Doing your childs homework
- Thread starter Bigtallfatbloke
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Dave5N
Über Member
- Location
- Outside The Little Nibble
Noodley said:
You need to take more care with your typing, Noodley.
That number doesn't work.
OP
OP
Bigtallfatbloke
New Member
The text that you have entered is too long (13444 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long.
Ok here goes...
Ok here goes...
OP
OP
Bigtallfatbloke
New Member
Public health problems in mid 19th century British cities
Question A
What is the message of the Cartoon?
This cartoon clearly shows that drinking water from the water pump was a carrier of Cholera, a deadly disease of the time. It also shows us that it was mostly the poor people who had to drink from the pump, and that even though the local parish council provided the pump water free of charge that they did nothing to ensure it was safe to drink. Perhaps they were under no legal obligation to do so under the law at the time?
Question B
“Source 1 is useless to a historian of mid 19th century public health problems”. Do you agree?
No I do not agree with this statement. Although it is true that a skeleton cannot dispense water from the pump, the cartoonist was making a point and using artistic licence to do so. The meaning of the cartoon is made more powerful by the use of the skeleton, inferring that ‘death’ is being served up at the pump to those who have no choice (the poor) to drink from it. A historian can gain a good impression of the reality of the conditions at the time from such a cartoon, which was perhaps drawn in the absence of photographic equipment.
Question C
Why was Mayhew horrified by what he saw in a London Street?
I think he was horrified because he himself did dot have to live in such conditions and was not expecting them to be so terrible. He was shocked by the toilets emptying directly into the ‘narrow slip of water’ in the street which was also the main source of drinking and washing water for the poor people who lived there. He saw a dead child who had died from Cholera, and saw people throwing buckets of toilet waste directly into the water in the street. he heard, from the people there, that they did not believe their landlord would ever provide fresh drinking water. Maybe he wouldn’t because of the cost to him and because the law at the time did not make him do so?
Question D
Write down who or what is to blame for bad public health for each source provided.
Source 1:
The water from the pump provided by the parish council is to blame
Source 2:
The lack of baths
The use of “privy pails” because flush toilets were rare then.
The flat bottoms of the sewers
Stone drains that seeped/leaked
unpaved streets with ankle deep mud
Source 3:
I think this picture is saying that the water quality of the Thames was to blame for spreading diseases. This was probably because the street water and sewers eventually went into the Thames perhaps?
Source 4:
The toilets because they were not connected to the sewers but a cesspit instead.
Some cesspits were not emptied because people could not afford to pay the night soilmen to empty them.
Source 5a & b:
The heat of the summer
The water quality of the Thames
The Members pf Parliament (MPs) who did nothing
The rich people who refused to help pass new laws because it would cost them money in extra taxes and who used excuses (like believing that more taxes would weaken British industry)to pretend that this wasn’t the real reason.
Source 6:
This picture implies that there was a lot of overcrowding and unhygienic conditions. The title suggests that this ‘court’ (these conditions) was the perfect breeding ground for Cholera. This source leaves the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions as to who/what was to blame as there is no text to go with it.
Source 7:
The ‘narrow slip of water’ running down the street was the only source of drinking/washing water
The sewers emptied directly into the drinking/washing water.
Toilets were built over this water
The Landlord for not providing clean water to his tenants.
Question E
For each source (except 5) give one reason why it could be seen as reliable and one reason why it could be seen as unreliable.
Source 1:
Reliable – it was drawn at the time (1850’s)
Unreliable – it is a cartoon from a ‘popular’ magazine called Punch.
Source 2:
Reliable – ‘Victorian web’ is a website partially funded by The University Scholars Programme, National University of Singapore
Question A
What is the message of the Cartoon?
This cartoon clearly shows that drinking water from the water pump was a carrier of Cholera, a deadly disease of the time. It also shows us that it was mostly the poor people who had to drink from the pump, and that even though the local parish council provided the pump water free of charge that they did nothing to ensure it was safe to drink. Perhaps they were under no legal obligation to do so under the law at the time?
Question B
“Source 1 is useless to a historian of mid 19th century public health problems”. Do you agree?
