5 ms·
I guess it depends on what part of the 1900s... I grew up (also in the 70s&80s) as a "latchkey" in an area that was built in the 50s and 60s and had the same ex
by kurthr 5y ago
I guess it depends on what part of the 1900s... I grew up (also in the 70s&80s) as a "latchkey" in an area that was built in the 50s and 60s and had the same experience of walking and riding to school. This seems like a "reality TV" phenomena of the last 25 years. Certainly, there are suburban deserts that are completely unwalkable, but most housing is not like that (certainly not "affordable" housing) simply because it was built earlier. Of course this is almost entirely dependent on where you live.
https://eyeonhousing.org/2018/08/half-of-us-homes-built-before-1980/ https://eyeonhousing.org/2018/08/half-of-us-homes-built-befo...
High growth Tech areas like Seattle, San Jose, Austin, Phoenix are ~10x bigger than they were ~40 years ago. So those are much more likely to have this low density housing than Boston, SF, NYC.
What I find weird is that even completely walkable schools/neighborhoods have parents that almost all drive kids to school every day. Parents legitimately worry about being labeled as endangering their kids, if they don't drive them. Interestingly for me this is more acute for immigrant families, who are worried about fitting in, than local families who will tell the vice principal to "shove it" when warned about the dangers of walking to school.
- jasonfarnon 5y agoDoes the remark about immigrants make sense? The typical immigrant can't be more concerned about fitting in that the typical native. Because the typical native's behavior determines what "fitting in" means.
- nl 5y agoIt makes perfect sense. An immigrant trying to fit in will try to confirm to the average. An individual native who doesn't care will not care about the average.
- ctime 5y agoThere is a saying in Ireland called "More Irish than the Irish" and refers to immigrants and non-locals who take up all of the local culture to extreme (compared to the average) levels. Immigrants are statistically the most law abiding and often times, even conservative, members of a a community and it probably is one measure of long-term survival (esp. in the U.S. while living under the microscope of a work visa) so they need to go to great lengths to fit in and avoid even the appearance of impropriety - something the natives (and in all likelihood their children, if raised there) would take for granted. Meanwhile local citizens gather on the street corner protesting mask wearing or whatever nonsense they feel like.
- vimy 5y agoNot true in Western Europe. They are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics and their own communities have grown big enough that there’s no need anymore to try to fit in.
- phs318u 5y agoWhat follows is a generalisation from the Australian experience (my experience - I'm a child of first gen migrants i.e. a 2nd generation Australian). For the first generation and some of the second generation this is true. Migrants often don't know the language, and don't have pre-existing connections in the community, so they tend to cluster in areas where there are more people like them (often cheaper places to live). Working, they are more likely to work for other migrants, prolonging the "bubble" and deferring the need to integrate. This generation tends to live productive if somewhat fearful lives - "look at those locals with their degenerate customs!", "They don't like us!", "Be careful! Don't trust them! They'll take advantage!". These attitudes are of course almost exact mirrors of what the locals thing about the migrants. Attitudes primarily born of ignorance and lack of first-hand experience with the "other". The second generation - children of first gen migrants - go to school, the local language is the one they're more proficient with. Perhaps its true that this generation feels the weight of anti-immigrant feeling more than any other. Mainly because inside, they don't feel that different. They grew up here, went to school here, understand the local culture. They straddle a cultural divide. They bear the weight of anti-immigrant feeling as well as the parental expectations to stay within their original cultural norms. This is rarely achievable. This generation often achieves well due to the over-emphasis on "Get an education! We never had the chance! You have opportunity! Don't squander it!" They feel the burden to do better than their folks very acutely. For those that can't achieve academically, or in business, or in sport - they are easy prey for ethnically aligned gangs. They can "retreat" into their origin culture and use anti-immigrant sentiment to justify bad behaviour. By the third generation (e.g. my kids), a lot of the anti-immigrant feeling has moved on... to the new groups of migrants. My parents came from Southern Europe to Australia in the 60s. They were the "wogs" and "dagos" of the era. I remember being told in primary school to "go back where you came from!", which confused the hell out of me because I was born in Australia. Now, people from my ethnic origins are considered part of the wallpaper here. No one thinks of them as anything other than Australian (ok, maybe a handful of hardcore racists). In the 70s, the southern Europeans were replaced as the anti-immigrant bogeyman by the Vietnamese. Then the Lebanese. Then the Somalis. Then the Syrians. With each wave, the crime wave moves to a new group. Within a generation (or at most 2), any such spikes have dissipated.
- pvaldes 5y agoThere are many cases of immigrants saving the life of small children in trouble. Men are brain-wired to protect and rescue any children in distress. The problem is that we slowly assumed that other people is dangerous or insane by default just by a few outliers and just to be sold things. And that when you progressively restrict what people can do in a society, or everybody feels watched and judged 24/7, at some point you will start to encourage perverted conducts of escape.