Technological Innovations play a significant role in peopling and demography of a region.Between the eighth century and the eighteenth, the tools of farming basically stayed the same and few advancements in technology were made. This meant that the farmers had no better . In fact, early Roman plows were superior to those in general use in America eighteen centuries later.
All that changed in the 18th century with the agricultural revolution, a period of agricultural development that saw a massive and rapid increase in agricultural productivity and vast improvements in farm technology. Listed below are many of the inventions that were created or greatly improved during the agricultural revolution.
Plow and Moldboard
By definition, a plow (also spelled plough) is a farm tool with one or more heavy blades that breaks the soil and cut a furrow or small ditch for sowing seeds. A moldboard is a wedge formed by the curved part of a steel plow blade that turns the furrow.
Seed Drills
It was a significant improvement.Before drills were invented, seeding was done by hand. The basic idea of drills for seeding small grains was successfully developed in Great Britain, and many British drills were sold in the United States before one was manufactured in the States. American manufacture of these drills began about 1840. Seed planters for corn came somewhat later, as machines to plant wheat successfully were unsuited for corn planting. In 1701, Jethro Tull invented his seed drill and is perhaps the best-known inventor of a mechanical planter.
Machines That Harvest
By definition, a sickle is a curved, hand-held agricultural tool used for harvesting grain crops. Horse-drawn mechanical reapers later replaced sickles for harvesting grains. Reapers were then replaced by the reaper-binder (cuts the grain and binds it in sheaves) and in turn, was replaced by the swather before being replaced by the combine harvester. A combine harvester is a machine that heads, threshes and cleans grain while moving across the field.Combine harvester in a sense revolutionise the farming.
The Rise of the Textile Industry
The cotton gin had turned the whole South toward the cultivation of cotton. While the South was not manufacturing any considerable proportion of the cotton it grew, the textile industry was flourishing in the North. A whole series of machines similar to those used in Great Britain had been invented in America and mills paid higher wages than in Britain. Production was also far ahead of the British mills in proportion to hands employed, which meant the U.S. was ahead of the rest of the world.
Wages in America
Take-home pay, measured by the world standard, was high. Additionally, there was a good supply of free land or land that was practically free. Wages were high enough that many could save enough to buy their own land. Workers in textile mills often worked only a few years to save money, buy a farm or to enter some business or profession.
Advances in Transportation Lines
The steamboat and the railroad enabled transportation to the West. While steamboats traveled all the larger rivers and the lakes, the railroad was growing rapidly. Its lines had extended to more than 30 thousand miles. Construction also went on during the war, and the transcontinental railway was in sight. The locomotive had approached standardization and the American railway was now comfortable for passengers with the invention of Pullman sleeping cars, the dining cars, and the automatic air brake developed by George Westinghouse.
Was it A Wheat Revolution?
Was it an agricultural revolution or wheat revolution. Wheat was domesticated or Man was domesticated. Its a question to ponder.
Indian agriculture has an extensive background which goes back to at least 10 thousand years. Currently the country holds the second position in agricultural production in the world. In 2007, agriculture and other industries such as lumbering and forestry made up more than 16% of India’s GDP. Despite the steady decline in agriculture’s contribution to the country’s GDP, India agriculture is the biggest industry in the country and plays a key role in the socioeconomic growth of the country. India is the second biggest producer of wheat, rice, cotton, sugarcane, silk, groundnuts, and dozens more. It is also the second biggest harvester of vegetables and fruit, representing 8.6% and 10.9% of overall production, respectively. The major fruits produced by India are mangoes, papayas, sapota, and bananas. India also has the biggest number of livestock in the world, holding 281 million. In 2008, the country housed the second largest number of cattle in the world with 175 million.
Source(s):
Bellis, Mary. “History of the Agricultural Revolution.” ThoughtCo, Apr. 23, 2019, thoughtco.com/agricultural-revolution-1991931.
