I found this reading to be extremely interesting—especially chapter 5. Chinatown is a very revealing social case. Peter Kwong gives such a clear and truthful description of the political structure rigidly imposed upon this detached society of Chinese immigrants and their descendants. Simply put, Chinatown is a geographically bound area in New York City run by an elite, wealthy, and powerful class—one that has control over virtually every aspect of the society, from the business sector to the armed forces to the media. And through this lens, I argue, Chinatown is a microcosm of the American political structure as a whole.

As I was reading chapter 5, I couldn’t help but feel astonished at how closely the operation of Chinatown resembled that of the larger national society. Many analogies can be drawn between these two worlds (worlds which, ultimately, are driven by the same ancient devil: greed). The most significant analogy that I will draw here is one comparing the CCBA to the U.S. government. I will start off by quoting from Kwong’s book: “The CCBA is clearly not representative of the community, nor is it a mediating force among associations. It is a body created by the largest associations, it is nondemocratic, and it exists to enable a self-appointed elite to maintain control of Chinatown.” Now replace “CCBA” with “U.S. government,” “associations” with “corporations,” and “Chinatown” with “the United States.” Wonderful.

As Kwong gives us a further account of Chinatown and the various tools by which the elite class manipulates the elements of society, we can draw even further comparisons. Using the same rules as above, we can analyze the following statement that sheds light on the psychological tools of power: “Although indifferent to the problems of the poor, Chinatown’s elite promotes an official ideology of the community . . . the ideology is proclaimed during labor/management disputes. ‘We are all immigrants in this country, trying to make a living. If we fight, we will lose our businesses to the whites and all of us will suffer.’” In the same way, the ruling American class has imposed a similar view upon the average man: “We’re all patriotic Americans, right? You don’t wanna stir up any trouble, do ya? If you do, we could lose our freedoms to the terrorists.” Interestingly, these ideologies are thrown about at a time when civil unrest, disillusionment, and revolutionary inclinations are starting to penetrate the minds of more citizens.

Finally, two very interesting analogies can be made concerning the KMT and the tongs. The KMT is like the U.S. foreign sector; the tongs are like the U.S. military forces. However, both were serving the same head: the CCBA (or the U.S. government). Taking this into consideration, let us analyze another statement: “This alliance of the CCBA, the traditional associations, and the KMT was an alliance of shared ideology and politics. Each represented the interests of an elite against labor militancy, liberal sentiments, and mass movements.” Now, the last branch of the political structure is the media—this is tacitly understood. “One important tool used by the CCBA and the KMT to dominate Chinatown is the Chinese-language press.” Just like the Chinatown newspapers were monopolized to serve the self-interests of the wealthy, elite class members of Chinatown, the U.S. media outlets—from newspapers to corporate news networks to prime time television and radio programs—function to serve a powerful, wealthy, and self-interested elite, ultimately perpetuating a type of society that is detrimental to its very own people.

Nancy Foner examines the reality of transnationalism in the social patterns of contemporary and past immigration to the United States. She argues that although these tendencies have been popularly espoused as modern phenomena, immigrants from the first great wave maintained transnational ties as well. She does emphasize, however, that new technology, political ties, shifts in perspective, and business relations have played an important role in the nature of transnational ties today—one that can be characterized by greater accessibility and rapidity.

A very important factor, of course, is the evolution of transport. As Foner wrote, one-way trips between the U.S. and Italy during the early 1900s would take about two weeks. Moreover, a letter sent from one end would take this same amount of time to reach the other end. Today, obviously, things are different. Foner also writes about the change in perspective of the American culture. In the past, immigrants of the first great wave were encouraged to leave behind their ethnic traditions and ideals and assimilate into “good Americans.” Nowadays, immigrants are generally encouraged to embrace their ethnic origins and maintain international connections. I say, however, that contemporary immigrants have no other choice. I find it interesting that now that this new wave of immigration is predominantly one of color, the people are being told to embrace their cultural origins. The new wave of immigrants is arriving in a country that tacitly refuses to accept them as “true” members of its society. Thus, to meet a greater level of social satisfaction, contemporary immigrants must either maintain transnational ties or conform to the subordinate subculture of hyphenated Americans.

Reading this chapter got me thinking about my own family. Despite the fact that my parents come from Central America, we do not maintain strong transnational ties. I think we are less connected to the “home country” than most people of this background. I think the reasons are more unique though (more to do with family strife than anything else). However, we do speak Spanish at home and my parents have a great deal of respect and admiration for Latin American culture and history—as do I.

I found this essay to be highly intriguing and valuable in assessing the general effect of institutionalization on small, independent organizations in the United States. The trajectory of Tepeyac was an unfortunate one, and perhaps—as Gálvez seems to have suggested—inevitable. What I believe has been outlined and described in Gálvez’s essay is the ultimate demise of Asociación Tepeyac, an organization that originated as a small, grassroots movement dedicated to serving the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. The virtually irreversible transformation that has come about the organization in the wake of 9/11 has left it in a position far removed from where it used to be—one described by the dichotomies of conformity and alienation.

