Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AC and TOD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I tend to feel that if Cadosch wore a watch, or owned a timepiece, he would have made reference to it.

    Knowing the time was an important detail in any witness statement, which is why the doctors refer to their watch, Diemschutz to the tobacconists clock, Hutchinson to the Whitechapel church & Sarah Lewis to the Spitalfields church.
    The only firm anchor for Cadosch is his reference to the Spitalfields clock, so that suggests to me he had no other means of knowing the time.
    The most important thing was Cadosch's "No" and "fall against the fence" was before Long's 5:30 AM, by tracing back.
    He must have some kind of timepiece.The coroner/jury did not ask,they also did not ask Long's exact address or where was the Brewery clock.

    ---
    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
    M. Pacana

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      He didn't make reference to any public timepiece (church/brewery clock), either, so I don't think we can read too much into it.
      I was meaning his statement...
      "It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church".
      Given the church had a clock it only seems reasonable to accept he was making reference to it. There doesn't seem to be any other reason to mention the church.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • How widespread was clock or watch ownership among the Victorian working classes in 1888? I've always tended to think of clock ownership as quite low, but I'm no longer sure that this was necessarily the case.

        Mark M. Smith, in "Mastered by the Clock: Time, Slavery, and Freedom in the American South" (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997) asserts that by the 1880s, based on probate records, some 73% to 83% of American Southerners, blacks included, owned at least one clock or watch. Smith argues that clock ownership among ex-slaves was anomalously high*. My own reservation about this figure is that estates that produce probate proceedings are likelier to be those of the better off, who might be expected to own clocks. In support of his position, he summons some interesting anecdotal evidence as well, including the striking one of a poor black family whose mantel clock, visible through the window, was destroyed with a pistol shot (!) during racial unrest.

        Obviously, British wage-labourers aren't equivalent to American ex-slaves, but I still tend to wonder whether clock ownership, especially among the better classes of workmen, might not have been higher than we normally think. For a construction worker such as Cadosch, whose place of work (and route thereto) changed as projects were completed and new ones begun, there'd be an obvious advantage to owning a timepiece. Did Cadosch perhaps leave a probate record?


        * His argument, simplified, is that the clock, as a means of regulating work, was viewed as a symbol of socio-political power by ex-slaves.
        - Ginger

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          I was meaning his statement...
          "It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church"
          Sorry, I was referring to his getting up for work and the events in the back yard.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ginger View Post
            How widespread was clock or watch ownership among the Victorian working classes in 1888? I've always tended to think of clock ownership as quite low, but I'm no longer sure that this was necessarily the case.

            Mark M. Smith, in "Mastered by the Clock: Time, Slavery, and Freedom in the American South" (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997) asserts that by the 1880s, based on probate records, some 73% to 83% of American Southerners, blacks included, owned at least one clock or watch. Smith argues that clock ownership among ex-slaves was anomalously high*. My own reservation about this figure is that estates that produce probate proceedings are likelier to be those of the better off, who might be expected to own clocks. In support of his position, he summons some interesting anecdotal evidence as well, including the striking one of a poor black family whose mantel clock, visible through the window, was destroyed with a pistol shot (!) during racial unrest.

            Obviously, British wage-labourers aren't equivalent to American ex-slaves, but I still tend to wonder whether clock ownership, especially among the better classes of workmen, might not have been higher than we normally think. For a construction worker such as Cadosch, whose place of work (and route thereto) changed as projects were completed and new ones begun, there'd be an obvious advantage to owning a timepiece. Did Cadosch perhaps leave a probate record?


            * His argument, simplified, is that the clock, as a means of regulating work, was viewed as a symbol of socio-political power by ex-slaves.
            Interesting.

            ---
            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
            M. Pacana

            Comment

            Working...
            X