The rigid governmental systems within the Chinese communities in China town provides another pretty clear reason for why the Chinese had so much trouble adapting into American society. They literally had an entire society, from soup to nuts, holed up in a small corner of the city. When the Chinese are living in such a power system, there is little to no allowance for upward mobility. Individuals are trapped in an exclusively Chinese-American society, and they cannot become integrated into mainstream American society simply because their superiors give them no such outlet.

Kwong’s description of the associations and hier-up that developed territorially in Chinatown describes nothing short of a hierarchical and elitist society. These strict horizontal divisions nullify the advantages that come along with the vertical integration in Chinese circles.

Although Kwong explains that the structures of the associations and the Chinatown government were informal political structures, I find myself thinking of the society as an unofficially official statehood. When there is a body in place that has the power to demand taxes from its subordinates, a society becomes formalized. The CCBA serves as a mechanism of centrality, and it’s force of power trickles down to the largest associations first into a pyramid-like, hierarchical structure. I feel uncomfortable calling such a complex and carefully defined system “informal”. The associations themselves seem to be unofficial and informal because of their unclear borders and instability. The higher powers in Chinese societies however, seem highly organized and powerful. They follow clearly defined guidelines as to how they govern their subordinates.

I don’t think that without an officially unofficial system in place, Chinatown could have remained so uniquely insular. Many other immigrant groups have come with forms of governance and leadership, but they have learned English and have integrated at least somewhat into mainstream society. With the Chinese systems in place, the immigrants do not have the capability (nor the need, some might argue) to adapt as other immigrants have.

I was really fascinated by Susan Slyomovics’ interpretation of the Muslim reasoning behind holding a parade. She points out that Muslims are really the only religious group in New York City that hold a parade titled by their religion (as opposed to say, the Jewish population participating in the Israel Day Parade). At the same time, religious association with Islam is not necessarily ethnic because Muslims in New York City come from all over the world. Slyomovics argues that perhaps the purpose of Muslims coming together to march in a parade is for “reconfiguring religion into ethnicity to take advantage of the discourse of ethnicity” (160). This begs the question, however, as to why Muslims in New York City feel that it is advantageous to identify themselves by ethnicity rather than religion? True, other parades in the city are generally ethnic gatherings (like the Puerto Rican Day Parade), but does that mean that a community in New York City can’t be bound together by religious association as well?

Based on Slyomovic’s description of the Muslim World Day Parade, it really does sound like the Muslim population of New York City tries to present themselves as an ethnic group thriving in the city. The parade begins, however, with prayer. The Muslim population makes a crucial statement in beginning their parade with an expression of their religious beliefs. I think that, in general, America, and specifically New York City, is anti-religious. Not necessarily in a vehement sense, but the ideal of the melting pop suggests that in order to part of the society at large, one must compromise his or her religious or cultural practices. Give a little, get a little, right?

By framing their parade with prayer, the Muslim population shows the value behind religious association, and that they need not compromise themselves in order to be part of New York City. Geographical ethnicity is not the only thing that brings people together in communal bonds. When a group shares a sense of religious beliefs, they will come together as a community no matter what part of the world they hail from. A religious community, though it will not compromise itself, is every bit as legitimately a part of the broader community of New York City as any ethnic community.

When reading the chapter that discusses the distinctive clothing style of the Hassidim in Crown Heights, I couldn’t help but be reminded of an interview quoted in the previous chapter when a Hassidic woman said, “…if we lived in Great Neck, we’d be the same way!” Although this woman was referring to the ways in which Hassidim relate to others and this chapter veers more in the direction of how others view Hassidim form the outside, the fundamental idea remains the same. Hassidic Jews, Lubavitch in particular, will stand out no matter where they are. There was once a time when the ethnic ratio of Crown Heights displayed far more Jewish whites than Gentile blacks. Even then, the Hassidim stood apart from their white, and even Jewish non-Hassidic neighbors.

The concepts of misunderstandings with regards to identity keep coming up in every feature of the two communities in Crown Heights. In this chapter, Goldshmidt delves into visual identification of Lubavitch Hassidic Jews, and how these images are understood both by other Jews and by their Black neighbors. While the Blacks in Crown Heights view the mobs of Jewish men all in black coats as intimidating and perhaps even arrogant, the idea of being visually distinctive is extremely meaningful to the Hassidic community. He discusses the Lubavitch men who go out into the world asking people “Are you Jewish?” as a means of including all Jews, both affiliated and secular, in keeping the laws of the Torah.

