Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   What medieval Europe did with its teenagers   (bbc.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Europe, University of Nottingham, Black Death, shed a tear, University of York, Middle Ages, Venetian  
•       •       •

23172 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2014 at 5:53 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-03-23 06:26:28 PM  
3 votes:
Anyone interested in historical treatment of children should take a listen to hardcore history's episode Suffer the Children. Fascinating and incredibly brutal.
2014-03-23 04:31:27 PM  
3 votes:
Serfing is the only life the only way for me.  Now serf, serf, with me.
2014-03-23 07:48:12 PM  
2 votes:
 the aristocracy did occasionally dispatch their offspring at the age of seven, but most parents waved goodbye to them at about 14.

Yeah, 14 is about the time most parents would like to ship their kids off.
2014-03-23 07:32:03 PM  
2 votes:

Jim_Callahan: Fissile: Kids were put to work @14 years of age pretty much in every society until recently.  Child labor was only outlawed in the US in 1938.  The concept of the "teenager" was devised by some Mad Ave hucksters back in the 50s.

This.  "Teenagers" were not a thing until the last century in anything other than the most literal sense.  You were a child, then you were an adult.  The change corresponds to increasingly universal education and the dominance of specialist techne in both basic quality of life and the larger cultural landscape.  Those things require a significant non-productive training period for the typical citizen.

Hell, for a good chunk of the middle ages, as the article points out, "children" weren't a thing either.  Either you were an infant and got a bit of a pass or you were expected to maintain basically the same standards of behavior and productivity as a modern adult-aged person scaled down to your approximate mass.  A child was just a physically smaller, weaker person, beyond that no difference.


Well, yes and no. In Reviving Ophelia a lot of attention is given to organizations for the protection and education of young women. They go back a fair piece. It was recognized that there was a stage between childhood and full adulthood, characterized by increasing responsibility but not the full adult measure. An older girl would, for instance, have a lot to do with the raising of her younger siblings. But she wasn't expected to have kids of her own until her early twenties. She would work at the household business or elsewhere but still had certain protections under the law that she wouldn't as a completely grown woman. Even in subsistence agriculture and hunting/gathering pre-teen and young teen children don't pull their (literal) own weight in calories produced.

So the answer is that when you look closely it become a lot more interesting and less simple.
2014-03-23 07:12:54 PM  
2 votes:
Not to mention sending them to die in war. Our species still hasn't gotten over that hobby.
2014-03-23 07:11:54 PM  
2 votes:
The children of nobles were commonly sent from vassals to serve their lords as pages and ladies in waiting where they were trained in courtly ways and educated to become adults (knights etc). This all sprung from the practice of a lord keeping the children of a vassal hostage to make him behave.

I wonder how much apprenticing was used to cement business relations. You wouldn't want to cheat someone at business if he was holding your children hostage.
2014-03-23 07:07:46 PM  
2 votes:

Fissile: Kids were put to work @14 years of age pretty much in every society until recently.  Child labor was only outlawed in the US in 1938.  The concept of the "teenager" was devised by some Mad Ave hucksters back in the 50s.


This.  "Teenagers" were not a thing until the last century in anything other than the most literal sense.  You were a child, then you were an adult.  The change corresponds to increasingly universal education and the dominance of specialist techne in both basic quality of life and the larger cultural landscape.  Those things require a significant non-productive training period for the typical citizen.

Hell, for a good chunk of the middle ages, as the article points out, "children" weren't a thing either.  Either you were an infant and got a bit of a pass or you were expected to maintain basically the same standards of behavior and productivity as a modern adult-aged person scaled down to your approximate mass.  A child was just a physically smaller, weaker person, beyond that no difference.
2014-03-23 06:13:36 PM  
2 votes:
Kids were put to work @14 years of age pretty much in every society until recently.  Child labor was only outlawed in the US in 1938.  The concept of the "teenager" was devised by some Mad Ave hucksters back in the 50s.
2014-03-23 05:55:02 PM  
2 votes:
Humped them repeatedly?
2014-03-24 09:05:58 AM  
1 vote:
So.
The European dominance that followed was built upon the backs of children
2014-03-24 12:33:03 AM  
1 vote:

cptjeff: We generate such enormous amounts of data now, that's it's going to be very hard to sort what's useful from what's not.


Farkologists spend their whole life searching for working hotlinks to the buckets of the pseudo religious figure "Gorgor" who may or may not have been a real person.
2014-03-23 09:58:15 PM  
1 vote:

doglover: Studies have their own criticisms. But remember:

What you're reading, in historical accounts, is what someone dained to write down. You'll never know what they left out, what they were lying about, and what is just pure fantasy without multiple sources. That's true of ANY historical account, even today.

That's what history is. Trying to find as many voices as possible and sifting out the repeating themes. Somewhere where all the voices say the same thing is the truth.


Yes, yes, I agree. Well,, except the Holocaust. Anyone studying that and not arriving at the accepted narrative should be thrown in jail. But yeah,,, everything else you said is spot on.
2014-03-23 08:48:20 PM  
1 vote:

fappomatic: They had some sweet games, however. My family lore mentions an ancestor who was renowned for his Grand Theft Oxcart scores.


I hope this doesn't slip through the cracks and go unnoticed, because I chortled. Heartily.
2014-03-23 07:56:02 PM  
1 vote:
When reading historical accounts of how children were raised long ago, you have to first understand that you're not reading studies of how children were raised, but the social elites' visions and self-centered accounts.  Remember, education back then was mostly exclusive to the rich, nobility and clergy.

So, imagine if all that was ever written about parenting was authored by today's politicians, investment bankers and fundies.  Some of it will be accurate in the sense that that's how they raised their own children, but a whole steaming elephant pile of it will be some really sick shiat that would horrify any sane parents of the day.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report