Edward Bok

Edward Bok



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Edward Bok is gebore in Den Helder, Holland, op 9 Oktober 1863. Toe Bok sewe jaar oud was, emigreer sy gesin na die Verenigde State. Nadat hy skool in Brooklyn, New York, bygewoon het, het Bok as kantoorseun by die Western Union Telegraph Company werk gekry.

Bok het 'n sterk begeerte om joernalis te word en het daarin geslaag om van sy werk in die Brooklyn Eagle gepubliseer te kry. Hy het sy opleiding by die nagskool voortgesit en in 1887 advertensiebestuurder van die Scribner's Magazine.

In 1889 word hy redakteur van die Tuisblad vir dames. Bok het die tydskrif gebruik om veldtogte vir stemreg vir vroue, pasifisme, die bewaring van die omgewing en verbeterde plaaslike regering te beywer. Teen 1900 was dit die topverkoper -tydskrif in die Verenigde State.

Bok het uit die Tuisblad vir dames in 1919. Sy outobiografie, Die Amerikanisering van Edward Bok (1920) was 'n topverkoper en het 'n Pulitzer-prys gewen. Hy het ook gehelp om die Amerikaanse Vredesprys van $ 100,000 te finansier.

Edward Bok is op 9 Januarie 1930 in Tucson, Arizona, oorlede.


'N Kort geskiedenis van die PMBOK -gids Gepubliseer deur PMI

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) is 'n publikasie van die Project Management Institute (PMI) wat die standaarde en beste praktyke op die gebied van projekbestuur dokumenteer. Die PMBOK® -gids word tans in die vyfde uitgawe beskou as een van die belangrikste eksamenvoorbereidingsboek vir die Project Management Professional (PMP®) -sertifiseringseksamen. Hierdie artikels gee 'n uiteensetting van die geskiedenis en ontwikkeling van die PMBOK® -gids.


Die lang geskiedenis van ouers wat kla oor die huiswerk van hul kinders

As u in die herfs beklemtoon, geïrriteerd en woedend is oor u kind se huiswerk, kan dit help om te weet dat u aan 'n wonderlike Amerikaanse tradisie deelneem. In Januarie 1900 het Edward Bok 'n skerp hoofartikel in Ladies & rsquo Home Journal geskryf oor huiswerk in Amerika, met die opskrif 'n National Crime at the Feet of American Parents. & Rdquo & ldquo geestelike goed, en rdquo Bok uitgespreek. Die laerskool- en hoërskoolleerling, het Bok geskryf, behoort nie eers boeke van die skool af te moet dra nie, want hy moet saam met sy vriende buite wees tussen ontslag en aandete en daarna moet hy slaap. & ldquo Om 'n kind te beroof van die speeltyd wat aan hom behoort, is 'n rang onreg, & rdquo Bok het aangevoer. Geen kind onder die vyftien jaar moet deur sy onderwysers enige tuisstudie kry nie. & rdquo

In Oktober 1900 het Bok sy polemiek opgevolg en geskryf dat die tydskrif sedert die publikasie daarvan honderde briewe van onderwysers en ouers ontvang het en dat dit definitief getoon het dat die feite nog erger was as wat gesê is, en briewe van & ldquophysicians, byna sonder getal & rdquo wat die uitwissing van hierdie euwel en besering uit die lewens van ons kinders ontmoedig het. & rdquo Bok stel voor dat ouers kon daad. Hulle moet aan die onderwysers aantekeninge stuur en sê dat die vader en die moeder onder geen omstandighede 'n tuisstudie deur die kind sal toelaat nie. & Rdquo En volgens die redakteur het duisende presies dit gedoen.

Ons dink dikwels aan die Amerikaanse verlede as 'n tyd waarin studente ure lank in kersligte gewerk het om aan streng opvoedkundige standaarde te voldoen. Maar soos die onderwysnavorser Brian Gill en die historikus Steven Schlossman in 'n reeks artikels berig het sedert die vroeë 20ste eeu, toe Amerikaanse wetgewing vereis dat alle kinders skool toe gaan, het baie Amerikaanse ouers huiswerk ontstellend gevind. Hulle het selfs gekla dat hulle hul kinders met wiskunde help, net soos u.

Konsensus oor huiswerk en rsquos wat die moeite werd was, het verander tydens die Koue Oorlog, toe baie Amerikaners, na die opvoedingspraktyke van ander lande, begin dink het dat Amerikaanse kinders sneeuvlokkies is wat 'n goeie dosis van die 19de -eeuse styl nodig het. Die tydskrif Life het in 1958 'n vergelykende artikel oor die lewens van 'n Amerikaner en 'n Russiese tiener gelewer, en die verskil tussen die twee studente en aktiwiteite tydens skooltyd was besonder skerp. Fotograwe betrap die Russiese seuntjie wat wetenskaplike eksperimente in 'n stil salon doen, terwyl die Amerikaner saam met sy vriende dans, gesellig verkeer en glimlag. Onaanvaarbaar, baie wat in reaksie op hierdie stuk geskryf het, het gedink hoe kan ons verwag om by die Russe te bly as ons jong mans die ure tussen skool en bed deurbring om koeldrank by meisies te drink?

Soos hedendaagse navorsers oor die onderwerp gevind het, is die antwoord op die vraag & ldquo Help huiswerk kinders om te leer? & Rdquo Is & ldquo Dit hang af van die toegekende bedrag, die ouderdom van die studente en die inhoud van die huiswerk. Die & ldquoit hang af en die posisie in die verlede het 'n presedent. Gill en Schlossman het 'n groep progressiewe opvoeders geïdentifiseer wat van die 1920's tot die 1950's huiswerk voorstaan hervorming eerder as afskaffing. Die idee was om huis en skool te verbind deur opdragte op te stel wat dinge wat in die klas geleer is, toegepas het op die res van die wêreld. Die superintendent van New York City & rsquos -skole, William J. O & rsquoShea, het in 1929 geskryf dat huiswerk kan bestaan ​​uit die lees, teken of besoeke van museums, ander dink dat uitstappies na & ldquowoods, fabrieke, museums, biblioteke, kunsgalerye en rdquo as huiswerk kan wees. Ander onderwysers het gedink dat studente dankie-aantekeninge vir hul Engelse huiswerk kan skryf of na die gesinsbegroting vir hul wiskundige huiswerk kan kyk. (Sou ek my kind eerder wou help met 'n vermenigvuldigingsblad of haar blootstel aan die verskrikking wat ons gesinsbegroting is? Moeilike oproep.)

Waarom kan ons skynbaar 'n gelukkige tussenweg vind by huiswerk? Brian Gill en Steven Schlossman merk op dat ldquohomework een van die mees emosioneel gelaaide onderwerpe in die Amerikaanse onderwys was. & hellip Die een kant het huiswerk geïdealiseer: hoe meer hoe beter. Die ander kant het huiswerk gedemoniseer. & Rdquo Die geskiedenis van huiswerk protes toon hoe die debat oor huiswerk nog altyd gegaan het oor 'n veel groter vraag: Wat is kinderjare vir? Daar is geen wonder dat ons kan saamstem nie.


Edward Bok - Geskiedenis

Die Amerikanisering van Edward Bok
Digitale geskiedenis -ID 3651

Skrywer: Edward Bok
Datum: 1921

Aantekening: Edward Bok (1863-1930) is in Holland gebore en emigreer na die Verenigde State toe hy slegs sewe jaar oud was. Hy het as kantoorseun by die Western Union Telegraph Company begin werk. Bok het 'n droom gehad om joernalis te word, en nadat hy twee jaar by die nagskool was, word hy advertensiebestuurder vir Scribner's Magazine. Hy word later redakteur van Ladies 'Home Journal en beywer hom vir vroueregte. Die amerikanisering van Edward Bok, sy outobiografie, het 'n Pulitzer-prys gewen en 'n topverkoper geword.


