crash diet in urdu

episode 27: progressive era hi, i’m john green, this is crashcourseu.s. history, and today we’re gonna talk about progressives. no stan progressives.yes. you know, like these guys who used to wantto bomb the means of production, but also less radical progressives.mr. green, mr. green. are we talking about,

crash diet in urdu, like, tumblr progressive where it’s halfdiscussions of misogyny and half high-contrast images of pizza? because if so, i can getbehind that. me from the past, your anachronism is showing.your internet was green letters on a black screen.but no, the progressive era was not like tumblr,

however i will argue that it did indirectlymake tumblr and therefore jlaw gifsets possible, so that’s something.so some of the solutions that progressives came up with to deal with issues of inequalityand injustice don’t seem terribly progressive today, and also it kinda overlapped with thegilded age, and progressive implies, like, progress, presumably progress toward freedomand justice, which is hard to argue about an era that involved one of the great restrictionson freedom in american history, prohibition. so maybe we shouldn’t call it the progressiveera at all. i g--stan, whatever, roll the intro.intro so, if the gilded age was the period whenamerican industrial capitalism came into its

own, and people like mark twain began to criticizeits associated problems, then the progressive era was the age in which people actually triedto solve those problems through individual and group action.as the economy changed, progressives also had to respond to a rapidly changing politicalsystem. the population of the u.s. was growing andits economic power was becoming ever more concentrated. and sometimes, progressivesresponded to this by opening up political participation and sometimes by trying to restrictthe vote. the thing is, broad participatory democracydoesn’t always result in effective government--he said, sounding like the chinese national communistparty.

and that tension between wanting to have governmentfor, of, and by the people and wanting to have government that’s, like, good at governingkind of defined the progressive era. and also our era.but progressives were most concerned with the social problems that revolved around industrialcapitalist society. and most of these problems weren’t new by 1900, but some of the responseswere. companies and, later, corporations had a problemthat had been around at least since the 1880s: they needed to keep costs down and profitshigh in a competitive market. and one of the best ways to do this was to keep wages low,hours long, and conditions appalling: your basic house-elf situation.just kidding, house elves didn’t get wages.

also, by the end of the 19th century, peoplestarted to feel like these large, monopolistic industrial combinations, the so-called trusts,were exerting too much power over people’s lives.the 1890s saw federal attempts to deal with these trusts, such as the sherman anti-trustact, but overall, the federal government wasn’t where most progressive changes were made.for instance, there was muckraking, a form of journalism in which reporters would findsome muck and rake it. mass circulation magazines realized they couldmake money by publishing exposã©s of industrial and political abuse, so they did.oh, it’s time for the mystery document? i bet it involves muck. the rules here aresimple.

i guess the author of the mystery document.i’m either correct or i get shocked. “let a man so much as scrape his fingerpushing a truck in the pickle-rooms, and all the joints in his fingers might be eaten bythe acid, one by one. of the butchers and floormen, the beef-boners and trimmers, andall those who used knives, you could scarcely find a person who had the use of his thumb;time and time again the base of it had been slashed, till it was a mere lump of fleshagainst which the man pressed the knife to hold it. ... they would have no nails – theyhad worn them off pulling hides.” wow. well now i am hyper-aware of and gratefulfor my thumbs. they are just in excellent shape. i am so glad, stan, that i am not abeef-boner at one of the meat-packing factories

written about in the jungle by upton sinclair.no shock for me! oh stan, i can only imagine how long and hardyou’ve worked to get the phrase “beef-boner” into this show. and you finally did it. congratulations.by the way, just a little bit of trivia: the jungle was the first book i ever read thatmade me vomit. so that’s a review. i don’t know if it’s positive, but there you go.anyway, at the time, readers of the jungle were more outraged by descriptions of rottenmeat than by the treatment of meatpacking workers: the jungle led to the pure food anddrug act and the meat inspection act of 1906. that’s pretty cool for upton sinclair, althoughmy books have also led to some federal legislation, such as the haopt, which officially declaredhazel and augustus the nation’s otp.

