![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This was a really interesting read. MacDonald explores the history of America knitting, just as the title says, going from the arrival of Europeans in America. I am guessing American Indians didn't knit? Since knitting from all accounts seems to have originated in the Arabian peninsula? Though I suspect MacDonald is operating under the unexamined assumption that America began with the arrival of the Europeans.
Anyway. She covers knitting as a means for women to earn money, as by the 1700s, knitting had already moved from being a men's craft to a women's craft. Much of the book is on knitting and its ties to war; namely, how women used knitting in war as a means to contribute to war efforts, from the American Revolution to the Korean War. I don't particularly remember if there were any concerted efforts to knit socks for soldiers for the Vietnam War; I suspect there wasn't as much. The biggest push seems to have been for WWII; after that, knitting died down a little as a craft. And the book was published before the Gulf War.
Part of me wishes that MacDonald came to her source from a more feminist POV; she clearly loves the craft of knitting, but because of that, I feel she doesn't examine some things as critically as she might. I am thinking mostly of knitting as a symbol of hearth and home and traditional femininity. I would have loved to see how this changed over the years (or didn't). MacDonald writes a little about the industrialization of knitting, particularly of knitting as one means women could earn some money, though she notes that knitters were paid horribly. She also covers the (still) rare spectacle of knitting men, along with women knitting for their boyfriends and husbands. One of the things that I found interesting was how knitting was a vehicle for female social activities (which I knew) and how husbands complained about this (which I didn't know) -- it's a neat reverse of knitting as a symbol of traditional femininity. But again, MacDonald reports more on knitting trends instead of examining underlying social principles, which I regret a little.
The book was valuable as a history; there are a lot of things in it that I didn't know. I only wish that it had a "twenty years later" update; it was published in the eighties, when knitting had a bit of a downturn. I'd love to see MacDonald's POV on knitting's current resurgence and how the knitters of today are the same as or different from knitters of previous times.
Anyway. She covers knitting as a means for women to earn money, as by the 1700s, knitting had already moved from being a men's craft to a women's craft. Much of the book is on knitting and its ties to war; namely, how women used knitting in war as a means to contribute to war efforts, from the American Revolution to the Korean War. I don't particularly remember if there were any concerted efforts to knit socks for soldiers for the Vietnam War; I suspect there wasn't as much. The biggest push seems to have been for WWII; after that, knitting died down a little as a craft. And the book was published before the Gulf War.
Part of me wishes that MacDonald came to her source from a more feminist POV; she clearly loves the craft of knitting, but because of that, I feel she doesn't examine some things as critically as she might. I am thinking mostly of knitting as a symbol of hearth and home and traditional femininity. I would have loved to see how this changed over the years (or didn't). MacDonald writes a little about the industrialization of knitting, particularly of knitting as one means women could earn some money, though she notes that knitters were paid horribly. She also covers the (still) rare spectacle of knitting men, along with women knitting for their boyfriends and husbands. One of the things that I found interesting was how knitting was a vehicle for female social activities (which I knew) and how husbands complained about this (which I didn't know) -- it's a neat reverse of knitting as a symbol of traditional femininity. But again, MacDonald reports more on knitting trends instead of examining underlying social principles, which I regret a little.
The book was valuable as a history; there are a lot of things in it that I didn't know. I only wish that it had a "twenty years later" update; it was published in the eighties, when knitting had a bit of a downturn. I'd love to see MacDonald's POV on knitting's current resurgence and how the knitters of today are the same as or different from knitters of previous times.
Tags: