Tenth Period | Robber Barons or Captains of Industry: Teaching the Gilded Age Economics

0:04 hello and welcome to another episode of Bill of Rights Institute’s 10th period webinar series my name is Kirk Higgins and I’m the senior manager for Educational Rights it’s – my name is Rachel Davison Humphries and I’m director of outreach here at the Bill of Rights Institute and we are fortunate this week to be joined by a member of our PR ice teacher counsel Nicole morretti Thank You Nicole for joining us hi I’m so happy to be here great and so this week we’re doing sort of what we did on our last ten period webinar which is a close reading which is gonna give us an opportunity to kind of dive into a couple documents that may be more familiar with maybe we’re not familiar with but it’s certainly something that a theme that is touched on in a lot of classrooms across the country and so we’re excited to kind of dive in and

0:50 pick that apart a little bit so Rachel is there anything we should know is we’re getting ready to dive into our close reading well I think well first off the whenever we do these we always like to think about what the purpose of a close reading is so what why are we putting these documents why did we choose the documents that we’re choosing to put in front of students and use up our valuable instructional time so when choosing the documents it’s really important that we think about what additional value do they receive from this particular document that they that expands or lets them explore in ways that they wouldn’t be able just reading about the document and I think we have a couple of really great examples here so today’s example you’re interested in finding these I you can

1:38 find them on our 10th period webinar website they are part of a new resource that we’re putting together which is life liberty and the pursuit of happiness it’s a new resource that will launch at the end of this year that is very focused on primary source analysis but the first one is wealth by Andrew Carnegie and it was written in 1899 and the second one is a fascinating document that I was not that familiar with prior to our our lesson today called looking backwards 2000 to 1877 by Edward Bellamy so those two documents are the ones we’ll be reading through and what’s great about these two documents is that they so they’re they were written 11 years apart right at the height of the

2:24 industrial kind of like the beginnings of the the height of the Industrial Revolution the the beginning of the height of kind of this huge wealth creation period and people asking what does that mean for society what does that mean for our world and I think what inspires us to look at these documents is that there are a lot of very parallel conversations happening today and you can we could name millionaires who speak like Bellamy Bellamy and we can name billionaires who speak like Carnegie I guess maybe we’d have to name them as billionaires or trillionaires these days it’s just so I we’re presenting these to students and why we’re presenting them

3:09 and then making sure that the two articles if you are doing two articles speak to one another so that’s kind of framing our conversation in order to do the close reading it’s really important that everybody have the same documents and so our documents have line numbers attached and we have we’re going to be showing them on the screen as we walk through the two different documents Nicole is there anything more do you wanted to talk about to kind of frame the conversation before we dive in I just think these kinds of readings are a really great way to pull your students in they get to the point where I call it the jello look that blank stare the drool coming this is a great way to introduce something you know not textbook II and they’re short and

3:58 they’re engaging and the kids can kind of get hands-on with them and I don’t have to be the sage on the stage you know so yeah I think I think that these are really important and and a great way to kind of liven up your your classroom a little bit what’s it what is important is that both of these documents are written in kind of natural speech so I kind of wanted to start with that question is who wouldn’t use for because they’re definitely mm just one yeah who do you think the audience is for these no absolutely and and you know I think too just to frame a little bit more context the words you were dancing around Rachel is the Gilded Age and I think even even introducing

4:44 that term before you speak about these documents really says something about the time in which these authors are writing because it’s not a golden age and it’s not a you know a Industrial Age it’s known as the Gilded Age well what is gilded gilded means it has sort of a light dusting of gold around something that might not be so great right and of course that term comes from an essay by Mark Twain called the Gilded Age a tale of today which is interesting to thinking about Twain and his sort of social commentaries and so you know when thinking about this Carnegie in it looking at both of these audiences you know and I think looking at the author is always interesting because you can always it depends on your viewpoint you can offer you know sincerity to Carnegie

5:30 for example or you can offer a look the guy’s trying to justify what he’s doing right and both of those can be an interesting lens through which to look at and what is being written here and what is being talked about and Carnegie especially being you know a self-made immigrant from Scotland who came over and and worked his way up into being one of the wealthiest men in the United States certainly had worked hard and accumulated a lot of wealth and so was certainly defensive about how he came about that and protective of the system that allowed him to do that at the same time there are critics who are saying look you’ve gained this but at the expense of what and I think both of them both of the authors here both Edward Bellamy and Andrew Carnegie are really grappling with that question so as we’re

