Main Question: What differences between the two neighborhoods have led to violent displays of ethnic tensions in Midwood, yet no outwardly displayed shows of tension in Greenpoint?
Introduction
America is not a melting pot, contrary to many ideals that have been put out in the past. This is evident by the divisions within neighborhood, social groups, and the tensions that arise when two groups encounter scarce resources. New York City has been a dynamic hub of immigration for hundreds of years and serves as a prime example of how people learn to tolerate each other and of how friction between two groups leads to ethnic tensions. These tensions come in varied forms that differ between neighborhoods and groups, including discrimination, avoidance, vandalism, verbal attacks, and physical violence. After visiting Greenpoint, Brooklyn, we have sensed a possible evidence of the first two, but nearly no reports of tension resulting in face-to-face verbal and physical contact. On the other hand, Midwood, Brooklyn is a neighborhood that has been afflicted with directed ethnic aggression. This difference between the makeup of the tensions in Greenpoint and Midwood may result from a variety of factors, including differences between contested resources, group cultures, inherent feelings of ethnocentrism, and poverty levels.
Bulleted List of Points to Make
– changing ethnic compositions of each neighborhood have been the foundation that has led to ethnic tensions. (possibly 1 paragraph for each neighborhood). Include census stats.
– Political Conflict in Midwood
-Seeming Lack of Political Conflict in Greenpoint
-Analysis
-Economic Conflict in Midwood
-Displacement and Gentrification in Greenpoint
-Analysis
-issues of culture in Midwood with reference to the conservative Jewish population
-the seeming coexistence of Spanish, Polish and hipster cultures – argue that all the main groups in Greenpoint get along with hardly any racial crimes or incidents – use crime rates and old newspaper articles to support this argument
-Analysis
Hi guys,
So, it’s pretty clear where you’re headed with this – just a few questions to guide the next steps:
1) Why Midwood and Greenpoint? The neighborhoods seem so different in so many ways… Usually social researchers choose two neighborhoods that are similar in several important respects, in order to hone in on one or more factors that they’re interested in. I worry a little bit that the neighborhoods are so different that it will be hard to identify which, among all the possible factors, might have led to conflict in Midwood but not in Greenpoint. Perhaps a third neighborhood would help you narrow things down, while keeping what you’ve learned about Greenpoint and Midwood in play?
2) I sense some tentativeness about the lack of tension in Greenpoint. Is this because you don’t know of any evidence of conflict, but can’t say with complete confidence that there hasn’t been any? Be sure not to overstate your claims, given the evidence at hand. And more importantly, be as fair as possible in your treatment of the neighborhoods. For example, if you’re focusing on the recent anti-Semitic graffiti and car bombings and so forth in Midwood, make sure you can say with confidence that similar high-profile religious or ethnically inspired events haven’t occurred in Greenpoint. Compare oranges to oranges: if you are using newspaper reports of ethnic tension in one community, don’t compare it to a general feeling that there is no tension in the other one; do a similar search of newspaper articles until you’re confident that similar events have not occurred.
Lastly, be strong in your thesis, whatever it is. I have the same problem you have, and often my first drafts end up with a thesis statement claiming that something or another “may result” from a laundry list of potential factors, as you say here. Instead, come up with a precise, plausible explanation and commit to it.
This part of writing is hard. We have to sound more confident than we are. And sometimes this feels dishonest. But academic prose is rarely expressive, always strategic and often combative: it’s more like chess than watercolor painting. Figure out what your evidence will support, commit to an argument, then write the paper in a way that does everything possible to convince your reader without distorting or overstating the case you have to offer. There’s plenty of room here for nuance (reality is complicated and good explanations reflect that complexity), but not much room for modesty and no room for tentativeness. The good news is that you guys are really smart, so you have every reason to leave the modesty at home in your written work. 🙂
Good luck! Let me know if I can disambiguate any of this, or if you’d like to run any ideas past me.
Mike