We need a 19th century mentality

[beenthru6]

I was just thinking about how different people are today and how few people know or often even care about their neighbors. Back before and around the turn of the century people helped each other and cared for each other on a daily basis, not only when a tragedy happened, but all year long. Communities banded together during the hard times, celebrated during the good times and knew they had only each other to rely on. Churches were also the "glue" that kept people connected and were central in caring for their congregations (especially the infirmed and elderly). People didn't look to gov't to take care of them. Our grandparents were always prepared for any hardship, and knew how to weather the bad times and the tragedies that seemed to come out of nowhere.

I am not at all saying that we shouldn't expect the gov't to come in with the many resources that (Thank God they have), but I think this tragedy has proven that in times like this, we as communities/families/individuals need to do whatever we can to be better prepared and realize that the gov't isn't going to show up within a day or so and save us. Sometimes "modern thinking and attitudes" isn't the best way to go.
Just doing some random thinking today, and feeling very helpless.

[themusk]

I was just thinking about how different people are today and how few people know or often even care about their neighbors. Back before and around the turn of the century people helped each other and cared for each other on a daily basis, not only when a tragedy happened, but all year long. Communities banded together during the hard times, celebrated during the good times and knew they had only each other to rely on. Churches were also the "glue" that kept people connected and were central in caring for their congregations (especially the infirmed and elderly). People didn't look to gov't to take care of them. Our grandparents were always prepared for any hardship, and knew how to weather the bad times and the tragedies that seemed to come out of nowhere.

I am not at all saying that we shouldn't expect the gov't to come in with the many resources that (Thank God they have), but I think this tragedy has proven that in times like this, we as communities/families/individuals need to do whatever we can to be better prepared and realize that the gov't isn't going to show up within a day or so and save us. Sometimes "modern thinking and attitudes" isn't the best way to go.
Just doing some random thinking today, and feeling very helpless.

There are critical social differences between then and now that make a return to that sort of community unlikely.

Mobility is much increased, and it is not unusual for people to move frequently, for their friends to move frequently, and for their extended family to be scattered over thousands of miles.

Modern media has meant that community members rarely meet together with the frequency or intensity that they once did.

The speed of technology has turned things on their head. Once, when puzzled by a problem with the technology of the day, one might consult with someone older, perhaps one's father or grandfather, for a solution. Now, persons in the same position are more likely to consult with their children. There's much less intergenerational interdependence.

Finally, your portrayal of the 19th century is a bit too rosy. The real, historical, 19th century had a rate of crime that makes our inner cities look peaceable and harmonious, rampant drug addiction and drunkenness (and the consequent broken homes), orphanages that were little better than a death sentence, and much less religiosity than you seem to suggest in your post.

[beenthru6]

Well, since I don't live in a major city, I was more referring to smaller communities. Granted, New York city in the 19th century with all of its' immigrants being so poor and crowded together,it was a hellhole in many places. But, many communities did do a good job of looking out for each other. All I was trying to say was I think communities could do a better job of connecting and caring for each other than they are doing now. I certainly don't think we can return to a time where all your extended family is together in one place, only that if we had more of a sense of how many cared for each other back then, things would be so much easier on the elderly and the poor and disabled. I just think it is very sad that people are so suspicious of each other and really don't care to connect with most of their neighbors.

[themusk]

Well, since I don't live in a major city, I was more referring to smaller communities. Granted, New York city in the 19th century with all of its' immigrants being so poor and crowded together,it was a hellhole in many places. But, many communities did do a good job of looking out for each other. All I was trying to say was I think communities could do a better job of connecting and caring for each other than they are doing now. I certainly don't think we can return to a time where all your extended family is together in one place, only that if we had more of a sense of how many cared for each other back then, things would be so much easier on the elderly and the poor and disabled. I just think it is very sad that people are so suspicious of each other and really don't care to connect with most of their neighbors.

I don't live in a big city either The rural communities of the 19th century were not much better than those urban communities, and all of the problems I cited were typical of those smaller communities, especially, though not exclusively, those of the West.

The drug problem exploded after the Civil War, and affected every community. In fact, did you know that Sears Roebuck, after the development of heroin, sold a heroin user's kit in its famous catalog?

Crime in many ways was much worse in rural areas, where there was no protection in numbers. It wasn't for no reason at all that many a "gentleman" carried a weapon, and that coaches traveling from town to town had someone riding shotgun.

[Persepone]

I agree with several posters that the portrait of the 19th century is much too rosy. People were people in the past--and there were, like today, good ones, bad ones, smart ones, stupid ones, etc.