No I do not agree with this statement. Although it is true that a skeleton cannot dispense water from the pump, the cartoonist was making a point and using artistic licence to do so. The meaning of the cartoon is made more powerful by the use of the skeleton, inferring that ‘death’ is being served up at the pump to those who have no choice (the poor) to drink from it. A historian can gain a good impression of the reality of the conditions at the time from such a cartoon, which was perhaps drawn in the absence of photographic equipment.
Question C
Why was Mayhew horrified by what he saw in a London Street?
I think he was horrified because he himself did dot have to live in such conditions and was not expecting them to be so terrible. He was shocked by the toilets emptying directly into the ‘narrow slip of water’ in the street which was also the main source of drinking and washing water for the poor people who lived there. He saw a dead child who had died from Cholera, and saw people throwing buckets of toilet waste directly into the water in the street. he heard, from the people there, that they did not believe their landlord would ever provide fresh drinking water. Maybe he wouldn’t because of the cost to him and because the law at the time did not make him do so?
Question D
Write down who or what is to blame for bad public health for each source provided.
Source 1:
The water from the pump provided by the parish council is to blame
Source 2:
The lack of baths
The use of “privy pails” because flush toilets were rare then.
The flat bottoms of the sewers
Stone drains that seeped/leaked
unpaved streets with ankle deep mud
Source 3:
I think this picture is saying that the water quality of the Thames was to blame for spreading diseases. This was probably because the street water and sewers eventually went into the Thames perhaps?
Source 4:
The toilets because they were not connected to the sewers but a cesspit instead.
Some cesspits were not emptied because people could not afford to pay the night soilmen to empty them.
Source 5a & b:
The heat of the summer
The water quality of the Thames
The Members pf Parliament (MPs) who did nothing
The rich people who refused to help pass new laws because it would cost them money in extra taxes and who used excuses (like believing that more taxes would weaken British industry)to pretend that this wasn’t the real reason.
Source 6:
This picture implies that there was a lot of overcrowding and unhygienic conditions. The title suggests that this ‘court’ (these conditions) was the perfect breeding ground for Cholera. This source leaves the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions as to who/what was to blame as there is no text to go with it.
Source 7:
The ‘narrow slip of water’ running down the street was the only source of drinking/washing water
The sewers emptied directly into the drinking/washing water.
Toilets were built over this water
The Landlord for not providing clean water to his tenants.
Question E
For each source (except 5) give one reason why it could be seen as reliable and one reason why it could be seen as unreliable.
Source 1:
Reliable – it was drawn at the time (1850’s)
Unreliable – it is a cartoon from a ‘popular’ magazine called Punch.
Source 2:
Reliable – ‘Victorian web’ is a website partially funded by The University Scholars Programme, National University of Singapore
OP
OP
Bigtallfatbloke
New Member
“Since January 2000, the University Scholars Programme (USP), a highly selective honors program at the National University of Singapore, has supported the Victorian Web's two websites. Between January 2000 and December 2001 the USP also funded two senior research fellows, Dr. Marjorie Bloy and Dr. Jon van Whye, and a half dozen student assistants, who worked on The Victorian Web Books section and other major projects, including the site's materials on science, technology, and political and social history.
The University Scholars Programme, which is intended to produce venturesome, creative leaders, draws upon the top students from various faculties at the National University of Singapore, and it also considers applications from qualified foreign exchange students. During their first two or three years in the Programme, University Scholars take modules (courses) in their majors plus eight others selected from the eleven other areas of the Programme, These modules are distinguished by student discussion, independent projects, and emphasis upon introducing students to the culture of individual disciplines. These first-tier modules bring together students from different departments and faculties who would normally not study together. Second-tier or advanced modules, which generally correspond to advanced third- and fourth-year modules, are taught in the individual faculties”. (Source: www.victorianweb.org)
Unreliable – it is a website whose authors were not alive during the 19th century and as such relies on ‘second hand’ information and research rather than first hand knowledge and experience.
Source 3:
Reliable – The cartoon was drawn and published during the period in question and as such is likely to reflect the mood and conditions of the time as experienced first hand by the artist.
