Is there a world community? A world torn by war, as our world was from 1914 to 1918, may not seem to give much evidence of it, and many would at once answer "No" to our question. And yet such phrases as the "brotherhood of man" and the "cause of humanity" are familiar to us all. We may briefly discuss the question in this study, because if there is such a community, we are all members of it, and our membership in it affects our lives as individuals and as a nation.
The world community is certainly very imperfectly developed, but while the war emphasized its imperfections, it also furnished evidence if its reality. Its existence depends upon the presence of recognized common purposes and of organized teamwork in accomplishing these purposes, as in the case of any community. The war disclosed conflicting interests among the nations; but it united for a common purpose a larger part of the world's population than had ever before acted together in a common cause. It disclosed an interdependence among the nations and the peoples of the world that we had not thought of. And while it disclosed the weakness of the world's organization for teamwork, it aroused us to the possibilities of such organization, made us long for it, and brought us, as many believe, a step nearer to its accomplishment.
Separated by wide oceans, from the rest of the world, our nation grew and prospered with a sense of security from the conflicts that from time to time disturbed the Old World. We early adopted a policy of avoiding entanglements that might draw us into these conflicts. In his Farewell Address, Washington said:
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. … Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and posterity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
A few years later, President Monroe issued his famous statement, known as the Monroe Doctrine, which, recognizing the principle that Washington had stated, also denied the right of European powers to interfere with the free growth of the republican nations of North and South America. The United States has steadfastly held to this doctrine from that day to this.
But great changes have come to the world since the time of Washington. The use of steam in navigation, the submarine cable and wireless telegraphy have brought all the world into closer relations than existed between New England and the Southern States in the early days of our national life. Our government at Washington may send messages to European capitals and receive a reply within ten minutes. The Atlantic has been crossed by airplane. The nations of the world have become very close neighbors. The murder of a prince in a little city of central Europe drew from millions of homes in America their sons to fight on the soil of Europe. We entered the war because our interests were so closely bound up with those of the world that we could not keep out; because "what affects mankind is inevitably our affair, as well as the affair of the nations of Europe and Asia."
The war did not create this interdependence; it only emphasized it. But now that we are aware of it, it will probably influence our lives to a much greater extent than before the war.
The nations that were associated against Germany, occupy, with their dependencies, two-thirds of the earth's surface and include more than four-fifths of its population. The governments of these nations declared that they were fighting primarily, not for selfish interests such as "ports and provinces and trade," but "for the common interests of the whole family of civilized nations—for nothing less than the cause of mankind." [Footnote: Stuart P. Sherman, American and Allied Ideals, p. 14.] Even if some of the governments were influenced to a greater or lesser extent by selfish motives, they still recognized a common interest of the peoples of the world, a "cause of mankind," and based their appeals upon it. The prime minister of England said, "We must not allow any sense of revenge, any spirit of greed, any grasping desire, to overcome the fundamental principles of righteousness." Faraway Siam declared that she entered the war "to uphold the sanctity of international rights against nations showing a contempt for humanity." And little Guatemala proclaimed that she had "from the first adhered to and supported the attitude of the United States in defense of the rights of nations, of liberty of the seas, and of international justice." Our President said that "what we demand in this war is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in for every peace- loving nation. … All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest."
The avowed purpose for which the United States entered the war, and for which "all the peoples of the world are in effect partners," is the same as that for which the American Revolutionary War was fought, which was proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, and for which America has always stood—the equal right of all men to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and to self-government. Nearly the whole world was united against a few autocratic governments that denied these rights.
At the time of the American Revolution the colonists had no desire to fight the English PEOPLE, but revolted against the autocratic English GOVERNMENT of that time, which refused to recognize the rights of the people. The English people had many times fought for these rights, and many of them sympathized with the American colonists, The winning of American independence was a victory for free government in England as well as in America, and the government of England today is as democratic as our own. This understanding about the American Revolution throws light upon what the President of the United States meant when he said that we fought Germany for "the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, THE GERMAN PEOPLES INCLUDED." Another writer said, "We are not fighting to put the Germans out but to get them in."
It has taken a long time for the peoples of the world to develop a sense of their common wants and purposes. Differences in language, in race and color, in religious beliefs and observances, in forms of government, even in such matters as dress and other habits and customs, have tended to obscure the common feelings of all. This lack of sympathetic understanding is suggested by Shylock, in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice:
Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same Winter and Summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? if we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
Increased opportunity for travel, better means of communication, and more widespread education have greatly increased the understanding among peoples and nations, and have disclosed to view common purposes and ideals in spite of differences. The fact that large numbers of people from every part of the globe have come to the United States to live together as one nation has contributed to the same result.
Give illustrations from your own experience and reading to show that differences in dress, language, race, and customs make sympathetic understanding difficult.
What is meant by "America, the melting-pot"?
As the peoples of the world have become better acquainted, individuals and groups have tended to associate themselves together, regardless of national boundaries, for the promotion of common interests.
One example of this is the common movement of organized labor which has overstepped national boundaries.
There is an International Institute of Agriculture, with headquarters at Rome, and representing 56 countries, the purpose of which is to promote better economic and social conditions among agricultural populations of the world. Some of its publications are published in five languages.
Literature and art bind all the world together, and science knows no national boundary lines. Christianity is one of the greatest influences for a "brotherhood of man." Differences in religious belief have presented most difficult barriers to overcome, but there has been a steadily increasing tolerance of one religious faith toward others.
