I was shocked when I found out that my hometown, Wesley Hills, NY, had once actually banned the building of synagogues and other religious buildings. This neighborhood, attractive to large families and commuters to NYC, cherished their idealistic traditional and rural town and did not want to be subject to “invasion.” While the churches were permitted because they were built prior to the law’s enactment, new ‘religious’ institutions, mainly synagogues, were forbidden to be built to hold more than 50 people at once. All to prevent the unwanted group from entering.
I must empathize with people who want a traditional, peaceful, and unchanged living space. As unexciting as that sounds, most people prefer not to be bombarded by newcomers who only come to transform their comfortable homes. People are comfortable with their own homes and own people. The unusual and brave “pioneers,” that Herman says trickle into a community, are out of the ordinary and are not threatening in the present. To their credit, the violent show intolerance at these early stages to prevent a worse instance of more unwanted people following behind the “pioneers.” The existing community will break apart once new people come. This is exactly what happened in Wesley Hills. It is natural–an uncontrollable process that slowly occurs when the generations outgrow their communities and young communities take over. A ‘violence action’ will be triggered when this transformation process happens quickly, within ones generation. For Orthodox Jews, it made clear sense to migrate together–congregational prayer, dietary restrictions, and religious customs are facilitated by the support of one another. The slow migration to Wesley Hills area caused much tension in my community in the past, and created the divided community I have today. As Herman predicted, most of the old community members have left to collaborate in a new area since the influx of the orthodox.
So too, in many other areas, I believe the “prevention mechanisms” Herman and Albinder talk about have more to do with people wanting their communities to stay the same than actual racism. I do not think the Black vs White disputes represent intentions to prevent “Ethnic Succession.” The long wrestle between whites and the African Americans is, Unfortunately, engrained into our US history that will never be completely erased. Whites aren’t threatened that blacks will dominate; rather their natural instinct tells them they are better than blacks. While civil rights changes have proliferated today, the societal hierarchal pyramid in society has not broken down. The fight for ethnic supremacy is among all other races, where one must prove his value above the other.
Unfortunately, a small intolerance tends to create ethnic tension. People fear the unknown, and are not willing to give the future a chance if it means compromising their comfortability.
Overall, Herman and Albinder point out a few key examples of group violence for prevention of ethnic succession. On the other hand, I believe Herman generalizes all “violence” is linked to ethnic succession. The black and white segregation issue is far more complicated than one group invading another one’s community. It draws upon deep philosophical and instinctual ideas engrained in the minds of common white Constitutional thinkers.
Aliza Selter
