Please post your discussion question as a comment to this post. Remember that good discussion questions are ones where the other students can offer their educated opinions. Discussion questions are not questions that require additional research and they are not questions about the reading. They are questions that ask the other students to think critically about the reading.
To make a comment on this post, you can either sign in with your WCS gmail account and your name will be automatically recorded, or you can sign in as "Anonymous". If you choose the second option, you must include your name in the post.
I would like for you all to interact with the questions before our in class discussion, therefore, you will need to first answer the question that the person before you has asked (in paragraph form).
Then this time, you will write a brief summary of the folk way that you chose, and then you will write your question. Remember to do this as comment to this post. The first person to post his or her question obviously does not need to answer a question.
You will need to post your answer to the previous question and your new question by 7 am on the day of the discussion so that I have time to read through the questions and print them out for the discussion.
Under Motives for Migrations, they explain how the people who would migrate would usually be the families. Why do you think families were the major movement rather than individuals?
ReplyDelete-Jenni Salas
-Jenni Salas
ReplyDeleteSummary of Gender Ways:
The ratio between men and women in the backcountry was almost completely even. The men were seen as the warriors or the fighters, while the women were seen as the workers or slaves for the husbands. In some respects, women were treated equally as men were. In other respects, women were rarely given the same treatment as men were. The male was required to be the head of the household. A women's identity in the backcountry was submerged into her husband's status. Love and violence, together, were common in the backcountry marriages. There were clear distinctions between the masculinity role and the femininity role. There was an extreme male domination and female dependency within families.
I believe that it was much easier for families to more than individuals for many different reasons. I think that the most probable reason is that the people moving from the other lands believed that they could make a better life for themselves in America. They wanted to escape high rents, low wages, heavy taxes, and short leases. These are major problems for people who are trying to support a family. They most likely had no other option but to move away.
ReplyDeleteSummary of Power Ways:
The politics of the backcountry gave rise to politics, which were very different from the classical ideas of democracy and aristocracy. Many of the men were large landowners, merchants, magistrates, speculators and millers, which were considered men of influence. Often men, who rose to high positions of leadership, did so by doing decisive and bold acts. The qualifications that it took to vote were highly permissive and often permissively enforced.
What were some of the major problems with settling in the backcountry?
-Pablo Schwiep
-Chandler Puig
ReplyDeleteIn response to Pablo: Some of the major problems with settling in the back country was first, the over crowding. The mass migration was not often and made it difficult to settle. Secondly, many of the back settlers where extremely poor. Many of the settlers came for materials. However some historians disagree, it was said that most of the people who migrated were either middle class or dirt poor. Moving into a new environment with not a lot of money is a major problem in settling anywhere. Also, when the people arrived in the New World there was intense prejudice from different ethnic groups and religious groups.
Summary of Dress Ways:
The dress of people in the back country varied on status and person. Married women dress modestly with long dresses and heavy shawls that draped over their head and shoulders. Elderly women wore heavy-hooded bonnets made of linen and coarse shoes, or "shoepacks" as called in the 18th century. The women wore refined colors such as white, and made all their clothes by their own spinning. The dresses where so admired they would drape them around the walls as decorations. However, very different than how other English men dressed, men in the back country wore shirts of linen in the summer and deerskin in the winter. Broad seems on the mens shirts ran through the back and front. The pants men wore were loose flowing trousers or breeches. That dress came to be known as the pioneer dress of the frontier.
Question: What where some of the reasons people moved to the backcountry to settle? Also, what reasons that the article gave examples of would you believe are most important? Such as the economic reasons, social status reasons, etc.
Response to Chandler's Question:
ReplyDeleteThe major reasons people moved to the backcountry were economic and social. The backsettlers usually belonged to the middle class of Europe and they came to the backcountry looking for a better life. Many had economic interests and were hoping to find cheaper rent and a higher income. Although many of the backsettlers were considered poor and even called "scum" by some colonists, they were actually not the poorest people back in their home countries, but they were still looking for a way to increase their quality of life in the backcountry. A small percentage of the backsettlers were from the gentry class, and their reasons for moving may have been political and social in nature because they may have wanted to have even more power in America. Overall, I think the most important reason for the backsettlers' migration was economic because the majority were relatively poor and came to the backcountry to look for economic gain.
