Tuesday, November 25, 2014

How a Child May do Good: Britney Gomez, "The Expected Child vs The Reality Child of 1849"

Britney Gomez
Dr. Coronado
English 226
22 November 2014
The Expected Child vs The Reality Child of 1849
            The expectations of children have continually changed throughout time. A large part of the expectations of current society on children is to receive an education. However, Philadelphia in 1849 had a different view of the expectations of children. Hubert Lee wrote How a Child May do Good and within this text a young ten year old boy, Hubert, follows a path of religion and spiritual guidance. On his path he encounters many obstacles that push the limits of a young boy. Hubert often thinks about how the word of God can be implemented within his life and what sacrifices he could make to bring him spiritually closer to God. Unfortunately, the life of most children in Philadelphia during this time did not have the same luxuries as Hubert. Instead, children were working long hard days in spite of the new child labor laws that were to restrict the amount of hours a child could work. This is in direct conflict with How a Child May do Good because the life of Hubert was unattainable for most children during that time period. The text references that a child living a life of God would feel more rewarded than if they were to obtaining any material possession. Many young children were forced to work every day and waste away youth and any hope of an education. Hubert Lee’s book published by the American Sunday School Union illustrated what the lives of children should be rather than the life that was forced upon them.
            How a Child May do Good should be added to the Great Lakes Canon because the fictional lifestyle of the young character is directed towards the young children of Philadelphia in 1849. However, most children were unable to sustain a way a life similar to Hubert because of the amount of time they worked which also hindered their ability to read and write. According to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission “40 percent of the eleven hundred workers employed in some thirty nine textile firms were children” (Wolensky and Rich Para. 2). This astronomical number depicts the life of children not only in Philadelphia but in Pennsylvania. Thus, Pennsylvania enacted a new law restricting the number of hours a child could work. It stated to limit “children to ten hours of work per day and sixty per week. Children under twelve were also prohibited from working in textile factories, while those under sixteen were permitted to work provided that they attended school for three months each year. But the law was poorly enforced” (Para. 7). This meant that regardless of the child’s age, usually aged eight or above, they worked more than what current society deems as full time and did not attend school. Also, the work they performed was dangerous and for little pay.
Unfortunately, families in Philadelphia needed the income from their children in order to help support their families. During this time children “worked eleven or twelve hours per day, six days a week, earning a weekly wage of one dollar” (Para. 3). Many children worked from dawn until dusk and were so exhausted they would collapse at night. The jobs that they performed ranged from running errands to textile manufacturing, which was done for little pay. According to Measuring Worth the one dollar income pay of a child is only worth $31.40 in 2013. That is the equivalent of working for fifty two cents an hour. The most concerning is that this small amount of money was needed by the family to survive. The life of the children in Philadelphia was to work so the money could help support the family which is contradicted within How a Child May do Good.        
            During the story Hubert has been working on spiritual enlightenment which has led him to a path that most children in 1849 could not have imagined. Hubert, with the help of his mother, spent his money and money borrowed from his mother on a new shawl for old Sally. This money was given to him by his father to purchase a new sled. Instead Hubert felt it necessary to help others in need because of the scriptures he was learning in Sunday School. This depiction of Hubert and his family spending money on items that were not essential to everyday living is in direct conflict with the life of children in Philadelphia during this time. Also, the amount of time that Hubert has to help others on his path to enlightenment is vast in comparison to the amount of “free” time a working child had.
One of Hubert’s first act of kindness was to an elderly woman whom he usually passed by without a second thought. Her ability to maintain her property and herself had become apparently clear that she was struggling:
Old Sally was just opening her door, with her old stump of a broom to sweep off the snow. She looked very cold and blue, and trembled more than ever, for the morning was extremely cold. Hubert ran up to her, and with a face beaming with good-nature said: - ‘You are too cold and too old to shovel snow. I am young – let me do it for you.’ (Lee 5)
Hubert’s act of kindness came from the advice that his mother had given him which was to try and help one person a day. These acts of kindness reflect the teachings of God which he was learning in Sunday School. With every act of kindness Hubert’s spirit becomes uplifted. He continues to search for others to help which interferes with him playing with other children. As a ten year old boy he finds his self at a point where fights with what he is doing and things his wants to do. Unfortunately, this was not the same mental struggles many children encountered. Instead the children did not have the opportunity to attend Sunday School, help neighbors or play with other children because their life was structured around their ability to work.
            During Hubert’s endeavor on allowing God into his life, Hubert finds that many children are antagonizing him because he has chosen not to play outside with them. Instead he stays home to play with his little sister Effie. Hubert stated “My sister has no one to play with but me, and I think once in a while I might give one afternoon to her amusement. She is sick, too, and cannot go out and play like other children, and it would be cruel in me always to leave her alone” (Lee 20). This passage depicts Hubert as having the ability to choose whether to play outside with his friends or play inside with his sister. Again this depiction was not relatable for children in Philadelphia during 1849. Children did not have to opportunities to play with other children or even to play with other members of their family. Children were working long, hard, full days and did not have the time or the energy to play with others.
            In comparison to the life Hubert has in How a child May do Good, the children of Philadelphia in 1849 had a life that many adults in current society could not imagine. Their young lives were enveloped by the overwhelming need for them to work. Their days would start before dawn and end after dusk. The children would be so “exhausted at the end of the work day, some [children] slept in doorways and alleys near the mills” (qtd. in Wolensky and Rich Para. 2). Their life was in direct conflict with the life they were expected to live based on How a Child May do Good, where the depiction of Hubert’s life has been surrounded by the word of God which has led him on a journey to spiritual enlightenment. He encounters many individuals throughout the story which he offers help to including his sister Effie. During this new path he continues to have doubt about surrendering what possessions or relations he wants and how to show God that he is listening to his words and living them every day.

How a Child May do Good shows a young boy on his own spiritual enlightenment and the acts he performs to obtain it. As Hubert continues down his path the lessons he encounters become more elevated. This is surprising because he is a child of only ten years of age and he is choosing to take a path less travelled by his peers. Hubert is continually ridiculed by friends and other Sunday School children for the decisions he has made to follow the preachings of their teacher and the word of God. He is able to show to his peers that his actions far exceed the reading lessons of church and Sunday school. His determination for enlightenment reaches far beyond his age and with this he becomes a young boy that is highly respected by others within his community. However, the life of Hubert does not depict the actual society in Philadelphia where young children surrendered their youth so they could help financially support their families. Since the children worked six days a week and often ten to twelve hours a day their ability to read and write was severely diminished. However, the American Sunday School in Philadelphia published How a Child May do Good even though the percentage of child workers was high and most child workers could not read. Thus the reality of the children in 1849 was not the depiction or actions of Hubert but the physical hard labor of many adults.



Works Cited
Lee, Hubert. How a Child May do Good. Philadelphia. American Sunday School Union, 1849. Print. 
Hubert Lee: How a Child May do Good
Samuel H. Williamson, "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth, 2014.
Wolensky, Kenneth C. and Judith Rich, "Child Labor in Pennsylvania" Historic Pennsylvania Leaflet No. 43 Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1998. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

                                                                                

No comments:

Post a Comment