# CIO spin-off...how'd they do it 200 years ago?



## chipper26 (Sep 4, 2008)

Something I've been wondering about for a long time...

How did women respond to their babies needs back in colonial times and during the days of the pioneers? They had many kids and lots of work to do around the house. There were no dishwashers, clothes washers and driers or even showers! Didn't they have the babies in the cradle crying part of the time so they could make dinner on the hearth? It had to be crazy and there had to be some CIO going on.

I know many of them may have had extended family or older children to help, but not all. In fact, I know it was common for women to practically work themselves to death back then with all of the household responsibilities and the physical demands of childbirth/child rearing. How did those babies fair with all of that going on?

Imagine having 3 kids under 5 in some cabin in the middle of nowhere with no modern conveniences! Somebody must have been doing some crying (other than the moms, I mean.







) Was babywearing common in early America?

In other societies in developing nations, they must also face many of these problems. Does babywearing take care of all of these issues?

I put an incredible amount of pressure on myself to hold my dd as much as humanly possible when she was a baby, but what was humanly possible back then?


----------



## BeckC (Nov 27, 2006)

I doubt there was a lot of baby wearing going on in colonial times. I'm not basing that off of anything but a guess.

I know that some cultures in developing nations are big on babywearing. I did read something recently in National Geographic though that leads me to believe that it's not an across the board popular solution. I was reading about a people where the popular practice seems to be to train their children not to cry by making small cuts on their cheeks because tears make cuts sting. I imagine it's not the first group of people to figure that out.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Well, obviously most people had to nurse so they probably carried them around and nursed them a lot, out of necessity. I don't know if they tied them on with some kind of sling or something.

Someone here on MDC wrote that there was a group-- Pilgrims I think?-- who would swaddle the babies and hang them on hooks on the wall.

Obviously they must have had babies crying in the cradle some of the time, as you say. The big difference would have been that they wouldn't have CIO'd at night as a deliberate "training" method-- they tended to co-sleep or at least sleep in the same room, because when you only _have_ one room, that's how it works.

Just curious, that group that makes cuts on the babies' cheeks-- do they live in a location where there are either lots of hostile people, or lots of dangerous large animals? Or did they in the fairly-recent past? Because I can see where in a place like that, keeping babies quiet to avoid alerting enemies to their presence could be considered the lesser of two evils.

I recently had a conversation with a woman who had her children in the 40s and 50s, out in the Georgia country where they were not yet on-grid back then-- they lived very 19th-century lives in that town, except for having better and more-available schools. She admired my Ergo and stroller, saying they just carried babies around everywhere when she had babies. I guess there was a lot of one-handed cooking going on.


----------



## workjw (Apr 6, 2008)

Forget 200 years ago, out here, that's how people grew up only 60 yrs ago!







DH's father had 11 brothers and sisters and grew up in a 4 room farmhouse with dirt floors and no indoor plumbing until he was in his teens. It was amazing to hear some of dh's grandmothers stories before she passed. 9 of her children were born at home, with no plumbing!!! She was my hero!

As for how her babies faired (and obviously it's a different situation)... but they are an amazingly close family. We live on a road with 8 of dh's aunts/uncles and we (as a family) still farm an 18 acre farm at the "old house" where FIL grew up. As for CIO specifically, the older kids were pretty much responsible for taking care of the little ones. While their mother was attentive, she was also incredibly busy (can you imagine having 12 kids in 17 years?). I think that they got most of their physical contact from their sibblings, and all the kids slept together in 2 rooms, so probably not a lot of crying at night either.

I can't even begin to imagine people cutting their children to stop them from crying. How heartbreaking.

eta - lolar2 good point about the safety of not crying, while I still can't imagine it, I can see how in that circumstance it might be the lesser of 2 evils.


----------



## honey-lilac (Jun 30, 2009)

I read WAY back when, in elementary school I think, about a white person visiting Native Americans (this wasn't a novel btw) and noticing the babies NEVER cried - in comparison to the babies who cried all the time where he came from. The "Indians" would put their hands over the babies' mouths and noses before they had their first cry, and I guess as long as it took to make sure they didn't cry. Somehow this extinguished the cry, even though a few babies died if they were smothered too long or fought too hard.







They needed the babies to stay quiet so they wouldn't give their location away to enemies or prey.

I swore up and down I would do that when I grew up... it seemed a REALLY good idea to me when I was like seven years old.







Yeahhhh maybe not.


----------



## verde (Feb 11, 2007)

Historically people lived in multigenerational homes where parents coslept with their babies and grandparents helped care for the next generation. As pointed out, when you had fewer rooms, everyone slept in the same room. Remember Laura Ingalls Wilder slept in a trundle bed in the shared bedroom with her parents.

Re: that story about Indians putting their hands over babies mouths. I am extremely suspicious of that story. Usually stories like that were written by european colonists who viewed everything the indians did with suspicion and considered them savages. The reason indian babies didn't cry was because they were carried everywhere and everyone coslept.

btw, I use the term "indians" as used by the colonists. No disrespect intended.

Keeping babies separate from their parents is a modern, western 20th century idea.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolar2* 
Just curious, that group that makes cuts on the babies' cheeks-- do they live in a location where there are either lots of hostile people, or lots of dangerous large animals? Or did they in the fairly-recent past? Because I can see where in a place like that, keeping babies quiet to avoid alerting enemies to their presence could be considered the lesser of two evils.

This group is one of the last truly nomadic hunter-gatherer groups in the world. So the cutting most likely developed as a survival mechanism, yes.


----------



## lalemma (Apr 21, 2009)

Yes - I always think the intense anti-crying, pro-babywearing, "it's natural", thing is kind of funny. In an actual tribal culture, say, you don't wear your baby because it's "better", you wear your baby because you have to go dig roots or nobody eats. And if your baby cries all the way to the root field and back, that's just too bad.

