Fascinating. I'm not surprised Dickens got the wrong end of the telescope. All his whingeing about the conditions of the urban poor in the Industrial Revolution neglected their fleeing the even worse rural conditions of their forebears; that urban life was a great improvement; and its' "evils" transitory. The BBC have made some good adaptions of his work; but I've never seen why his books should be part of an English/English Lit curriculum. Unreadable, sentimental, tosh IMHO. "(A)nd so say all of us!" 😉😇
More history mostly unknown to me! I love this; keep 'em coming.
This runs contrary to the historical narratives I've read, but would love to know more. The narrative I'm familiar usually goes something like:
1. Development of enclosure movement as a form of imposing colonial logic on commoners. (People with access to the commons and farmers etc, people pulled away from ancestral homes and communities of support.)
2. Rich land owner accumulate more wealth and capital by forcing commoners off the land and pushing them into emerging urban industrial centres.
3. This happens at the same time as new industrial processes like power looms etc start the process of de-skilling artisans and driving down wages.
4. Commoners/artisans fight these changes but are largely defeated through military action. (Luddites and other nascent labour movements.)
5. Forced into industrial squalor for a few generations, and the emergence of the British working class. (Marx, Engels, Owens etc.)
6. Continued concentration of wealth leads to modern industrial capitalism, complements interesting in slavery and general industrial production.
7. This is where we see a big decline in health and rise of communicable and noncommunicable diseases.
8. A lot of this falls apart after 2 world wars and emergence of welfare state, financialisation and other trends that create new systemic incentives.
9. Current issues of de-industrialisation in the UK in former industry towns. See Burton on Trent, Dundee, mid-sized cities in Northern England etc.
Like I said, I'm not glued to this narrative. Would love to hear counter examples or other narratives as that's always been though rough outline.
The version of history which you appear to have imbibed is that of Rousseau and Marx. The former asserts, with Gallic rhetorical flourish but no evidence, that land enclosure and thus private property is the root of all the exploitations and oppressions of the masses. (see Discourse on Inequality). The latter, with German sternness and an equal absence of evidence, claims that all of history is a story of class exploitation. (see The Communist Manifesto)
The problem, of course, is that all sweeping narratives of history necessarily ignore the actual historical facts. Or rather, they select only those facts, and interpretations of events, which fit their narrative. For example, the enclosure movement began in the 12th century, somewhat before the industrial revolution, as a means of improving land-yields and thus ameliorating periodic famine. The Great Famine of the early 14th century, for example, saw a population reduction in northern Europe of some 10-15%.
If I might suggest, an alternative to the Rousseau-Marxian narrative is that of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, JS Mil, and in our own times, Pinker. It is essential to study the works themselves, rather than some jejune emasculation one gets from the likes of the Guardian, the BBC and, sadly but increasingly, from our schools and universities.
Most importantly, however, is to to study the history itself, and in particular from authors outside the modern comfort zone; eg, Robert Tombs, Niall Fergusson, Andrew Roberts, Jeremy Black, and, most heretically of all, Winston Churchill.
Don't trouble yourself too much, but I'm certainly curious as to the spectrum of friendly interaction to outright hostility they have with neighbouring Inuit tribes, and with non-Inuit peoples. And to what extent that's typical of hunter-gatherers more generally.
Regarding the lost Franklin expedition it is tragic that of all the complex preparations they made their nemesis may have been poorly constructed tins of food. "This dangerously acute lead poisoning would have come with severe consequences for him and others in a similar condition - not only physically, but mentally. Insomnia, convulsions, paranoia, delirium and hallucinations are all known symptoms". What a terrible death, their chance of survival must have been greatly diminished, suffering the paranoia, delirium and hallucinations from the lead poisoning would have reduced their mental and physical drive to survive and also may have lessened their inhibition to cannibalise each other I would have thought. I also feel sorry for the surgeon John Rae who reported his findings of the cannibalism privately only for it to be made public outwith his control, he did not deserve to suffer the wrath of society. As you say "it is now the stuff of legend". All of your article is fascinating, truth is stranger than fiction, thank you!
Enjoyable read but one small correction: in Dan Simmons' novel the sixam ieau do not cut their tongues: they have a kind of mating ritual with the tuunbaq involving a kiss during which it cuts and consumes their tongue. It is perilous: despite propitiatory measures and the presence of a confirmed sixam ieau at the scene there is no guarantee that the tuunbaq will accept the offering. It is surviving that ritual that makes one a sixam ieau, not the loss of one's tongue per se.
Fascinating. I'm not surprised Dickens got the wrong end of the telescope. All his whingeing about the conditions of the urban poor in the Industrial Revolution neglected their fleeing the even worse rural conditions of their forebears; that urban life was a great improvement; and its' "evils" transitory. The BBC have made some good adaptions of his work; but I've never seen why his books should be part of an English/English Lit curriculum. Unreadable, sentimental, tosh IMHO. "(A)nd so say all of us!" 😉😇
More history mostly unknown to me! I love this; keep 'em coming.