The idea of clothing as an identity tag is typically considered unfair as we live in the age of “let your inner self shine through” and cliché’s of the like. This is bullshit. How one chooses to dress says a great deal about him or her. As Goldschmidt shows with the Lubavitch Hassidim, their clothing is a key identifying feature. I did not find, however, that Goldschmidt evaluated why exactly all Hassidim comply with this strict uniform. He did bring down a few historical reasons, but I want surprised that he didn’t expand more upon the Hassidic idea of segregation as a crucial part of maintaining their way of life. When Hassidic Jews dress in a certain uniform, it is not merely because their Rebbe told them to, or because that is what their Polish ancestors wore. Rather, I think it goes along with the idea that these people want to stand out, like Jewish pride. Goldshmidt mentions that Jews view themselves as “a light unto the nations”. When Hassidic Jews dress differently, they make themselves known to each other, and to the rest of the world. There is a heightened sense of community in this distinctive method of identification, that parallels the Hassidic value of mainting their insular, yet shining form of a community.

It appears from this chapter that the theme of blurry lines of identification is a theme that manifests itself in every aspect of the Black and Jewish communities of Crown Heights. Not only do the individual communities struggle with self-identity and interactive identity, but also they even struggle with geographic identity. Essentially, the “personality” of a neighborhood is defined by the culture of its inhabitants. In a neighborhood like Crown Heights we find to distinct communities, each with their own identity crises, living in tension with one another. It’s no wonder that Goldschmidt struggles to define what and where exactly is the neighborhood.

When reading Goldschmidt’s general review of the history of shifting ethnic communities in Crown Heights, I got the impression that the shift in Crown Heights from being a predominantly white, Jewish community to a Black, Afro-Caribbean and African American community, seemed natural. “White Flight” to the suburbs was a common occurrence in the sixties and seventies. What was unusual about Crown Heights, however, was that there was an active force going against the tide of natural ethnic shifts on the part of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Had the Rebbe not instructed the people in his community to stay where they were, the Lubavitcher Chassidim likely would have left with the rest of the whites and Jews in Crown Heights. Since the vast majority of Crown Heights had once been Jewish, the remaining Chassidish residents never adjusted their identification of the geographical borders of the neighborhood. Even the Jewish part of ton shrank to a mere six-block radius, the residents nevertheless held on to the old picture of Crown Heights.

The tension and confusion of geographic borders in Crown Heights continues to reflect the tensions between the two communities on a socioeconomic level. I found Goldschmidt’s explanation of the mixed-community (that is, lower income families living among higher income families) to be reminiscent of the ways in which the Blacks and the Jews in Crown Heights relate to one another. He writes that, “Jews in Crown Heights seem to be a bit worse off…than their Black neighbors” and yet everyone assumes otherwise, due to the spatial correlation between Jews and wealth, and probably some Jewish stereotypes as well. Though rather than assuming that geographic and racial/religious misunderstandings just happen to appear to parallel one another in Crown Heights, I would sooner argue that the geographic confusion of Crown Heights is one of many factors that lends itself to general misunderstandings of race and religion.

The role of the Italian women as Orsi describes it is puzzling. They seem to be held to contradictory expectations. On the one hand “married women with children were the source of power and authority in the domus….” And yet when Covello interviewed Marie Concilio, she told him that Italian women were really just supposed to “help mother in spoiling father and the brother…” It seems strange; women hold the power to make all of these decisions about everyone in the domus, and yet they act as the servants of the household.

If Mother was so powerful, why was she waiting on everyone else? She had worked hard to get to where she was, enduring the grueling years of being meticulously watched through her childhood and adolescence and ensuring that she did absolutely nothing to taint her reputation. Once she was settled in her role as the matriarch of the domus, she did not seem to reap the respect that she earned.

I think the answer to this conundrum is reflected in the next section of the reading, where we took a closer look at the intense devotion that the Italians had to their religion and traditions.  The faithfulness that these immigrants showed towards their Southern Italian lifestyle is astounding. They worshipped their statue of the Virgin and held the procession of the festa one week a year to reaffirm their devotion. The Madonna was the center of their life, and she was the solver of all problems.

