Author Archives: Randi Gutbrod

The New Chinatown: 9 – Conclusion; Political Thoughts

Leave a reply

The initial disconnect between grass roots organization and the peoples of which they are representing in Chinatown seemed to me like a typical gap across America. Grass roots organizations were led by educated second generation Chinese who attended elite institutions. They were all about ideals as they combated racism and were inspired by activist groups like the Black Panthers. They celebrated socialist ideals and encouraged residents of Chinatown to take control of their own destiny via welfare programs that were meant to educate the masses and inspire social revolution. Their failure to gain success, however, is attributed to the fact that they could not gain a solid following—they were unable to relate to workers’ daily grievances and a language/culture barrier existed between the first and second generation Chinese.

A quote that most perfectly describes this relationship is that they were “fighting for the people and not with  the people.” Often in America, and across the globe, those fighting for rights (specifically liberal and socialist in nature) are usually those in good socioeconomic standing themselves and those who haven’t experienced the plights they are protesting. There is this feeling of moral obligation amongst elites at liberal institution, and while they may aim to help ‘their people’ they are in fact helping an entirely different race. They might be all Chinese but there is no way a Yale second generation 20 year old can relate to a middle aged first generation immigrant with little education who is living in poverty. Race alone cannot act as a bridge.

Similarly race has proven to not be a substantial enough reason to gain political support, at least in the case of Chinatown. Kwong mentions how ethnic pride, while a flashy campaign point, is not enough to win over the people; he states that you cannot run on an ethnic platform. Many immigrants in Chinatown were permanent residents—not citizens—and those who could vote did not frequent the polls. Also, in the case of Virgina Kee, not all candidates have their race’s best interest in mind. And that is understandable, since I mentioned before with grass root organizations, race itself cannot act as a social or economic marker of solidarity.

Of these chapters, the ninth one stood out the most to me because it resonated with an event I went to earlier in the semester, the Democratic mayoral debate. I found the lack of Asian-American support for candidates of the same race interesting, especially when we see John Liu running for NYC mayor and people still clamoring over how some people voted for Obama based on his race (or did not vote for him for that reason). But like the grass roots organizations showed, race is no indicator for a candidate’s interests or their understanding of a community’s grievances. I often hear people now say they’re going to vote for Liu simply because they want the first Asian mayor, even though his views might completely contradict their interests. In Kwong’s case, while a candidate may in fact come from Chinatown and understand the residents’ struggles, this is not a norm to be assumed, and this is something often forgotten during contemporary flashy politics.

The New Chinatown- Chapters 5-6: Informal Politics

Leave a reply

In these chapters Kwong exposes the corrupt world of Chinatown’s underground politics. While I understand that the necessity for villages in Imperial China to form their own coalitions for governance and protection, and why these immigrants would maintain these connections and transplant it to Chinatown in the form of fongs in order to attain job opportunities and a sense of community, I don’t understand is how it flourished. The immigrants’ lack of assimilation into American institutions ended up breeding a hierarchy of corrupt individuals. Although the “benefits” (forcing competition out of business, collective defense against hostile larger society) may appeal to immigrants, I don’t understand how these associations could force “port duty” fees, have the right to tax members, and enforce zoning regulations they created themselves. Where did these associations such as the CCBA gain their authority? Through fear and force no doubt; membership was not voluntary. I completely agree with Kwong that their rule was not only arbitrary and nondemocratic, but the elite were simply self-appointed. This reminded me of a more extreme version of the Italian Harlem’s domus—a hierarchy that only gained its legitimacy because the community allowed it to be self-imposed.

These associations and collective Chinese ‘political’ organizations grew to contradict their purpose; no longer protecting the community (they themselves were what members needed protection from), they became exploitative machines for the community to fear. Residents’ unwillingness to resort to American policies allowed Chinatown’s elite to exploit and control the working poor, even by censoring their contact with the outside American world by controlling newspapers. The CCBA even went as far as to sabotage opposing views, even the CHLA, a laundry union, so they could put up forefront of Chinese solidarity and control how the outside American world viewed Chinatown. Once again, although tongs offered networking benefits and protection, the only means of rapid social advancement they offered immigrants without education or skills was through criminal activity, breeding new generations of corruption, violence, and fear.

