Brutal New York - 1965/95(skyscrapercity.com)
skyscrapercity.com
Brutal New York - 1965/95
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402544
13 comments
Hear hear. For those who haven't had a lot of exposure to rap, I highly encourage you to explore the early roots of rap and hip-hop; you will find that much of it is extremely socially conscious, in ways more authentic and more compelling than long, drawn-out exposes and journal reports.
And then mainstream rap took a dive off a cliff into meaningless misogyny, bling, and euphemisms involving skeet shooting.
And then mainstream rap took a dive off a cliff into meaningless misogyny, bling, and euphemisms involving skeet shooting.
Rap today is a mashup of old lyrics, over-engineered (and unnecessary) beats and a sad use of Autotune. I used to DJ for years and couldn't stand where the music was going, but the classics are considered classic for a reason, in my book at least.
Listening to, and I mean really listening to the lyrics of true rappers that started and built the movement up is inspiring. Much of it is the obvious "Hoes & Cash", but there is almost always a reason they bring it up. It was either about what they strived to get to, or the rewards of their hustle and struggle to break out of the streets they grew up on. It truly is a unique form of expression that very few other music forms can touch.
Listening to, and I mean really listening to the lyrics of true rappers that started and built the movement up is inspiring. Much of it is the obvious "Hoes & Cash", but there is almost always a reason they bring it up. It was either about what they strived to get to, or the rewards of their hustle and struggle to break out of the streets they grew up on. It truly is a unique form of expression that very few other music forms can touch.
Rap today is a mashup of old lyrics, over-engineered (and unnecessary) beats and a sad use of Autotune.
Mainstream rap, sure. But I don't think "rap" generally is worse. It's just that it's become popular enough for there to be a crass mainstream that didn't exist in the 80s.
It's common to bemoan the modern state of many things but we should recognize that while the mean quality may have dropped, the median probably hasn't. There's a lot of great rap still out there - it's just not the common definition anymore. (It's like bemoaning the commercialization of blogs or the low quality celeb accounts on Twitter - the good stuff still exists on both.)
Mainstream rap, sure. But I don't think "rap" generally is worse. It's just that it's become popular enough for there to be a crass mainstream that didn't exist in the 80s.
It's common to bemoan the modern state of many things but we should recognize that while the mean quality may have dropped, the median probably hasn't. There's a lot of great rap still out there - it's just not the common definition anymore. (It's like bemoaning the commercialization of blogs or the low quality celeb accounts on Twitter - the good stuff still exists on both.)
hip hop can be all sorts of things, it doesn't just have to be what you like. Kanye's album was good, so are Weezy's mixtapes and Gucci's last mix that came out. Each of them has their own context. So does Del, Anticon, and everyone else.
Amen. I get so tired of the "mainstream rap has degenerated" argument. Every genre of music has tons of different artists, each with a different approach, and it's a general trend that people who listened to a genre of music in one era tend to not like the newer stuff (Try getting a classic rock or country fan to listen to a modern rock or country station, and watch the criticism flow!). It's just the nature of things.
The fact that you don't like the content/style/message/whatever doesn't make an art form any less an art form.
The fact that you don't like the content/style/message/whatever doesn't make an art form any less an art form.
well put, and you didn't even have to try to praise Gucci Man to do it.
You might like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltron_3030.
Totally - maybe a good transition would be NerdCore rap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerdcore_hip_hop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerdcore_hip_hop
> I was a teeny bit hurt (not offended) by the Cr48 warning against exposure to rap.
I agree, though I was a bit offended. I made a (downvoted) comment that I didn't get the joke on the original article, even though I understood that it was "peppered" with humor. Honestly, being exposed to hip-hop was one of the best things that ever happened to me.
I agree, though I was a bit offended. I made a (downvoted) comment that I didn't get the joke on the original article, even though I understood that it was "peppered" with humor. Honestly, being exposed to hip-hop was one of the best things that ever happened to me.
1965ish. This is where, when Hip Hop was born.
You're right that it was formed by the 70's but my emphasis is in the early undefined formative stages. Its true that by the mid 70s the movement had already organized itself into an early form of what we know as hip hop. But prior, in the late 1960s nascent movements were occurring that would eventually coalesce into the hip hop community by the mid to late 1970s.
If anybody is interested in learning about the roots of hip hop (more specifically of DJ culture), this is an excellent documentary on it:
http://www.amazon.com/Scratch-Afrika-Bambaataa/dp/B00006AL1G...
http://www.amazon.com/Scratch-Afrika-Bambaataa/dp/B00006AL1G...
Also well worth watching, both for the hip hop history and a study of New York showing its best and worst:
"NY77: The Coolest Year in Hell" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1080761/
When I first heard about this project I was positive it would be a VH1 suckfest, but when I saw it was stunned. It's really good, quite accurate. Those were wild times in New York.