These are only a few of hundreds of illustrations that might be given.
We have all become familiar, during the war, with the work of the Red Cross. No other organization has done more to extend the feeling of common brotherhood in the world and the spirit of world service. During the war a Junior Department of the Red Cross was organized, enrolling in its membership about twelve million American boys and girls and organizing them for practical service to war-stricken Europe and Asia. Since the war, the Junior Red Cross, whose headquarters are at Washington, D. C., has undertaken to use its organization to promote correspondence among boys and girls of different lands, and an exchange of handiwork, pictures, and other things illustrative of their interests. The American School Citizenship League (405 Marlboro Street, Boston) is encouraging the same idea, and there is a Bureau of French- American Education Correspondence for a similar purpose, with headquarters at the George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tenn.
Numerous INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONGRESSES have been held, the first one as early as 1843, and in the United States and other countries organizations exist for the promotion of friendly relations among the nations, and especially for the substitution of arbitration for war as a means of settling international disputes.
Among such organizations in the United States are the League toEnforce Peace, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, theAmerican Peace and Arbitration League, the American Peace Society,the World Peace Federation, the Church Peace Union.
What may be gained by correspondence between the young people of different lands?
Report on the following (see references):
The work of the Pan-American Union.
The work of the Red Cross in war and peace.
One of the most successful experiments in international cooperation is that of the North and South American republics. The first Pan-American Conference, attended by delegates from the twenty-one American republics, was held in Washington, D.C., in 1889. As a result of this Conference the Pan-American Union was established, with permanent headquarters in Washington. Its purpose is "the development of commerce, friendly intercourse, and good understanding among these countries."
To secure anything like effective teamwork among the nations for the common interest and to substitute arbitration for war as a means of settling differences, there must be some kind of international organization, and rules to which the governments of the nations will agree. Civilized nations have always had their official means of dealing with one another through their governments, such as the diplomatic and consular services. Alliances have, from time immemorial, been made between nations, treaties have been solemnly agreed to, and a body of international law has gradually grown up. But treaties and international law have frequently been violated, and no international government has existed with sufficient authority or power to force nations to observe the law or to keep their agreements. As a result of two peace conferences held at The Hague in Holland, in 1899 and 1907, an international Court of Arbitration was established at The Hague (The Hague Tribunal), before which disputes might be brought by nations if they desired to do so. But there was no way by which a nation could be compelled to appeal to the court.
Nations have a strong sense of their NATIONALITY, and are extremely jealous of their SOVEREIGNTY, which is the supreme power claimed by every nation to form its own government and to manage its own affairs without interference by other nations. It is this that has prevented the development of anything like a real international government that could control the conduct of national governments, or that could require a nation to submit its grievances to any judge other than itself. This has perhaps been the chief weakness of the world community.
Many people have long believed that the self-governing nations of the world must sooner or later unite, in the interest of world peace, in some kind of federation or league, with a central organization to which all would agree to submit their differences. The war made it seem even more necessary. Accordingly, the Peace Conference at Versailles at the close of the war included in the treaty of peace a Covenant (or constitution) for a League of Nations. The treaty, including the Covenant, has been ratified (March, 1920) by four of the five great nations associated against Germany (France, England, Italy, and Japan; the United States being the exception), besides several other nations. While the President of the United States strongly advocated the treaty with the Covenant, the Senate did not approve of its ratification. Those in our country who opposed the Covenant did so for a variety of reasons, but chief among them were: first, the fear that the Covenant would cause us to depart from the principles laid down by Washington and Monroe; and, second, the fear that the powers conferred upon the international government would deprive our national government of some of its sovereign powers. The friends of the Covenant denied that either of these things would be true.
Whether or not the United States should enter the League [Footnote: The Council of the new League of Nations held its first meeting January 16, 1920, the United States, of course, not being represented.] we shall have to leave for the statesmen to decide; and whether or not the League will accomplish the desired ends, time alone can prove. But two or three things may safely be said with regard to any really effective world government.
When people live together in communities, each person has to sacrifice something of his personal freedom in order that all may enjoy the largest possible liberty. The same is true of families in a neighborhood, of communities in a state, of the states in our nation. There is no reason why it should not be true of nations which are neighbors to one another. No nation has any more right to do as it pleases than a person or a family has, IF WHAT IT PLEASES TO DO IS UNJUST TO ITS NEIGHBORS. The only thing, however, that a nation can properly be asked to give up IS BEING UNJUST TO ITS NEIGHBORS. We saw in Chapter IV that government and law increase rather than decrease the individual citizen's freedom, and that it is only the "ill-mannered" who feel the restrictions of a wise government. So, when we finally get a world government that is good, it will be one that will increase the freedom of all "good-mannered" nations, restricting only those that are "ill- mannered."
Moreover, when we finally get a league of nations that will really secure friendly cooperation among the nations for their common interests, it will be brought about, not by sacrificing nationality and national patriotism, but by STRENGTHENING them.
What is required is not less loyalty to one's nationality, but more sympathetic understanding of nationalities and national ideals different from one's own, combined with a recognition of the fundamental interests … which unite them to each other. [Footnote: "Thoughts on Nationalism and Internationalism," in History Teachers' Magazine, June 1918, p. 334.]