I'm pretty sure parents have always had a pretty tough time.


----------



## honey-lilac (Jun 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
The reason indian babies didn't cry was because they were carried everywhere and everyone coslept.

So was my DS and he cried nonstop for the first year.


----------



## honey-lilac (Jun 30, 2009)

I would also think that if there was a, say, colicky baby who jeopardized the group by scaring away prey or alerting enemies, well, probably they would be left in the bush or something unless babies were really scarce. Just as children with disabilities were often abandoned as well. Sad but I guess it's natural selection. I've read that mothers who have difficult children (more difficult than just "difficult" but ones with actual special needs) often don't bond with them and want to "replace" them with another baby - presumably because it's not worth the energy investment to have a sickly baby. (ETA: OBVIOUSLY this is not meant as a jab at all mothers of difficult babies, please don't start flaming. It's NOT a given. But I know I've read that women who have less social support and resources AND who have needier-than-normal babies have an increased risk of postpartum depression where they don't bond with the baby - presumably because it's more energy to keep him/her alive than is "evolutionarily" acceptable. Please don't take my comment wrong - I know it's not the case in all scenarios!!)

Of course, humans are, well, humans and not purely animal, although I think the instincts are there and they come out at some points of human history depending on the current culture. We *do* keep sick people alive, we do care for the old who are no longer contributing, etc. But basically in a situation where the tribe's well-being depends on the ability to stay silent, I can't imagine a baby would be allowed to jeopardize that. (Obviously this is way back, not colonial time or whatever.)


----------



## elus0814 (Sep 21, 2009)

I've thought about this before and my assumption is that babies likely spent a lot of time crying. Diaper rash would have been one big thing, it was commonplace for a baby to be changed once a day. I remember reading that in a history of diapers when researching cloth diapers. There was also a lot of infant and childhood mortality so I would think mothers wouldn't bond with their babies the way we do today. I remember being told by my 99 year old great aunt that she was sickly as a child and a relative told her mother when she was four years old to "not get too attached to this one". It was assumed at the turn of the last century that not all of your children would live into adulthood. I guess if I was faced with that knowledge I would be more callous to my children since it could potentially be heartbreaking to bond with them. I guess my point is that maybe women 100+ years ago didn't care about the crying, to them it was just something babies did.


----------



## GoestoShow (Jul 15, 2009)

.


----------



## Baby_Cakes (Jan 14, 2008)

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of history, but as far as colonial times in the US, weren't children/babies raised by babynurses? Seen and not heard? The women would have the children and pass them off to the wetnurse/nanny. Usually a black woman? I feel terrible even typing that but I seem to recall a lot of this in imagery even from Colonial Williamsburg and in paintings I learned in art history courses.

I believe that in the days of pioneers and the push towards the west, the women were more more hands on and I believe they did babywear. But I also think the more children they had the more responsibility the older children had to raise their brothers and sisters, leaving the mother free to do more housework and chores.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
Historically people lived in multigenerational homes where parents coslept with their babies and grandparents helped care for the next generation. As pointed out, when you had fewer rooms, everyone slept in the same room. Remember Laura Ingalls Wilder slept in a trundle bed in the shared bedroom with her parents.

Re: that story about Indians putting their hands over babies mouths. I am extremely suspicious of that story. Usually stories like that were written by european colonists who viewed everything the indians did with suspicion and considered them savages. The reason indian babies didn't cry was because they were carried everywhere and everyone coslept.

btw, I use the term "indians" as used by the colonists. No disrespect intended.

Keeping babies separate from their parents is a modern, western 20th century idea.

Yeah, I am wondering about this, too. Although I suppose some tribes might have had different methods. I recall reading that some tribes would actually meet their child's needs so quickly, the child learned never to cry. They used signing too. I do remember it was for the same reason (so their location wouldn't be given away).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoestoShow* 
I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that the American colonialists didn't let babies cry it out, though I suppose it may depend a little more on who you're talking about. If you're speaking particularly of the 17th century New England colonies and the puritains, then you're talking about people who believed that you either were saved or damned from birth, and if you were damned, you couldn't do anything about it and were just going to hell anyway, but if you were saved, you probably wouldn't know it so it's just better to think you're damned. You're also talking about the people for whom Michael Wigglesworth was a celebrity. And "The Day of Doom" includes such sentiments that babies who died before baptism were little better off than murderers. Just sayin'. These were a very harsh people for whom suffering was a chosen way of life. If they didn't let babes cry it out as a means of teaching, they sure likely inflicted other harms on them.


I was going to post along these lines. The early history of our country is IMO why we have certain violent parenting methods. The Puritanism was a rigid way of living. I think their views and way of living dug itself into the early medical industry, such as with Watson and his book on childcare, the complete denial of infants being able to feel pain, routine circumcision to banish "sexual sins" etc.

I would not consider American parenting history to be "natural" or anything to follow.

IIRC these views were also pushed onto their slaves. I remember reading a story about how slave women were forced to put their children in a hallowed out log while cotton picking. After a flash rain storm, the babies drowned.


----------



## GoestoShow (Jul 15, 2009)

.


----------



## Maluhia (Jun 24, 2007)

if we are going for hunter-gatherer societies a loud baby would be a good thing as children and infants are 'worn'/carried up until about 5 most of the time, nursed on demand and cosleep so the being loud would be being heard within a large family bed, or helping to scare of animals from a group.. Since women as a group - multi-generational and multifamily - are raising the children and they collect food/etc. about 2-3 days a week on their own schedule they purposefully talk loud/make noise so that animals are scared away from the group and they can gather in peace. That being said the hunters are going away for 2-3 days from camp to hunt in male-only groups so the babies back home, while they may be involved when they are in camp, don't do much for hunting good or bad.