Having said that, I do think that it is more difficult today than it was even 50 years ago.

For one thing, 50 years ago, people were less afraid of offending with their views, less afraid to take action, less afraid. Without making a judgment about whether this was "better" or "worse" than today--it was "different." So people did often take action more quickly because I think they did not feel that they needed as much "permission" and I think they felt that actions would somehow be judged on intentions, etc. Sadly, this is no longer true today.

Many with a feeling of helplessness watched TV with growing horror and said, "hey, we need to do something." And many said, "hey I don't have money to donate that will make a difference--or perhaps they said, hey, I need every penny to feed my own kids--and I, like those I'm watching, don't own a car, etc. In fact, there are probably millions who watched the unfolding horror and said, "There But For The Grace of God Go I." "If the hurricane had hit Chicago, Bridgeport, CT, or Niles, Ohio or a hundred other cities in the US--perhaps 1000 other cities in the US--it would have been a similar tragedy... Perhaps this is why, in the end, you see so much generosity from people who seem to the those least able to afford it. There are people who literally share out their lunch--they have just enough lunch money budgeted to get through the week and they give it to the Red Cross and don't eat lunch that week--they know what it is to be hungry themselves, so they have a very real bond with what they are seeing.

But... we are told, "no we don't want you giving us clothing out of your wardrobe, food out of your pantry, toys your child has played with, etc." Cash only! It's discouraging... I know of women here who have wonderful "work wardrobes" in closets--and they retired a year or two ago so they will never wear those work clothes again. It's too bad no one wants them donated, because perhaps somewhere out there is a person who can't get the job because they don't fit the corporation's "image." But if all you got out with were the clothes on your back, perhaps you would not turn your nose up at the silk blouses, the tailored suits, the nice shoes that only were worn once or twice, etc.

Alas, sometimes we find that even our friends find our offer of something we have "used" however gently insulting. So when the Red Cross or some other group says, no we don't want your junk, we sadly retreat.

There was a time when many would not have thought about sharing their homes... But just as the websites went up to coordinate "house sharing" we were warned that perhaps they are not legitimate, perhaps they are phishing for your social security number or something. But lots of empty nesters have a spare room... It's too bad that we've lost the sense of "personal" charity!

People, like chickens, and I suspect lots of other animals, don't do well when you herd huge numbers of them together willy nilly. If you put too many of some type of animals together without enough "space," they get really psychotic. It is no wonder that major problems developed when 25,000 odd people were herded together without light, a/c, food, water, etc. As a "shelter" from the hurricane winds, the Superdome worked fine, but keeping people in there did not work out for the best.

Up close and personal charity probably does work better than "better" organized efforts--and this sounds like a contraciction in terms. But think of it like matching up college roommates or even dating... There are families out there who would be able to take an elderly person--and even provide a bunch of care, but who absolutely could not deal with a 3 year old in the house. And the reverse is also true. There are families where the 3 year old would be welcomed, but they would be very nervous about the elderly person and not well equipped to cope. I do believe that over time churches and other religious organizations will be best at coordinating efforts to find good temporary/semi-permanet/permanent housing for the Katrina victims simply because there is something personal about the way churches (especially small ones) organize things.

So in that sense, perhaps the 19th century does pose a good model for what we may be able to do as time goes on. These Katrina victims will all need support and assistance--even those who are not "poor," even those who are "self-reliant," etc. If you worked for 22 years in your local hardware store and it is no longer there--except a slab or perhaps one wall--and your boss cannot afford to pay you, what are you supposed to do? Suppose that you could find a safe place to live--and a job in a hardware store in a distant city--either long-term temporary or permanent (and which it was depended upon whether you wanted to go home or not and when you wanted to go home). Well then, there would not be any "charity" involved--just some "helping hands." But you would have a place for your family, money coming in to support them, you kids would be in school, etc.--and your new "host" employer would probably get one heck of a good employee! I know that if I owned such a business, I'd probably be dancing a jig if I could hire someone with knowledge and experience.

And I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of people who fit that mold--who have lost jobs and their workplace isn't going to be operational any time soon... And yet in other parts of the country people are trying very hard to find workers with those special skills. You are right--in the 19th Century, individuals and small communities would have sorted this out. Today the task is more daunting.

But what was true then is still true today, I think. We need a whole variety of creative solutions--some will work better than others, but I do think that it is important to try them. For all I think it is better to "do" something than it is to do nothing because of fear, excessive caution, or the sense that "someone else will do it."