I guess it depends on what part of the 1900s... I grew up (also in the 70s&80s) as a "latchkey" in an area that was built in the 50s and 60s and had the same experience of walking and riding to school. This seems like a "reality TV" phenomena of the last 25 years. Certainly, there are suburban deserts that are completely unwalkable, but most housing is not like that (certainly not "affordable" housing) simply because it was built earlier. Of course this is almost entirely dependent on where you live.

https://eyeonhousing.org/2018/08/half-of-us-homes-built-befo...

High growth Tech areas like Seattle, San Jose, Austin, Phoenix are ~10x bigger than they were ~40 years ago. So those are much more likely to have this low density housing than Boston, SF, NYC.

What I find weird is that even completely walkable schools/neighborhoods have parents that almost all drive kids to school every day. Parents legitimately worry about being labeled as endangering their kids, if they don't drive them. Interestingly for me this is more acute for immigrant families, who are worried about fitting in, than local families who will tell the vice principal to "shove it" when warned about the dangers of walking to school.

Does the remark about immigrants make sense? The typical immigrant can't be more concerned about fitting in that the typical native. Because the typical native's behavior determines what "fitting in" means.

There is a saying in Ireland called "More Irish than the Irish" and refers to immigrants and non-locals who take up all of the local culture to extreme (compared to the average) levels.

Immigrants are statistically the most law abiding and often times, even conservative, members of a a community and it probably is one measure of long-term survival (esp. in the U.S. while living under the microscope of a work visa) so they need to go to great lengths to fit in and avoid even the appearance of impropriety - something the natives (and in all likelihood their children, if raised there) would take for granted. Meanwhile local citizens gather on the street corner protesting mask wearing or whatever nonsense they feel like.

Similarly, the Jewish Talmud considers "Ba'alei Teshuva" — Jews who either were born not-religious and became religious later, or who were born religious, left the community, and later returned — to be generally more "righteous," aka, rule-following, than people who simply grew up following the rules of the religion. Part of the explanation given in the Talmud is that Ba'alei Teshuva made a concrete choice to follow the religion's rules, whereas someone who was raised in that environment and never left is just doing what they feel is natural.

Outsiders (after a few years) are more aware of in-group rules since they don't feel natural, and for those there by choice — whether it be immigrants to a different country, or the newly-religious — presumably they're there because they want to be a part of the group, rather than taking it for granted. So they're often both hyper-aware of the rules, and place a higher value on them.

Not true in Western Europe. They are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics and their own communities have grown big enough that there’s no need anymore to try to fit in.

> They are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics

Judging from my own anecdotal experiences as someone who "doesn't look like a German", i'm willing to take a wild guess why: Because everything they do is under a microscope.

I got my bags searched, because i "walked suspiciously through the isles" in a store (woman thought i'm a foreigner) and i got a false accusation by a police officer who said he "knew people like me".

Also the German BKA crime statistic, as an example, shows reported crimes. It doesn't exactly show how many where actually convicted. So i guess i'm also somewhere in the stats from a few years ago.

Research shows that even corrected for what you’re describing the numbers still show an overrepresentation compared to their % of the population. Just an example, they were 63 % of prisoners in The Netherlands a couple years ago. Similar numbers in other Western European countries.

Can you link some of those research papers?

If I had saved them but I didn't, so no. I don't feel like googling a long time to find them. You can google yourself, they were in Dutch and French.

What follows is a generalisation from the Australian experience (my experience - I'm a child of first gen migrants i.e. a 2nd generation Australian). For the first generation and some of the second generation this is true. Migrants often don't know the language, and don't have pre-existing connections in the community, so they tend to cluster in areas where there are more people like them (often cheaper places to live). Working, they are more likely to work for other migrants, prolonging the "bubble" and deferring the need to integrate. This generation tends to live productive if somewhat fearful lives - "look at those locals with their degenerate customs!", "They don't like us!", "Be careful! Don't trust them! They'll take advantage!". These attitudes are of course almost exact mirrors of what the locals thing about the migrants. Attitudes primarily born of ignorance and lack of first-hand experience with the "other".