----------



## chipper26 (Sep 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elus0814* 
I've thought about this before and my assumption is that babies likely spent a lot of time crying. Diaper rash would have been one big thing, it was commonplace for a baby to be changed once a day. I remember reading that in a history of diapers when researching cloth diapers. There was also a lot of infant and childhood mortality so I would think mothers wouldn't bond with their babies the way we do today. I remember being told by my 99 year old great aunt that she was sickly as a child and a relative told her mother when she was four years old to "not get too attached to this one". It was assumed at the turn of the last century that not all of your children would live into adulthood. I guess if I was faced with that knowledge I would be more callous to my children since it could potentially be heartbreaking to bond with them. I guess my point is that maybe women 100+ years ago didn't care about the crying, to them it was just something babies did.

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. When reading about families back in George Washington's time, there could have been 4 0r 5 children and only 1 or 2 made it to adulthood. The attachment may have suffered, or there was just an exponential increase in heartbreak.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

I don't know of any evidence that the attachment was less; it just was less of a shock when death occurred. When I've read writings about the deaths of children that were written when it was more common, the only major distinction I've noticed from modern western writings about losing a child, is the element of surprise. (I mean, think of your parents and grandparents-- you know you'll almost certainly outlive them, but that doesn't make you callous towards them.)

And I just don't see how people living in one room would make babies cry it out-- wouldn't it be, at the very least, tremendously annoying to lie there awake in the room while the baby cried in the cradle next to your bed all night? How would you sleep? In a big house, maybe, but not in a small one.

Now leaving them to cry in the cradle while adults worked during the day, sure, I definitely could see that happening. Especially if safety wasn't an issue. But they obviously did rock and sing to soothe children, and bounce them around-- that evidence is present in lullabies.

The harsh things they did, that I've read about anyway, included a lot of physical punishment, and abrupt weaning (although they didn't wean until about 2 years old if I remember correctly). But some of the modern harsh child-care methods would have been impractical in a lot of situations.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

I think it is very difficult to compare the attachment/parenting principles of today with those of yesteryear. My guess is that our views on babyhood and childhood are much, much different than in the old days (whether it was 50, 100 or 1000 years ago). While most children were probably much loved by their parents, the issues of attachment and bonding and child development were probably not on many parents' radars. Life was incredibly harsh for many people, and the focus was more likely on the survival of the family/group rather than the intricacies of child attachment and development. There were other issues as well. For example, my now deceased grandmother remembers having to sit on hard-backed chairs for hours reading religious texts as soon as she had learned to read. The comfort and happiness of the child (at least in my grandmother's case) was not considered or questioned. Whether her comfort and happiness as a baby were considered is questionable...since she couldn't remember.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

You know, in the Little House books, Ma is always rocking the little sisters to sleep. I remember two distinct passages where she rocks Grace to sleep.


----------



## GoestoShow (Jul 15, 2009)

.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

I wanted to add a thought on this idea of doing something b/c it is "natural."

In the childrearing category, I often see "natural" tossed out as a reason (among many) to do one thing over another.

But "natural" seems to be interchangable with "old." That doesn't make sense to me. People in all cultures and time periods have done things that aren't "natural." For example, just in this discussion we have topics such as forcing children to read for hours (this was noted in Laura Ingalls books right?) and Indians mildly suffocating their children. Neither of those is "natural."

In history, we see bloodletting, binding of feet, circumcision, etc etc. It could be said that none of these represent "natural" but they are definitely historic and old.

Perhaps when we use the "natural" argument, we should clarify that we want to do something b/c it is "natural" regardless of the history or time period.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

For those of you who are interested, _Our Babies, Ourselves_ is a really fantastic book. Doesn't address history much, but by looking at different cultures, discusses what parts of infancy are biological and what parts are cultural.


----------



## Artichokie (Jun 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fuamami* 
You know, in the Little House books, Ma is always rocking the little sisters to sleep. I remember two distinct passages where she rocks Grace to sleep.


there are also passages about laura and mary being whipped at a very young age. I'm guessing that babies cried a lot because there was an emphasis on being obedient, respectful and self-sufficient. But like someone else pointed out, ppl lived in very close quarters, so it is not as if a baby was left to cry alone in the dark behind closed doors.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *staceychev* 
For those of you who are interested, _Our Babies, Ourselves_ is a really fantastic book. Doesn't address history much, but by looking at different cultures, discusses what parts of infancy are biological and what parts are cultural.

If I remember rightly, this was the book that did gloss over certain points though...like one tribe that constantly babywore, nursed, etc...also made it a point to NOT look their babies in the eye so the babies would learn who was boss. Not exactly an AP habit, kwim?









Not that the book is crap; I just remember reading some criticisms of it that she specifically leaves out points that don't support her thesis.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lalemma* 
Yes - I always think the intense anti-crying, pro-babywearing, "it's natural", thing is kind of funny. In an actual tribal culture, say, you don't wear your baby because it's "better", you wear your baby because you have to go dig roots or nobody eats. And if your baby cries all the way to the root field and back, that's just too bad.

I'm pretty sure parents have always had a pretty tough time.

This is my POV exactly. I don't romanticize cultures who SEEM to be all AP when really it isn't like that.


----------



## SweetPotato (Apr 29, 2006)

I know that a lot of people contemplate how things were done "back then"-- and I guess when I think about things like attachment/seperation/cio, etc. I tend to look at it from an evolutionary perspective (I'm a goelogist, so I'm comfortable with a wayyyyy longer time frame!) So when I think about cio, in particular, I try to think about the reasons that a crying infant would be more likely to survive and reproduce than a quiet infant. One obvious selective advantage (I'm sure there are many others) would be to avoid becoming prey. I have a dear friend who tried cio with her first dc , and when she asked me why I didn't I answered that I didn't want my baby to be scared, alone, in the dark, and thinking that her mama had left her for the sabre-tooths









Contemplating how people have parented differently over time is interesting from a societal/cultural perspective-- but I think it's very important to remember that our babies' instinctual behaviors evolved loooooong before any quaint earlier times that we can realistically reflect upon. We're animals, and newborns are just little balls of instinct, trying to survive. I know that I, for one, am happy as heck to live in the time we do


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gcgirl* 
If I remember rightly, this was the book that did gloss over certain points though...like one tribe that constantly babywore, nursed, etc...also made it a point to NOT look their babies in the eye so the babies would learn who was boss. Not exactly an AP habit, kwim?