Unreliable – We do not know who the artist was or indeed what his experiences actually were. In addition it was published by a popular magazine that would have been keen to sell copies and as such it could be argued that the cartoon exaggerated the truth for impact and to sell more magazines.
Source 4:
Reliable – It is from a school textbook and we know the author is J. Byrom. This book is genuine as I have found it for sale here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Minds-Machi...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200762409&sr=1-6
Unreliable – It was published in 1999 over a hundred years after the time in question and so is not written by somebody with first hand experience of the conditions at the time.
Source 6:
Reliable – The cartoon was drawn and published during the period in question and as such is likely to reflect the mood and conditions of the time as experienced first hand by the artist.
Unreliable – We do not know who the artist was or indeed what his experiences actually were. In addition it was published by a popular magazine that would have been keen to sell copies and as such it could be argued that the cartoon exaggerated the truth for impact and to sell more magazines.
Source 7:
Reliable – We know that the author lived during the time in question and visited the areas in question. As such this is most likely a first hand account based on his experiences. I have found out some more information about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Mayhew
Unreliable – He was bankrupt at one point and then founded Punch magazine. It could be argued that he had a motivation to sell copies of his magazine and therefore may have exaggerated the truth?
“In 1835 Mayhew found himself in a state of debt and along with a fellow writer, they escaped to Paris to avoid their creditors.[4] He spent his time writing and in the company of other writers including William Thackeray and Douglas Jerrold. Mayhew spent over ten years in Paris returning to England in the 1850s whereby he was involved in several literary adventures, mostly the writing of plays. Two of his plays - But, However and the Wandering Minstrel were successful, whilst his early work Figaro in London was less successful
On July 17, 1841 Mayhew cofounded Punch magazine.” (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Mayhew)
Question F
“ Dirty water was certainly the main cause of disease in mid-19th century British cities”. How far do you agree? Explain using as many sources as you can, referring to how reliable and useful they are.
Based on what I have read in the sources provided I strongly agree with this statement. Each source provided has a common theme ‘running’ through it, that of dirty water. Some sources are perhaps more reliable than others, however the overall picture is one of poor conditions and disease carried mainly by the dirty water.
The picture in Source 1 shows a water pump dishing out dirty water to the poor and causing death. This is just a drawing and clearly the artist did not really see a skeleton pumping water, so it isn’t 100% proof that water was carrying deadly diseases. But it was drawn at the time (1850s) and strongly implies that the water was spreading cholera.
Source 2 Talks about the use of ‘privy-pails’ and the lack of flushing toilets as we know today. It refers to ‘seepage’ from the sewers because of the poorly designed stone flat bottoms. The common theme here is again that of ‘dirty water’.
The University Scholars Programme, which is intended to produce venturesome, creative leaders, draws upon the top students from various faculties at the National University of Singapore, and it also considers applications from qualified foreign exchange students. During their first two or three years in the Programme, University Scholars take modules (courses) in their majors plus eight others selected from the eleven other areas of the Programme, These modules are distinguished by student discussion, independent projects, and emphasis upon introducing students to the culture of individual disciplines. These first-tier modules bring together students from different departments and faculties who would normally not study together. Second-tier or advanced modules, which generally correspond to advanced third- and fourth-year modules, are taught in the individual faculties”. (Source: www.victorianweb.org)
Unreliable – it is a website whose authors were not alive during the 19th century and as such relies on ‘second hand’ information and research rather than first hand knowledge and experience.
Source 3:
Reliable – The cartoon was drawn and published during the period in question and as such is likely to reflect the mood and conditions of the time as experienced first hand by the artist.
Unreliable – We do not know who the artist was or indeed what his experiences actually were. In addition it was published by a popular magazine that would have been keen to sell copies and as such it could be argued that the cartoon exaggerated the truth for impact and to sell more magazines.
Source 4:
Reliable – It is from a school textbook and we know the author is J. Byrom. This book is genuine as I have found it for sale here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Minds-Machi...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200762409&sr=1-6
Unreliable – It was published in 1999 over a hundred years after the time in question and so is not written by somebody with first hand experience of the conditions at the time.
Source 6:
Reliable – The cartoon was drawn and published during the period in question and as such is likely to reflect the mood and conditions of the time as experienced first hand by the artist.