The only way to be sure of a perfect neighborhood is first to see to it that the homes of the neighborhood are strong and whole some. No person can really be loyal to his neighborhood who is not first of all loyal to his home. Thoroughly efficient townships and counties and cities are essential to a thoroughly efficient state; and no citizen is loyal to his state who is not loyal to his township, county, and city. The strength of our nation depends upon the strength of the states that compose it, and real national patriotism cannot well exist in the heart of a citizen who is disloyal to his state. The first essential step toward an effective WORLD government is to see that our national government is efficient and at the same time JUST. The first and best service that a citizen can perform for the world community is to be loyal to AMERICAN IDEALS, which are becoming the ideals of an ever- increasing part of the world's population.
THE NEW TYPE OF PATRIOT NO LONGER CRIES, "MY COUNTRY AGAINST THEWORLD," BUT "MY COUNTRY FOR THE WORLD." [Footnote: Stuart P.Sherman, American and Allied Ideals, p. 14.]
Topics for investigation:
The Hague Tribunal. Disputes that have been settled by it. Why the dispute that led to the recent war was not settled by it.
The meaning of "nationality." Of "sovereignty."
Has a government any more right to be dishonest than an individual?
Both sides of the argument over the ratification by the UnitedStates of the treaty of peace with the Covenant for the League ofNations (see references).
The truth of the statement that "the only way to be sure of a perfect neighborhood is first to see to it that the homes of the neighborhood are strong and wholesome."
The meaning of the statement in the quotation at the end of the text above.
In Long's AMERICAN PATRIOTIC PROSE:
Washington, "Farewell Address," pp. 105-124.
Washington, "Proclamation of Neutrality," pp. 143-146.
"The Monroe Doctrine," pp. 148-149.
John Quincy Adams, "The Mission of America," pp. 149-150.
George F. Hoar, "A Warning Against the Spirit of Empire," pp. 244- 247.
Woodrow Wilson, "Spirit of America," pp. 266-268.
Franklin K. Lane, "Why We Are Fighting Germany," pp. 282-283.
Carl Schurz, "The Rule of Honor for the Republic," pp. 342-343.
Woodrow Wilson, "War Message of April 2, 1917," pp. 351-361.
In Foerster and Pierson's AMERICAN IDEALS:
Washington, "Counsel on Alliances" (Farewell Address), pp. 185- 189.
"The Monroe Doctrine," pp. 190-193.
Henry Clay, "The Emancipation of South America," pp. 194-199.
Robert E. Lansing, "Pan-Americanism," pp. 200-296.
A. Lawrence Lowell, "A League to Enforce Peace," pp. 207-223.
George G. Wilson, "The Monroe Doctrine and the League to EnforcePeace," pp. 224-232.
Woodrow Wilson, "The Conditions of Peace," pp. 233-241.
Woodrow Wilson, "War for Democracy and Peace," pp. 242-256.
Various books and pamphlets have been written relating to the League of Nations and world relations following the war. Among these are:
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, edited by Henry E. Jackson (published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., 70 Fifth Ave., N.Y. Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1). "A document prepared to stimulate community discussion and promote organized public opinion." This book contains, at the end, a list of titles of books and pamphlets on the subject.
The Lodge-Lowell DEBATE ON THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS(World Peace Foundation, Boston). President Lowell, of HarvardUniversity, argued for, and Senator Lodge against, the Covenant ascontained in the treaty of peace.
Taft, William Howard, WHY A LEAGUE OF NATIONS IS NECESSARY (League to Enforce Peace, New York).
Sherman, Stuart P., AMERICAN AND ALLIED IDEALS (World PeaceFoundation, Boston).
The complete official record of the United States Senate debate on the treaty of peace is to be found in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, a file of which SHOULD be in your public library.
THE JUNIOR RED CROSS NEWS, American Red Cross, Washington, D.C.
For the work of the Pan American Union and the Red Cross, consult your public library; and write to the Pan American Union and the American Red Cross, both in Washington, D.C., for descriptive publications.
For the Hague Conferences and the Hague Tribunal, consult any good modern encyclopedia, and your public library. Write for materials to the American School Citizenship League, 405 Marlboro St., Boston, and the World Peace Foundation, Boston.
The home is the smallest, the simplest, and the most familiar community of which we are members. In many respects it is also the most important. The quotation with which this chapter opens suggests this. It will appear at many points in our study.
What do you think that the quotation at the head of the chapter means? In what respects do you think it true?
Some cities take pride in the fact that they are "cities of homes." What does this mean? Why is it a cause for pride?
Is your community (neighborhood or town) a community of homes? What is a "home"? When a person is "homesick" for what is he "sick"?
May a good home exist in a poor dwelling? A poor home in a fine dwelling?
Is a hotel a home? May a family living in a hotel have a home there?
Is an orphan asylum a home? Would you exchange life in your own home for life in an orphan asylum? Why? There are children who think an orphan asylum is a fine place to live; why is this?
The home is important (1) because of what it does for its own members, and (2) because of what it does for the larger community of which it is a part. We shall consider first what it does for its own members.
Under the conditions of pioneer life the wants of the members of the family were provided for almost entirely by their own united efforts. They built their own dwelling from materials which they themselves procured from the forest. They made their living from the land which they occupied, with tools which were largely homemade. They provided their own defense against attack from without and against sickness within. Such education as the children obtained was of the most practical kind, and was obtained by actual experience in their daily work supplemented by such instruction as parents and older brothers and sisters could give. There was little social life except within the family circle.
