What I found most interesting about this article, was the how through Ditmas Park seems to be a multicultural utopia, nothing is perfect.  At the end of the article Berger discusses how there are ethical tensions within the community, and this has unfortunately leaded to violent and disheartening events.  For example a Haitian woman claimed to be pummeled after buying plantains and peppers, houses have been burglarized and women being mugged.  It is interesting to see that even the most multicultural areas in New York City have histories of not accepting some people and turning to violence.  In some stores people of the community handed out leaflets telling people to ‘avoid shopping “with people who do not look like us.”’  It seems like this ideal utopia can not even have everybody getting along.

After a majority of these events in the 1990s the neighborhood began to change things around, and today everyone feels much more accepted.  It is good to see how people from everywhere can all live with each other, in such a way that their backgrounds no longer pose as a threat to anyone.  The variety adds to the characteristics of the neighborhood, and now people are moving to Ditmas Park in order to raise their kids in a multicultural environment.  Though I did not grow up in a neighborhood quite like Ditmas Park, my high school had a variety of ethnicities represented.  Seeing such a variety of ethnicities everyday I learned to accept everyone, I don’t think twice when I see someone hwo looks different from me, because nobody looks alike.  We are all so unique that it seems impossible to discriminate against certain groups, and I believe that this neighborhood has succeed in this aspect.

Before reading this chapter, I never knew that Ditmas Park existed. Even Berger says that “..many seasoned New Yorkers have never heard of it.” This area in Brooklyn defies the mosaic theory, which states that a diverse area is “an arrangement of different-colored ethnic tiles often coexisting amicably but separated by the sturdy grout of chauvinism and suspicion.” Instead, it seems to be a melting pot. No one ethnic or racial group is dominant, making this neighborhood work; Susan Miller said, “The reason why this works is there’s no majority one-there’s a majority of many” (23).

I enjoyed how Berger showed that there were friendships among the people of different ethnicities in the neighborhood, showing that the diversity is not “cosmetic.” For example, Mavis Theodore, a black Trinidadian, and Hynda Lessman Schneiweiss, a Chicago-born Jew, are very close friends. I too, have close friends that are from different backgrounds. My core friends are from different ethnicities, such as Filippino, African American, Bengali, Guyanese, Korean and Chinese.

The people in this neighborhood make an effort to be friends with people of other cultures. For example, residents hold dinners where the entire neighborhood is invited. Also, for holidays, neighbors are invited to one another’s houses, even if they are not from the same religion. I believe this is truly amazing for the residents in this neighborhoods to do this. They are trying to create a close-knit community.

These cross-cultural friendships in the neighborhood, however, are limited by socioeconomic class. Homeowners associate with homeowners and apartment dwellers with apartment dwellers. Furthermore, shared professional backgrounds contribute to this inclusivity. Why can’t friendships cross the class lines?

-Anissa Daimally

Berger’s article, “The World In a City”, on the diversity in Ditmas Park intrigued me greatly. I love diversity and there is nothing better than knowing that such a large population of diverse people lives together in one neighborhood. Although New York City is known to be one of the most diverse places in the world, I’d gotten so used to the idea of segmented neighborhoods, in which one culture or ethnic group dominates in certain bound areas, that reading about Ditmas Park came to me as a revelatory occasion worthy of some momentary fixation and lasting wonder. I liked how Berger described this phenomena as housing “the world in a city”. With people from all different cultures not just living together in one neighborhood, but also working together as one community, through events and social gatherings, that work to transform cultural restrictions into cultural amalgamation, the example of Ditmas Park really redefines and adds a new layer to the United States’ tradition of widespread immigration and the ‘melting pot’ philosophy. Moreover, I also liked how Berger qualified this by offering the counterargument that perhaps these people may simply be living together without actually interacting and actively animating the melting pot phenomena. Despite this skeptical take, I still believe that the diversity in Ditmas Park is something marvelous.

This article made me want to know more about the community. I googled Ditmas Park’s population and came up with a really interesting article that further shed light on the neighborhood’s unique characteristic (http://www.nysun.com/real-estate/in-a-diverse-city-ditmas-park-takes-the-cake/14510/). Daniela Gerson begins this article with the following scenario:

“ After school and before prayer class, 12-year-old Raniey Arief waited impatiently next to a bodega on Cortelyou Road as a Moroccan schoolmate ran in. Inside, two cashiers, one Cuban and the other Tibetan, waved as her friend scampered to grab a raspberry juice.

This type of cultural mishmash is the norm for Raniey, who wore a traditional Pakistani scarf and skirt with a leopard skin print. Her friends hail from such far-off places as Haiti, Russia, Italy, Mexico, and Poland.”

Moreover, she states that according to the most updated U.S. Census data of the time, the Cortelyou Road section of Ditmas Park was the most diverse area not just in New York City, but the entire nation. This sort of diversity is not just a marvelous phenomenon, it is an innately beautiful work of art unto itself, with each culture being an individual and distinctive brush stroke full of spark, vigor, and hope.

– Nadera Rahman

In The World in a City Berger talks about the diverse neighborhood that is Ditmas Park in Brooklyn.  What I found very interesting about this excerpt is that the people of this area are described as close friends and distant neighbors.  Berger begins by saying that Americans, especially in New York, are mixing and are more willing to get along with each other.  He describes Ditmas Park as an area where no one ethnic or racial group is dominant, and he says the people in this neighborhood are interwoven.  People move to this neighborhood expecting diversity.  You can walk down the street and see people of various different cultures.  I like how many of the people described in this excerpt say that their closes friend is someone of a different background.  This embraces the diversity that is ever so present in New York, and it shows that despite differences people can learn to communicate and work together whether it be at a community event in Ditmas Park or a large scale UN meeting in Manhattan.

