Greg Antonelli – Response 3/1

I agree with everybody who said that conditions were deplorable in the tenements of the Five Points. The cramped conditions, the lack of plumbing, the disease etc. And while things may have improved, I’m not so sure that there are too many differences in the way poor immigrants lived then and live now. If anything, with the increased level of poverty back then in such a dense area it was easier to connect with others on a certain level. It was easier for those people to ban together and enjoy life even though they lived in bad conditions. I don’t think modern night clubs are very poor friendly. Meanwhile night clubs and music and drunken good times were a staple in the life of rich and poor alike. I think it’s kind of funny how the rich would delve into the Five Points for a glimpse of what poorer life was like. It’s interesting to think how they probably equated it to visiting a zoo. They wanted to see these animals, the poor, in their natural habitat. I disagree with some people on the idea that the rich should have fought some crusade to completely fix the Five Points. I’m not against philanthropy but in this case, with such a dense population of poor folk in a concentrated area, who were all having fun, drinking, fornicating, etc., it’s hard to believe that all of them were trying as hard as they can to break free of there situations. It;s not up to the rich to help a group of people who seem unwilling to help themselves.
When it comes to the south calling out the north on the Five Points in response to the north’s feelings on slavery, I think that was just a scape goat. I feel the problems in the Five Points paled in comparison to the issue of slavery. In the Five Points, the poor knew how to have a good time. They were constantly drunk, sleeping around, etc. Even though the living conditions were terrible, where they that much better for the slaves. The Five Point poor population at least had freedom.
As for agreeing with Liz, I agree with Toni-Ann.