Not that the book is crap; I just remember reading some criticisms of it that she specifically leaves out points that don't support her thesis.

The point of her book was not that the "tribal cultures" she was describing were perfect examples of AP parenting, though. The point was simply to objectively look at a whole bunch of different cultural approaches to childrearing through an anthropological perspective. That's the way I remember it.

_Our Babies, Ourselves_ is definitely one of the most interesting books on parenting I've read.


----------



## chezlyryan (Mar 1, 2005)

I think swaddling was popular, I also heard that infants were swaddled and hung from a hook, or their siblings played with the baby. Didn't Aboriginals use cradleboards, which could be worn on the back, or leaned up against a tree?

My Dad's friend was telling me how his great-great grandmother travelled all over Canada when she was younger to help her older siblings after they had a baby. Apparently an unmarried female relative would go to the home of a new baby and stay for a year to help out. It was in her travels that his great-great grandmother met his great-great grandfather. Ah l'amour.


----------



## Sweetiemommy (Jul 19, 2005)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure when your survival depends on being able to do household chores, you rock the baby as you walk by the cradle and I'm pretty sure the babies cried a bit. Babies cry whether you wear them or not. CIO is a sleeptraining method, but the babies do seem to eventually "give up" and cry for shorter periods of time. I think once the older siblings are around to help it was probably a little better, but not all families lived in multigenerational households, particularly pioneers were often alone and isolated from neighbors by miles.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

First of all, I'd like to point out that the Laura Ingalls Wilder books were written by a 60-something woman remembering (incorrectly, as she fully admitted) events of a child as young as 4 years old, and fictionalizing them for children. I don't think you can use her Little House books as a reference. Entertainment, yes, historical fact, no. Perhaps not even very good examples.

I would guess that there was a lot of CIO in both Colonial times and Pioneer times because of the diseases that children often had. Mortality rates where very high. I agree that the "times" were vastly different historically and both were very hard times in their own way. I don't think parents wanted any less to be there for their children, but the hardships of the times probably dictated that if the crop had to be brought in before the baby got fed, then that's how it was. Today we can drop just about anything to tend to our babies.

I do think that the benefit we don't have today is that there was more intergenerational living and smaller "villages" that raised the children. There were also wet nurses and other women to nurse the babies when they needed it. Might be "gross" to us now, but any lactating woman would feed the babies.


----------



## Pepper44 (May 16, 2006)

This doesn't have much specific info about infant care, but it does have interesting facts about babies and children throughout history...

http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/204.html#218


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

They spanked them till they stopped crying:

Quote:

When they turned a year old (and some before) they were taught to fear the rod, and to cry softly.
From a letter written by Susanna Wesley to her son John Wesley (a founder of the Methodist church.)

I also saw an antique rocking chair from colonial times that was attached to the cradle and the butter churn so the mom could sit in the chair and simultaniously rock the baby, churn the butter and do something useful (such as knitting) with her hands.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 

I also saw an antique rocking chair from colonial times that was attached to the cradle and the butter churn so the mom could sit in the chair and simultaniously rock the baby, churn the butter and do something useful (such as knitting) with her hands.

That is awesome! I need a computer chair like that.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Um, just here to point out that believing in predestination doesn't necessarily lead to non-AP parenting. I'm a Calvinist and whether my baby is damned or she ain't is God's business, I'm still told to take care of her. I don't see how considering children to be sinners necessarily means treating them callously - after all, Puritans believed adults were sinners too and had loving marriages. There may indeed have been religious reasoning behind colonial childcare practices, but it wasn't as simple as "Well, they're depraved so we may as well let them cry it out" - that's a non sequiter.

I recall reading about farming women leaving their toddlers tied to trees to prevent them wandering off and falling in the well while the women worked in the fields. Thinking about fiction, in _Gone with the Wind_ (I know, say what you will, but she did do a lot of research about customs and habits and clothing and all) one of the slaves wore a baby while picking cotton - mind you, that was in extreme circumstances. I remember a poor girl in _The Grapes of Wrath_ (again, well-researched) cooking one-handed while feeding a baby as well. Not sure how much fictional examples are worth, but!


----------



## VisionaryMom (Feb 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoestoShow* 
Anyway, it is a really interesting topic, but again, I just think the OP is asking about way too broad a time range, but a survey on this topic sure would be interesting. I'm sure some professor somewhere has taught something like this in a literature or a culture course. Be interesting to see if a syllabus couldn't be found somewhere. Hmm.....

Nancy Theriot at the University of Louisville teaches a course on the history of childhood. U of L has a closed online classroom system, but I'm sure if you emailed her, she'd send you the list of books she uses if you're interested. Or you could Google history of childhood.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
They spanked them till they stopped crying:

From a letter written by Susanna Wesley to her son John Wesley (a founder of the Methodist church.)

I also saw an antique rocking chair from colonial times that was attached to the cradle and the butter churn so the mom could sit in the chair and simultaniously rock the baby, churn the butter and do something useful (such as knitting) with her hands.

I noticed something in that letter-- wide variation in child-rearing practices, from one parent to another. Such as this line: "At seven the maid [who seems to have been more like what we would call a nanny] washed them, and beginning at the youngest, she undressed and got them all to bed by eight. At this time she left them in their various rooms awake. For there was no such thing allowed of in our house, as sitting by a child until
it fell asleep." Meaning there WAS such a thing in other houses, or she wouldn't have needed to specify it.