Summary of Food Ways:
In the backcountry, food ways were products of both frontier conditions and of the folk customs that the people carried with them from North Britain. Many travellers who visited the backcountry remarked that the backsettlers ate food that other people would give to their animals. One important staple in the backsettlers’ diet was clabber, a dish composed of sour milk, curds, and whey, which was called “spoiled milk” in England. Also, the backsettlers ate several types of bread, including “hearth bread,” “griddle cakes,” and “pancakes.” In addition, the people of the backcountry relied on vegetables for nutrition, some of which were the potato and maize. Many families had a “truck patch” where pumpkins, squash, gourds, beans, cress, lettuce, and corn were grown. With regards to meat, the backsettlers mostly ate pork. Although swine was not considered suitable for eating back in England, that taboo was forgotten in the backcountry because pigs were so abundant. Furthermore, whiskey was a common table drink, and it was even served to children. Finally, the methods of cooking in the backcountry consisted mostly of boiling. Soups and stews were everyday meals. Cleanliness was actually discouraged by the folklore, as it was considered unlucky to wash the milk churn and frogs were dropped into milk so that it would thicken.
Question:
The article mentions that many of the backsettlers were proud despite the fact most of them were poor. Why do you think that was? Also, how do you think that might have helped them survive and develop their own identity in a place where they were looked down upon by many people?
-Isabella Pestana
Response to Chandler: People moved to the backcountry for reasons such as economic, political, and social reasons. I think that the social reasoning as well as the economic reasoning of moving to the American backcountry is very important. People had different social reasoning for moving into the backcountry. For example, people would move because their family was moving. People would also go to the backcountry because they did not agree on how the government should be. Many poor settlers would move to the backcountry in hope in getting more money than they use to.
ReplyDeleteSummary of Death Ways: Ever since the first colony in America, death has always been a problem. Things such as wars or disease caused death to many settlers at a young age. The backcountry was a much healthier environment than the British borderlands so many people did not get a disease as much as others anywhere else. The downside to the backcountry was the fact that it is know for violence. The backcountry had a repetition as being know as the "bloody ground". Bandits roamed the wilderness and the settlers and the natives always warred against each other. Wars usually broke out at least every generation. The violence that happens in the backcountry is the main reasons for death in the backcountry. Disease was still a problem and cause of death, but not as much as violence.
Question: Would you rather move to the backcountry because its a healthier environment meaning less disease, or would you stay away from the backcountry because of the violence?
-Brandon Lyn
Delete@Brandon
ReplyDeleteI think I would probably go to the backcountry due to the possibility of having a better life for myself and my family. Even though the are was a little bit rough around the edges, I most definitely think I would be able to handle it. The equality and the hope of success probably would've fueled me to put up with the violence and other downsides of the region.
Summary of Rank Ways:
The backcountry was not exactly the most welcoming type of place when it came to more respected and slightly pretentious settlers from other parts of America. This was because there was such a refreshing air of equality flowing throughout the region. All of the settlers were not necessarily successful colonists who were so desperate for a clean slate that they moved to where barely anyone lived. The people all ate, lived, worked, played, and grew old together. There were no significant differences between the rich and the poor, because no one really thought it mattered. Basically, they were all friends. Rich people from other sections of the colonized portions of America didn't particularly enjoy visiting because they felt that they didn't get the "respect" they assumed they deserved, when they were just treated as nothing more than the next person.
Now, the fact that the rich and the poor acted similarly didn't mean that there were no separate social classes, because there were. The upper class or "ascendancy" was made up of immigrant settlers who were lucky enough to have more inherited money, as they also had easier access to more money. Soon after, the rich made their class distinct and elite through marriage and family ties. However, these people were not set apart by their manners or education. They were simply richer. Under them were the "yeomanry", or middle class. This class was made up of farmers with little land and some animals, in which they took great pride. Finally, lay the lowest class. These people were either squatters or tenants, meaning that they didn't own anything at all, and hence were the poorest group. They received many derogatory and clever nicknames from writers, some of which still survive today, such as hoosier, red-neck, and even cracker.