When other homes were built in the neighborhood a larger community life began. The neighboring homes came to depend upon one another and to cooperate in many ways. The store at the crossroads provided for many wants that each home had formerly provided for itself. The doctor who came to live in the community relieved the home of much anxiety in case of sickness. The education of the children was in part, at least, turned over to the community school. And so, as a community grows, the home shifts much of the responsibility for providing for the wants of its members upon community agencies.
This shifting of responsibility for the welfare of citizens from the home to the larger community is carried furthest in cities. Almost everything wanted in the home may be bought in the city shops, and work that is done in the home for the family, such as repair work, dressmaking, laundry work, and cooking, is likely to be done by people brought in from outside. Water is piped in from a public water supply and sewage is piped out through public sewers. Gas and electricity for lighting and heating are furnished by city plants. Since many city homes have not a spot of ground for a garden or for outdoor play, they depend upon public parks and playgrounds provided by the city. These are among the many so- called advantages of city life.
When so much is done for the citizen by the larger community agencies, there is danger that the family may forget its own responsibility for the welfare of its members in connection with every want of life. For no matter how good the community's arrangements for health protection may be, the health of every citizen depends more upon the home than upon any other agency (see Chapter XX). No matter how good the schools, the home always has great responsibility for the education of the children, both within the home itself and through cooperation with the schools (Chapter XIX). No matter how many social organizations and places of amusement the community may afford, the social and recreational life of the home is the most important of all and the most far- reaching in its influence (Chapter XXI). No matter how excellent the form of government in a community may be, its results will be very imperfect unless the government in each home is good.
The home has especial importance in the rural community of to-day. The rural home is no longer so isolated and self-dependent as the pioneer home, but the life of the rural citizen is much more dependent upon efforts within the home itself than the life of the city resident. The business of farming by which the family living is secured is carried on at home, and, as a rule, all the members of the family have some part in it. It is a cooperative family enterprise to a much greater extent than any other modern business.
In cities, in the great majority of cases, the work by which the family living is earned is done away from home, and very often no member of the family except the father has any direct part in it. There are numerous cases, however, where the mother and even the children go out to work, and in such cases the home life may be seriously interfered with.
It would be hard to find a rural home in the United States to-day that is not near enough to a schoolhouse to enable the children to attend it, at least for an elementary education. Unfortunately, high schools are not yet easily accessible in all rural communities (see Chapter XIX). But whether the education afforded by the rural school is of the best or not, the boy or girl on the farm gets in addition a kind of education through the varied occupations of the farm life that the city boy or girl does not get, and for which the city schools have tried in vain to find an adequate substitute. It is remarkable how many of the successful men and women of our country were raised on farms; and they almost always bear witness to the value of the training received there.
So in matters of health, of social life and recreation, of pleasant and beautiful surroundings, the rural home must depend very largely upon itself. The strength and happiness of the community, of our nation itself, depend largely upon the extent to which the homes perform their proper work in providing for the wants of their members.
Review what was said in Chapter II regarding the independence of the pioneer family.
Review also what was said in Chapter I regarding the growing dependence of the family upon the community.
Gather stories regarding pioneer home life (a) in your own locality, (b) in the settlement of the West; (c) in colonial times. Illustrate from these stories how the home provided for the wants of its members.
Show in detail how the various members of a farmer's family take part in the business of farming. Compare with a family in town whose living is provided for by some other business.
Make a list of the different people who come to the home of a family in town to provide for its wants (such as the grocer's boy, the milkman, the postman, etc.). Compare with a farmer's home with respect to this service from outside.
We have read in an earlier chapter that "our national purpose is to transmute days of dreary work into happier lives—for ourselves first and for all others in their time." This purpose cannot be fully achieved if it is not first of all achieved in the home. One of the objections often raised to life on the farm is that it is a life of drudgery, of few conveniences and comforts, of long hours, hard work, and little recreation. Happily this is not so true as it once was. Labor-saving machinery, better methods of transportation and communication, better schools, have done much to improve conditions of rural home life. But occasionally there still come statements like the following from some of the women in farm homes:
In many homes life on the farm is a somewhat one-sided affair. Many times the spare money above living expenses is expended on costly machinery and farm implements to make the farmer's work lighter; on more land where there is already a sufficiency; on expensive horses and cattle and new out-buildings; while little or nothing is done for home improvement and no provision made for the comfort and convenience of the women of the family.
If a silo will help to reduce the man's labor, a vacuum cleaner will do likewise for his wife. If the stock at the barn needs a good water system to help it grow, the stock in the house needs it too, and needs it warm for baths.
You see many a farm where there is a cement floor in the barn, while the cellar in the house is awful. A sheep dip, but no bathtub; a fine buggy and a poor baby carriage. On many farms a hundred dollars in cash are not spent in the home in a year.
These are not meant as complaints about the purchase of labor- saving farm machinery. Such complaints would be short-sighted, for it is only by improved methods of farming that the means and the leisure can be found to enrich the home life in every way. But the advantages gained by improvements that increase the farmer's returns are largely lost if they do not at the same time bring "happier lives" to the family as a whole. The farm home is not only the place where the family living is EARNED; it is also the place where the family life is LIVED. Democracy aims at EQUAL opportunity to enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; "days of dreary work" must be transmuted into "happier lives" for the women and children as well as for the men. Unless this is done in the home there is little chance of its being done at all.