6:18 going through these documents we do have the chatbox open so make sure that if you want to ask us questions or want to engage together in the chat cage a Haslett has already asked who are the GRU who is the greatest robber baron and why and that’s actually something in our Gilded Age resource we talk about the term robber baron versus captain of industry right it’s a pie son what view of history what side of which of which era but not only just era but what what you think the role of the entrepreneur is what you think the role of the individual is and how you perceive and interpret their actions will change your view of robber baron

7:04 versus captain of industry so even the term robber baron that has this really interesting historical context that you can explore with your students I’m not sure we’ll get to that question but I think that’s a great prompt question for students and then say who do you think is the greatest captain of industry see if the student there’s change yes Society and which one do you guys want to tackle first do you want to tackle the one that’s more familiar with Carnegie or do you want to tackle the one that came first with Bellamy the I I’m a Nicole how about you decide cuz I’m I’m too eager here yeah I don’t know I I kind of was drawn towards Bellamy right now sure I haven’t drawn towards

7:51 Naomi just because of the debates that have been happening recently yeah there’s a lot in there that sounds very familiar it does i I did a little research looking at both of their backgrounds and it’s interesting when you said who are these written for you know the Bellamy became a bestseller so it was really kind of written for the masses about the masses which is you know that he comes from a pretty middle-class New England background so let’s so if you’re following along this is looking backward it’s only two pages if you were in your printed so it’s a nice length for your students yes and what this is is in

8:36 theory it’s a person who wakes up in the year 2000 Boston and speaks back to the year 1887 about the Boston of 1887 from the position of enlightened knowledge about the Society of 2,000 the action of what’s happening yeah yeah so so what does he do there first he paints this picture of Boston in the year 1887 right in the days especially the relations perhaps I cannot do better than a comparison as it as it then was to a prodigious coach

9:23 which the masses of humanity were harnessed to and dragged toilsome lay along a very hilly and sandy road so he opens up with this analogy of a carriage a coach driving dragging society forward what did you guys how did you interpreter what what did that analogy do for you I worked I really liked it I and but he’s really portraying you know the downtrodden is but you know run over by the coach and drug through the muck well the guy’s you know the rich guys are on top struggling to stay on top I thought it was interesting he did portray that that you know the rich we’re continually struggling and

10:10 jockeying to stay there but could be thrown off at any time and drugged down with the masses yeah like lines 20 or so it was naturally regarded as a terrible misfortune to lose one seat and the apprehension that this might happen to them or their friends was a constant cloud upon the happiness of those who rode um yeah well I was gonna say he’s also I mean we were talking about or Nicole mentioned that this was written for the masses and I do think it’s fun that this was I think the third most popular book in the 19th century after Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben Hur which is another I it’s interesting to see what-what were bestsellers in the

10:55 19th century alone that could probably be a conversation but also looking here at his point of view on the economy is also what the is from that common man purse right so he’s looking at the labors of these individuals as being the thing by which he is he is assessing success or failure which i think is an insight into how the rest of this piece then plays out I mean that that’s very much his perspective in contrast to karna Carnegie who’s very much looking at it from from a different perspective right and so that next paragraph he gets into the labor theory of value it goes very economically very quickly so we’re looking at lines 24 through thirty five

11:40 ish through forty really trying to analyze yeah this one 24 through 27 trying to Anna wage prices were set and now are set in the year 2000 according to his imagination of it the cost of a man’s work in a trade is what is what creates the labor in your day it was the difference in wages that made the difference in the cost of labor now it is the relative number of hours constituting a day’s work so he gets really economic he and I I was wondering at this moment if this is still speaking to the to the masses because it’s a little I mean I had a pretty strong

12:26 economics background and this kind of came out of came out it’s it’s hard to parse this what do you think the purpose of this section was is it the value of the human that he’s looking at here and you know I’m thinking I’m thinking you know John Locke and the product of your labor and those kinds of things those are the things that came to me mmm-hmm yeah and I think his perspective is very much one of look it’s it’s the it’s it’s the time it takes you to do something not simply what is being produced right so it’s and it’s very much a a fixed cost as well right it’s being determined