Rural-urban interaction is an important aspect of urbanisation. It is very probable that urbanisation and urban growth would have their impact on rural areas and activities in rural areas would have their effect on the nearby towns and cities.
Urbanisation has impact on the economy and society of the surrounding villages. There is increase in farm productivity (due to the availability of fertilizers, better seeds, tractors, etc., in nearby cities), increase in commercialization of crops and decline in the density of farm population.Villagers imbibe several urban characteristics in day to day life . Rural society also undergoes a certain change.
The dichotomous like rural urban dochotomy perspective neglects the existence of continuous interdependent, complimentary and overlapping relationships of rural and urban sectors which are reflected through mutual exchange system of goods and services. The rural people are dependent on the urban dwellers for their banking and credit needs, for the purchase of agricultural equipment and other supplies, for marketing of farm products, and even for commercial recreation.
The urban sector is dependent on the rural sector for food supply, for cheap labour, and for vast market of its manufactured goods. The urban professionals like doctors, lawyers, etc., draw a large number of their patients/clients from rural areas because hospitals and courts are mostly concentrated in the urban areas.
One phenomenon which affects rural-urban relationships is migration. Most rural migrants who move to urban areas are young males who take up unskilled and semi-skilled occupations.This migration from rural to urban areas exerts pressures on urban public services and creates problems of social disorganisation.
Migration from rural to urban areas is of different types. One is to settle down permanently in the urban area of one’s choice. This is called translocatory migration. Other is one in which migrants hang on to their rural base and migrate repeatedly and for varying duration, either to the same urban area or to different ones. This is termed circulatory migration.
Yet others migrate in graded steps from a smaller to a latter settlement. This is known as step-migration. Mary Chatterjee (1971) has shown that the stability of migration is a function of distance from the native place, as well as of occupational status.
The longer the distance from the native place, the greater the number of migrants who regard their stay in city as temporary. Relatively, more migrants from lower-prestige occupations than those from higher occupations regard their stay in city as temporary.
Migration from rural to urban areas also follows certain patterns. One, it depends upon the ‘pull’ factors at the urban and ‘push’ factors at the rural end. Thus, migration of agricultural labourers from Bihar to Punjab during the harvest season is of this type. Then there is migration which is caused by rural poverty and urban opportunity of getting work. Migration of young children as well as of adults from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to other states for the lure of a job is of this ‘pull’ type.
However, rural-urban conflicts are not clear- cut and do not erupt in open violence. It is difficult to fix their beginning or ending. The three factors identified by which promote/foster cleavages and conflicts among the rural people for the urban people are: contrasting environmental subcultures, modernisation, and urban bias.
The urban sphere of influence can be defined as the geographical region which surrounds an urban system and maintains inflow-outflow relationship with the system .
Every urban centre, irrespective of the size and the nature of function, has a region of influence. Generally speaking, as the size of the population increases, the multiplicity of functions increases. As a result, the influence zone is larger and vice versa.
Rural- urban continuum is the merging of town and village.The concept is a term used in recognition of the fact that there is rarely, either physically or socially, a sharp division, a clearly marked boundary between the two, with one part of the population wholly urban, the other wholly rural.
Poverty is one of the most hotly debated issue. It has become a headache in the minds of govt. belonging to developing countries. Billions of dollars are spent on poors to move them out of poverty but do these efforts really bear fruit..what are the stimulus that gives the best result can only be known after doing several types of doses like education, healthcare facilities, micro finance, cash benefits, free food grain or at subsidised prices and much more benefits that accrue to poors . as we see around us. even we ourselves too gives alms to poor beggars sometime. as a matter of fact first one needs to know what a poor is.. for determining poverty we have to draw a poverty line that demarcates poor from non- poors. over the years there has been several modifications in the poverty line . world bank has a poverty line …
A ghetto is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, typically as a result of social, legal, or economic pressure.The term was originally used in Venice to describe the part of the city to which Jews were restricted and segregated. However, early societies may have formed their own versions of the same structure; words resembling “ghetto” appear in the Hebrew, Yiddish, Italian, Germanic, Old French, and Latin languages. Ghettos in many cities have also been nicknamed “the hood”, colloquial slang for Versions of ghettos appear across the world, each with their own names, classifications, and groupings of people.
