I remember those fake gangs back in the 50s. I call them fake because I think they were just a bunch of kids acting out some movie that they had seen. There was talk of one around Sawyer called "The Rebels", which I believe was inspired by the movie "Rebel Without a Cause" with James Dean. It seemed that everybody knew somebody who was in The Rebels, but they couldn't tell you their names because they were sworn to secrecy. I never heard anybody claim that they themselves were in The Rebels but, of course, they wouldn't because of their code of secrecy. The movie "West Side Story" got bad reviews in our neighborhood because real gangs don't sing and dance in the street like that. Nevertheless, I think "West Side Story" was more realistic than most people wanted to admit. What you had was a bunch of kids fooling around playing bad ass, but then it got out of control and a couple people got killed.
Something like that happened in real life at Cornell Park, somebody got killed and a couple guys went to jail. The only name I remember is "Champy Reese", but I don't remember if he was the victim or one of the perpetrators. I knew one of the minor participants, claimed that he just drove the car and didn't know what was going on, but I don't remember his name. He went to Elsdon and everybody was shocked because he was such a nice boy. He turned up years later as some kind of teaching intern at Gage Park. You wouldn't have known him because that was during our freshman year when you were still at Tilden.
I think when the gangs started getting more deadly was when they got involved in the drug trade. I was long gone by then, so I'm going by what I read in the newspapers. The drug gangs had assault rifles before the cops did, and then the cops had to play catch up in the arms race. Now everybody wants an assault rifle, I suppose for the same reason. I would be interested in knowing what percentage of the gun crime and random impulse shooting is done by licensed gun owners, and how much is done by people who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place, convicted felons, the mentally ill, etc.
I think what I didn't like about the social crap is that some people carried it too far. I agree that it can be entertaining, but it shouldn't interfere with the job or cause people undue discomfort. If you see that you're really bothering someone, that should be the cue to back off, but many people consider it a sign that it's time to close in for the kill. I understand that they're calling it "bullying" nowadays, and that people have committed suicide over it. When we were kids, bullying meant physical abuse, and the verbal stuff was just bull shit. Kids nowadays must lead sheltered lives, whereas we were a tougher breed, but that still doesn't make it right.
Some of our jobs at the paper mill were more technical than others, and you had to train and qualify for them. Seniority was used to determine who got the opportunity to train and qualify but, if you didn't cut the mustard, you went back where you came from. It was not a perfect system, but I preferred it to the old "who you know and who you blow" system, which didn't guarantee the cream rising to the top either. Wait a minute, that didn't come out right! I guess I got carried away with my metaphors, but you know what I mean.
I know I sounded like a bigot with those proposals, but I'm just saying it's something to think about. If people just hate each other, forcing them to live next door to each other is not likely to improve their attitudes. Look at Israel! The thing is, people want to get rid of those "others", but they want to keep their land. I think it would be more fair if the land and the people went together. You lose the people, you lose the land. Similarly, if you gain the people, you should gain the land along with them. I know that America was built by immigrants, but we're running out of room for them. If they brought some land into the deal, it might be easier to accommodate them.
No comments:
Post a Comment