So would he have run?

[MrBarnett]

Well, what if the caretakers wife was overestimating the poverty?

You are a very slippery fish indeed! I entered this debate because you appeared to be saying that Booth's black did not imply criminal because he had coloured GY black and we had conflicting evidence that suggested GY was inhabited by very poor but very honest folk.

Obs

As Ed points out, Booth's intention was to identify concentrations and degrees of poverty, hence the 5 categories of working class people, using very specific monetary criteria, compared to the catch all classifications for the more prosperous inhabitants - lower middle class (red)/upper middle class and upper class (yellow). I don't think the red classified inhabitants of Commercial Street would have been toffs.

Tellingly, he makes no mention of earnings when listing the criteria for black classification. And throughout the note books he explains his use of black in terms of criminality.

MrB

[Lechmere]

The black category represented people virtually without work so I would suggest that is why they have no wage quoted.
Of the 8 categories he subdivided the population into (although there are seven colour codes) he only quoted earnings for three.
Booth regarded the bottom four categories as being below the poverty line.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

You are a very slippery fish indeed! I entered this debate because you appeared to be saying that Booth's black did not imply criminal because he had coloured GY black and we had conflicting evidence that suggested GY was inhabited by very poor but very honest folk.

At that stage, I mistakenly thought that the GYB were coloured black. When I noticed they were not, I suspected that this would NOT be on account of the people living there being honest, but instead on them representing a higher level of income than what was led on by the atttendantīs wife.

If that is slippery, I canīt say. I would have thought it in accordance with the evidence.

As Ed points out, Booth's intention was to identify concentrations and degrees of poverty, hence the 5 categories of working class people, using very specific monetary criteria, compared to the catch all classifications for the more prosperous inhabitants - lower middle class (red)/upper middle class and upper class (yellow). I don't think the red classified inhabitants of Commercial Street would have been toffs.

Tellingly, he makes no mention of earnings when listing the criteria for black classification. And throughout the note books he explains his use of black in terms of criminality.

They did not work other than in some exceptions, few and far apart. That would be their economical status description: No work, no pay, no money = poverty.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

One last Booth quote, re the Boundary St area:

According to Insp. French certain streets were 'in character dark blue and black. Much of this was dark blue before but it is worse now by reason of the immigration of the worst characters from Boundary Street - thieves, prostitutes, bullies, especially thieves'.

No mention of earnings, criminality is the deciding factor.

MrB

[Fisherman]

One last Booth quote, re the Boundary St area:

According to Insp. French certain streets were 'in character dark blue and black. Much of this was dark blue before but it is worse now by reason of the immigration of the worst characters from Boundary Street - thieves, prostitutes, bullies, especially thieves'.

No mention of earnings, criminality is the deciding factor.

MrB

And that shows us that the idea of the day was that there was a clear correlation inbetween poverty and bad character, just as I have said all along. Equally, a good character and a good income would also have been regarded as a given interconnection.

Like I said, it was believed that poverty was something you deserved, a punishment. In that context, it is easy to understand why it is spoken of character here. Booth would have been convinced that where he found poverty, he would find crime. And where he found crime, he would have been certain to find poverty. The two were tied together in his mind, apparently.

He was a man of his age and time. Today, he would have been laughed out of any academic seat. We know that you can be poor and honest.

As an aside, I think that the immense success Charles Dickens had, appealing to enormous crowds, to some extent owed to the fact that he described poor but patently honest people, like for example Daniel Pegotty in "David Copperfield", a man that had no money but very commendable ethics, who was morally untouchable, whereas a man like Steerforth, who had been born into money, was given the role of the bad guy, morally corrupt and without ethics.
In this context, Dickens is the polar opposite of Booth, giving the little man some dignity.

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

So to summarise your view, crime is always black and extreme poverty is always black, but they don't necessarily always coincide?

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Pegotty would not have fallen into Booth's black classification. Characters like Bill Sykes , Nancy, Fagin and his boys would have, though, and although Nancy at least had a heart of gold, there is no denying their criminality. I don't think Booth and Dickens were too far apart in their views.

MrB

[Sally]

And that shows us that the idea of the day was that there was a clear correlation inbetween poverty and bad character, just as I have said all along. Equally, a good character and a good income would also have been regarded as a given interconnection.