"NY77: The Coolest Year in Hell" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1080761/
When I first heard about this project I was positive it would be a VH1 suckfest, but when I saw it was stunned. It's really good, quite accurate. Those were wild times in New York.
I visited NYC on a regular basis from 1987 to 1990, to see friends in Brooklyn, NYU and northern NJ. It seems hard to imagine now, but I95 had abandoned, jacked cars on the shoulder, right in the middle of the city. At some grim housing estate visible from one of the train or aboveground subway lines, I remember seeing thick trail of garbage a hundred feet long covering a wide stairway going down an adjoining hillside to another street. Lots of people sleeping rough in Penn Station, and aggressive panhandling. Natives warned me not to take the subway past a certain time.
Despite this environment -- or because of it -- there was also a lot of interesting cultural activity taking place in the city. Someone mentioned hip-hop originated there; it was also where American punk rock got off the ground, not to mention all kinds of art and theater activity. The food then, as is now, was excellent.
Despite this environment -- or because of it -- there was also a lot of interesting cultural activity taking place in the city. Someone mentioned hip-hop originated there; it was also where American punk rock got off the ground, not to mention all kinds of art and theater activity. The food then, as is now, was excellent.
The decrease in crime in NYC over the lase few decades is just remarkable. I remember reading about the problems of AIDS and crack, and just thinking there was no hope. I would have never thought it could turn around like it did. Gladwell's "The Tipping Point" had some pretty good evidence that crime can be thought of as an epidemic. I'd love to read more on the subject if anyone has suggestions.
I think in Freakonomics a study is cited that claims what actually curbed the rise of crime was a change in abortion laws (rather than the "no broken windows" theory). Not sure if that was one of the things in Freakonomics that was later shown to be false, though.
yes it has been disputed.
See: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113314261192407815-HL...
and http://www.economist.com/node/5246700?story_id=5246700
and http://www.economist.com/node/5246700?story_id=5246700
Thanks for those. The dispute has an interesting source:
"In other words, Messrs Donohue and Levitt did not run the test they thought they had—an “inadvertent but serious computer programming error”, according to Messrs Foote and Goetz"
"In other words, Messrs Donohue and Levitt did not run the test they thought they had—an “inadvertent but serious computer programming error”, according to Messrs Foote and Goetz"
Here's the murder graph from 1920 to present. Amazingly bad spike from 65-95.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_murders.PNG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_murders.PNG
I'd vaguely expect the rise in ATMs to be a factor.
The ability to exist with a minimum of cash would tend to make casual theft much less appealing.
The ability to exist with a minimum of cash would tend to make casual theft much less appealing.
Maybe, but I doubt it. In fact, an outdoor ATM is probably an appealing location in which to rob someone. And now we have ipods, iphones, laptops, etc that almost everyone is carrying. Casual theft is still appealing and there's much to be stolen.
You might want to read Jane Jacobs "The Death and Life of Great American Cities".
The U.S has come a long way since then. I wonder what happened to all those drug addicted people - where do they live now?
A lot of the physical decay in New York in the 1970s was the result of rent control, which led to abandoned buildings as landlords could not operate the buildings at a profit. At one point the city owned 70% of Harlem.
Blaming the state of affairs in NYC in the 70's on rent control is simplistic in the extreme. Rent control (and rent stabilization) are questionable policies for sure, but they were around since WWII, and every tenement owner was aware of the state of the rent roll when they bought the apartment buildings (so the ramifications were built into the price).
The truth is that a confluence of bad policy and economic conditions converged to create the mess our cities were in during that time. Some cities (Detroit, Baltimore?) have yet to recover.
The truth is that a confluence of bad policy and economic conditions converged to create the mess our cities were in during that time. Some cities (Detroit, Baltimore?) have yet to recover.
I don't know about New York, but in DC gentrification is pushing many of the urban poor to the older suburbs like Prince George's County in Maryland.
As the process continues it might be that some of the first suburban areas built in the 50s and 60s become the new "inner cities." Transportation costs serve as a pressure to drive people back into re-developed spots in the city and next lowest cost of living are many of these first suburbs that haven't seen development and investment keep up with the times.
As the process continues it might be that some of the first suburban areas built in the 50s and 60s become the new "inner cities." Transportation costs serve as a pressure to drive people back into re-developed spots in the city and next lowest cost of living are many of these first suburbs that haven't seen development and investment keep up with the times.
This has already happened in a significant way in many European cities (often fuelled by downtown destruction during or post WW2). The suburbs of St Denis, Sarcelles and Aubervilliers in Paris are good examples or the manufactured suburb of Thamesmead in London.
That process started happening in NYC decades ago, depending on how you define suburb. Suburbs are awful places to be poor, as you need to be able to maintain a car to get by.
Parts of Nassau county and even Westchester (ie. Southside of Mount Vernon) have been rough for a long time. Ditto any of the cities in North Jersey, which have been swallowed up and discarded by the greater New York metropolis.