Dokument: Hoofstuk 38. Waar Amerika my te kort skiet

TOE ek as 'n seuntjie van ses na die Verenigde State gekom het, was die noodsaaklikste les vir my, as 'n seuntjie, die noodsaaklikheid van spaarsaamheid. Ek het in my huis oorkant die see geleer dat spaarsaamheid een van die belangrikste aspekte van 'n suksesvolle lewe is. My gesin was afkomstig uit 'n land (Nederland) wat bekend was vir sy spaarsaamheid, maar ons was slegs 'n paar dae in die Verenigde State voordat ek by my pa en ma besef het dat hulle hul kinders na 'n land van afval gebring het. Waar die Nederlander gered het, het die Amerikaner vermors. Daar was afval, en die mees verlore afval, in elke hand. In elke straatwa en op elke veerboot was die vloere en sitplekke besaai met koerante wat gelees en weggegooi of agtergelaat is. As ek na 'n kruidenierswinkel gaan om 'n aartappeltjie te koop, en 'n aartappel van die groot maat afrol, het die kruidenier dit in die geut geskop sodat die wiele van sy wa kan oorval. Die slagter se afval vervul my ma se siel met ontsteltenis. As ek 'n stukkie steenkool by die kruideniersware koop, word die steenkool wat die skuit mis, in plaas daarvan om opgegooi te word en in die asblik teruggesit, in die straat gevee. My jong oë het dit vinnig gesien in die aand toe ek die steenkool bymekaarmaak wat ek weggevee het, en in die loop van 'n week het ek 'n lepel opgetel. Die eerste keer dat my ma die vullisemmer van 'n gesin byna net so arm soos ons eie sien, terwyl die vrou en man voortdurend kla dat hulle nie regkom nie, kon sy haar oë skaars glo. 'N Halwe pan hominy van die vorige dag se ontbyt lê in die emmer langs 'n derde van 'n brood. In later jare, toe ek daagliks sien dat 'n borrel gelaai met die vullis van Brooklyn -huishoudings deur die hawe van New York na die see gesleep word, was dit 'n maklike berekening dat dit wat binne 'n week van Brooklyn -huise weggegooi is, die armes sou voed van Nederland. Op skool het ek vinnig geleer dat 'geld spaar' as jongman 'suinig' was, maar ek het gou agtergekom dat die Amerikaner nie van die woord 'ekonomie' hou nie, en na elke tyd het die besteding gegroei. Daar was letterlik niks in die Amerikaanse lewe wat my spaarsaamheid of ekonomie alles leer om my te leer spandeer en mors nie. Ek het gesien hoe mans wat in hul beste jare goeie salarisse verdien het, die jare van ongeskiktheid as afhanklikes bereik het. Ek het gesinne aan elke kant gesien, óf volstaan ​​met hul vermoë, óf dit was selde binne hulle. Hoe meer 'n man verdien, hoe meer het hy - of sy vrou - bestee. Ek het vaders en moeders en hul kinders gesien wat bo hul inkomste geklee was. Die aantal gesinne wat skuld gekry het, was baie groter as dié wat gespaar het. Toe daar 'n paniek kom, het die gesinne 'ingetrek' toe die paniek verby was, 'het hulle laat'. Maar die einde van 'n jaar het hulle gevind presies waar hulle aan die einde van die vorige jaar was, tensy hulle dieper skuld gehad het. Dit was in hierdie atmosfeer van verlore uitgawes en strafbare afval dat ek spaarsaamheid sou beoefen: 'n fundamentele in my lewe! En dit is in hierdie atmosfeer dat die vreemdelinge nou kom, met elke aansporing om te spandeer en geen aanmoediging om te spaar nie. Want soos dit was in die dae van my seuntjie, so is dit vandag nog-net erger. U hoef slegs die ervarings van die afgelope twee jaar te ondersoek, om die kwitansies van handelaars wat by die werkersklasse pas, en die state van spaarbanke regoor die land te vergelyk, om die verhaal te lees van hoe buitelanders die gewoonte leer kriminele verkwisting soos dit deur die Amerikaner geleer is. Is dit dan 'n wonder dat Amerika, by hierdie, een van die belangrikste dinge in die lewe en met alle sukses, tekort skiet by my, omdat dit steeds te kort skiet by elke uitlander wat aan die oewer kom? As 'n Nederlandse seuntjie het een van die kardinale waarhede my geleer dat alles wat die moeite werd was, die moeite werd was: deeglikheid as 'n faktor in sukses. Dit was nie genoeg dat iets gedoen moes word nie: dit is glad nie gedoen as dit nie goed gedoen is nie. Ek het na Amerika gekom om presies die teenoorgestelde te leer. Die twee infernale Amerikanismes "That's good enough" en "That will do" is my vroeg geleer, tesame met die maksimum van hoeveelheid eerder as kwaliteit. Dit was nie die seun op skool wat die beste woorde in sy kopieboek kon skryf nie, wat die lof van die onderwyser ontvang het; dit was die seun wat die grootste aantal woorde in 'n gegewe tyd kon skryf. Die suurtoets in rekenkunde was nie die bemeestering van die metode nie, maar die aantal minute wat nodig was om 'n voorbeeld uit te werk. As 'n seuntjie die maand Januarie tot 'Jan' verkort het en die woord Company tot 'Co.' hy het 'n honderd persent gekry, net soos die seun wat die woorde uitgespel het en wat die onderwyser nie kon laat sien dat 'Co.' het nie 'Company' gespel nie. Namate ek jonger geword het en sake begin doen het, het ek in elke opsig agtergekom dat hoeveelheid meer is as kwaliteit. Die klem is byna altyd geplaas op hoeveel werk 'n mens op 'n dag kan doen, eerder as op hoe goed die werk verrig is. Deeglikheid was teen 'n afslag teen elke handproduksie teen 'n premie. Dit het geen verskil gemaak in watter rigting ek gegaan het nie; die resultaat was dieselfde: die huil was altyd vir hoeveelheid, hoeveelheid! En in hierdie atmosfeer van byna volslae minagting van kwaliteit het ek my idees oor Nederlandse deeglikheid en my oortuiging gebring dat alles wat ek doen, as 'n kardinale beginsel in die lewe beskou moet word. Gedurende my jare as redakteurskap, behalwe in een of twee opvallende gevalle, kon ek nooit 'n werk aan 'n Amerikaanse skrywer toewys wat intensiewe navorsing vereis nie. In elk geval het die werk vir my teruggekom, óf verkeerd in die verklaring, óf op die oog af ontbreek dit aan deeglike voorbereiding. Een van die suksesvolste afdelings wat ek ooit in The Ladies 'Home Journal gehad het, het tot oneindige lees en geduldige grawe gesoek, met die werklike resultate soms byna onbeduidend. Ek het my kollegas bestudeer deur die departement na die ander oor te dra, en altyd met dieselfde resultaat: absolute gebrek aan kapasiteit vir pasiëntnavorsing. Soos een van my redakteurs, tipies Amerikaans, vir my gesê het: 'Dit is nie die moeite werd wat u daaraan doen nie.' Tog het geen enkele departement die soektog ooit meer vergoed vir sy pyn nie. Behalwe vir hulp van 'n enkele persoon, moes ek die werk self doen vir al die jare wat die departement voortgesit het. Dit was blykbaar onmoontlik vir die Amerikaner om met genoeg geduld en sorg te werk om 'n resultaat te bereik. Ons het almal ons troeteldieropvattings oor die spesifieke euwel wat 'die vloek van Amerika' is, maar ek dink altyd dat Theodore Roosevelt die naaste aan die werklike vloek was toe hy dit as 'n gebrek aan deeglikheid beskou het. Ook hier, in een van die belangrikste aangeleenthede in die lewe, het Amerika by my te kort gekom, en wat nog belangriker is, sy raak te kort by elke vreemdeling wat na haar oewer kom. Wat onderwys betref, het Amerika te kort geskiet in wat die sterkste van al haar instellings moes wees: die openbare skool. 'N Meer onvoldoende, onbevoegde onderrigmetode, aangesien ek terugkyk oor my sewe jaar wat ek by drie verskillende openbare skole was, is dit moeilik om te dink. As daar iets is wat ek as 'n vreemdeling gebore kind noukeurig moes onderrig het, is dit die Engelse taal. Die individuele poging om dit te leer, as daar moeite was, en ek onthou niks, was weglaatbaar. Dit het my pa oorgelaat om my te leer, of om dit self uit te grawe. Daar was absoluut geen aanduiding van die onderwyser of die hoof van die verantwoordelikheid om te sien dat 'n seuntjie wat in die buiteland gebore is, die Engelse taal korrek moet aanleer nie. Ek is geleer asof ek in Amerika gebore is, en ek het natuurlik in die lug bly hang sonder om te besef wat ek probeer doen. My pa het aand na aand saam met my gewerk. Ek het my jong gedagtes diep in die verwarrende verwarring van die taal gedompel-en niemand besef die verwarring van die Engelse taal soos die wat in die buiteland gebeur nie-en ek het wat ek kon deur hierdie gesamentlike pogings. Maar ek het niks gebaat uit die baie gewilde openbare skoolstelsel wat die Verenigde State uit my eie land geleen het nie, en toe onbevoeg gemaak het-hetsy deur 'n blote minagting van die deeglikheid wat die Nederlandse openbare skole tot bewondering van die wêreld maak, of deur 'n te noue agting vir politiek. Amerika het dus in haar belangrikste instelling vir die in die buiteland gebore tekort skiet. En hoewel ek gereed is om te glo dat die openbare skool sedert daardie dag in doeltreffendheid toegeneem het, is dit inderdaad 'n vraag wat die Amerikaner moet besin oor hoe ver die stelsel doeltreffend is vir die opvoeding van die kind wat sy skool sonder kennis van die eerste woord in die Engelse taal. Sonder 'n gedetailleerde kennis van die onderwerp, weet ek genoeg van die omstandighede in die gemiddelde openbare skool tot vandag toe om ten minste die vermoede te regverdig dat Amerikaners nie besonder trots op die stelsel sou wees nie, en op wat dit gee waarvoor hulle jaarliks ​​miljoene betaal dollar aan belasting. Ek is bewus daarvan dat ek in hierdie verklaring oortuigende gevalle van intelligente inspanning met buitelandse kinders in spesiale klasse sal kry. Niemand het 'n groter respek vir hierdie pogings as ek nie-maar min, behalwe opvoeders, weet dit beter as ek, aangesien ek my vyfjarige studie van die Amerikaanse openbare skoolstelsel nie verniet gemaak het nie. Maar ek verwys nie hier en daar na die uitsonderlike geval nie. Ek vra bloot aan die Amerikaner, geïnteresseerd soos hy is of behoort te wees in die Amerikanisering van die vreemdelinge binne sy poorte, hoe ver die openbare skoolstelsel in sy geheel, stedelik en landelik, hom met enige ware doeltreffendheid aanpas by die buiteland -gebore kind. Ek waag dit nie om sy opinie in te kleur nie; ek vra bloot dat hy self sal navraag doen, soos hy moet doen as hy belangstel in die toekomstige welsyn van sy land en sy instellings oor wat in die komende jare in Amerika gebeur. in groot mate oor wat vandag in die openbare skole van hierdie land gebeur. As 'n Nederlandse seuntjie het ek 'n goeie respek vir die reg en vir gesag geleer. Die feit het my onder die indruk gebring dat wette van hulself nutteloos was, tensy die mense vir wie dit gemaak is, hulle respekteer en hulle in die gees meer gehoorsaam as in die brief. Ek het na Amerika gekom om in elke hand te voel dat presies die teenoorgestelde waar is. Wette is aangeneem, maar die gees om dit af te dwing het nie by die mense afgedwing nie. Daar was min respek vir die wet; daar was skaars vir diegene wat aangestel is om dit toe te pas. Die naaste wat 'n seun aan die wet kom, is deur die polisieman. In Nederland word 'n seun geleer dat 'n polisieman ter beskerming van lewe en eiendom die natuurlike vriend is van elke seun en man wat hom gedra. Die Nederlandse seun en die polisieman is natuurlik vriendelik in hul verhoudings. Ek het na Amerika gekom om te hoor dat 'n polisieman 'n seuntjie se natuurlike vyand is, dat hy gretig is om hom te arresteer as hy die geringste rede daarvoor kan vind. 