Yesterday, we looked at Chinatown as a possible opportunity for Americans to experience an authentic Chinese enclave. To support this, Kwong further describes in Chapters 5-6 how Chinatown remained an independent entity within New York City, with its own economy, politics, social services, language and cultural norms. However, the authenticity is a slightly falsified one as it appears to Americans; although Chinatown remained independent, American tourists aren’t fully privy to the realities of the norms of the place. The economy was the basis for the structure of the community and therefore corruption and manipulative leaders rose to control and represent the politics through their economic power and influence. However, Kwong notes that one of the main bodies of leadership, the CCBA “is clearly not representative of the community, nor is it a mediating force among associations” of the citizens (92). As we have discussed in class, Chinatown was ruled by capitalistic endeavors and the people in control did not reflect the nature or lifestyle of the masses. These ruling elite were “indifferent to the problems of the poor,” and “promote[d] … ethnic solidarity” in the community, although the reality was that the people were anything but unified (94). They censored publications, monopolized industry and media, and engaged in violence to maintain order and loyalty. Further, because Chinatown existed as independent form the rest of New York City, with “an unstated policy of non-intervention by U.S. government officials, the informal structure [of the CCBA and ruling elite] maintain[ed] order in the community (93). This structure was even bowed to and acknowledged by federal authorities, who would consult with them as representatives of the community.

The government ignored the community, however, only until it felt threatened by it. In the 1950s, when America feared the spread of Communism, the government actively investigated and rounded up Chinese suspected of being Communists. This phenomenon relates to our class discussions about the treatment of minorities in the U.S. and how they are largely ignored and accepted only when they are silent and not too different. Kwong explains that the relationship of ignoring this minority was mutually fueled: The Chinese were not interested in voting for United States elections and so, in turn, the politicians did not campaign there. So Chinatown remained a place that was, for the most part, untouched by America and seemingly authentically Chinese.

Some individuals broke that pattern, though. S.B. Woo, for example, ran for Delaware office in 1984, and encouraged the Chinese that if they are in America, they might as well “get involved in” America and build a future there, effectively acknowledging the path of immigrant life that acknowledges a new homeland, and assimilates to an extent. Eddie Chan is another example; he followed that path and emerged acheiving the American dream, moving from Chinese immigrant to absorbing an identity of successful Chinese-American. Yet, when Chan was accused of Chinatown organized crime, he “avoided talking to the American press, but he did grant interviews to local Chinese reporters,” which reflects the acknowledgement of a Chinatown identity as being extractable from the rest of the American sphere of life.

When the two spheres of life are kept separate, while it can offer opportunity to see Chinatown as an authentic place, it also ignores certain realities of Chinatown for the American public. When a movie was produced that actually reflected Chinatown more accurately, people complained that it “tarnished the image of the Chinese community” (122). The complainers encompassed Asian Americans as well and so we see that the desire to silence some aspects of a minority to retain a squeaky authentic version of it is maintained by both the outside, American community, and the inside, Asian community as well.

We often assume that social constructs are subconscious social agreements foisted by the community as a whole upon the minority in question. In his article, Steven Gregory not only offers a new perspective of the factors of a social construct (as multi-layered and faceted with various social assumptions) but also on who, in fact, controls the social constructs. Through one case example, he shows that the constructs are not necessarily as rigid as we might believe and that they are even changeable by the individual. In Lefrak City, Edna Baskin lead a small revolution in the perception of the black community by the outsiders and insiders alike. For years the residents of the apartment complexes struggled against black prejudice but through slow, mediated organization, new policies and opportunities and perspectives were born and modified the social construct of the black community in that area. The crucial turning point, though, occurred not through appeal to the larger, white community, but through the cleanup competition, in which the black youth actively rehabilitated their own image, showing that they were not, as they were perceived to be, crime- and drug-ridden youth, but caring, productive citizens. Through this initiative, the black community reached out and affiliated with other neighborhood communities and strengthened their image in the public eye. Baskin also was able to rehabilitate the image of the impoverished, large black family into an image of a homey community with family-values, with mothers and their children, with fathers in leadership positions, and their sons following in their lead. Gender-prejudice and economic distinctions also came into play in the images of this community, but in Lefrak City, they were ultimately able to transcend previous barriers and create new socially-accepted frameworks. To be sure, this could be seen as an isolated incident, and not necessarily the beginning of a movement to redefine social constructs everywhere, but from this, its evident that it can be done, and it was done, by its own members.

Susan Slyomovics’ article, while focusing on the Muslim New York City population, sheds light as well on other population groups within the city, and the interactions among them. In this class, we have discussed definitions and experiences of diversity and multiculturalism, and this essay interestingly, while assuming to analyze the Muslim’s Parade, broadens to analyze various other groups, in relation to their participation in or influence of, that group’s parade. To begin with, I noted that the parade is called a “World Day” Parade, connoting a unification across countries and cultures. The defining factor of the Parade is in promoting the Muslim community, not discriminating across ethnicity. American, African, Asian, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern Muslims gathered, in various forms of Muslim attire, on floats representing various places of Muslim significance, carrying signs primarily in English, fully representing the spectrum of Muslim influence. That members of other religions, such as Christian and Jewish, and of other affiliations entirely, such as the Irish and African American bands, participated in the parade’s procession, and that New Yorkers in general participated as viewers gave the parade a sense of multicultural respect. That the parade marched along the streets of Manhattan, further reinforced that sense, as Manhattan is the epicenter of America’s melting pot. Slymovics’ detailed history of New York City parades informs of the influences the various ethnic parades have had on each other, and as well informs of the significances of the various ethnic groups, as reflected in the placement of their parades on the city grid. The grid itself seems to be a forum for the city’s diversity to flourish, pocketing communities here and there, connected and separated by the grid-lines. That “New York City is a city of parades,” as one of the parade organizers was quoted as saying, reflects the city’s nature as a house for diverse populations. Thus,  Slyomovics’ article does more than just expose readers to the Muslim population’s parade, for, more than representing merely the Muslim population in America, their parade represented the Muslim World population, and the extent of the interweaving of different populations of the world, as can only be fully displayed in America, the home of both universality and diversity.