so, to be fair, writers had been describingthe harshness of industrial capitalism for decades, so muckraking wasn’t really thatnew, but the use of photography for documentation was.lewis hine, for instance, photographed child laborers in factories and mines, bringingamericans face to face with the more than 2 million children under the age of 15 workingfor wages. and hine’s photos helped bring about laws that limited child labor.but even more important than the writing and photographs and magazines when it came toimproving conditions for workers was twitter … what’s that? there was no twitter? still?what is this 1812? alright, so apparently still without twitter,workers had to organize into unions to get

corporations to reduce hours and raise theirpay. also some employers started to realize ontheir own that one way to mitigate some of the problems of industrialization was to payworkers better, like in 1914, henry ford paid his workers an average of $5 per day, unheardof at the time. . whereas today i pay stan and danica 3x thatand still they whine. ford’s reasoning was that better-paid workerswould be better able to afford the model ts that they were making. and indeed, ford’sannual output rose from 34,000 cars to 730,000 between 1910 and 1916, and the price of amodel t dropped from $700 to $316. still, henry ford definitely forgot to beawesome sometimes; he was anti-semitic, he

used spies in his factories, and he namedhis child edsel. also like most employers at the turn of thecentury, he was virulently anti-union. so, while the afl was organizing the mostprivileged industrial workers, another union grew up to advocate for rights for a largerswath of the workforce, especially the immigrants who dominated unskilled labor: the internationalworkers of the world. they were also known as the wobblies, andthey were founded in 1905 to advocate for “every wage-worker, no matter what his religion,fatherland or trade,” and not, as the name wobblies suggests, just those fans of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey.the wobblies were radical socialists; ultimately they wanted to see capitalism and the statedisappear in revolution.

now, most progressives didn’t go that far,but some, following the ideas of henry george, worried that economic progress could producea dangerous unequal distribution of wealth that could only be cured by … taxes.but, more progressives were influenced by simon w. patten who prophesied that industrializationwould bring about a new civilization where everyone would benefit from the abundanceand all the leisure time that all these new labor-saving devices could bring.this optimism was partly spurred by the birth of a mass consumption society. i mean, americansby 1915 could purchase all kinds of new-fangled devices, like washing machines, or vacuumcleaners, automobiles, record players. it’s worth underscoring that all this happenedin a couple generations: i mean, in 1850,

almost everyone listened to music and washedtheir clothes in nearly the same way that people did 10,000 years ago. and then boom.and for many progressives, this consumer culture, to quote our old friend eric foner, “becamethe foundation for a new understanding of freedom as access to the cornucopia of goodsmade available by modern capitalism.” and this idea was encouraged by new advertisingthat connected goods with freedom, using “liberty” as a brand name or affixing the statue ofliberty to a product. by the way, crash course is made exclusively in the united states ofamerica, the greatest nation on earth ever. (libertage.)that’s a lie, of course, but you’re allowed to lie in advertising.but in spite of this optimism, most progressives

were concerned that industrial capitalism,with its exploitation of labor and concentration of wealth, was limiting, rather than increasingfreedom, but depending on how you defined “freedom,” of course.industrialization created what they referred to as “the labor problem” as mechanizationdiminished opportunities for skilled workers and the supervised routine of the factoryfloor destroyed autonomy. the scientific workplace management advocatedby efficiency expert frederick w. taylor required rigid rules and supervision in order to heightenworker productivity. so if you’ve ever had a job with a definednumber of bathroom breaks, that’s why. also “taylorism” found its way into classrooms;and anyone who’s had to sit in rows for

45 minute periods punctuated by factory-stylebells knows that this atmosphere is not particularly conducive to a sense of freedom.now this is a little bit confusing because while responding to worker exploitation waspart of the progressive movement, so was taylorism itself because it was an application of research,observation, and expertise in response to the vexing problem of how to increase productivity.and this use of scientific experts is another hallmark of the progressive era, one thatusually found its expression in politics. american progressives, like their counterpartsin the green sections of not-america, sought government solutions to social problems.germany, which is somewhere over here, pioneered “social legislation” with its minimumwage, unemployment insurance and old age pension

laws, but the idea that government actioncould address the problems and insecurities that characterized the modern industrial world,also became prominent in the united states. and the notion that an activist governmentcould enhance rather than threaten people’s freedom was something new in america.now, progressives pushing for social legislation tended to have more success at the state andlocal level, especially in cities, which established public control over gas and water and raisedtaxes to pay for transportation and public schools.whereas federally the biggest success was, like, prohibition, which, you know, not thatsuccessful. but anyway, if all that local collectivistinvestment sounds like socialism, it kind

