I was reading a trivia list (I believe it was in Cracked.com) that was about the song In the Ghetto, the oft-mocked serious issue song made famous by Elvis.
My question isn’t whether the song is worthy of punditry or not, but rather about how the trivia list writer seemed to believe that the child born at the end of the song was the child of the angry young man who dies in the street that same day.
When I read this, I was like, “Huh? Where does the song say that? I always thought the kid being born in poverty was just any other baby, and the guy dying in the street was not his father, but just the latest victim of poverty and racism. Or just a worthless thug if you’re republican.”
The writer said that the song was pointing out that poverty was inter-generational. I think it’s better if the song remains free of that kind of outlook, because then the song makes poverty more of a universal problem that could happen to anybody. Then doing something about it seems more immediate.
What do you think? I’ve never heard that the child at the end of the song was supposed to be the street victim’s kid. Did I miss something?
I hadn’t considered that interpretation, but note the last line: “And his mama cries.” That would seem to refer to the child who was just born. Why would she cry? Probably because the father has just been killed.
I don’t think it changed the point of the song: poverty leads to desperate acts. Whether the baby is the son of the dead kid or not, it’s the same cycle.
I thought it was the same “mama” at the beginning middle and the end of the song - “And his mama cries” shows up 3 times in the song. - when the original baby is born, when he steals a gun and a car, and when the second baby is born.
Plus there’s this line in the last verse:
“And as her young man dies
On a cold and gray Chicago morning”
I guess it could be a switch from the first 2 being the young man’s mother, and the third being his girlfriend, but it makes more sense that they’re all his mother, and the second baby is his brother. IMHO.
It’s how I would interpret it. The particular personal pronouns used make multiple interpretations possible though, and that one is not more obvious than any other.
I think it’s more a stretch to interpret the kid being born as the first child’s brother though. The whole point is that there’s a new mama crying over a new child with no future.
No connection, other than social / environmental
Baby Born, as he grows, needs help, plays in street, steals, and fights, then steals a car, eventually gets killed,…
How would you interpret the “And as her young man dies” line right before the 2nd birth then? It establishes some sort of connection between the beginning and end.
I don’t think the birth of the two babies is related except they are both born “in the ghetto”. The song is saying there is a systemic problem and not just holding up one family as an example.
I just took a listen to the end.
“And as her young man dies…” the audio fades out a bit. Then on “On a cold and grey Chicago morn…” The audio comes in strong.
I’m picturing the camera zooming out from the first woman’s face, out the window, pan across the city, zoom in another window to the second mother’s face.
I thought it was the same mother with a new baby, the brother of the one that just got killed. But the song has the same meaning any way you want to interpret it.
I am second to none in my admiration of Elvis Presley. However well he meant by it, his recording of “In the Ghetto” was cringe-inducing from the day it was released. Above, I have linked to a duet of the song by two young ladies you might remember. It’s like a whole different song.
Doesn’t seem all that different to me. But I’ve never been much of a Natalie Merchant fan, especially since she ruined that Springsteen/Patti Smith’s song.
The fact is that both views are correct. Poverty and racism may indeed lead to a kid growing up to kill people in drive-by shootings or for their shoes or rims. But at that point the kid has become a worthless thug and there’s nothing wrong with saying so. There are lots of kids who grow up amidst poverty and racism who don’t become thugs, and the knowledge of this is the reason many “republicans” speak disdainfully of those who do.
A disadvantaged background doesn’t and shouldn’t give you a free pass to behave any way you want, including harming others, without consequence. And being viewed as a thug for thuggish behavior is one of those consequences. It’s fine and admirable to seek ways to reduce or eliminate poverty and racism, but it’s unfair, naive and counter-productive to behave as though those who recognize thuggery for what is are being bad people.
It’s more easily forgiven if the child in question is black. White children who grow up in poverty and ignorance, join gangs, and become violent criminals are just Nazis who deserve to be excluded from society.