13:12 by something that doesn’t seem to be the market right and so if Carnegie is looking at and I’m sure we’ll talk about this in a minute but he’s looking this overall upsurge of goods here Bellamy is looking very much at how are these how it’s each individual being awarded for the merits they deserve and in whatever capacity that is and and you know I do still think it is you know I think what Bellamy is is he’s certainly appealing to a certain audience but it does still feel like a mass audience I mean he really is still tapping into I think frustrations that that individual laborers may have been feeling or if they weren’t feeling people who were organizing labor at the time may have been wanting to express so he’s really

13:58 trying to tap into that in a real way it seems to me because it’s also kind of flippant right I mean it’s not like a serious kind of academic or what you would think of as like a you know setting ontological foundation improving it is very much like a do it this way it’s a little you know it’s a little crazy that you used to do it that way isn’t it look how much better this system is and it totally works because it’s the year 2000 no which which is kind of fun you know I mean it is it is a little heady but it’s also I think a little yeah light-hearted maybe is a weird way to it’s ring with this audience in mind right it’s not a treatise on economic policy or process right but it tips its hat gives weight

14:45 to that argument so there’s there’s an ellipse in our version before we hit line 50 and I’m not familiar with the fullness of this text but I’m sure it goes on quite a bit so we’re at line 50 yeah so there’s a slip centers into what I found to be the most compelling part of this article these two paragraphs because I wrote my marginal notes true question mark is this is this truly the condition of increased wealth so I’m just gonna read it if you guys don’t mind in your day riches debauched one class with idleness

15:31 of my and body while poverty sapped to the vitality of the masses by overwork bad food and pestilent homes the labor required of children and the burdens leaned on women enfeebled the very springs of life instead of these Maleficent circumstances all now enjoy the most favorable conditions of physical life the young are carefully nurtured and studiously cared for the labor which is required of all is limited to the period of greatest bodily vigour and is never excessive care for oneself and one’s family he has two livelihood the strain of the ceaseless battle for life all these influences which once did so much to wreck the minds and bodies of men and women are no no more certainly an improvement of the

16:19 species ought to follow such a change in certain specific respects we know indeed that the improvement has taken place insanity for instance which is the image in the 19th century was so terribly common a product of the you’re insane mode of life has almost disappeared with its alternative suicide and I I was struck by this it’s very utopian and so what is the cause of this utopia was my question what is it that changes for his year 2000 that causes all the ills of a market society as he defines it to disappear and who’s gonna do the really

17:05 hard labor I do it except only for the period of greatest bodily vigour yeah so like 40 minutes like they go to the gym right and when you’re in your 20s yeah no I mean in bellamy is very much the the the Gordon Gekko figure here right like he’s saying look you know good this whole capitalist system is nothing but but greed and following self-interest and selfishness and that is has negative effects in Carnegie deals with this too right I mean he he touches on these I’m sure we’ll get to that yeah but here yeah Bell is very much crafting and even says you know in the following line there and I

17:51 guess 61 you know it finds a simple and obvious explanation in the reaction of a changed environment upon human nature right they say look you know we got the system right the old system was selfish and antisocial and appealed to this brutal side of human nature but on the other side we have this natural unselfishness that we should tap into I wrote in my margins on that section that he is assuming the best in human nature he’s assuming the best in mankind than that that’s all gonna come out and why it wasn’t coming out in the 1880s but it’s gonna come out in mm I don’t know but yeah yeah asking wasn’t Bella being a socialist question mark that’s one of

18:37 those questions that we would hope your student would ask right because we don’t take that hat we let the words speak for themselves and you can ask what are the underlying philosophical foundations like what’s the philosophical detection that’s happening in this reading how do you know what their values are how do you know what their positions are based on based on the words that they use and the examples that they choose to you um so that would be my question for you all is what what what evidence do you have that he is a socialist is how I would respond in the classroom to that question and I I mean if we’re now the students I would say there is evidence obviously that he had serious interests in the consolidation of capital under

19:24 the government’s and government distribution and that’s what the big sections in economic in the economic section that’s talking about that that where did it say it uh you know and he is writing in the time when the Marxist philosophies come out and and that view of history of the class struggle you know of the economic constraints affecting people and influencing historical outcome so he is coming from that right in the middle of that time period and he had been you know exposed to socialism and Marxist philosophies in his travels and in that paragraph in the economics paragraph

