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.
Your first sentence was true thru the 70s and 80s, and did not end in the early 20th century.
Not really.
The port was in decline for some time, with competition from other east coast ports, and especially with containerization, which reduced the amount of both on ship and long shore labor, which provided a certain element of the city's grittiness. By the mid 70s the hudson river piers were mainly rotting, with the now containerized steamer business gone to NJ mostly.
The east river had been area of gas houses and slaughter houses. They were replaced by the UN, and by the middle class housing projects of stuyvesant town and peter cooper village.
NYC in the 1970s still had a more vibrant garment manufacturing center, and other light industry, than later, but it was not the same kind of industrial city it had been in the 1910s.
And of course from 1920 to after 1945, there were relatively few newly arrived immigrants in NYC, due to immigration restrictions, and the depression.
I agree with your prior statements, but mostly because they are not mutually exclusive to what my points are. Yes the actual ports were in decline, but the city was a primary destination for immigration, so when I say it was still true thru the 70s, I mean the city was still an immigration mecca, corruption was going strong, a working class city,etc, none of which ended in the early 20th century or in the 50s.
I also agree with the stability of the other middle class communities, but crime was as high as ever, and because people did not "feel" the crime, does not mean it was safe or safer than today. The mob's influence had penetrated every facet of the city and government and so the question becomes this: Is it better to be someone's "wife" in prison who will keep you "safe", or is it better to be on your own, i.e. would you rather submit to the mob's version of "safety" so long as you submit to them/play by their rules, or allow crime to ebb and flow as it will. There is no real choice, but to allege safety under mob control is to allege safety in Cuba. Both are "perceived" as safe, but neither are. And if you believe it was nothing more than paying a few extra bucks to the garbage guys, you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't doubt crime was "lower", but only because the mob ruled crime..again...same as the government in Cuba.
I think we are mostly in agreement, but I think you are alleging a reality that people romanticize, but which was not true. There were some people benefiting and enjoying "safety" but it was a false reality, and crime was probably more invasive, just not as flagrant. And as I stated before, the decline in the city did happen with the changing demographics because of the opportunists framing the changes as something to fear in order to make a buck at the expense of the fabric of the community. There is no question about it.
There has never been an ideal in NYC since the Irish arrived in the millions...after that point there were large successive waves of increasingly "undersirables" (non-protestant, and progressively browner/non-white) flooding into NYC: Irish, to Italians to Jews to Blacks to Puerto Ricans, Chinese to Dominicans, Mexicans, Africans..and on and on. The ideal NYC ended when the potato famine sent millions of Irish and the notorious slums/crimes/gangs took hold permanently.
its better to have policemen on the take from a mob that makes its money from gambling and prostitution, than it is to mugged. Or raped. Or killed.
As someone who was mugged in NYC, and whose wife was mugged elsewhere, I feel that way pretty strongly.
And AFAICT NYC in the 1930s to 1950s was a place with fewer muggings, fewer murders, fewer burglaries, etc than it was from the 1960s through the 1980s. That the mob was strong and NYPD more corrupt than it is now (though less than it was in the 19th century) are not relevant to that. Its simply a different issue. And yes, Cuba is a low crime society. I am not sure that the low crime in NYC was due to enforcement by the five families, analagous to Cuba - in fact I rather doubt that was the case, outside of a handful of neighborhoods. Thats also a truth. Ergo, NYC in the 1930s - 1950s WAS a safer place - not a matter of illusion or perception, but reality. At least for those of us who care about being mugged than about the five families control of rackets. Which, I would suggest is most new yorkers. Are you not understanding me, or do you have that much invested in the period after 1960 not representing a decline in urban life?
as for immigration, the dividing line is the late 1940s, when the immigration law was liberalized again. Until that point NYC had relatively few new immigrants, relative to either before or after. Due to immigration quotas. And to the depression. I am not sure why you continue to deny that.
I am surprised you would make that first statement as I prefer the opposite. I would rather be mugged for my IPOD than have the police force, judges, city all on the take and in essence all criminals. One will take your iphone, the other can take everything from you and make/enforce laws with impunity. One wields power for the 5 seconds they are robbing you, the other has total power all the time, 24/7. That is the same mentality that blames people for being poor and cannot see the system that ensures they stay poor.
How you can disregard the influence of the mob, and then claim because murders were low the city was safer is odd. You are exempting the criminal circuit that is the mob, and its power, from crime ..and that doesn't make sense. Sure there were not more actual street killings, but instead they weilded power behind the scenes, kept the streets "clean" so that money could be made from bribery, corruption, and various illegal operations (drugs, embezeling, prostitution, etc). You may not consider those crimes, but everyone else does. I suspect if you had a run in with the mob in the 40s you would be rethinking how that kid who stole your wallet wasn't so bad after all.
The only item I have invested in is the truth. And if you can equate safety = mob control, then there is little else to discuss. We already know the decline happened post 1960, we also know why, what we are not agreeing on is what constitutes safety. Sounds like you prefer being robbed by someone wearing a suit, in which case to you the recent ponzi schemes from wall street bankers which stole people's entire life savings was preferable to the kid who stole your wallet filled with 40 bucks.
My only point with immigration is that NYC was still an immigration mecca post 1940s, and it did not end in the early 20th century.
"I would rather be mugged for my IPOD than have the police force, judges, city all on the take and in essence all criminals."
Sometimes muggings are violent. Some involve beatings. They involve real physical harm. Even when they do not, they are profoundly frightening. A personal violation. As is a burglary. Or a rape. Or a murder.
" One will take your iphone, the other can take everything from you and make/enforce laws with impunity. One wields power for the 5 seconds they are robbing you, "
Well no, since they impact where one goes, at what hours, etc. In fact street crime has a pervasive effect on ones life, and is a true deprivation of liberty.
"the other has total power all the time, 24/7."
I think you greatly exaggerate the power of the five families during the period of 1930-1960 if you really think they had "total power all the time". Do you think the five families told LaGuardia what to do on a daily basis? Or the other powerful institutions in the City? They were tolerated precisely because they dominated a limited number of areas of life. Mostly vices that did not harm anyone who chose not to be involved.
You A. Seem to have a very exagerrated idea of mob power in that era, and B. To disregard the concerns of ordinary New Yorkers with street crime and personal safety from VIOLENCE. That is your right, of course, but I reiterate that it is a fact (which you seem to concede) that there was less crime in the 1930s to 1950s, and that is what NYers in the latter period were nostalgic for.
Its also not the case, AFAIK, that mob power was particularly LESS in the 1960s or 1970s. So the ordinary New Yorker lost her personal safety from street crime, without getting ANY offsetting relief of mob power.
IThat is the same mentality that blames people for being poor and cannot see the system that ensures they stay poor.
AFAICT most poor people do not commit crimes. Hating street crimes and criminals, does not imply lack of sympathy for the poor. To say that it does, is, IMHO, vile.
It's all a numbers game isn't it-crime 'per capita'; I'm sure those old stats are somewhere. My greatggf was a bookie covering Times Sq. in the 30's- the mob pushed him out. His son, my half-Italian grdfther lived in Wash Heights in the 70's. The hood was never good and got progressively worse into the early 80's- we had to be very careful. He was mugged repeatedly in the hallways or at his door, and sometimes they would mug him in his apartment. This was a way of life for many living in the city then I'm sure- hopefully not now, except for in the worst neighborhoods -probably not even. Still, you couldn't take him out of it. Everywhere in the city people were lurking then it seemed -everywhere.
Last edited by Saltatrix; 11-09-2010 at 04:09 PM..
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.