The word “ghetto” comes from the Jewish area of Venice, the Venetian Ghetto in Cannaregio, traced to a special use of Venetian ghèto, or “foundry” (there was one near the site of that city’s ghetto in 1516).By 1899 the term had been extended to crowded urban quarters of other minority groups.
The most profitable and productive elements of our society are lodged in our cities. Cities facilitate trade, provide markets for specialized producers, and, perhaps most important, speed the flow of ideas. Diversity of economy is a must for urban systems. Because of these advantages, big-city workers earn more than their non-urban counterparts — 28 percent more, controlling for education, age, race, occupation, and gender. Certainly there are cities in decline, especially those without a well-educated work force or those with too heavy a commitment to manufacturing. But the overall connection between urbanization and economic growth is such an empirical truth that one can hardly find a wealthy, modern country that is not also urbanized.
So it is disturbing to find geographic concentrations of impoverished ethnic groups in the midst of these productive environments. These districts, commonly called “ghettos,” function culturally, intellectually, and economically apart from the busy downtown. The distance from Wall Street to the South Bronx, along these dimensions, is greater than that between New York and London or Tokyo. Cities throughout history have contained distinct ethnic districts. But rarely have they been so isolated and impoverished as the African-American districts found in U.S. cities today
HISTORY OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN GHETTOS
The African-American ghetto is a creation of the twentieth century. The golden age of Northern black-white relations lies in the period before 1900, write Allan Spear and Kenneth Kusmer, historians of the Midwestern ghettos. Blacks at the time were not generally restricted from using public facilities, and they lived in much more integrated communities than their descendants do today.
Informal practices did limit integration in the North. But only in response to the large-scale black migration north, in the early twentieth century, did these restrictions harden. W.E.B. DuBois, the Harvard-educated black scholar, raised in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, was shocked at the deteriorating conditions he found in the nascent, turn-of-the-century Philadelphia ghetto inhabited by recent migrants from the South “Murder sat on our doorstep, police were our government, and philanthropy dropped in with periodic advice.” The apparatus of legal segregation arrived soon thereafter — zoning by race, restrictive covenants, and a myriad of other devices. The U.S. Supreme Court banned explicit zoning by race in 1917, and restrictive covenants were banned in 1948. But these legal restrictions had served as a mighty handmaiden of segregation; by 1920, the color line in Northern cities had fully hardened.
This reinforcement of ethnic barriers was hardly limited to anti black initiatives in Northern U.S. cities. The South created its vast array of Jim Crow laws at the end of the nineteenth century. In the West, whites used restrictive covenants against Asians. In Boston, with a long history of attempts to bar Irish immigrants from Yankee institutions, these barriers, and anti-Semitic restrictions as well, were formalized in the early twentieth century.
Domestic tranquility was marred not just by conflicts between native Protestants and both blacks and immigrants, but by tensions between blacks and immigrants, and among different immigrant groups. In 1910, blacks were more segregated from the foreign-born than they were from native whites. Spear’s history of the Chicago ghetto describes how immigrants were the fiercest opponents of blacks in that city, and how blacks moved into native white areas rather than face the more violent resistance of the newer Americans.
Segregation increased most in those cities with the greatest black in-migration. Whites felt more threatened by larger influxes of blacks, and their racism grew. Black migrants from the South also found in urban ghettos in the North many of the “attractions” seen in other urban immigrant communities. Most were arriving from an inhospitable, impoverished region that still relied on lynching as a tool of discipline, and many valued the comfort of their own community.
