When our class discussed what draws immigrants to places like New York, one of our best-agreed-upon answers was the economic opportunity and relatively high standard of living that such cities supposedly have to offer…. which is obviously pretty hard to reconcile with the images of squalid tenement life painted in this week’s readings.  Foner tries to trace some of the transition from poverty-ravaged tenement neighborhoods into their modern counterparts, but the transformation is still pretty hard to wrap one’s head around.

To jump in on this capitalism debate bandwagon, I have to agree with Jessica that the horrors of places like mid-19th century Five Points were more about the lack of regulatory legislation than capitalism per se (and anyway, it’s not like socialism somehow wipes out greed).

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.

Like Rebecca, I also felt that I was receiving contradictory messages regarding immigration. When the immigrants first began to live in New York, did it truly seem worth the effort they had exerted to come? The filthy conditions were absolutely horrifying…not to mention the amount of immortality swarming the streets of Five Points. I was also bothered by the fact that the low-class neighborhood became a tourist attraction and the source of business for writers—instead of having those citizens promote health in that area. It seems as if they stood by and observed them suffering, as if they were encaged in an isolated world. Of course, not everyone, but still, there were those people who were capable yet they did not assist those so desperately in need—people who were literally bordering on the edge of almost an animalistic society. While it is simple to analyze history in retrospect and criticize past misdeeds, I can’t say that on a national level, we, Americans, are constantly actively aiding the third-world countries. Certainly America intervenes, to some degree, in promoting life in such countries, but life in those locations isn’t exactly top-notch…no where close. I feel that, in a way, we too are acting like those well-off citizens observing and being appalled at the horrible conditions of the less fortunate, yet aren’t exactly making enormous changes. I agree with ToniAnn, in that it is difficult to relate to those who are so different from us, in terms of economic, social, and political stature. I think that is the reason for irresponsive behavior towards another’s adversity. This also explains why the poor helped each other out; they shared each others’ pain and lacking.

Perhaps the reason why the immigrants continued to endure these revolting conditions and demeaning lifestyle was because they were determined to achieve a better future. They had struggled tirelessly to escape their home-country, they underwent the unpleasant journey to arrive at their destination, and they had finally, finally made it. Living this kind of substandard life, they hit the bedrock of lowliness. I guess that the only direction from there seemed to point upward, and they still had the painted image of the Golden Land lingering in their minds. It was now that they had to materialize the dreams they had dreamt for such an incredibly long time. So, they persevered.

At least we know that they did take pleasure in life to the smallest degree. Anbinder in Chapter 1 mentions that once the commercial and residential neighborhoods were separate from each other, the employees had more freedom, because their employers were not constantly supervising them during after-hours. They spent their leisure time in they way they chose—on their own.

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.

It was pretty interesting/scary to read about the tenements in Five Points. Interesting because I never realized how horrible the conditions actually were for residents living there, and scary because it made me wonder about the world outside of my rural/suburban neighborhood. Back then, the upper classes would go visit these slums as a form of entertainment. Like other people have mentioned, this is pretty sad, as we see no humanity in their actions. However as ToniAnn said, it probably was hard for the richer people to understand what the poor were going through. Furthermore besides donations here and there, they really couldn’t have changed the whole system of tenements; government intervention would have probably been required. It’s similar to today because individual people can donate to different charities helping the poor but a bigger solution is required. Additionally people in today’s world go to different third world countries just to look at how the inhabitants live. However just because they are in a different country doesn’t mean its just to study their poor living conditions. We see this practice is pretty common for tourists but then again what can they really do to help them? Nothing really, but it still doesn’t justify their fascination with the situation.

Calling the conditions of the tenements disgusting would be euphemizing the reality; they were not disgusting but inhumane. I don’t understand how it was legal for them to even live there! Like Rebecca mentioned, if they found it unfit for prisoners to live there how did they think that these workers were living? I guess it’s just that people tried to ignore certain issues such as the disturbing conditions of the tenements so they didn’t feel bad about not doing anything. Again we still see this today. Like all others, I too often forget the privileges I have not only living in this country but also at this time in history.

