The other way to make city
In both the 19th and 20th centuries, the phenomenon of European immigration as well as internal immigration coincided in the new Argentina. How is such a combination possible? What happened was that the masses of the population ended up actively concentrating around their working areas, the microclimate created allowed political parties to grow rapidly with social ideas . The same was true of the descendants of African slaves, freed from servitude by the Constitution of the ArgentineNation, 1853. However, slavery gave way to some kind of casual work that was not entirely profitable and sometimes looked too close to old servitude.
As we said, the ways of life of European immigrants overlapped with those developed by the masses of Creole workers. The result was not always mixing. The ones immigrants rearmed something that evoked their roots and the children of the peoples , installed communities very similar to their original tolderies. The so-called misery village has its origin in this ancient cultural uprooting .
“There was a shadow of a canopy,” I would say Francisco Pascasio Moreno, known as theMoreno expert, in the Diario de Buenos Aires in 1885. He commented on how pre-existing villages armed in their new settlements (closed or in the air) ), the lifestyles that came from their ancestors.
In “The ‘poor’ ways of making city: a historical tour of popular habitat patterns and their impact on the state agenda”, María Florencia Rodríguez(Studies of Political Economy and Global System, andedition13), explains:
“The popular sectors have developed, over the years, various housing strategies for the purpose of accessing the city. It’s like this. which, through ‘informal’ housing modalities – conventionally, tenants, villas, settlements and property occupations- sectors of lower income reproduced his material life, in a frame where the city-the urban space – made it possible to access employment opportunities, infrastructure and urban equipment (public transport, education, health and recreation). However, it is interesting to note that the self-management processes of the habitat that grassroots sectors have been able to develop were linked – to a large extent – to the economic situation of the country as well as to the attitude of tolerance or not that the government had towards them.”
The change of model that modernity imposed, consequently reinvented individual living standards . The ones objectives of the various groups would not always be commensurate with the possibilities that the wage earners reached. The gap between workers thus left be cultural and became economic. The villas finally welcomed groups that had no origins in the mentality of tolerance. It was the new villas. Everyone needed the same things to adapt to the new times.
In this regard, María Florencia Rodríguez adds that “one of the self-managed modalities of access to the habitat was the emergency villas, which emerged strongly in the 1940s. Tolerance towards this modality remained until 1976, when the last
Sergio es un autor e historiador argentino que revisa los movimientos segregacionistas a través de la historia. Ha publicado entre otros libros, Los Escribas de Dios, Los Músicos de Dios, Breve Historia del Mundo y Mitos a Medias. Actualmente es docente de Pensamiento del Siglo XX en la Dirección de Cultura de la Universidad de Belgrano y escribe para Ediciones Fortnel.