"The Conquest of Pestilence in New York City" http://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/tenementmuseum/files/20...
many outside of photography will overlook fussy criticism of Riis- his work helped pass laws that positively affected the lives of millions, who cares if he directed street urchins where to sit and made situations seem more desperate than they actually were? after all, the conditions were often extremely desperate.
but his job as a photojournalist was to portray things as they were- especially since he portrayed his photos as journalism. arguably, his photos also flattened the immigrant experiance to poor, crime ridden, and full of disease, rather than poor, crime ridden, full of disease, full of opportunity, and often with a great sense of community that made up immigrant life at that time. He also directly profited from simplifying and lying about urban life.
to me, Jacob Riis symbolizes how positive change isn't always done by the most scrupulous of actors, and the complicated relationship of truth and nuance with social change and politics. in order to pass a law, society often needs to have an uncompromisingly negative opinion of whatever status quo will be overthrown.
https://research.steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/gr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Riis
I don’t know in this particular case how far the truth was stretched but we see this every day in for example advertisement and I think kind of expect it. I do wonder though if there is a version of the world where we can all present the objective truth, or as close to it as possible and have the “right” outcomes. I suspect not, since then you’ll be at a disadvantage to those who stretches the truth a little.
because of the impact of his work- I don't know if I could condemn him- sanitation and child labor laws are huge. but we can't justify his methods, or justify people like him in a modern context. Jacob Riis was also arguably racist- what if it was his racism that got codified into the legal system instead of child labor laws and sanitation? then he'd be viewed as evil, without any philosophical nuance. We can only start the conversation about justifying his methods as worth it after knowing how it all turned out- we shouldn't assume any contemporaries can justify lying today.
so we're left with a profiteering liar, who had a larger positive impact on the world than I can likely hope to have, and that's what makes his case so fascinating.
It's also basically the American counterpart to Engels' classic The Condition of the WOrking Class in England [1].
[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45502/45502-h/45502-h.htm [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17306/17306-h/17306-h.htm
Roosevelt befriended Riis and the journalist had a large influence on him and his policies. As Riis confidence in Roosevelt's political perspectives grew, he also helped promote TR through his journalistic work.
I would recommend the book greatly for anyone interested in the politics of this era, or just Roosevelt himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_Theodore_Roosevelt
But agree on the suit deal - How do they stand it? The Amish in Iowa today wear wool even in the hottest weather. Nuts to that.
When it's 50 degrees in September, people here in upstate NY put on gloves. When it's 50 degrees in April, they wear shorts.
The museum did have pictures of water pollution.
I'd say most of us see "the other half" as the rich, because we see ourselves as poor, relatively speaking [0]. I think Riis titled his book to give the rich an idea how bad things were for others, to try and draw some empathy from them.
0 - of course, wealth distribution isn't 50/50 today (and probably never was)
This is what unions fought, not when the office mgr takes away the nespresso machine.
/2 cents