To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Health and social welfare in Communist Czechoslovakia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    1 384 126
    3 416
    1 356
  • Growth, Cities, and Immigration: Crash Course US History #25
  • Economic Freedom in Action: Changing Lives - Full Video
  • International relations

Transcription

Episode 25: Immigrant Cities Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. History and today we’re going to continue our extensive look at American capitalism. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, I’m sorry are you saying that I grow up to be a tool of the bourgeoisie… Oh not just a tool of the bourgeoise, Me from the Past, but a card-carrying member of it. I mean, you have employees whose labor you can exploit because you own the means of production, which in your case includes a chalkboard, a video camera, a desk, and a xenophobic globe. Meanwhile Stan, Danica, Raoul, and Meredith toil in crushing poverty--STAN, DID YOU WRITE THIS PART? THESE ARE ALL LIES. CUE THE INTRO. intro So, last week we saw how commercial farming transformed the American west and gave us mythical cowboys and unfortunately not-so-mythical Indian reservations. Today we leave the sticks and head for the cities--as so many Americans and immigrants have done throughout this nation’s history. I mean we may like to imagine that the history of America is all “Go west young man,” but in fact from Mark Twain to pretty much every hipster in Brooklyn, it’s the opposite. So, population was growing everywhere in America after 1850. Following a major economic downturn in the 1890s, farm prices made a comeback, and that drew more and more people out west to take part in what would eventually be called agriculture’s golden age. Although to be fair agriculture’s real golden age was in like 3000 BCE when Mesopotamians were like, “Dude, if we planted these in rows, we could have MORE OF IT THAN WE CAN EAT.” So it was really more of a second golden age. But anyway, more than a million land claims were filed under the Homestead Act in the 1890s. And between 1900 and 1910 the populations of Texas and Oklahoma together increased by almost 2 million people. And another 800,000 moved into Kansas, the Dakotas, and Nebraska. That’s right. People moved to Nebraska. Sorry, I just hadn’t yet offended Nebraskans. I’m looking to get through the list before the end of the year. But one of the central reasons that so many people moved out west was that the demand for agricultural products was increasing due to … the growth of cities. In 1880, 20% of the American population lived in cities and there were 12 cities with a population over 100,000 people. This rose to 18 cities in 1900 with the percentage of urban dwellers rising to 38%. And by 1920, 68% of Americans lived in cities and 26 cities had a population over 100,000. So in the 40 years around the turn of the 20th century, America became the world’s largest industrial power and went from being predominantly rural to largely urban. This is, to use a technical historian term, a really big deal. Because it didn’t just make cities possible, but also their products. It’s no coincidence that while all this was happening, we were getting cool stuff like electric lights and moving picture cameras. Neither of which were invented by Thomas Edison. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but suddenly there are a lot more photographs in Crash Course U.S. History b-roll. So the city leading the way in this urban growth was New York, especially after Manhattan was consolidated with Brooklyn (and the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) in 1898. At the turn of the century, the population of the 23 square miles of Manhattan Island was over 2 million and the combined 5 boroughs had a population over 4 million. But, while New York gets most of the attention in this time period, and all time periods since, it wasn’t alone in experiencing massive growth. Like, my old hometown of Chicago, after basically burning to the ground in 1871, became the second largest city in America by the 1890s. Also, they reversed the flow of the freaking Chicago River. Probably the second most impressive feat in Chicago at the time. The first being that the Cubs won two World Series. Even though I’m sorely tempted to chalk up the growth of these metropolises to a combination of better nutrition and a rise in skoodilypooping, I’m going to have to bow to stupid historical accuracy and tell you that much of the growth had to do with the phenomenon that this period is most known for: immigration. Of course, by the end of the 19th century, immigration was not a new phenomenon in the United States. After the first wave of colonization by English people, and Spanish people, and other Europeans, there was a new wave of Scandinavians, French people, and especially the Irish. Most of you probably know about the potato famine of the 1840s that led a million Irish men and women to flee. If you don’t know about it, it was awful. And the second largest wave of immigrants was made up of German speakers, including a number of liberals who left after the abortive revolutions of 1848. Alright, let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. The Irish had primarily been farmers in the motherland, but in America, they tended to stay in cities, like New York and Boston. Most of the men began their working lives as low-wage unskilled laborers, but over time they came to have much more varied job opportunities. Irish immigrant women worked too, some in factories or as domestic servants in the homes of the growing upper class. Many women actually preferred the freedom that factory labor provided and one Irish factory woman compared her life to that of a servant by saying: “Our day is ten hours long, but when it’s done, it’s done, and we can do what we like with the evenings. That’s what I’ve heard from every nice girl that’s tried service. You’re never sure that your soul is your own except when you’re out of the house.” [1] Most German speakers had been farmers in their home countries and would remain farmers in the U.S., but a number of skilled artisans also came. They tended to stay in cities and make a go of entrepreneurship. Bismarck himself saw emigration from Germany as a good thing saying, “The better it goes for us, the higher the volume of emigration.”[2] And that’s why we named a city in North Dakota after him. Although enough German immigrants came to New York that the lower east side of Manhattan came to be known for a time as Kleindeutschland (little Germany), many moved to the growing cities of the Midwest like Cincinnati and St. Louis. Some of the most famous German immigrants became brewers, and America is much richer for the arrival of men like Frederick Pabst, Joseph Schlitz, and Adolphus Busch. And by richer, I mean more drunker. Hey. Thanks for not ending on a downer, Thought Bubble. I mean, unless you count alcoholism. So but by the 1890s, over half of the 3.5 million immigrants who came to our shores came from southern and eastern Europe, in particular Italy and the Russian and Austro Hungarian empires. They were more likely than previous immigrants to be Jewish or Catholic, and while almost all of them were looking for work, many were also escaping political or religious persecution. And by the 1890s they also had to face new “scientific” theories, which I’m putting in air quotes to be clear because there was nothing scientific about them, which consigned them to different “races” whose low level of civilization was fit only for certain kinds of work and predisposed them to criminality. The Immigration Restriction League was founded in Boston in 1894 and lobbied for national legislation that would limit the numbers