20:10 between limes thirty or thirty to fifty or so he was talking about the nation doing things which is usually the language that because that would mean that individual actors are not doing things but the nation is yeah and his view on labor is very Marxist Orient’s and socialist oriented you know as is in progressive to right because he’s he has a progressive bent in thinking look if we could just get these systems right then human nature will prosper and follow and will continue on you know down toward toward the end of history and I think I think you’re exactly right Nicole you know all of those things are coming out and all struggling with

20:56 looking at the society around them and seeing this inequality and and and and the very difficult circumstances in which people are laboring and to and some of these factories and in in sort of the cost of industry from that standpoint to both physically and mentally and I think it’s interesting that both Bellamy and Carnegie touch on both the physical and mental effects of this you know economic expansion and industrial expansion to think utopianism to that you pointed to rachel urato is is also really interesting trend that you can pull in you know as you’re having other conversations about even Bellamy societies that spring out from this but but talking about sort of utopian movements in America I mean this is certainly something you can you can

21:42 pull back to and point to as as further evidence of that was this this was also about the same period as Kellogg and all the the health movements that were like all of the sanitarium kind of kind of utopian societies yeah there was this center of the perfectibility of our systems and the the the kind of scientific improvement of systems and and lifestyles yeah in which lends to fascinating comparisons today I mean earlier you mentioned different political conversations that are continuing on with this which is absolutely true but but also just the the possibility we’ve lived in an age of great change in technological advancement which makes us feel that we can do almost anything you know having

22:30 this conversation with three people none of you are in my home that’s pretty amazing Naumann so what else could we accomplish and they live through a similar period right going from you know the sort of early ages of Industry on into this period of advancements in transportation in communication in you know electricity all of this is kind of an upsurge during this period and and that that change I think is almost like a contagion of the age or I mean it feels as though everything is possible and Bellamy certainly seems to be tapping into that same kind of feeling and his rhetoric is so compelling like that’s what else is I mean I can understand why this is a best-seller I want to live in the world of two thousand that he that he portrays it’s a beautiful world where everyone is

23:17 that everyone is happy and living literally living their best lives and that’s encapsulated kind of in this yeah that would be kind of my question – Rachel you Nicole why do you think he chose to write a science fiction book I mean why not write a pamphlet what what is it you know why do you think he went this Avenue for for conveying his message I think he was making more money writing fiction actually seriously you know he’d been writing he’d been an editor at papers they’d written short stories but as he gets a wife and a child there’s more money to be made in the novel being a novelist yeah you know

24:06 I think the history of science fiction and social change is a really there’s a there’s speculative and science fiction as a tool for for exposing and and taking trends to an extreme to you kind of do a reductio on them and and and help people understand what the implications of their of their interests are is is as old as science fiction and so I think that there’s something that can be done there for students to I mean this is why you know 1984 captures them and Fahrenheit 451 and Handmaid’s Tale and all of those great kind of propia

24:51 science fiction works help young people access something something critique about our society reading 1984 with students are reading Fahrenheit 451 with students written in this day and age where BR and AR are a thing that they live in is it very is a fascinating conversation to have right and I think similarly reading Bellamy or an other utopian utopian visionaries is a fascinating conversation to have with young people about what is the potential and pitfalls and how do we explore those well there’s no parameters either you can go wherever

25:38 you want with this the sky is the limit your imagination what and you know he’s he’s looking at a society you would like to live in and that he would like his child to live in i i’d like to circle back to the slide that was up a few minutes ago 35 135 you know where he’s talking about you know there’s enough for everybody there’s you know there’s a surplus and there is enough for everybody and you know he’s talking about everybody for taking of the richness of everything that’s out there we should all you know have what’s out there you know it doesn’t everybody want that next point and he’s you know he’s he’s got a family he’s got you know i got

26:26 that’s the world he wants to live in and he wants his his family to live in right can we just read the last sentence and then we’ll move on to it because we have said we have to move on to the Carnegie but all my friends believe me it is not now in this happy age that humanity is proving the divinity within it was rather in those evil days when not even the fight for life with one another the struggle for mere existence in which mercy was folly could wholly vanish generosity and kindness from the earth so he can’t he can’t demonize them too much you can’t you can’t say everything you can’t say that there aren’t good people in the world no matter the circumstance and I

