So would he have run?

[bolo]

Hello Observer,

As I said , it would be interesting if we could reveal the social status of those people inhabiting the red areas surrounding Dorset Street

perhaps this refers to people like McCarthy who may have lived in the middle of the muddle but weren't exactly poor and had a steady job/income as landlords.

Best wishes,

Boris

[MrBarnett]

Hi Obs,

A cursory look at the 1890 Goad map for the short stretch of Commercial Street between Dorset Street and White's Row shows two factories and a warehouse shaded red.

MrB.

[Observer]

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

Hi Mr B

Again, yes, I appreciate what you are saying, perhaps not toffs in those red areas in Commercial Street.

However, (considering Booth uses seven levels of "wealth" in his map) I'd imagine there would still be be quite a gap between the black and red levels in and around Dorset Street, and that's taking into account Sam's and your own take on the matter.

As I said , it would be interesting if we could reveal the social status of those people inhabiting the red areas surrounding Dorset Street

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

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

Hi Mr B

Again, yes, I appreciate what you are saying, perhaps not toffs in those red areas in Commercial Street.

However, (considering Booth uses seven levels of "wealth" in his map) I'd imagine there would still be be quite a gap between the black and red levels in and around Dorset Street, and that's taking into account Sam's and your own take on the matter.

As I said , it would be interesting if we could reveal the social status of those people inhabiting the red areas surrounding Commercial Street.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

It's all relative, Obs. Booth made the mistake of starting in the East End; as I've said elsewhere, this was tantamount to setting out to survey average height by calibrating your tools in Lilliput.

When Booth extended his survey to other London boroughs, his categorisations (and colour-codes) started to creak, such that comparing a "red" in Whitechapel to a "red" in (say) Bloomsbury would give a rather misleading impression.

Don't get me wrong - Booth's maps are an excellent resource, but they should be treated with a little caution.

Hi Sam

Yes, I appreciate what you are saying, I must admit though my earlier post on the subject was a tad tongue in cheek. It would be interesting to know however which class of people actually inhabited the red zones dotted around Dorset as depicted in Booth's poverty map.

Regards

Observer

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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