Also each political system has its own flaws as Liz points out and no system is perfect. However, in capitalism selfishness and greed become a major factor as people become obsessed with power. However it would be wrong to say people are inherently bad, it’s just that sometimes we forget to look at the more important issues in life while focusing on meaningless ones. This becomes a huge problem but is easily solved by education and awareness.

The tenements in Five Points were a place where people living in America probably cant even dream of. We shouldn’t be quick to overlook what new immigrants had to go through so their future generations would have a safe and secure place to live. We also shouldn’t overlook what underprivileged people around the world are going through as we write these blogs at this very moment.

There is definitely a stark contrast between life more than one hundred years ago and life today, as many people already highlighted. The basic necessities which we have now, such as indoor plumbing that actually functions and insulation from the cold and heat outside, was a luxury that only the rich and elite could obtain and afford. The immigrants lived in impoverished tenements with many people crowded together in a tiny apartment. What bothered me when I was reading was the fact that outsiders and the rich described the conditions of the Five Points tenements as horrendous, yet they didn’t do anything. Instead, it became a spectacle for outsiders to get a glimpse of slum life.

One thing that I did admire in the readings, as Rebecca mentioned, was the fact that the immigrants were kind to each other and formed communities to support one another. In Brownsville, Pritchett describes how the Jewish immigrants created organizations to help others in their neighborhood, like the Hebrew Ladies Day Nursery that opened day cares or the Melbish Arum Society which collected clothes for poor children. So even though though the immigrants went through difficult times, they had each other.

While immigration has definitiely changed since the late 1800s and early 1900s, there are still some similarities. For example, Foner mentions how immigrants still tend to settle within similar ethnic groups or nationalities, which is understandable because they would feel more comfortable and have some common traits with each other.

Bringing up capitalism again, was it really the cause of poverty in these neighborhoods? Like Liz, I don’t believe capitalism is entrely at fault, although it probably did have an influence. It gives someone the opportunity to improve economically, but unfortunately, most of the immigrants were unble to do so because of low-paying jobs. But I don’t believe that socialism would have alleviated the problem either.

As most people before me have said, the conditions in the tenements were horrible. Immigrants were always looked down on, no matter what. The thing I found most incredible was probably in Anbinder’s book, when he was saying that the most expensive rent in the neighborhood was around $7. SEVEN DOLLARS?!?!! FOR WHAT?!?! These people had nothing. At all. Not even the bare necessities. No bathrooms, no beds, no running water, or heat in the winter. My first thought when I read this part was, “I wish I could go back to that time with the money I have now and buy a bunch of houses.” Then I realized how terrible the conditions were.

As Liz points out in her Spark, the fact that blacks and whites lived together peacefully was amazing. Even though they were constantly drinking, dancing, and prostituting themselves, they still lived and slept in the same tenemants, even sometimes the same bed in the same room. It was cruel of the rich white people to go “slumming” in these neighborhoods, looking down at and pitying the immigrants living in terrible conditions. But what did they do about it? That’s right. Nothing. Not a thing.

About the whole capitalist/socialist debate, I’m not too great with these terms, but America is and has always been a capitalist society. We depend on money. We THRIVE on it. In the books, as well as in present day life, it is impossible to get anywhere in life without money.

I agree with both Liz and Rebecca when they describe their disgust with the conditions of the town of Five Points. It’s absolutely awful that immigrants came to New York with the idea of living a better life, and instead faced an outbreak of cholera. The streets of the city were unsanitary, and the tenements were so much worse. Anbinder explains that tenement dwellers tracked dirt into the tenements from the street, and often worse the same clothing for many days. They did not have proper bathrooms and plumbing, The outhouses were so dirty, and no one wanted to be responsible for cleaning the bathrooms, so people often decided to use chamber pots instead; however, they weren’t frequently emptied.