Unreliable – We do not know who the artist was or indeed what his experiences actually were. In addition it was published by a popular magazine that would have been keen to sell copies and as such it could be argued that the cartoon exaggerated the truth for impact and to sell more magazines.
Source 7:
Reliable – We know that the author lived during the time in question and visited the areas in question. As such this is most likely a first hand account based on his experiences. I have found out some more information about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Mayhew
Unreliable – He was bankrupt at one point and then founded Punch magazine. It could be argued that he had a motivation to sell copies of his magazine and therefore may have exaggerated the truth?
“In 1835 Mayhew found himself in a state of debt and along with a fellow writer, they escaped to Paris to avoid their creditors.[4] He spent his time writing and in the company of other writers including William Thackeray and Douglas Jerrold. Mayhew spent over ten years in Paris returning to England in the 1850s whereby he was involved in several literary adventures, mostly the writing of plays. Two of his plays - But, However and the Wandering Minstrel were successful, whilst his early work Figaro in London was less successful
On July 17, 1841 Mayhew cofounded Punch magazine.” (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Mayhew)
Question F
“ Dirty water was certainly the main cause of disease in mid-19th century British cities”. How far do you agree? Explain using as many sources as you can, referring to how reliable and useful they are.
Based on what I have read in the sources provided I strongly agree with this statement. Each source provided has a common theme ‘running’ through it, that of dirty water. Some sources are perhaps more reliable than others, however the overall picture is one of poor conditions and disease carried mainly by the dirty water.
The picture in Source 1 shows a water pump dishing out dirty water to the poor and causing death. This is just a drawing and clearly the artist did not really see a skeleton pumping water, so it isn’t 100% proof that water was carrying deadly diseases. But it was drawn at the time (1850s) and strongly implies that the water was spreading cholera.
Source 2 Talks about the use of ‘privy-pails’ and the lack of flushing toilets as we know today. It refers to ‘seepage’ from the sewers because of the poorly designed stone flat bottoms. The common theme here is again that of ‘dirty water’.
OP
OP
Bigtallfatbloke
New Member
www.victorianweb.org is a very good and reliable source of information about Victorian life and as such I think this is likely to be a good reason to think that the dirty water was to blame for the diseases spreading.
In Source 3 once again we see the relevance of dirty water to the spread of diseases ‘diptheria, Scofula and Cholera’. The picture shows how that the dirty water in the Thames river is causing people to suffer from these diseases. This picture is also interesting because it could be said that it shows the division between rich and poor as well, with the lady Britannia representing the rich (unconcerned) people of the time.
Once again in source 4 we see that dirty water was a prime cause of disease. The toilets in Leeds were not connected to the sewers and as such the waste was allowed to build up in cesspits. The poor people often could not afford to empty these and the landlords would not do it either. This meant that the dirty water did not drain away and was a breeding ground for diseases.
Sources 5a &b show us that the water in the Thames was dirty as the heat of that summer caused a ‘great stink’ as the waste rotted. People lived along the river and used it to drink and wash. It is clear that this was a major cause of the spread of the diseases. This passage states that ‘people knew that smell and dirt were linked to disease and death’, it does not say they knew that water was. However as the water was clearly dirty and smelly it is clear that the water was the carrier of disease. However the rich people lived away from the river and the smell and dirt, and did nothing to help because it did not affect them. The Mps ‘believed parliament should interfere as little as possible in people’s lives for economic and moral reasons’. This shows that Mps did not see the people’s welfare as important. They did not want to pay to clean up the water and used a feeble excuse (moral reasons) to allow the situation to continue. So although the reason the disease was spreading was dirty water, it was also because the rich people and the MPs were happy to allow this to happen because they themselves were ok.
However there may have been other reasons as well:
overcrowding
lack of proper sewer design
poor diet
poor housing
lack of medical knowledge
Poor education
Poor hygiene standards
Insufficient social law
Insufficient health and safety laws
Source 6 shows us this and is perhaps the exception because there is no dirty water in this picture that I can see. It is therefore not such a strong indicator that the water was to blame. However it does clearly show how overcrowded the streets were and the dirty conditions on the streets in the 1850’s. It also shows what seems to be a dead person just left on the street in the bottom left hand corner, all of which would have helped diseases to spread.
