Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Literacy in the Old Regime DBQ Thesis
Post your thesis for the DBQ: Literacy in the Old Regime before class on 12/16. Please comment on a classmate's thesis before class on 12/17. Comment should explain why you agree with their thesis, or CONSTRUCTIVELY critical of their thesis. All posts must be approved by Mr. Meli before they appear on the blog, so be patient...it will post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Conor McCann
ReplyDeleteThe reason for the vast schism between those who were literate and those who weren't in 18th century France is because of the fact that education was manipulated by those in power, and distributed to those who they believed needed it.
Jaylen Williams
ReplyDeleteEducation in France was scarce amongst the inhibitors of the southern region and those of a low social and economic class, because those in power dictated who needed to be educated and who wasn't going to utilize their education.
Literacy in eighteenth century France was dependent on social rank and location. Southern France's low literacy rate was attributed to the lack of schools and greater amounts of low-class citizens, while the north was more urbanized, with more school systems and members of the nobility.
ReplyDeleteThe spread of literacy in France was interrupted largely by those in power on the basis that learned peasants would possibly realize their potential outside of physical labor. Without the support of these peasants in the fields, factories, and as servants, the pampered lives of the bourgeoisie would suffer large-scale inconvenience.
ReplyDeleteLiteracy in France was predominate in Northern part of France among the male nobility of the country but other lower social classes and females were less literate during the time. Literacy overall increased in all levels of social classes and both genders from 1730 to the 1800s. Literacy was discouraged by those in power but it was promoted by those who wanted changes and rejected the status quo.
ReplyDeleteWith a high literacy rate in the healthier and more urbanized Northern France compared to the staggering literacy rate in the south of France, many variations in levels of literacy arose across Old Regime France. Throughout the many factors promoting and discouraging the spread of literacy, there was a common theme among the aristocracy, most of whom saw education a necessity for the wealthy, but unnecessary for the peasants. However, some peasants would later argue that their troubles would be solved with proper education and instruction.
ReplyDeleteLow levels of literacy in France in the 17th century can be attributed to location and economic standing, as well as the lack of education for females. However, these levels increased among the poor, those living the south, and even among women as time wore on. It was most often rejected by those of higher economic standing and advocated by those looking for social advancements.
ReplyDeleteThe spread of literacy throughout France in the eighteenth century was dependent on social rank, gender and location. Nobility had a higher literacy rate, particularly males, because of their access to education, feeling of entitlement and upper hand in society. Southern France demonstrated a lower literacy rate due to the large amount of peasantry and lack of an educational system.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the Old Regime in France, most people were illiterate, especially in southern France. The condescending nobles believed that peasants didn't need to know how to read and write because it wouldn't help their daily lives. Only male nobles started to become in some areas a majority of literate people, most women also remained uneducated.
ReplyDeleteLiteracy rates have generally increased over time but factors that affected these rates were gender, religon, the place of the peasantry in society, and the benefits of literacy in society in general.
ReplyDeleteLitaracy could be called the best hope for any individual to improve there economic status. In the Old Regime litracy was countrolled by the rich nobles and the church, there power could easly be attributed to there litaracy. It can be seen through out history that with the spread of litaracy, spread of econimic prosperity.
ReplyDeleteWhile levels of literacy in France were improving, they were not improving very quickly or on a very large scale. This is scene mostly in southern France, where people were poorer and gave the upper class reason to believe that these peasants did not need to know how to read, they just needed to know how to survive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Lily said, her thesis statement summarizes all body paragraph she is going to talk about and she addresses change over time.
ReplyDeleteJacqueline: You misspelled religion. :)
Nina: your thesis statement is one of the best ones I have read, you are able to touch on all topics of the essay in just two sentences. I would recommend you to talk about the change over time because the essay also wants us to include what promoted or stopped literacy from spreading.
I agree with Patrick's thesis statement. The French authorities most likely denied the peasants proper education to hinder their moving up in the social hierarchy. Maybe that's why education was so exclusive to the higher classes in eighteenth century France.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lily's statement. The documents make it obvious that the bourgeois' common , if not completely unanimous, view of peasant education was that it was not necessary. Peasants, as well as a few free-thinking individuals of the upper class, felt that an education could increase their farm output and help make them better at their jobs, whatever they may be.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily’s thesis statement. It’s an important point to make that the higher literacy rate among nobles was due not only to their “easy access” to education but also to their feeling of entitlement. Mentioning this in your thesis allows you to talk about the reasons the nobility didn’t want to peasantry to learn to read in your body paragraphs—the reasons being that they felt the peasantry wasn’t worthy of education, as they (the nobility) were. In your last paragraph though, I’d specify “peasantry” as being “poor peasantry.” Northern France had a lot of peasants too—the difference was that southern peasants were exceedingly poor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nina's statement. She touches on most of the obvious and important points involving low literacy levels in France - location and social standing - but gender was never mentioned and that was an important deciding factor as well. Change over time is also not addressed in the thesis, although I'm sure it would be in the actual paper seeing as how it was emphasized in the documents.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jaylen's statement. Jaylen summed it up perfectly. The ones with the most land held the most power and the ones who had the most land were the richest and they were holding the reigns of education deciding who was else was worthy enough to know. The wealthy land owners didn't want the peasants who worked on THEIR property to be educated they saw it not only as a waste of time but as a threat. The more education had the more power they held.
ReplyDeleteHowever I disagree with the COT not being addressed because from reading the documents in sequential order I think one can make a similar conclusion such as Thomas who pinpointed to education as increasing in BOTH genders, which can be backed up with document one!
I agree with Pats thesis. I like his point how he said that the peasants wouldn't reach their full potential and how the Nobles would be inconvenienced if the peasants raised their intelligence. It makes sense for the rich nobles to want to protect their power, and one way to do that was to not give out education to the masses.
ReplyDeleteI dont think it would be correct for nina R to specify southern france because you would not be able to differentiate between all or most of the documents if they were from north or the south. It is also not good to include a question in a thesis statement.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I both agree and disagree with Mitchell's statement, simply because of the wording of the thesis. It is true that women were less educated than men in each demographic individually, but for the most part, literacy was mostly focused on class. The majority of women in the aristocracy were literate by 1789, though it was less than men. Also, merchants had become educated to a degree as well, so it would not be accurate to say that only male nobles were literate. With the exception of that, it is a good thesis, which I agree with.
ReplyDelete