Analysis Of A Center City Walking Tour By Elijah Anderson

In his piece “A Center City Walking Tour,” Elijah Anderson discusses the concept of “cosmopolitan canopies.” He takes us through a written tour of Philadelphia, going street by street in great detail. He begins his tour from Penn’s Landing and ends on 52nd Street. As he discusses these areas, a number of themes and issues can be identified. As Anderson moves on in the tour, the ideas of race and class become particularly prominent. Numerous types of interactions between numerous peoples occur. The question arises whether these interactions are more negative or positive. While some may certainly be positive, I believe such interactions are generally negative. Voluntary racism, involuntary racism, and classism are all factors that account for

The first is philos, which can mean friendship or love, and the second is adelphos, which means brother. Hence, its additional name the “City of Brotherly Love.” However, the city’s past proves to be contradictory. Philadelphia was the original capital of the nation. During the 1790s, while the new capital in Washington DC was being constructed, George Washington utilized his house in Philadelphia as his place of residence and presidential office. He was also served by eight slaves at this property. What is paradoxical about this is the fact that in 1780, the state of Pennsylvania “had passed a gradual emancipation law” (Anderson 7). Centuries later in 2006, the new location for the Liberty Bell Center was being dug up. However, archaeologists uncovered remnants of slave quarters (7). As previously stated, with Philadelphia never starting out as an ideal cosmopolitan canopy, the racism only

It better fits the definition of a cosmopolitan canopy, due to the diversity of people that walk its streets. But behind the scenes, there lies serious social class tensions between them. Specifically in Rittenhouse Square and its immediate vicinity, there is a sort of territory battle between lower class citizens and the wealthy, whether they be old or new residents. It is important to note that these lower class citizens are “black poor and homeless,” (Anderson 25) while the “middle and upper classes . . . are predominantly white” (25). This additionally indicates effects of racism, adding to negative connection between people in canopies. The police back up the upper class in this conflict. Anderson describes the police’s involvement, stating: “In days of decline the police were more tolerant of the homeless and other poor people” (24). Originally, police were more lenient when it came to the poor and homeless. This is what he meant by “days of decline” (24)—when underprivileged and poor blacks populated the area, while the affluent were scarce. But because of the the latter returning, they are more discouraging of homeless people lying on benches and soliciting the area. This return by the upper class itself is notable. Typically, when homeless and poor people begin to populate an area, the upper class citizens already present tend to move away. But in this case, we see that they are in fact succeeding in