Since its founding—which was really a consolidation of various smaller service organizations—Tepeyac had been fully dedicated to the task of allocating government aid to the Mexican immigrant population. Armed with a highly diligent and self-sacrificing volunteer force, the organization accomplished admirable feats and tackled problems that would have been overwhelming even for larger organizations. When the tragedy of September 11th, 2001 occurred, among those affected were immigrants and their family members living in the home country. This drastic situation elicited an emergency response from Tepeyac, which continued in its efforts to serve the undocumented (and extremely underrepresented) community in New York. This called for greater private funding and an expansion of infrastructure, which ultimately led to what is described as institutional isomorphism. It becomes clear that the increased involvement of private funding organizations led to the transformation of Tepeyac into a bureaucratic institution that greatly deviated from its grassroots base in ways detrimental to its cause. In one ironic example, many the very same people who had seen the emergence of Tepeyac and contributed earnestly to its early growth could not even be hired by the organization in its latter days due to their undocumented status.

One thing I kept thinking about as I read this essay was the example of Edna Baskin’s grassroots organization in the last essay we read. I remember reading one part about how her husband was very fixed on not accepting large private donations for the sake of preserving the integrity of Concerned Community Adults. I believe he was a very wise man.

Robert Orsi brings into light the predominant traditions of Italian Harlem by painting a vivid picture of the largest annual celebration of the area. The festa of the Madonna of 115th street was an energetic and colorful celebration fueled by extreme religious devotion. The fervent Catholicism of Italian culture took root in the new immigrant communities of the late 19th century. The most vibrant display of this carry-over of tradition was, then, the festa—a celebration dedicated to the Virgin Mary, or la Madonna. The Madonna of 115th was a statue depicting the Virgin Mary, and in her arms a portrayal of the infant Jesus. This physical statue was much revered by the people of Italian Harlem. Even beyond the confines of Northern Manhattan, Italians from distant areas of the United States traveled to New York to join in the celebration that worshipped the statue. Food, games, and superstitious acts of penance were all common aspects of the lively celebration. In a procession sponsored by merchants and members of the New York elite, a statue of the Madonna—mounted on a float with a box to collect money and jewelry from the impoverished penitents—weaved its way through several blocks of the Italian community.

In the next chapter of the book, Orsi discusses the motives and backgrounds of the average Italian Harlem immigrant. The immigrants came mostly from Southern Italy—but even then they chose to maintain subdivisions by identifying with narrower regional boundaries. Italian immigrants left the bitterness of life in their home country for questionably less deplorable conditions in the Western world. And knowing of the horrible state from which these poor immigrants fled, the entrepreneur’s smile grew wider. Italian immigrants were used as strikebreakers, a business practice that aggravated ethnic tensions and urban progression. The account of Vincent Scilipoti only confirms an unremitting exploitation of the working class—something already very much established as a rulebook tactic of the rising capitalist.

Michael Walzer poses the complicated question: what does it mean to be an American? For some, the answer may be as simple as subjection to the American sense of patriotism—that is, an uncompromising reverence for the red, white, and blue; a passion for the world of contradictory politics and inconsistent foreign affairs. For others, the answer is more thought out. Many believe that to be an American is to accept, perhaps even admire, the high level of ethnic and cultural diversity found throughout the nation. And then there are other people, myself included, that realize that America is an immense landmass lying in the Western Hemisphere consisting of many different nations and peoples. Anyone inhabiting one of these nations, ranging from Canada to the peak of Chile, is, therefore, an American. Walzer seems to be in agreement, stating, “we have appropriated the title ‘American’ even though we can claim no exclusive title to it.” So, for lack of an accurate word in the language of English, I have to introduce the Latin American way of clearing up this issue: Estadounidense. This word may be most accurately translated as United States Citizen. Moving on.

Walzer begins an early discussion of Americans’ lack of communal identity—at least in the sense of having a “homeland.” I believe this to be true. Americans are highly individualistic and when they hear the word “home” they think of their private quarters, not the broader picture of a national community. Further on, Walzer brings up an interesting argument. He says that the realm of American politics is anonymous, meaning that it is blind and unbiased to any one culture or ethnicity. I do not believe this to be true, but that is another topic of discussion. I do realize, however, that it is common for individuals of every race and culture to be enthusiastic about American politics.

In Stephen Steinberg’s essay, the process of American assimilation is discussed. I found this piece to be very interesting. One early sentence stuck out to me, as I immediately related it to an essay by James Baldwin that I read last semester. Steinberg writes, “First-generation immigrants, who are most authentically steeped in ethnic culture, tend to throw it away, often with both hands, as they pursue the opportunities that led them to come to America in the first place.” Baldwin wrote about the “price of the ticket” that white Europeans paid in order to assimilate in the U.S., and this is what he was referring to. Steinberg makes an invaluable argument when he refers to the condition of African-Americans. The fact is obvious: they have been here longer than any early immigrant group yet have assimilated the least. It is most certainly a thing of color. It is a thing that racism and the mass media have played crucial roles in maintaining, and continue to do so today. African-Americans will never fully assimilate “until the structures of American apartheid are thoroughly dismantled and the persistent inequalities are resolved.”