Parts of Nassau county and even Westchester (ie. Southside of Mount Vernon) have been rough for a long time. Ditto any of the cities in North Jersey, which have been swallowed up and discarded by the greater New York metropolis.
Portraits of the 16 people killed last month in PGC:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01...
Well we do have over 2M people in jail in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...
That's not true. American economic disparity is at its worst point since the 1930s. It made a slight recovery in the 1980s, but has been slipping ever since.
The rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer. This is not unique to New York city.
The rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer. This is not unique to New York city.
This depends on your timescale.
The fact is, if you're going to be poor or work a menial job there is no better time in history to be that way than now. The standard of living amongst even the poorest in the developed world is better than that of the richest just a century or two ago. Life expectancy, literacy, access to technology and financial freedom are unparalleled.
Does that mean the gap between rich and poor isn't widening? No it doesn't. But rather than focus on the disparity between the poor and the mega-rich, why not just examine the circumstances of the poor? Who really cares if there are more billionaires than ever (a function largely of inflation)?
What's more, society is far less classist than it has ever been. Throughout history you've had the aristocratic classes. If you weren't born to them, too bad (with very few exceptions). Now? Some of America's richest people were born to nothing (Gates, Page, Brin, Buffett, etc).
There are certainly advantages to being born to parents who are better off than poor: better access to education, the fact that the right choices made by parents tend to be repeated by their children and so on.
So maybe we should have less hand-wringing about how badly the poor have it in the developed world and look at a real problem like how badly the poor have it in the developing world where diseases than are for us either extinct or simply nuisances routinely kill and many can't even get access to clean drinking water.
The fact is, if you're going to be poor or work a menial job there is no better time in history to be that way than now. The standard of living amongst even the poorest in the developed world is better than that of the richest just a century or two ago. Life expectancy, literacy, access to technology and financial freedom are unparalleled.
Does that mean the gap between rich and poor isn't widening? No it doesn't. But rather than focus on the disparity between the poor and the mega-rich, why not just examine the circumstances of the poor? Who really cares if there are more billionaires than ever (a function largely of inflation)?
What's more, society is far less classist than it has ever been. Throughout history you've had the aristocratic classes. If you weren't born to them, too bad (with very few exceptions). Now? Some of America's richest people were born to nothing (Gates, Page, Brin, Buffett, etc).
There are certainly advantages to being born to parents who are better off than poor: better access to education, the fact that the right choices made by parents tend to be repeated by their children and so on.
So maybe we should have less hand-wringing about how badly the poor have it in the developed world and look at a real problem like how badly the poor have it in the developing world where diseases than are for us either extinct or simply nuisances routinely kill and many can't even get access to clean drinking water.
You sound like a typical middle class person who doesn't get out much in an urban area or have had to struggle. Bill Gates isn't a rags to riches tale -- he had every advantage.
The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. The welfare state destroyed the notion of an intact family completely -- to the point that a household with a father present is an unusual event.
People need dignity and a purpose. If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago, you could get a job in a factory or get into a union and support a family. Life was hard, but you had a purpose.
Picture yourself as a 12 year old in the hood: - You can barely read. Your teacher doesn't know your name - You have a single parent who may or may not be present. She's 27 - You probably don't have a computer - There's a 1 in 5 chance that your father is in prison. - Of the adults that you are acquainted with 80% are not employed. - You live in decrepit housing in an area with high crime. You're literally surrounded by violent criminals, molesters and misery.
How would you do?
The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly. The welfare state destroyed the notion of an intact family completely -- to the point that a household with a father present is an unusual event.
People need dignity and a purpose. If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago, you could get a job in a factory or get into a union and support a family. Life was hard, but you had a purpose.
Picture yourself as a 12 year old in the hood: - You can barely read. Your teacher doesn't know your name - You have a single parent who may or may not be present. She's 27 - You probably don't have a computer - There's a 1 in 5 chance that your father is in prison. - Of the adults that you are acquainted with 80% are not employed. - You live in decrepit housing in an area with high crime. You're literally surrounded by violent criminals, molesters and misery.
How would you do?
Another question is, what can the state do to help that kind of person? I know the Ayn Rand fans won't accept it, but there are cheaper (and more humane) options than just locking them up after they've commit a few crimes.
Free internet cafes (with locked-down linux boxes, and no flash, to discourage most games), nutrition programs, public libraries ... but I'm thinking like a 30-year-old geek who would actually like those things.
What kind of services, that kids actually want, should we be providing? Sports clubs? Music clubs? Just something to teach them a few moral lessons - work in a team, follow reasonable instructions, look after the facilties, work hard, try to learn new things, short term pain for long term gain ... those kinda lessons.
Free internet cafes (with locked-down linux boxes, and no flash, to discourage most games), nutrition programs, public libraries ... but I'm thinking like a 30-year-old geek who would actually like those things.