In Brownsville, Brooklyn, Pritchett shows another side to immigration. Sure the land was wanting and expensive in Brownsville, and as a result, people were cramped into small buildings. On the flip side, however, Brooklyn was referred to as the suburbs when compared to Manhattan. Contrary to Anbinder’s negative point of view towards the living conditions of immigrants, Pritchett chose to focus on the activities and institutions of the neighborhood. He describes the first synagogues erected, and the organizations formed, for example, Sanger’s Birth Control Clinic and the Hebrew Educational Society.

As Liz and Rebecca mentioned, the dwellers of Brownsville, Brooklyn, adopted socialist, rather than capitalist, ideals and practices. Although the “remote” location of the neighborhood allowed the tenement owners to evade inspection, unions became rampant in the neighborhood. These unions worked to ensure proper living and working conditions. Although the socialist politicians of the area promoted the rights of the lay people, the neighborhood had its fair share of crime. Abe Reles and his gang of friends were notable criminals, forming a mob of people arrested many times.

It was also interesting to note the effect of religion on the lives of the Brownsville immigrants. Pritchett notes that many Jews ceased to observe the Sabbath as it interfered with their work schedules that they felt were essential to their success in America. Still, they came and settled in the neighborhood together since new immigrants looked to meet up with people they know from their countries back home.  In later years, other groups joined the Jews in Brownsville, although the intergroup relations were not always amicable.

Like all the others have mentioned, reading about the horrible conditions of the tenements where the immigrants had to live and survive daily was very disturbing and hard to imagine. There was no place to sleep, no place to go to the bathroom, nothing to eat – everyone was crammed into an extremely small area which was supposed to be there “home.” Living in such place is definitely not what these immigrants wanted or were looking forward to. Like Liz said, this was not the”Disneyfied” life the immigrantsleft their home country for. The immigrants took upon a painful journey just to experience even more painful living conditions, and not the life in America that they expected.

The concept of “slumming” was actually very interesting. I was dissapointed with the fact that the rich and better off individuals went to Five Points just to observe the wild animals- like Praveena mentioned. Its a shame that people would go on tours just to see how these individuals lived knowing that it is a tragic lifestyle. Obviously, watching these people live in such horrible conditions the tourists felt good about themselves. The term “self-fulfilling prophecy” also mentioned by Praveena, is exactly what came to my mind. Unfortunately, no matter how low and shameful this act of “slumming” is, we still see this happening. Although, people do visit other countries for their famous attractions, they also visit the poorer parts of the country for the same reason that people visited Five Points.

Five Points was a part of history that was horrifying for the new immigrants coming to America for a better life. Nevertheless, the similarities between the residents brought them together in various social ways which made the terrible conditions they lived in less painful.

Like many others, I agree with Elizabeth when she mentioned that capitalism is not completely to blame for the atrocities faced by immigrants in the early 20th century.  I think that the problem, as Anbinder mentioned, was the government’s “Laissez-faire” mentality during that time.  The concept of survival of the fittest became the government and the people’s justification to just let their own people virtually live and rot in their own filth!   Government intervention is crucial to an economic system based on competition- not necessarily because of the innate greed of humankind, but perhaps because of the greed of those with too much power.

Like others have mentioned, Anbinder’s chapters as a whole were fascinating, albeit depressing and morbid.  Anbinder does such an amazing job of creating a window to the past- not the romanticized version of immigration Elizabeth quoted from Foner.  I sometimes go to Pearl Paint in the city, an art store that I think was built from a tenement.  The building has 6 floors or so, and I have climbed up the entire staircase before. I don’t think I will ever view it in the same light again- not after reading of the immigrants’ struggle to stay alive in such buildings.

Foner’s survey of modern immigration was also very interesting, and it expanded on what piqued my interest last week.  It is shocking to learn of the disparity between newcomers to the city now and 100 years ago.  Like others have mentioned, these readings really help me appreciate what I have now- that running water, heat, and food on the table are things so many of us take for granted without really seeing the full picture of what our ancestors went through!