A story is told of a housekeeper in a farm-home in the West who saw in the sacred rite of old-school housekeepers something more than scrubbing and polishing … When her housecleaning was over she knew just what linen she would need during the coming year, just how much fruits and vegetables she would need to can or preserve or dry, just what clothing must be replaced or repaired, and what dishes would be needed to keep her set complete. She not only made changes to improve the appearance of her house, but planned and made the changes in her workshop which would save steps and make her work as easy as possible. When her mind got to work, housekeeping became a game, the object being to eliminate all unnecessary labor. Her benches and tables and sinks were raised to the proper height and she became ashamed of the back- breaking energy she had wasted bending over them. A high stool, made by removing the back and arms from the baby's outgrown high chair, made dishwashing and ironing much easier. She has been housekeeping intelligently a dozen years, yet each house-cleaning or stock-taking period she installs some new labor saver.
She not only makes her head save her heels, but she takes another kind of inventory which is as well worth while. It is the inventory which we all need to take of ourselves to be sure that we are making the best of our opportunities instead of drifting along day by day in a rut. She searches out the hidden places in her soul to see if she is just as patient, as thoughtful, as cheerful as she might be … [Footnote: RECLAMATION RECORD, Feb., 1918, p.55, "Project Women and Their Materials," by Mrs. Louella Littlepage.]
In some rural communities the home has been relieved of much of the household drudgery by the development of cooperative creameries, cooperative laundries, and other community institutions to do work that was formerly done entirely in the home. In such cooperative enterprises, citizens of the community buy shares of stock as in the case of the fruit growers' association. In one community in Michigan "a vote was taken, the women voting as well as the men, to determine the sentiment of the community on the establishment of such a laundry, and the vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that the Farmers' Club promptly called a meeting to promote the enterprise." An addition was built to the cooperative creamery, which the community already possessed, so that the same steam plant could be used for both. The farmers brought their laundry when they brought their cream, and carried it back on the next trip. "The laundry has been successful in relieving the hard life of a farmer's wife, and in addition has been not only self-sustaining but a profitable institution." One of the women of the community says,
It has lightened the work in the home to such an extent that one can manage the work without keeping help, which is very scarce and high priced, when it would be impossible to do so if the washing was included with our other duties.
And another writes,
This change gives me two days of recreation that I can call my own every week and also gives me more time in which to accomplish the household duties. [Footnote: "A Successful Rural Cooperative Laundry," in the Year Book, Department of Agriculture, 1915, pp. 189-194.]
A great deal of help is now being given to the home by the government, and this is especially true in the case of the rural home. The public schools, both in city and country, now consider home making and "home economics" as worthy of a place in the course of study as geography and mathematics (see Chapter XIX). State agricultural colleges are beginning to give as much attention to these subjects as they do to soils and fertilizers and stock-breeding. Moreover, the colleges conduct "extension courses," sending teachers trained in the art of home making to give instruction to women and girls in every part of the state. They assist in organizing clubs of girls and women to study various aspects of home making and housekeeping, and give demonstrations of the most successful methods of cooking, of canning, and of other activities connected with home life on the farm, as well as of labor-saving devices in the household. The state agricultural colleges have the cooperation of the Department of Agriculture of the national government in all this work.
In the Year Book of the Department of Agriculture for 1916 there is an account of results derived from home demonstration work in the Southern States. The following story of what Ruth Anderson accomplished is a good illustration of the possibilities of this work.
Ruth Anderson, of Etowah County, Alabama, in her second year of club work, had an excellent plot of one tenth of an acre of beans and tomatoes. She is the second girl in a family of eleven, and takes a great interest in her club work. The family home was small, dark, and crowded, and somewhat unattractive. One day a carpenter friend of her father saw her one tenth of an acre and said he wished he had time to plant a garden. She told him she would furnish vegetables in exchange for some of his time. … After a while a bargain was made by which the carpenter agreed to begin work on the remodeling of the house if Ruth would furnish him with fresh and canned vegetables for the season.
The other members of the family were soon interested in this undertaking and worked willingly to contribute their share to its success. When the house was partly finished Ruth won a canning- club prize given by a hardware merchant in Gadsden, the county seat. Silverware was offered her, but, intent upon completing the new house she asked the merchant how much a front door of glass would cost, and learned that she could get the door, side lights, and windows for the price of the silverware. In this way Ruth brought light and joy to her family with her windows and door. To- day they live in a pretty bungalow that she helped to build with her gardening and canning work. At the age of 14, in the second year of her work, Ruth put up 700 cans of tomatoes and 750 cans of beans. [Footnote: "Effect of Home Demonstration Work in the South," in 1916 Year Book of the Department of Agriculture, p. 254.]
Ruth's home before and after she began her work is shown in the accompanying illustrations.
The national government helps in home making in other ways than those suggested above, and through other departments than that of agriculture. In the Department of the Interior the General Land Office, the Bureau of Education, the Reclamation Service, the Office of Indian Affairs are all doing work to improve the homes of the land. So, also, is the Public Health Service of the Treasury Department; the Bureau of Standards in the Department of Commerce; the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor. We shall encounter some of this work as we proceed with our study.