What kind of services, that kids actually want, should we be providing? Sports clubs? Music clubs? Just something to teach them a few moral lessons - work in a team, follow reasonable instructions, look after the facilties, work hard, try to learn new things, short term pain for long term gain ... those kinda lessons.
> The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore.
Which makes them better off than previous generations, right?
> The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly.
Sure but what's that got to do with poverty? If you're not poor you don't necessarily have purpose either. The world is full of idle, clueless rich people who live off inherited wealth and contribute nothing. Just look at Paris Hilton.
Oh and my point wasn't that Bill Gates wasn't rags to riches: but he has accumulated wealth in his lifetime many orders of magnitude to what he had when he started. That's the point. What we take for granted today didn't exist centuries ago in an era of the birthright aristocracy and serfdom little different to slavery.
> If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago
100 years ago, relatively speaking, that would've been a lot better education than a 6th grade education is in today's terms.
> How would you do?
It's hard to say because that's a life story I simply don't have. Statistically speaking however, pretty poorly would be the answer. Like I said: the circumstances you're born to (parent's education and so on) correlate positively to the choices the children make.
But in all honesty your post reads like a "bleeding heart" infomercial (and a request for donations). The sad truth is that many are poor because they make poor choices. It's just unfortunate that their offspring tend to be detrimentally affected by that.
Let's also consider that the definition of poverty is extremely political. What is poverty? In the developing world, being largely disease free (to the extent the developed world is) and having shelter, food and a clean drinking water would mean a lot. Here? There is a subjective definition covering far more than that.
Consider: 91% of Americans use cell phones [1] but 12.7% of Americans are below the poverty line [2]. So at least one quarter of all those deemed poor use cell phones, which can still be considered a discretionary expenditure.
Add in other discretionary behaviour like alcohol, tobacco and even drugs and what you see is a pattern of people making poor choices. Not in all cases but certainly a lot.
Look there are genuine social problems in America. Health care is almost inextricably tied to employment. Insurers can dump you over trivial terms like being two cents short on your payment [3]. The war on poverty has had many detrimental effects such as Section 8 Housing [4] creating ghettoes. Quality of education seems to largely be a factor of how wealthy your district is. The powerful educational unions stifle any attempt at teacher and school accountability. The list goes on.
But if you think the poor of 100+ years ago didn't have problems--problems of life and death, forced servitude, disease, etc--and that those problems aren't relatively speaking worse than those of the so-called poor in the developed world, you're kidding yourself.
[1]: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-...
[2]: http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
[3]: http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flan...
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)
Which makes them better off than previous generations, right?
> The poorest people around us probably aren't dying of hunger anymore. But there is more to life than a full belly.
Sure but what's that got to do with poverty? If you're not poor you don't necessarily have purpose either. The world is full of idle, clueless rich people who live off inherited wealth and contribute nothing. Just look at Paris Hilton.
Oh and my point wasn't that Bill Gates wasn't rags to riches: but he has accumulated wealth in his lifetime many orders of magnitude to what he had when he started. That's the point. What we take for granted today didn't exist centuries ago in an era of the birthright aristocracy and serfdom little different to slavery.
> If you moved into the "big city" from the farm with a 6th grade education 100 years ago
100 years ago, relatively speaking, that would've been a lot better education than a 6th grade education is in today's terms.
> How would you do?
It's hard to say because that's a life story I simply don't have. Statistically speaking however, pretty poorly would be the answer. Like I said: the circumstances you're born to (parent's education and so on) correlate positively to the choices the children make.
But in all honesty your post reads like a "bleeding heart" infomercial (and a request for donations). The sad truth is that many are poor because they make poor choices. It's just unfortunate that their offspring tend to be detrimentally affected by that.
Let's also consider that the definition of poverty is extremely political. What is poverty? In the developing world, being largely disease free (to the extent the developed world is) and having shelter, food and a clean drinking water would mean a lot. Here? There is a subjective definition covering far more than that.
Consider: 91% of Americans use cell phones [1] but 12.7% of Americans are below the poverty line [2]. So at least one quarter of all those deemed poor use cell phones, which can still be considered a discretionary expenditure.
Add in other discretionary behaviour like alcohol, tobacco and even drugs and what you see is a pattern of people making poor choices. Not in all cases but certainly a lot.
Look there are genuine social problems in America. Health care is almost inextricably tied to employment. Insurers can dump you over trivial terms like being two cents short on your payment [3]. The war on poverty has had many detrimental effects such as Section 8 Housing [4] creating ghettoes. Quality of education seems to largely be a factor of how wealthy your district is. The powerful educational unions stifle any attempt at teacher and school accountability. The list goes on.
But if you think the poor of 100+ years ago didn't have problems--problems of life and death, forced servitude, disease, etc--and that those problems aren't relatively speaking worse than those of the so-called poor in the developed world, you're kidding yourself.