of immigrants, and one such law even passed Congress in 1897 only to be vetoed by President Grover Cleveland. Good work, Grover! You know, his first name was Stephen, but he called himself Grover. I would have made a different choice. But before you get too excited about Grover Cleveland, Congress and the President were able to agree on one group of immigrants to discriminate against: the Chinese. Chinese immigrants, overwhelmingly male, had been coming to the United States, mostly to the West, since the 1850s to work in mines and on the railroads. They were viewed with suspicion because they looked different, spoke a different language, and they had “strange” habits, like regular bathing. By the time the Chinese Exclusion Act went into effect in 1882 there were 105,000 people of Chinese descent living in the United States, mainly in cities on the West Coast. San Francisco refused to educate Asians until the state Supreme Court ordered them to do so and even then the city responded by setting up segregated schools. The immigrants fought back through the courts. In 1886, in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins the United States Supreme court ordered San Francisco to grant Chinese-operated laundries licenses to operate. Then in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that American born children of Chinese immigrants were entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which should have been a duh but wasn’t. We’ve been hard on the Supreme Court here at Crash Course, but those were two good decisions. You go, Supreme Court! But despite these victories Asian immigrants continued to face discrimination in the form of vigilante-led riots like the one in Rock Springs, Wyoming that killed 26 people, and congressionally approved restrictions, many of which the Supreme Court did uphold, so meh. Also it’s important to remember that this large-scale immigration--and the fear of it--was part of a global phenomenon. At its peak between 1901 and the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914, 13 million immigrants came to the United States. In the entire period touched off by the industrialization from 1840 until 1914, a total of 40 million people came to the U.S. But at least 20 million people emigrated to other parts of the Western Hemisphere, including Brazil, the Caribbean, Canada (yes, Canada) and Argentina. As much as we have Italian immigrants to thank for things like pizza (and we do thank you), Argentina can be just as grateful for the immigrant ancestors of Leo Messi. Also the Pope, although he has never once won La Liga. And there was also extensive immigration from India to other parts of the British Empire like South Africa; Chinese immigration to South America and the Caribbean; I mean, the list goes on and on. In short, America is not as special as it fancies itself. Oh it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I get it wrong and then I get shocked with the shock pen. Sorry I don’t mean to sound defeatist, but I don’t have a good feeling about this. Alright. “The figure that challenged attention to the group was the tall, straight, father, with his earnest face and fine forehead, nervous hands eloquent in gesture, and a voice full of feeling. This foreigner, who brought his children to school as if it were an act of consecration, who regarded the teacher of the primer class with reverence, who spoke of visions, like a man inspired, in a common classroom...I think Miss Nixon guessed what my father’s best English could not convey. I think she divined that by the simple act of delivering our school certificates to her he took possession of America.”[3] Uhh, I don’t know. At first I thought it might be someone who worked with immigrants, like Jane Addams, but then at the end suddenly it’s her own father. Jane Addams’s father was not an immigrant. Mary Antin? Does she even have a Wikipedia page?! She does? Did you write it, Stan? Stan wrote her Wikipedia page. AH. So, this document, while it was written by someone who should not have a Wikipedia page, points out that most immigrants to America were coming for the most obvious reason: opportunity. Industrialization, both in manufacturing and agriculture, meant that there were jobs in America. There was so much work, in fact, that companies used labor recruiters who went to Europe to advertise opportunities. Plus, the passage was relatively cheap, provided you were only going to make it once in your life, and it was fast, taking only 8 to 12 days on the new steam powered ships. The Lower East Side of Manhattan became the magnet for waves of immigrants, first Germans then Eastern European Jews and Italians, who tended to re-create towns and neighborhoods within blocks and sometimes single buildings. Tenements, these 4, 5 and 6 story buildings that were designed to be apartments, sprang up in the second half of the 19th century and the earliest ones were so unsanitary and crowded that the city passed laws requiring a minimum of light and ventilation. And often these tenement apartments doubled as workspaces because many immigrant women and children took in piecework, especially in the garment industry. Despite laws mandating the occasional window and outlawing the presence of cows on public streets, conditions in these cities were pretty bad. Things got better with the construction of elevated railroads and later subways that helped relieve traffic congestion but they created a new problem: pickpockets. “Pickpockets take advantage of the confusion to ply their vocation… The foul, close, heated air is poisonous. A healthy person cannot ride a dozen blocks without a headache.” So that’s changed! This new transportation technology also enabled a greater degree of residential segregation in cities. Manhattan’s downtown area had at one time housed the very rich as well as the very poor but improved transportation meant that people no longer had to live and work in the same place. The wealthiest, like Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan, constructed lavish palaces for themselves and uptown townhouses were common.[4][5] But until then, one of the most notable feature of gilded age cities like New York was that the rich and the poor lived in such close proximity to each other. And this meant that with America’s growing urbanization, the growing distance between rich and poor was visible to both rich and poor. And much as we see in today’s megacity, this inability to look away from poverty and economic inequality became a source of concern. Now one way to alleviate concern is to create suburbs so you don’t have to look at poor people, but another response to urban problems was politics, which in cities like New York, became something of a contact sport. Another response was the so-called progressive reform movement. And in all these responses and in the issues that prompted them – urbanization, mechanization, capitalism, the distribution of resources throughout the social order -- we can see modern industrial America taking shape. And that is the America we live in today. Thank you for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. The script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The show is written by my history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Halse Rojas, and myself. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week, there’s a new caption for the libertage. If you’d like to suggest one, you can do so in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. Immigrant Cities - ________________ [1] Quoted in H.W. Brands, American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism 1865-1900. p. 265. [2] Ibid p. 267 [3] Quoted in Brands, American Colossus, p. 324 [4] Ibid p. 315 [5] quoted in Brands, American Colossus p. 320

