- Use Source 1: What information can you find about workers’ living conditions from this source?
- Do any of the other sources support your information? Say which source and how it supports Source 1.
- Use Sources 3 & 5: Describe the main problems facing workers mentioned in these sources.
- Analyse each source using the guidelines given earlier. How reliable would each of these sources be to historians studying how workers lived in Russia at the beginning of the 19th Century? In your answer consider the perspective of each source and say how this might affect its reliability.
Source study on Workers
March 20, 2007 · 11 Comments
Categories: Romanov dynasty
11 responses so far ↓
a. That the living conditions are very poor and that the people look tired from working all the time. The man looks tired and it also looks like that he has frostbite on his nose saying that maybe the boarding house doesn’t have very good heating or none at all. The man also looks very dirty and so does the boarding house. The people in the photo also have very dirty and ripped and torn clothes suggesting that they don’t have very much money.
b. Source 2: Sais that the boarding house is very dirty and also that there is no double window frames and so it is piercingly cold.
Source 3: saying that the workers worked overtime and were working 14-15 hours a day making them very tired and dirty.
Source 5: Sais that wages were being reduced and bonuses were being taken away and hours of work were being extended.
c. Workers were having an extra 2 or 3 hours added to their average working days. Making them mull nourished and very thin. They can’t refuse work because they are paid by the piece and the rate is very low. Their families were starving. They were being payed less and their bonuses were taken away. Workers who made trouble were blacklisted.
d. Source1: this source would be reliable because it shows a picture of what the living conditions were like back then which would help a historian because it shows the state of the people and the state of where there living.
Source 2: this source would be reliable to a historian because it is a record from the Moscow municipal council and it tells you how the living conditions were back then and some of the key features of where they lived such as holes in the walls and it was very cold inside.
Source 3: this source would be reliable to a historian because it is from a biography of a priest who led a workers demonstration in st Petersburg in 1905 so the author was around at the time of this. It tells you how workers would be payed less and work for more hours and how working made them so tired and diseased and mull nourished. And they can’t quit because if they do they will surely starve to death because then they wouldn’t have any money for food.
Source 4: this source would be reliable to a historian because another historian who has done some of his researching on the matter has already written it. It tells you how all the workers lived in barracks built by the oil firms. And how the building lacked light and had no ventilation, heating came from oil stoves, which caused smoke, dirt and soot easily caused fires. And how they only built enough barracks for half the workers so that they worked in shifts. And also it tells you how disgusting and revolting it was that peopled actually lived there.
Source 5: this source would be reliable to a historian because it was wrote by Josef Stalin who was around at the time. He tells us about how the workers wages were being reduced and how working hours were being extended. And if any workers made any trouble they would be blacklisted (their names would be listed as unsuitable employees). And how the system of fines and beating up is in full swing.
Source Study- Workers
1. Source 1 shows the living conditions of the workers, which is extremely poor living. The houses or shacks are over crowded, there isn’t enough beds to support the people living there. Seems like there are blankets underneath the beds.
2. sources 2 and 4 tell us about source one in a written description. Source 2 supports my view on the terrible living conditions that the workers have to live in. Source 4 also describes the conditions in a more detailed way.
3. Sources and 3 & 5 describe the problems that face workers as hard and long. Normal working days went on for 11 hours and half a day, not only that there is also overtime so workers would work an average on 14 to 15 hours. People would come out of the mills emaciated. Source 5 describes the type of pay te workers get.
4. Source 1 is a primary source, it actually show what is going on because it is a photo and it shows a lot of proof of what kind of lives these workers led. Source 2 is a primary source, it’s a report on the types of conditions the workers live in. Source 3 is a primary source, it’s a biography from a person that actually lived in the conditions. It might not be so reliable because people tend to exaggerate. Source 5 is also primary, its quotes form Joseph Stalin. A union organiser.
Qu1) From source 1 we can see that the living conditions of workers are extremely poor. The shacks are small and overcrowded with people. There is little furniture and the sleeping quarters for the workers are crowded with only a few workers having the luxury of a bed.
Qu2) Sources 2 and 4 support the information portrayed in source 1. They both indicate that the living conditions were poor, crowded and the huts were rotting and falling down.
Qu3) The main points illustrated in sources 3 and 5 are that workers suffered with low wages and long working hours. The sources show that the employers had gained government permission for overtime and were employing their workers for up to 15hrs a day.
Qu4) Source 1- This source is obviously a very reliable and un-biased in that it is a photograph of the issue. Source 2- This source can also be classed as a primary source as it was written in 1902. The perspective of this source is un-biased also and shows a clear representation of the houses. Source 3- This source is also a reliable one however it is slightly biased towards the workers. Source 4- This is a secondary source and is therefore less reliable than some of the previous sources. Source 5- This is a reliable source yet it shows a lot of bias towards the workers.