[1]: http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/03/wireless-survey-...
[2]: http://www.soundvision.com/Info/poor/statistics.asp
[3]: http://abcnews.go.com/US/cancer-patient-vietnam-vet-ron-flan...
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)
How is someone stuck in the poverty cycle different than a serf? Read about how difficult it is to break the $40,000/year barrier if you have children due to the escalation of taxes and scaling back of tax and other incentives. How is someone with the good luck of having parents who are attorneys or accountants different than a minor noble in 16th century France?
My father worked in public housing projects, and I used to go along with him to block parties and sometimes hang out with him at work in the summertime when I was young. I'd play with the kids hanging around who were 8 or 10 years old. You know what? They were all the same as my friends at home -- just kids. I didn't understand then that they were poor and I wasn't. Those same kids a few years later would have a harsher introduction to the world than I would.
It's amazing to me that you'd equate my perspective to an infomercial, than proceed to castigate people who dare to have a cheap telephone or complain about their miserable condition because they have water and foodstamps.
I'm not a proponent of the welfare state. I drive around my city past the idle factories and dilapidated relics of the prosperity of ages long past and get angry. Then I drive outside the city, away from the "welfare state" and past the new prosperity: sprawl shopping centers and subdivisions -- all artifacts of tax policy, loan guarantees and subsidy of infrastructure and get angry. (You probably wouldn't call that "welfare" though.)
My father worked in public housing projects, and I used to go along with him to block parties and sometimes hang out with him at work in the summertime when I was young. I'd play with the kids hanging around who were 8 or 10 years old. You know what? They were all the same as my friends at home -- just kids. I didn't understand then that they were poor and I wasn't. Those same kids a few years later would have a harsher introduction to the world than I would.
It's amazing to me that you'd equate my perspective to an infomercial, than proceed to castigate people who dare to have a cheap telephone or complain about their miserable condition because they have water and foodstamps.
I'm not a proponent of the welfare state. I drive around my city past the idle factories and dilapidated relics of the prosperity of ages long past and get angry. Then I drive outside the city, away from the "welfare state" and past the new prosperity: sprawl shopping centers and subdivisions -- all artifacts of tax policy, loan guarantees and subsidy of infrastructure and get angry. (You probably wouldn't call that "welfare" though.)
There are statistical challenges for determining a good metric for poverty, but it doesn't take a lot of insight to recognize that poverty in United States is considerable:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/poverty_numbe...
Levels of inequality are important for many reasons: notions of justice and respect, regressive taxation, access to quality education, etc.
The Nation commissioned a symposium on the matter: http://www.thenation.com/article/36894/inequality-america
Many developing nations have far worse poverty than United States, but the cause is often rather unsurprising: US and global destabilization of economies, forced "liberalization" and economic reform (that end up tipping the already vulnerable citizens into extreme poverty), etc.
Class is, in fact, as entrenched as it ever has been. The list of rich people you mention (white men, all of them) were all born of considerable privilege (parents were millionaires or at least upper class). Even a quick look on Wikipedia will tell you this much. This is a common misconception about wealth in the US. The old Horatio Alger story that Americans' want to believe in.
Here's a few examples of just how bad some Americans have it (no one with a conscience should need such a reminder, but evidently some do): http://www.pbs.org/klru/forgottenamericans/ http://southernspaces.org/2010/worst-times-children-extreme-...
This list of examples could, of course, go on forever.
Levels of inequality are important for many reasons: notions of justice and respect, regressive taxation, access to quality education, etc.
The Nation commissioned a symposium on the matter: http://www.thenation.com/article/36894/inequality-america
Many developing nations have far worse poverty than United States, but the cause is often rather unsurprising: US and global destabilization of economies, forced "liberalization" and economic reform (that end up tipping the already vulnerable citizens into extreme poverty), etc.
Class is, in fact, as entrenched as it ever has been. The list of rich people you mention (white men, all of them) were all born of considerable privilege (parents were millionaires or at least upper class). Even a quick look on Wikipedia will tell you this much. This is a common misconception about wealth in the US. The old Horatio Alger story that Americans' want to believe in.
Here's a few examples of just how bad some Americans have it (no one with a conscience should need such a reminder, but evidently some do): http://www.pbs.org/klru/forgottenamericans/ http://southernspaces.org/2010/worst-times-children-extreme-...
This list of examples could, of course, go on forever.
The number one health problem among America's poor is obesity and its related illnesses. The American poor mostly own cars, TVs, and air conditioners, and often live in residences bigger than middle class homes in Europe. Sorry, poverty in America is nothing like Third World poverty where survival is a daily struggle.
So if your fellow man isn't starving to death they're doing all right?