The idea of the day? I wasn't aware that the clear correlation between poverty and crime was a thing of the past

That doesn't mean, however, that those who were better off were exempted from suspicion of criminality. If you think, Fish, that those with a good income never engaged in criminality, were never suspected of criminality and were never convicted of criminal offences, then you're woefully ill-informed. It is true that the crimes typically committed by the better off differed from those of their poverty stricken counterparts - but such is embedded in social practice and is much the same today.

Like I said, it was believed that poverty was something you deserved, a punishment. In that context, it is easy to understand why it is spoken of character here. Booth would have been convinced that where he found poverty, he would find crime. And where he found crime, he would have been certain to find poverty. The two were tied together in his mind, apparently.

Really? Poverty was a sign from God or something?

I think you're confused, Fish. There was a clear distinction drawn at the time [and for a very long time beforehand] between the 'deserving' and the 'undeserving' poor; but that was largely concerned with charity. It is true to say that those who were known to engage in criminal activity were not deemed deserving of charity; but those who did not, were. The 19th century was one of social reform, much of it driven by the need to address the mass poverty in urban contexts.

Had the idea of the day been that all those many, many thousands of poor people deserved their poverty, I'm at a loss to explain why the government of the day didn't simply round them up and shoot the lot of them - would have saved a lot of time and effort on their part.

He was a man of his age and time. Today, he would have been laughed out of any academic seat. We know that you can be poor and honest.

Oh, nonsense. Do you just make this stuff up off the top of your head, Fish? Booth knew perfectly well that 'you can be poor and honest' - he lived for protracted periods of time with poor families in the capital, so that he could experience their lives at first hand and so better inform his research.

Naturally, he found criminality where there was abject poverty - because there is a clear link between the two. That's something which was recognised long before Booth's day and which has been generally accepted by social scientists ever since. We can see it, for example, reflected in 19th century crime figures: the figures for theft typically outweigh those for other crimes by as much as 200:1. Want breeds criminality - it should be self-evident. When push comes to shove, few have the determination to wilfully starve and see their children do the same if there is another option; legal or no.

The idea that he assumed that there would be crminality wherever there was poverty is misinformed.

[Sally]

The black category represented people virtually without work so I would suggest that is why they have no wage quoted.
Of the 8 categories he subdivided the population into (although there are seven colour codes) he only quoted earnings for three.
Booth regarded the bottom four categories as being below the poverty line.

Booth began his study because he didn't believe that as many as a quarter of people in London lived in abject poverty, as had been suggested. His fine classification of the poor attempt to refine understanding of poverty levels and reflects his intererst - there are accordingly fewer categories higher up the social scale.

Now, whilst all of this Booth-related chat is lovely and all that; it's important to remember that he didn't actually create the 'black' areas of London - he merely labelled them.

Dangerous streets were already dangerous by the time Booth came along and marked them as such - and everybody living in the locale would have known it. It is exactly the same now - if we live in a town we know which parts are to be avoided - and we avoid them if we have any sense at all.

Does this mean that Crossmere would've certainly avoided the more dangerous route in favour of the less; even if the more dangerous were the shorter? No, because each individual makes their own choice and there may have been mitigating factors for him of which we cannot be aware.

The danger of traversing certain routes should, however, be factored in to your theorising - you cannot simply wish it away with fallacious arguments.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Sally,

I would also add that those whose income was the proceeds of low level crime such as street robbery and prostitution would in any case fall into the same economic category as the very lowest category of 'honest ' poor. So while there may have been a distinction between the two classes, in reality economics would dictate that they congregated in the same streets and buildings. So black = criminal = dangerous area is a reasonable assumption.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Pegotty would not have fallen into Booth's black classification. Characters like Bill Sykes , Nancy, Fagin and his boys would have, though, and although Nancy at least had a heart of gold, there is no denying their criminality. I don't think Booth and Dickens were too far apart in their views.

MrB

Pegotty lived in a stranded ship on the Yarmouth coast. He would certainly have been a man with a very low income, poor as it were, and if he WAS, then he WOULD have belonged to the black list.