We could probably use about a century of 'anti-sentimentalism' to rebalance the scales today.
I'm so glad someone else feels this way about Dickens. In my circles, it's the disdain that dare not speak its name.
This runs contrary to the historical narratives I've read, but would love to know more. The narrative I'm familiar usually goes something like:
1. Development of enclosure movement as a form of imposing colonial logic on commoners. (People with access to the commons and farmers etc, people pulled away from ancestral homes and communities of support.)
2. Rich land owner accumulate more wealth and capital by forcing commoners off the land and pushing them into emerging urban industrial centres.
3. This happens at the same time as new industrial processes like power looms etc start the process of de-skilling artisans and driving down wages.
4. Commoners/artisans fight these changes but are largely defeated through military action. (Luddites and other nascent labour movements.)
5. Forced into industrial squalor for a few generations, and the emergence of the British working class. (Marx, Engels, Owens etc.)
6. Continued concentration of wealth leads to modern industrial capitalism, complements interesting in slavery and general industrial production.
7. This is where we see a big decline in health and rise of communicable and noncommunicable diseases.
8. A lot of this falls apart after 2 world wars and emergence of welfare state, financialisation and other trends that create new systemic incentives.
9. Current issues of de-industrialisation in the UK in former industry towns. See Burton on Trent, Dundee, mid-sized cities in Northern England etc.
Like I said, I'm not glued to this narrative. Would love to hear counter examples or other narratives as that's always been though rough outline.
Thanks.
The version of history which you appear to have imbibed is that of Rousseau and Marx. The former asserts, with Gallic rhetorical flourish but no evidence, that land enclosure and thus private property is the root of all the exploitations and oppressions of the masses. (see Discourse on Inequality). The latter, with German sternness and an equal absence of evidence, claims that all of history is a story of class exploitation. (see The Communist Manifesto)
The problem, of course, is that all sweeping narratives of history necessarily ignore the actual historical facts. Or rather, they select only those facts, and interpretations of events, which fit their narrative. For example, the enclosure movement began in the 12th century, somewhat before the industrial revolution, as a means of improving land-yields and thus ameliorating periodic famine. The Great Famine of the early 14th century, for example, saw a population reduction in northern Europe of some 10-15%.
If I might suggest, an alternative to the Rousseau-Marxian narrative is that of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, JS Mil, and in our own times, Pinker. It is essential to study the works themselves, rather than some jejune emasculation one gets from the likes of the Guardian, the BBC and, sadly but increasingly, from our schools and universities.
Most importantly, however, is to to study the history itself, and in particular from authors outside the modern comfort zone; eg, Robert Tombs, Niall Fergusson, Andrew Roberts, Jeremy Black, and, most heretically of all, Winston Churchill.
Wonderful exposition! Thanks!
You're welcome, its such a compelling tale!
Learned a lot.
Glad to be of service
Interesting, I think I'd always just assumed the Inuit to be a relatively peaceful people.
Do you know if they clashed primarily with non-Inuit groups, or was there just as much conflict with other Inuit tribes?
They certainly clashed with other Inuit and Arctic peoples, I'll look for some papers if you're interested
Don't trouble yourself too much, but I'm certainly curious as to the spectrum of friendly interaction to outright hostility they have with neighbouring Inuit tribes, and with non-Inuit peoples. And to what extent that's typical of hunter-gatherers more generally.
It seems human nature has not changed much.
Great post but you forgot to list the contributions of the 2007 Clarkson, Hammond & May expedition
Maybe the Heroic Age never died?!
Regarding the lost Franklin expedition it is tragic that of all the complex preparations they made their nemesis may have been poorly constructed tins of food. "This dangerously acute lead poisoning would have come with severe consequences for him and others in a similar condition - not only physically, but mentally. Insomnia, convulsions, paranoia, delirium and hallucinations are all known symptoms". What a terrible death, their chance of survival must have been greatly diminished, suffering the paranoia, delirium and hallucinations from the lead poisoning would have reduced their mental and physical drive to survive and also may have lessened their inhibition to cannibalise each other I would have thought. I also feel sorry for the surgeon John Rae who reported his findings of the cannibalism privately only for it to be made public outwith his control, he did not deserve to suffer the wrath of society. As you say "it is now the stuff of legend". All of your article is fascinating, truth is stranger than fiction, thank you!
It feels like something from a story, all the elements combined make it one of the most tragic yet romantic events of the modern age.
Enjoyable read but one small correction: in Dan Simmons' novel the sixam ieau do not cut their tongues: they have a kind of mating ritual with the tuunbaq involving a kiss during which it cuts and consumes their tongue. It is perilous: despite propitiatory measures and the presence of a confirmed sixam ieau at the scene there is no guarantee that the tuunbaq will accept the offering. It is surviving that ritual that makes one a sixam ieau, not the loss of one's tongue per se.
What a ghastly period in our earth's history! Thank you for sharing all your research with us.
Excellent read. Thank you for composing this. Just recently re-read The Terror and this has been on my mind.