of is.i mean, by 1912 the socialist party had 150,000 members and had elected scores of local officialslike milwaukee mayor emil seidel. some urban progressives even pushed to getrid of traditional democratic forms altogether. a number of cities were run by commissionsof experts or city managers, who would be chosen on the basis of some demonstrated expertiseor credential rather than their ability to hand out turkeys at christmas or find jobsfor your nephew’s sister’s cousin. progressive editor walter lippman argued forapplying modern scientific expertise to solve social problems in his 1914 book drift andmastery, writing that scientifically trained experts “could be trusted more fully thanordinary citizens to solve america’s deep

social problems.”this tension between government by experts and increased popular democratic participationis one of the major contradictions of the progressive era. the 17th amendment allowedfor senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by state legislatures,and many states adopted primaries to nominate candidates, again taking power away from politicalparties and putting it in the hands of voters. and some states, particularly western oneslike california adopted aspects of even more direct democracy, the initiative, which allowedvoters to put issues on the ballot, and the referendum, which allows them to vote on lawsdirectly. and lest you think that more democracy isalways good, i present you with california.

but many progressives wanted actual policymade by experts who knew what was best for the people, not the people themselves.and despite primaries in direct elections of senators it’s hard to argue that theprogressive era was a good moment for democratic participation, since many progressives wereonly in favor of voting insofar as it was done by white, middle class, protestant voters.alright. let’s go to the thought bubble. progressives limited immigrants’ participationin the political process through literacy tests and laws requiring people to registerto vote. voter registration was supposedly intended to limit fraud and the power of politicalmachines. stop me if any of this sounds familiar, but it actually just suppressed voting generally.voting gradually declined from 80% of male

americans voting in the 1890s to the pointwhere today only about 50% of eligible americans vote in presidential elections.but an even bigger blow to democracy during the progressive era came with the jim crowlaws passed by legislatures in southern states, which legally segregated the south. first,there was the deliberate disenfranchisement of african americans. the 15th amendment madeit illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitudebut said nothing about the ability to read, so many southern states instituted literacyrequirements. other states added poll taxes, requiring people to pay to vote, which effectivelydisenfranchised large numbers of african american people, who were disproportionately poor.the supreme court didn’t help: in 1896,

it made one of its most famous bad decisions,plessy v. ferguson, ruling that segregation in public accommodations, in homer plessy’scase a railroad car, did not violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.as long as black railroad cars were equal to white ones, it was a-ok to have duplicatesets of everything. now, creating two sets of equal quality of everything would get reallyexpensive, so southern states didn’t actually do it. black schools, public restrooms, publictransportation opportunities--the list goes on and on--would definitely be separate, anddefinitely not equal. thanks, thoughtbubble. now, of course, aswe’ve seen progressive ideas inspired a variety of responses, both for taylorism andagainst it, both for government by experts

and for direct democracy.similarly, in the progressive era, just as the jim crow laws were being passed, therewere many attempts to improve the lives of african americans.the towering figure in this movement to “uplift” black southerners was booker t. washington,a former slave who became the head of the tuskegee institute in alabama, a center forvocational education. and washington urged southern black peopleto emphasize skills that could make them successful in the contemporary economy.the idea was that they would earn the respect of white people by demonstrating their usefulnessand everyone would come to respect each other through the recognition of mutual dependencewhile continuing to live in separate social

spheres.but washington’s accommodationist stance was not shared by all african americans. webdubois advocated for full civil and political rights for black people and helped to foundthe naacp, which urged african americans to fight fortheir rights through “persistent, manly agitation.”so i wanted to talk about the progressive era today not only because it shows up ona lot of tests, but because progressives tried to tackle many of the issues that we facetoday, particularly concerning immigration and economic justice, and they used some ofthe same methods that we use today: organization, journalistic exposure, and political activism.now, we may use tumblr or tea party forums,

but the same concerns motivate us to worktogether. and just as today, many of their efforts were not successful because of theinherent difficulty in trying to mobilize very different interests in a pluralisticnation. in some ways their platforms would have beenbetter suited to an america that was less diverse and complex. but it was that verydiversity and complexity that gave rise and still gives rise to the urge toward progressin the first place. thanks for watching. i’ll see you next week.crash course is produced and directed by stan muller. our script supervisor is meredithdanko. the associate producer is danica johnson. the show is written by my high school historyteacher, raoul meyer, rosianna rojas, and

myself. and our graphics team is thought cafã©.every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. you can suggest captions in commentswhere you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team ofhistorians. thanks for watching crash course. if you likeit, and if you’re watching the credits you probably do, make sure you’re subscribed.and as we say in my hometown don’t forget to be awesome...that was more dramatic thanit sounded. progressive era -