It was good that the credibility and legitimacy of these associations faded as members of the community became more informed and outspoken in regard to their rights. There is a huge downside, however, since this pushed associations to be more reliant on force and tongs to maintain their influence. Tongs can only grow more dangerous when disguised as political organizations, and individuals (such as Eddie Chan) were able to skyrocket their political prominence. Even if the CCBA is no longer a threat, tongs continue to extort protection money from 50% of Chinatown’s stores. Even Chinatown banks launder drug money. Kwong concludes by saying “government passivity forced the community to live in fear… and perpetuate an economic structure which violates customary standards.” While government involvement and the defeat of corruption sounds ideal, I think it might do more harm than good. Associations and tongs are unfortunately so ingrained in Chinatown’s political and economic system that they’d be impossible to purge. While police can certainly “clean up the streets” and the more top level problems, overthrowing these associations and tongs can only cause a backlash and strengthening of these groups, which would in turn only lead to more aggressive force and community fear.

Transnational Ties: Where is the True Home?

Leave a reply

Foner addresses transnationalism—immigrants’ upholding of strong involvement in their societies of origin, places they continue to call home. Throughout the decades, there is an idea of returning to the home country for many immigrants. She cites how many would send money home to build houses there to return to. One explanation offered was that, during economic instability, immigrants could participate in two economies to raise money. I found this interesting since it is usually the wealthy immigrants I know that build mansions and vacation houses in their home countries. While they came to America to make ‘American money’, the circumstances and necessity have changed. Immigrants I’ve encountered that did come to the U.S. due to economic insecurity usually have greater intentions to be permanent and build a better life for themselves in America. This is, however, just through personal observation and I don’t have enough data to suggest that intentions have completely shifted throughout the century.

Although my mother became an American citizen four years ago, she still repeatedly refers to Guyana as “my country” or “back home.” Technology has certainly helped in making it seem as if she is still a resident; with just one click she can read current news, keep up with the latest fashion trends, and Skype with family and friends. Walking around Queens, there are many West Indian neighborhoods that cater to this desire to stay connected. Last month I read an article in the New York Times about how stores in Queens sell DVDs of current parties in Jamaica so Jamaican immigrants can not only quell homesickness but even keep up with who goes to the parties, what the latest dance craze is, and all the latest pop culture from their homeland. I find it interesting, however, that she browses contemporary news but there is no connection. She left during a time of political turmoil, and often when she refers to Guyana she is speaking about a place located in a different decade with different demographics and a different culture. Her true connection and involvement is with a time and place that no longer exists. Perhaps before technology, homesick immigrants, staring at pictures and trinkets they brought with them before migrating, felt more like this. Should the idea of the domus have collapsed in Italy during the mid 1900’s, would the residents of Italian Harlem care or would they continue to cling to the Italy they knew and left behind?

Foner mentions that transnationalism is now seen in a more positive light. I don’t think transnationalism is anything new; the main difference between now and then is how it is perceived. Transnationalism was never directly measured but rather exposed after studies were done concerning Americanization. Before, Americanization was synonymous with assimilation and naturalization. Now, however dual nationality and diversity is more celebrated, and every nationality has its own association, parade, lobby, etc. It is hard to compare the two eras when researchers from each have such different perspectives.

From Ellis Island to JFK, Chapter 5: “The Sting of Prejudice– What is White?

Leave a reply

Foner ascertains early on in this chapter that race is a changeable perception; it has no basics in genetics, but rather measures one’s ability to pass as a feature the natural landscape’s social/cultural construct. For example, Jews and Italians were previously excluded from the “white” race, but as the cultural context of NYC shifted, so did the definition of “white.” Last semester in English 110 my class read James Baldwin’s “Language of the Streets” in which he argues that all immigrants come to America and try to be white (in his case, to disassociate with blacks; you could only be one or the other). He argued they would drop all of their customs and languages to be ‘white,’ however Foner mentions that the Jewish population had “racial features” which made them in-assimilable. In “Race and Religion” we read an account where somebody also claimed the Jewish “race is always conspicuous,” although a study by Dr. Maurice Fishberg shows that only 14% of Jewish immigrants had the “Jewish nose.” While Foner mentions “No Jews of Dogs Admitted Here” signs discriminated against those who were not “white”, she less so acknowledges the “No Irish Need Apply” signs that targeted an extremely white race. Similarly, I disagree with Foner’s blanket statement claiming genetic arguments about inferior race directly led to immigration restrictions. No doubt prejudice existed but there were several other factors (e.g. economic) and federal laws were not passed on racism alone. The stronger negative connotation that goes along with race has changed the tone regarding immigration restriction and has made it a much more sensitive issue.