What helped me to better understand a woman’s place in Italian Harlem was when Orsi wrote about women going to pray to the Madonna for help. He writes, “ These problems were never presented as personal…the crisis always threatened the domus.” The Italian matriarch was not a dictator; she was a selfless leader, devoted to using her power as head of the domus only for the good of the domus.

This is what respect means for the Italians. We’ve already discussed that Italian immigrants were willing to work the worst of jobs and hours if only to benefit their families. This was the true role of the Italian woman, to work hard to ensure the continuity of the domus. Her working to serve everyone in her household was not a sign of her low status. On the contrary, it meant that only she was capable of caring for everyone and deciding what was best for each member of the domus. The power given to her in her role in the home was to be used for, and only for, the good of the domus.

The first two chapters of “Madonna of 115^th Street” made me think a lot about the role that religion plays in people’s lives. It appears that, for Southern Italian immigrants in New York City, particularly in Harlem, their deep devotion to the Madonna was not just a belief system. It was a system of renewal and rejuvenation throughout their hardships. I found it so fascinating to read the first chapter of the book, that present this magnificent and vibrant celebration and to then contrast it with the second chapter, which focused on the horrible living conditions that Italian immigrants endured. The two chapters almost seem to be describing two completely different societies, and yet they are one and the same.

When I though about it more, however, are realized that this seemingly paradoxical lifestyle was not a paradox at all. Religion, by its dictionary definition (although many people will interpret otherwise) is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman or controlling power”. Here are these displaced and homesick immigrants who came to New York to seek a better life. Orsi explains, however, that Italians who came to New York experienced the same extreme poverty and run-down living conditions that they had attempted to escape in Italy. The irony of it all would be enough to drive anyone into total depression at the thought that there is no better life out there.

That’s where religion comes into play. When one believes in a higher power, there is hope. These immigrants worked so hard and earned so little, and they needed all the hope they can get. I think that religious beliefs are the strongest in the face of hardship. There is a saying “there’s no atheist in a foxhole”, meaning that the times of our greatest fears and hardships are the times when we are most inclined to believe that there is a greater power above everything. When it seems that all hope is lost, the natural human inclination is to turn to a higher power. Sometimes the only way to move forward is to believe that there is a bigger plan of which we are simply unaware. I think that in their crowded and difficult lives, the Italian immigrants the needed their incredibly deep devotion to the Madonna in order to survive.

Having grown up in the New York area, I witnesses the manifestation of many different types of cultures, and it just seemed that when people migrated to the United States, they would hold on to their old way of life and pass it down. I guess I was under the impression that the United States acts as more of a salad bowl than a melting pot. My ideas resembled those of Walzer’s hyphenation theory. We define ourselves based on where we came from, and where we are now. I, for example, call myself an “American-Jew”, “American” being the adjective, and “Jew” being the noun, the core.

It is interesting to think about Steinberg’s argument about the state of assimilation of ethnicities in the United States in terms of Walzer’s hyphenated American. The United States is unique in that it is a young country, and most of its citizens trace their origins back to another part of the world. At the same time, he points out that “Italian Americans…bear little resemblance to Italians in Italy, but…. Italian Americans are nevertheless a distinct community” When Americans identify themselves as being American and something else, Steinberg would argue that they are in the process of being “melted”. Thus, unique societies are constantly being churned out as the children of immigrants assimilate. Over time, Steinberg might say, descendants of immigrants with different origins will slowly begin to resemble one another as ethnicities continue to intermarry. Someday, perhaps centuries from now, there will be a true “American” ethnicity. American citizens will be a mix of so many different cultures, that they will have no choice but to simply identify as American, and nothing else.

By that logic, assimilation in the United States does not imply conforming to a certain existing norm, but rather, evolving into a something entirely new based on a combination of both “old country” and United States influence. It seems to me that because of the nature of assimilation in the United States, this form of ethnic evolution will never stop. As long as millions of immigrants from countries all over the world continue to flood in, we will see new ethnic communities form. The individuals in these communities create for themselves unique ethnic identities that are unlike those of their parents, and unlike those of their fellow Americans. As their children continue to melt, these identities will evolve as the influence of the colorful American society seeps in. In that sense I disagree with Steinberg that someday all ethnicities will be completely intermingled, and agree more with Walzer that “…an American nation-state….is not what it is now; nor is that its destiny”. The United States will always house children of immigrants who proudly identify with their native homeland.