Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do some places suffer from inaccurate image portrayals while others benefit from them? For example, New Jersey is known as the "armpit of the United States." However, there are parts of the state that also offer scenic views, rolling hills, and bucolic beauty. Even the Northeastern section has its beauty when you consider the diversity of food options and the food is cheaper but just as good as in NYC. People in NJ see Paterson as a crime infested dump but why is it that people don't have the falls, Lambert Castle, or the thriving Middle Eastern section, or even the nice sections, some with really nice and big houses, when they think of Paterson?
Whereas people think of New York City and Paris as elegant and beautiful cities. Not hating on these cities I love them but not all parts are parts I would consider elegant. NYC still has places like Brownsville and East New York in Brooklyn as well as the South Bronx, although I do admit that the South Bronx has gotten better. Paris has council houses (or housing projects) on its outskirts that are often plagued with crime and drugs. France has a lot of "no go zones" but when people think of France they automatically think of the nice things like the architecture, the food, the landmarks like the Arc de Triomphe or the Eiffel Tower. I don't think enough people are aware of the slum problems in France. Meanwhile the reverse is true for developing countries where people think there is nonstop poverty but there is also wealth in these places. Latin America and Africa for example have skyscrapers and modern malls. It is not just mud huts in these pleaces.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by homenj
Why do some places suffer from inaccurate image portrayals while others benefit from them? For example, New Jersey is known as the "armpit of the United States." However, there are parts of the state that also offer scenic views, rolling hills, and bucolic beauty. Even the Northeastern section has its beauty when you consider the diversity of food options and the food is cheaper but just as good as in NYC. People in NJ see Paterson as a crime infested dump but why is it that people don't have the falls, Lambert Castle, or the thriving Middle Eastern section, or even the nice sections, some with really nice and big houses, when they think of Paterson?
Whereas people think of New York City and Paris as elegant and beautiful cities. Not hating on these cities I love them but not all parts are parts I would consider elegant. NYC still has places like Brownsville and East New York in Brooklyn as well as the South Bronx, although I do admit that the South Bronx has gotten better. Paris has council houses (or housing projects) on its outskirts that are often plagued with crime and drugs. France has a lot of "no go zones" but when people think of France they automatically think of the nice things like the architecture, the food, the landmarks like the Arc de Triomphe or the Eiffel Tower. I don't think enough people are aware of the slum problems in France. Meanwhile the reverse is true for developing countries where people think there is nonstop poverty but there is also wealth in these places. Latin America and Africa for example have skyscrapers and modern malls. It is not just mud huts in these pleaces.
New Jersey suffers from a negative image, as far as natural beauty, because its most populated urban areas (Newark, Jersey City, Atlantic City, Camden, the Oranges, etc.) are all pretty run down, even though there are some nice areas surrounding them and spots within that have gentrified. It also doesn't help that North Jersey is visually very unattractive coming up the Turnpike, with all of the refineries, the port, and the swamp.
Also, NYC is not known for being "elegant". Sure, there's the glamorous stereotype and many wealthy neighborhoods, but elegance is a bit extreme in characterization. If anything, it's known for being brash and bold, which is the opposite of elegance. Paris is considered elegant, but those who've visited know that it can be quite dirty.
New Jersey suffers from a negative image, as far as natural beauty, because its most populated urban areas (Newark, Jersey City, Atlantic City, Camden, the Oranges, etc.) are all pretty run down, even though there are some nice areas surrounding them and spots within that have gentrified. It also doesn't help that North Jersey is visually very unattractive coming up the Turnpike, with all of the refineries, the port, and the swamp.
Also, NYC is not known for being "elegant". Sure, there's the glamorous stereotype and many wealthy neighborhoods, but elegance is a bit extreme in characterization. If anything, it's known for being brash and bold, which is the opposite of elegance. Paris is considered elegant, but those who've visited know that it can be quite dirty.
Yes, but I never heard NJ called the armpit of the US. Never. Must be a NYC thing. As for elegance? Sure around Central Park and highest end areas. But outside of the key blocks of 5th ave. Midtown loses a LOT in elegance for me. No use me listing why and get bombarded with a "how dare I".
Also NJ is far more suburban. Then some cities that taint it. I still say. Since it isn't a PA thing this armpit finger pointing? It must be a NYC thing.
Why do some places suffer from inaccurate image portrayals while others benefit from them? For example, New Jersey is known as the "armpit of the United States." However, there are parts of the state that also offer scenic views, rolling hills, and bucolic beauty. Even the Northeastern section has its beauty.
Whereas people think of New York City and Paris as elegant and beautiful cities. Not hating on these cities I love them but not all parts are parts I would consider elegant. NYC still has places like Brownsville and East New York in Brooklyn as well as the South Bronx, although I do admit that the South Bronx has gotten better.