There is, however, no doubt that “being white” was seen as a plus, but I could not understand how it is one “becomes white.” In regards to Hispanics, I was immediately reminded of “Race and Religion”— the Hispanic community has this ambiguity in the sense that they share a common language and ethnicity all while being composed of different ancestries, countries, and races. You were Hispanic “no matter how blonde or blue eyed,” though these are characteristics typical to somebody of the white race. I found it most interesting that Asians, who share less physical similarities to whites than their “blonde and blue eyed” Hispanic counterparts, “became” most white. Foner speculates that “white” may grow to encompass Asians and light-skinned Hispanics. What exactly is white then?! Is race something that can be seen or something that requires further investigation? It seems that being white at this point is just as ambiguous as Jewish or Hispanic.

From Ellis Island to JFK: Chapter 3– Then v. Now?

Leave a reply

What stood out to me most was a statement  Foner made early on in the chapter, claiming that, in regards to previous waves of immigrants and the current one, the differences outweigh the similarities. The reasons given are that many immigrants now arrive with more occupational/ educational variety (as opposed to the poor, uneducated laborers of the past), the city is more receptive of immigrants, and the racial/ethnic structure of the city is different than it was in the past. The differences are inarguable, however does this necessarily imply a positive change in the path immigrants take to become American? While there is no doubt that immigrants have better conditions than they would’ve in past decades, I don’t think the ‘American Dream’ was necessarily made more attainable for many.

In the past, most immigrants came with little money and little education/literacy. Similarly, in the later decades of the century (c. 1990s), 1/5 of immigrants had less than a 9th grade education. The first difference Foner mentioned was more occupational/educational variety. While 1/5 of immigrants may struggle, ¼ of male immigrants and 1/3 of females now come over to America as professionals; they immigrate to the US with monetary stability, college degrees, and a set of skills that qualify them for careers in their new country.  Foner brings up Asians in particular, who typically come with tens of thousands in savings. Immigrant used to be synonymous with uneducated, poverty-stricken, and somebody who had to struggle. Based on the data cited from 1990s, these equivocations are clearly no longer true. As a reader, I asked myself: does this mean it is easier for immigrants today to come over to achieve the “American Dream?”

I don’t think you can necessarily compare the uneducated Italian and Jewish laborers of the early 1900s with the Filipino and Indian doctors in the 1990s.  Instead, I looked at that 1/5—the uneducated percentage who more than likely arrived with little more than what was on their backs (if anything more at all). NYC has the largest income gap nationally, not just between rich and poor but also between the rich and the middle-class. Foner counters the argument that NYC is no longer as welcome to blue-collar workers (jobs that these 1/5-immigrants would take) by saying that the expanding economy includes the lesser educated immigrants because more professionals (lawyers, stockbrokers, bankers, etc) leads to more employment opportunities to support the white-collar workers (janitors, cleaners, child-care providers, etc). This counter argument, however, does not reconcile the rigid gap between socio-economic standings. With the current recession, it can be said that the gap is only widening; essentially, there is no upward mobility for those stuck in these “supporting” jobs, and a recent article in the NYTimes concluded that children of lesser-educated working-class parents tend to, more often than not, not be able to overcome this gap. So is it really easier for immigrants today to come over with nothing and make something for themselves in America? Personally, I don’t think so.

Race and Religion- Chapter 4 & Conclusion: Assumptions

Leave a reply

Revealed here is the astonishing amount of senseless acts of violence and hostility— inane because they are not only based on false assumptions but disprove each community’s claim that they are not “anti-Semitic” or “racist.”  The Lubavitchers cannot simply say it is not a race thing when Black Jews, some of whom moved to Crown Heights so that they can feel both racially and religiously included in their community, were often ostracized when met with White Lubavitchers’ discomfort. Lubavitchers who reached out to their fellow Jewish brethren on street corners claimed that they did not use clothing, hair, jewelry, skin color, or other physical features to assume one’s religion. Instead they claimed to rely on the presence of a person’s “neshoma” (Jewish soul), which radiates outwards. I find it hard to believe this was their sole method of detection when so man Black Jews, Rastafarians, and more secular White Jews were neglected (most likely because of wardrobe, hairstyle, and skin color).

While many were identified by their “Jewish” features, I’d bet just as many actual Jews were neglected or Gentiles were mislabeled. The assertion made early in the chapter that Jewish features are conspicuous in whatever country is the product of flawed thinking. Although Judaism is an ethnic group in some regards, as a religion it can be applied to people of different races and nationalities and thus different immutable physical appearances.

