The article (if that's what it is) is a tough slog. The vocabulary is at grade six level and the potty mouth language cheapens the message. And I don't know what that message is because I refuse to finish it.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." - complaint from Ancient Greece[1]
It's a free neighborhood, if people want to live there let them. If they don't want to live there, let them leave. Moral superiority is all relative. The frat boys and girls (if that's what they even were) are just as right as anyone else is to live or not live in the Mission district.
I dislike the fraternity culture as much as anyone else who dislikes it, but it's not much worse then any other kind of cultural baggage like-minded groups of people bring.
Sure, I like the image grit and sticktoitedness that might have been associated with immigrant waves of yore --but now not all immigrants are from economically deficient backgrounds --sure, there may be still the dispossessed but we also have those with possessions or inter-city or inter-state migrations to SF people looking to get rich quick -ala Wall Street back a few decades ago.
SF doesn't 'belong' to a time or a people and place, it belongs to its current inhabitants --they shape it, that's it. Stop being possessive about something which is meant to change with time. Paris of today is not the Paris of the 40s, etc.
4 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 17.2 ms ] thread[1]http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=398104
I dislike the fraternity culture as much as anyone else who dislikes it, but it's not much worse then any other kind of cultural baggage like-minded groups of people bring.
Sure, I like the image grit and sticktoitedness that might have been associated with immigrant waves of yore --but now not all immigrants are from economically deficient backgrounds --sure, there may be still the dispossessed but we also have those with possessions or inter-city or inter-state migrations to SF people looking to get rich quick -ala Wall Street back a few decades ago.
SF doesn't 'belong' to a time or a people and place, it belongs to its current inhabitants --they shape it, that's it. Stop being possessive about something which is meant to change with time. Paris of today is not the Paris of the 40s, etc.