This idea that survival and happiness is all about how you're doing by some absolute scale of quality of life is absolutely bonkers. The plight of third world people has about as much to do with the poverty of your countrymen as the plight of political prisoners in North Korea has to do with Bradley Manning. Which is to say, we have our standards of justice and wealth and they have theirs - that's why this is the United States and that's North Korea.
It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent, even though they're willing and able to work. They are trying to maintain this idea that we live in one nation, after all.
This idea that survival and happiness is all about how you're doing by some absolute scale of quality of life is absolutely bonkers. The plight of third world people has about as much to do with the poverty of your countrymen as the plight of political prisoners in North Korea has to do with Bradley Manning. Which is to say, we have our standards of justice and wealth and they have theirs - that's why this is the United States and that's North Korea.
It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent, even though they're willing and able to work. They are trying to maintain this idea that we live in one nation, after all.
It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent, even though they're willing and able to work.
Yes, it is. What isn't reasonable is pretending that destroying Warren Buffett's wealth (reducing inequality!) would make anyone better off.
Yes, it is. What isn't reasonable is pretending that destroying Warren Buffett's wealth (reducing inequality!) would make anyone better off.
> So if your fellow man isn't starving to death they're doing all right?
Not at all. However, if they're doing pretty well....
> It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent
It may be legitimate to be upset, but that doesn't imply that it is legitmate to claim that poverty in the US is at all comparable to poverty in, say, the Sudan.
If you can't, or won't, distinguish being poor in the US from being poor elsewhere, you're either dishonest or ignorant. Which one is a reason to listen to you?
Not at all. However, if they're doing pretty well....
> It is completely legitimate for someone in the United States to be upset that Warren Buffett can make his billions while they can't make rent
It may be legitimate to be upset, but that doesn't imply that it is legitmate to claim that poverty in the US is at all comparable to poverty in, say, the Sudan.
If you can't, or won't, distinguish being poor in the US from being poor elsewhere, you're either dishonest or ignorant. Which one is a reason to listen to you?
They're not obese because they eat too much, they're obese because they can only afford shitty, carb-laden, borderline toxic food which causes insulin resistance and eventually diabetes.
Obese mice on a ton of insulin can literally starve to death without losing weight.
Obese mice on a ton of insulin can literally starve to death without losing weight.
Some of America's richest people were born to nothing (Gates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life
- His father was a prominent lawyer
- His mother served on the board of directors of a bank and the United Way
- he attended an exclusive prep school
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Early_life
- His father was a prominent lawyer
- His mother served on the board of directors of a bank and the United Way
- he attended an exclusive prep school
Wait, are you listing Bill Gates as someone who was "born to nothing"? Seriously?
The real problem with disparity in income is the disparity in political power that comes with it. As the gap between the rich and poor widens so does the gap between those who matter and those who don't.
So many people seem to conveniently ignore this fact, and yet the consequences are so evident today that you would have to be blind to deny it.
no, the rich and poor are getting richer. it's just that the rich are getting rich faster.
There are still significant parts of New York City where these sights are common.
[edit] By "these sights", I am responding to the question on where "Drug Addicted People" go. "These sights" = "Drug Addicted People" not the specific content of these pictures.
[edit] By "these sights", I am responding to the question on where "Drug Addicted People" go. "These sights" = "Drug Addicted People" not the specific content of these pictures.
I live in New York and I've never seen anything as gruesome as this photos.
Someone asked where these druggies moved after these photos were taken.
I just said there are still areas in New York City that can have these characters. I was responding to that specific question. It's not like you can't find druggies on the streets anywhere in NYC. Just because a lot of the city has cleaned itself up doesn't mean there isn't anywhere that's still in ruins.
An example: Some areas of The Bronx are still run-down, no?
I just said there are still areas in New York City that can have these characters. I was responding to that specific question. It's not like you can't find druggies on the streets anywhere in NYC. Just because a lot of the city has cleaned itself up doesn't mean there isn't anywhere that's still in ruins.
An example: Some areas of The Bronx are still run-down, no?
[deleted]
I lived in NYC during the entire period these pictures cover. Obviously not every block was like this, but the presence of 'urban decay' was undeniable. The incidence of street crime was much higher, and the general sense of potential danger was palpable.
"Taxi Driver" is an excellent depiction of the mood of the city during this era.
"Taxi Driver" is an excellent depiction of the mood of the city during this era.
Agreed. I live in New York too. I go all over the city. I have not sought out the "Worst Neighborhood", but I have been to sketchy neighborhoods in all the boroughs and nothing looks like those pictures.
care to elaborate? new york city is fascinating.
My family moved away from NYC in the late 80's because they couldn't afford to send us to the Catholic school, and the middle school that I was going to be sent to had some issues with violence. Violence like kids burning up cars with molotov cocktails.
Unfortunately, places like these still exist.
Read 'The Corner' by David Simon (creator of The Wire and Treme) if you're interested in a more modern take on the ghetto.