The same letter also mentions that the mother was very particular about making sure the servants followed her instructions with regard to how to treat and discipline the children-- meaning some of the servants, also, had a difference of opinion on one thing or another.


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolar2* 
I noticed something in that letter-- wide variation in child-rearing practices, from one parent to another.

Just like today. Huh. What do you know.

I'm sure throughout the centuries you've had various levels of compassionate child-rearing regardless of the time and place.


----------



## Violet2 (Apr 26, 2007)

This isn't 200 years ago but my great grandmother's mom came and delivered the babies and stayed to help. I suspect this was the base model for early childhood care even 200 years ago, because it's just practical when you're in a low tech society.

My grandfather was one of 10. And his mom breastfed for 2 years (all her kids were 2 years apart oddly enough







) while cooking and cleaning and helping to run a farm.

She also had major abdominal surgery at one point on the kitchen table with no anesthesia.

I have read that pioneer women would pin their little ones' nighties under a table leg to keep them in place and out of the fire while they cooked/tended to chores. Baby holders in the time before Graco.

This is even more recent, from the 50s, but it always amazes me. My BIL is from E. Europe and his family was dirt poor as in no shoes, rags for clothes, no electricity or running water. Mom doped the little ones with poppy 'tea' so she could tend the farm with her DH, otherwise they would not have had enough food. I have mentioned this before on MDC and everyone was horrified, but it seems practical to me. If the alternative is no food, I would probably do the same thing in that culture. Certainly there was no CIO with that method.

I don't know if it was a common practice, but it is such an interesting anecdote to me.

V


----------



## LDSmomma (May 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolar2* 

Someone here on MDC wrote that there was a group-- Pilgrims I think?-- who would swaddle the babies and hang them on hooks on the wall.

I read in an historical novel that babies were swaddled to a board (like swaddled with baby lying on a board, and the board wrapped up with them) during Puritan times. Crazy!


----------



## GoestoShow (Jul 15, 2009)

.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:

And much as with anything, I'm sure the Calvinists of today are very different in their parenting practices from the Calvinists of nearly 400 years ago! Part of that was due to life. It's not that they were depraved. I don't think they were necessarily. But they were incredibly steadfast and in many ways unforgiving. In other ways, though, they were perhaps forgiving.
LOL! I wasn't referring to the Puritans as depraved, but the babies. It was a reference to the first point of Calvinism, total depravity (meaning that mankind is inherently sinful). I'm not saying either that Puritans did or didn't treat their babies harshly by modern AP standards (I suspect most people at that time in history did, regardless of religion, for practical reasons mentioned in this thread). I just got a sort of "Well, if they believed in predestination _naturally_ they wouldn't have been nice to their babies" vibe from your post, and take exception to it because I do happen to believe in predestination, and it has never _once_ occurred to me that believing my baby's a sinner means I should treat her with anything other than compassion. Not that I'm a perfect parent, but when I'm not it's not because of Calvinism, you know?







"Harsh" theologies often coexist quite happily with close, loving families, and there's no contradiction in that - no theology, as far as I know, teaches "Thou shalt not feed thy baby on demand, because he might be damned to hell for all thee knowest". All the Calvinists I know would go "Huh?" at that.


----------



## newbymom05 (Aug 13, 2005)

I don't think Americans in times past thought of it as CIO, but rather that babies cry. I've had more than one older person tell me that I should let my babies cry, it's good for them, hat it's good for their lungs, etc.







I imagine back then at night when everyone's trying to sleep, sure, nurse or rock that baby, but if mom is busy outside boiling everyone's clothes or trying to cook over an iron stove (or fire) or working in the garden that has to feed everyone that year, well, a little crying is good for the lungs, right?


----------



## Sweetiemommy (Jul 19, 2005)

Babies don't just cry and cry forever. If someone past/present feeds their baby, cuddles them and is a caring parent, the baby does not just sit around and cry all day/night! I think that some of us who feed on demand have this idea that everyone else is just letting their baby cry constantly or Ferberizing, but there are a lot of ways that people parent their children in a loving way that is not textbook AP. I have been parenting my children for over 5 years now and I continue to be shocked by the assumption that there is only one way to correctly or lovingly parent a child. I know many, many families who are very loving, attentive parents, but do not breastfeed to pacify the baby and do not wear their babies. Strangely enough, their babies seem just as content, loved and stable. In fact, many of these parents are extremely creative and sensitive to their babies, able to calm them without the tools I have come to rely upon (breasts/sling). I sometimes wonder if I would be able to calm a baby that I couldn't breastfeed. Maybe I rely on my AP ways too heavily. I think believing that there is only one way to do things is a bit over the top. Maybe I felt this way when I was a younger mother and my experience was based on theory, but in practice, parents of all sorts find ways to lovingly raise their children and have for generations.


----------



## Violet2 (Apr 26, 2007)

Here's a link to a PhD blog on sociology with pics of cocaine teething drops for infants from the turn of the century. Apparently opium,cocaine and heroine were broadly uses, even for kids.

The product pictures are interesting.

V


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Cocaine is in fact a local anesthetic, no? I seem to remember one of our neighbor kids getting it as a local when I was a kid, for some stitches (this must have been when we weren't in the US!). So it would actually have worked for teething.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Coming late to the party, LOL!, but I have never understood the romanticizing of the "good old days" either. People used to purposely burn their toddlers so they'd be afraid enough to stay away from the stove.







Lives were hard, and the harsh reality applied to little ones as well. I think of it in sort of the opposite way-- thank goodness we live in a time when we are free to just love our children without restrain. We don't have to worry about not getting too attached because there's a good chance they might die or pushing them to be independent because they need to be able to pitch in early or because we have are living hand to mouth day by day and don't have the time to just get lost in them. I'm pretty happy to be living here and now.


