Changing Attitudes For much of the nineteenth century, most people believed that people were poor because they wasted their money. By 1900, public opinion was changing. People realised that poverty could be caused by many factors. They also felt that the government should give some help to the poor instead of leaving it all to charity. Social Reformers This attitude change was partly down to the work of social reformers.
There were also other key factors such as the ideas of new liberalism, national efficiency, political pragmatism and national security to be taken into consideration of why the government changed its policy. It can be argued that the investigations of Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree results into Britain’s poverty were a significant motivating factor behind social reform in the nineteenth century. It revealed the true and mainly unsuspected levels of poverty which the wealthier classes of Britain were unaware of and was difficult to ignore as it was based on hard scientific data that the Victorians admired greatly and not simply an opinion by leading the government by abandoning its policy and adapting a more interventionist approach. The first investigation was conducted by Charles Booth, originally a Liverpool ship owner but by 1889 a London businessman, who doubted the claims of socialists that a quarter of the population lived in extreme poverty. At first he believed that the level of poverty in Britain was limited and could be dealt with by charity.
How did society's attitude change towards the poor from 1830-1914? How did the Government deal with poverty during this period? Before the 1830's people who were subject to poverty were looked upon as lazy and deserving of their situation. People of this time thought the main three causes of poverty was idealness, drunkenness and thriftiness. Factors that contributed to changes from this were help from social investigators like Booth and Rowntree, artistic contributions from Dickens and Dore and a realisation that the Boer's war impaired Britain’s national efficiency.
How far was hunger the main cause of the Russian Civil War? [12+3] This essay will examine how far hunger was the main cause of the Russian civil war. It will do so by evaluating and considering hunger as several other key factors roles in the build up to the civil war. There were many reasons for people to oppose the Bolsheviks. One of the main reasons for this opposition was the economic and social hardships Russia was going through particularly in the months after the October revolution.
She advocated better factory and slum conditions. Another example is Muckrakers, who wrote articles exposing urban political corruption and wrote about the worst aspects of American life; Ida Tarbell is an example of a Muckraker. These reformers and other people wanted to improve certain parts of America, and they were successful. The Progressive Era reformers and the federal government were both fairly successful in bringing out reform at a national level because they ultimately helped the U.S. economy, looked out for the interests of the people, and engaged in political reformation that made the system more democratic. The reformers and federal government helped America economically by successfully creating reforms on a national level.
For example, there were some upper class such as Alexander Cassatt, who was in charge of the Pennsylvania Railroad also supporters of regulation and political Reform. Second, the Populist movement was fighting for money while the Progressives were pursuing higher profit. People who made up primarily of poor farmers just want to have a common life with others; they found that movement did influence the economy and politics. Then the Populist Party started to fight for moral regeneration, political democracy, and anti-monopoly. In weekly reading, The Common People Are Being Robbed, Mary indicated that “The Puritans fleeing from oppression became oppressors”, and so did the farmers.
McMath, Jr., Edward C. American Populism: A Social history 1877-1898. Hill and Wang, 1992, 211 I believe that McMath wrote the book because he wanted the reader to understand the hardships of the lower classes back in the populism era. He gave us key area’s to look at such as New York and Texas. It shows how the workers and farmers were treated unfairly as well as looked down upon by the upper class. He captures the populism of that time from the strikes all the way to the farmer’s debt.
During 1906 to 1914 the Liberals passed reforms to try and improve the lives of the British people. Booth and Rowntree impacted the way people viewed the poor, they conducted a report which identified two areas of poor. Primary poverty was due to low wage, unemployment, sickness and old age. And secondary poverty was the source of laziness and citizens wasting money by spending it on drink and gambling. When the report was released, people began to see the true extent of poverty and that the British people couldn’t fulfil their basic needs and provide for themselves food, water, clothing and shelter.
“Many Americans held the president personally to blame for the crisis and began calling the shantytowns that unemployed people established on the outskirts of cities “Hoovervilles” (B, 676; CD) The 1930’s also show examples of our continuing inequality in America. As the white males began to lose their jobs and some African Americans continued to work, people believed in this crisis white males had first priority when it came to jobs and started replacing the African Americans. (B, 665; CD) Mexicans during the depression were rounded up and were forced to
Everywhere you go, poverty can be found. There are families living on the streets because they can’t afford a house. A few families are starving and cold because they lost everything they own in this economic depression. The reason is because rich people won’t spend a few of their dollars to help our economic situation while the poor put forth everything they had. I believe that it would be in the world’s best interest if state governments would hire thieves to steal from the rich and give to the poor.