Question: What do you think of the social class system of the backcountry? Was it too fluid, too strict, or perfectly valid. Be thorough!!!!
xoxo
-♡Alex Betancourt♡
@BETY
ReplyDeleteI think the social class system is perfectly valid. I think it is valid because it is very similar to the social system in our country today. When it comes to education everyone is pretty much even. Everyone gets an opportunity to be educated. The quality and focus is not the same in all cases. The backcountry was certainly different to how it was in most places. In most places back then only the rich could afford to be educated. In the backcountry the rich were only really differentiated by the amount of money they had. The real difference was seen when comparing the people at the top of the social pyramid to the people at the bottom. It is definitely valid though, if people of all social classes interacted constantly it would make sense for them to be similar.
Summary of Name ways:
It was very common for people to have biblical, teutonic, and border saint names. One very popular biblical name was John. Common teutonic names were Robert and Richard. Popular Saint names were Andrew and David. Patrick was a very popular name in Northern Ireland. Saint Patrick was the person who converted Northern Ireland to Christianity. However many of the saint names that were popular in Britain, were not popular in other regions in British America. Patrick was very uncommon in Anglican Virginia and Puritan New England. Backsettlers were more in to teutonic and Scandinavian names. They liked names that were unfamiliar to other English-speaking cultures( Archibald, Owen, Barry). They also liked to use names of former Scottish kings and border war heroes (James, Charles, Alexander). These naming ways had been popular in North Britain not the South. Backcountry was not completely unique in naming ways. They also passed down names down through generations. The first-born son was usually named after his farther and the second born after the father. This was very common in the South of England and Virginia?
Question:
Are any of these naming ways still commonly used today? Which ones?
^^^TOMAS
DeleteIn reply to Alex: I believe that the social class in the backcountry was perfectly valid because this structure is very similar to the social structure of today. There were people with money, people with enough money to get by, and people who did not really care about money and lived essentially wherever they wanted to and bothered the other two classes. Now, I'm not saying that the all the lower class does today is lay low and bother the middle and upper class. I'm saying that the social classes today are very easily identified by the amount of money that they have and the way that they live as was the case in the American backcountry. Therefore, the social classes in the backcountry are perfectly valid because that is what has made America the country that it is today.
ReplyDeleteSummary of building ways:
The American backcountry was mostly made up of Scot-Irish immigrants who moved from the North and South of Britain and brought with them their housing structures known as cabins. In the mother country, cabins were built by people who were accustomed to moving very often and lived a very mobile lifestyle. In America, the cabin is often thought of as made out of logs therefore receives the name log cabin, however, in Britain, cabins were often made out of sand and poles. The new colonists quickly realized that these building materials would not suffice in the weather of the American backcountry so they switched to building the cabins out of logs that were stacked neatly and sealed with clay. Although the building materials had to be changed, the basic layout of the cabins stayed the same. It consisted of one large room with a fire place and chimney and several small openings for windows and two doors, one in the front and one in the back. The family would congregate, sleep, and eat in this one room without any privacy. People from the cities thought that having no privacy was a very odd thing but the Appalachian settlers did not think anything of it because that is how they had grown up and how they raised their children.
Up until just before the WWII, a large portion of the people in the Appalachian mountains still occupied log cabins. They became a sort of way of life for these people and almost revolutionized homes. Today, there are mobile homes that people live in and they are loosely modeled on the log cabins of the back country which were the original mobile homes.
Question: If you were a child raised in the American backcountry, would you have stayed there and lived out your days in a cabin in the woods or left to discover the other treasures that America had to offer?
Sarah Kern
In response to Sarah: If i was a child raised in the American backcountry I would have stayed and lived out my days in a cabin in the woods. I would have probably stayed because it's all that I know and that I'm comfortable with. I wouldn't want to leave a stable home that I have for a trip that might lead to nothing. If I went to discover treasures in America I might come back empty handed and it would have all been for nothing.
ReplyDeleteSummary on Magic Ways:
Magic in the backcountry was very superstitious. There was a lot of talk about witches. People believed that if an old woman had only one tooth she was a witch or that the howling of dogs means that a witch is present. However, in the backcountry no person was known to have be executed for witchcraft. In fact, normal people not just so called witches would practice witchcraft. In the backcountry, it was a normal to believe in witchcraft or silly superstitions. The people of the backcountry used superstition and witchcraft to try and control what was around them. They thought that with witchcraft they could manipulate the things that occurred to them. However, it wasn't all witchcraft the people of the backcountry was also very interested in astrology. They believed the stars and planets had power over earthly events.