27:13 thought that was an interesting way to end this section yeah he certainly believes in humanity definitely any other kind of thoughts on the on the Bellamy I really think it’s an interesting thought experiment for students to you know kind of wrap their brains around that and you know especially since we’re past the year 2000 for them to to look back and say okay what is this guy looking at and look where we’re at now and what would he think maybe of our society today I was thinking about you know talking about how long it takes to do something you know I have a daughter that works in an industry that she doesn’t have to

27:58 necessarily work an eight-hour day just as long as the job gets done yeah and I mean productivity the idea of productivity changes in a technological economy right so both in both directions what a single person can do in a day but also what what like the capacity of the I’m gonna get these numbers wrong but like General Motors at its height employed 600,000 people these numbers are wrong but Google and its height right now only employs 60,000 or something along those lines like the scale is so it’s a magnitude scale difference yeah in what what when you

28:43 have to do tactile physical manual production is the kind of production that can happen in a technological society absolutely you know Carnegie goes through some of that evolution there’s an switchover I’ve done this before but no yeah and and I think that that evolution is important and interesting to think about too because especially for students looking at the transition because even during this period of heavy industrialization more people still worked on farms I think until the mid 1920s then worked in factories and in cities which is continues to be I mean that’s that’s a significant factor but they’re also seeing these changes and seeing this evolution and in the impacts

29:30 of what that meant for the individuals were working in these areas and in carting Carnegie tries to wrestle with that a little bit and I wonder what you both thought of of what you know his presentation of how industrialism swept over the nation and whether or not you thought it was a fair representation or is it certainly the representation of of one of these you know captains of industry who has been at the forefront of of this evolution well you know he he doesn’t come from wealth and he knows I mean his dad was a loom worker and the Industrial Revolution kind of impoverished his family over there is dad you know he was working for for rights and stuff for the workers and

30:16 that’s when they decided to come here so you know he’s not coming at this from the from not having experience with the poor in the industry and those kinds of things so you know I I give him a little credit because you know he’s been there it’s not like he was born into wealth yeah absolutely and also you know I think Carnegie’s life span is really interesting too because it you know he was born in 1834 and so he’s grown up through a lot of a lot of this change right so he’s seen a lot of the evolutionary changes and especially getting seeing a lot of his business moves take place during the civil war and then in after that I mean he’s seen a lot of

31:03 that evolution and so I think he has a very up-close view of what this has looked like over time but it’s interesting here that he also focuses on discrepancies in wealth right and and that’s clearly something that’s top of mind for him as he’s thinking about it in income inequality and in wealth distribution are certainly things that are still very much discussed today and it kind of makes a case for saying look you know this is true but look at how much this discrepancy in wealth is actually benefited everyone right so even though those at the top like Carnegie are having much much more wealth so then do the people a little bit farther down the line their lives

31:48 are also much more comfortable which is very much a difference a different approach than Bellamy was was discussing and and I think that a really good question to ask your students is are are the workers under these robber barons are they better or worse because of these rich men are their lives better or worse and I think Carnegie is pointing out hey look you know these people are living in way better dwellings than even you know the wealthy several generations ago were living in I think that line is interesting for students to parse which

32:34 is he makes an argument that the irregularity the wealth gap is that is much better than universal squalor and if that’s a challenge for a lot of people and I think that students could really wrestle with that question yes on what line about what 16 and Larry says our relapse – the old condition would be disastrous to both not the least sodium who serves what would their lives be like if they go back right yeah I love that line too in conversation with Bellamy just because he calls it out is like the good old

33:20 times were not that good right as though you know Bellamy here’s looking back and saying oh you know that wasn’t great but it’s almost looking forward it’s perfect right we’ll get there it’s gonna be great Carnegie seems to be suggesting look you know there were no good old times and there’s not gonna be any good old times there’s gonna be a struggle here and it’s on us to recognize that the prosperity from this system has built into it some challenges that we need to overcome which i think is a very different take on on human nature to and so that that would be a question that I would ask you both to or ask my students how are these guys looking at human nature you know is it similarly especially we’re talking about utopians it’s a very specific way of looking at

