While Chinatown can certainly be comparable to Italian Harlem and Crown Heights in terms of its insularity, the nature of its insularity is actually what most likely sets it apart from other minority communities. Whereas East Harlem and Crown Heights are separated religiously and culturally, Chinatown is primarily isolated from the larger society as a result of its political distinctions. Chinatown has its own governmental structure (the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association), which not only has the power to tax its members, but also has its own constitution and an “unofficial mayor,” all of which serve the interest of the elites. Although this informal political structure of Chinatown has evolved over the years and is no longer as strong as it once was, the mere fact that such a political system still exists in American society today is baffling, especially since this system is one with rather undemocratic origins. With that said, the government’s passivity towards Chinatown is quite disconcerting. How might one define a unified country if not by the core political ideologies and laws it encompasses, as well as the rights it protects? To ignore the workings of Chinatown when they do not affect the peace and security of American society at large is to forfeit the neighborhood as US territory.

Peter Kwong writes that the internal workings of isolated ethnic communities are rarely studied because “organizational structures within an immigrant community are seen as cultural baggage to be left behind, something not worth detailed analysis.” Clearly, Chinatown is worthy of detailed analysis, yet there is little attention paid to its organizational structure by the public. Perhaps the reason for this is because, as Kwong states, social scientists are more concerned with the integration of immigrants into American society than they are with the institutions that make up their community. However, I also believe that little attention is paid to Chinatown because while its residents are faced with clear and present dangers, like those of tongs, they are more or less accepting of their situation, perhaps even defensive. If outsiders were to speak about tongs, they would be accused of exaggerating the problem and tarnishing the image of Chinese communities (just as Year of Dragons was). Public exposure is blocked under the pretext of opposing stereotypes – and the self-perpetuating cycle continues.