African-American ghettos also started out well, economically. In the Midwest, ghettos were built on high wages from manufacturing jobs. In New York City, the housing was superb. Developers in Harlem had built state-of-the-art apartment buildings around the new subway extension for upwardly mobile whites, writes historian Gilbert Osofsky. But they overbuilt, and entrepreneurial real estate agents, of both races, quickly filled vacant units with blacks. By the end of the 1920s, Harlem was home to the nation’s largest concentration of African-Americans. Migrants from the South, to use Nicholas Lemann’s phrase, generally had come to see Northern ghettos as “the promised land.”
The segregation of the foreign-born also rose, for similar reasons, during their period of great in-migration, 1890 to 1920. But once America ended its open-door immigration policy in the mid-1920s, the segregation of the foreign-born began to decline.
IMMOBILITY
Economic conditions in African-American ghettos have deteriorated quite sharply over the past three and a half decades. The inner city, which once might have looked like a promised land, doesn’t much resemble one today. This is partly a statistical phenomenon. The ability of more affluent blacks to leave has lowered the average income of those who remain. The poverty of inner-city blacks also reflects the declining economic position of Americans of all races at the bottom of the income ladder. But a growing body of research shows that the segregation of American blacks in inner-city ghettos further damages their economic chances.
The oldest and the most easily understandable evidence on ghettos compares blacks who grew up in segregated neighborhoods with those raised in integrated neighborhoods. The literature began with a 1968 study, by economist John Kain, in which Kain documented that blacks who lived in ghettos had worse labor-market outcomes than those who did not. Kain’s explanation was “spatial mismatch” — that ghetto residents lived far from where the urban jobs were located. According to Kain, the key economic advantage of living in a city — the opportunities urban environments create for trade and exchange — thus lay beyond the reach of ghetto residents. Subsequent research has generally corroborated Kain’s results. Extremely black neighborhoods are generally located far from job opportunities, and residents do worse, economically, than blacks from more integrated areas.
There is a methodological problem with this type of study, however. A connection between living in a ghetto and being poor need not imply that ghettos create poverty. Poverty could also create ghettos — it could be that poor people can’t afford to live elsewhere.
NO CROSSING THE RIVER
Another way to gauge the effects of ghettos is to compare black economic outcomes across different metropolitan areas. Cutler and I divided the metropolitan areas of the United States in half — into more and less segregated communities — and examined various outcomes. We found that blacks between ages twenty and twenty-four in the more segregated metro areas are far more likely to be idle 22 percent are neither at work nor in school, compared to 15 percent in the more integrated areas. Segregated blacks are also more likely to have dropped out of high school 26 percent versus 21.5 percent. And segregated black women ages twenty-five to thirty are more likely to have become single mothers — 45 percent versus 40 percent. These effects are big and statistically significant. They also hold up under alternative methods of estimation and after controlling for region, city size, and the racial composition of the metro area.
It is possible, of course, that black poverty at the metro level causes segregation, not the other way around. (This issue of identifying causation is equivalent to the problem, in the intra-city studies, of determining whether ghettos create poverty or poverty creates ghettos.) Cutler and I examined this issue using a variable created by economist Caroline Minter Hoxby, based on her notion that topographical barriers often serve as neighborhood boundaries. We found that metro areas with more natural boundaries — like Cleveland with the Cuyahoga River running through it — are more segregated and have worse black outcomes. The chain of causation here must run from rivers to segregation to poverty. (Rivers presumably do not cause poverty directly; and neither segregation nor poverty causes rivers.) We thus conclude that segregation — whether created by natural or man-made factors — results in poor black outcomes.
AMERICAN DREAMS
The African-American ghettos of the mid-twentieth century appear to have been much less harmful than those of today. In the most segregated cities, such as Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, African-Americans prospered as workers in America’s industrial centers. The fortunes of the ghettos changed, in part, as a result of downturns in manufacturing in postwar America. But the declining vigor of African-American ghettos also resulted from a pervasive feature of all immigrant ghettos. David Cutler, Jacob Vigdor, and I found that immigrant ghettos are generally beneficial, or at least not harmful, for the first generation of residents. Today, first-generation Asians, who often do not speak English, seem to be helped by living in segregated Asian communities. But when we look at later generations still living in the earlier generation’s ghetto, we see deleterious effects. This was true of Irish immigrants still living in ghettos in 1910, long after the major Irish immigration waves, or of Eastern European immigrants still living in their ghettos in 1940.