Question: Would you want to move to the backcountry? Why or why not?
-Tiffany Lopez
In reply to Sarah, i definatly would have lived in a cabin in the woods because it would be awsome to not have to deal with other people through out the country. Going off to change my destiny...I am not about that. I think it would be great to just live ina cabin in the middle of the woods, and live off the land by killing deer and other animals, and growing crops to eat.
ReplyDeleteSummary of Learning ways:
This text talks about what it was like to grow up in the backcountry and the type of education most people got. Back in these early times people really had no form of great education to learn and expand their minds. Most people could not read or write, and if you could do either of these you were most likely a white male. School in these days was also expensive for most small town people, and most could not afford to send their kids, pay the money, and lose somebody to help them out with jobs on the farm. In those times, only 10% of all kids eligible to go to school participated at all. This text also talks about a governor in North Carolina who was also a sheriff or some tax collector, but he could not write correctly. When he needed to send a letter to congress he wrote it and sent it to some dude who could decifer it and acctually turn it into grammer. This passage also includes some of the first colleges that had a wopping 60 students! Most of these students hated college and would do what was called barring out. Which ment they would literally lock the professors out of the school and would only let them in if they would alow them vacation.
Question: If you could go back in time and live in the backcountry days instead of today would you?
James Barrios
bro you beat me to it:( -Anthony Villa
DeleteAnswer to Sarah:
ReplyDeleteAlthough the idea of leaving a small cabin to venture out seems adventurous and tempting it would be hard for me. For us today a cabin would be awkward but this is all those people knew. Leaving and not raising your family where you spent your whole life is hard for everybody and so is leaving the people you spent a good part of your life sharing one room with.
Summary of Freedom Ways:
The ways of freedom in the American back settlements was based around a single concept which was Natural Liberty. The concept of natural liberty was brought about in Northern England and pretty much meant that man's right to liberty is a natural thing. They believe that their right to liberty was like a God given right and that all man seek it. a British borderer Named Thomas Brockbank from Westmorland wrote on the subject of natural liberty "liberty is a thing which every animate creature does naturally desire, yea and even vegetables themselves also seem to have a tendency towards it. But man, the perfection of the vast creation, who is endowed with a rational soul, does more eagerly pursue freedom, because he has knowledge and can give a just estimate of the true value thereof." Although this concept of natural liberty died down in Britain, it flourished in the Back country. Their idea of natural liberty was brought about by a complex interaction, between the American environment and a European folk culture. In an environment where they were remote and away from the government, this idea thrived. Patrick Henry, a patriot and great writer, was a strong believer in this concept of freedom due to the fact of him being raised in the back country. He even called the king a tyrant and said he forfeited his right as king when he oppressed the colonist.
Question:
How do you think the American backcountry idea of natural liberty compares to our idea of freedom as citizens of the modern day United States?
Anthony Thomas "ITYC" Villanueva
Answer to Sarah's question:
ReplyDeleteIf I was a child raised in the American backcountry, I would have stayed and lived my days in a cabin in the woods. I would have choose this over leaving and discovering other treasures that America has to offer because this is what would have been safe and comfortable to me. The cities look poorly upon the backcountry's ways so I would have not fit or been happy in the city. I would enjoy my life with my family in the woods in our cabin. We would be a communal family with our neighbors and live the life I was used to growing up in.
Family Ways of the Backcountry
The family ways of the backcountry originated from the borderlands of North Britain and adapted to an American environment with little change. Beyond the nuclear and extended core there were two “rings” which were unique to this culture in representing the structure of a family: derbfine and the clan in North Britain. Derbfine is described as, “a unit that defined descent of poverty and power.” Also, derbfine connected families together. The clan in North Britain consisted of a group of families who lived near each other and agreed upon most things. They had no formal councils. The migration from North Britain to the backcountry tended to be in clans. Serial and stream migration were familiar concepts to the people of the backcountry (“family” was an entire clan). The clan system spread rapidly due to its great results. In most cases, the wife and husband came from the same clan. Customs regulated a new wife and the family she joined by marriage. In 25% of marriages the wife and groom shared the same surname. Nuclear household were large in the backcountry.