----------



## new2this (Feb 11, 2010)

No matter how far we go back in time parenting styles have changed over the years and some of the basics of parenting has stuck. No one person's parenting style is the be all end all of parenting. People have evolved in the learning and style of different techniques and some will still follow some of the old school parenting styles. Doesn't make it wrong or right. Bottom line is as long as the child/ren are loved, provided their basic needs and meet those needs then no one should be judged.

Most parents do what they feel is best for the child/ren and while some people may look at one child and feel bad for them because it differs from their style of parenting doesn't mean that the child is neglected or whatever. No one is generally around someone else's life 24/7 to see exactly how things are done to actually make a fair accurate judgement.


----------



## Just1More (Jun 19, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kaleanani* 
I read WAY back when, in elementary school I think, about a white person visiting Native Americans (this wasn't a novel btw) and noticing the babies NEVER cried - in comparison to the babies who cried all the time where he came from. The "Indians" would put their hands over the babies' mouths and noses before they had their first cry, and I guess as long as it took to make sure they didn't cry. Somehow this extinguished the cry, even though a few babies died if they were smothered too long or fought too hard.







They needed the babies to stay quiet so they wouldn't give their location away to enemies or prey.

I swore up and down I would do that when I grew up... it seemed a REALLY good idea to me when I was like seven years old.







Yeahhhh maybe not.









I did the SAME thing. I can't believe I ever thought that.


----------



## Just1More (Jun 19, 2008)

I also think there was a wide range of parenting, and I think there has always been.

I've been reading the Charlotte Mason homeschooling series, and I was struck again last night about how child-rearing practices seem to cycle. It seems as soon as a generation of children or two grow up one way, they start doing it another. (Meaning, to spank or not spank, or air or not air, etc.)

Since I've had babies, I've pondered a lot what I learned as a child. My parents didn't exactly do CIO, and they even wore us quite a bit. Mom nursed us for a short while, although there was ZERO support for that kind of thing. Anyway, thier version of CIO was "I will rock you and cuddle you and walk you up and down the hall until you fall asleep. But, this cannot take all day, and you cannot fight me." So, if we arched or screamed or just wouldn't go to sleep, then they would plop us in our beds. But, we were always given the chance to fall asleep cuddled. Watching my parents with other small children as I grew, I guess I just sort of developed two expectations. The first is that babies take a lot of time, and are rocked, walked around, played with, and that someone should be holding them. The second was that by the time they are toddlers, they don't. At least not in the same way. You still play, and read, and stuff, but you can put them to bed then. I dunno. I'm trying to say I feel like my family was pretty traditional, and traditionally, people rock and sing their babies. Sorry, I'm totally rambling.

I guess my point is that there is a middle ground. On MDC, I am often frustrated about the one or the other scenerio. You can love your baby/child and teach them lots and lots and be caring and gentle AND not be totally AP.

I suspect that the same parent/child dynamic that exists today existed 200 years ago, and 300, and 400. Some people did, some people didn't. Some things just HAD to be because of survival. But, mostly, except for a few which we still have today, people loved their babies and did the best the could.


----------



## Logan (May 17, 2009)

A book I love is A World Of Babies. It gives 7 (I think) real societies parenting, but presents them in a fictional model- I believe the puritans were mentioned but the other societies were modern day. Its all fact based, the author studied the societies child-rearing. Its really fascinating, I still draw parenting from some of what I read in there. And it shows you that some cultures who get is so right in some areas, do shocking things in other areas. I've yet to see a society I agree with 100%. Im also glad to be able to do things my own way and just love my kids.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
*Historically people lived in multigenerational homes where parents coslept with their babies and grandparents helped care for the next generation.* As pointed out, when you had fewer rooms, everyone slept in the same room. Remember Laura Ingalls Wilder slept in a trundle bed in the shared bedroom with her parents.

Re: that story about Indians putting their hands over babies mouths. I am extremely suspicious of that story. Usually stories like that were written by european colonists who viewed everything the indians did with suspicion and considered them savages. The reason indian babies didn't cry was because they were carried everywhere and everyone coslept.

btw, I use the term "indians" as used by the colonists. No disrespect intended.

Keeping babies separate from their parents is a modern, western 20th century idea.

Most American pioneers (out on the setern frontier) were NOT lnear other people, including family. They were actually extrememly isolated. Usually it was just a mand an dwomand and whatever children they could manage to keep alive. It was very difficult.


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolar2* 
Cocaine is in fact a local anesthetic, no? I seem to remember one of our neighbor kids getting it as a local when I was a kid, for some stitches (this must have been when we weren't in the US!). So it would actually have worked for teething.

I can see how cocaine would work for teething. When you put cocaine in your mouth, you get what is often fondly-referred to as "the numbies". So it doesn't surprise me that it was and/or is still in some cultures used for teething.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LDSmomma* 
I read in an historical novel that babies were swaddled to a board (like swaddled with baby lying on a board, and the board wrapped up with them) during Puritan times. Crazy!

It couldn't look any sillier than a Bumbo seat.


----------



## lovebug (Nov 2, 2004)

i have got to bookmark this thread! i have got to come back to read!


----------



## mntnmom (Sep 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolar2* 
I noticed something in that letter-- wide variation in child-rearing practices, from one parent to another. Such as this line: "At seven the maid [who seems to have been more like what we would call a nanny] washed them, and beginning at the youngest, she undressed and got them all to bed by eight. At this time she left them in their various rooms awake. For there was no such thing allowed of in our house, as sitting by a child until
it fell asleep." Meaning there WAS such a thing in other houses, or she wouldn't have needed to specify it.

The same letter also mentions that the mother was very particular about making sure the servants followed her instructions with regard to how to treat and discipline the children-- meaning some of the servants, also, had a difference of opinion on one thing or another.

And this just goes to show, you can't discount the contribution of class expectations and education. This obviously educated woman, had access to different information, and different types of peer pressure. And of course the leisure time to contemplate such things!! Upper class puritans would have had slaves (remember poor Tituba of the salem witch trials), but their poorer neighbors would have come up with other solutions, just like most of early American history. I don't know about the colonials in particular, but many European immigrants did baby wear, so I would expect it was an option.