The second generation - children of first gen migrants - go to school, the local language is the one they're more proficient with. Perhaps its true that this generation feels the weight of anti-immigrant feeling more than any other. Mainly because inside, they don't feel that different. They grew up here, went to school here, understand the local culture. They straddle a cultural divide. They bear the weight of anti-immigrant feeling as well as the parental expectations to stay within their original cultural norms. This is rarely achievable. This generation often achieves well due to the over-emphasis on "Get an education! We never had the chance! You have opportunity! Don't squander it!" They feel the burden to do better than their folks very acutely. For those that can't achieve academically, or in business, or in sport - they are easy prey for ethnically aligned gangs. They can "retreat" into their origin culture and use anti-immigrant sentiment to justify bad behaviour.

By the third generation (e.g. my kids), a lot of the anti-immigrant feeling has moved on... to the new groups of migrants. My parents came from Southern Europe to Australia in the 60s. They were the "wogs" and "dagos" of the era. I remember being told in primary school to "go back where you came from!", which confused the hell out of me because I was born in Australia. Now, people from my ethnic origins are considered part of the wallpaper here. No one thinks of them as anything other than Australian (ok, maybe a handful of hardcore racists). In the 70s, the southern Europeans were replaced as the anti-immigrant bogeyman by the Vietnamese. Then the Lebanese. Then the Somalis. Then the Syrians. With each wave, the crime wave moves to a new group. Within a generation (or at most 2), any such spikes have dissipated.

As a fellow aussie with caucasian lineage from 1800's I grew up a few generations on the "already settled" side of this equation. I'd like to think I'm not racist but I struggle with being a product of my environment in a competitive world too. Your insight is appreciated.

The only other weird thing is how immigrants can pick on each other as much as any racist aussie seems to. I would have thought having gone through it would make people more sensitive to flinging that crap. But I guess the "product of environment + competitive social pressures" gets to us all.

Haha indeed! Plenty of racist immigrants, more so among 2nd/3rd generation (then it all becomes a bit of a blur). It still churns my stomach to hear adult children of migrants - some of my peers, who themselves have done quite well - making disparaging comments about newcomers e.g. "they live on top of each other!", "they don't make an effort to assimilate!" etc - forgetting that they are describing the stories of our parents and grandparents (many of whom can still barely speak English). People have short memories and little empathy for "others"/"strangers" I guess.

I think the frustration of "competitive social pressures" combined with a desire for "simple solutions" is an achilles heel that gets ruthlessly exploited by fear mongers and outrage merchants, who use racist dog whistles to translate the resulting fear/anger into political capital. It appeals to the reptilian/emotive parts of our brain, and is very, very hard to shift via appeals to reason.(Don't know about you, but I can't wait for this election to be over just so I don't have to see another UAP billboard or cop another UAP robocall).

That second paragraph resonates. Particularly "simple solutions". To some degree I wonder if the modern pace of change is a destablising force in peoples lives too, which is why they want simple solutions.

With UAP, irksome as they are, I take consolation knowing the money they spent to reach me is money wasted and not spent reaching someone else. Somewhat spiteful I guess, and not healthy but is what it is.

You don’t have to look that far back in the US to see how Irish immigrants were treated, then eventually became the dominant ethnic group in the NE.

It plays out in the way you describe in a lot of places.

It can actually both be true at the same time. Because “immigrant” isn’t one homogeneous group.

> Not true in Western Europe. They are heavily overrepresented in crime statistics and their own communities have grown big enough that there’s no need anymore to try to fit in.

you can't just say something like that without any supporting facts.

The facts aren’t in English so not very useful here. Interesting that I need supporting facts but the person who claimed the opposite doesn’t.

> who take up all of the local culture to extreme (compared to the average) levels.

What does this mean? My dumb brain goes straight to “even more alcoholism and fighting” but that might just be on account of being Irish diaspora myself.

The best example I heard from a friend who was a recent immigrant from India.

He had quite a few friends who were the children of immigrants who arrived from India a generation earlier.

When my friend’s parents visited (from India where they still lived) they were shocked when these 2nd generation American-India kids greeted them in a super formal way that had disappeared in India decades ago.

Basically the immigrants to the US held onto old customs more strongly than the ones who never left India. And they passed that onto their kids. So they were “more Indian than people from India”.

The same is true for German immigrants in South America.