• Source one suggests the living conditions are very poor. The man in the picture has frostbite on his hands and nose suggesting not enough clothing and heating. The area looks quite cramped. The looks on the faces of the people are solemn and sad suggesting they are not happy with the condition of their life.
This source is reliable as it is a photograph
• Source 4 reinforces how cramped it is which is shown by source one, “the buildings . . . lacked light, had no ventilation and were crammed with plank beds”. Source 2 confirms how cold it is in the houses, stating, “No double window frames and so it is piercingly cold.”
Both these sources are secondary and could involve bias.
• Source 3 describes how the workers are terribly over worked, while still paid extremely low wages. Even though they work for long hours overtime they still do not earn enough to support their starving families. Source 5 states how workers payment is being cut. They do not receive bonuses, their wages are reduced and there hours are extended. Workers who make trouble with the new system are black listed making them unemployable.
Source 5 would be reliable as it is from a member of social democratic party at the time. While source 3 could have bias.
1. Use Source 1: What information can you find about workers’ living conditions from this source?
They lived in small boarding houses where many workers lived. The workers look very tired from working. They are dirty with ripped clothes, suggesting to me that the workers work very hard for very little money.
2. Do any of the other sources support your information? Say which source and how it supports Source 1.
Source two reiterates the poor standard of these boarding houses. They are ‘dirty’, infested with bugs and cockroaches. Even the toilet can’t be used by children because it is dangerous to enter. Source 4 looks further into these living conditions, in more detail than source 2.
3.Use Sources 3 & 5: Describe the main problems facing workers mentioned in these sources.
The main problems mentioned in these two sources are, longer working hours for workers as well as receiving a pay cut in their wages. The sources explain how the employers were able to do this because of Government permission.
4. Analyze each source using the guidelines given earlier. How reliable would each of these sources be to historians studying how workers lived in Russia at the beginning of the 19th Century? In your answer consider the perspective of each source and say how this might affect its reliability.
Source 1- this photograph is very reliable because it is a snapshot of the poor living conditions for workers.
Source 2 & Source 4- both these sources explain in detail what living conditions in source 1 were actually like. Source 2 would be more reliable because it is a primary source from the Moscow Muncipal Council. Source 4 is a historian’s account of the living conditions but is similar to source 2.
Source 3- is a biography of a priest living in St Petersburg. It explains the lengthened working hours which forced working men especially to stay even with a pay cut, otherwise there would be no way to support their families.
Source 5- is a primary source written by Josef Stalin who was a union organizer and a member with the Marxist Social Democratic Party. It is a reliable source as it was written during that time of suffering, when people had lengthened hours and decreased pay. Also if workers caused trouble they were blacklisted or beaten up.
1) Source 1 is a picture of a workers’ boarding house in Moscow around 1900 and is a primary visual source. We can tell that worker’s living conditions are very poor because the figures in the photos look very unwell, they have few possessions and what furniture they have is cobbled together and fragile. They are all thin and underfed.
2) The other sources support this description of living conditions in Russia. They all describe life in Russian in a similar way, describing the working conditions as horrendous and dangerous.
3) The main problems that faced workers were their very long hours of work, risk of accident or illness, requirement to work overtime to feed their families, cold, the risk of being blacklisted, fined or beaten, and the abundance of other workers willing to work.
4) These sources would be useful historians studying how workers lived in Russia at the beginning of he 19th century because they would each offer a different perspective on the situation. Source 1 is a primary source and shows the exact conditions experienced by those in the photo while source 2 from the Moscow Municipal Council and would give a governmental point of view. Source 3 would show a more personal viewpoint, and source 4 would give a later observer’s thoughts. Source 5 would show how Stalin felt about workers conditions.
Q1. Source 1 makes out as though the living conditions were very poor. The man in the picture has frostbite on his hands and nose suggesting there is not enough clothing and heating or they carn’t afford it.. The area looks quite cramped. The looks on the faces of the people are sad suggesting they don’t like their way of living. This source is reliable as it is a visual resource
Q2. Source 4 tells us how cramped it is which is shown by source one, “the buildings . . . lacked light, had no ventilation and were crammed with plank beds”. Source 2 confirms how cold it is in the houses
These sources are secondary and could involve bias.
Q3. Source 3 describes how the workers are over worked, and paid very low wages. Even though they work for long hours overtime they still do not earn enough to support their starving families. Source 5 states how workers payment is being cut. And how they don’t receive bonuses, their wages are reduced and there hours are extended.