A Hasidic man had punched an African-American Orthodox Jew, but profusely apologized after discovering her religious affiliation stating, “I didn’t know she was Jewish.” How then, could the Lubavitch community claim that they did not see race? The girl was an honor student with Yeshiva University and Orthodox, however he still did not see her as Jewish. Regardless of whether her race was an intentional factor, I find the entire mentality troubling. He was only repentant after finding out her religion; did he see nothing wrong with his actions if she weren’t Jewish? Insularity would not be a problem if such an insider-outsider mentality didn’t contribute to such hostile attitudes (not just to a specific different race/group, but to everybody outside of your own group). As one Black man told his children “you have to look even more like a Jew” because it was a common assumption in the community that if you were Black you weren’t Jewish.

This, of course, goes both ways and Anthony Graziosi was killed because he ‘looked’ Jewish. Many Blacks also thought Jews were distinguishable by visual attributes, which (like the Hasidic man who attacked the African-American Orthodox Jew) led to faulty conclusions. Similarly, Yankel Rosenbaum was associated with the Lubavitch community because of his similar dress. Similarly, Black Gentiles often had a harder time identifying Jewish women because their requirement to wear modest skirts was less rigidly communal (in the sense that women of all races/religions can wear the same skirt) and less religious-specific since long skirts could be a fashion statement. The irony is that women’s adherence to skirts and tznius (modesty) were extremely scrutinized within the Jewish community.

The conclusion addresses multiculturalism and Goldschmidt asks about the space available for it, and about which forms of diversity we tend to celebrate and which we wish to deny. I’d rather ask whether or not multiculturalism could ever lead to an ideal and culturally sensitive society, when it is human nature to be defensive. While I don’t in any way justify the assumptions and actions made by Crown Heights’ residents, I think that whenever a group of people does something collectively (e.g. wear the same clothing) they are opening themselves up for assumptions, suspicions, and hostility. Similarly, those inside the group allow their own defensive natures to fuel these things (i.e. many Jewish residents of Crown Heights attributing anti-Semitism to ambiguous behavior and the belief that “non-Jews inherently hate Jews”). Diversity is inevitable and tolerance is expected, but ultimate integration seems to be realistically impossible.

The Madonna of 115th Street (75-96, 107-129)

Leave a reply

The paradox of Italian Harlem continues. Previously, many immigrants expressed no desire to return back to Italy, with the exception of seeing loved ones, but this sentiment changes. While clinging to culture in order to retain the sense of community, comfort, and stability is understandable, Italian Harlem’s rigid adherence to a domus-centric society comes across as counterproductive towards achieving the American dream.

The rules governing life in the domus seem to directly contradict the ideas of liberation from an oppressive homeland; they are extremely restrictive in nature and demand segregation and complete submission. They not only enforce the idea of segregation but also went so far as to criticize others outside of their ethnic community. Italian Harlem was an isolated region of old-fashioned Italy itself, where Italians married other Italians, to produce and raise more Italians, who only adhered to ‘Italian’ domus-centered lifestyles. Immigrants who left to pursue a life in America simultaneously condemned what they considered the “American way” and feared their children will grow up to be American. One man expressed that although his children did “’things in the Italian manner,’ [he was still] afraid that they were ‘thoroughly American’.” This is a catch-22 for the younger generations, because they, having grown up in America, would never be able to meet the high standards of maintaining pure Italian values.

Additionally, the entire domus structure comes across as a paradox to me. First off, stress on both blind loyalty to relatives and strong moral values seems like a contradiction to me; one of the ‘rules’ stated is that you should stick by a relative whether they are right or wrong, but their being wrong might entail unethical or immoral behavior. Overall, the domus system breeds it’s own destruction. The stress on respect and authority within the family is revealed to create more rifts than ties, whether it is due to the rivalry between the eldest son and father, the husband and brother-in-law, etc. Italian men were perpetually angry not because the domus was dying but because its values were clung to.

[On a side note] Though not entirely surprising based on the abuses of the Church in Italy, I thought it was interesting that, while being “Christian” was synonymous with being a good citizen, there was avid anticlericalism sentiment and parents discouraged their sons from joining the clergy.

Overall, Italian Harlem is a region of extremes to me. Not only is the domus like a Chinese finger trap, but the entire community’s resistance to American influence and cultural integration is as well; the more the immigrants and older generations struggled to maintain the domus, traditional ‘Italian’ values, and separate themselves from their ‘American’ peers, the more conflicts and tensions seemed to arise.