What struck me about the final chapter in Peter Kwong’s book was the pedestal that Chinese immigrant hopefuls have placed the United States on.  Kwong writes that potential immigrants are so enamored of the life that they will supposedly be living once they arrive in New York that they attribute tales of hardship in American to socialist propaganda or betrayal by cheap family.  These immigrants (the Fuzhounese in particular) would do anything to get to America, some even taking 45-day boat journeys stowed away in tiny vessels that Kwong calls barely seaworthy.  The one thing that each of these immigrant stories has in common is the belief that everyone can make it big in America.  But I don’t think this is something that applies to all of America, or even the larger cities of the United States.  This ideal of open opportunity seems to apply specifically to New York City.  You don’t see immigrants being smuggled en masse to Richmond, or Atlanta.  People want to come to New York, and not just people from outside of the United States.  New York is famous world over for its “equal opportunity” and “self-made men.”

The part that was most disturbing to me about the immigrant smuggling “business” (aside from the horrid treatment of the passengers by the snakeheads) was the negligence of any and all branches of the US authorities that Kwong points out.  It seems to be so grossly negligent that it must be borderline intentional for their to be such a lapse in jurisdiction over a problem this widespread and troubling.  As not to be cynical, I hesitate to posit that it is intentional because of America’s “addiction to immigrant labor” and the calculated stress it would place on New York and indeed the United States’ economy.  Yet I can’t help but wonder, as the people who are responsible for assigning responsibility of these issues must surely be aware of the economic consequences of their policies.

An interesting part in the article “Everything But the Chickens” by Nicholas Klein and Andrew Zitcer is the idea presented about the reframing of Chinatown.  Chinatown, as a seemingly “rambunctious” ethnic enclave, gains the status of some foreign tourist destination deserving of its own sightseeing trip.  It seems that Chinatown is a part of New York City, but also apart from New York City.  In the belief that Chinatown is counted as a part of New York City, it takes on this quality of “authenticity” for other New Yorkers as Chinatown still retains that feeling of lawlessness and inner city grime that the “Disneyfication” and gentrification efforts in the past twenty years have tried to wash away.  On the other hand, the pageantry and hoopla that often accompanies visits to Chinatown – as witnessed by the gaudy tour buses with Japanese lanterns and all – seem to imply that Chinatown is more of an exotic locale meant for people to feel as if they’ve explored China for the price of a bus token.

If we go along with the first characterization of Chinatown, ironically, New Yorkers are ascribing an “authentic” New York vibe to an area that was created by immigrants for immigrants.  All of the associations that are attached to Chinatown are mere projections from the natural born New Yorkers, or the Others as Klein and Zitcer call them.  The second characterization, while more appropriate, is still an oversimplification of the Chinese lifestyle, that consumable culture that Americans crave.  This is apparent in how “insiders,” the term for non-Chinese who ride the Chinatown bus, think they know secrets about Chinese culture that other non-Chinese could never know.  They are happy with their “chicken stories” to tell their friends and have that be there understanding of an entire culture, much like people of today listening to Gangnam Style and thinking that they know Korean culture.  As Susan Kang, a Korean pop music commentary leader said about the video, “It can’t be denied that there’s some ’look at those wacky Asians’ going on here,” which I think has happened with the Chinatown Bus.

According to Susan Slyomovics, one of the main goals of New York City’s Muslim World Day Parade is to educate the people of New York City about the religion of Islam and stage a “temporary creation of Muslim space on a New York City avenue.”  In a sense, the Muslim World Day parade is supposed to be a walking exhibit from the Museum of Natural History, showing average New Yorkers what a day in life of a Muslim can be, with all its rich traditions and cultural heritage.  This parade is intended to be a celebration of America’s acceptance of Islam as well as Islam’s acceptance of America.  Yet in the last line of her article, after twenty pages of lauding Islam’s attempts to make the religion accessible to the masses, Slyomovics brazenly writes “What Muslims in America articulate ritually about Islam in public should be heard as friendly, accommodating, and familiar, it should not overheard, and at best it should still be heard only among their own.”  Not only is this the total opposite of the parade’s goal, it allows for a terrible marginalization.  Saying that allahu akbar should not be recited because of its bloody associations could be extended to almost every injustice done in the name of God for the past 3,000 years.

The takbir is one of the essential prayers of Islam and is meant to be a celebration of God’s strength and power over this world – the true definition of allahu akbar is “God is great,” no more, no less.  And yet organizers worry that this chant will offend American sensibilities because of its historical use as the justifying cry of suicide bombers and terrorists alike, including the much publicized and remembered Iran-Contra affair.  Slyomovics not only agrees with this sentiment, but she praises their judgment and their ability “intuitively recognize that crowds of Muslims may spell danger to the American public.”   One of the goals of the parade is to redefine the traditional practices in the frame of safety, happiness and religious expression – instead of eliminating the takbir to appease the intolerant, the organizers of the Muslim World Day Parade should focus on ways to give allahu akbar a positive connotation.  Slyomovics, it seems, believes that America is still incapable of digesting diversity that does not come pre-chewed and wrapped in a Hallmark card.

The point that came across very strongly for me in reading the fifth chapter of From Ellis Island to JFK was the clearly defined power of pure rhetoric.  The majority of stereotypes and preconceived notions about immigrants, from the Jews and the Italians to the wave of “Hispanics” and West Indians of today, are not based in fact.  Starting with the ridiculous physiognomy of the early 20^th century, much of the contemporary rhetoric has been just that – trumped up so-called science about the inferiority of a race based on head size.  I found it shocking that is was acceptable to oppose immigration use terminology and ideology that was blatantly racist, such as the fear that intermarriage between Jews or Italians and “Nordic American stock” would dilute the blood of the colonialists.  The limitations that were eventually imposed upon this type of rhetoric were reluctant at best, and it was only after the civil rights movement, Foner writes, that it became taboo for public officials to either use these words themselves or condone the use by others.

Even now, Foner writes, there is only a thin veil of civility between the public discourse and the racist tendencies that are behind it.  The recognition that most New Yorkers make no effort to distinguish between “blacks” and that there are varying degrees of “whiteness” was really dreadful.  I think that it is very telling that the racist air in present-day New York City is so strongly felt that even the immigrants themselves feel the need to disassociate themselves with their “darker” counterparts.

From the clear distinctions drawn along color lines, it makes it easier for me to see how in a case such as the Crown Heights Riot of 1991 could be thrown directly into the spotlight of racial discord and preferential treatment, given the clear bias of New York City – in both the public and private spheres – towards whites in general.