'N Polisieman, het ek ingelig, is 'n wese om in vrees te hou, nie met respek nie. Hy moes vermy word, nie om met hom vriende te word nie. Die gevolg was dat ek, net soos alle seuns, die polisieman op ons maat as 'n duidelike vyand beskou het. Sy teenwoordigheid het beteken dat ons sy verdwyning moes "versterk", was die teken dat ons 'moes los'. Solank iemand nie gevang word nie, het dit nie saak gemaak nie. Ek het gehoor hoe ma's vir hul kinders sê dat as hulle nie gedra nie, die polisieman dit in 'n sak steek en dit afdra, of hulle ore afsny. Natuurlik het die polisieman vir hulle 'n verskriklike voorwerp geword van die wet wat hy verteenwoordig het, 'n wrede ding wat gestraf word. Ek het in my kinderdae nog nooit 'n noot van respek vir die wet gehoor nie. 'N Wet was iets om te oortree, om te ontduik, om ander as 'n bron van straf aan te roep, maar nooit in die lig van 'n beskerming te beskou nie. En namate ek opgegroei het tot manlikheid, lui die koerante aan alle kante met disrespek vir die gesaghebbendes. Onder die spesiale bedeling van die persvryheid, wat in die persverklaring geïnterpreteer is, was niemand te hoog om redaksionele onstuimigheid te ontsnap as sy politiek nie die bestuur pas nie, of as sy optrede in stryd was met wat die eienaars het geglo dit moet wees. Dit was nie kritiek op sy dade nie, dit was 'n persoonlike aanval op die amptenaar, of toesighouer, burgemeester, goewerneur of president dit nie saak maak nie. Dit is 'n baie jammer indruk dat hierdie Amerikaanse gebrek aan respek vir die gesaghebbendes 'n uitlander het. Dit is moeilik vir die buitelander om die arrestasie en deportasie van 'n man wat deur middel van 'n brandende adres probeer om die regering se gesag omver te werp, te ignoreer deur die redakteur van die koerant van die volgende oggend te ignoreer. Met ander woorde, die man wat skryf, is immuun, maar die man wat die redakteur se woorde lees, insink en dit in aksie vertaal, word onmiddellik as 'n skuldige gemerk, en Amerika sal hom nie huisves nie. Maar waarom die oorspronklike oorsaak koester? Is die man wat met tipe praat minder gevaarlik as hy wat met sy mond of met 'n bom praat? Op die belangrikste deel van my lewe, toe ek 'n Amerikaanse burger sou word en die kiesreg sou uitoefen, het Amerika heeltemal te kort gekom. Dit het nie eers die voorstel van 'n hand bereik nie. Toe die presidensiële konvensies gehou is in die jaar wat ek my wettige meerderheid bereik het, en ek het geweet dat ek kon stem, het ek probeer uitvind of ek, in die buiteland gebore is, geregtig is op stemreg. Niemand kon dit vir my sê nie en eers nadat ek ses verskillende munisipale afdelings besoek het, van die een na die ander verwys, is daar verduidelik dat ek deur sy vader se naturalisasie outomaties as sy seun 'n Amerikaanse burger geword het. Ek het besluit om op die platforms van die Republikeinse en Demokratiese partye te lees, maar ek kon nêrens kopieë beveilig nie, alhoewel daar 'n week verloop het sedert hulle in konvensie aanvaar is. Ek is meegedeel dat die koerante dit gedruk het. Dit het by my opgekom dat daar sekerlik baie ander mense behalwe myself was wat baie graag die platforms van die twee partye in 'n meer gerieflike vorm wou beveilig. Met die oog op noodsaaklikheid ooit 'n kans om 'n eerlike sent te verdien, het ek na 'n koerantkantoor gegaan, die twee platforms uit die lêers gesny, dit in 'n klein sakuitgawe laat druk, een uitgawe verkoop aan die American News Company en 'n ander aan die News Company wat die Elevated Railroad -boekstaanders in New York beheer, waar hulle teen tien sent elk verkoop word. Die vraag wat ek maar gedeeltelik geraai het, was so groot dat ek binne drie weke sulke groot uitgawes van die boeke verkoop het dat ek meer as duisend dollar opgevee het. Maar dit lyk vir my vreemd dat dit van 'n in Amerikaans gebore Amerikaner afhang om 'n gretige publiek te voorsien van wat deur die agentskap van die politieke partye of deur 'n opvoedkundige bron verskaf moes word. Ek het nou probeer uitvind wat 'n stemming eintlik beteken. Daar moet onthou word dat ek maar een-en-twintig jaar oud was, min opleiding gehad het, en sonder 'n burgerlike instansie wat my die inligting gebied het. Ek het na die hoofkwartier van elk van die politieke partye gegaan en my navraag gedoen. Ek is met verwarde blikke beskou. "Wat beteken dit om te stem?" vra een voorsitter. 'Waarom, op die verkiesingsdag, gaan u na die stembus en sit u stembrief in, en dit is alles. Maar ek het baie goed geweet dat dit nie alles was nie, en was vasbeslote om die betekenis van die franchise uit te vind. Ek het elke keer 'n digte onkunde teëgekom. Ek het na die Brooklyn -biblioteek gegaan en die bibliotekaris het my eerlik gesê dat hy nie van 'n boek weet wat my sou vertel wat ek wou weet nie. Dit was in 1884. Namate die veldtog in intensiteit toegeneem het, was ek in die oë van die plaaslike veldtogbestuurders 'n gewenste persoon, maar nie een van hulle kon my die betekenis en betekenis van die voorreg wat ek vir die eerste keer gehad het, vertel nie. . Uiteindelik het ek 'n aand saam met Seth Low deurgebring en natuurlik die gewenste inligting gekry. Maar lus vir die soeke wat ek genoodsaak was om die eenvoudige inligting te bekom wat ek in my hande moes gehad het of vir my maklik toeganklik moes maak. En hoeveel buitelanders sal dieselfde moeite doen om vas te stel wat ek vasbeslote was om uit te vind? Amerika het hier beslis te kort geskiet op die mees heilige vir my: die van my eerste stem! Is die buitelandse burger vandag makliker om hierdie inligting te bekom wanneer hy sy eerste stem nader? Ek wonder! Nie dat ek nie glo dat daar agentskappe vir hierdie doel is nie. Jy weet daar is, en ek ook. Maar wat van buitelanders? Weet hy dit? Is dit nie miskien soos die eienaar van die bulhond wat die vriend geroep het dat hy nooit vriende van die gesin aangeval het nie? 'Ja,' sê die vriend, 'dit is goed. Jy weet en ek weet dat ek 'n vriend van die gesin is, maar weet die hond? " Is dit vandag bekend aan die in die buiteland gebore, op die punt om vir die eerste keer sy voorreg om uit te kies, uit te oefen, waar daar vir hom gesê kan word wat die voorreg beteken: is die middel om te weet vir hom maklik toeganklik: is dit in feit, soos dit hoort, na hom gebring? Dit was nie vir my nie, is dit vir hom? Een fundamentele probleem met die huidige begeerte na Amerikanisering is dat die Amerikaner angstig is om twee klasse te Amerikaniseer-as hy 'n hervormer is, die in die buiteland gebore as hy 'n werkgewer is, sy werknemers. Dit kom nooit by hom op dat hy self Amerikanisering nodig het nie. Dit lyk asof hy dit as vanselfsprekend aanvaar dat, omdat hy in Amerika gebore is, hy 'n Amerikaner is en 'n goeie begrip van Amerikaanse ideale het. Maar dit volg geensins altyd nie. Daar is duisende Amerikaners wat net so baie Amerikaners nodig het as die wat in die buiteland gebore is. Daar is honderde Amerikaanse werkgewers wat baie minder van Amerikaanse ideale weet as sommige van hul werknemers. Trouens, daar is diegene wat vandag eintlik besig is met die werk van Amerikanisering, mans aan die bokant van die beweging, wat ongelukkig 'n beter idee van die ware Amerikanisme nodig het. 'N Uitstekende illustrasie hiervan kom tot my kennis toe ek 'n groot Amerikaniseringskonferensie in Washington bygewoon het. Een van die hoofsprekers was 'n opvoeder met 'n hoë status en aansienlike invloed in een van die belangrikste dele van die Verenigde State. In 'n toespraak waarin sy idees oor Amerikanisering uiteengesit word, het hy met groot klem en baie aandag daaraan gebly om die hoogste respek vir Amerikaanse instellings in die gedagtes van buitenlanders te vestigen. Na die konferensie het hy my gevra of hy my die middag in my hotel kon sien waaroor hy wou praat oor die bydrae tot die tydskrif. Toe hy kom, voordat hy die doel van sy toespraak nader, begin hy met 'n tirade teen die president van die Verenigde State die swakheid van die kabinet, die ondoeltreffendheid van die kongres en die domheid van die senaat. As woorde kon doodgemaak het, sou daar nie 'n enkele lid van die Administrasie in Washington gebly het nie. Na vyftien minute hiervan herinner ek hom aan sy toespraak en die klem wat hy gelê het op die noodsaaklikheid om die inheemse respek vir Amerikaanse instellings in te skerp.

