Consumers in the Bush: Shopping in Rural Upper Canada by Douglas McCalla
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Consumers in the Bush: Shopping in Rural Upper Canada by Douglas McCalla Michael C. Bumsted Douglas McCalla, Consumers in the Bush: Shopping in Rural Upper Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press 2015) For many, the overwhelming image of immigrants to Canada is one of hardship. Whether it be as actors in the fur trade, or as pioneering farmers, the idea of carving a life for oneself and one's family out of the wilderness was one that involved limited material resources, and was based mostly on the self-sufficiency of the household. While the academy has, to some extent, moved past the Laura Ingalls Wilder inspired narrative, this data-rich study not only reinforces the idea that people bought things, and that those things came from stores, but it also undertakes to unpack the accounts of those making the purchases. In doing so, the study builds a framework for a much more nuanced understanding of Upper Canadian consumption patterns, and does so in a way that allows for future comparisons. While such a study is not a groundbreaking concept, as McCalla himself outlines in his assessment of the literature, it is new to learn more about the details of Upper Canadian consumption in this period. Filling a hole in the data regarding material consumption in the Atlantic World, it builds on other work to look at the origins of European material culture in a period of transition between 1808 and 1861, in which the majority of the world was moving towards a more conspicuous form of consumption. The study itself is well organised, with each chapter breaking down a specific collection of goods, beginning with textiles, and moving through the wide range of goods available at general stores. By looking at the sales accounts, and not at importations, the study constructs a model of not just what was available to consumers in rural Upper Canada, but also what they actually bought. In doing so, it not only addresses larger arguments in related fields about consumption practices, but provides specific insight into the circumstances of these particular communities. As a result, McCalla is able to confirm the continued establishment of sugar, tea, and coffee as staple goods rather than luxury ones. He is also able to engage in a brief discussion of the issue of survivability of material culture as a barrier to certain forms of archaeological evidence in regards to cotton products versus homespun. He unlocks the idea of consumer choice, even for those in these rural communities, as well as reinforcing the commonality of the extension of store credit. By illuminating that goods for sale were priced, and not simply bartered for, the rural general store is framed to look much like it would have in other Atlantic World contexts, and not as a place of barter. In fact, that services provided in payment were given cash values [End Page 314] in the accounts goes to further prove that even in these remote communities, currency was being used as it was in more established centres. The study also does an excellent job of challenging the concept of the self-sufficient pioneer household and provides a more nuanced view of the economy of home production at this time. In looking at the purchasing of candles and nails, McCalla proves that consumers in this study, even though capable of making these goods for themselves, would allocate their time and energy resources to other avenues, and buy these things, rather than make them, as some narrative sources suggest. The modest purchase of gunpowder shown in this study also suggests that the narrative surrounding pioneers hunting most of the winter is inaccurate, or, at the very least, not present in this sample. Showing how many local goods were available for purchase in the general store also proved to be a fascinating detail in the economy of the towns in question. That even the artisans of the communities, like the shoemaker, would have their goods available for sale at the general store displayed both the importance of the stores themselves to the communities, but also that the commerce of this period did not operate in a way that was outside...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».