Steven Gregory’s concept of gender and how it is intertwined with race is very interesting.  When I first read that Edna Baskin asked her husband or brother-in-law to serve as CCA’s representative, because “‘men get more respect-they take you more seriously (pg. 382),'” I was shocked. Baskin is trying to destroy the stereotypes that have plagued the African American residents of Lefrak City, and here she is reinforcing other stereotypes, that of the woman as inferior to man.  Why should women accept their position of “back up (pg. 382)” as Baskin puts it? This is clearly a secondary role.  In fact, why should this have anything to do with race? Baskin is the founder of the CCA, therefore she should be the face of the organization to the public.  I assumed that such decisions based on gender would only hinder the CCA’s goal of changing the image of the African Americans, because Baskin clearly accepted other societal inequalities.  Once one group of sub-citizens is acknowledged, it is very easy to keep making distinctions among people based not only on race and gender, but also, religion and ethnicity.  I would have thought that to be successful, Baskin would have to abolish all stereotypes.

However, what she accomplished by simply making a man the spokesperson of the organization is beyond anything I would have thought possible. Such a decision highlights Baskin’s understanding and thoughtfulness of the situation at hand.  First there was the pragmatic goal of presenting what society saw as the strongest embodiment of power, man.  According to Baskin, it is a “white man’s world (pg. 382).” Therefore, by having a spokesman Baskin is affirming this idea and proving that she is not attempting to do anything radical, but rather just trying to be like everyone else, or at least the whites, by achieving equal status and treatment.  While reading Gregory’s essay, this answer made immediate sense to my question.  In order for Baskin’s ideas to be accepted by government officials and private corporations, she needed to frame the request in terms they understood.  Therefore, a man, albeit African American, would need to do all negotiations.

It is the second goal accomplished by making a man the face of the organization that I found more fascinating. Presenting an African American male in a position of authority and leadership, not only gave the African Americans positive male role models, but also dispelled the “negative images of black masculinity (pg. 382).”  In this way, the male African Americans are not seen as violent, but rather as responsible, not only for themselves, but within the lager picture, for an organization, the CCA.  In this way, they are contributing to the betterment of society.  What an effective strategy.  Baskin clearly understands the problems facing the African American community Lefrak City, especially their negative image, and expertly went about trying to solve them.

It is the African American image more than anything else that Baskin is trying to change.  This makes sense because the African American residents in Lefrak City only need surveillance because outsiders associate them with crime, drugs, and violence.  This is an issue of their image because Gregory does not bring any statistics to prove that crime rates are higher among African Americans. In fact, the testimony given by one of the African American teenagers at the Youth Forum described how he gets to the park and is chased out by officials.  There is no basis for such treatment. Therefore, Baskin’s idea to have a male spokesperson is an effective way not only to confirm society’s idea of male authority, but also to change for the better the image of the African Americans, especially the males, in Lefrak City.

In chapter five Foner builds on an idea we have already discussed in class: Immigrants from the West Indies and Afro-Carribean countries, who look black on the surface, do not want to categorized with the native-born blacks.  This is because the native-born blacks are at the bottom of the social hierarchy in New York City and are subject to much discrimination, poverty, and poor schooling.  The immigrants come to America looking for a better life, not one of constant struggle for identity and equality.  Their aspirations are understandable. Yet, the West Indians complain that they have to rigorously proclaim their ethnic pride and linguistic differences in order to avoid being seen as native-born black.  This is unfair, but, how are Americans supposed to know that a West Indian is not a native-born black before speaking to him or her? Judging based solely on looks, which obviously has its own problems, they look just like the native-born blacks.  Lest they wear patches that indicate that they are West Indian, but, everyone knows that such identification with a symbol has only negative consequences.

The West Indians are initially not accepted due to racism. Americans are obsessed with skin color and the West Indians are perceived as black.  However, arbitrary racism based on physical features does not hold as tenaciously as one would think.  According to the testimony Foner presented, many of the West Indian immigrants claimed they were treated better when they expressed their culture as distinct from that of the native-born blacks. This leads to a very simple question that Foner does not address. Why? If Americans are intent on basing a person’s character only on skin color, then all those who look black, including the West Indians, Afro-Carribeans, and black hispanics, should be discriminated against.

Yet, this is not true. Only the native-born blacks face the worst racism.  This must be based on something other than skin color. What is inherent to the the native-born blacks, and no other group that makes them so hated? Is it the poverty many of them live in as opposed to the wealth some of the West Indian immigrants come to America with? The poor education the native-born blacks inevitably receive because of where they are living as opposed to the better education the West Indians received before coming to America?  All of this is true, but there is also the history associated with the native-born blacks.  After hundreds of years of slavery, the idea that the native-born blacks are now equal to everyone else contradicts and denies the idea that one group can be better than another.  The whites, who might be ready to end slavery and even racism based on race, are not ready to give up their coveted position in society.  Therefore, the racism and discrimination towards the native-born blacks continues, not necessarily because of their skin color, but because giving them equal rights destroys everything the whites built their society on in America, being better than everyone else.  Tolerating or at least somewhat understanding the West Indians will not threaten the white elite status, so long as they can continue being better than at least one group of people that are not immigrants, but born in America, the native-born blacks.

