> How can you be promoting the life of the poor in the 19th century when so many of them didn’t eat every day? Well yeah, it’s bad, but is it really any worse than the situation today when everybody’s fed but you have an incredible percentage of New Yorkers who live in the shelter system – including people who have regular jobs?
For somebody who's an expert on this, I'm shocked at such a reduction. Infant mortality rates, for example, are more important to me than awesome jazz clubs.
>For somebody who's an expert on this, I'm shocked at such a reduction. Infant mortality rates, for example, are more important to me than awesome jazz clubs.
"Shocked" at what? It's not like he said today's people should live in 19th century conditions to create better jazz.
If "infant mortality" rates shock you, then there are much better targets than a historian talking about jazz clubs in old times. Like the fact that the US, for all its wealth, resources and technology, lags behinds far too many modern countries in infant mortality reduction, and what should be done to change that.
If anything when he says "is it really any worse than the situation today when everybody’s fed but you have an incredible percentage of New Yorkers who live in the shelter system" he's really addressing this issue, that there's far too many things to fix even now.
I can see where the author is coming from and it is all well expressed, but I can't see how this is anything but "a romanticised vision"; contrary to what he claims.
If I had to choose between going hungry and living in a shelter but with food to eat, I'd most certainly choose the latter. If you aren't in that exact situation though, it would seem bad enough.
Sante also laments how security leads to a decline of liberal lifestyle. Well that's true and it might seem like a (terrible) loss, but only for men. Women are able to experience the world better today, thanks to somewhat better security.
Crimes against women have gone down significantly in the last 40 years. Comparing rape incidents per 1000 people in the US, it went down from 2.5 to 0.5 between 1970 and 2000.
So, the author is only seeing one side. It could well be that the situation has improved overall.
For somebody who's an expert on this, I'm shocked at such a reduction. Infant mortality rates, for example, are more important to me than awesome jazz clubs.