I think you gravely misunderstood my comment, I’m certainly not harking back to some romantic ideal of pre-industrial Arcadia.
If you were an under-nourished worker, living in the rat-like polluted conditions of an Industrial Revolution town in Northern England (for instance), constantly breathing sulfurous fumes, suffering cholera epidemics, seeing the whole town and all the countryside around it blackened by the ash from the local factories, while still seeing children die prematurely from all the same diseases and accidents that were common in the Middle Ages, but with less access to fresh air and your own vegetables and (to some extent) your own livestock, then making the life of a peasant seem less attractive than it maybe was in reality, is not such a far-fetched possibility.
> watching too many of your children die before their 4th birthday
As for children dying - maybe the children of peasants would die in greater numbers than the aristocracy, but nothing stopped their children from dying of an infected scratch or a bacterial infection, any more than anyone else, before the invention of antibiotics.
I think your comment falls into the “it was unadulterated hell being a peasant”-trap that I was referring to, instead of evaluating whether the life was actually more nuanced (especially in relative terms to those richer than themselves at the time).
I live in NYC, "greatest city in the world," and I encounter rats almost daily. Almost every apartment here will have a cockroach problem at some point. And since most of the city is a food desert, it takes pretty serious determination to eat a balanced diet, and usually at quite a cost.
So, notwithstanding all the negative points mentioned in this thread, I agree there are still many aspects of medieval peasant life that I wish we would aim for in today's world. There are even quite a few so-called modern "conveniences" that I would happily give up for them. I wish the things around me in my life were made of stone and wood and clay and durable textiles, rather than synthetic, disposable materials, shoddily assembled for a quick buck.
I think, just as you claim this false medieval story was told to industrial society, there is absolutely a concerted effort today to paint our current world as so much rosier than it is in comparison to other past living conditions. The idea in Better Angels of Our Nature and other such revisionist and cherry picked arguments seem like they could only be made to keep us pacified.
What part of the city do you live in that’s a food desert? They definitely exist, but I wouldn’t say they’re anywhere near common (especially relative the city’s staggering wealth disparities)[1].
This map is great and all but it's mostly worthless without actually going into the grocery stores and checking how the fruits and vegetables look. I live in Brooklyn but it's pretty well known that good quality fresh produce is not easy to get in the city, especially not for cheap, if you compare with other cities. You have to join a CSA or make the trip to chinatown or something like that, which is just not an option for a lot of people.
They had to make laws preventing peasants wearing aristocratic clothing. Yeah peasants experienced brutal conditions but the upper class did as well by modern standards. It’s scary to think that the beast of societal dogma could even spoil history as well as everything else.
> I think your comment falls into the “it was unadulterated hell being a peasant”-trap that I was referring to
You might be reading my comment as if that were the case, but I assure you that my thoughts are not that.
Humans adapt to any situation, that's why we are the superior species, we are the world's greatest adapters. Peasant life wasn't misery all the time, but there was FAR MORE misery on a FAR GREATER scale than there is for the average Brit. That's my point.
I think it's important to understand how many things we have that most of us take for granted (refridgeration, essentially infinite light, the world's information at your fingertips, I could go on).
I have read a few articles over the past few days about people waxing lyrical about how great medieval peasants had it, and my comment is merely counterpointing those arguments.
> As for children dying - maybe the children of peasants would die in greater numbers than the aristocracy, but nothing stopped their children from dying of an infected scratch or a bacterial infection, any more than anyone else, before the invention of antibiotics.
I think picking one bit of all of my examples, countering it, and then treating the rest of my argument as if it is worthless is a really bad way to engage with people. It's why I stopped commenting on HN, it's full of pedantic tripe like that.
> Humans adapt to any situation, that's why we are the superior species, we are the world's greatest adapters. Peasant life wasn't misery all the time, but there was FAR MORE misery on a FAR GREATER scale than there is for the average Brit. That's my point.
The industrial revolution was even worst is not exactly argument for "average lowly peasant life was better then ours". It just means other (otherwise short) period was even worst.