In what ways has household work been relieved of its drudgery since your mothers were girls?
What labor-saving devices have been introduced in your home?
Make a report on labor-saving inventions for the household (see references at end of chapter).
What are some labor-saving household devices that could be made by boys and girls (such as fireless cookers, iceless refrigerators, etc.)? (See references below). Can your school help in such projects? To what extent could (or do) boys' and girls' clubs undertake such projects? Is there any leader in your community who could direct or advise in such projects?
Is the kitchen in your home properly arranged to save steps, labor, and time in doing kitchen work? Consider plans for improvement. Consult parents.
Does experience in your community confirm the feeling of the women quoted on page 104?
Are there any cooperative enterprises in your community that relieve the housekeeper of household labor, such as cooperative laundries, creameries, etc.? Are they a business success? Have they improved conditions of home life?
What is the difference between a "cooperative" laundry and an ordinary laundry such as may be found in most towns? Does one relieve the home more than the other?
What other business enterprises are carried on in towns that relieve the home of work? Why are such business enterprises not conducted in the same way in rural communities?
Is there any special interest in home improvement in your community? Who or what has brought it about? What can you do to encourage such interest?
"Lessons in Community and National Life": Series C, Lesson 20,"The Family and Social Control."
For an extensive list of titles of publications relating to the home, send to the United States Bureau of Education for its Bulletin, 1919, No. 46, "Bibliography of Home Economics," especially section VIII on "The Family," and section X on "The House and Household Activities." Among the many titles given in this are:
Earle, Alice Morse, "Home Life in Colonial Days" (Macmillan).
Gillette, J. M., "The Family and Society" (A. C. McClurg).
Thwing and Butler, "The Family" (Lothrop, Lee and Shepard Co.).
Gilman, Charlotte P., The Home (Doubleday, Page and Co.).
Talbot and Breckenridge, "The Modern Household" (Whitcomb andBarrows, Boston).
Addams, Jane, The Spirit of Youth and the City Streets(Macmillan).
Ellwood, Charles A., "Sociology and Modern Social Problems," chapters on the family (American Book Co.).
Scott, Rhea, "Home Labor-Saving Devices" (Lippincott).
Foght, H. W., "The Rural Teacher and his Work," Part I, chap. iii.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Reports 103, 104, 105, 106:
"Social and Labor Needs of Farm Women.""Domestic Needs of Farm Women.""Educational Needs of Farm Women.""Economic Needs of Farm Women."
These reports can be obtained only from the Superintendent ofDocuments, Government Printing Office, 15 cents each.
"The American Farm Woman as She Sees Herself," U. S. Department ofAgriculture Year Book, 1914, pp. 311-318.
"Selection of Household Equipment," Department of Agriculture YearBook 1914, pp. 330-362.
Dunn, Arthur W., "The Community and the Citizen," chaps, v, vi.
Our nation requires healthy citizens, intelligent citizens, prosperous and happy citizens. The home can do more to produce them than any other community agency. Therefore the nation is wise to look after its homes.
People cannot do their work well if they live in unwholesome or unpleasant homes. This was made clear during the recent war. The lack of suitable living places for workmen and their families was one of the chief obstacles to shipbuilding and munitions manufacture during the early part of the war. England found this out as well as the United States, and one of the first things both countries had to do was to take measures to provide proper home conditions for those who were engaged in supplying the nation's needs. During the first year of the war our Congress appropriated $200,000,000 to build houses for industrial workers.
The problem of securing good physical conditions of home life has naturally been greatest in crowded industrial centers, but it is by no means absent in small communities, or even in the open country. One writer describes a certain farmhouse where five people were accustomed to sleep in one not very large bedroom, which had only one small window, and even that was nailed shut, one of these five had incipient tuberculosis. These people were well-to-do farmers, living in a large twelve-room, stone house and simply crowded into one room for the sake of mistaken economy— presumably to save coal and wood.
Many such cases could be described, not only in the more remote and backward regions, but even in prosperous farming communities.
What is the result of this overcrowding and lack of proper housing in the country? Just exactly the same as in the great cities—lack of efficiency, disease, and premature death to many … While the great majority of people subjected to overcrowding and bad housing conditions do not prematurely die, yet they have a lessened physical and mental vigor, are less able to do properly their daily work, and not only become a loss to themselves and their families, but to the state … [Footnote: Bashore, "Overcrowding and defective housing in the rural districts," quoted in Nourse, AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, pp. 118, 119, 121.]
Some of our states and many of our cities have laws to regulate housing conditions, but such laws seldom apply to small communities. In cities where people live crowded together in closely built city blocks, unsanitary conditions in one home endanger the health of the entire community. There is also danger from fire, and vice and crime may breed and spread quickly and unseen. The community is driven, therefore, in its own defense, to regulate the people's housing. In small communities, and especially in rural communities, where homes are more widely separated and in some cases quite isolated, it has seemed of little concern to others how one citizen builds his home and what he does in it. Thoughtful consideration of such cases as that described above, however, must convince us that it IS a matter of national concern what happens even in remote homes. Both the physical and the economic strength of the nation are undermined by unwholesome conditions in the separate homes of the land.