We are biologically pre-disposed to distress ant the sound of crying child. Without very strong social pressure otherwise, I'm sure most moms throughout history have done the best they could to tend and comfort their babies.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Let me recommend two of my favorite books on sociobiology of childcare/mothering behavior.

Dr Sarah Hrdy: Mother Nature
Dr Sarah Hrdy: Mothers and others

Dr Hrdy looks both cross culturally and cross-species for scientific evidence of what is culturally based vs what is hard wired into humans for parenting practices.

To look at what is hard wired and what is culturally based, you gotta go back a lot further than 200 years ago. You gotta go back 20,000 + years ago - pre-agricultural - humans evolved in and spent 100s of thousands of years living in nomadic hunter gatherer groups and only a few tens of thousands in settled agricultural based groups and only 200 in industrial society. It is our culture which has changed 1.; our babies evolved for a totally different living environment. The fact that our babies thrive in such a different world than the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) tells me that humans are hard wired to be very flexible and adaptable creatures!

And you have to remember that the purpose of culture (from an evolutionary standpoint) is to maximize the survival of the group - but that any one snapshot from that culture will not actually tell you whether a particular cultural behavior is beneficial or not (it may be neutral) for survival. There are thousands of examples of cultural behavior that is negative and eventually helped lead to the disappearance of the culture.

Fascinating stuff. Another thing to remember is that there are multiple actors in parenting behavior: the mother, the father, older siblings, other relations (like the mother's mother or the mother's sisters), AND THE BABY. The baby is an actor with an arsenal of tools to maximizes his/her survival just like the other actors. Crying is one of those tools, as is baby fat (babies who look healthy tend to be better taken care of), baby smiles, and the fact that most babies look more like their dads at birth than any other time in their lives.

And the baby's needs and the mother's needs, and the needs of the siblings, are not always in concert - sibling rivalry takes on a whole new meaning when there isn't enough food to go around.

A study in Rwanda discovered that "high needs" babies - i.e. the ones who cried more than easy babies - actually had higher rates of survival in high conflict/stress situations than "easy" babies. The theory is that babies who cried more did demand more attention from mom to shut them up - and they may have been fed more (breastmilk or table food) as a pacifying mechanism.

Just some thoughts.

1. Humans have continued to evolve of course over the course of our move from nomadic to industrial - the ability of many humans to eat dairy after childhood is a great example of human evolution. But this process is a helluva lot slower than cultural adaptation.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honey-lilac* 
I read WAY back when, in elementary school I think, about a white person visiting Native Americans (this wasn't a novel btw) and noticing the babies NEVER cried - in comparison to the babies who cried all the time where he came from. The "Indians" would put their hands over the babies' mouths and noses before they had their first cry, and I guess as long as it took to make sure they didn't cry. Somehow this extinguished the cry, even though a few babies died if they were smothered too long or fought too hard.







They needed the babies to stay quiet so they wouldn't give their location away to enemies or prey.

I swore up and down I would do that when I grew up... it seemed a REALLY good idea to me when I was like seven years old.







Yeahhhh maybe not.









That is such propaganda. In one of my college classes, we discussed narratives of that period and the outrageous and misproven things that settlers said about the Natives. You wouldn't believe the amount of BS as a pull for support to get more land for newcomers and an excuse to kill and relocate Native Americans.


----------



## Kelly1101 (Oct 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 
The reason indian babies didn't cry was because they were carried everywhere and everyone coslept.

I very highly doubt that. I think most people here carry their babies and co-sleep, and our babies still aren't silent.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *claddaghmom* 
I wanted to add a thought on this idea of doing something b/c it is "natural."

In the childrearing category, I often see "natural" tossed out as a reason (among many) to do one thing over another.

But "natural" seems to be interchangable with "old." That doesn't make sense to me. People in all cultures and time periods have done things that aren't "natural." For example, just in this discussion we have topics such as forcing children to read for hours (this was noted in Laura Ingalls books right?) and Indians mildly suffocating their children. Neither of those is "natural."

In history, we see bloodletting, binding of feet, circumcision, etc etc. It could be said that none of these represent "natural" but they are definitely historic and old.

Perhaps when we use the "natural" argument, we should clarify that we want to do something b/c it is "natural" regardless of the history or time period.

Well, and a lot of times I hear about something being "natural" when it really isn't "natural" at all. For me that's a weird reason to do something anyway. I don't choose to do things because they are "natural," I choose to do things when I think about it, try it, and decide I like it. Whether it's natural, unnatural, old-fashioned, or brand-spankin-new.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SweetPotato* 
So when I think about cio, in particular, I try to think about the reasons that a crying infant would be more likely to survive and reproduce than a quiet infant. One obvious selective advantage (I'm sure there are many others) would be to avoid becoming prey.

Isn't that backward? The noisy child would attract predators, and the quiet child would not be found?


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

I used to volunteer at a museum of Early American stuff. We had one artifact that was basically the great-great granddaddy of the Johnny Jump-Up. I do not recall what time period it was from, unfortunately. I'm going to guess early 20th. It wasn't something that caught my attention at the time; too focused on textiles.


----------



## paysarah (Oct 23, 2008)

In his genealogy research my dad came across an article about his great-great grandparents when they came to the US that talked about the German woman carrying their babies in a "pouch" while they hauled water and worked. And my grandmother always talked about how colicky my uncle was, so she spent a year working one-handed while carrying my uncle in the other. I imagine much of a baby's life was spent outdoors, or working a farm and so babies were probably TIRED. I know the days we spend going and going or spend lots of time outside, my DS sleeps so much better.

I wonder sometimes if our climate-controlled, carpeted, well-lit existence makes it harder for babies to sleep. And the expectation that a baby will have his/her own room and sleep in a crib.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just1More* 
I also think there was a wide range of parenting, and I think there has always been.

