This image is taken from the 1947 supplement to the Department of the Interior’s publication, A Medical Survey of the Bituminous Coal Industry, entitled “The Coal Miner and His Family.” This federal investigation explicitly critiques coal-mining communities for their “uncivilized” culture and illiteracy. In talking about the miner’s wife and the “drudgery” and “stultifying monotony” of her job as a housewife, the author makes statements that assume the feelings of the wife, claiming she is “appalled by the nothingness of her surroundings.”
After this depiction of the miner’s wife as isolated in a cultureless, featureless wasteland is a condemnation of her housekeeping, health, hygiene, and nutritional practices. The supplement asserts that “She buys and feeds her family the traditional diet in her part of the country, and that happens to be less scientific than the diet of urban and industrial families,” “Also lacking in the culture of the miner’s wife is a full enough appreciation of health and hygiene,” “She has protested, but has since ceased to care, about the absence of screens on the widows of her house. She regards the flies not as disease carriers but merely as pests that annoy her children,” and “She simply does as her neighbors do – she flings the dirty wash water and slop onto the ground from her back porch.”
The author offers an explanation of these coal town practices: “Many [of the coal miners’ wives], without any conception of better standards or training in homemaking, never try, even where conditions in their favor are the best.” Yet the supplement also points toward the ultimate futility of trying to maintain a home, explaining that “grime hangs like a pall over the camp” and “the incessant dirt, a native blend of coal dust from the tipple, smoke from the railroad, dust from the roads, sand, grime, and acrid fumes from the burning slag heaps permeates and clings tenaciously to the structures and furnishings of houses and to human bodies.”
I think why this phenomenon happened is because the miner workers or their family as whole are at lower class in United Stated. Their circumstances and income can not afford high quality life. The most people they contact with or have relationship with may be the same level, so they do not have any other choice. And they get used to what they life would be and do not want to change or improve it. Bituminous Coal is cheaper but not high quality compare with hard coal. And also is very dirty. May be their husbands are digging the coal everyday and come home with dirt. Wives still get used to it. If they do not have chance to get educated, it is hard for them to know health, hygiene, and nutritional practices is important.
ReplyDeleteWhile the source is a supplement to a Department of the Interior publication and would be expected to maintain a professional tone supported by facts, the piece actually comes across as a personalized, biased, and condemning piece of rhetoric. It is this abuse of government status and notoriety that does, in fact, have an effect on the knowledge and preconceptions of those that read it. Instead of simply informing the reader of the conditions faced by the people of Appalachia, the author adds a personal tone of condemnation and disgust. The tone of judgment is most prominent in the second paragraph, in which the author first critiques the housewife for her living conditions and then immediately portrays her as an uncultured and lethargic disgrace. After discussing her indifference to the flies that plague her household, the author criticizes her for protesting and eventually not caring at all about them. The author further shows an elitist attitude when talking about the families diet, saying it is even worse than that of “urban and industrial families”, who were widely regarded as second class citizens during the 1940s. By speaking on behalf of a government entity, the authors notions and biases about Appalachian society are passed on the the readers, who will now take the word of the government over the protests of the disparaged people of Appalachia, who would have inevitable protested being portrayed as savages devoid of manners and cleanliness.
ReplyDeleteIt is a known fact that coal mining is a dangerous and difficult occupation, but it is a job that needs to be done. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic, employees in the coal mining industry are more likely to be killed or suffer from an injury or illness than workers in any other private industry. The life of a coal miner is challenging and the job greatly affect the miner and his/her family. In addition, the miner and his/her family are in the lower class of society, and cannot afford certain things. The miner and the housewife have grown up in that environment and are use to it. The only way their habits would change would be if they were exposed to a different life or were educated. I interpret the picture to be a housewife that is worried about her husband’s safe arrival home. From the picture, one can see that the house is run down and that the woman does not look happy. She looks worried, dirty, and tired. It shows that the occupation of a coal miner is very dangerous, and greatly affects the miner’s wife life.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with what Kevin said about the author being biased and personalized. From what I read it sounds like the author is trying to say that the poverty is not the fault of the people, but rather the result of a harsh and unforgiving environment.
ReplyDeleteIn the second paragraph, the author writes, "“She buys and feeds her family the traditional diet in her part of the country, and that happens to be less scientific than the diet of urban and industrial families,” In this statement the author says that the housewife is doing the best she can to provide food, but due to the environment the traditional diet is just not enough.
In the last paragraph it is explained that that the reason the houses are so filthy is because it it physically impossible to keep the houses clean due to the coal dust, smoke and grime. Throughout the article, the reason for the poverty and poor living conditions of the Appalachian population can be directly traced to the environment that they live in, not their own actions or personal choice.
