• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

You had BETTER be nice!

New York City, of all places, is leading the nation in trying to legislate away rudeness: bans on everything from cell phones in theaters and resting feet on a subway seat to dogs that bark too loud and fans who spit on baseball players, usually with serious fines and sometimes even jail for those who break the rules. Certainly, behavior that can harm other people should be regulated, but the further the city goes into the "right not be annoyed" territory, the more skeptical and resistant we should be.

Posted in: Current Affairs

Comments

RiShawn Biddle
Mon, 04/17/2006 - 5:17am

As a New York native, I can tell you that the reputation of the city for being rude has always been overrated. In fact, so overrated that I often find myself defending New York from the out-of-city snobs whose only knowledge of the city is from some TV show produced in L.A. or from an unpleasant trip they made to the NYC twenty years ago. Any city where you might get shot for simply looking at someone the wrong way, as New York once was in the late 1980s, isn't exactly the rudest city on the planet. And since Rudy Giuliani's reign in the 1990s, the city's gotten even nicer both in environment (fewer pothole-lined streets) and intrapersonal relations.

The reputation is gotten mostly because New York is a far larger and denser city than most areas of the nation: Eight million people stuffed on a mere 321 square miles of two islands, a penninsula (the Bronx) and part of one (Long Island, which holds Brooklyn and Queens), versus Los Angeles (a mere 3.8 million on 465 square miles), and Chicago (2.9 million on 227 square miles). Considering the density, the average New Yorker spends far more time in other people's faces than the average Angeleno, Chicagoan or Hoosier. So the rudeness that might be typical of anyone anywhere -- and relatively easy to ignore because of the low density -- is magnified in such a setting.

Leo Morris
Mon, 04/17/2006 - 6:45am

I think you might be right about the density angle. I've encountered more rudeness in tightly packed cities, like Chicago, than I have in greatly dispersed ones, such as Houston; and probably 90 percent of the bad behavior could be marked down as the brusqueness of people having to deal with a lot of people in confined spaces.
And am I right that the bigger the city, the more important the neighborhood? They seem to become like small towns unto themselves. My sister lives on the northwest side of Indianapolis, and that is really the city to her, not this giant Marion County UniGov conglomeration everybody talks about. My brother lived in "Houston," but really was in the suburb of Missouri City; the metropolis was a place he visited. Now he lives out in the middle of nowhere in hill country and goes to Austin or San Antonio when he wants a "city" experience. Same deal as in Houston, just greater driving times (but not that greater, really).

Bob G.
Mon, 04/17/2006 - 7:10am

Trying to legislate away rudeness is the unfortunate result of a society that has forgotten it's social etiquette. When uncivil behavior & blatant disrespect for other people and their "space" becomes something to aspire to, instead of guard against, laws have to be "created" to address the issue.

Larger cities DO seem to have a problem with rude people (as opposed to small towns), but with diverse people comes diverse problems. It's not a problem that can't be addressed with the right game plan.

I have visited NYC several times over several decades, and have NEVER encountered anyone that could be called rude (maybe I hit some good days...lol), but I did admire the campaign the Mayor Giuliani implimented regarding everthing from noise (a huge issue here in Fort Wayne) to civility.
Having lived in rowhomes for a good part of my life, the "rudeness factor" never became a sticking point, as your closest neighbor was a mere SIX inches away (the thickness of the walls between houses), so you "behaved yourself" for the most part.

Densely populated areas of Philadelphia "used" to be what we called "tight" neighborhoods...everyone knew one another, stuck together, and basically cared a lot more than people appear to these days.

Around here with SINGLE homes abounding, the bleed-over effect of anything from a domestic quarrel to a parent chiding their offspring becomes more pronounced, and a LOT more visable.
Yet it goes relatively UNnoticed for the most part. Not necessarily rude, but definitely apathetic in nature.

In parts of Fort Wayne, many people just hold their heads down as they walk, or watch EVERY vehicle that passes (drive-by shooting alert?), but fortunately, I do encounter the person that will hold a door for me (to which I thank them), or someone that still knows what COURTESY means.

Legislation against rudeness will not be a universal panacea, but perhaps placing classes in civility and courtesy in our SCHOOLS might be a better alternative.

Young minds are pliant...and helping them to help themselves (as well as others) would make a lot more sense.

B.G.

RiShawn Biddle
Mon, 04/17/2006 - 9:34am

"And am I right that the bigger the city, the more important the neighborhood? They seem to become like small towns unto themselves."

Definitely. Los Angeles, for example, is truly a city of neighborhoods where one can spend an entire week dining, shopping, even working without actually visiting another part unless you want to party down; for that, you have to go to Hollywood or Santa Monica for that. My old office, for example, was within ten minutes of my house, while I could walk to the local Ralphs (Kroger's L.A. branch) or to the Best Buy, then eat at either the McDonald's or local cafe.

The same is true in certain parts of Indianapolis: Anyone living on 96th street on the Northside has several restaurants within walking distance, everything at Keystone at the Crossing within five minutes of home, two Marsh supermarkets within ten minutes and two movie theaters. This isn't necessarily the case for anyone living on East 38th street, where you're not likely to have the money for any shops at Keystone anyway, but for Downtown residents, Northsiders and anyone living around Eagle Creek, it's all about the neighborhood.

A lot of that reality has to do with how cities of the size of New York or even of Indianapolis were created. New York is a product of consolidations, notably the 1896 consolidation that united New York County with Queens, Kings (Brooklyn), Bronx and Richmond (Staten Island). Los Angeles' city fathers tried to annex everything within distance of the original city limits. That's why the mostly-inland city has a port of its own, located far from downtown in what used to be a town called San Pedro; it's also why a trip from the Westside to other sections such as MidWilshire require going through Beverly Hills or through Culver City, both of which are separate cities. And for Indy, there is the Unigov consolidation, along with previous annexations; there are still identities separate from the city as a result.

Larry Morris
Tue, 04/18/2006 - 9:52am

Wow, at "Eight million people stuffed on a mere 321 square miles" for New York, I really wouldn't like those odds where I live. At those levels (and 1 sq mile is 640 acres, ...) I would have to share my private 35 acre home-site with 1,360 other people. I like other people, but not that much, ...

Quantcast