Tog was hierdie man 'n mag in sy gemeenskap, 'n sterk invloed op ander wat hy geglo het dat hy ander kan veramerikaniseer, toe hy, volgens sy eie uitsprake, nie die fundamentele beginsel van amerikanisering ontbreek nie. Wat van hierdie man waar is, geld in mindere of meerdere mate vir honderde ander. Hulle veramerikanisering bestaan ​​uit lippediens, die ware gees, die enigste faktor wat by die suksesvolle onderrig van enige leerstelling tel, ontbreek absoluut. Ons kan beslis niks leer wat 'n ware amerikanisme nader nie, totdat ons self voel en glo in ons eie lewens wat ons aan ander leer. Geen wet, geen lippediens, geen moeite, hoe goed bedoel dit ookal, is die moeite werd om die ware Amerikaanse gees by ons inheemse burgers in te skerp totdat ons seker is dat die Amerikaanse gees deur onsself verstaan ​​word en skeef is en woef van ons eie wese. Vir die Amerikaner, 'n deel van sy land, is hierdie gegewens waarin sy land te kort skiet met die uitlanders, miskien nie so duidelik dat dit selfs nie so belangrik lyk nie. Maar vir die uitlanders lyk dit asof hulle 'n duidelike gebrek het, hulle is groot, dit veroorsaak ernstige gebreke wat in baie gevalle nooit te bowe kom nie, dit is 'n bedreiging vir die Amerikanisering wat vandag meer as ooit ons liefste droom is, besef nou meer as voorheen ons belangrikste behoefte. Dit is om hierdie rede dat ek hulle hier neergelê het as 'n konkrete voorbeeld van waar en hoe Amerika te kort skiet in my eie Amerikanisering, en wat vir my baie ernstiger is, waar sy te kort skiet in haar Amerikanisering van duisende ander in die buiteland gebore.