I think the reason that causes the unhygienic habits and the so-called "uncivilized" lifestyle of the miner community is more a dilemma between the property of the occupation itself and the actual constitution of the miners than simply a one-sided yet irresponsible blame and accusation of the incompetent housewives in the article. Being a miner or miner's family is actually a strictly demanding task. Yet regarding the dangerous and toilsome attribute of the occupation, the actual people that are willing to take this job are less-educated and thus, not qualified enough. Based on this fact, it is more rational to expect the government to reconcile the dilemma by providing personal hygiene training than to hope to meliorate the situation by blaming the housewives who are not the people that should be blamed the most.
ReplyDeleteThis post is a very good example of how the source of social problems can be overlooked because of preconceived notions of a group. I find this post to be very persuasive through its organization and use of an effective image. The first paragraph gives us the context of the publication, which is written by a government agency post-WWII, and shows the condescending voice of the author. The second paragraph shows the true problems that are faced by the communities including lack of proper nutrition, healthcare/hygiene and infrastructure. The tone of the journal, evident in the second and third paragraph of this post, shows that the writer of the journal believes the attitude and education of the housewife are the source of the social problem. Referring to the housewife as “less scientific”, “ceasing to care” and her actions to improve her home as “futile” makes the reader assume that housewife does not want to improve her situation. The picture selected is unflattering and effectively furthers the writer’s perception of the housewife being idle and ignorant as she looks out the window with distain. This writer is very effective in concealing the fact that in mining communities lack of education, high wages and technological advancement (ei: proper sewage systems) are not problems that are caused by the individuals but the economic situation of less densely populated mining areas. The idea the “conceptions of better standards” is what is holding the mining community back from prosperity is a very narrow view of the socioeconomic factors in working poverty and is evident of preconceived stereotypes about the intelligence and moral character of the Appalachian mining culture.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Kevin, the article published by Department of the Interior’s publication, helps the rest of the American population form assumptions on the citizens of the Appalachia as grotesque, and underprivileged. The article states how the author “explicitly critiques” the coal mining communities. The author is actually confusing the readers by stating the living condition of the miner’s house as unsanitary and how the wife isn’t appalled or bothered by her living conditions. The description persuades the readers that the people from the Appalachia are unconcerned about leaving poverty and consequently the readers will become biased. Instead the author should state that social mobility in the Appalachia is challenging. How there is very little opportunity to move from one class to another due to the generations before them. The living conditions of the miners from the expose are realistic to them because generations before them and their peers were raised in the same surroundings.
ReplyDeleteThe author illustrates the picture as if the coal miner’s wife isn’t motioned by not having screens in the window nor polluted household. The picture could have been portrayed as if she was looking outside for the hope to see her husband arrive home from his dangerous worksite. Coal miners’ working environment is one of the most dangerous jobs in America according to CNN Money. The author doesn’t mention the stress put upon the workers and their wives for a low yearly wage; instead he discriminates against their poor living conditions.
After reading kevin's posts I also agree with him. I feel this can also relate to the sterotypes our teacher has encountered about her hometown and something she cannot prevent or change. Coal mining is a dangerous job, and is obviously essential to our society for a reason, someone has to do it.. so why criticize a profession society benefits from? The miners may come home dirty, and expects to clean off from a long hard day, considering the conditions they live in and the poverty level they were at back then, how else would the housewives rid away of the dirty water from his bathing? I don't believe the author of the article really took a look from the family's point of view and took into consideration the way they had to go about life, the alterations they had to make to a "normal" and "standard" american lifestyle in order to survive and "make ends meat". I feel if he did step into this position and look at it from their side, he wouldnt be so harsh with his article and would be a little less critical.
ReplyDelete^^^^ Sorry for the "unknown" tag as the name in the previous comment.. that's definitely mine.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that "she buys and feeds her family the traditional diet in her part of the country, and that happens to be less scientific than the diet of urban and industrial families". That is one of the many examples in the article that show the difficulties of the family. The mother tries to feed the family as best as she best, but the traditional diet is just not enough due to the environment. The father in this family is a coal miner, which is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. But he's forced to take this job because this is one of the only jobs available in the Appalachian region. The husband and wife try to live the life as the common individual and support for their family as best as they can, but its extremely difficult due to the circumstances they're put in. This article really puts a good description on how the living conditions were in the Appalachian region and how they struggled with everyday life.
