Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
This week’s readings from Sean Wilentz’s book Chants Democratic has me thinking along the same lines as Ben regarding the many mean streets of New York City, where life took place for the common person. More specifically Ben and Wilentz pay close attention to Bowery Street which served as one of the working class areas of New York City. It is in this account that we become familiar with the theater which served as the hub for activity on the street. Whether it be the throwing of peanut shells and fruit at the actors on stage when the audience was unhappy with the events taking place, or the prostitutes seated throughout the theater; something was always taking place at the theater that represented the makeup of the common person. It is here in the theater that American city life in Antebellum America can be fully understood. However the shift that takes place in America during this time, seen through Bowery Street’s change over time, speaks volumes to the growing state of the working class man’s status.
Wilentz’s account of Bowrey Street at first reminded me of the accounts my grandfather used to tell me when I was growing up. My grandfather served as a New York City police officer on Pitt Street which is known for the Gompers Houses, a housing project located in one of the “roughest areas of the city.” Here my grandfather experienced much of the same experiences seen in Antebellum NYC that Wilentz first talks about, only in the 1960s and 1970s. Streets riddled at night with drunkards and prostitutes created a sense of lawlessness and in many ways excitement due to the unexpected nature of the area. Education amongst the masses at Gompers was next to nonexistent and in many ways if you didn’t look like you “belonged” in the area life would become very difficult for one. Luckily, my grandfather was a Gomper’s kid and knew the language of the streets. It is this idea of looking of sense of belonging that reminds me of Wilentz’s work so much. Wilentz talks about this sense of “native” pride at the theater on Bowrey Street and that is a concept that exists today. People supported “guys from the neighborhood” and more often than not cared less about those living outside of their world. When British actors looked down upon the audience at their show, the crowd didn’t get emotionally worked up because they knew that the guy next to them in crowd would stand by their side in the attempt to stand up for themselves. It is this same concept that my grandfather was molded in, watching out for guys like him. Personally I feel like much of this sense of watching out for “guys like him” was to protect himself from being taken advantage of by the upper/smarter members of society.
However, Bowrey Street (as well as Gompers today) changed due to the actions of the upper class (those with power/wealth). Bowrey Street experienced the setbacks of the Panic of 1837 and the temperance movement caught on with some due to the thought that temperance would lead to more money in one’s pocket. Gompers changed in the 1970s when the government starting pumping resources into the area after widespread riots took place along “rough” city blocks. In both the Bowrey example and the Gompers example ideas to better life of the “common man” are brought to a community that simply can’t afford to suffer more hardship. These ideas impact the makeup of the area quickly but the question that emerges from this is “was the situation taken care of or simply swept under the rug?” Understanding the history of the temperance movement and more government spending in high risk areas it becomes obvious that the issues that the uppers class thought they fixed only made matters worse as they created new problems.