Discussion #1 – PAT, chapter 12, and PHUS, chapters 11 and 13
What does Zinn mean by referring to industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller as “robber barons”? What did they do to deserve that name? Why do Schweikart and Allen refer to them as “titans of industry”? What good do they think Rockefeller and Carnegie did? Zinn allots them the name “robber barons,” a negative name, because the two made secret, possibly illegal deals to crush competition, heightened prices but, still kept wages low, and virtually forced the government to give them subsidies. The writers of PHUS see the situation in another light, they feel that Rockefeller and Carnegie made positive changes, and so, award them with the positive name “titans …show more content…
What makes it most compelling? Does it stand on logic, evidence, or some other quality? Explain. PHUS makes a more logical representation. Zinn presents the reader with records, studies, and provides an unbiased, albeit negative side of the story. While, in PAT, Schweikart and Allen do supply key facts but, fall short as they skim over the monopolists corrupt acts and only focus on their accomplishments.
How do Schweikart and Allen and Zinn describe urban-industrial life for the mass of Americans, immigrant and native born? What are the main differences between their accounts? What does this say about their understanding of American history in general? Both accounts describe large organized worker strikes and riots due to wage cuts, namely, the Haymarket Affair and, the Great Labor strike. Although, Zinn delves into deeper detail on the workers struggles and wage problems. While, Schweikart and Allen describe tales of entrepreneurs going from “rags to riches” due to America’s capitalist government. In each of the compositions, the authors display knowledge of American hardships, but PAT only sees the small minority who became successful, while Zinn displays the majority’s …show more content…
He includes facts about the large number of strikers, workplace deaths and injuries, and the high rate of unemployment. Both narratives provide dates of mass demonstrations by labor unions, though, Schweikart and Allen focus on the policemen hurt from the attacks, and how figures like, Haymarket and Cleveland dealt with the issues. The authors of PAT briefly mention the enormous wage gap between the rich and poor, however, they tend to focus more upon the wealthy factory owners’ tendencies and money
What does Zinn mean by referring to industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller as “robber barons”? What did they do to deserve that name? Why do Schweikart and Allen refer to them as “titans of industry”? What good do they think Rockefeller and Carnegie did? Zinn allots them the name “robber barons,” a negative name, because the two made secret, possibly illegal deals to crush competition, heightened prices but, still kept wages low, and virtually forced the government to give them subsidies. The writers of PHUS see the situation in another light, they feel that Rockefeller and Carnegie made positive changes, and so, award them with the positive name “titans …show more content…
What makes it most compelling? Does it stand on logic, evidence, or some other quality? Explain. PHUS makes a more logical representation. Zinn presents the reader with records, studies, and provides an unbiased, albeit negative side of the story. While, in PAT, Schweikart and Allen do supply key facts but, fall short as they skim over the monopolists corrupt acts and only focus on their accomplishments.
How do Schweikart and Allen and Zinn describe urban-industrial life for the mass of Americans, immigrant and native born? What are the main differences between their accounts? What does this say about their understanding of American history in general? Both accounts describe large organized worker strikes and riots due to wage cuts, namely, the Haymarket Affair and, the Great Labor strike. Although, Zinn delves into deeper detail on the workers struggles and wage problems. While, Schweikart and Allen describe tales of entrepreneurs going from “rags to riches” due to America’s capitalist government. In each of the compositions, the authors display knowledge of American hardships, but PAT only sees the small minority who became successful, while Zinn displays the majority’s …show more content…
He includes facts about the large number of strikers, workplace deaths and injuries, and the high rate of unemployment. Both narratives provide dates of mass demonstrations by labor unions, though, Schweikart and Allen focus on the policemen hurt from the attacks, and how figures like, Haymarket and Cleveland dealt with the issues. The authors of PAT briefly mention the enormous wage gap between the rich and poor, however, they tend to focus more upon the wealthy factory owners’ tendencies and money