Characteristics

In the 1980s, Czechoslovakia had a comprehensive and universal system of social security under which everyone was entitled to free medical care and medicine. National health planning emphasized preventive medicine. Factory and local health care centers, first aid stations, and a variety of medical clinics supplemented hospitals and other inpatient institutions. The ratio of physicians to inhabitants had improved steadily, climbing from 1 per 745 in 1954 to 1 per 278 in 1985, although there were shortages of doctors in rural areas. The shift in the distribution of health resources in the 1960s and 1970s was dramatic; facilities were improved, and the number of health care personnel in Slovakia and rural areas increased in general. Despite the improvements, about 40% of all the medical equipment was obsolete, facilities were outdated and in short supply, the bureaucracy was excessive, and small bribery was widespread.

Spas

Spas in Czechoslovakia were part of the health care system. In 1985 more than 460,000 people (5% of whom were children) stayed at the 35 spas in the Czech lands and 23 spas in Slovakia. Many spas had existed for centuries, such as Bardejov (since the 13th century) in Slovakia and Karlovy Vary in the Czech lands. Many of them specialized in the care and treatment of particular kinds of ailments. All had either mineral or hot springs, and some also offered mud treatments. In bygone days, the spas were frequented by European royalty and the wealthy, but in the 1980s they were open to all, including foreign tourists (who made up 10% of the patients in 1985). A number of people visited spas on vouchers provided by their trade unions.

Life expectancy

In 1984 life expectancy in Czechoslovakia was 67 years for men and 75 years for women. In 1950 women's life expectancy was approximately 4.6 years longer than men's; by 1983 this difference had increased to nearly 7.5 years. Infant mortality stood at 10.5 per 1,000 live births in 1984, down from 15.6 per 1,000 in 1975. As with medical care, the gap in life expectancy between the Czech lands and Slovakia was narrowed during this period.

Pensions

In 1985 slightly more than one-quarter of the Czechoslovak population received some kind of pension; the elderly, the disabled, widows, and orphans were all entitled to assistance. Social security benefits (primarily retirement and disability) were equal for all wage earners. The average pension was less than Kcs1,000 per month (workers received an average pension of about Kcs 1,130, cooperative farmers about Kcs880, and independent farmers about Kcs720); this put pensioners among the lowest income earners. A substantial minority of the retired (23%) took up employment again to supplement their pensions.