I suppose, in a way, similar for the Amish in the US.

Speaking the old language and maintaining a 1700s lifestyle, for the most part.

The "more Irish than the Irish themselves" phrase originated as a description of mediaeval Irish history. Norman-ruled England conquered Ireland, and introduced Anglo-Norman settlers – Irish society became divided into two social castes, an English/French-speaking ruling caste and a subordinated caste of indigenous Irish-speakers. (This was prior to the Protestant Reformation, so everyone involved was Catholic – indeed, the English monarchy's conquest of Ireland was approved by the Pope.) The English became concerned that, after a few generations, the Anglo-Norman upper caste began to speak Irish and intermarry with the native Irish-speakers – they saw (quite accurately) that this would lead to weakening of English rule and eventual demand for independence. "more Irish than the Irish themselves" was really meant as a somewhat hyperbolic/ironic reference to this process of cultural assimilation. The English responded with anti-Irish legislation, prohibiting the speaking of Irish, intermarriage between English-speakers and Irish-speakers, and formally subordinating the theoretically independent Irish Parliament to that of England – however, the legislation largely failed to be enforced, the blurring of the boundaries between the native Irish and the Anglo-Norman newcomers continued, and English rule became (in much of the country, especially the parts furthest from Dublin) more theory than fact, as local lords found they could basically ignore the edicts of the English administration in Dublin and do whatever they liked.

This is arguably the earliest historical roots of the Northern Ireland conflict, although with various other layers added on top – the introduction of a religious dimension to what was originally a purely cultural/ethnic/linguistic/political conflict due to the Protestant Reformation; further waves of settlement from Britain; the Irish theatre of the English Civil War and the later Jacobite-Williamite War in which many Irish (especially, but not exclusively, Catholics and Irish-speakers) supported the deposed King James II against the regime of William of Orange.

I don't know how much sense the phrase has in the context of immigrants to contemporary Ireland. I suppose some users of it must have found some way to connect it to contemporary affairs–probably there is some immigrant somewhere who is obsessed with teaching their children to speak Irish when the majority of Irish people don't make much of an effort to do so themselves–but I think some use of it may also be motivated by its long history and memorable phrasing rather than genuine contemporary applicability.

It makes perfect sense.

An immigrant trying to fit in will try to confirm to the average.

An individual native who doesn't care will not care about the average.

There are many cases of immigrants saving the life of small children in trouble. Men are brain-wired to protect and rescue any children in distress. The problem is that we slowly assumed that other people is dangerous or insane by default just by a few outliers and just to be sold things.

And that when you progressively restrict what people can do in a society, or everybody feels watched and judged 24/7, at some point you will start to encourage perverted conducts of escape.

> You can't combat this enormous societal change by making an individual effort to let your kids do more by themselves.

Maybe not, but you can do things like:

* Live downtown instead of in a suburb

* Ask your school / DOT to close the street in front of the school during dropoff and pickup hours

* Walk with your kid to school instead of driving them

* Support higher-density development in your area

If you live downtown you are unlikely to have a grade school in your area from what I can see of any American cities. Families with school aged children don’t tend to live in the downtowns. Older suburbs are much more walkable in terms of kids walking to school with sidewalks and fewer vehicles than an urban center.

I think it depends on the city and suburb.

I grew up in a fairly large and fairly dense (by suburb standards) suburban city of Boston and it was quite walkable as a child (and also had the benefit of having a few MBTA stops). I live in the middle of downtown Boston now and while I find it fantastic as a somewhat immature adult, I wouldn't say it's especially child-friendly.

That being said, I have seen many other suburbs (looking at you, various places in Connecticut) that don't even have sidewalks. That cannot be good for anyone. And Boston certainly has more child-friendly neighborhoods as well.

You can ask your DOT to close the street in front of the school, but, at least where I live, even if they are supportive it is likely that your child will be out of school before something actually happens. Increasing the density of an area also takes years or even decades.

Heh, my neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks and it's very safe to walk in because _everybody_ walks in the middle of the street. Can be frustrating when you drive through sometimes, but I'm always mindful of the great benefit this has. Everyone in the neighborhood sees and expects people (and kids) "playing in traffic", so traffic is relatively quite calm. I've developed a bit of the view that sidewalks turn neighborhood streets into freeways. I can imagine many scenarios where this system wouldn't work as well, but in a SFH residential neighborhood without much in the way of through traffic, it works pretty well.