I've never heard "armpit of the US", but I've heard "New York's trashcan" and "New York's dump." It's just stereotype. I first went to New York in 8th grade and we went up 95/Turnpike. It was pretty typical scenery until we got near Newark, which we started to see mounds of trash and junk, smog, and all the heavy industry and refineries, and our hotel was on a swampy landfill type of thing. We never got to see the "other side" of Jersey so obviously we bought into the stereotype.
Yet when were in New York, we went through all the touristy areas: TS, Chinatown, Battery, Central Park, Midtown, Lower Manhat etc. So of course it all looked clean and shiny to us (except for Chinatown).
I think every state suffers from this. For instance if you take 95 through SC, you'll think it's one big rural backwater as you only pass one "major" city for 200 miles. But if you take 17, which parallels 95, it's a whole different story.
Now that I'm older I understand both sides. I've been to NYC a few times and I don't see it as "super clean" as I did when I was 14 since I can free roam now. The subway gives off a very dirty vibe and the piles of trash is not hidden. And crusty stores and storefronts are more prominent. Conversely I know NJ is not a trashcan. There's just a lot of industry. Even watching Real Housewives I see the other side.
It's just stereotypes and they're just hard to shake. Every state has ones they wish they could shake off.
I've never heard "armpit of the US", but I've heard "New York's trashcan" and "New York's dump." It's just stereotype.
This is because NYC does actually dump their trash in landfills in NJ. So NJ literally is New York's dump. It used to be Staten Island back in the day, but we don't have any room anymore there, or anywhere else in NYC. I think NYC does pay NJ a share of taxpayer money for this though, so at least they get that out of it.
This is because NYC does actually dump their trash in landfills in NJ. So NJ literally is New York's dump. It used to be Staten Island back in the day, but we don't have any room anymore in NYC. I think NYC does pay NJ a share of taxpayer money for this though, so at least they get that out of it.
I'm know, I'm saying I've heard it said in a derogatory way, not literal way.
I've never heard "armpit of the US", but I've heard "New York's trashcan" and "New York's dump." It's just stereotype. I first went to New York in 8th grade and we went up 95/Turnpike. It was pretty typical scenery until we got near Newark, which we started to see mounds of trash and junk, smog, and all the heavy industry and refineries, and our hotel was on a swampy landfill type of thing. We never got to see the "other side" of Jersey so obviously we bought into the stereotype.
I went to college in Chicago, and one summer a friend from Chicago came to visit me in New York. He'd never been to New York before. We had fun, he was really impressed by Manhattan, but I'll never forget what he said as soon as we drove into New Jersey to get to the airport: "Uh, are we in hell?"
I never knew that the saying about New Jersey was talking about the scenery. I actually thought that it was saying the people/culture were "bad." Not to say that is how New Jersey is (I personally think we'll of the state, for the most part), but there does seem to be a negative association with New Jersey (kind of linked to stereotypes like Jersey Shore).
I never knew that the saying about New Jersey was talking about the scenery. I actually thought that it was saying the people/culture were "bad." Not to say that is how New Jersey is (I personally think we'll of the state, for the most part), but there does seem to be a negative association with New Jersey (kind of linked to stereotypes like Jersey Shore).
I went to college here in SC and we had more kids from NJ than neighboring GA. That's a fact, not my opinion. I agree Jersey Shore, Sopranos, Real Housewives, etc give the stereotypical impression, but fortunately everyone I met was opposite and was pretty normal.
Pretty much all of them though were Italian or part Italian that I know of, so the "NJ is Italian" stereotype is more true in my view, just not in the obnoxious way you see on TV.
I actually grew up being told New Jersey was the East Coast's Armpit (I come from a family of New Yorkers). You are absolutely right in the fact that many part of New Jersey that people see are ugly. Newark, NJ Turnpike, Atlantic City, etc. aren't exactly pretty places. People often don't see the countless wealthy, clean, well-kept suburbs all over New Jersey or the beautiful shore towns.
Also, I wouldn't call New York "elegant" or "beautiful". Amazing? Mind-blowing? Overwhelming? One-of-a-kind? Yes. New York is still a dirty city with a lot of visible grit. So is Paris and Buenos Aires. When I visited both Paris and BA, I was surprised how much grafitti and trash were everywhere, yet people tend to stereotype both those places as elegant or what have you.
The only major city I've been to that is clean and well-kept enough to be called elegant would be London. Yet I'm sure there are plenty of areas that I didn't see that are far from it.
The media tends to only paint a one-sided picture of most places, for better or worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
