Throughout Kwong’s “The New Chinatown”, I realized that he did not discuss one important aspect of immigrant life in NYC – legal status. In chapter 10, he explained that most early Chinese immigrants arrived in NYC through legal means. The number of illegal immigrants who were most likely smuggled in began to increase drastically in recents years. Kwong’s description of the difficult situation they face with finding low wage jobs and living in debt to snakeheads reminded me of the first chapter of Nancy Foner’s “From Ellis Island to JFK”. When Foner described similar situations for illegal immigrants of all nationalities, I wondered whether the trip and new lifestyle was worth the hardships (especially for those who were well-off in their home countries). Foner explained that most left due to economic reasons and Kwong mentioned that the Chinese left because of corrupt politics in China which leads to economic difficulties. Their desperation and willingness to work for record low wages leads to hardships for legal and unionized workers.

This circle of adversity ultimately affects everyone stuck in Chinatown, leaving them with no opportunities to escape. This is Kwong’s position throughout his whole book. Those who have money and power continue to use it to the disadvantage of the new immigrants. This exploitation of the lower class workers prohibits them from seeking opportunities outside as they can not assimilate into American society. According to Kwong, these situations leads people to believe that the Chinese do not want out but would rather live the harsh circumstances of Chinatown. Due to the powerful organizations already in existence, the Chinese in Chinatown are unable to unify for a common cause. Thus they are considered quite and unwilling to report problems to the government, when in reality they are very cooperative.The Chinese are extremely misinterpreted and their struggles are covered with the appearance of a unified people.

In chapter 5, “Chinatown’s Informal Political Structure”, Kwong further expands on the notion that of exploitation in Chinatown. Throughout the reading, I sensed the gap between the upper and lower class Chinese immigrants increasing drastically due to the nature of the concealed internal politics. The population of Chinese immigrants in NYC is very unique compared to the other groups we’ve studied because of their tendency to isolate themselves completely from the rest of society. Other immigrant groups eventually separated from their groups through marriage or unemployment, but the Chinese failed to do so. At first, Kwong explained that the Chinese were accustomed to such conditions which persisted in China and brought them over to America.  Although we touched upon this in earlier chapters, Kwong emphasized the seclusion specifically in this chapter when discussing the politics. I realized that the Chinese were separated in so many aspects of their lives but the main reason remained constant: exploitation. Unlike other groups, however, the most immigrants were unable to leave due to suppression from powerful associations. This further lead, in my view, to their inability to adapt to American life later in life when Chinatown was not offering them a sufficient life (i.e. when they grew too old for certain jobs).

The existence of such corruption in Chinatown made me wonder about the role of the American government in the situation. When discussing ‘citizenship’, we stated that a citizen is one who is protected/provided for by the government. I was surprised to read about the reality of underground politics in Chinatown because it survived for so long without outside interference. As described in Chapter 6, Benny Eng and Eddie Chan were prime examples of people with unlimited power and no opposition. In addition, I was surprised by the capability of the CCBA and other organizations to maintain influence in an advancing city up until recently, as Kwong described it.

Peter Kwong’s chapter “A Model Minority Community?” addressed many of the complexities of the Chinese community in New York City. Stereotypically, Chinese immigrants are known for their willingness to work low wage jobs and the stress of upward mobility through education. However, the situation in New York City, according to Peter Kwong, is much more complex due to the generalization of the whole community as a minority. He stated that there is a significant difference between Uptown and Downtown Chinese communities. Specifically, most uptown and wealthier immigrants reached their levels of success through exploitation of newer and poorer immigrants. In this chapter, Kwong gives a more realistic view of Chinatown as compared to the first two chapters. Earlier, he described almost a ‘model’ community of intelligent and self-dependant immigrants. Later he explained that even though most people view the Chinese as a ‘model minority community’, the reality is much more complicated. Most immigrants in Chinatown are unable to move up in society due to their successful counterparts. Often, the lower class immigrants face the negative consequences such as limited affirmative action.

I found it interesting that the Chinese value of perseverance is the cause of either their success or failure in society. Just like my parents and many other immigrant families, the Chinese believe in working hard in order for their children to advance. In some families, the focus on education is high but as Kwong explained, some children feel too much pressure and fail while others work harder and harder, further widening the gap between the upper and lower classes. Similarly, workers in Chinatown who have faced failures in the past chose to continue working for lower wages and in worsening conditions. They fail to realize that upward mobility in the competitive community of Chinatown is rare due to everybody’s similar circumstances. These immigrants pressure themselves into worse conditions and ultimately, influence those around them to do the same.

