[Hardy-l] re: having kittens

[carolyn mcgrath]

Hi Jackie, Rosemarie and others interested in the historical, cultural and political,
   
  I was genuinely shocked by Jackie's comments that, 'Certainly in the working classes babies tended to be viewed perhaps more in the light of a dog having pups or a cat having
kittens, and just as these offspring were disposed of so it was on occasions with children, particularly those born out of wedlock. To be blunt  'putting them on the back of the fire' immediately after birth was not unknown.'
   
    I am sure Jackie did not mean to offend when she wrote those lines, merely to point out changes in attitudes, but anything that denies humanity to an individual, a group, class or race of people is offensive not to mention historically inaccurate. The accounts of the shock, outrage and pity felt at the plight of the working class played a significant role in changing the laws around child labour, sanitation and education.
   
And surely reading Hardy affirms the humanity of the working classes and their plight under post-industrial capitalism - agricultural and industrial? Yes, capitalism is dehumanising but acceptance of ideologies to justify that inhumanity merely maintains the status quo. As Engels pointed out at the time, 'In death as in life the poor in England are treated in an utterly shameless manner. Their corpses have no better fate than the carcasses of animals.' But this along with all the other inequalities and injustices were what the working class and humanitarians across class and political divides struggle against.
   
   
  best wishes


Carolyn McGrath
       
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://coyote.csusm.edu/pipermail/hardy-l/attachments/20070811/c9a93b88/attachment.html