[Hardy-l] re: having kittens

[Jackie Wilkinson]

Carolyn wrote: 

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.

 

I am sorry, Carolyn if you find the comments I made offensive, offensive it
may have been, historically inaccurate it is not. I did not mean to imply
that all working class families treated unwanted offspring in this way, but
believe me it certainly did happen and in the families of people known to
me. Disposing of unwanted children goes back to Greek times and beyond -
remember Oedipus? In the Alpine regions too, particularly in remote regions,
babies were left exposed on the mountains to die. 

History is often offensive, children working under looms at the age of five
or six is offensive, but it happened. Irish immigrant families living in
tiny cellars fifteen and sixteen in tiny rooms living in their own filth is
offensive but it happened in Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester and undoubtedly
other cities too. It is offensive that when we were fighting to abolish
slavery many people were living in no worse conditions than the slaves. In
Victorian Britain humanity towards the individual, the group, the class or
the race happened - even, and perhaps especially, in Hardy's Dorset. One
cannot deny the past only work to ensure the future is better.

Jacky

 

  _____  

From: hardy-l-bounces at coyote.csusm.edu
[mailto:hardy-l-bounces at coyote.csusm.edu] On Behalf Of carolyn mcgrath
Sent: 11 August 2007 11:25
To: hardy-l at coyote.csusm.edu
Subject: [Hardy-l] re: having kittens

 

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. Try
<http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTEydmViNG02BF9TAzIxMTQ3MTcxOTAEc2VjA
21haWwEc2xrA3RhZ2xpbmU>  it now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://coyote.csusm.edu/pipermail/hardy-l/attachments/20070811/be34aef4/attachment-0001.html