Poverty They Don't Know The Meaning Of The Word These Days.

[anotheoldgit]

Just though some would be interested in these fantastic early photographs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487041/Londoners-old-lens-Fascinating-snapshot-capital-road-sweepers-flower-sellers-taken-dawn-photography.html

[murraymints]

What great pics !

[Brinjal]

Excellent

[DrFilth]

nice pictures only noticed one young un with no shoes/clogs on

[murraymints]

Jordy
http://thescotsmanpublications.newsprints.co.uk/



Look here in the archives xxxx

[DrFilth]

Jordyboy9 have you tried google

http://edinburghpastandpresent.com/#/old-photos-of-edinburgh/4540773739

[pixie373]

Great photos. Thanks.

[DrFilth]

some belters on here jordyboy


http://libraryblogs.is.ed.ac.uk/diu/2013/10/09/final-selection-of-images-of-old-edinburgh-by-baldwin-brown/

[murraymints]

Dr f....how coincidental....the last 6 pics of Redford house in your link is where my nephew has just got lodgings while here studying from Singapore....the estate is large....gardens still there !

[Buenchico]

The majority of the people in those photographs actually look quite well off (for the period) compared with how many other people were living at the time. Most of the photographs seem to have been taken in the more affluent area of London. For example, only one person is seen barefoot whereas nearly all children (and many adults) in areas like Limehouse wouldn't have had any shoes (or would only have a single pair of shoes , which were only worn for Church).

Genuine poverty still exists in many areas. (e.g. I've taught an 11yo boy whose only Christmas present was a pair of gloves from Poundland and a 14yo boy whose daily lunch was a half portion of plain boiled rice from the local Chinese takeaway). However the criteria used for defining 'poverty' do sometimes mystify me. For example, I read in a Kent newspaper that children in the county are classed as being 'in poverty' if they live in a house without central heating. By that definition, a child living in a grand mansion - with blazing log fires in every room and a pheasant casserole cooking in the Aga - is living in poverty!

[pusskin]

Brilliant photos aog. very interesting, and no, I dont think they were the good ole days we talk about. Oh such poverty!

[DrFilth]

chris snap > Most of the photographs seem to have been taken in the more affluent area of London. For example, only one person is seen barefoot <

see my post above

[Buenchico]

If you're seeking pictures of genuine poverty, get hold of a copy of the book 'Let Us Now Praise Famous Men', which describes the life of tenant farmers in America's Mid-South in the 1930s. Here's one of the illustrations:
http://www.fenimoreartmuseum.org/files/images/exhibitions/Field%20family%20FM.jpg

[DrFilth]

that picture reminds me of the grapes of wrath

[Hypognosis]

I was struck by the fact that the most commonly seen variety of hat (tall, with a domed top) in the photos was one I've never seen before in any film or TV production. It's always the clichéd 'topper' or, if dome-topped it's always short and stumpy, like a bowler hat.

The article describes the people in the photos as 'at the very bottom', or 'Dickens' underclass'. Maybe this design was associated with that and thus never filtered into the consciousness of whoever ran theatrical wardrobe departments?

[237SJ]

Jordyboy - Francis Frith is always a good place to start for old photos

http://www.francisfrith.com/edinburgh/photos/

[Celtigra3]

That was really interesting. Thank you anotheoldgit

[jno]

I was thinkng the same as Chris: there's not really much poverty on show there, whatever the story may say. They have jobs we don't much recognise now, playing harps in the street, cleaning shoes, selling flowers Eliza Doolittle-style, or recruiting for the army. But by Victorian standards they mostly look tolerably well off.

Is that street doctor with the odd shoes really wearing a top hat? Looks like an extended bowler to me.