How bad were 'Western' cities during late 19th/early

>>3283215
>Were they as filthy and crime ridden as third world shitholes today?
they were comparable to some third world shitholes, not all

>>3283215
Measles and Spanish flu were probably a million times worse than aids. Maybe not as much crime or trash as modern slums but tenement housing and lack of workplace regulation are comparable.
Right now the world is at a stage where many slums are either being developed or torn down but they also continue to grow in some places as well.

>>3283425
And why was there less trash and crime than in third world countries?

>>3283458
i'm guessing it's because plastics weren't as much of a thing back then

>>3283468
though that's just for the trash question, of course

>>3283468
>>3283458
Yeah this and no abundance of tattooed youths with access to various types of narcotics and firearms.

>>3283458
Maybe because people didn't turn on the TV and see a movie about gangstas shooting each other and becoming millionaires from selling dope, or retarded shit like Fast and Furious 1/3/5//6/7/8321

People back then had more strong Christian values, while today people will just try to do what they watch on TV. Degeneracy has taken our societies, thanks to the juice from Hollywood.

Anyways, there was a lot of crime in USA during the early 20th century, because of the Prohibition, the mafias and all that.

>>3283215
Bad but not as bad as present day Paris

>>3283215
Yes, worse because they didn't have modern medical care, at least an Indian can get himself to a modern hospital.

What poltards in their racism struggle to comprehend is that all countries going from agricultural to industrial to developed go through a period of horrible poverty and shithole conditions.
The alternative is to try some "great leap" like China and Russia, where the shithole period might be shorter, but you usually kill 50 million people

File: plug_ugly_large.jpg (33KB, 480x387px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x387px

>>3283215
>crime ridden

murder rates were much lower because there wasn't really a black-market to fight over. most vices were legal and available in the 19th century.

>>3283536
But some Latin American countries have been in the 'developing' stage for more than 100 years now, what the fuck is wrong with them?

>>3283551
The U.S.A

>>3283551
Too much cucktholism and freetrade agreements. Also had a problem with civil wars and military coups in the recent past.

>>3283551
Continual interference.

Imagine if the USA kept popping off the Prime Ministers of Victorian Britain every 15 years.

>>3283489
those existed a lot back then too though.

>>3283458
less people and less ways to do crime. Standards wise it was pretty rampant.

File: brassens11.jpg (19KB, 436x327px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 436x327px

>>3283511
>People back then had more strong Christian values

I can't believe there are reactionary idiots that unironically believe shit like this.

File: usainlatam.jpg (3MB, 3300x1619px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3300x1619px

>>3283551
>what the fuck is wrong with them?
JEWSA

>>3283537
Eh Bullshit with the murder rates.

>>3283537
murder rates were higher due to lead in the water, poor living conditions etc.

>these posts
Spain was literally a violence cluster back then. Even the villages from the early XX century stayed like that. Killings for everything. The thing is that the weapons, fear of values and self necesities were more of a struggle to comply or get.

One book from Camilo Jose Cela makes some details about the life on some villages back then. It's one of my favourites. "The family of Pascual Duarte".

>>3284658
>Spain
>Western Europe

>>3283215
No.
People back then didn't throw so much shit in the street because everything was precious, they reused anything they could. "Disposable" things were inexistant. There was lots of rotting waste though.
They had next to zero distraction and had to communicate much more with people around, individualism was not an option. They knew each neighbor in a large radius, any unknown passerby was spotted immediately, doors weren't locked etc... What I mean is that life was rather safe compared to nowadays standards. Crimes were limited to occasional murders and organized crime.
Our current third world hellholes are just the worst of what the modern world has to offer, while the western cities around 1900 were the "best".

>>3283215
They were pretty shitty. As crime ridden as third world cities today? Probably not. But close.

File: 1489089905638.png (371KB, 700x518px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 700x518px

>>3283511
>People back then had more strong Christian values, while today people will just try to do what they watch on TV. Degeneracy has taken our societies, thanks to the juice from Hollywood.
Oh look it's a retard

>>3286090
>our
Incas had better neighbourhoods. Literally the same as you mentioned plus all families assembled several times a month to distribute the surplus of goods.

File: hreby.png (224KB, 1824x1084px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1824x1084px

Not sure how accurate this image is, but it's at least something.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/

Most European cities were probably awful until the turn of the 20th century because there was a fuckload of horses. Horses smell and shit a lot.

>>3283215
Cities were utter shit, but cities are utter shit compared to rural life even now.

>>3286804
It doesn't count, Incas were superior, history demonstrates it.

>>3286807
I have serious doubts about how and why crimes were reported and recorded in fucking 1300.

File: faithful place tyrone street.jpg (90KB, 640x469px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x469px

>>3283215
>In 1911 Dublin had the worst housing conditions of any city in the United Kingdom. Its extensive slums were not limited to the back-streets or to impoverished ghettos. By 1911 the city slums also incorporated great Georgian houses on previously fashionable streets and squares. As the wealthy moved to the suburbs over the course of the 19th century, their huge, red-brick buildings were abandoned to the rent-paying poor. Tenements in inner-city Dublin were filthy, overcrowded, disease-ridden, teeming with malnourished children and very much at odds with the elite world of colonial and middle-class Dublin.
>The decay of Dublin was epitomised by Henrietta Street, which had once been home to generations of lawyers, but was, by 1911, overflowing with poverty. An astonishing 835 people lived in 15 houses. At number 10 Henrietta Street, the Sisters of Charity ran a laundry with more than 50 single women inside. The other houses on the street were filled with families. For example, there were members of nineteen different families living in Number 7. Among the 104 people who shared the house were charwomen, domestic servants, labourers, porters, messengers, painters, carpenters, pensioners, a postman, a tailor, and a whole class of schoolchildren. Out the back were a stable and a piggery.

>>3287108
But it looks so cool and le steampunk xD

>>3283215

There were certainly a lot more grave robbers back then.

>>3286090
>back then didn't throw so much shit in the street

Except when they threw literal shit into the streets.

>>3286804
That's a pretty stone age moral. It doesn't particularly work nowadays because you have to work with efficiency of humans. It's old and in our dna so that's why it feels good but you have to take in more forms of data today. Keynesian economics has proven to not be 100% accurate.