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.
Just to add some context, the majority of pictures you see of Camden are taken in one neighborhood called North Camden, which lies north of the Ben Franklin Bridge. Keep in mind that Camden is a tiny city of about 10 sq. miles. I'm not suggesting that Camden has been treated unfairly, I just want to remove any notion that Camden's bad neighborhoods extend for miles and miles.
For those interested in American ghettos, and it's obvious the topic is popular on sites like this, I suggest looking into the work of a photographer named Camilo Jose Vergara.
The site below is interesting. It has many, many pics of Harlem, Richmond, CA, and Camden. On the left, click on "Enter" the city you want to explore. There's a map that pops up with colored squares to click, showing where the various pics were taken.
After reviewing that site, I have to recant my earlier post. Although the iconic pictures you see of Camden are taken in N. Camden, it looks like the entire city is dilapidated.
This site below is very interesting and has many pics from Harlem, Chicago, Detroit, the Bronx, Camden, Brooklyn, LA, Newark, and Gary. There's a section called Old NY with pics from 1970-73. On the site, the pics are time-lapsed, so there's more than one pic under each heading. So click on the pic to get the menu or click "next" in the bottom right corner. Clicking "caption" shows the date of each pic.
Many of the iconic pictures of America ghettos that we recognize were taken by Vergara. He's famous for taken time-lapsed pics, returning to the same places over the extent of many years to show how the neighborhoods change, such as this pic in N. Camden, for example.
Years ago, I read his book called the New American Ghetto. I don't want to waste your time going on and on about it, but I truly could not put it down. It may be a little dated now, having been published in 1995, but it explores in detail the people and the buildings in these neighborhoods, and he tells amazing personal stories about how he was able to get his shots, such as hiring protection from gang leaders to escort him through the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago as well as getting to various rooftops in Harlem.
He's not political. It's just photographs and his story. I recall that he says that when he first came to America, he became fascinated with the ghettos and just couldn't put the subject down.
Last edited by Mantronix4204; 05-24-2014 at 02:56 AM..
Once again, maybe I am naive but I don't understand why people would choose to live in these crapholes. I have traveled all over this country and there are SO MANY possibilities, places you can move to where you could reinvent yourself. Driving through Kansas once, I remember thinking, just in that state alone, there are so many different places you could move to which are totally safe, offer great quality of life, very low cost of living, decent economy, I don't get it!
Why do they stay? 99% of the residents are on public assistance. Why move and WORK (oh heavenforbid) and display pro social and civil behavior when you can do what you want when you want, smoke blunts on the stoop all night, poop in the street, prey on your neighbors, etc.
Thank Liberals for the awful gettos. Detroit, the once Beautiful Bronx, Camden, etc.
Why do they stay? 99% of the residents are on public assistance. Why move and WORK (oh heavenforbid) and display pro social and civil behavior when you can do what you want when you want, smoke blunts on the stoop all night, poop in the street, prey on your neighbors, etc.
Thank Liberals for the awful gettos. Detroit, the once Beautiful Bronx, Camden, etc.
Nobody wants to live in places like Camden, not even the current residents. Why do you think that places like Camden and East St. Louis are still shrinking? It's because the people that are still there, who you assume to be "smoking blunts" and "pooping in the street", are actually decent human beings like the rest of us who, one way or another, have obtained the means to leave and thus will leave to find a better life for themselves and (if they have any) their children. The welfare queens you picture who are along for the free ride are extremely few in number; the population of these declining cities largely consists of those who cannot afford to leave. The situation is far more complex than pure laziness.
And Liberalness does not make a city fail. Last I checked, NYC (Manhattan) and San Francisco are doing just fine. And many conservative-dominated small towns are not. Politics are not the only driving factor in a city's success, or lack thereof.
Nobody wants to live in places like Camden, not even the current residents. Why do you think that places like Camden and East St. Louis are still shrinking? It's because the people that are still there, who you assume to be "smoking blunts" and "pooping in the street", are actually decent human beings like the rest of us who, one way or another, have obtained the means to leave and thus will leave to find a better life for themselves and (if they have any) their children. The welfare queens you picture who are along for the free ride are extremely few in number; the population of these declining cities largely consists of those who cannot afford to leave. The situation is far more complex than pure laziness.
