Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Like Ian and Ben I too think that Paul Johnson made a great decision using Rochester as the focus of his study. As Ben and Ian both point out Rochester is a city that has a significant amount of diversity due to its ties to major cities through waterways as well as ties to the agriculture community due to its location out “west” making it unlike any other city in the United States at this time. The diversity seen in Rochester grants those who live in or around the city a perspective on relations between those with wealth and those without wealth. It has become painfully obvious through class discussions that wealth, regardless of how one defines it, has turned into political power in the United States. Now this blog isn’t going to head in a direction that many of my other entries have taken in that I am not going to talk about the abuse of power by the wealthy simply because they can do it without any repercussions. However, I can’t deny that this concept appears once again due to the fact that many wealthy “Rochesterians” imposed a sense of religion on the poor of their community because they believed a void or morality existed.
Tension undoubtedly existed between the upper and lower classes of Rochester and by the decision to impose religion on the “poor” by the wealthy did not ease these tensions I would argue with no knowledge of the state of Rochester. I think these tensions would become amplified as the “wealthy” are openly declaring themselves intellectually, financially, and morally superior through their decision to push religion on those beneath them. If I were say a factory worker of Rochester I would take this idea of imposing religion on me as the ultimate insult. What would make matters even worse for me as a factory worker at this time is that those in the upper class honestly believed they were doing me and the “poor” community a favor. However, I could not be more wrong in my thoughts of how a “poor” resident of Rochester would respond. Rather than spark revolution where the “wealthy” would be forced out of power, the poor of Rochester become unified with the wealthy, to an extent, due to the lower class’s decision to embrace the changes imposed upon them. Revivals are highly attended by those from or near Rochester and temperance was widely accepted in the community. I am baffled by the acceptance of this religious movement by the “poor” of Rochester as it seemingly goes against every other movement that had taken place in the United States when “the poor” were told what to do.
So what made the poor embrace the morality changes that they were told to make? Perhaps seeing how rebellions and skirmishes out west resulted for the poor when they defied the wealthy influenced their decision. Maybe members of the poor community took the old adage of “if you can’t beat them, join them” to heart and saw success, a success that was clear enough to other poor community members that they too changed. Regardless of the answer to the question I pose, Rochester successfully finds a way to unite members of the community making them a unique city. Ian’s commentary of Rochester as it exists today continues this idea of a unified city due to the holistic family feel the community has. Whether it be a store like Wegmen’s or a family law practice unity exists. Now the question that I would like to be investigated further is what the wealthy get from a unified community? It would seem that the upper class community would lose power with a more prominent middle class but I don’t see that happening. My thought is backed up by the fact that the Wegman family still runs a highly profitable store without outsiders coming in and wrangling power from them.