This overall pattern helps us understand why ghettos form and why they can be harmful to residents. The first generation of migrants benefits from the social networks, the cultural comforts, and the protection against native hostility. But ghettos deprive their children of contacts with the broader world and with the informational connections that make cities so strong. The negative effects of ghetto isolation are exacerbated as many of the ghetto’s most able children then leave for more integrated communities, or for more prosperous segregated communities. So thirty years after the immigrant ghetto was a vibrant community, it typically becomes an island distant from the city, whose inhabitants rarely experience the best features of U.S. urban society.
RESPONSIBILTY
The empirical evidence clearly indicates that ghettos hurt blacks a great deal. Ghetto walls separate residents from mainstream society, from mainstream jobs, and from contact with successful whites and blacks. The suffering is real, as is the resulting crime, disorder, and social distress. The magnitude of these problems, moreover, is sufficiently large to merit significant government intervention.
While the evidence justifies action, policymakers have little idea about what should be done. In the past, many well-intentioned interventions caused more harm than good.
Perhaps the most egregious example is the large-scale housing projects of the 1950s. This generally well-intentioned policy squeezed as many minorities into as small an area as possible, increased segregation, and worsened ghetto conditions. Forced school integration, or busing, as Charles Clotfelter documents, led to a substantial outflow of white children into private schools, not to increased integration. And enterprise zones, which are currently in vogue, might slow what has been, for other ethnic groups, the process of neighborhood exodus and evolution.
It does seem crucial to lessen discrimination in the housing market. Racism in individual consumer tastes seems to be the primary problem, and government cannot legislate racism away. But government can combat discrimination in real estate marketing and finance.
Policies that generate choice and use incentives instead of controls also hold promise. Housing vouchers and magnet schools, for example, attract individual blacks and whites most willing, or eager, to live and go to school with one another. The nation can also hope that evidence showing a decline in racism over the past twenty-five years is correct, and that the trend will continue.
The damage caused by African-American ghettos reinforces the importance of the idea of the “informational city.” Ghetto residents live in cities and face most of the costs –monetary and otherwise — of urban residence. But the ghetto cuts them off from the informational connections and job markets that make city living worthwhile for so many people.
The city is an enormously positive social institution. It should be able to answer the problems of its own inner core. Breaking down ghetto walls is no small task. But it will be a great achievement to connect inner-city residents to the informational advantages of downtown America.
Nazi Ghettoes
Beginning with the invasion of Poland during World War II, the regime of Nazi Germany set up ghettos across occupied Europe in order to segregate and confine Jews, and sometimes Romani people, into small sections of towns and cities furthering their exploitation. In German documents, and signage at ghetto entrances, the Nazis usually referred to them as Jüdischer Wohnbezirkor Wohngebiet der Juden, both of which translate as the Jewish Quarter. There were several distinct types including open ghettos, closed ghettos, work, transit, and destruction ghettos, as defined by the Holocaust historians. In a number of cases, they were the place of Jewish underground resistance against the German occupation, known collectively as the ghetto uprisings.
Genesis
Ghettos are formed in three ways:
As ports of entry where minorities, and especially immigrant minorities, voluntarily choose to live with their own kind.
When the majority uses compulsion — typically violence, hostility, or legal barriers — to force minorities into particular areas.
When the majority is willing and able to pay more than the minority to live with its own kind.
An ethnoburb is a suburban residential as well as business area with a notable cluster of a particular ethnic minority population. Although the group may not constitute the majority within the region, it is a significant amount of the population.That can greatly influence the social geography within the area . these are also examples of segmentation of society.
Rashid's Blog: A Place for Inquisitive Souls 