The other aspect of Berger’s piece is that despite this rich diversity and seeming cooperation and friendship there is still a risk of separation and distrust.  Berger describes a split between people of different economic standing which often translates into racial separation.  People who rent apartments are less likely to be friends with homeowners.  He also included a statement from Pitzele, a history teacher, saying that the people are cohabiting not melting and that they are more friendly with people of their own ethnicity and social class.  Still, people in Ditmas Park seem to be putting in the effort with community plays, food events, and more making it seem, overall, like a friendly melting pot.

Berger’s mosaic theory of ethnic integration is an interesting image that aptly describes the Ditmas Park neighborhood.  This image denotes an amalgamation of cultures and ethnic traditions that meld together into one larger whole, while still retaining their own unique and distinctive elements.  Berger describes the Ditmas Park area as one representative of “radical mingling” (19); this phrase sheds light upon the striking nature of the way in which the diverse residents of Ditmas Park live and interact with each other.  Berger reiterates the fact that maintaining cross-cultural relationships in this area has become run-of-the-mill.  The diversity of Ditmas Park residents in interwoven; the residents are not divided by living in their own ethnic enclaves.  In this area, no one group is dominant, a fact that I found particularly interesting.  Susan Miller’s description of the neighborhood as a “majority of many” (23) aptly sums up the essence of the diversity present in Ditmas Park.  Berger attributes this lack of dominance to the geographic placement of this locale.  It seems that, because of the ethnic enclaves in the surrounding areas, namely, Coney Island, Sunset Park, Midwood, and East Flatbush, Ditmas Park has become a mixing place of sorts in which residents from these ethnic enclaves spill over and cross paths.

I also found Berger’s description of Westminster Road to be quite interesting, as I have spent quite some time in this area with family friends.  Westminster Road, with its English name, serene suburban feel, and diverse residents, draws an interesting parallel to the Ditmas Park area as a whole.

Why don’t the cross-cultural friendships in the Ditmas Park area extend over class lines?  I found it interesting that seemingly incompatible people in the area were able to sustain friendships with each other, but class lines tend to separate the same people.  What factors contribute to a tolerance of culture, but not class?

Before reading Berger’s: “The World in a City,” I already knew that New York was a conglomerate of multiple races and cultures. One would have to essentially be blind not to see the diversity. New York is after all the city where everyone wants to come, visit and sometimes reside permanently. However, the way in which Berger characterized New York really put into context on another level just how dynamic and welcoming the neighborhoods of New York are.

From the initial chapter, Berger really summed up New York with the passage, “New York can be viewed as an archipelago, like Indonesia a collection of distinctive islands, in its case its village like neighborhoods. Each island has its own way of doing things, its own flavor, fragrance, and indelible characters. But, as a result of the roiling tides of migration and the unquenchable human restlessness and hunger for something better and grander, most of these neighborhoods are in constant, ineluctable flux.”

When I read the previous passage, I was reminded of when Joe Salvo talked about the effects of net migration in and out of various neighborhoods. It is truly surprising and interesting how the demographic of a neighborhood that was formally dominated by one race becomes more ethnically diverse or populated with another group.  For example, by looking at Astoria today, no one would have known that Greeks previously dominated it. Today they only consist of 8.6% of the current population in Astoria. Now, the neighborhood simply within a two-block radius consists of a “veritable souk, with shops selling halal meat, Syrian pastries, and airplane tickets to Morocco, driving lessons in Arabic, Korans and other Muslim books.”  You really get a sense and a piece of multiple cultures. However, this isn’t the case solely in Astoria which is why New York is such a great place to be.

By living at the dorms, I have access to any food of my choosing. I can walk within a three-block radius and find Chinese, Spanish and Italian food. My only question is, in neighborhoods where there is an initial dominating ethnic enclave, what are the factors that contribute to this group picking a particular neighborhood? How long do homogenous enclaves last in New York before a neighborhood diversifies?

-Ashley Haynes

In Berger’s The World in a City, I really liked his use of the phrase “different-colored ethnic tiles” (19). I find the mosaic theory, which is what Berger is talking about here, to be an interesting one. It definitely has merit to it, as you see from maps like the ones that Joe Salvo showed us where you can see just who is living where, next to whom. People identify differently based on their ethnicity, their background, their ancestry, but in New York City, everyone lives among each other. Yes there are neighborhoods like Chinatown and Little Italy, but those neighborhoods cross over each other, especially over time, and they do still interact because they are just smaller portions of the bigger City. Berger also talks about the melting pot theory, and relates some people’s opinions that the city isn’t a melting pot, but rather we all just inhabit the same land and don’t interact with those outside of our preconceived social circles. I don’t agree with that, but perhaps that’s simply because of my going to school and having to interact with everyone in my classes. Yes it’s true that we relate better to those who are more similar to us, but I don’t think that means that we isolate ourselves completely from those who are more dissimilar to us.

– Does the assimilation model of the ethnic enclave serving only as a temporary home for certain groups to “make it” and go up on the social ladder really best describe NYC? Is it the best model available for demographic changes?

– The comparison of assimilation of Arabs and Muslims into American society as opposed to European society is very interesting. Apparently American society is much more receptive and enthusiastic than European society in that “in London, Paris, and Hamburg, there is far more ambivalence [towards Muslims]. Even two and three generations after they began settling in those cities, the Muslim underclass tends to remain outside the mainstream.” (19) How else do immigration patterns differ between NYC and the capitals of Europe?