Henry Mayhew tells us in Source 7 that the water was ‘reeking’ and that it looked like a ‘strong green tea’. He says that it was more like ‘watery mud than muddy water’. He describes how the sewers and toilets emptied directly into this water and confirms that the poor people in the area were washing in the water and drinking from it. He describes seeing a dead child who was killed by cholera all of which points strongly to the dirty water being the main cause of the spread of the diseases. I think this is a good source because he was there at the time in 1849 and is telling us what he actually saw for himself.
In conclusion I would say that I am convinced by what I have read that dirty water was the main reason why disease was so bad in 19th century British cities. Although there were other reasons as I have pointed out, it was the dirty water that provided the perfect conditions for disease to develop and spread amongst the people. I think that this can be argued to have been proven because the water eventually was cleaned up and as a result disease became a thing of the past in most cases.
In Source 3 once again we see the relevance of dirty water to the spread of diseases ‘diptheria, Scofula and Cholera’. The picture shows how that the dirty water in the Thames river is causing people to suffer from these diseases. This picture is also interesting because it could be said that it shows the division between rich and poor as well, with the lady Britannia representing the rich (unconcerned) people of the time.
Once again in source 4 we see that dirty water was a prime cause of disease. The toilets in Leeds were not connected to the sewers and as such the waste was allowed to build up in cesspits. The poor people often could not afford to empty these and the landlords would not do it either. This meant that the dirty water did not drain away and was a breeding ground for diseases.
Sources 5a &b show us that the water in the Thames was dirty as the heat of that summer caused a ‘great stink’ as the waste rotted. People lived along the river and used it to drink and wash. It is clear that this was a major cause of the spread of the diseases. This passage states that ‘people knew that smell and dirt were linked to disease and death’, it does not say they knew that water was. However as the water was clearly dirty and smelly it is clear that the water was the carrier of disease. However the rich people lived away from the river and the smell and dirt, and did nothing to help because it did not affect them. The Mps ‘believed parliament should interfere as little as possible in people’s lives for economic and moral reasons’. This shows that Mps did not see the people’s welfare as important. They did not want to pay to clean up the water and used a feeble excuse (moral reasons) to allow the situation to continue. So although the reason the disease was spreading was dirty water, it was also because the rich people and the MPs were happy to allow this to happen because they themselves were ok.
However there may have been other reasons as well:
overcrowding
lack of proper sewer design
poor diet
poor housing
lack of medical knowledge
Poor education
Poor hygiene standards
Insufficient social law
Insufficient health and safety laws
Source 6 shows us this and is perhaps the exception because there is no dirty water in this picture that I can see. It is therefore not such a strong indicator that the water was to blame. However it does clearly show how overcrowded the streets were and the dirty conditions on the streets in the 1850’s. It also shows what seems to be a dead person just left on the street in the bottom left hand corner, all of which would have helped diseases to spread.
Henry Mayhew tells us in Source 7 that the water was ‘reeking’ and that it looked like a ‘strong green tea’. He says that it was more like ‘watery mud than muddy water’. He describes how the sewers and toilets emptied directly into this water and confirms that the poor people in the area were washing in the water and drinking from it. He describes seeing a dead child who was killed by cholera all of which points strongly to the dirty water being the main cause of the spread of the diseases. I think this is a good source because he was there at the time in 1849 and is telling us what he actually saw for himself.
In conclusion I would say that I am convinced by what I have read that dirty water was the main reason why disease was so bad in 19th century British cities. Although there were other reasons as I have pointed out, it was the dirty water that provided the perfect conditions for disease to develop and spread amongst the people. I think that this can be argued to have been proven because the water eventually was cleaned up and as a result disease became a thing of the past in most cases.
OP
OP
Bigtallfatbloke
New Member
..Hmm...but am I a reliable source I wonder?
...I really hope nobody here is his teacher!
...I really hope nobody here is his teacher!
OP
OP
Bigtallfatbloke
New Member
14
he is doing a GCSE this year in German.
he is doing a GCSE this year in German.
