3 ms·

Its my impression from the histories I've read of my city (Chicago) that black people certainly didn't have 6 miles of uninterrupted neighborhoods where it woul

Its my impression from the histories I've read of my city (Chicago) that black people certainly didn't have 6 miles of uninterrupted neighborhoods where it would be safe for them to meander in. Further, Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans were still very much segregated into smaller enclaves than that. The Irish were only recently able to move about freely at that point, and there were certainly places they couldn't go. The larger point of this article seems to be, rural people have more space, which doesn't seem to have much value as an observation.

pvg 10y ago
I think the point of the article is that, societally, we are perhaps too focused on children's safety to the point of depriving them of some perfectly harmless freedom. The argument is not, as you seem to interpret it, strictly geometric. In the 20s, the world was far less safe for children yet far more independence and agency was required of many of them. I'm sure not every shoeshine or newspaper boy was engaging in these activities in their ethnic ghetto.
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  I guess I just don't understand the point of the article. To me it seems an indictment of current parenting modes, based on the amount of geometric freedom allowed a very small subset of the population in comparison to the amount of geometric freedom allowed another, different very small subset of the population. I guess what I'm saying is, its a pretty ridiculous article that doesn't line up with reality now or then.
  - pvg 10y ago
    It's anecdotal but it doesn't seem that ridiculous, at least, not in the face of your criticism which seems to be 'think of the disadvantaged kids'. Disadvantaged kids may have had even greater constraints and lived in a more dangerous world but that's a point in favour of the article - they had to get around and so did anyway. I'm going straight to hell for using this as an example in a pointless forum argument but since we got here (and I'm rationalizing it to myself that it's somehow your fault, sorry) - Emmett Till's mother put him on a train in Chicago and sent him, by himself, to visit relatives in Mississippi. At age 14 he was expected not only to travel solo cross-country but to safely navigate an actually dangerous, pointedly racist world. The demands on disadvantaged kids were even greater but the fact that they couldn't ride their bikes to the municipal pool doesn't mean they just sat at home under the watchful eye of their governess.
    - kasey_junk 10y ago
      So this actually gets to 2 different readings of the point of the article. One reading, the one that maybe I'm reading into it, is that parents now are viewing the world as more dangerous than it is, and are ignoring the dangers that existed in the past to get to this viewpoint. This viewpoint is then informing their view about what is appropriate for their children. That is, I took the anecdote to mean, parents are misjudging the risks currently and were viewing the past to be less risky than it was. The other viewpoint, which I think you are presenting is, parents now don't have any different assessment of the risks, they just have less appetite for risk. Given that interpretation, I'll buy the lesson of the anecdote is just have more appetite for risk.
      - pvg 10y ago
        Oh! Are you not familiar with the 'free range kids' people? They've been in the news a few times over the last few years. Their thing is that this is a better way to parent and they're being unreasonably prevented from doing so by social norms and often laws. Without that context the article probably looks a lot weirder than it is.

pvg 10y ago

I think the point of the article is that, societally, we are perhaps too focused on children's safety to the point of depriving them of some perfectly harmless freedom. The argument is not, as you seem to interpret it, strictly geometric. In the 20s, the world was far less safe for children yet far more independence and agency was required of many of them. I'm sure not every shoeshine or newspaper boy was engaging in these activities in their ethnic ghetto.

kasey_junk 10y ago
I guess I just don't understand the point of the article. To me it seems an indictment of current parenting modes, based on the amount of geometric freedom allowed a very small subset of the population in comparison to the amount of geometric freedom allowed another, different very small subset of the population. I guess what I'm saying is, its a pretty ridiculous article that doesn't line up with reality now or then.
- pvg 10y ago
  It's anecdotal but it doesn't seem that ridiculous, at least, not in the face of your criticism which seems to be 'think of the disadvantaged kids'. Disadvantaged kids may have had even greater constraints and lived in a more dangerous world but that's a point in favour of the article - they had to get around and so did anyway. I'm going straight to hell for using this as an example in a pointless forum argument but since we got here (and I'm rationalizing it to myself that it's somehow your fault, sorry) - Emmett Till's mother put him on a train in Chicago and sent him, by himself, to visit relatives in Mississippi. At age 14 he was expected not only to travel solo cross-country but to safely navigate an actually dangerous, pointedly racist world. The demands on disadvantaged kids were even greater but the fact that they couldn't ride their bikes to the municipal pool doesn't mean they just sat at home under the watchful eye of their governess.
  - kasey_junk 10y ago
    So this actually gets to 2 different readings of the point of the article. One reading, the one that maybe I'm reading into it, is that parents now are viewing the world as more dangerous than it is, and are ignoring the dangers that existed in the past to get to this viewpoint. This viewpoint is then informing their view about what is appropriate for their children. That is, I took the anecdote to mean, parents are misjudging the risks currently and were viewing the past to be less risky than it was. The other viewpoint, which I think you are presenting is, parents now don't have any different assessment of the risks, they just have less appetite for risk. Given that interpretation, I'll buy the lesson of the anecdote is just have more appetite for risk.
    - pvg 10y ago
      Oh! Are you not familiar with the 'free range kids' people? They've been in the news a few times over the last few years. Their thing is that this is a better way to parent and they're being unreasonably prevented from doing so by social norms and often laws. Without that context the article probably looks a lot weirder than it is.