ReplyDeleteI think the piece above portrays the women of mining towns as something less than a mother, not caring enough to actually provide for her family in the “proper” way. I think it paints a picture of a female who is uneducated in many forms of the word. It states in paragraph two that she does not feed her family the way industrialized families do. It also says that she does not fully appreciate proper means of grooming and keeping up with personal well being. I think there is definitely a side of the story that the article is leaving out, the perspective of the mothers who are actually living in that lifestyle. The piece fails to mention that the mothers probably send their husbands off every morning to work not knowing whether or not they’ll return safely and what they will do if they have to provide for themselves. I don’t necessarily think that the women in the coal mining industry choose the lives that they have. But that possibly the stresses and circumstances of the tasks that the men in their lives must complete every day, in the coal mines, has put a damper on their wills to live and there they may have possibly stopped trying to find a way out of their situations.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Kevin. This is very personalized. The darkness of the picture itself depicts the stigma of the effects on the family when the career that supports them is coal mining. This pictures makes it very clear that the surroundings that the woman is in are bad and scary because it is such a dangerous job.
ReplyDeleteThis article, as supplement material of an article published in a federal investigation shocked me and frustrated me at the first sight. Although from the later paragraph there are signs that the author is trying to explain the fundamental reasons that have caused miners' family such miserable conditions, I cannot accept this kind of "explanation": "Many [of the coal miners’ wives], without any conception of better standards or training in homemaking, never try, even where conditions in their favor are the best." Think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Psychologist Maslow proposed this theory in 1943, in which he used the terms Physiological, Safety, Belongingness and Love, Esteem, and Self-Actualization needs to describe the pattern that human motivations generally move through. The miners and their family members, who are usually all supplied by rare money gained as retiring of labor and even lives, are obviously on the stage of Physiological needs. The wives worry whether their husbands will survive by that evening, let alone scientific diet and hygien.
ReplyDeleteWhile the author of this article, possibly an educated people in middle class, do not have to worry about his life and body. He was more interested in self actualization and as a result he overlooked the basic needs of people in third-class and since the critique of "uncivilized". Stigmas, under many circumstances, are caused by similar differences of living stage.
Hello ENG 110 students! I'm Cassie, a member of the Literacy in Appalachia GradGroup. Thank you for allowing us to contribute to your thoughtful discussion about stigma and Appalachian issues!
ReplyDeleteYou all have made a number of interesting points already, and I like that everyone is taking a close look at the assumptions that lie beneath the text that Krista provided in her initial description.
A number of you note that the author criticizes the housewife based on her standard of living that is precisely the result of the way the mining companies do business. As Krista probably already mentioned, these mining companies treated their workers terribly and sometimes even kept mining families within guarded camps, forcing them to purchase goods and services from company stores. Hence the line, "I sold my soul to the company store." Not only did workers get low wages, but they would also become indebted to the very company from which they received their paycheck. And yet, the miners had no protection from these companies, no worker's rights, no union to help them get better wages. For those of you working jobs through college, would it be fair to force you to buy goods solely from your employer?
One of the thing that strikes me about the quotes that Krista provided is that I've seen multiple instances of this type of "objective" writing about the region and peoples of Appalachia. You guys have done a great job of looking past the appeal of the objective voice in your posts, but not all readers question the motivations and rhetorical choices that writers make, especially when they are describing people's lives in such seeming detail. The questions I see you guys asking are very important to analytical thinking and writing: Who produced this text? Why was this text produced? Who is the audience for this text, and what types of appeals is it making? What does the author have at stake in describing this woman in this way? How does this text relate to the mining company's goals and interests?
The coal companies certainly had a lot to gain by characterizing their workers as backward, ignorant, dirty, lazy, etc. When writers described individuals and groups in these ways they created us/them dichotomies, or binaries, saying "We're clean, but they're dirty; we're smart and modern, but they're backward and ignorant." Even more so, when they described them in these ways using seemingly "objective language" they made their case appear even more convincing because it sounded "scientific"! The effect of this type of language is to take away the authority of the group that being described in these ways--to make them less reputable as speakers and as people in the world.
So, one question I would pose to the group is, what is the legacy of these types of descriptions? Do you see any remnants of these stereotypes and stigmas in texts you encounter in your daily lives (commercials, videos, discussions with friends, rumors, books, movies, Facebook posts etc.) ?
I did not remember wether we have talked about "these mining companies treated their workers terribly and sometimes even kept mining families within guarded camps, forcing them to purchase goods and services from company stores", hence when I firstly see these words I feel greatly sorrowful and shocked. The miserable conditions of these miners remind me of some parts of Declaration of Independence, which is a primary source in understanding the history of United States. In Declaration of Independence, some truths are hold by all human beings, which are rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As we all know, the United States is established in 1774 to emancipate those who were suffering from the government of United Kingdom then and who were deprived of these rights. However, in 1947, and even today, there were still people have similar experiences and even more severe because they were oppressed by their compatriots. Why should this happen in 1947?
