Like others, it is hard for me to imagine living in Five Points or the early tenements during that time. I’m with Rebecca when she scoffs at their reluctance to build a prison because they were afraid of a cholera outbreak, when the living conditions of the people there are already much like a prison…if not worse. With so many people crammed into such tiny spaces, and treacherous stairs that have no lighting, I’m glad things are better nowadays. I thought it was funny when the old lady who has lived in New York all her life did not realize that the road was actually paved with stones. It’s revolting to think that the layer of dirt and grime can be so thick, and had accumulated for so long. The same goes for the cesspools.
As for slumming, I didn’t think that it was so bad for the people to visit Five Points. It allowed many people who are better off to be exposed to the conditions of the poor, and perhaps make them more aware of the circumstances of other people. What I think was bad was that they did not fight harder for better housing and conditions. A lot of them agreed that it was horrible, but I guess that it is because of the fact that some of those who visited Five Points felt that it was more moral degradation of the people than financial circumstances (like when the minister Pease tried to convert the tenants to Methodism). But nonetheless, I agree with Liz that the North should have taken care of Five Points before they start to criticize the conditions of slavery in the South.
Due different circumstances, a lot of later immigrants directly settle in other boroughs like Queens and Brooklyn (kind of like Brownsville in the earlier periods), and a lot of them are more dispersed. They do not settle into ethnic enclaves, as many did in the earlier periods. I find it interesting that Foner said this allows for more upward mobility than if they were to cluster in one group.
