Re: Re: Urban cooking

From: donald_at_...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:12:53 GMT


In message <eootqd+rd03_at_...> "jorganos" writes:

>However, where you get tenenemt blocks several stories high, with
>wooden interior construction and no useful chimney system, I simply
>don't see how serious cooking could be done leaving the house
>standing. (Preparing a tea might be a different proposal, though)

I'd look to the way such things are done in the slums of third world cities today. From various TV reports I've seen there is often a small hearth made up of a few bricks to enclose the fire and a small container to hold the food over the fire. Not efficent but not a great fire risk either.

>> Many working practices of the period were even worse..
>
>Talking hatters and chimney sweepers here?

Two of the most notorious, but in the typical factory machine operators were reaching into poorly guarded machines while they were running and shipbuilding involved throwing red-hot rivets to the riveter's assistant.

>I'm taking my view of unprivileged urban life from literature like
>"Notre Dame de Paris" and "Les Miserables" (Victor Hugo), "Oliver
>Twist", Georg Agricola's "On Mining", or Gerhart Hauptmann's "Die
>Weber" (the weavers, a drama about impoverished Slesian crafters
>earning too little to live and barely too much to die).

I'm not sure literature is too good a source for this. To make a dramatic story line it inevitably concentrates on the people who for one reason or another fail to manage, not the majority who struggle but get by. For cities to exist there must be a wage structure such that children can grow to adulthood, marry and have children of their own. That doesn't happen if both partners income is needed to survive.

>Actually no: I was assuming daylight hours are work hours, and private
>time is after sunset.

Except for the jobs that provide services to other workers.

>> Not practical when there are children to bring up.
>
>That's children under 5 years, which are indeed taking up one
>(presumably pregnant) woman's time. Most children have to contribute
>to the family income in some way.

Except that without reliable contraception and low infant mortality a woman will spend 10-20 years either pregnant or with small children.

>> Now it may take two other people
>> earning money to support that economic unit but it's the model
>> which has existed until recently.
>
>Not sure whether a 2:1 ratio might work. I'm thinking of low class
>work like running before a riksha or carrying a palanquin, sweeping
>the streets (such as Avivath, the glorious ancestor of Emperor
>Khordavu, did for a living), chimney sweeping, or similar.

Urban incomes are usually higher than rural incomes, it's what draws skilled farm workers to take unskilled jobs in town and city. True the costs are higher but I'm fairly sure that at most times even labourers could support a family on their wages. Problems arise when there is no work or injury or illness prevents them earning.

[lacemaking]

>Again, that's fairly qualified work. And it might generate more income
>to buy cheap prepared food than to support a cook/shopper/housekeeper
>in the family.

It generated more than that, it was a craft level occupation capable of supporting a family. Probably not enough to pay for a paid servant but plenty to feed and clothe an extra family member who you feel an obligation to help. It might make economic sense to send granny to the workhouse and buy in prepared food but socially it wasn't acceptable.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/

Powered by hypermail