Throughout the last two chapters of the book I was disillusioned, and disgusted. So many thoughts came to mind when I read these last two chapters. But the ideas that dominate it are the ignorance elites and their mendacious character.

The people in power at the Jin Fong Restaurant, Jane Lii, the reporter from the New York Times, and Min Zhou, the Sociologist, had the nerve to describe the Chinese as a group that doesn’t see themselves as being exploited while working in sweatshops. They in turn tried to justify the conditions in which the Chinatown workers work in. The owners of the Jin Fong Restaurant stole from their workers by taking 40% of the waiters’ tips and they didn’t even hide it. They were violating labor laws with no care in the world. When this came out during a protest against the restaurant in 1995 they didn’t deny it. They claimed that the Chinese are a people willing to work harder and expect less. They said all this while their workers protested… Their ability to lie even when all facts point elsewhere amazes me.

I expect crap to flow out of the mouths of Jin Fong’s owners but I didn’t see it coming from a New York Times reporter and a Sociologist. What’s worse is that both of them seem to be from Asian backgrounds, which only adds to their authority on the matter.  They inform the public and the public listens. Some of the most eye-opening quotes found within this book came from and are about these two. Peter Kwong writes that Min Zhou argued in her book Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave “that Chinese ethnic social relations regulate economic behavior to the mutual benefit of all” and that “the Chinese do not see themselves as exploited, because “the work ethic of immigrant Chinese is built on a value standard from Chinese culture and not on the one from the dominant culture.” My only guess as to how she arrived to these conclusions is that she got her information from the perceived leaders and representatives of the community like the CCBA. The Chinese aren’t happy working in horrible conditions, with low pay and no benefits. Their work ethic may be strong but they didn’t come to America in order to live a life they lived in China. They don’t want to be exploited and work for nothing (many Chinatown bosses withhold wages). They came to America for a better life for themselves and their children. They didn’t expect to work in an economy that led to downward mobility. The Chinese adults work under these conditions because they need to eat. Unlike what reporter Jane Lii argued, they probably aren’t overjoyed that their boss allows their children to work and that they need their children to work alongside them.

Peter Kwong ends his book on a more positive note. He looked to the future with a hope that the new grass roots movements coming out from Chinatown would create a more open and democratic neighborhood. I truly hope so.

I was fairly surprised by this week’s readings. From Nicholas Klein and Andrew Zitcer reading to the chapter on New York’s Chinatown community a lot of the stereotypes I’ve come to know melted away. Rather a new understanding came to me while I read about the Chinese immigrants in Peter Kowng’s book. The realization that the very ubiquitous notion that every Chinese person has achieved academic success was something that was conjured up by looking only at the surface amazed me. The generalization seemed to hold true because of data already collected but the reality of it is more complex than that. Peter Kwong describes the uptown and downtown Chinese to show the polarization between the different Chinese that come to America. He shows us that the idea of the Chinese being smart comes from the census data in the 1970s. The data portrayed the Chinese as the well off, highly educated “model minority.” This data creates an average though. It does not show the clear distinction between the groups that make up the upper stratum and the lower stratum of the data. People from Taiwan with high educational standards and from Chinese elite families who came during the Cultural Revolution in China dominate the upper stratum. The lower stratum consists of many new immigrants from the People’s Republic of China. The upper stratum is very different from the lower stratum in terms of education, professions and income before and after they come to America.

What was very interesting to see from Zitcer and Klein’s study was how understanding of a different place and people is strongly framed by word of mouth. Not just from anyone but from a person with “insider knowledge.” Its hard to discern what is true or not without actually being there. The ridiculous stories that do pass through word of mouth just serve to emphasize a person’s different or lack of understanding in a given situation. The bus driver situation in a Chinatown bus bus serves this point. The non-Chinese saw the bus driver as a lunatic, who smoked and didn’t abide by the law while the Chinese saw him as a person who chain-smokes to try to stay awake during his over twelve hour shifts. Its just like how outsiders with “insiders data” since the 1970s might have seen Chinatowns as places of upward mobility and the Chinese as the “model minority.”

This chapter by Nancy Foner titled “Transnational Ties” introduced me to the phrase transnationalism. It refers to processes by which immigrants ‘‘forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement. . . . An essential element . . . is the multiplicity of involvements that transmigrants sustain in both home and host societies.’’ The word itself encompasses a situation familiar to many people who live in New York City. In a city so dense with immigrants its hard not to see where this term comes into play. What I thought was very interesting in Foner’s chapter was her assessment of the old transnationalism. In the 1880s to early 1900s transnationalism was looked down upon in American society.

Unlike in the past immigrants who come here are welcome to express their ties to their home countries. And as opposed to the past there more frequent connections to the culture and family left behind which may result in stronger ties. This is all due to the advancement of technology. Again I was amazed, as I usually am, by how much of a difference a decade can make. The book feels so outdated. The outdated tech included in this chapter is telephones and videotapes. I say telephones because not that many people use a telephone to call long distance and get charged that cheap rate of three dollars per minute… Also many of the younger generation don’t even now how to work a VHS recorder. As of right now the Internet has become the biggest game changer in keeping ties with loved ones in other places. People use free social networking sites to keep in contact with their family and friends. They can now Skype each other, tag each other or do whatever they want to online. The ability to instantly contact a person and see their face and surroundings in real-time probably greatly affects the ability to be a connected, transnational citizen.