[...]

I guess my point is that there is a middle ground. On MDC, I am often frustrated about the one or the other scenerio. You can love your baby/child and teach them lots and lots and be caring and gentle AND not be totally AP.

I suspect that the same parent/child dynamic that exists today existed 200 years ago, and 300, and 400. Some people did, some people didn't. Some things just HAD to be because of survival. But, mostly, except for a few which we still have today, people loved their babies and did the best the could.

I cut some out of your post for lengths sake (though I really liked reading about your parents' parenting style). I just wanted to say your post is very insightful and I like it and agree with a lot of it.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

My family is not from the US but I know my grandmother had 13 kids and all of my family seems to have tons of children...except for me.







but I know babywearing was very common in mexico. like... sibling wore their younger siblings, mothers wore their babies, and having a baby on your back is just what you did. Not because some child psychologist said it was better but because if you didnt, you would get nothing done and your baby would probably starve because you could not sit down and nurse all day in a rocking chair. there was no time for that.

Beds? There were no cribs. When I visited they had bed with wall to wall on the backside of the house and we all slept there together. Adults, kids, visitors... one of my cousins as a teen got her own because she wanted her own space. Quickly after that all of the teens ended up in her room.









There is also a great deal of multi-generational living. Babies did cry, but they never let a child CIO. Also older siblings took care if younger siblings A LOT. My father (he was #9) was basically raised by his oldest sister (we think she was almost 20 at the time he was born but we have no real records of her birth or her real age). My great grandmother said that this was the way they had been doing it for ever... until modern times came and changed things.

I have no romantic view of it, since I saw it myself a great deal... my family had not changed many things until this last generation (my kids). I also know that many of my uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. died during birth or shortly there after. Both of my grandmothers lost at least 2 babies, i had great aunts that lost 4 or 5. When I lived there we had no running water or electricity. We got toilets in the ranch 10 years ago.

Things have changed now. One of my cousins was the first woman in our family to not "make enough milk" for her baby. We had never had a problem with that in the past.


----------



## Ellp (Nov 18, 2004)

I'm on a babywearing forum and we discuss tradition babywearing, including items from the past.









Several people have posted actual items from their family or photographs of people through the generations babywearing. Some items that come to mind are:

-Welsh shawls (triangular shawls with relatively long corners that cross over the woman's body, over the baby and are secured at the waist. This becomes a baby "sling"). A photo was shown that looked like it came from the late 1800's- early 1900's.

-A late 1800's photo showed a group of women in the fields with a baby suspended in a "tripod" made of wooden poles with a fabric sling.


----------



## Roxswood (Jun 29, 2006)

I was going to post about Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's books but I see Siobhang already posted better than I could have. They are utterly fascinating and required reading for those interested in this stuff.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

People did not obsess about parenting back then, they just got on with life instead of expecting life and the world to revolve around their kids.

Doesn't seem to have done any harm.


----------



## almadianna (Jul 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
People did not obsess about parenting back then, they just got on with life instead of expecting life and the world to revolve around their kids.

Doesn't seem to have done any harm.

well..yes and no.

i know that for my family, their life _was_ their kids... so yes life went on but it went on around the kids.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 

Re: that story about Indians putting their hands over babies mouths. I am extremely suspicious of that story. Usually stories like that were written by european colonists who viewed everything the indians did with suspicion and considered them savages. The reason indian babies didn't cry was because they were carried everywhere and everyone coslept.

btw, I use the term "indians" as used by the colonists. No disrespect intended.

Keeping babies separate from their parents is a modern, western 20th century idea.









Indians generally carried their babies because the women did the farming.

Most tribes traveled in large groups. One crying baby wouldn't have made a huge difference in the long run.

In my family there are many stories about the kids having to watch one another because the parents had to go pick cotton or do the farming or any number of things. Once the kid was very mobile their siblings did a lot of the childcare. I can't imagine picking cotton with a baby strapped to me but I know my grandmothers did it. I would really rather NOT have a baby on me while I was picking cotton if I had to do it. Cotton is picked in 90+ degree weather.

"100lbs of cotton" was a joke among my grandfather's family. "I would rather pick 100 lbs of cotton" (I would rather not do that chore) "I feel like I have been picking cotton" (I feel terrible) "You look like you have been picking cotton" (you look like hell) They picked cotton as children.

I can't imagine. We are so fortunate.


----------



## Talula Fairie (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm pretty sure back in those days they often lived with extended family, there were probably extra pairs of hands. The nuclear family is a fairly recent thing.


----------



## Juvysen (Apr 25, 2007)

Great discussion


----------



## Barefoot~Baker (Dec 25, 2008)

Great thread - got to sub!


----------



## Theoretica (Feb 2, 2008)

http://russian-ukrainian-belarus-his...peasant_russia

I thought this was a very interesting article and relevant to this thread...enjoy! (and subbing)


----------



## thefreckledmama (Jun 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *verde* 

Keeping babies separate from their parents is a modern, western 20th century idea.

I think this is key. And back in colonial days, there weren't appointments to be kept, and the myriad of other things going on day to day that go on in modern society-and mom and children were home or around home most of the time. Babies and young children just went around doing whatever mama was doing, and the older children pitched in and helped.

Of course I have no facts to back this up, it's just my thoughts on the subject.


----------



## *bejeweled* (Jul 16, 2003)

Originally Posted by verde

Re: that story about Indians putting their hands over babies mouths. I am extremely suspicious of that story. Usually stories like that were written by european colonists who viewed everything the indians did with suspicion and considered them savages. The reason indian babies didn't cry was because they were carried everywhere and everyone coslept.

btw, I use the term "indians" as used by the colonists. No disrespect intended.

Keeping babies separate from their parents is a modern, western 20th century idea.








I totally agree.


----------