DeleteIf I get a job in college but I am required to buy things solely from my employer, I will be unsatisfied because I am deprived of choice. For the miners, they are even deprived the right to live in that we because they do not have enough money to survive themselves. Under that circumstances, the author actually write such an article in order to criticize the "uncivilized" miners instead of investigate why their employers are wasting money in going holiday, decorating there house and eating in expensive restaurants, which deepen our question: Why is this article produced? Having discovered the above things, I am confidently to answer is it for the benefits of the employers. That is what I get from the analysis of the text.
Undeniably there are rem ants of similar stereotypes and stigmas in my daily life. For example, the factory that manufacture and assemble products for Apple, Foxconn in China, actually has some sub factories that are sweatshops. When the workers who cannot afford the exhausting work in factory and choose to suicide to end their life, the company just make comments saying they are too young, have poor endurance. So the reason falls on the workers but rather than the employers.
If I don’t choose this class, I will spent a lot of time to get know that there is still some region that in American that people can not be treat will and live in poverty. I know this is still kind of biased, but this makes me feel depressed. And watching that video: the hidden American, children from mountains. We know that children is the next generation of the whole country, but lots of their parents earned money based on miner work which were treated badly as Cassie said. In that way it is difficult for people change their life without certain help. I know that some region of china, the only way that to leave from poverty is parents to do their best to afford children to go to college and get educated. But is this the whole picture of the story. I believe that people keep helping people from that region and by education people like this class that let us to learn more about Appalachia from outer mountain will try to help. As Jiayi mentioned about Foxconn, lots of people criticize about that company they treat people like working machine. Workers can not stand that tried and dull life and choose to suicide. Although after this thing published and Foxconn just promote a little bit. There are still a bunch of people waiting for their job at Foxconn. That is a point that some people don’t have any choose as other people, they only can choose to going to Foxconn, even know that people commit suicide and company treat people badly. It’s the same that if government or people do not help them, It is not easy to get through this. People lives there till having hope and courage.
DeleteAs Cassie pointed out，sometimes the language and the rhetoric a writer deliberately used can be a potent weapon in manipulating reader’s mind, and thus, can exert a profound influence on making an unbiased judgment.
DeleteWith the advent of information and technology, Facebook, Twitter and Google +, etc., everyone nowadays is being exposed in a world full of all kinds of information, even including discrediting and misleading rumors. At the meantime, people themselves can easily be the source and the maker of such information since the various channels of information accelerate the spread of information.
Going along with what Zeyu Li has stated, now a days we are all exposed to stereotypes and stigmas through the media whether we realize it or not. Technology and social networking sites can easily spread sayings, pictures, thoughts, opions and accusations against people of different backgrounds. It also can strengthen the stigmas that are already present in everyday life. For example, there are stigma's about how college students and "party schools." Seeing pictures from certain colleges through the media promotes the stigma and makes the school look worse. The media and technology today in my opinion have a big impact on the spread and increase of stigmas and stereotypes.
Deletethe comment above is from me!
Delete-Dana
"For those of you working jobs through college, would it be fair to force you to buy goods solely from your employer?"
DeleteThis question is one that I find to be very important . I feel that the most important part of our society is that individuals freedoms must be protected in all situations . The use of force to impel an individual to purchase a product or service should understandably placed under "strict scrutiny" by our society whether the force is used by other individuals, a business or government. I would like to hear more information about how these mining companies were able to keep "Mining families within guarded camps" without seriously infringing on their constitutional rights.
I would also like to know how these miners were "forced" to buy the goods from the companies. In what I understand about undeveloped Appalachian coal mining regions in the 1940's sparse populace , poor transportation and regional isolation due to the terrain caused little economic development. It would occur to me that if there was a monopoly by the coal company's company store due to socioeconomic reasons of regional isolation, that the definition of being "forced" to buy from your employer becomes more complicated.
To answer the question above fully I feel that in most situation that it is not right for any person, company, government or employer to force you to purchases a good or service. I feel that in a modern interconnected economy which allows competition, unlike the regional isolationism of the 1940's Appalachia, that the freedom of to allow individuals engage in commerce unabated is essential to our way of life.
Thanks, everyone, for your responses! I appreciate all the connections you made to your everyday life! For more information about conditions in the coal camps, you can visit Coal Camp Memories at http://www.coalcampmemories.com/, take a look at Fighting Back in Appalachia: Traditions of Resistance and Change, or watch Harlan County U.S.A.