The most intriguing issue brought up in the chapter was how the US’ and the world’s acceptance of transnationalism affects politics and economy. The ability to be a potential lobbyist for the home country in America is one reason why dual citizenship is very important to many countries. It’s important to note that different countries have different policies for their dual citizens and some allow dual citizens to vote in their elections. One such country is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican community in New York is the second largest concentration of voters in any Domincan election. Another reason dual citizenship is important to the home country is that “a powerful economic incentive is involved in the recognition of dual nationality by various sending countries.” Like the Dominican Republic, Philippines also relies on the remittances from their migrants. About 10% of their GDP comes from money sent back. These results of transnationalism are amazing to observe and the future results of it are unpredictable but they seem to make the world a more interesting place.

To understand the importance of the Muslim World Day parade in New York City Susan Slyomovics reminds us of the purposes a parade serves. A parade has the ability to educate both the observers and the participants on what it means to be them. The observers in the Muslim World day parade are provided a scene painted by most, if not all, of their senses. Through sights, sounds, taste, touch and smell people have a chance to peek at what it means to be a Muslim. The parade begins with prayer, then the march and after ends with a food fair. It’s very powerful in how it delivers its message about the religion and its followers. The usage of signs shows spectators the marchers’ message. Whether it is to teach the public about the different ethnicities that make up the Muslim community, enlighten the public on the religion, like how it’s inclusive of many Judeo-Christian beliefs and honors many of their prophets, or explain the community’s frustrations, it serves as a place for understanding. What’s more is that it teaches the Muslim community of what represents them. Their floats of the Koran, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the Kaaba and the Al-Masjid an-Nabawi show everyone the important symbols that represent the religion. What was great about this parade in the 1990s is that it incorporated non-Muslim bands like the Irish and New Orleans-style bands.

More than anything though, during the 1990s, this parade served as a source where the existing communities met the Muslim community. People were brought together. During the food fair people learned more about each other. They ate with one another and when one can eat with another they usually share more than just their background, they share themselves. This can be much more important than seeing some prominent figure talk for Muslims. Rather than see them only as a group, non-Muslims start to see them as individuals and this leads to newfound bonds.

While I read the article I was reminded of the bitter present. Almost a decade has gone by since 9/11 and still a lot of misdirected emotions and ignorance about Muslims festers within many groups in America. I looked up the parade on Google and what I got was a lot forums and blogs diluted by discrimination of the parade bread by ignorance. It says a lot when almost all the sites from the first to the next page of searches shows prejudice. Many parade participants are calling for understanding. One such message that hit me hard was written on a board carried by a girl stating, “I’m a Muslim, Please Don’t Hate Me.” Its message, though short, is powerful. This parade was made to foster understanding of the Muslim-American community and clear misconceptions created by events like the Iranian Hostage crisis. Hopefully it will continue to spread the message of its people and enlighten those who discriminate against them.

Throughout the fifth chapter of Nancy Foner’s book I kept thinking about how America has changed. Not only from the early 1900s to where she left off but changed as in where she left off to where we are now. While I won’t back up this feeling with statistics, I do believe that Americans, in general, have become more accepting to the races that were talked about within this chapter. Some examples of this change would be our president, media, music, television, and, as I see it, our slang. The evolution in slang and its affect is a bit harder to realize than the others. That is because the changes in slang occur in the younger generations, mine included. These generations have grown to accept terms that are perceived by the older generations as derogatory. One such word that’s been brought to my attention is the word nigga. Many in the younger generation use the word as a substitute for bro, friend, and boy. I’m not sure if it’s a New York City public school thing, a connotation that grew on the backs of bonds in poverty, or a result of America’s changing pop culture, but I’ve heard this word tossed around a lot in high school and it didn’t provoke any fights. The students know the history behind the word, but rather than causing separation, it has become a term of endearment used in sentences like “its my nigga (insert name).” To be fair I haven’t seen many white people say this (though urbandictionary.com tells me they use it in private) but I have heard many minorities say this to each other. I’ve seen Hispanic and black people use it with their friends. I’ve even heard Asians use it. The changing meaning of the word shows a deep contrast between the younger and older generations in attitude towards black people. Most likely this change and others like it come from shifts in our pop culture.

Another big change in America would be how people perceive the ethnicities that are seen as Muslims. This group wasn’t really talked about in the book and that is understandable. Foner’s book was published before 9/11. The event has had a huge role in creating and/or shaping a different cognition in the general populous about Muslims. The attack had a hand in propelling the very wrong, and destructive stereotype that people who are Muslims are Muslim terrorists and bomb makers who hate America. What’s worse is most people can’t discern whose Muslim leading to fear of anyone who can fit the bill. Thus the popular image of a Muslim as an Indian, Bangladeshi, or Middle Eastern person is conjured up and these groups take the hit. It’s good that most of society thinks this stereotype is garbage and many use it as a joke. But the thing is once this sort of idea is out it creates a subtle sort of color line in our subconscious affecting our judgment. Bad things happen when, through ignorance and/or overwrought emotions, people allow these stereotypes to take complete control of their view. 9/11 created the emotions and the propagation of this stereotype. Those who fit the image or are Muslim have experienced more discrimination because of what took place on that day.