Economic loss to the community may result not merely from UNWHOLESOME home conditions, but also from INCONVENIENCE of location and arrangement of the homes. A good deal of attention is being given to "community planning" in the United States and especially in England and other European countries. Community planning includes not only provision for the proper location and construction of public buildings and streets, for water supply, lights, parks, etc., but also for the convenient, as well as wholesome and pleasant location of homes. Large cities, like London, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, have spent enormous sums of money in city planning after they have already grown up without plan. It has necessitated destroying old structures and widening streets. Villages and small towns are in a position to introduce a plan for future growth without this needless expense. Our beautiful capital city of Washington has grown according to a plan that was carefully laid out before a building was erected. But even in Washington one of the greatest problems the city had to face during the war was that of providing homes for the enormous number of workers who came to the city to do the work of the government.
"The need of careful arrangement in country homes is much more urgent than in city homes for the reason that country people use their homes as the business center of their profession," says Prof. R.J. Pearce, of Iowa State College. "The farmer in his business center must not only produce enough raw material to provide for him self and family, but he needs to produce enough to feed and clothe the entire human race." "CONSERVATION OF SPACE must be taken into consideration to obtain the greatest results from our high-priced land; CONVENIENCE must be a prime factor when expensive labor is at a premium; and ATTRACTIVENESS must be one of the chief motives not only to make farm property more saleable but to give greater enjoyment to the owner and his family…" "A farmstead is, but a unit in a farming community, yet travelers form an impression of the entire community by individual farm homes which they see in passing. Therefore, not only financial consideration but personal pride and a feeling of community spirit and enterprise should urge the farm owner to develop his farmstead according to the best of modern methods."
What facts can you find in regard to what the government did to provide homes for workers in shipbuilding or munitions plants during the war?
In many of the war industries preference was given to men with families in employing workmen. Why was this?
In some rural communities in the United States a "teacherage" (home for the teacher) is provided. Of what advantage to the community is this?
Is there a "housing problem" in your community?
Are there any laws in your state regulating the building of homes? If so, what are some of them? Do they apply in your community? Are they carefully observed and enforced?
Make a study of the arrangement of the buildings on farms with which you are familiar, drawing diagrams, and report whether or not they are well planned with reference to ECONOMY OF SPACE occupied, CONVENIENCE, and ATTRACTIVENESS. Consider
(a) Are they properly placed with reference to the highway?
(b) Are they conveniently placed in relation to one another?
(c) Are they suitably protected from the prevailing winds? How?
(d) What makes them attractive or unattractive?
(e) Are the stables properly situated to protect the health of the family? How?
Must a home be large and costly to be attractive?
What impression would a stranger get in regard to the "community spirit" of your community from the appearance of its homes? Would he be right?
Home ownership is one of the strongest influences that give permanence and stability to the community. The census taken by the United States government every ten years shows that home ownership has been decreasing throughout the country as a whole. The decrease has been greatest in cities, but it is true also of farmhome ownership. In 1880 only 25% of the farms of the United States were occupied by tenants (renters); in 1910, 37% were so occupied. It is true that in the ten years from 1900 to 1910 there was a slight increase in the proportion of farms owned by their occupants in the New England and Middle Atlantic states, and in a large part of the West; but the increase in these parts was more than overbalanced by the decrease in the South Atlantic and Gulf states and in the Mississippi Valley. The smallest proportion of farm tenancy is found in New England (8%), and the largest in the southern states (45.9% in the South Atlantic states, and more than 50% in the South central states). A large part of the farming in the South is done by negroes, most of whom are either laborers on the farms of the white population or tenants on small farms which they usually work on shares. And yet the number of negro farm owners in the South has been rapidly increasing in the last few years, though not so rapidly as the number of tenants. In 1910 negro farm owners cultivated nearly 16,000,000 acres of land in the South, all of which they have acquired since the Civil War.
The decline in home ownership both in the cities and in the rural districts of the United States has been observed with considerable anxiety because of the effect upon our national welfare and upon the citizenship of the country. One writer says:
Farming is a permanent business; it is no "fly by night" occupation. … No man can pull up stakes and leave a farm at the close of the year without sacrificing the results of labor which he has done … The renter who ends harvest knowing that he will move in the spring, will not do as good a job of hauling manure and fall plowing as he would were he to stay; nor does he take as good care of the buildings and other improvements …
The cost to the farming business of the country each year for this annual farm moving-week mounts into the millions of dollars. And the pity of it all is that practically no one is the winner thereby … The renter loses, the landlord loses, the general community and the nation at large lose. [Footnote: W.D. Boyce, in an editorial in THE FARMING BUSINESS, February 26, 1916, quoted in Nourse, AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, p. 651.]
Tenant farming also places obstacles in the way of community progress in other ways.
The tenant takes little interest in community affairs. The questions of schools, churches, or roads are of little moment to him. He does not wish to invest in enterprises which will of necessity be left wholly … to his successor. In short, he is in the community, but hardly of it. [Footnote: B.H. Hibbard, "Farm Tenancy in the United States," in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March, 1912, p. 39.]
A family that owns its home feels a sense of proprietorship in a part of the community land. The money value of a home increases in proportion to the prosperity of the community as a whole; its owner will therefore be inclined to do all he can to promote the welfare of the community. A community that is made up largely of homes owned by their occupants is likely to be more prosperous and more progressive, and its citizens more loyal to it, than a community whose families are tenants.