Nancy Foner, in her chapter on ‘transnational’ immigrants – or those who maintain strong roots to their home country while establishing an American identity – exposed many interesting ideas. These include the ability of transnationalism to adjust with society and how transnationalism is perceived by various people.

Foner compared transnationalism of early immigrants in the turn of the twentieth century to today’s immigrants. She stated that the rate of returning to home countries was higher for early immigrants for adjusting to new life was difficult. In addition, many immigrants left their families at home and arrived just to work so returning was necessary. In today’s day, immigrants seem to not have that problem due to advancing society and technology. Keeping ties with their home countries was easier and no longer meant just returning home. I found it interesting that this book, published in 2000, focused on the fact that technology such as telephones and emailing was a privilege for the well-off. This discussion aids in the argument of the rate of advancement in society in the past 13 years since this book was published.

Transnationalism is a complicated concept that has been around since the beginning of immigration – just with a different connotation. Another interesting analysis of transnationalism brought up the argument of whether transnationalism is beneficial. Some argued that the immigrants reluctancy to adopt American life was a form of anti-Americanization. I was intrigued by this thought because one can argue that Americanization is the concept of immigrants coming together into this melting pot. Does this melting pot ultimately consist of the various identities that immigrants bring along or various immigrants who choose to disregard their backgrounds? Transnationalism complicates the role of immigrants in America – especially naturalized citizens. What affect, if any, does transnationalism have on one’s ‘citizenship’?

The crime prevention situation on the Lower East Side as described by Jessica Cattelino reminded me of the situation in Crown Heights we discussed earlier. Cattelino described two groups of people – white middle-upper class and the colored lower class – living in the Lower East Side facing similar problems of crime. She gave examples from both groups of people who wanted to volunteer for crime prevention for almost the same reasons – to help their community. Cattelino emphasized the difference in syntax – the white middle-upper class stated that they wanted to help “the community” while the colored people of the lower class wanted to help “my community”. The lower class of colored people  chose to express themselves in such a way, stated Cattelino, because they did not want to associate themselves with a general community that didn’t emphasize the different people inhabiting it. When I surveyed the situation, I realized that the group did have a lot of similarities in their argument for volunteerism. Still, the lower class demanded police presence but protested police brutality at the same time. To them, this situation occurred due to their status in society but they failed to realize that crime prevention in the upper class society thrived due to civilian involvement. For the middle-upper class, crime prevention was their duty as a citizen rather than a burden put among them. (As a side note, I found this thought process interesting because of our discussion on the meaning of citizenship. These people almost redefined it completely and made me rethink it as well. Citizenship, to them, meant receiving governmental aid while actively participating in society for the good other others. They chose to volunteer as a moral obligation as opposed to a legal one like jury duty, tying in the moral aspect of citizenship.)  Just as in Crown Heights, the two groups of people had varying views on the same situation due to societal differences.

In chapter 4 Goldschmidt expressed the importance of dress to Jewish identity in terms of Hasidic, Lubavitch and black Jews. They had similar mindsets of somewhat ‘defining’ themselves by their clothing but communicated these outlooks in different forms of fashion.

I found it interesting that in spite of their relatively strict rules of clothing, Lubavitch men chose to dress comparatively ‘modern’ rather than less traditionally like other Hasidim. In the eyes of a fellow Jew this may have been ‘too liberal’. Still, in the eyes of a gentile, these men are very traditional in the ‘long black coats’. Although they may have been criticized by other Hasidim for their Americanized style of clothing, I found it very interesting that Lubavitchers were still very close knit to their dress. A black man stated that a Jewish man could take out his yarmulke or cut his sideburns to blend in with society but he could not disguise the fact that he is black. A Lubavitcher, on the other hand, stated that he related with the Black man for he could not take of his yarmulke or his beard to assimilate with society. To me, a gentile, this was hard to understand at first because the Jewish man was comparing keeping his beard, which I thought was his choice, to someone keeping their skin color. Ultimately, I recognized his spiritual devotion as a way of life, due to the ‘Jewishness’ in his blood.

A Jewish person in Crown Heights was permanently associated with this form of clothing to an extent where a Hasidic man failed to recognize a black Jewish girl and later apologized for it. Goldschmidt described the confrontation between the man and the black girls as very violent, in terms of the man’s actions. An ‘innocent’ interaction between two children turned into an attack on a black Jew. The Hasidic man ‘profusely’ apologized for punching a Jewish girl, not just for punching a teenager or shoving a girl. He explained that when punching the girl, he ‘didn’t know’ that she was Jewish. What difference would this have made? Would he have dealt with it differently if he knew or if it was a most distinctive Jewish girl?