Yeah. In residential areas you shouldn't need sidewalks, but it requires that the street is designed for it. It must be narrow, trees along the street or other street furniture helps make it appear even narrower than it is. Naturally drivers will slow down.

In Germany we have the concept of a "Spielstraße" (translation: Playing Street?), where walking speed is the max. accepted driving speed and playing kids have the priority in everyway. I grew up in one, it was great!

Worth mentioning: Those usually are side-roads with little traffic to begin with, and cul-de-sacs.

Sure! And they are, kind of by definition, residential areas with lot's of young families and children.

> You can't combat this enormous societal change by making an individual effort to let your kids do more by themselves.

Sure you can. Might not make much cultural difference, but it will make a big difference for your kids.

I do not feel safe letting my kids walk on roads in their current state.

I assume you mean they don't know enough yet? You can improve their state so that crossing the street is quite safe. What do they need to know to avoid being a pedestrian fatality? Here are the top three things.[0]

1. Don't walk under the influence. 2. Don't walk at night. 3. Only cross at an intersection.

[0]: https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Ped-Spotli....

I’m going to assume you misinterpreted the GP. I read “their current state” as referring to the roads, not to the kids. For example: lack of sidewalks, roads with high speed limits, distracted drivers on phones, lack of other children walking.

++ A lot of people in this thread either live in wonderfully walkable places or have simply never actually tried. Y'all, Google Maps giving you walking directions is not the same thing as walkable lol.

The local high school where I grew up was not exactly walkable. There were multiple uncontrolled crossings (with speed limits over 30mph) and missing sidewalks all over the place that force you to walk on the shoulder/in the gutter.

That's not particularly relevant to this discussion because walking under the influence is not a major contributor when children are hit or killed by drivers.

Children also have different risk factors, for example many trucks and SUV drivers have poor visibility and cannot see sufficiently short road users that are close to the front of the vehicle, for example when stopped at a stop sign or traffic light.

Worse yet, most cars now are lifted high enough to where the block line-of-sight for pedestrians and cyclists (and even people in reasonably sized sedans and compact cars) from being able to see oncoming traffic from an intersection when they’re parked on a corner.

This is pretty much it. I'm a parent now, but I recall my parents telling me to walk to get to appointments and activities when I was in school back in the 90s and 00s. I never did, because it was 5+ miles through car centric roads.

In the city, I see kids walking places on their own. Most places they would go are within a quarter to half mile, all of the schools that they could go to from age 3-18 are within a third of a mile.

I mostly agree. The majority of neighborhoods in the US are designed to support enormous vehicles driving as fast as they can and are therefore an unnecessarily hostile environment for everyone else. I would not choose to risk my children walking on their own just to make a point or "be the change" in a place like that.

However you can choose where to live. there are still plenty of walkable neighborhoods in cities, suburbs, small towns, etc. The issue is that you will have to find them and then you will have to pay more for the privilege of living there.

With respect to finding them, we used national commuting mode share and various websites to pick a handful of regions that had a reputation for walkability, spent a bit of time on Google Maps, called the schools to inquire about their mode share (e.g. percent of children who walk/bike minus the percent driven by parents), chatted with the folks who run the state's Safe Routes to School program, and rented an apartment while we spent a couple months biking around the candidate neighborhoods/towns, especially during rush hour.

With respect to cost we were priced out of the really walkable areas but were able to find something where many kids walk or bike to school on their own in our price range. Based on price premium for walkable areas it seems that a lot of home buyers prioritize the same things we do but not a lot of new neighborhoods are built to prioritize walking. It felt like there were a lot of people competing for a relatively fixed pool of (typically old) neighborhoods.

I think it's also a result of car ownership. It wasn't until the 1980s that multi-car households started being really ubiquitous.

I imagine people slowly started driving their kids to school because they could, which led to other people driving their kids to school because walking/biking was unsafe due to all cars on the road.

My childhood in the 90s kinda sucked by comparison because I was in small neighborhood with no kids my age locked in by a busy road that was too unsafe for me too cross on my own.