Use Source 1: What information can you find about workers’ living conditions from this source?
From source one it is obvious that the living standards of the workers was terrible; cramped, filthy and basic. The man looks tired, dirty and malnurished, it looks like he might have frostbite on his nose as well. The woman looks as if she has just lied down and is exhausted, for me her face looks as if she is in pain.
Do any of the other sources support your information? Say which source and how it supports Source 1.
Source 2 supports the views I expressed in question 1. It says “The apartment has a terrible appearance, the plaster is crumbling, there are holes in the walls, stopped up with rags. It is dirty. The stove has collapsed. There are legions of coachroaches and bugs . . . No double window frames and so it is piercingly cold.” It talks about the filthy living quarters and basic buildings where things are falling apart.
Source 3 talks about the long working hours and the toll it takes on the workers. tireing them out and eventually killing them.
Use Sources 3 & 5: Describe the main problems facing workers mentioned in these sources.
Analyse each source using the guidelines given earlier. How reliable would each of these sources be to historians studying how workers lived in Russia at the beginning of the 19th Century? In your answer consider the perspective of each source and say how this might affect its reliability.
Both source 3 & 5 describe the terrible working hours and minimal pay. But source three is written by a man who led demonstrations against the poor standerds. And the writter of source 5 was Josef Stalin who was a major member in the 1917 revolution.
Q)1. From source 1 it is evident living conditions are very poor for the workers. The shacks are small and overcrowded with minumal living appliances. Their clothes appear dirty and worn suggesting the minumal pay they recieve for the hard work they endure. Only a select few have the luxery of a bed.
Q)2. source 2 and 4 support the consensus of source 1. Each source indicates the living conditions were poor, the huts were rotting and falling apart with overcrowding occuring.
Q)3. The main points highlighted in source 3 & 5 consist of the view that workers suffered with long hours and minumal pay. The sources indicate that employers had recieved Government permission to enforce overtime and employ their workers for up to 15 hours a day.
Q)4. Source 1 is clearly very reliable and un-biased as it is a photograph in which personal conclusions can be drawn by the viewer. Source 2 is a primary source as it was written in 1902 and is a clear representation of the houses with an un-biased view. Source 3 is relaible although it has a tendenancy to lean towards the side of the workers. Source 4 is less reliable as it is a secondary source unlike the previous sources. Could still be considered helpful but less reliable. Source 5 also shows alot of bias towards the workers yet remains reliable.
1) Source 1 shows us clearly that the living conditions were incredibly poor, with their clothing old, worn and dirty, their homes over-crowded, hardly any living appliances and not enough beds for all the members of the household.
2) Source 2 and 4 reinforce source 1. They both show us that the living conditions were very poor, well below standard. the houses themselves were old and falling apart and they were overcrowded.
3) Some main points that stand out in sources 3 and 5 is the fact that the workers worked for very long hours, for a well below standard pay rate. They also seem to show that the government had given permission to the employers to work their employees for longer hours on smaller pay rates.
4) Source 1 is a reliable source as it is a photograph, so it cannot be bias to any side. Source 2 is also a reliable primary source as it was written in 1902, and gives an un-biased view of the housing. Source 3 is marginally biased to the workers but still a reliable source. Source 4 is a secondary source, which makes it a less reliable source than the first three sources. Source 5 is very similar to source 3, as it is biased towards the workers but still a reliable source.
1. This source tells us that the workers living conditions are obviously very destitute. The worker looked tired, cold and hungry. The situation that he was in it looked as though he worked a very long day and I not have much time, nor money for a prospective family and his own health, he was desperately trying to earn money.
2. Sources two, three and five all support my view of the workers living conditions. Source two reflects on the dirtiness and the coldness of the boarding house where he lived. Source three demonstrates the long hours that the workers endured. Source five illustrates the reduced wages and extended working hours of the workers. These sources together painted a damning picture of the Russian proletariat at the turn of the century.
3. The points that were confirmed in sources three and five were the low wages and high working hours of the proletariat. These men had families and mouths to feed. They had to work longer and longer hours just to keep the same salary, they were being taken advantage of.
4. Source 1: Source one is a photograph so therefore it is a primary source and very reliable.
Source 2: Source two is also a Primary source because it was written in 1902, it is reliable simply because it is an un-biased statement.
Source 3: This source is also primary but is slightly biased towards the workers because it is written from the workers perspective.
Source 4: Source 4 is a secondary source and is therefore less reliable than the primary sources.
Source 5: Source five is from member of the social democratic party so it is a rather reliable source, but is subject to great bias because of this particular persons view.
Leave a Comment