DeleteAs a student that has a part time job,I would not like if I had to buy all of my goods solely from my employer. This would be unfair and I would not like it because you are forced to pay whatever price is set and you wouldn't have that many options. I personally do not see any of theses stereotypes or stigmas in the text that I encounter daily, but I do encounter other stereotypes that involve race and/or social class.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Michael is correct in saying that it would be unfair to force employees to shop at their employers stores, mainly because of his point about the lack of options. A business that sells foods and basic supplies is generally more elastic in the economy, because there are so many competitors that act as alternatives. To attract people and their money, companies offer special products outside of basic supplies to create a more varied experience. A company that forces employees to buy from them eliminates a lot of the competition by keeping a static consumer base. This allows them to sell the cheapest and less varied of items, knowing that they cannot lose sales to poor customer satisfaction. Not only does this hurt the value of the employees paycheck, it also decreases their standard of living both IN the mines, and OUTSIDE the mines, in their own home.
DeleteI don't think it would be fair at all if we were forced to buy goods solely from our employer. This sounds like a very aggressive move by a business company trying to take advantage of people and their labor.
ReplyDeleteThis issue reminds me of a cadence we used to sing in basic training though.
Part of the line went:
They say that in the Army, the pay is mighty fine
They give you a hundred dollars and take back ninety-nine
Oh, Lord I wanna go,
But they won't let me go
Hoooooooooome
Those in the military may find the give/take part of this cadence humorous as it does kind of happen, but it is also highly over exaggerated. An example would be equipment. Soldiers are issued A LOT of equipment and we are expected to turn most of those in after a deployment. However, there are cases where items are lost and if so the cost to replace those items are taken out of our paychecks. The worst part is the price they charge for the item can sometimes be more than double than what we can get it for elsewhere. What usually ends up happening is that we are better off buying a replacement item elsewhere and turning it in.
Wow, Ryan, I didn't know about this! Thanks for sharing the training cadence--that's a great piece of folklore!
DeleteIn response to Cassie's last question, I have not really encountered or seen much of the Appalachian stereotype/stigma. The main stereotypes that I encountered recently or in the past have had to do with sex, race, religion, or ethnicity. In my opinion, I believe the stigmas dealing with the topic mentioned above is still a bigger deal than the stereotype about the Appalachian people.
ReplyDeleteWhen Cassie stated how the miners had to live on the companies’ land and buy everyday goods from them, it made me think of indentured servants. The miners went through similar hardships as the indentured servants in the 1600's. The servants indentured their lives for a specific time in exchange for their freedom and property. Very few of these servants were able to obtain land and freedom because their employer wouldn't pay them, but expected them to buy their goods. The lives of the miners seemed the same because the owners of the coalmines had a similar system. The mining companies were running a monopoly because the miners were forced to buy their inflated goods. The miners had a little chance to actually leave the community because they were indebted to the owners for the rest of their lives.
ReplyDeleteHow the employers of the miners and servants were treated is illegal today because it’s a form of monopoly. No one could leave poverty if they had to face similar hardships. Not many people think of this before they say, miners are lazy and for that reason are in poverty.
I work for the Office of Student Life here on campus. So if I were forced to buy only food and goods solely from the university I would be quite upset. I like having a choice of things to buy from, different brands or prices of products. I also enjoy having a variety of food options to choose from. So if I were to only having the food that is offered on campus available to me I would quite possibly not continue to work for the university. As some people stated above it is unfair to do this to any worker, as it was unfair to the coal mining families. Though my reasons for disagreeing with the coal mining companies way of enforcing living only go as deep as enjoying having a say in what I purchase and not an actual financial issue like it was for the mining families I do still feel that the practice is quite wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs a student working part time, I feel that only buying goods from your employer isn't just manipulative of the labor and your earnings, but it's also an imposition on your rights and the quality of the goods you're receiving. If you think about it, capitalism is the heart of our country's economic system and how our country works. Without competition not only will the company monopolize the region, but also decrease the quality of the goods they are selling. This is due to a guarantee profit, so why try harder to improve something that an entire population of a town or city is forced into buying? I think the quality of goods and the competition keep the entire economic system under control and the health of society in mind. Referring back to the text, this also shows how the article can be one sided, even though addressed in class that the article can have double or multiple meanings, the specific selection of the passage that accompanies the photograph appears to be one sided and biased about the coal miner's personal lifestyle, rather than the environment they were handed. The passage didn't mention once the harsh conditions the miner's employers forced their workers into. I feel if this information was provided the passage itself would seem less harsh and wouldn't be depicted as giving into the stigma placed on Appalachia. This would also help other readers who don't know how to do the literary analysis we've learned to develop and use.
ReplyDelete