And Liberalness does not make a city fail. Last I checked, NYC (Manhattan) and San Francisco are doing just fine. And many conservative-dominated small towns are not. Politics are not the only driving factor in a city's success, or lack thereof.
Wow, someone actually making a rational, well-informed comment about urban poverty on City Data. I am amazed. Good job. Seriously.
I'm gonna either have to go with Camden or East LA. Then again, I've barely seen the Midwest so lord knows how horrible it could be in Gary or Detroit.
Nobody wants to live in places like Camden, not even the current residents. Why do you think that places like Camden and East St. Louis are still shrinking? It's because the people that are still there, who you assume to be "smoking blunts" and "pooping in the street", are actually decent human beings like the rest of us who, one way or another, have obtained the means to leave and thus will leave to find a better life for themselves and (if they have any) their children. The welfare queens you picture who are along for the free ride are extremely few in number; the population of these declining cities largely consists of those who cannot afford to leave. The situation is far more complex than pure laziness.
And Liberalness does not make a city fail. Last I checked, NYC (Manhattan) and San Francisco are doing just fine. And many conservative-dominated small towns are not. Politics are not the only driving factor in a city's success, or lack thereof.
NYC is overall doing well sans the working poor. If you look at the Bronx, however, it now proudly can claim (dare I say it-- boasts?) that it is the home of Amercia's poorest Congressional district? Look at the amount of the population that receives benefits, Section 8, WIC, SNAP, etc.
When did this start to go bad? Post WWII in NYC. Add to the increase of large number of Puerto Ricans that flocked to the Bronx for work, found none, but did not leave. Why? GENEROUS welfare support.
This toxic mix really accelertated in the 1960s. Liberals dammed the Bronx with forced construction of projects that killed working class neighborhoods. Liberal largess in social progams helped to further erode a work ethic. Most dangerously and sadly, by making Black Men economically unnesessary for the Black families to survice, Liberals have created a huge prison-centric problem. Almost 75% of black children born in America now, have no recognized father. So, what happens to their poor sons? Gangs/prison/no future.
I'm gonna either have to go with Camden or East LA. Then again, I've barely seen the Midwest so lord knows how horrible it could be in Gary or Detroit.
East LA isn't even the worst part of LA.
I don't see how any neighborhood in the US is worse than Skid Row in Los Angeles. Perhaps the Tenderloin in SF back in the day or whatever NYC's version of those neighborhoods was in the 70s-90s could be as bad as Skid Row. But at this point that nabes got my vote. It's nothing to be proud of either.
NYC is overall doing well sans the working poor. If you look at the Bronx, however, it now proudly can claim (dare I say it-- boasts?) that it is the home of Amercia's poorest Congressional district? Look at the amount of the population that receives benefits, Section 8, WIC, SNAP, etc.
When did this start to go bad? Post WWII in NYC. Add to the increase of large number of Puerto Ricans that flocked to the Bronx for work, found none, but did not leave. Why? GENEROUS welfare support.
This toxic mix really accelertated in the 1960s. Liberals dammed the Bronx with forced construction of projects that killed working class neighborhoods. Liberal largess in social progams helped to further erode a work ethic. Most dangerously and sadly, by making Black Men economically unnesessary for the Black families to survice, Liberals have created a huge prison-centric problem. Almost 75% of black children born in America now, have no recognized father. So, what happens to their poor sons? Gangs/prison/no future.
Liberals are the bane of America.
I wouldn't necessarily generalize and just blame all society ills on liberals. You have to remember 50 to 60 years ago the United States was a very racist and segregated society.
Jim Crow laws of "Separate but Equal" endorsed by the US Supreme Court
Red Line housing and loan policies combined with racial bigotry of majority of the populace creating the white flight out of the inner city.
Systemic hiring discrimination in employment opportunities creating the necessity for "War on Poverty" social welfare programs.
Racial disparity in the criminal justice system created by the hysteria and fear induced "War on Drugs" campaign producing the Prison Industrial Complex with its draconian mandatory sentencing laws.
All these factors created these pockets of concentrated poverty in the inner city and an embittered populace. You have to remember majority of the populace especially the political, civic and business establishment had the same social-racial beliefs as a Donald Sterling even though they may have had some Liberal beliefs.. Instead of attacking the root cause of these society ills to many people the cure seems to be gentrification and move to the problem somewhere else like the suburbs.
Last edited by Coseau; 06-04-2014 at 11:38 AM..
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.