'Tog het u daarin geslaag', sal aangevoer word. Dit is miskien maar u, aan die ander kant, moet erken dat ek nie daarin geslaag het nie as gevolg van hierdie tekortkominge: dit was ten spyte daarvan, deur dit te oorkom - 'n resultaat wat almal moontlik nie bereik het nie.

Hoofstuk 39. Wat ek aan Amerika verskuldig is

Ongeag watter tekortkominge ek gedurende my vyftienjarige amerikaniseringstydperk gevind het, maar Amerika het my nie gehelp om my oorgang van 'n vreemdeling in 'n Amerikaner te help nie, ek is haar die onbetaalbaarste geskenk verskuldig wat 'n nasie kan bied, en dit is 'n geleentheid. Soos die wêreld vandag is, bied geen nasie geleentheid in die mate wat Amerika aan die in die buiteland gebore Rusland doen nie, in die toekoms, soos ek graag wil glo, 'n tweede Verenigde State van Amerika in hierdie opsig kan bewys. Sy het dieselfde onbeperkte gebied, haar mense dieselfde potensiaal. Maar soos sake vandag is, bied die Verenigde State, soos geen ander nasie nie, 'n onbeperkte geleentheid: hier kan 'n man so ver gaan as wat sy vermoëns hom sal dra. Dit is moontlik dat die in die buiteland gebore, net soos in my eie geval, 'n paar van die ideale en idees van die geboorteland moet vashou; dit kan wees dat hy sy karakter moet ontwikkel en vorm deur die gewoontes as gevolg van nasionale tekortkominge te oorkom . Maar in die beste wat die buitelanders kan behou, kan Amerika so 'n magdom inspirasie, so 'n nasionale idealisme, so 'n groot geleentheid vir die hoogste poging, inhaal om hom vandag die gelukkige mens van die aarde te maak. Hy kan gaan waar hy wil: geen tradisies belemmer hom nie, daar word geen beperkings gestel nie, behalwe dié in homself. Hoe groter die gebied waarin hy kies om te werk, hoe groter die visie wat hy demonstreer, hoe gretiger is die mense om sy onderneming te ondersteun as hulle oortuig is dat hy hul beste welsyn as sy doel het. Daar is geen openbare vertroue wat gelyk is aan die van die Amerikaanse publiek sodra dit verkry is nie. Dit is natuurlik wispelturig, net soos alle ander mense, maar slegs wisselvallig teenoor die man wat nie 'n behaalde sukses kan behaal nie. 'N Man in Amerika kan nie selfvoldaan terugleun op oorwinnings soos in die ouer Europese lande nie, en kan staatmaak op die glans van die verlede om hom te handhaaf of die momentum van sukses om hom te dra. Waarskynlik die wakkerste publiek ter wêreld, dit vereis van sy leiers dat hulle waaksaam moet wees. Die aptyt vir variëteit is onversadigbaar, maar die waardering daarvan, as dit gegee word, is volhartig en heelhartig. Die Amerikaanse publiek hou nooit terug van die man aan wie hy dit gee nie, en gee nooit alles nie. Wat nie algemeen onder die Amerikaanse volk verstaan ​​word nie, is hul wonderlike idealisme. Niks verras die in die buiteland gebore so volledig as die ontdekking van hierdie eienskap in die Amerikaanse karakter nie. In Europese lande - miskien minder algemeen sedert die oorlog - het die indruk dat Amerika uitsluitlik oorgegee is aan die aanbidding van die Amerikaanse dollar. Alhoewel vergelykings tussen nasies en tussen individue waardeloos is, is dit miskien nie verkeerd om uit persoonlike kennis te sê dat die Nederlanders die gulden oneindig meer aanbid as wat die Amerikaners die dollar doen nie. Ek beweer nie dat die Amerikaner altyd bewus is van hierdie idealisme nie. But let a great convulsion touching moral questions occur, and the result always shows how close to the surface is his idealism. And the fact that so frequently he puts over it a thick veneer of materialism does not affect its quality. The truest approach, the only approach in fact, to the American character is, as Viscount Bryce has so well said, through its idealism. It is this quality which gives the truest inspiration to the foreign-born in his endeavor to serve the people of his adopted country. He is mentally sluggish, indeed, who does not discover that America will make good with him if he makes good with her. But he must play fair. It is essentially the straight game that the true American plays, and he insists that you shall play it too. Evidence there is, of course, to the contrary in American life, experiences that seem to give ground for the belief that the man succeeds who is not scrupulous in playing his cards. But never is this true in the long run. Sooner or later—sometimes, unfortunately, later than sooner—the public discovers the trickery. In no other country in the world is the moral conception so clear and true as in America, and no people will give a larger and more permanent reward to the man whose effort for that public has its roots in honor and truth. “The sky is the limit” to the foreign-born who comes to America endowed with honest endeavor, ceaseless industry, and the ability to carry through. In any honest endeavor, the way is wide open to the will to succeed. Every path beckons, every vista invites, every talent is called forth, and every efficient effort finds its due reward. In no land is the way so clear and so free. How good an American has the process of Americanization made me? That I cannot say. Who can say that of himself? But when I look around me at the American-born I have come to know as my close friends, I wonder whether, after all, the foreign-born does not make in some sense a better American—whether he is not able to get a truer perspective whether his is not the deeper desire to see America greater whether he is not less content to let its faulty institutions be as they are whether in seeing faults more clearly he does not make a more decided effort to have America reach those ideals or those fundamentals of his own land which he feels are in his nature, and the best of which he is anxious to graft into the character of his adopted land? It is naturally with a feeling of deep satisfaction that I remember two Presidents of the United States considered me a sufficiently typical American to wish to send me to my native land as the accredited minister of my adopted country. And yet when I analyze the reasons for my choice in both these instances, I derive a deeper satisfaction from the fact that my strong desire to work in America for America led me to ask to be permitted to remain here. It is this strong impulse that my Americanization has made the driving power of my life. And I ask no greater privilege than to be allowed to live to see my potential America become actual: the America that I like to think of as the America of Abraham Lincoln and of Theodore Roosevelt—not faultless, but less faulty. It is a part in trying to shape that America, and an opportunity to work in that America when it comes, that I ask in return for what I owe to her. A greater privilege no man could have.


FOR THE THIRTY YEARS between 1889 and 1919, Edward Bok and the magazine he edited— Ladies’ Home Journal —exerted a profound influence over middle-class American values. His message was direct: The Simple Life was joyous and good, and too many Americans, seduced by the clutter and false values of Victorian materialism, had drifted away from it.

