3 ms·

You make it sound as if as soon as farmers had surplus, we took that surplus and invested in public education. Wikipedia reads that England had their agricultu

You make it sound as if as soon as farmers had surplus, we took that surplus and invested in public education. Wikipedia reads that England had their agricultural revolution in the 16th century and the population boomed to 5.7 million by 1750. [0] School however: "The Elementary Education Act 1880 insisted on compulsory attendance from 5 to 10 years.[20] For poorer families, ensuring their children attended school proved difficult, as it was more tempting to send them working if the opportunity to earn an extra income was available." [1] The main issue with public education was that people didn't want it, hence compulsory attendance. The British Empire ruled the world, and had an industrial revolution - "The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840" [2] Something tells me given the choice to go work in a factory and make money, or go get educated - people chose to go make some money. None of this had anything to do with technology not allowing the existence of public education - if anyone could afford it, it was the British Empire at the time. They just had other priorities - like bullying the world and trade. The usual capitalist stuff. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture#British_agricultural_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture#British... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_England#Introduction_of_compulsory_education_1880 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_Englan... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

hyperpape 9y ago
I'm not quite sure how your points contradict the parent saying school was about affording the expense. Saying people chose to have kids work for money doesn't seem to contradict that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- alexashka 9y ago
  I think the last paragraph summarizes it well: "None of this had anything to do with technology not allowing the existence of public education - if anyone could afford it, it was the British Empire at the time. They just had other priorities." Britain had industrialized, had colonies all over the world, went to war with China over allowing to continue selling them opium in this time among other things. Education was not a priority for them - they were busy exploiting everyone they could get their hands on. If that sounds strangely familiar - it is because it is not unlike another country you know very well in modern times :) That was nearly 200 years ago, we as a species haven't changed a whole lot it seems.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - hyperpape 9y ago
    I don't think your comment necessarily established that Britain could afford public education earlier. You can interpret 'afford' as "can literally pay for given any tradeoff" (I can afford a Mac Pro in that sense), or "can realistically make the tradeoffs" (short of cutting my 401k contribution, I don't have the money). Even in the first sense, you said nothing that implies that in the 16th century, the agricultural improvements that grew the population was large enough to spare children from agricultural work. All that population growth implies is that you've escaped the Malthusian trap. Going forward, my sense of the early industrial revolution was that families depended on the money from children's labor, though I could easily be wrong.
manfredo 9y ago
I'm not sure how this refutes the claim that technology was a significant determining factor in establishing public education. Most Western European countries, as well as the U.S. and Canada established their public education systems in the 19th or very early 20th century. The late 19th and early 20th century was arguably the height of colonialism. That doesn't seem to be in line with the theory that colonialism made public education have a lower priority.
- alexashka 9y ago
  I'm definitely not a historian so I could very well be wrong. What were the technologies that made public education possible exactly? Reading about USA during 1870-1916, USA was quite busy ruthlessly exploiting it's own people (what else is new), the thought of educating them was not a concern - making millions off the broken backs of your own people and building mansions was much more appealing. "The lives of the people in the cities contrasted sharply. A small percentage of them had enormous wealth and enjoyed lives of luxury. Below them economically, the larger middle class lived comfortably. But at the bottom of the economic ladder, a huge mass of city people lived in extreme poverty." [0] Goes perfectly in line with what I've been saying before - capitalists are busy making profits - the British Empire from it's colonies, the USA from it's own people and the floods of immigrants. You know, you exploit what/who you can, it's a hard world out there. Technology preventing public education? I've heard you need to not live in extreme poverty before public education is even an option for you. Extreme poverty ended due to technological advancements too I suppose? [0] http://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrialization.htm http://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrialization.htm

hyperpape 9y ago

I'm not quite sure how your points contradict the parent saying school was about affording the expense. Saying people chose to have kids work for money doesn't seem to contradict that.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
alexashka 9y ago
I think the last paragraph summarizes it well: "None of this had anything to do with technology not allowing the existence of public education - if anyone could afford it, it was the British Empire at the time. They just had other priorities." Britain had industrialized, had colonies all over the world, went to war with China over allowing to continue selling them opium in this time among other things. Education was not a priority for them - they were busy exploiting everyone they could get their hands on. If that sounds strangely familiar - it is because it is not unlike another country you know very well in modern times :) That was nearly 200 years ago, we as a species haven't changed a whole lot it seems.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hyperpape 9y ago
  I don't think your comment necessarily established that Britain could afford public education earlier. You can interpret 'afford' as "can literally pay for given any tradeoff" (I can afford a Mac Pro in that sense), or "can realistically make the tradeoffs" (short of cutting my 401k contribution, I don't have the money). Even in the first sense, you said nothing that implies that in the 16th century, the agricultural improvements that grew the population was large enough to spare children from agricultural work. All that population growth implies is that you've escaped the Malthusian trap. Going forward, my sense of the early industrial revolution was that families depended on the money from children's labor, though I could easily be wrong.

manfredo 9y ago

I'm not sure how this refutes the claim that technology was a significant determining factor in establishing public education. Most Western European countries, as well as the U.S. and Canada established their public education systems in the 19th or very early 20th century. The late 19th and early 20th century was arguably the height of colonialism. That doesn't seem to be in line with the theory that colonialism made public education have a lower priority.

alexashka 9y ago
I'm definitely not a historian so I could very well be wrong. What were the technologies that made public education possible exactly? Reading about USA during 1870-1916, USA was quite busy ruthlessly exploiting it's own people (what else is new), the thought of educating them was not a concern - making millions off the broken backs of your own people and building mansions was much more appealing. "The lives of the people in the cities contrasted sharply. A small percentage of them had enormous wealth and enjoyed lives of luxury. Below them economically, the larger middle class lived comfortably. But at the bottom of the economic ladder, a huge mass of city people lived in extreme poverty." [0] Goes perfectly in line with what I've been saying before - capitalists are busy making profits - the British Empire from it's colonies, the USA from it's own people and the floods of immigrants. You know, you exploit what/who you can, it's a hard world out there. Technology preventing public education? I've heard you need to not live in extreme poverty before public education is even an option for you. Extreme poverty ended due to technological advancements too I suppose? [0] http://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrialization.htm http://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrialization.htm