?: If you were a young adult and had the option to stay in North Britain or move to the American backcountry in a clan which one would you choose and why?
Emily Brais
In response to Tiffany- No, I would not want to move to the back country. Although a beautiful place, it was away from society and sort of a place of exile. It was for the people who were not wanted in the city and I would hate to feel unwanted as I was where I came from. Also it was under developed compared to the rest of the colonies and inhabited by powerful and dangerous Indian tribes.
ReplyDeleteReligious ways: In the backcountry many of the new comers became Anglican preachers and try to go around converting people. Many of these ministers were greeted with hostility. There was still a lot hostility in Christianity as well and most of the people, Protestants and Presbyterians, wanted to hear sermons of fire and brimstone and about damnation as they had become accustomed too. Although there were some who accepted these new comers, many dd not and they were rejected as they tried to spread their Anglican ways. Also backcountry meetings began where they would have large religious meetings. People thought they were starter in America, but they were actually brought over from Great Brittain.
Question: If you were a new comer to the colonies and were treated the way you were and forced to move to the back country how would you react and would you stay in the colonies or move back to your country?
Brian Alvarez
In response to Sarah: In my opinion, I would have adventured out to see what the rest of America had to offer. I would have wanted to go into the colonies to get an education, go to a university, and study for a profession. Seeing a change in faces is always something I would have wanted. Personally, I do not like the feeling of a small community without privacy. Anyways, venturing out would be my decision.
ReplyDeleteSpeech ways: This article was very short and very simple. It wrote about the dialect of the Scotch-Irish people in the Appalachian mountains was different than those in the cities. The dialect originated in Northern Ireland over 200 years before English colonization in America. Their vocabulary was different, their use of prepositions was different, and so was their pronunciation. For example they would say "critter" for "creature", or "winder" for "window". They would also use different words such as "man" for "husband". The language is still used to day mostly in the southern states. Its also known as "southern drawl".
My Question to You: How do you think the American-English language would be like without the influence of the Scotch-Irish dialect?
Jarred Vanden Bosch
Response to Jarred: I believe that without the influence of the Scottish-Irish dialect the American-English language it would result in a less complex English vocabulary since many words in the American-English language originate from the Scottish-Irish dialect. In addition, the Scottish-Irish dialect had an impact on modern-day grammar so had it not been for the Scottish-Irish dialect the American-English language would most likely be very different then it is nowadays.
ReplyDeleteSports Ways: The sports of the people of the backcountry had originated from the northern borders of Britain during the 17-18th centuries. Most of the sporting events in which the people of the backcountry had partaken in were quite violent activities. An example of these activities was the game “Scots and English” in this game the goal was to make it successfully to the other side without being captured. Another sporting event of great significance during the time period was a sort of combat referred to as “wrasslin” which had also originated from the northern borders of Britain. In addition, there was another form of combat which was even more violent than wrasslin it was called “rough and tumble”. In “rough and tumble” the two competitors would fight one another and crowds would usually gather around to witness the fight these brawls often resulted in severe injuries like becoming permanently blind. In this backcountry culture there were multiple sources of entertainment that included the spilling of blood they included maiming, castration, and blinding. Some other competitions and activities in which the people participated in were running, leaping, and the throwing of projectiles like axes and tomahawks.
Question: Most sports that the people of the backcountry partook in were very violent knowing this would you have been willing to partake in any of these violent sports?
- Alex Shahriari
Answer to Shari: After seeing other people get seriously hurt I would limit myself to just the running, leaping, and throwing of projectiles. This would help me keep all my teeth and eyes but I would still be in the games. I believe I would also enjoy watching the fights and the wrasslin and the rough and tumble.