Bok is best known today as an example of the “rags-to-riches” success story, an immigrant youth who made good in America and then became a public benefactor and inveterate booster, telling others how to do the same. Yet Bok was far more than a typical success specialist. He was at heart an ardent moral reformer who found in simple living the key to personal happiness and social improvement. In 1900 Bok proclaimed that from “every class in American life … there comes the same cry for a simpler, more rational way of living, ” and he was determined to use his flourishing magazine to promote such enlightened restraint. In the process Ladies’ Home Journal developed into an uplifting, practical guidebook for plain living and high thinking.

Bok’s career remarkably paralleled that of Andrew Carnegie. Born in Holland in 1863, Edward William Bok arrived in Brooklyn with his destitute family in 1870. Seven years later he quit school in order to help support his struggling parents. Energetic and ambitious, he eventually became a stenographer for a publishing firm and began editing a small Brooklyn church magazine at night. At the same time, he embarked on a rigorous program of self-education. By 1886 his magazine had grown quite successful, and Bok sold it while beginning a second project—a syndicated newspaper feature. Realizing that most women were not regular newspaper readers, he sought to attract their attention by providing articles of interest to them, and soon the “Bok page” blossomed into a profitable enterprise carried by 137 subscriber newspapers across the country.

Such success caught the eye of Cyrus Curtis, the owner of Ladies’ Home Journal , and he offered Bok the post of editor in 1889. Thus, at the tender age of twenty-five, bachelor Edward Bok assumed control of the nation’s leading periodical for women, then boasting 440,000 subscribers. He later remembered (referring to himself in the third person) the irony of his selection: “No man, perhaps, could have been chosen for the position who had a less intimate knowledge of women. Bok had no sister, no women confidantes he had lived with and for his mother. … His boyhood days had been too full of poverty and struggle to permit him to mingle with the opposite sex.” Although Bok had little experience with women, he nevertheless felt confident in his understanding of the American home and what it needed in the way of improvement. With this curious mixture of youthful innocence and Dutch persistence, he plunged wholeheartedly into his new venture.

Bok arrived at Ladies’ Home Journal at a time when the idea of a masscirculation, general-interest magazine was just coming to fruition. The already large but rapidly growing urban middle class was eager for a cultural outlet relevant to its needs and interests. Bok recognized this fact, and he self-consciously directed his magazine at middlebrow readers, the “intelligent American woman rather than the intellectual type.” He was interested not in the patrician or the parvenu classes but rather in those families with annual incomes from twelve hundred to twenty-five hundred dollars. The “class with incomes of perhaps from $3000 to $5000,” Bok explained, would receive “supplementary attention, but the other classes above were not large enough in number to warrant specific appeal. ” The new editor promised that the Journal would provide a “great clearing-house of information” for its audience, and he quickly revised its format accordingly. After soliciting suggestions from his readers, Bok created a number of new departments covering such topics as infant and child care, sewing, cooking, religion, and civic beautification. He also published short stories by William Dean Howells, Mark Twain, Bret Harte, Hamlin Garland, Sarah Orne Jewett, and Rudyard Kipling, social commentary by Jane Addams,and political discussion by Presidents Cleveland, Harrison, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson.

In presenting such varied fare, Bok was careful to highlight his own clearly articulated vision of American values. The Journal to him must “be more than a mere assemblage of stories and articles.” It must stand for ideals. Bok’s own rapid success in his new country gave him a heady optimism about the nation’s distinctive moral mission, and his avid reading of Emerson as a youth had impressed upon him the virtues of simple living and elevated thinking. He frequently quoted Emerson’s assertion that “great men are they who see that the spiritual is stronger than any material force.” And like Emerson, he believed that the best way to reform a society obsessed with money and possessions was not through the manipulation of institutions but through the promotion of enlightened self-improvement. Consequently, unlike McClure’s and other muckraking periodicals, Bok’s magazine was intended not to attack “all the evils of the day” but to reveal the “tremendous influence of personal power” in correcting social problems. He was bent upon using Ladies’ Home Journal as a stimulant for self-culture, providing “uplift and inspiration” for its readers. As he told George Bernard Shaw, the Journal’s editorial pages constitute the world’s “largest possible pulpit.”

Bok saw the middle-class American woman as the crucial “steadying influence” between the “unrest among the lower classes and [the] rottenness among the upper classes.” For him the ideal woman was one who led a simple life in the home and conscientiously passed on such a perspective to her spouse and children. She was inherently “better, purer, conscientious and morally stronger” than man. Bok was no feminist. “My idea,” he wrote, “… is to keep women in the home especially as there are enough writers who are trying to take her out of it.” Perhaps because he appealed to what many traditional women wanted to be, Bok’s new Ladies’ Home Journal was an amazing success. By 1892 the number of subscribers had increased to 700,000 by 1910 they numbered 1,750,000, thus giving the magazine the largest circulation of any in the world.

Bok used his editorial pulpit to promote a variety of Progressive causes—city beautification, billboard removal, wilderness preservation, sex education, American-designed fashions, and pure food and drug legislation. He also instituted a policy of testing the products advertised in the magazine so as to ensure their quality. In 1892 Bok banned all patent medicine advertisements, even though they were a major source of revenue for the magazine. The most consistent subject of his avuncular preaching, however, was the personal satisfaction provided by simpler living.

Like many Americans at the turn of the century, Bok was inspired by the writings of Charles Wagner, a French Protestant clergyman noted for his emphasis on Christian simplicity. His book The Simple Life (1901) was widely reviewed and quoted in the American press, so much so, in fact, that President Roosevelt invited Wagner to the United States in 1904. In speaking of The Simple Life , Roosevelt said that he knew of “no other book… which contains so much that we of America ought to take to our hearts.” Wagner’s explicitly religious perspective, coupled with his reverence for a well-ordered family life, struck a responsive chord among American advocates of simplicity. Bok was especially taken with Wagner’s message. He told his readers that The Simple Life was the “sanest little book” on the subject yet published, and “in its words there are health and salvation for thousands of American women.” By emphasizing that simplicity had to do more with one’s perspective than one’s income, the French minister implicitly sanctioned the capitalist system, thereby reassuring Bok and middle-class Americans that leading a simple life required a spiritual revitalization, not a social revolution.

In the aftermath of Wagner’s American lecture tour and with the growing popularity of the Frenchman’s ideas, Bok noted that the phrase “simple life” had become quite fashionable among American journalists: “We read about the ‘simple life’ and love to talk about it, but we refuse to live it.” He attributed this failure in part to widespread confusion about the concept’s practical meaning. Too often it was associated with a “barren abode and crude living.” On the contrary, he emphasized, simplicity was not a fruit-and-nuts primitivism. There was a need for a basic sufficiency, a “healthful diet, simple, serviceable clothing, a clean, healthy dwelling-place, open-air exercise and good reading. ”

At base, Bok affirmed, the simple life was a personal state of being dependent neither “upon our condition nor our station in life.” Like Wagner’s message, his recipe for simplicity was delectably reassuring: “Make home happy hold loved ones first in your heart leave off fussing over fashionable ways of living be natural, and you will be living the simple life though you ride in a motorcar, clean house by electricity, entertain at the country club, and have every convenience known to man. The quality of the individual is what determines the simple life, never his surroundings.”

Yet, while assuring the well-to-do that they could simplify their lives without spartanizing them, Bok advised that to have “small means makes the problem of simple living really easier.” The key to simplicity was self-confident contentment. He reflected his reading of Thorstein Veblen when he stressed, “There must be no imitation of others, no reaching of fancied heights to outdo someone else: no thought of how our mode of living will be judged by others.” When Americans learned the difference between the accessories and the essentials of life, they would begin to experience better physical and mental health. “There are no nervous breakdowns in the simple life,” he counseled his readers. Contentment, discrimination, sincerity—that, Bok concluded, “is the genuine simple life—according to Charles Wagner, if you will, or according to those everlasting basic precepts and principles that were lovingly laid down for all mankind some nineteen hundred years ago.”

