Increasing trashiness of the poor and working class?

Apr 2018
701
Upland, Sweden
#71
In the '60s social scientists were claiming that the suburbs would be the death of culture and individualism, while celebrating the urban high rise "Projects" public housing as the fruition of mankind. LOL, man, they got that backwards.
Haha, well social scientists often seem to have quite a lot of things backwards

Also, clustering people together like ants is a great way to make social (and therefore also individual) distinctions dissappear and everyone become "equal". Perhaps I am a cynic but I have a slight gut-feeling that's really what these social scientists wanted, and lookes upon as the "fruition" of mankind. If you wanted to be even more cynical you could also say that people are a lot easier to rule when they start acting like one big mass...

Come to think of it, isn't it a bit of trend in most US inner-cities (it certainly is over here in our semi-urban commie-blocks) of the same party being in power for decades...?
 
Jul 2016
8,405
USA
#72
Haha, well social scientists often seem to have quite a lot of things backwards

Also, clustering people together like ants is a great way to make social (and therefore also individual) distinctions dissappear and everyone become "equal". Perhaps I am a cynic but I have a slight gut-feeling that's really what these social scientists wanted, and lookes upon as the "fruition" of mankind. If you wanted to be even more cynical you could also say that people are a lot easier to rule when they start acting like one big mass...

Come to think of it, isn't it a bit of trend in most US inner-cities (it certainly is over here in our semi-urban commie-blocks) of the same party being in power for decades...?
Yes, a specific political party essentially controls every single major urban center in the USA, and by controlling those urban centers, which often hold massive populations, they often end up controlling the states as well. And yes, most of the social scientists share the ideology of that political party. And unfortuantely, that political party is only growing more powerful, as they continue to buy voting blocks by acting as the savior of the oppressed, while themselves being largely responsible for much of society's woes in the first place.

I'm really looking forward to American Civil War 2.0. I'm going to have a blast. :)
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,952
San Antonio, Tx
#73
FDR did not get the US out of the Depression, WW2 did. FDR actually extended the Depression.
Not true. In 1937 FDR relaxed some of his New Deal Measures and the economy - which had been recovering well - started to backslide once more. FDR fairly quickly reimposed some of the measures he had relaxed and the economy returned to recovery once again.

Of course the war in Europe eventually became a huge stimulant over and above the ecovery mode it was already in, but the economy was wall on its way by then. It’s a myth that WW2 was the reason the US economy recovered from the Great Depression.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,952
San Antonio, Tx
#74
Haha, well social scientists often seem to have quite a lot of things backwards

Also, clustering people together like ants is a great way to make social (and therefore also individual) distinctions dissappear and everyone become "equal". Perhaps I am a cynic but I have a slight gut-feeling that's really what these social scientists wanted, and lookes upon as the "fruition" of mankind. If you wanted to be even more cynical you could also say that people are a lot easier to rule when they start acting like one big mass...

Come to think of it, isn't it a bit of trend in most US inner-cities (it certainly is over here in our semi-urban commie-blocks) of the same party being in power for decades...?
I doubt this. For the most part, US Municipal Elections are not always partisan (as in Democrat vs Republican) at all, although in some locations they are. Partisan politics don’t always apply very well to municipal issues - needing more sewers isn‘t a partisan issue, usually.
 
Jan 2017
1,159
Durham
#75
So this is for a North American context only, but is it a fair thing to say that the poor and the lower half of the working class have gotten a lot trashier generally speaking in the way they carry themselves since the 50s? Ok this may be offensive to the liberal people here, but when you look at period photos from the 30s, or from the turn of the century, for lack of a better term, the poor and the working class just generally seems to dress and carry themselves better, compared to the type of people you see in the people of Walmart, even among the lumpenproletariat in the Depression years ,or the early 1900s, or maybe this is just conservative elitism?
'The poor' and the 'working class' are not synonymous.

I would consider myself to be working class, born and bred in a mining village in the North East of England, but I'm not poor.

Working class is a state of mind, values you cherish, not a reflection of income/wage - at least in England anyway.

In terms of your post, I would argue the opposite. Since the 1980s England has become a nation that has lost much of its internal tribal identities, and unfortunately the working classes have become more like the middle classes.
 
Apr 2018
701
Upland, Sweden
#76
'The poor' and the 'working class' are not synonymous.

I would consider myself to be working class, born and bred in a mining village in the North East of England, but I'm not poor.

Working class is a state of mind, values you cherish, not a reflection of income/wage - at least in England anyway.

In terms of your post, I would argue the opposite. Since the 1980s England has become a nation that has lost much of its internal tribal identities, and unfortunately the working classes have become more like the middle classes.
Interesting post.

Why do you think it is unfortunate that the working classes have become more like the middle classes - and in what sense do you mean that they have done so? Have they adopted middle class hypocricy to too great a degree, and become afraid of an honest day's work? (I am being honest here, and not sarcastic.)
 
Jan 2017
1,159
Durham
#78
Interesting post.

Why do you think it is unfortunate that the working classes have become more like the middle classes - and in what sense do you mean that they have done so? Have they adopted middle class hypocricy to too great a degree, and become afraid of an honest day's work? (I am being honest here, and not sarcastic.)
There's an energy about the working class that doesn't exist in the middle class. So, in England, bands, football, social movements and so on were borne out of the working class. At the same time, there was an unruly element to the working class, but that spark that created much of any popular entertainment worth having, and the unruly behaviour, were two sides of the same coin - couldn't have one without the other.

The Middle Class aren't afraid of an honest day's work, it's more that they simply hold different values which leads people who mix in those circles down a different path.

It's unfortunate because we've now become a nation which generally conforms with Consumerism and we've lost some of that creative spark, and of course old traditions which were so important for identity.
 
Jul 2016
8,405
USA
#79
source for tis claim.
'The urban gentry and intelligentsia, though, disdained this voluntary migration. Perhaps the most bitter critic was the great urbanist Jane Jacobs. An aficionado of the old, highly diverse urban districts of Manhattan, Jacobs not only hated trendsetter Los Angeles but dismissed the bedroom communities of Queens and Staten Island with the memorable phrase, “The Great Blight of Dullness.” The 1960s social critic William Whyte, who, unlike Jacobs, at least bothered to study suburbs close up, denounced them as hopelessly conformist and stultifying. Like many later critics, he predicted in Fortune that people and companies would tire of them and return to the city core.'

Why Do We Hate the Suburbs?

I'll get the other one later.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,485
#80
'The urban gentry and intelligentsia, though, disdained this voluntary migration. Perhaps the most bitter critic was the great urbanist Jane Jacobs. An aficionado of the old, highly diverse urban districts of Manhattan, Jacobs not only hated trendsetter Los Angeles but dismissed the bedroom communities of Queens and Staten Island with the memorable phrase, “The Great Blight of Dullness.” The 1960s social critic William Whyte, who, unlike Jacobs, at least bothered to study suburbs close up, denounced them as hopelessly conformist and stultifying. Like many later critics, he predicted in Fortune that people and companies would tire of them and return to the city core.'

Why Do We Hate the Suburbs?

I'll get the other one later.
This is an extrmely light weight article. Jane Jacobs was NOT against suburbs, she was against dominitary suburbans, monoculture of commuters. She was also against High Rise.

You got some social scientists types celebrating High Rise? High Rise seems to come form the confluence of Architects , Developers (making money) and Government (saving money)