Who is remembered in history
Percentage of Owners without records
Percentage of Occupiers without records
Comparison of Owners and Occupiers with records
The books record some brief information about the owners and the occupiers, as well as the houses. In the book, every 1 out of 70 entries of property information in four books is chosen to be counted in statistics. A total of 46 properties, 66 owners and 55 occupiers are collected. Eventually, after removing invalid data, such as properties not owned by individuals and repeated content, information on 60 owners and 53 occupiers is eventually used. We tried to search for the valid owners' and occupiers' personal information online and found that about 26.6 percent of owners have records and only about 7.5 precent of occupiers have records.
There were more records about the owners than the occupiers. Some owners have more information, including personal experiences and even their family history, but most of the lives of the occupiers living in the 'Quarry Hill unhealthy area' without social status are almost impossible to explore. Their lives are lost in the long history.
In addition, we have tried to mark the location of these houses on the map in order to visualize the distribution of the inhabitants of the 'Quarry Hill unhealthy area'.
We also counted the occupational information of the occupiers marked in the books. Most of them are labourers, bakers, hawkers and so on. According to related studies, these are basically low-income occupations at that time. So rely on these data, in our research hypothesis, the occupiers are poorer than the owners, and relatively wealthier owners have a greater chance to be recorded in history.
This is an interactive program made with processing. There are 42 names on the black backdrop, of which 'Mary Wright', 'Samuel Duskis' and 'James Cavanagh' are marked '(has records online)' and are colored white; the others are brown. The 42 names float slowly and freely on the backdrop, and each time the mouse hovers over a name, it stops and changes to a description of the corresponding occupation and address of residence.
People's individual records in media history hold significant value for various fields including cultural heritage protection, historical research, social communication, and so on.
In the field of cultural heritage protection, personal records offer valuable resources. Historical documents record people's personal experiences and ideas, which provides essential information for future generations to understand history and culture.
In terms of historical research, records left by individuals are vital because the development of many history events and cultural phenomena is closely linked to personal experiences and ideas. Personal records in media history provide a wealth of materials and fresh perspectives for historical research (Lievrouw and Livingstone, 2010).
On the other hand, the records of individuals in history facilitate communication and interaction between people in modern times. Social media platforms provide chances for people to get contacted and know each other. These data on social media platforms also help social research. Chambers (2013) discusses the differences between social media and traditional face-to-face interactions and argues that social media provides a more flexible way of communicating and social media contributes to significant changes in our ideas about personal relationships.
Similar differences in the number of records between the owners and the occupiers in Quarry Hill always exist throughout history. The factors that affect individual historical records are numerous and complex. Social status, biases and prejudices, cultural and political context, and technological limitations can all significantly influence the way historical records are created and preserved.
Social status and power can significantly affect individuals' historical records. Focus on the lives of political leaders and elites has been a dominant feature of historical writing and this has resulted in the exclusion of the records of the wider ordinary people (Armitage and Guldi, 2014). In the past, people's education level was closely related to their economic status and social status. Only those from good families had enough knowledge to keep diaries or autobiographies. The culture of record-keeping was distinctive to noble-status groups (Buylaert and Haemers, 2016).
In early 1900, the top 10% of people share nearly 60% of incomes and the bottom 50% share about 14%, and the top 10% of people share about 93% of wealth and the bottom 50% only share 0.5%. Combining this with the above statement that people with more wealth might have more opportunities to document their lives, the huge gap between the rich and the poor may explain the reason that only a very small number of these low-income occupiers have records.
Due to personal beliefs and prejudices, historical records could be biased. Some people have often been excluded from historical records, especially women and people of colour because of patriarchal and racist biases (Loewen, 1995).
In addition, historical records might be destroyed or altered to suit the interests of the ruling party or individual. Technological limitations can also result in the loss of historical records, many historical records have been lost due to fires, floods, and other natural disasters.
The ability to record and preserve historical records has been significantly affected by technological advancements. For example, prior to the invention of writing, historical records were primarily passed down through oral tradition, which made them vulnerable to distortion and loss. Similarly, the availability of printing presses and other forms of technology has made it easier to record and disseminate historical information.