34:07 how it is that humanity unfolds or their similarities are there differences are any lines dropping out from that perspective I think for him for for Carnegie it’s he’s not a utopian he’s not utopianist he’s not a utopia Toki Asst utopian utopian buckthorn he’s not a utopian he is he it seems he I mean so I’m looking at lines like 30 32 through 45 so starting lines 32 that this idea of the change of the modes of production would mean that you’d get all of these goods that are relatively high quality

34:53 at relatively low cost the poor will enjoy what the rich could not before afford where that what were luxuries have become the necessaries of life right thing in the cell phone to the man of 1888 would have been extraordinarily luxury right and the cell phone rate of like the cell phone adoption rate in Africa was higher than the u.s. for a long time they would the small the small all cell phones with us and the cell phone coverage was higher in the US and so like the the poor enjoy the riches that they cannot afford what were

35:39 luxuries have become the necessaries of life the laborer now has more comfort than landlord had a few generations ago well then he goes I mean so he says all these things are great but the price we pay is great too right he’s not a utopian utopian um and the price we pay is this idea of castes yeah and you know as you go down into about line 48 under the law of competition the employer of thousands is forced into the strictest economies among which the rates paid to labor figure prominently and often there is friction between the employer and the employed capital and labor the rich and poor yeah these guys have got to make

36:26 money or they go out of business I mean he’s he points that out often in his writings that you know you either make money or go out of business and then what happens to the labor and his argument there is that so so we could all be alike in in misery so the human society loses the homogeneity or the advantage is greater than the price of that struggle for it is this law we owe our wonderful material development which brings improved conditions in its in its wake and is that compelling right everything like this is why the conversation with Bellamy is so interesting he’s in quite a shoe on is

37:14 that compelling or is Bellamy’s utopian vision of a knee of equality compelling those are those are the interesting questions that these two documents bring bring together yeah and who makes a stronger case to write who’s stacking up their evidence in a way that that is more compelling right yeah I think I think that question there that Carnegie lays out his answer and and it’s pretty clear about that I think you could probably take that same question and ask Bellamy what the answer to that is and and and let your students present that case too but I think having that question be at the center of this

37:59 discussion makes it really interesting because again they’re both they’re both wrestling with a society that’s going through these changes in seeing the impact that those changes have and their conclusions about it seem to be different right and that could make for a great in-class activity debate it present their sides are stronger yeah and and working and working in that you know civil civil dialogue as we each them how to you know take on a different position and present that these are two very different positions for them to be able to argue and and some very

38:46 compelling on both sides and so then then it transitions into this last section of this excerpt so again this is I think an excerpt as well it might be yeah it’s an excerpt from the Gospel of wealth so there’s it’s chunked and it’s a much longer piece but it was it wasn’t published as a book it was no guess what was about but I think this excerpt was separately published as a magazine article so this earned this article was published separately from gospel wealth atlas it then transitions into this argument of what this last section from

39:32 56 to 275 let’s start on 56 this statement next next one the next 57 the rich man knows the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise so that’s a that’s a stake in the ground that Carnegie put a lot of his wealth into right the Carnegie libraries the Carnegie foundations the Kearney I mean so much philanthropic infrastructure in the United States is founded on the principles which Carnegie modeled in his giving practices that I think there’s a

40:21 long reach to him kind of staking this that you know the idea that the man who dies rich dies in disgrace like you have a responsibility to give and to steward those less fortunate by providing me as pleasures and I don’t like he’s a little guilty doesn’t it I know I’m not sure like he feels you know coming from the background he’s coming from that he feels that obligation to give back because he knows what he came from interpreted this was based on my own experience I taught at a school that was underwritten by a foundation and the foundation received all of its the foundation only funded projects that

41:08 were in the county where the the foundation founder had a had a plant he was a manufacturer and so he had manufacturing plants all over the country and the the foundation that he set up with his wealth would only fund projects in the county and the contiguous counties to those plants because his thought was that those were the people that allowed him to to amass his his his wealth and so those are the people who he was grateful to and who who he thought deserved that the reason like the benefits of those resources so it was a really guilt but more gratitude and so that’s how I but again I have this very particular

41:53 experience where I taught in this private school that was underwritten by this donor who had that particular vision and so that struck me very similar so what Carnegie is described here that that these that the like all of your workers all of your employees are the ones that so the way that you know that you have is to show them how much you appreciate what they do and what looking by creating these inspirational places right so notice he’s not saying build hospitals I think he did build hospitals but that’s not what he says the responsibility is he’s not saying build bridges and roads not

42:41 build homes even yeah it’s interesting it in to me I think it’s a great question for students right cuz obviously Rachel Nicole you both had a different perspective on that right and I think that’s that’s a rich discussion to go into because what can you know from this one piece about Carnegie right we didn’t go into really too much into what his rise was or challenges that he had whose his reaction to certain riots and or using their rights but strikes that had happened in his plants or even other things that took place in his life right so so I think knowing that context you can come at it from one way knowing a personal context personal experience you can bring that in reading just the words you can look at it from that perspective and here to to me it strikes me only because I was looking at both of

43:27 these authors for what their system was underlying it to me it seems like Carnegie wants to defend the system that allowed him to rise right so it seems as though he sees he sees the prosperity and benefits that have come from his his success within this system and so he seems to think that the things that are underlying that need to be perpetuated and this is his method of doing it right so it’s the responsibility that follows from his own success so whether that responsibility is motivated by gratitude or whether it’s motivated by guilt or whether it’s motivated by simply you know whatever other means it may be it certainly is clear that he does feel as though it is a responsibility that he

44:14 needs to fulfill which i think is interesting and it seems that that responsibility that the purpose of that responsibility is to perpetuate the system that has allowed for what he sees as being a massive benefit for the majority of the country now Bellamy obviously would we disagree with that statement right Bellamy would come at it and say no this system is part of the problem and it’s creating this inequality of of resources and material that is preventing what would be human nature prospering in some kind of different way or modality I guess for me you know with Carnegie what always jumps to mind is the library you know libraries and you know he’s

45:02 self educated when he got to America and then did night school and so he sees the value of education obviously and allowing you know knowledge is power and and allowing people to have access to that Kirk I think it’s important interesting too that you brought up that he writes this before the big homestead strike mm-hmm so it makes you wonder what his perspective would have been had he written this piece maybe right after that strike and everything that went along with that if you’re looking for a really awesome lesson on the Homestead Strike Bill of Rights Institute’s Gilded Age resource has a really cool role play on the homestead strike where you where you have a narrator reading aloud the action of the strike and there’s a real

45:49 workers in the Gilded Age as a unit in that resource and the that that lesson is really cool but I do think that’s an interesting question had this been written you know 20 years later what would he have would he have said the same things about the relations I you know I don’t know but I expect so because you see onion at that line and 65 that line 65 thus you know if we recognize all of these things and the rich do their job of providing opportunities that will better the life of the of the of the of the workers the problem of

46:36 rich and poor will be solved and rate like will keep going unity relations it’s kind of the argument that I see here yeah but his solution is not the same as what Bellamy’s would be rich important would be solved yeah I’m gonna be very different than what Bellamy is suggesting it’s two different visions of what solved means yeah and I think really great to read together absolutely I think some of his social Darwinism is coming out here too and lying about 69 the best minds yeah

47:22 you can see some of that influence come right yeah and that also came out when he says that was lying 69 but he also says that the rich man knows the best means of benefiting the community on page online 58 and so I think like that’s also there’s there’s some there’s a sense of lack of autonomy in the workers that they’re like that social Darwinism idea that there’s a reason that certain people get into positions of power and therefore that that power confers certain knowledge I you know I think we and modernity have it would take a statement and I I think it would

48:11 be reasonable for students to take umbrage with that statement yes so anything else on wealth or Bellamy I mean I think that we found some great things to dive into I can’t believe it’s already been 45 minutes so 50 minutes so but I think it shows the power of putting text like this in conversation with one another because again you know not only is this was this a rich dialogue and discussion that can add context to a historical conversation about what was happening at the time but it can also be used to access conversations now that that might otherwise be much more impassioned right because if you can take it out of the current context and give something to grapple on to

48:58 sometimes that can be a good way of having those conversations without you know getting into every vagary of every political opinion that everybody may have right and so I think history can be a really interesting tool for that particularly this period because as I mentioned before there are a lot of parallels between questions that the country was wrestling with then and and now so with that yeah any final parting thoughts before housing discussion yes thank you for having me absolutely and thank you everyone for joining us we really appreciate it and we’ll see you again in a few weeks thank you so much thank you so much thank you