For that matter, medieval times had uprisings and discontents. Feudalism itself had also periodic uprisings, both during medieval times and after. French revolution did not exactly started when everything was fine and dandy.
Ah here was me thinking this was an uncontroversial and enjoyable discussion on HN.
Anyways. Once again, just to underline what I wrote before - my comment wasn’t supposed to suggest that there was a golden age of Elysian harmony in the pastoral landscape of Europe, somehow superior to the ‘terrible’ existence we have now, with our hospitals, antibiotics, electronic gadgets, space travel etc.
Over the last few years there’ve been quite a few studies linked on HN that have begun to give a nuanced image of life in the ‘Dark Ages’ - albeit one that was ravaged by conflict and disease.
I thought these interiors gave another dimension to this new perspective. That’s all my post was about.
Perhaps we should all be required to live for some period of time in the cold, hungry, dark pre-modern world such that we can return to modernity and be appropriately enthused.
For me it has been enough visiting subsistence farmers. I really don’t want to live like that, and have spent a decade trying to help at some useful scale.
True, most socio-economic 'revolutions' e.g. agricultural, industrial, Rome conquering/"brining civilization [to]" most of the know world had huge negative effects for the majority of the population at least in short and medium term,
That makes no sense. The immediate result of the Industrial Revolution was a significant improvement in the material well being of vast classes of people.
If we agree that the first phase of the industrial revolution began in the mid 18th century and lasted until the 1840s. The material well being for most people did not really start improving until the middle if not the end of that period.
For instance:
- average height of men in England peaked around 1740 and continued decreasing until at-least the 1830s or 40s or even later. Similar trends are noticeable in France and Holland. In the United Stated it was even worse, the trend didn't reverse until the late 19th century (of course this was mostly driven by immigrants from Europe, since the 18th century Americans were considerably taller than average Europeans).
- similar things could be said about real income. According to estimates real wages in England peaked around 1600 and then collapsed during the civil wars and other calamities in the 17th century. Then returned to similar levels just on the eve of the industrial revolution (1740s) when they crashed again and didn't surpass their past height until around 1820.
Life as a peasant was fine until it was not. If a flood or drought wiped out your crops, you were completely screwed. You might be able to get by with rationing or foraging, but you'd have to start over the next year weaker and demoralized. As populations grew, it becoming increasingly riskier to live off the land, which is why they moved to the cities where they can earn money that you can save in the case of an emergency.
You live in an age of excess, where you can always fall back on the welfare of others, so you can't imagine working 12 hour days in shitty conditions, but this is not the case for people who moved from hundreds, if not thousands of miles away to work in a factory. For them, an extra hour of work is an extra hour of security. The fact that billions of people made this move is evidence that rural life was that bad. Dismissing these incredibly thoughtful decisions as the result of capitalist propaganda completely dismisses their agency.
Not true. The wealthy were more than happy to employ peasants. Even as late as 1800, hundreds of years after the feudal system, 78% of Europeans were peasants.
> I’d suggesting googling the term “enclosure”, specifically with regard to England
Yes. I've heard this argument before. That doesn't change my argument though. Without industrialization, peasant life would be just not bad, if not worse because more people would be completing for the same resources.
If you were an under-nourished worker, living in the rat-like polluted conditions of an Industrial Revolution town in Northern England (for instance), constantly breathing sulfurous fumes, suffering cholera epidemics, seeing the whole town and all the countryside around it blackened by the ash from the local factories, while still seeing children die prematurely from all the same diseases and accidents that were common in the Middle Ages, but with less access to fresh air and your own vegetables and (to some extent) your own livestock, then making the life of a peasant seem less attractive than it maybe was in reality, is not such a far-fetched possibility.
> watching too many of your children die before their 4th birthday
As for children dying - maybe the children of peasants would die in greater numbers than the aristocracy, but nothing stopped their children from dying of an infected scratch or a bacterial infection, any more than anyone else, before the invention of antibiotics.
I think your comment falls into the “it was unadulterated hell being a peasant”-trap that I was referring to, instead of evaluating whether the life was actually more nuanced (especially in relative terms to those richer than themselves at the time).