In this way Bok retrieved the traditional concept of Christian simplicity and made it relevant to his middle-class American audience. Some may see in his rather broad definition of simple living a rationalization for the status quo. He certainly was not calling into question the free enterprise system or the sanctity of private property. Like most Progressives, he was a moral reformer, not a social radical. But he clearly did intend his sermons to result in changed patterns of living and thinking. To this end he created a department entitled “How Much Can Be Done with Little,” devoted solely to providing practical tips for simpler living. Bok also pioneered the “how-to” journalistic technique. Articles such as “How We Can Lead a Simple Life, by an American Mother,” “How We Live on $1000 a Year or Less,” “How to Live Cheaply,” “A Lesson in Plain Sewing,” “Economical Use of Left-Overs,” “What Nervous People Should Eat,” and “A Spartan Mother” were intended to demonstrate that simpler living was a practical ideal accessible to all. In addition Bok solicited prominent Americans to express to his readers the virtues and joys of simplicity. His greatest coup in this respect was in getting President Roosevelt to participate in a series of interviews on the subject of better living habits.

To say that Theodore Roosevelt was himself a model of simple living would stretch the concept absurdly. Roosevelt, of course, defies any simple classification. A bundle of nervous energy, he could be a conspicuous dandy in spending his inherited money. He rode to hounds, played polo, loved big houses, fast horses, pearl-handled revolvers, gold-plated rifles, and fine clothes for indoors and out, despite boasting about getting by with his buckskin shirt. But Roosevelt was also a patrician who was determined not to be genteel. He repeatedly claimed to lead a life of “dignified simplicity.” In a letter to William Howard Taft in 1903, he described his way of life in the White House: “We have two maids and live as any family of gentlefolk of small means should live. When I leave the Presidency I shall not mind in the least going back to the utmost simplicity of life, and I wish to live simply as President.”

ROOSEVELT THUS fervently supported Bok’s moral program, declaring in Ladies’ Home Journal in 1907 that excessive materialism was the greatest danger threatening the country. And he agreed with Bok that the most effective antidote was a revival of republican simplicity in modern form. “The evils that have come, ” as the Journal paraphrased the President’s philosophy, “need not corrupt the world, if the old watchwords of the simpler life—virtue, loyalty, courage, cheerfulness—are made part of each individual’s life.” Roosevelt maintained that a “sane charity and simplicity” should again be taught in the home so that young Americans would learn that the “moral must permeate the material or the best in life decays. ” The American raised in such a moral household, the article stated, would find that his “good plain sense will prevent him from securing luxuries he cannot pay for, and his courage will save him from imagining that such luxuries are necessaries.”

The popular Roosevelt undoubtedly exerted a strong influence on the readers of the Journal . But it was Edward Bok himself who was the magazine’s most rousing voice on behalf of simple living. In repeated editorials he expressed the virtues of enlightened restraint in a didactic, intimate, homely way that drew its effect from his intense sincerity. “It is a hard truth,” he wrote in a typical Christmas message, “for those who have little, to believe that the greatest happiness of life is with them: that it is not with those who have abundance. ” Nevertheless, he insisted, the “more we have the less we actually enjoy it. ” As Emerson had pointed out, there is a “law of compensation” at work in life. Those of great wealth must bear the constant burden of greater complexity and concern. “The woman of simplest means,” Bok contended, “is the happiest woman on earth, if she only knew it.”

To prove this assertion, Bok cited the example of a family he knew who enjoyed an affluent income but conscientiously organized their lives and their purchases around the principles of utility and simplicity. Their furniture was of high-quality wood but of plain design, an automobile was rented for specific trips rather than bought to sit outside, and toys for the children were “fewer and simpler” than those of the neighbors. It was a family, Bok stressed, where “pleasures were made to remain real: appetites were not clogged nor jaded.” The result was contentment with the joy of life itself.

To Bok the need for such familial simplicity assumed the proportions of a crusade, and he was determined to make the middle-class household his battleground. “We have drifted away from simple living,” he charged, “and our children are suffering from it.” Hence, Bok led a highly publicized campaign for a simplified domestic architecture. He found most late Victorian homes to be “repellently ornate.” Money was “wasted on useless turrets, filigree work, or machinemade ornamentation. ” As a result, all sense of style and proportion was lost. To remedy the situation, the Journal in 1895 began publishing plans for plain, more functional, and attractive houses, many of which could be built for fifteen hundred to five thousand dollars. Many leading architects submitted designs, including Ralph Adams Cram, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Stanford White. Bok offered complete blueprints for five dollars, and soon thousands of “ Journal houses” began going up across the country. White maintained that “Edward Bok has more completely influenced American domestic architecture for the better than any man of this generation.” These “ Journal houses” eliminated the Victorian parlor, made the kitchen more compact by using builtin cupboards, and discarded all cupolas, scrollwork, and balconies. Cram explained that his design was an “attempt to restore something of the simplicity characteristic of good colonial work. ”

While promoting a plain, functional, affordable architectural style in the Journal , Bok also led a campaign for simplified home interiors. “The curse of the American home to-day,” he wrote in 1900, “is useless bric-a-brac. ” The tasteless overfurnishing in the Queen Anne style then so popular among the urban middle class, he had decided, was contributing directly to the rising nervousness of American women, for they were becoming harried slaves to the “useless rubbish” filling their parlors. Moreover, such homes were not conducive to the development of good moral character in the young. “No child,” he said, “can develop a true simplicity of nature when the home of his parents is stifled by shams.” Useless gimcracks, he insisted with Thoreau-like reasoning, only gather dust and offend the eye: “Simplicity is the only thing that ornaments.” In fact it does more than that, he continued, “it dignifies.” The most aesthetically pleasing rooms were determined not by what they contained but by what they disdained.


Directions to Bok Tower Gardens

1151 Tower Boulevard
Lake Wales, Florida 33853
863-676-1408

From Orlando, take I-4 West.

From Tampa, Take I-4 East.

Proceed on I-4 to Exit 55. Take Exit 55 and proceed south on US-27 for approximately 23 miles. Proceed two traffic lights past Eagle Ridge Mall. Turn left on Mountain Lake Cut Off Road. At the caution light, turn right (south) onto County Road 17 also known as Scenic Highway). Proceed on CR 17 for 3/4 miles. Turn left (east) onto Burns Avenue (also known as County Road 17-A). Proceed on Burns Avenue for 1.3 miles. On your left you’ll see a main entrance sign to Historic Bok Sanctuary. Turn left and proceed to the entrance gate.

From Highway 60 East or West:

Go to Lake Wales and proceed north on U.S. Highway 27. Turn right on Mountain Lake Cutoff Road. At the caution light, turn right (south) onto County Road 17 (also known as Scenic Highway). Proceed on CR 17 for 3/4 miles. Turn left (east) onto Burns Avenue (also known as County Road 17-A). Proceed on Burns Avenue for 1.3 miles. On your left you’ll see a main entrance sign to Bok Tower Gardens. Turn left and proceed to the entrance gate.

From Vero Beach, Take Highway 60 West:

Go to Lake Wales. At Buck Moore Road (the intersection just past WalMart), turn North (right) onto Buck Moore Road (also known as 17-B). Turn between SunTrust and Walgreen’s. Proceed aproximately 1.3 miles. At the stop light, turn West (left) onto County Road 17-A (also called Burns Ave.). Proceed on CR 17-A approximately .7 mile to the entrance of Historic Bok Sanctuary on your right.