While all that has been said in the preceding paragraph is true, it must not be thought that tenancy is necessarily a bad thing in all cases, nor that a man who does not own his home cannot be a thoroughly good citizen. There are circumstances that make it necessary for many families to live in dwellings that they do not own. Tenancy may be a step toward home ownership. A citizen may have insufficient money to buy a farm, but enough to enable him to rent one. By industry, economy, and intelligence, he may soon accumulate means with which to buy the farm he occupies or some other. The increase in the number of tenants in the Southern States is due in large part to the breaking up of many larger plantations into small farms which are occupied by tenants, many of them negroes. That many of these tenants are on the road to home ownership is indicated by the facts stated on page 117.
It is as much the duty of the home renter as it is of the home owner to take an interest in the community life in which he and his family share, and to cooperate with his neighbors for the common good. While he lives in the community he is largely dependent upon it, like any other citizen, for the satisfaction of his wants. Its markets and its roads are his for the transportation and disposal of his produce and stock. He gets the benefit of its schools for the education of his children. He may share in its social life if he cares to do so. His property is protected by the same agencies that protect that of his neighbors. He cannot, therefore, escape the responsibility of contributing to the progress of his community to the extent of his ability.
It is as much the duty of the man who rents a farm as it is of the man who owns one to make his farm produce to its full capacity, to protect the soil from exhaustion and the buildings and fences from destruction. But on the other hand, it is the duty of the landlord, both as a good business man and as a good citizen, to make such terms with his tenant that the latter will take an interest in the farm and will find it profitable to farm properly. There must be team work.
The landlord must be interested not only in his land but in his tenant. The tenant must be interested not only in himself but in his landlord and his land. A system that favors the tenant to the injury of the land is bad. A system that favors the land to the injury of the tenant is equally harmful. Either system will result in the poverty of both the landlord and the tenant. [Footnote: Dr. Seaman A. Knapp, quoted by Dr. Thomas Jesse Jones in "Negroes and the Census of 1910," p 16. (Reprint from THE SOUTHERN WORKMAN for August, 1912.)]
The fact remains, however, that home ownership contributes to the permanence, the stability, and the progress of a community. It is also a fact that conditions have developed in our country, both in cities and in rural communities, which make home ownership increasingly difficult. In another chapter (Chapter XIV) we shall see what some of these conditions are, and what our government has done and may do to overcome them.
One of the most important services performed for the community by the home is that of training its members for citizenship. The family has been called "a school of all the virtues" that go to make good citizenship. It is a school in which not only the children, but also the parents, not only the boys and men, but also the girls and women, receive training by practice. In the home are developed thoughtfulness for others, a spirit of self- sacrifice for the common good, loyalty to the group of which the individual is a member, respect for the opinions of others of long experience, a spirit of teamwork, obedience to rules which exist for the welfare of all. If these and other qualities of good citizenship are not cultivated in the home, it is not in a healthy condition nor performing its proper service to the community.
Moreover, the exercise of these virtues in the home is not only training for good citizenship; it IS good citizenship. If the home is as important a factor in our national life as this chapter has indicated, then one of the greatest opportunities for good citizenship, and one of the greatest duties of good citizenship, is that of making the home what it should be; and in this each member of the family has his or her share.
Make a study of farm tenancy in your locality (neighborhood, township, or county).
How many of the farms of the locality are occupied and operated by their owners? how many by tenants? What is the percentage of tenancy?
To what extent are the tenants men who were formerly farm laborers, but who by renting farms are making a start on their own account? Is this a sign of progress?
What percentage of the tenants are white? negro?
To what extent are the tenants foreigners who have recently come to the locality?
Are the tenant farms usually rented for long periods or for short periods?
What is the system of tenancy in your locality (i.e. cash rental, working on shares, partnership with the owner, etc.)? If more than one exists, which seems to work best? Why?
Is tenancy increasing or decreasing in your locality? What reasons are given for this?
Does experience in your locality support the statement that tenant farmers are less likely than others to interest themselves in community progress?
If you live or go to school in town, make a study of home ownership in the town. (If a small community, the class may study the entire area; if large, different sections may be studied by different groups of pupils.) How many homes are occupied by their owners? how many by tenants? What is the percentage of tenancy? Is tenancy increasing or decreasing? For what reasons?
Is there some section of the community where most of the people own their homes, and another section where most of the people rent? If so, do you notice any difference in the general appearance of the two sections? Do you think that the difference, if any exists, is due in any part to the fact that some own and others rent their homes?
Is there a tendency for the farmers of your locality to move into town? If so, why? What becomes of their farms?
Review the points made in the discussion of topics 4 and 5 on page 38 (Chapter III). Continue to develop plans for cooperation in the home and school.
What does it mean to be "in training" for athletics? In the light of your answer to this question, what would it mean to be "in training" for citizen ship?
See Readings for Chapter IX. Also:
"Housing the Worker on the Farm," Department of Agriculture YearBook, 1918, pp. 347-356.
"What the Department of Agriculture is Doing for the Housekeeper,"Department of Agriculture Year Book, 1913, pp. 143-162.
"The Effect of Home Demonstration on the Community and theCounty," Department of Agriculture Year Book, 1916, pp. 251-266.
"Farm Tenantry in the United States," Department of AgricultureYear Book, 1916, pp. 321-346.
Lessons in Community and National Life: Series C, Lesson 32,"Housing for Workers."