How The Other Half Lives 24, 25:
Something that I noticed while reading these chapters was Riis' focus on business and capitalism to fix the problem of the poor in the tenements. He states that the Law acts out of a "desire to educate rather than force the community into a better way". His critique is that the government is acting too slowly in their intervention. The US government at this time like many other nations, was following the notion of laissez-faire capitalism, which, as the French means, a hands off approach to most things, including business and social-economical trends in the population.
Though this may seem the argument of a socialist, Riis takes a different turn, "The business of housing the poor, if it is to amount to anything, must be business, as it was business with our fathers to put them where they are. As charity, pastime, or fad, it will miserably fail, always and everywhere". Though we consider Riis and his fellow muck-rakers as progressives, he is actually following again with the prescribed traditions of his time.
He obviously wants the poor to be helped, but he understands their problem in a capitalist mindset. Riis cannot go beyond the bonds of the system, whether or not he can mentally ascertain a different system or that he is just following standards to connect more easily to his audience. He's writing to a middle class audience, many of whom buy into the system to make money, and cannot turn them away with a new idea that would destroy their social class and position.
So is Riis doing this intentionally? Or is he simply the result of the system in which he exists?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Losing My Religion
How the Other Half Lives 9, 10, 12, 13:
I found it interesting the parallels that Riis draws between race and religion.
"John Chinaman", as Riis so racistly puts it, follows no faith (according to Riis who is obviously ignoring Confucianism, Taoism, or Buddhism) because their "gentle teachings" are "beyond his grasp". Again he is reinforcing the contemporary notion of racial hierarchy, in which the Asians occupy the bottom rung. He continues to say that it is impossible for them to understand Christianity and if "he adopts [it] at all [...]" it is for an "ulterior motive", one of scam or thrift. This stereotyping is typical of the time considering the age of imperialism and colonialism in which Riis writes.
The next group he goes to are the Jewish people, set apart from everyone in race and religion. When discussing the schools that teach the Talmud he states that the professor's "native instinct for money making having been smothered in the process that has made him a learned man". Again the Jewish people are seen as vulture-like, parasitic creatures on society, who exist for the sake of "thrift", and swindling others out of their money. It seems strange then that Riis states he is tryng to bring awareness to their situation for the purpose of improving it. Riis is obviously more guided by his racist "native instinct" then that of a progressive individual.
Finally he comes to the Bohemians who are "Roman Catholics by birth, infidels by necessity, and Protestants by history and inclination". The Germans and others of their genealogy are the most physically and culturally similar to the WASPs of the new world, and yet they are still vilified. For Riis it seems to be not only a question of race and religion but also social class that makes the people groups valuable to soceity.
Is there anything else worth noting in Riis' work other than his racism and protrayal of racial groups?
Bye,
Jon
I found it interesting the parallels that Riis draws between race and religion.
"John Chinaman", as Riis so racistly puts it, follows no faith (according to Riis who is obviously ignoring Confucianism, Taoism, or Buddhism) because their "gentle teachings" are "beyond his grasp". Again he is reinforcing the contemporary notion of racial hierarchy, in which the Asians occupy the bottom rung. He continues to say that it is impossible for them to understand Christianity and if "he adopts [it] at all [...]" it is for an "ulterior motive", one of scam or thrift. This stereotyping is typical of the time considering the age of imperialism and colonialism in which Riis writes.
The next group he goes to are the Jewish people, set apart from everyone in race and religion. When discussing the schools that teach the Talmud he states that the professor's "native instinct for money making having been smothered in the process that has made him a learned man". Again the Jewish people are seen as vulture-like, parasitic creatures on society, who exist for the sake of "thrift", and swindling others out of their money. It seems strange then that Riis states he is tryng to bring awareness to their situation for the purpose of improving it. Riis is obviously more guided by his racist "native instinct" then that of a progressive individual.
Finally he comes to the Bohemians who are "Roman Catholics by birth, infidels by necessity, and Protestants by history and inclination". The Germans and others of their genealogy are the most physically and culturally similar to the WASPs of the new world, and yet they are still vilified. For Riis it seems to be not only a question of race and religion but also social class that makes the people groups valuable to soceity.
Is there anything else worth noting in Riis' work other than his racism and protrayal of racial groups?
Bye,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)