posted on July 15, 2001 05:23:48 PM new
I just got through watching a little bit of a TV flick by Disney that was about a young single woman joining a company of Alaska gold miners leaving the US and going by train and boat to Alaska to make a claim and mine gold.
It was as bad as that Dr Quinn Medicine Woman thing for completely misrepresenting the historical facts of the era it was set in. To portray that a single young woman would share a cabin in a steam ship with a half dozen men and be respected and treated fairly is a dream. This sort of thing bothers me because it is already an area of knowledge that most young people do not have, and to make them think that the mores and customs of the last couple decades are what has prevailed for a couple centuries is irresponsible. It is ignorant and short sighted because knowing how bad things were and how much is yet unchanged is basic to keeping and continuing social change to give basic rights and social standing to women and minorities.
posted on July 15, 2001 07:03:31 PM new
What? If it were not for their secret production line making B-29's behind the latrine the allies would have lost the war!
posted on July 15, 2001 07:23:05 PM newgravid: I agree. There *were* thousands of women both single & married who went to the Klondike (& California) gold field. But they had to face a lot crap from men and even other women to do so. And women who travelled unaccompanied had it worse.
I just got a gander of the TV-movie you spoke of. Disney would have done more justice AND had a better movie if they'd shown things like they were.
posted on July 15, 2001 07:54:04 PM new
Many of the woman that went "unaccompanied" to the several Gold Rush sites did strike it rich and end up with a lot of the gold, but never mined an ounce of gold.
posted on July 15, 2001 09:34:14 PM new
Yes, that's true. In addition mining, some women were prostitutes (though those seldom got rich), some became storekeepers or restauranteurs (a lot of *men* also got rich doing this), others were the wives & daughters of men who struck it rich (& the wives & daughters of men who didn't strike it rich).
There were also women photographers, writers, sightseers, etc. etc. etc.
And likely there were many more women than we know of, as it is known that many women who went to the gold fields to mine disguised themselves as men--for every one that became known, there were probably many more that never came to light. Same as in the Civil and during previous times in history.
posted on July 15, 2001 10:29:36 PM new
In Placerville in 1854, the best House in town charged $50 a night, of which the girl kept half; at a time when the price of an ounce of gold was $14. At today's rates, the girls were earning $100,000 a year.
posted on July 15, 2001 11:20:32 PM new
Ah, but your are giving "top of the line" prostitutes as an example. As there are today, there are 'levels' of protstutes--and only a *very* small percentage fall into the...what, "Cadillac" type...as it were.
Very few would make that kind of money. And even for the highest paid, you're talking about a time & place in which eggs got as high as $3 dozen, flour $6-8 per sack, etc. etc. The cost of living was very high.
In fact, many of the women who became rich were the ones who came with goods & set themselves up as shopkeepers & restauranteurs. The miners had money--but no food or supplies & were willing to *pay* to get them.
In fact, in the Alaskan gold rush (as with the California) relatively few people got rich (or kept what wealth they got) from mining. Overwhelming it was the *suppliers* who really profited--those selling food, services and general supplies.
posted on July 16, 2001 12:49:44 AM new
Levi Strauss got his start at the CA gold rush. He brought in canvas to make and sell tents, but the men didn't want tents, they were short of "britches" (pants), so he made and sold canvas pants, and the rest is history.
The gals who made real fortunes selling personal services are mostly lost to history. They couldn't publicize how the money was made, and many got married and invented stories of how their money was made.
posted on July 16, 2001 08:49:24 AM new
I'll agree that misrepresenting history is not suitable as entertainment for our kids; but then, neither is Creationism as a replacement for Science in the classroom.
posted on July 16, 2001 09:21:05 PM new
When I was in school I found both sides of that issue less interested in teaching anything than in recruiting students to their side. You were expected to make a public declaration of your belief in the religeous story as interpreted by idiots or the evolution model (which was out of date with what was being taught at the universities). Both required more credulous blind faith than I could muster for their membership drive.
My protests that the models of evolution being taught were no longer taken seriously were answered basically that that was OK as long as we rejected the creation model...
The real lesson was that they were as bigoted as their adversaries.