Maternity and childcare benefits

Women workers had a full complement of maternity and childcare benefits. Maternity leave (at 90% of full pay) was twenty-six weeks in the 1980s; an additional nine weeks were available for single mothers or for mothers having multiple births. Employers could not deny a woman's request for an additional year of unpaid leave for child rearing (without loss of job seniority). A system of child allowances and maternity grants also assisted women who took unpaid leave. Women were allowed three days of annual leave in case of illness within the family. There were substantial family allowances, in addition to direct grants, to single parents or families with handicapped children. An unmarried mother, widow, or divorced mother could not be fired if she had a child under three years of age; if she had children between three and fifteen years of age, her employer had to find her another job before dismissing her.

Facilities for younger children

Nursery facilities for younger children were in very short supply; in 1984 they could accommodate less than 10% of children under five years of age. Beyond the sheer lack of space, nurseries were poorly distributed and were often concentrated in older centers rather than in new housing developments where young families were likely to reside. Kindergartens were in better supply, and a much higher percentage of children between the ages of three and six years attended these schools.

Birthrate and abortion rate

High employment of women and inadequate services contributed to the decline in Czechoslovakia's birthrate in the 1960s. Live births during the decade averaged 16 per 1,000 inhabitants, a significant drop from the 1950s. By 1968 the fertility rate was under 2 children per woman (in comparison with almost 3 in the 1950s); at this rate the population would not replace itself. In the Czech lands, the population growth rate stood at its 1930s low; in Catholic Slovakia, it was the lowest on record. The government adopted a variety of explicitly pronatalist policies in the 1970s. Family allowances increased, especially for second and third children. By 1973 a family with three children received roughly one-third the average worker's salary in allowances. Birth grants doubled so that they were the equivalent of two to four weeks of family income. Low-interest loans to newlyweds were designed so that a portion of the principal was canceled with the birth of each child (Kcs 1,000 for the first and Kcs4,000 for each subsequent child). All told, the financial incentives were substantial. In addition, couples with children had priority on apartment waiting lists and were entitled to larger living quarters, no small inducement in the face of Czechoslovakia's chronic housing shortage. Pronatalist policies appear to have had a strong influence on population growth during the 1970s. The birthrate climbed from its 1968 low (14.9 per 1,000 inhabitants) to a peak of 19.9 per 1,000 inhabitants in 1974—one of the highest rates among industrial nations. Perhaps a quarter of this increase reflected the increase in the number of women of child-bearing age in the 1970s. After 1974, however, the birthrate steadily declined, falling to 14.5 by 1985. Figures indicated that a trend toward one-child families was emerging. The message seemed to be that after one decade the government's aid program was ineffective.

A major factor influencing the birthrate was the abortion rate. The number of abortions fluctuated between the 1950s and 1980s, dropping in the early 1960s and the early 1970s. In 1985 there were reportedly 144,712 abortions, or 39 abortions per 100 pregnancies (33.5 per 100 in the Slovak Socialist Republic and 42.1 per 100 in the Czech Socialist Republic). It has been suggested that abortion has remained one of the most favored means of birth control, despite the risks involved. A 1986 change in the abortion law (eliminating the panel needed to approve a request for an abortion) suggested that the regime was giving up in its efforts to reverse at least this aspect of the adverse demographic trends.

Housing

Since statistics did not always provide a comparison between the numbers of households and existing housing units, the housing deficit remained difficult to gauge. A comparison of the number of marriages annually and construction of new 1 housing units between 1960 and 1975 shows that construction exceeded marriages only in 1975. The deficit was most acute in the 1960s, when an average of housing units was built for every 10 marriages; in 1985 the ratio rose to an average of 8.8 units per 10 marriages.

This approximation underestimated the housing deficit: it ignored divorces, the number of extended families living together who would have preferred separate housing, and the decay of old housing . Even waiting lists underestimated how inadequate housing was in the 1980s. Separate housing for single adults had such a low priority with planners that single adults found it difficult even to get on a housing list.

One of the factors contributing to the housing shortage was the low construction rate of rental housing. Major reasons for this were high inflation, high construction costs, and low (heavily subsidized) rents. In 1985 the average building cost for apartments rose to Kcs2,523 per square meter, and the average monthly rent—for the seventh consecutive year—was Kcs358. Construction of individual homes peaked in 1977 at 40,107 and decreased to 29,608 in 1985. Building a home privately was possible, but acquiring labor and materials was difficult and sometimes risky; it often meant borrowing machinery illegally or paying bribes for materials.

Despite substantial gains in the 1970s, Czechoslovakia entered the 1980s with a housing shortage that was likely to take years to remedy. In 1986 the government announced a slight cutback in new housing construction for the 1986–90 housing plan, further aggravating the situation.

References

Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. Country Studies. Federal Research Division.

External links

This page was last edited on 22 March 2023, at 01:47
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.