On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Nathan Newman wrote:
> It depends on your definition of engagement. Workers and unions that
> existed in the 19th century were in many ways less engaged in politics in
> the late 19th century than today.
Could you expand on that? Unions were regulaly opposed by armed force in the 19th century, so belonging to one seems like it had to be pretty engaging. And workers in general -- i.e., people in general -- voted at higher rates then than they do now, even in the late 19th century, when national politics were even more venal and empty of content than they are now. So it's not clear at first sight what you're referring to. Do you mean that their horizons were more local?
Michael