Take home message: the war on drugs in its current form is not working and the side effects are places like this, completely cut off from normal society, almost completely out of reach outside of an economic revival (like happened in Harlem).
Read 'The Corner' by David Simon (creator of The Wire and Treme) if you're interested in a more modern take on the ghetto.
Take home message: the war on drugs in its current form is not working and the side effects are places like this, completely cut off from normal society, almost completely out of reach outside of an economic revival (like happened in Harlem).
very familiar pictures - that was depiction of life of working people in the US in the Soviet media when i was a child.
Apparently the KGB tried to recruit the photographer, Jacob Holdt. He then tried to stop his book being used for propaganda. That probably didn't stop it from happening, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Holdt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Holdt
For some reason when I clicked this link, I assumed it would be picture of brutialist architecture [0]. Interesting photos nonetheless.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
Later in that thread there are links to other threads that include pictures of Harlem in recent times:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=404013
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=405109
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=404013
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=405109
I find it odd that this link has gained such traction. Months ago I posted a link to Holdt's original American Pictures site and it sunk like a stone. I'm sure this has happened to other people here too. No figuring out what will or won't pop.
I read the book excerpt that is linked (http://www.american-pictures.com/english/book/book-9.htm) an it's fascinating!
Three years ago people would read that and feel glad that those areas have improved. Today I read it and feel sad that we are inevitably heading back into similar days.
While fiscal issues and a good dose of gov't ineptitude are obvious, I see nothing pointing to a fall back into the abyss NYC was in ~20 yrs ago. What do you think has changed in the past 3 years that leads you to this conclusion? The gentrification of Brooklyn?
I don't see it that way at all. Disclaimer: I say this as someone from Australia who has only lived in NYC for a matter of months.
I see the fate of NYC--at least Manhattan--as being very much like that of Paris. Paris is now basically an enclave for the wealthy (in the 20 arrondisements). The people who keep the city that way live somewhere else. Singles come to the city and live in expensive cramped apartments for the Paris life.
You see the same thing happen increasingly in Manhattan.
Up until the 1960s there was (and still is) a view for NYC being for all the people, not just the rich. For this reason you have programs like rent control/stabilization so "key workers" (as they'd be called in London, which faces similar issues) can afford to live there. Up until the 1960s, NYC had a very socialist mentality. Education for NYC residents was free at NYU.
In the 1970s the golden goose that paid for all this died. Crime rose. The middle class moved to the suburbs. The tax base dropped and industry (NYC had a heavy port industry up to this point) went elsewhere, creating unemployment.
In the 70s, NYC almost went bankrupt until it was bailed out by union pension funds and ultimately the Federal government.
Starting in the late 70s with Koch and then with Guiliani the city, from my understanding, radically changed. This was due to a combination of economic change as well as a change in policing and other policies.
I think it would be fair to say that NYC--particularly Manhattan--is now largely gentrified. Where there were race riots in Alphabet City in the 80s and you'd only go to Avenue D at your own peril, now they have a Whole Foods.
Even in the 90s Times Square was the butt of many jokes from the likes of David Letterman and I can remember his standup bits often talking about the hookers in Times Square. It was up until the 80s and 90s a red light district. Now? It's basically Disneyified.
Some complain about this change, either saying the NYC has lost its grit and charm (probably true) and that NYC is no longer for all people (also possibly true), but NYC has an important constraint: the available land is limited. As the city grows, this will inevitably go up. Of course it can go down if the city is abandoned, much like parts of Baltimore have been and NYC was in the 70s and 80s.
So I see NYC as becoming America's Paris--possibly Monte Carlo. This shift if anything is hugely responsible for drops in crime. The sad fact is that crime doesn't travel far. Move the poor people elsewhere and the crime goes with them. It's why the Bronx, which has had much crime and poverty, can still have rich enclaves like Riverdale just a few miles from a ghetto.
There are huge advantages to urbanization. I don't see this trend diminishing. As people tend to move to cities, New York will grow. While it grows (or at least doesn't shrink), it will become increasingly gentrified.
This says nothing about the state of poverty in the US. You cannot take the state of NY as a barometer for that, good or bad.
I see the fate of NYC--at least Manhattan--as being very much like that of Paris. Paris is now basically an enclave for the wealthy (in the 20 arrondisements). The people who keep the city that way live somewhere else. Singles come to the city and live in expensive cramped apartments for the Paris life.
You see the same thing happen increasingly in Manhattan.
Up until the 1960s there was (and still is) a view for NYC being for all the people, not just the rich. For this reason you have programs like rent control/stabilization so "key workers" (as they'd be called in London, which faces similar issues) can afford to live there. Up until the 1960s, NYC had a very socialist mentality. Education for NYC residents was free at NYU.
In the 1970s the golden goose that paid for all this died. Crime rose. The middle class moved to the suburbs. The tax base dropped and industry (NYC had a heavy port industry up to this point) went elsewhere, creating unemployment.
