there is a sense that people still look to communication technology to play a role in creating the global community
Yes, technology has been a driving force for globalization, but there is a chance that overuse of technology and being 'chronically online' can desensitize people to the realism of the world, and deglobalize cultures.
the introduction of the new language, Morse code.
Can it be considered that the Morse Code was the original type of "texting" with acronyms and shorthand writing?
Language and literature are both reflective of a society’s norms and values, and will yield a clue as to how deeply embedded a new technology has become.
I think the most effective way to see how technology has left its mark on society is the culture that teenagers use in an era. Teenagers and young adults are the most likely to use new technology in most eras, and they evolve with technology as well as the culture that they share with each other. Pagers, 2000s MP3s, and today's smartphones all show how deeply embedded technology is in the teenage culture. This is also apparent in tv shows and literature in how they reference new ways of texting, talking, or sharing life moments.
Holidays moved from the realm of private affairs to commercial affairs, and such a move may have contributed to the depersonalization of these occasions.
This further proves the idea that time and communication being commodified creates a shift in society towards a more depersonalized community.
that the telephone played in the field of health care
I have never heard of a telephone probe before this, but the connection between the telegraph as a way of communication and healthcare is so interesting.
Around the turn of the century, the availability of telephones in homes as well as businesses meant that people became more accessible day and night.
I can see how the introduction of more technology allowed for the availability of time for some, but what about for the people who could not afford these innovations? They are continuously robbed of their time.
The ability to schedule more precisely meant “time”, in a sense, was more in control, dictating people’s actions, rather than people dictating action.
I definitely agree with this, and the fact that this new shift in how time is commodified and perceived was a push by the government and businesses across America, it seems that those outside forces are also controlling people's 'time'.
The “Time Service” branch of Western Union was a cooperative effort between Western Union and the U.S. government.
This branch seems almost dystopian, to be creating a government affiliated branch to accurately depict time and tell that to citizens that would easily believe it. Why did 'time' have to change so much from what people already knew of it other than for the country to make more money and pull people away from their own time?
Time was something to be managed;
I feel like if time was still something that wasn't commodified but instead managed, it would be easier and more motivating to make use of that time in a productive way, instead of feeling forced or manipulated.
ideas of a “work week” and a “school year”1
The way that America and a lot of other Western countries use work week and school year to classify times in the year is very capitalistic and true to the West's nature of constantly working from childhood to old age. Even the elderly consider time in 'school year' based on children around them.
religion; war; demography
I can understand the others, but struggle to see right now how religion and demographics play a huge role in the development of technology/invention.
Technology is affected by culture
Definitely relevant today but I didn't realize how technology affecting culture has been relevant for centuries, long before the internet.
blue cloth, manufactured expressly for the company, with red trimmings
So what is the differentiation between the two companies? Navy blue versus blue?
Once a week, a tailor looks over all the uniforms, and does any mending that he finds necessary
Was being a telegraph boy considered a prestige, then, compared to other jobs that adolescents could get at the time? It sounds like there could be possibility for even classism between children and their jobs, say, between a telegraph boy and a miner or farmer.
Thus there is not chance for any partiality, and the sooner a boy gets back to the office, the sooner will another message be ready for him.
The depth and intricacy of the job is fascinating. I thought that telegraph boys were handpicked by businessmen and partiality was a big factor.
even the very short time lost in opening and shutting umbrellas is held to be worth considering
Reading how even then, the people with very important jobs that are minimized to seem easy, were treated unethically. The two seconds it takes to open and close an umbrella probably would not take away from the urgency or quick delivery of a telegraph, and even this author who writes supportive of the boys seems almost blindsided by this notion.
which are seated a number of the telegraph-boys whom you see so often in the street.
What age would these boys be? Before the telegraph, I think messenger boys would range anywhere from 6-14 years old before boys joined their father's occupations or war, is this still the case for telegraph boys?
t will be found that they are not all dressed alike, and a little inquiry will show that this is because they are in the employ of different companies
Even though the importance of these boys' jobs were not celebrated heavily, it is clear through their distinctions/uniforms that each company highly needed the talents of the individuals.
But one is apt to forget that all these boys, and many others not so well known, are really "in business," and that they are entitled to be so regarded.
And yet, it was easy to once ignore their tremendous contribution to business and communications solely because of their age and how it was considered "a messenger" job. The importance of delivering these messages was not public.
business boys, to whom all branches of trade are indebted for assistance
I might be mistaken, but didn't telegraph boys stem from the idea of courier boys in earlier days?
New York's business men
The emphasis of business men show the exclusion of the business world from the early days, and even though this article is about the telegraph boys, it can reference the male-dominated business field that was constant for centuries.
Analysis of change means developing some capacity for determining the magnitude and significance of change, for some changes are more fundamental than others.
I wish this was explained a little deeper.
undermines loyalty or commitment
Why not? Can biases not be a part of studying history?
citizenship skill
A skill not just to be a citizen of a specific country, but of humanity as well. Regardless of nationality, these skills should be used all around to be better humans
providing international and comparative perspectives essential for responsible citizenship.
While it promotes national loyalty, it also sometimes raises questions against the nation when history is learned deeply
identity
Identity is not a thing, but is a process of identification which allows for categorization and classification to a certain group
but also of more ordinary people who provide lessons in courage, diligence, or constructive protest.
Philosophers provide this terrain to think critically about human morals through different situations, both fictional and non-fictional
ultimately another perspective on human life and society.
Thinking about any time in multiple perspectives creates a more well-rounded and critical look at history
Many of the historians who most appeal to the general reading public know the importance of dramatic and skillful writing
Very true, boring textbooks lose people's interest way quicker than good history, like in a historical literary piece.
only through history can we understand what elements of an institution or a society persist despite change.
Another interesting point, because there is so much we know about society that is inherently wrong or can be fixed to create a better future, but society still refuses to learn from the past and make this shift. Why is this? How come human greed and ego can prevent us learning from the past to create a better future?
we have to look for factors that took shape earlier.
This is important, I agree. It is easy to look at every day facts like the shift of the political parties in the US and blame every conservative issue on the republican party, but why is this the case and how did history change so drastically to cause this shift? History and people's actions will continue to change the course of the present and future.
often artificial cases in which experiments can be devised to determine how people act.
Aren't experiments based on how people act also based in history, and the history of people's behaviors? Isn't a hypothesis or theory created based on past situations?
Understanding the operations of people and societies is difficult,
Different societies have different operations and duties for its people, so shouldn't history be studied and thought of based on the context of the environment?
. Unfortunately, this use can encourage mindless memorization—a real but not very appealing aspect of the discipline.
Mindless memorization can have effect in the long run too. Once something is memorized, it can be thought of again later and then connected to other contexts or bigger ideas.
but the products of historical study are less tangible, sometimes less immediate, than those that stem from some other disciplines
Analyzing history and putting it into effect to create tangible results about a field of study takes time because there is trial and error to see how to fix past problems.
on a good bit of history
The available branches of knowledge mainly come from the good bit of history that we study. Knowledge is collected, theorized about, and analyzed based on history.