John Wise, an Ipswich minister, believed that, despite its potential failings, paper money had an overall positive effect on the New England economy. Kind of like a good wife... despite some downsides, you make the best of her. (I hope I don't get in big trouble with you-know-who for this!)

Hillsborough Paint (Bostonians' Solution for Smugglers)

"In 1769, when Boston merchants began to break ranks on non-importation, the resistance leaders began calling into action 'The Body of the People,' which included everyone, regardless of age, sex, rank, or voting status. Especially in policing the nonimportation agreement in 1768 and 1769, the people at large assumed the functions of civil government, ferreting out violators, fastening on them the opprobrium of the community, and coercing them to mend their ways. The humblest laborers on Boston's wharves, even adolescents and slaves, became part of the political community when they daubed the houses of importers with 'Hillsborough paint,' a peculiar recipe of body wastes, or pummeled zealous royal panjandrums who searched for smuggled goods." (231) --Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible: The Northern Seaports and the Origins of the American Revolution

"Landing of British Troops in Boston, 1768"
From: New York Public Library Picture Collection Online

Bostonians responded to oppressive British economic policies of the early 1770s such as the Tea Act (1773) with remarkable interclass unity, especially in comparison to New York and Philadelphia. "The Body of the People" mentioned above encompassed wealthy merchants such as John Hancock, radical, religious leaders such as Samuel Adams, and common laborers and artisans. It acted in unity to oppose British policies--and enforced unity when needed. Nash argues that two reasons for this unity were the British army's occupation of the city from 1768 and the ability of Samuel Adams to transform resistance into a kind of religious crusade that hearkened back to Puritan ideals of community and moral economy. The unity of Bostonians in opposition to British policy meant that if you were a merchant attempting to make some extra cash by smuggling in British tea, you might wake up one day to find "Hillsborough paint" on your door! Not a pleasant experience, I'm sure.

"Flatulent Preachments" and More Political Pamphlet Fun

"As the battle thickened, pamphleteers reached new pinnacles of abuse and scurrility. [Benjamin] Franklin was reviled as an intellectual charlatan who begged and bought honorary degrees in England, a corrupt politician, and a lecherous old man. His friends responded by labeling an opposition pamphleteer 'a Reptile' who 'like a Toad, by the pestilential Fumes of his virulent Slabber,' attempted 'to blast the fame of a PATRIOT.' William Smith, coordinator of the opposition [and an Anglican minister], was advertised to be a 'consumate Sycophant,' an 'indefatigable' liar, and an impudent knave with a heart 'bloated with infernal Malice' and a head full of 'flatulent Preachments.' As for the Presbyterians, a Franklinite pamphleteer renamed them 'Piss-Brute-tarians (a bigotted, cruel and revengeful sect).'

The more scabrous the literature became the more widely it was distributed, often gratis, to all who would accept it. Before the campaign was over, more than thirty-five broadsides and pamphlets, not to mention scores of newspaper fusillades, filled the streets. Chief Justice William Allen, a man who had risen from sugar boiler to wealthy merchant, found himself called 'Old Drip-pan,' an adulterer who had slept with his Negro slaves for twenty years, and 'a tricking Judge, and Presbyterian Jew.' The pamphleteer David Dove stood accused of sodomy, misogyny, miscegenation, concupiscence, and the almost unheard-of flaw of teratology. William Smith was charged with spreading venereal disease to his female slaves, and Franklin too was charged with sexual irregularities." (179-180) --Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible: The Northern Seaports and the Origins of the American Revolution

William Smith
From: University of Pennsylvania
Archives & Records Center

This all occurred in the months leading up to an October 1764 election in Pennsylvania. Franklin was allied with the Quaker elite in seeking to transfer Pennsylvania government from proprietary to royal control. Believe it or not, the Pennsylvania colony at this late date still existed for the personal profit of William Penn's descendants, including Thomas Penn. Penn insisted on his proprietary right to not pay property taxes on the large quantities of Pennsylvania land he owned--this at a time when the colony was having difficulty paying its debts from the French and Indian War. Franklin's solution to the problem of proprietary control was to transfer control of the colony's government to the king.

The early 1760s was a poor time for Franklin to attempt this as Pennsylvania colonists were suffering under the harsh economic effects of many imperial policies, not to mention of post-war depression. There was talk of a new stamp tax (the Stamp Act was passed in 1765); the Currency Act (1764) had just prohibited Pennsylvania from circulating paper money to help pay its war debts; violators of the Navigation Acts (viz., smugglers) were now being prosecuted from a distance by British judges, not local juries; and British battleships were stationed in the lower Delaware Bay tasked with searching for smuggled goods. All of these royal measures brought even more economic hardship to Philadelphia (described on p.179 of Nash's book). This was not the most ideal time for Franklin to propose a transfer of Pennsylvania government to royal control! But we can thank Franklin for inspiring some of the most entertaining political nastiness to ever exist (to my knowledge anyway; how could it get any worse?!).

*By the way, if you're wondering what "teratology" means, according to Dictionary.com: "the science or study of monstrosities or abnormal formations in organisms."

Ben Franklin's "Rottiness of Heart"

"...by 1754 the antiexcise pamphleteers in Boston were painting images of the opponents as 'Little pestilent Creature[s],' 'dirty miscreants,' and unspeakably horrible creatures ready to 'cram [their]... merciless and insatiable Maw[s] with our very Blood, and bones, and Vitals,' while making sexual advances on wives and daughters." (125)

"When the imperious Anglican clergyman William Smith attacked Benjamin Franklin, the artisans' hero, his opponents wrote that 'the Vomiting of this infamous Hireling... betoken[s] that Redundancy of Rancour, and Rottiness of Heart which render him the most despicable of his Species." (125)
--both quotes from Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible: The Northern Seaports and the Origins of the American Revolution

Benjamin Franklin
From: Wikimedia Commons, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Nash describes the increasingly virulent, shrill political discourse that appeared in pamphlets and newspapers of the northern colonies in the 1750s. Regular newspapers had only existed for around half a century at this point. In the early 1700s, those who attacked political opponents in newspapers were more polite, using words like "intolerable," "unreasonable," and "strange." (Nash, 125) The shift in tone by political writers of the 1750s coincided with a shift in how explicit political factions and interests were viewed. Previously, the existence of groups unified by and advocating for a specific political interest was seen as destructive of the common good; a healthy state required more unity. However, in the mid-1700s a view that competing political factions could produce a healthy power balance in the state and that it was morally acceptable to act politically for one's self-interest had gained momentum. Once it became acceptable to identify oneself with a political interest group and oppose other such groups, a steady escalation in the intensity of public criticism occurred. The criticism was all the more severe as writers pitched their most convincing arguments to a slowly growing population of voters caused by widening suffrage laws. Given these circumstances, we should not be surprised to learn of Benjamin Franklin's "Rottiness of Heart."