In the 70s, NYC almost went bankrupt until it was bailed out by union pension funds and ultimately the Federal government.
Starting in the late 70s with Koch and then with Guiliani the city, from my understanding, radically changed. This was due to a combination of economic change as well as a change in policing and other policies.
I think it would be fair to say that NYC--particularly Manhattan--is now largely gentrified. Where there were race riots in Alphabet City in the 80s and you'd only go to Avenue D at your own peril, now they have a Whole Foods.
Even in the 90s Times Square was the butt of many jokes from the likes of David Letterman and I can remember his standup bits often talking about the hookers in Times Square. It was up until the 80s and 90s a red light district. Now? It's basically Disneyified.
Some complain about this change, either saying the NYC has lost its grit and charm (probably true) and that NYC is no longer for all people (also possibly true), but NYC has an important constraint: the available land is limited. As the city grows, this will inevitably go up. Of course it can go down if the city is abandoned, much like parts of Baltimore have been and NYC was in the 70s and 80s.
So I see NYC as becoming America's Paris--possibly Monte Carlo. This shift if anything is hugely responsible for drops in crime. The sad fact is that crime doesn't travel far. Move the poor people elsewhere and the crime goes with them. It's why the Bronx, which has had much crime and poverty, can still have rich enclaves like Riverdale just a few miles from a ghetto.
There are huge advantages to urbanization. I don't see this trend diminishing. As people tend to move to cities, New York will grow. While it grows (or at least doesn't shrink), it will become increasingly gentrified.
This says nothing about the state of poverty in the US. You cannot take the state of NY as a barometer for that, good or bad.
"I think it would be fair to say that NYC--particularly Manhattan--is now largely gentrified. Where there were race riots in Alphabet City in the 80s and you'd only go to Avenue D at your own peril, now they have a Whole Foods."
Additional tidbit. Where once (late 90s early 00's) there were bodies dropping weekly in Bushwick, Brooklyn, a block away there is a brand new 24 hour organic grocer: http://bushwickbk.com/2011/02/03/after-long-wait-hana-grocer...
Additional tidbit. Where once (late 90s early 00's) there were bodies dropping weekly in Bushwick, Brooklyn, a block away there is a brand new 24 hour organic grocer: http://bushwickbk.com/2011/02/03/after-long-wait-hana-grocer...
As a side note here's an interesting article about how technology has affected prostitution in NYC:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_sextrade/all/1
Really? What signs do you see in NYC of heading back to those days? I live pretty fearlessly in most places, and I used to take the subway late, late at night all the time. The only dangerous places are really some parts of the Bronx.
FWIW, this recent recession is currently considered an anomaly because crime rates did not go up. When the economy slowed down everyone braced for a spike in the various crime rates that seems to inevitably follow such an event, and they waited...and waited...
Some of this could be attributed to having much better opiates for the masses these days. A phone, a game console, or an old Internet-capable computer can all provide a near-limitless, cheap, side-effect-less escape. This wasn't the case in 1990 - the technologies were there but not mature and widespread.
I have a friend who is a petite white girl with blonde hair. She lives in the bronx and takes the subway home late at night. When I asked her about feeling unsafe, she said that no one harasses her and she hasn't been mugged.
[deleted]
http://gurlgoestoafrica.tumblr.com/
The author needs to read this and get a life. Stop focusing on the downsides and actually do some work. It's as though people want to entirely forget the past and merely see the present.
This post is, entirely, ignorant and racist.
The author needs to read this and get a life. Stop focusing on the downsides and actually do some work. It's as though people want to entirely forget the past and merely see the present.
This post is, entirely, ignorant and racist.
Furthermore, shame on HN for taking on the liberal agenda and feeling pity. It's one thing to point out a problem. But to point out a problem without offering a solution? This is pathetic. For the first time, I am embarrassed to be part of this community. Way to be objective like the logical type we aspire to be guys! You've really let me down by even allowing this to reach the front page. This does not help me write code better... in any way. You have exploited HN by posting, and REALLY? upvoting this kind of bullshit.
Now look at today, not so many years after and against large odds; those kids have created an international culture with music, dance, stories, poetry - a veritable complex art form that touches the lives of hundreds of millions of people all over the world and gives, gave hope to those who had nothing else. This, at least is something that a community of hackers and entrepreneurs can appreciate. That is the true message of hip hop that has been lost by the bastardizing filteration process of media and people not so intimately connected to its origins - including descendants of the visionaries, who despoil the art and see it as only a means to get rich quick and stack up on some biches. Damned Entropy.
It speaks something of both the human ability to persevere and the unique aspects of the U.S. where people in such adverse coordinates can still go on to create. such great things.
I was a teeny bit hurt (not offended) by the Cr48 warning agains't exposure to rap.
yes i am aware that rap, heck music is a subset of hip hop
self.StepOfSoapBox()