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.
What happened is, there was a change in the predominate culture. I think the changing of the guard began in the 60's with the free love, hippy movement. I think that was the turning point of culture that may young people subscribed to that eventually influenced their offsprings and spread like wild fire going forward.
Prior to the 60's hippy movement, the culture was more conservative and more wholesome. Values began to go out the window in the free sex, no bra wearing, LSD and pot smoking 60's. This new liberal movement played a huge role for future generations. The 70's, 80's, and 90's are a product of the 60's liberal culture that infiltrated many communities.
The "no bra wearing" part was clearly a step forward.
Interesting thoughts here, from the typical "the '60s caused it all" to :"bad families" to "ungrateful immigrants" and others.
My take: The massive loss of blue-collar manufacturing jobs in NYC doomed a lot of it. The people who moved here from the South or from Puerto Rico before the '70s were largely undeducated and came here in massive numbers just as all those jobs left the city and went to China or, ironically, back down south. Poor Jews could immigrate and do the rag trade. But now very little apparel making is left in NYC. A lot of the Irish could work the docks. But container shipping put an end to that. Good paying jobs with union wages, such as construction, were often closed outright to black and putero rican aspirants becuse of prejudice, and that has only recently changed.
So you have lots of formally uneducated people with no jobs living in bad housing and unable to work their way out. That got worse when the city loosened its stritures on who could live in public housing. At one point, PJs were heavily tilted to the working- and lower middle-class. I know this because I had relatives who lived in the PJs in the early '60s and worked their way out. But once the city ended restrictions on single mothers, among other people, public housing started becoming the housing of last resort rather than housing for the upwardly mobile. That resuslting concentration of poverty really hurt certain neighborhoods.
I agree with all of your points. Never knew about the stringent requirements that existed for public housing back then. When did things loosen up?
young kids and adults emulate negative role models instead of positive ones. (ie: they want to be or admirer thugs, rappers, sport athletes, etc)
how is admiring athletes negative
sure some are scumbags but so are some doctors, teachers etc
Maybe negative isn't the right word to use. How about broadening your spectrum of people to admire. The regular average working person -- bus driver, postal worker, teacher, etc., (IMO) contributes a great deal to society whereas some of the people the kids and adults admire on reality TV, for example, don't bring much except entertainment and a momentary escape from your own situation.
I can look at it and laugh but when someone looks at it aspiring to be that, you begin to wonder about their perspectives.
Also, Chinatown is quite a poor community, but crime rate there is low and they have good schools.
It is not all about money.
Chinatown's public elementary schools are actually top notch. PS 124, 130 184 are in the top 5% year after year. Those are in the same league with PS 234 in TriBeCa and PS 290 in UES. But the income level in Chinatown is far lower than TriBeCa and Upper East Side. Is there any other low income neighborhood with great school in NYC? I wonder.
Also, Chinatown is quite a poor community, but crime rate there is low and they have good schools.
It is not all about money.
So why all those dangerous poor Irish neighborhoods prior to WWII? Let us discuss the infamous Five Corners which had few blacks/hispanics but was in its day way more dangerous than any neighborhood today is.
What happened is, there was a change in the predominate culture. I think the changing of the guard began in the 60's with the free love, hippy movement. I think that was the turning point of culture that may young people subscribed to that eventually influenced their offsprings and spread like wild fire going forward.
Prior to the 60's hippy movement, the culture was more conservative and more wholesome. Values began to go out the window in the free sex, no bra wearing, LSD and pot smoking 60's. This new liberal movement played a huge role for future generations. The 70's, 80's, and 90's are a product of the 60's liberal culture that infiltrated many communities.
So 19th century NYC was a erfectly safe and crime free place????? The criminality of the 19th C Irish immigrants is a lie????
Please get a grip. Where there are large concentrations of the poor who lack hope there will be dysfunction and crime. This will be seen in LES of 100 years ago, or today in the South Bronx, Glasgow, the banlieus of Paris or the slums of Naples, Italy.
low income areas were bad from beginning,
because they're worn down, second-hand
areas that up until now were never desirable
for most people with money.
No, that's not it at all. IMO, the difference between now and then that's most apparent to me is the general attitude of people. Today, people are aggressive, belligerent/in your face, and if you look at people sideways, it's the beginning of something. Now, I keep my head down and keep it moving because I feel like something could jump off at anytime. Today, I fear that I could be a passerby and caught in the crossfire someone's beef. I never felt that way in the 60s-70s. Guns in the community then vs. now is a factor worth looking into.
I never saw or sensed people back then with this type of behavior in Harlem and I spent a lot of time there. My grandmother walked all over the neighborhood, and we never felt that we have to move her to Queens with us for safety reasons. I have been in her old neighborhood on many occasions lately, and I would have some concerns about her walking around there alone today.
Basically, you're saying to me and others is that our accounting of the times is impossible because the numbers say otherwise. I am a researcher and one of the first things we learn is that numbers/quantitative analysis is ONE part of the story. You need to review both qualitative and quantitative data. You are fortunate to have people on the forum who talk about the past. There's a lot to be learned.
I know someone (Asian guy) who lived in Harlem in the mid to late 60's and he said he got along fine there. Course I don't recall where in Harlem but I'm guessing by the Columbia Univ area. He said it was a poor area but he found the people overall warm, friendly & helpful once they got to know you. As long as you didn't put up any airs or acted overly afraid, he said it was alright. He said there were criminal/drug elements present but those he avoided and befriended the ones who had jobs & busy working hard to move up and out. I was skeptical at first but listening to you, maybe Harlem isn't a place that you can easily pigeon-hole and categorize. I get all sorts of stories from people who lived in Harlem back in the day (prior to the crack epidemic) & everyone has a different take on it. Course it does matter where in Harlem they were at the time & what kind of vibe you bring to the area.
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.