I think Booth and Dickens were very much apart, actually, the latter being much more modern in his way to look on matters.

I agree that Sykes and Fagin would be on the black list - but what if they came into money, Mr Barnett, by - say - an inheritance or such a thing, and moved into Whitechapel Road? What then?

Would they not be criminals any more? Would they not belong to the black list?

No they would not - but that would not depend on their propensity for crime - it would owe to their newly gained money.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

So to summarise your view, crime is always black and extreme poverty is always black, but they don't necessarily always coincide?

MrB

My view? Or my view of Booths view?

Utter poverty was always black.
Crime could be of another colour.
But Booth failed to recognize this, categorizing people who had no money as animals.

Does that make it any clearer? I think we must be very careful with all of this. Itīs fine to acknowledge that Booth THOUGHT that poverty led to criminality and ensuing danger for those who dared go into black areas. But we must keep in mind that the prejudiced take on things that would apparently have been Booths is something that we should not readily share.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The idea of the day? I wasn't aware that the clear correlation between poverty and crime was a thing of the past

That doesn't mean, however, that those who were better off were exempted from suspicion of criminality. If you think, Fish, that those with a good income never engaged in criminality, were never suspected of criminality and were never convicted of criminal offences, then you're woefully ill-informed. It is true that the crimes typically committed by the better off differed from those of their poverty stricken counterparts - but such is embedded in social practice and is much the same today.

What a total waste of time and space, Sally. I have said this exact thing myself numerous times already: the socially and economically deprived people will respond with criminality when no other possibilities are open to them.

I have carefully pointed out that it is a prejudice to believe that crime only existed among the poor.

But why would you care about such trifles? No, here you go blabbering off as if this had never happened!

What use is it to have discussion boards when something like this goes on? Desinformation, misattributions, a failure to take in the simplest matters - why would anybody need it, Sally?

Now, you be a good girl and sit yourself down and read these quotes from my earlier posts, effectively showing that you should never have posted this mess of yours:

"To state that Booth (wrongly) believed that criminality followed with low incomes is however fairly certain. Therefore, he believed that listing income levels would be listing how prone the inhabitants of certain areas would be to become criminals."

"...the facts he built his street maps with itīs colours on were economic facts. Otherwise, we could be certain that there was no crime in any of the other colours than black, since Booth did not mention that particular shortcoming other than in relation to that particular colour. It is in fact - and of course - impossible to do the kind of mapping that is suggested, where BOTH income and criminality MUST coincide."

"... that shows us that the idea of the day was that there was a clear correlation inbetween poverty and bad character, just as I have said all along. Equally, a good character and a good income would also have been regarded as a given interconnection."


So thatīs how "woefully ill-informed" I am.

I am quite, quite aware that class belongings do not govern whether you are a criminal or not. I am quite, quite aware that many people from higher classes were accused and convicted of criminality in this era.

If you were equally aware that I am aware of this, it would facilitate matters a whole lot.

But it would not change the fact that the overall conviction in the Victorian society was one where the socially and economically deprived were thought of as potential criminals to a much larger extent than the case is today. The Victorians were not an enlighted people in this context, Sally, no matter what you prefer to believe. They even searched for physionomical explanations to criminality (which goes to show you that they thought that criminals were predestined to a foul destiny) - and they did NOT search for those physioniomies in Harley Street.

If you have any further thoughts on this, then I suggest you ASK instead of accusing. It will make for a lot better atmoshpere - and the occasional truth, even!

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Peggoty may have lived in a upturned boat but he was a fisherman and we all know how honest and respectable they are. I can't see Clara taking her dear charge to spend a holiday with her honest relatives in Flower and Dean Street, can you?

It was your view of Booth's/Duckworth's view that I was after. Now I have it.

MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Fish,

Peggoty may have lived in a upturned boat but he was a fisherman and we all know how honest and respectable they are. I can't see Clara taking her dear charge to spend a holiday with her honest relatives in Flower and Dean Street, can you?

Only in search of Emīly!

It was your view of Booth's/Duckworth's view that I was after. Now I have it.

I should hope so! The part that has me worried is that Sally also thinks she knows my view. But she is way wrong, of course.

The best,
Fisherman