Two interesting ideas stuck out at me from this reading. The first is how Foner does not make undocumented immigrants a larger issue in the job market and the unemployment rates of native-born blacks and Hispanics.  The fact that immigrants depend on employers who do not check documents carefully, which therefore eliminates jobs in government and big firms and leaves only low paying jobs, is not what’s important.  What should be emphasized is that while undocumented immigrants fear deportation, their employers can actually capitalize on that fear and exploit the workers, because they do not have legal protection.

The outcome of exploiting benefits both the employer and the employees. The employer is able to maintain the cheapest price for labor, which is usually the biggest expensive, while the employees are still making more money than they made in their native country. Regardless of whether it comes with the “territory (pg. 102),” exploitation is still better than deportation.  There is no way that the native-born blacks and Hispanics could compete with such low wages.  Foner does mention how immigrants bring wages down, but she does not specifically mention undocumented immigrants. They are the biggest problem, because they reduce wages the most. In fact, while most native-born blacks and Hispanics were not willing to work for such low wages, even if they were willing, it would never happen because employers would have to pay minimum wage, for fear of legal consequences.  A possible solution to this problem would be to document the immigrants, but even then, for all the reasons Foner pointed out, even documented immigrants lower wages beyond what native-born blacks and Hispanics are willing to accept.

The bigger problem and the other thing that I noticed while reading this chapter was: “Low-skilled, poorly educated native-born blacks and Hispanics have borne the brunt of the negative impact of immigration…(pg. 106).” Why are both these groups still struggling in America? Foner presents very interesting reasons for why the native-born blacks and Hispanics were pushed out, but why do they still have those low paying jobs?  Both groups have been in America for a long time. Shouldn’t they have moved up the job ladder by now to higher paying jobs? It seems, that before the undocumented immigrants become documented, the needs of American citizens should be taken care of.   One of their needs is education.  According to Foner’s statistics, even among both foreign born and natives without high school diplomas, the foreign born are still earning more money.  However, also according to Foner’s statistics, native-borns with college degrees earn more than those foreign born with college degrees.  Therefore, to avoid being outbid by immigrants for the lowest paid jobs in society, education for all American citizens is crucial. If this means opening up new schools, hiring new teachers, or buying new books, this should be a priority.  If educated, the hope is that one can obtain a more prestigious, and therefore better paying job and not have to worry about losing a job to new immigrant arrivals.

“…The Italian home and family, what I have been calling the domus, is the religion of Italian Americans (pg. 77).” This quote surprised me. After reading chapter one and learning all about the  annual religion celebration of the festa of the Madonna on Mount Carmel on East 115th Street, such a statement about the domus is confusing.  What exactly does Louis Giambastiani mean when he says religion? It seems that he implying that the domus is like a religion because it functions like many organized religions.

One of the most important ideas surrounding the domus is the idea of self-sacrifice.  There are no individuals, rather just the community. The individual sacrifices their own needs, desires, and emotions, in order to serve a greater good, which according to the Italians is the family unit.  Many times what the second generation immigrant is giving up is not something trivial. It might even be a potential job because it would force someone to live far away, which threatens the domus.  New alliances may be made far away from home with new people, such as the Americans, who cannot be trusted. Many organized religions have some aspect of self-sacrifice to a god, a saint, a church. By being apart of a religion, you accept that sometimes what you want and what your religion deems right are not the same.

The domus rules about marriage follow a similar pattern. Many religions have rules about being endogamous, or marrying within a certain group, in this case, Italians.  There is fear that if Italians do not marry other Italians, the union will ruin the Italian blood.  But more than that, young children “picked up (pg. 77)” family values by living in the domus, which are very important, apparently more important than being educated at school.  If a man chooses a wife that is not Italian, she does not know the Italian values because she has not grown up in an Italian household or domus, so how can she pass them on to the next generation?  His wife is probably a fine young lady, but she is lacking in the understanding of the domus.  According to Robert Orsi, educating the children was a cultural task, so how can this woman do that, if she is not part of the culture? This is intertwined with the fear of assimilation and becoming American, two undesirable effects of living in East Harlem and marrying a non-Italian. The religion, or domus centered society of that culture is lost.

Often the rules in the domus seemed suffocating and old fashioned, but they were ingrained in the second generation, just like any religion which was practiced at home would be.  Whether they liked it or not, the domus was their form of organized religion without the godly aspect and was going to dictate how they lived their lives.