DeleteWork Ways: To all of the visitors to the backcountry, the backcountry people seemed to be some of the laziest people around yet this was not true. The backcountry people just worked differently from the visitors. Many of the people lived of a combination of farming and herding which was very laborious during one part of the year and very easy the other parts. They also practiced the rotation of fields which led to them not working it and seeming that much more lazy. The land that these people farmed on was not the most fertile at all as after just two years nothing could be grown so they had to herd their cattle and force them to fertilize the ground with their excrements. When herding these backcountry people let their herds roam free which saved labor but made them use an excessive amount of land and only rounded up the herd to sell them or to fertilize the fields. These people even began growing flax and began making their own clothes in the cabins or in groups resembling a factory so even the women always had something to do. These people were in no way lazy, they just worked the land in a way that it only required labor in certain points of time.
Question: If you were a backcountry man and you were deciding what to do regarding herding and/or farming which choice would you choose and would you choose to try for a labor intensive year-round way of working or would you attempt the way all the others did it only requiring heavy labor once a year?
George Butler
In response to Jarred:
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the English language would only differ mildly. Indeed the Scotish-Irish dialect had some influence over the American-English language, but much of that vernacular was disposed and never fused into the English language. The vocabulary of our language today resembles that of Europe, England specifically. Years ago, the colonists continued to speak in the English tongue and brought the language of their mother country with them. All in all, America is a melting pot. Clearly, in one way or another the Scotch-Irish dialect had some sort of impact on the English language of today, but nothing so severe that it has been made obvious.
Wealth Ways:
This article reiterated what many of us already know about the "wealthy" during this time. In the 1850's and 60's, the majority of adult men (both free and enslaved) owned no land whatsoever. A small percentile of white men owned most of the land (82%) and 99% of the slaves. This was only the top 20% of men in the region. There was a great deal of stratification throughout England and carried on through the colonies. Under the wealthy land owners there were not defined classes, but just small groups of people rather. There was a small group of farmers that were regarded slightly above the commoners or even slaves. There was also a very poor distribution of wealth during this time, where the majority of money was concentrated within the upper class. In other areas, such as Scotland, the distribution was even more severe. However, the competition between the peoples of the back country initiated itself.Land remained a prized possession and remained in the
grasp of the wealthy. The thought that in the backcountry wealth was evenly distributed is a mistake.
My Question:
In your opinion, would the evolution of the back country have been different if the concentration of money and land had shifted from the already wealthy to the remainder of the people? Or would this just have hindered their development even more? Explain why or why not.
Alex Machado
In response to Jarred,
ReplyDeleteIf there was not the Scotch-Irish influence on our dialect, we would be talking and sounding a lot different then we do today. We would talk like more European English and have our own style, as that of the Scottish and Irish are much different. We, in the US, have created our own kind of sound over the years, distinct to any other place. But, still, I believe that the Scotch-Irish influence on our first people here in the states had a big influence, and without it, we would be sounding much different.
Child Ways:
Children were made a huge deal and their prebirth months were just as big, if not bigger, than when they were actually born. There was much talk around town about the family and the grandmother has a big part in it. "No self-respecting mother neglected this form or prenatal care". Once born, the family takes much care of the child and shape how it will grow up. For example, in the boys, they want to foster fierce pride, stubborn independence, and a warrior's courage into them. With child rearing, both sexes took care of the child, and it was not left only to the mother to take care of. The children were given very much freedom and respect from a young age, and from as young as they could put on their first pair of breeches, the boy could toddle after his parents on the farm. The parents were extremely permissive, but at times did get aggressive, a lot angrier than they should.
Question: Why do you believe that children were made such a big deal, cared for the way that they were, and given such freedom and trust in a society that was pretty uptight?
Adrian Mayans
In response to Brian- I would probably try to keep my pride but I wouldn't return to my country. Traveling across the ocean takes a lot of money and provisions that the emigrants wouldn't have. I would learn to live in the backcountry
ReplyDeleteTime ways:
Backcountry seasons and time were not the same as other regional cultures of British America. Everyone had different seasons when marriage was common and acceptable. They organized their lives by events in the Christian calendar. Many borderers practiced strange rituals such as "old Christmas" in January. They kept other traditions such as fireworks during Christmas and "pace egging" during Easter. They had Halloween traditions like young folks day and old folks night. Cockfighting and heavy drinking was common in the backcountry more then anywhere else. Sunday was a day of worship, Monday and Tuesday were days for visiting. It was unlucky to start things on Saturday or Friday
Question: if you had the option to leave your country and go to the backcountry, would you? Why?
Ransom