Ons Facebook -bladsy het meer as 107,743   volgelinge wat van Florida hou: dorpe, toeriste -aantreklikhede, kaarte, verblyf, kos, feeste, skilderagtige reis, daguitstappies, geskiedenis, kultuur, nostalgie en meer.  

Kyk. As jy geniet wat jy sien, gee ons 'n like.

Teken in op ons gratis Florida Backroads Travel Ezine

Mike Miller van FloridaBackroadsTravel.com het 25 boeke oor Florida geskryf.    

Klik op die voorblad om sy outeurbladsy van Amazon te sien.

Florida Back Roads Travel is nie verbonde aan of onderskryf deur Backroads, 'n toeroperateur in Kalifornië wat reisprogramme regoor die wêreld reël en aanbied nie.


Geskiedenis

Funded through FDR’s Public Works Administration, the building was built in 1936 to accommodate 3,000 students from across Philadelphia studying subjects from wallpapering to cosmetology to auto mechanics to bricklaying. Formally known as the Bok Vocational High School, the building opened to students in 1938. Many of the classrooms were purpose-built to accommodate trade-specific study — like the steel rooms built for welding materials that exist inside many of the spaces. Or the first floor rear of the building that was an auto mechanic shop, or the 3rd floor full kitchen built to train students in culinary arts.

Decreased enrollment in its later years and escalating deferred maintenance challenged the building. In 2013, the School District of Philadelphia closed the school and put it up for public auction. At the time of closure, the school had under 1,000 students enrolled. The building was one of over 20 schools put up for public auction by the District that year. Unfortunately this follows a narrative playing out across the country - in Chicago over 55 school buildings were put up for sale and in Detroit over 120 school closed around this time.

Although there were some cosmetic changes over the 75 year history, the building remains unchanged.


Emigrated from The Netherlands

Edward William Bok was born on October 9, 1863 in the Dutch city of Helder. The Boks were one of the leading families of the Netherlands: Edward's grandfather served as the chief justice of the Supreme Court and his father, William J.H. Bok, was a well connected diplomatic figure in the Dutch government. Unfortunately, Bok's father lost much of the family's fortune with a series of bad investment decisions. Seeking a fresh start, the family moved to the United States when Bok was six years old. Making their new home in Brooklyn, New York, Bok and his younger brother were enrolled in the city's public schools, even though they did not speak English. Later writing of the difficulty in adjusting to his new life as an American schoolboy, Bok referred bitterly to this experience as the beginning of his Americanization.

With the constant financial difficulties of his family, Bok contributed to the family coffers by performing whatever odd tasks would bring in some money. The strain on the family became so great that at the age of thirteen Bok left school for good to work as a messenger for Western Union. As he recalled in his book Twice Thirty, "There was no choice. My father, a stranger to American ways, could not readjust himself at his age to the new conditions of a strange country. My mother had not the health to endure housework she had not been brought up to it. There was nothing for us boys to do but to get out and help to make the domestic machinery run a bit easier." Indeed, his father, who never achieved the success he had hoped for in America, died when Bok was eighteen, leaving the two sons to support their mother. By that time, Bok had decided to enter into a career in publishing. The ambitious young man began reporting for the Brooklyn Eagle in addition to taking classes to sharpen his office skills. After working as a stenographer for the New York publishing house of Henry Hold and Company in 1882, Bok started to edit the Brooklyn Review, a magazine affiliated with the Plymouth Church of renown minister Henry Ward Beecher. Taking advantage of his connection to the famous preacher, he founded the Bok Syndicate Press in 1886 to sell feature articles that included essays by Beecher. Adding to his responsibilities, Bok also worked for another New York publishing house, one founded by Charles Scribner. Bok rose to the position of head of advertising at Scribner's still in his early twenties, it seemed that the once poor immigrant was a true American success story.


EDWARD W. BOK - TYPED LETTER SIGNED 11/09/1905 - HFSID 86037

EDWARD BOK
The Pulitzer Prize winner sends a letter on his personal The Ladies' Home Journal stationary
Typed Letter signed: "Edward Bok", 1½ p, 5x8. Philadelphia, 1905 November 9. On letterhead of "The Ladies' Home Journal/Mr. Bok's Office" to Mr. Edward T. Hartman. In full: "I thank you for your letter, but we could hardly use such an article as you have in mind for the reason that we have our plans with regard to the bill-board question pretty well laid out. What I am more anxious to get is any information which will throw light upon the whole situation, and that is what I hope you will be able to send me from time to time." Dutch immigrant Edward Bok founded the "Brooklyn Magazine" (later "Cosmopolitan") in 1883. From 1889-1919, Bok served as Editor of The Ladies' Home Journal, which had been founded by his father-in-law, Cyrus H.K. Curtis in 1883. Bok made the publication the leading American magazine for women. At the time of this letter, a campaign was raging to expose the evils of patent medicines and introduce federal regulation of food and drugs. Begun by "Collier's Weekly" in 1903, the crusade was joined by other national magazines, including "The Ladies' Home Journal" and "Good Housekeeping", resulting in the passage of the Food and Drug Act in 1906. In 1921, the publisher and philanthropist won a Pulitzer Prize for his autobiography, The Americanization of Edward Bok (1920). Horizontal fold touches signature. Fine condition.

Na die aanbieding van aanbiedings sal gebruikers binne 48 uur gekontak word by hul e -posadres. Ons reaksie is om u aanbod te aanvaar, u aanbod te weier of 'n finale teenaanbod te stuur. Alle aanbiedinge kan binne die 'Dokumentaanbiedings' van u HistoryForSale -rekening besigtig word. Lees die voorwaardes om 'n aanbod te maak voordat u 'n aanbod maak.

As u nie binne 24 uur 'n aanbod ontvang het of 'n teen-aanbod e-pos ontvang het nie, gaan dan na u strooipos/gemors e-pos gids.


Edward Bok - History


RANDOM FLOATING CELLS WITH STYLE

To love one another with quantum certainty is to volumize the stars.

It might take some time, a few million years, but for your efforts—
many more

moth-white, fuzzy, brightened blurs. There, someone

once upon a time loved despite. There, another

just shed enough fears in love not to burst. Each evening,

this movie of love plays out like popcorn blinking lively in the sky.

As if your epilogue were an ancient, omniscient satellite to whom

time no longer matters, and matter always exceeds the count.

Ah, you bonus illumination in this vast multiplying apart.

You gathering of random floating cells with style.

You—all of you—dying trillions of times every hour

to recommence each new forever inside these eyes. Kyk.

Look at me seeing you seeing me from the beginning of the universe
and time.

Never forget: wherever, whenever you are, is the history of all you loved
in the dark.

. . . Ed Bok Lee, whose insightful, exacting poems reflect the intimate ways globalization is transforming our culture and our lives.”
New York Times

“This is Lee's third book of poetry, and it's epic in scope, exploring everything from our cellular history to ancestral memory to the future of the human soul.”
Alles in ag genome

“His poems carry them with monumental gentleness. . . a reverential force,”
Los Angeles Review of Books

“This sweeping vision of human and environmental justice informs Ed Bok Lee’s writing. . .He disrupts conventional language about native or nonnative species, attending to plantain and clover, sometimes called invasives, often called weeds, and also considers how a word such as ‘weed’ has been used to describe people of color. . . ”
The Missouri Review

“Lee’s poems about massacres, hate crimes and PTSD radiate with ‘a deeper belief in the brightness of human souls…’”
Star Tribune


Kyk die video: Edward Bok and Natures Concert Hall