Goldschmidt claims that identifying Jews physically often rests on racial markers. However, in the areas he frequented, the population was of Ashkenzic Jews of European descent. I wonder what would happen to his experiment and observation if a Sphardi, or Ethiopian Jew fell into the mix. Yes, the generic image of a Jew is racially white, with that unsubstantiated large nose, and dark hair (versus Aryan looks), but such an image is inclusive only of a Jew whose family lived in European, white areas through the Diaspora. In Kew Gardens Hills, in Deal, NJ, in Israel, even, are scattered large populations of darker-skinned Jews who racially look more Hispanic, Middle Eastern, or African. Further in the chapter, Goldschmidt explores the differences in dress of various Jews, and of skin color between white and black Jews, but does not go much further into the discussion of race and religion as it applies to the racially diverse Jewish spectrum.

His discussion of physical stereotypes concerning Jews, made me think more about the other side in this book- that of the black community. Stereotypes against blacks often correlate with the way they stereotypically appear – not in terms of skin color (for that is unchangeable), but in terms of dress. Goldschmidt notes that a black man can wear dreadlocks, or a “business suit or track suit” and give across a different image. The stereotypes of the way a population behaves often correlates with the stereotypes of how they dress. But, therefore the beliefs in the stereotypes can be challenged by a manner of dress. Thus, there is something more than mere superficial appearances that identify an individual. Rather, there is something deeper. The individual can choose how to identify, can choose how to come across, and that can say much more than the physical appearance.

In his conclusion, Goldschmidt explores the construct of diversity in America. I thought it interesting that in class, many students offered understandings of diversity that involved an exchange of cultural material, while Goldschmidt’s version of diversity fits more in line with the Hassidic woman who wanted respect for her diversity. Goldschmidt employs the term “space” in relating with the form of celebrating American diversity, addressing the need to “create space in American society for other cultures and communities,” and to “create an America with conceptual and political space for all the … peoples.” Thus, he understands that there are divides between communities that are hard, if not near impossible, to bridge, often because of different operational languages and definitions at play, and that the wonder of America is that it creates the space for each structure to flourish, and not be forced to be submerged into a melting pot of assimilation. Thus, assimilation is not as correlated with diversity as is independent identity. This identity belongs to each individual to define, to create, to choose and is deeper and more complex than the mere appearances of race and physical stereotypes.

In the last class, we discussed the bitterness in the father’s role in the domus. This section now described how the women were not spared bitterness, either, despite their central roles in the domus. While women were revered as the pillars of domestic life (and domus life was focused on domestic life), at the same time they were oppressed by that role. Women did not report feeling any sense of empowerment; rather, they were controlled by the “distant” presence of of their male counterparts. The males only were distant and “helpless” because they were “spoil[ed]” and “wait[ed] upon” by the “silent” mothers. And before they even were mothers, the single girls were in essence bullied and controlled by their brothers in their dating lives. Thus the role of the woman wasn’t even the “neck” (as described by a student last class) of the family, but was the limbs of the male brain. This is not to say that the males were happy and content, either. While they were empowered, they were also viewed as peripheral figures in domus life. In this powerfully family-oriented society, I wonder how it survived for so long with such unsatisfied members. Neither group expressed satisfaction, nor fulfillment, with their gender roles. The women saw it as “burdens” (139), the men sighed “if only I had the power” (133). I can understand a matriarchal, or patriarchal, society in which the members feel content and fulfilled within their roles, but if that is not the case, it surprises me that were was as much adherence to the ways of the past as their was. The second section, however, offered me more insight into the continuity and structure of the domus. A major theme of the Madonna celebration was ‘generation’ and passing of the heritage to the next generations who were growing up in a foreign land. It was this ceremony, I think, more than the actual family life, that connected people to the domus. All of the family members convened at this time, journeying from near and far, to feel unified in turning to a common belief. This lasted for generations, and was subject to less resistance within the people. The mothers had someone to turn to with their struggles, the men were reconnected with their maternal affections, and the children were actively and tangibly connected to the ways of their grandparents. I can understood how this event could smooth the conflicts and arising discomforts within domus life.

In discussing the domus community of the Italians in Harlem, Orsi delineates the codes and norms the immigrants maintained and distinguishes their lifestyle from the way of the native Americans. I found this tension of immigrant life very interesting in that while the Italians actively came to settle in America, they came not for ideological, but rather for practical, reasons and thus they attempted to transplant themselves proudly in America while refusing to be American; instead seeking to keep every bit of their roots maintained, done through the method of Italian domus lifestyle. Even while living in America, “when immigrants wanted to criticize their children’s new ideas … they accused them of being American,” a jab at the very country in which they chose to reside (78). And in describing the lifestyle they expected for their future generations, planted in American soil, descriptions were based upon Italian circumstances, such as one woman’s “warning to her children to be faithful to Italian ways,” wherein she expected them to “have a house like [her] grandfather had in Italy” (78).

Even then, the notable characteristics of being American were independence, individualism and rejection of traditional nuclear family life, and the first-, and even second-generation Italians chaffed at such American ways. They, instead, relied upon the constraints of domus life to keep them all in line with Italian morals, claiming that Italians were the only ones who knew how to raise a family properly. I found it quite interesting as to how such an open, fluid and vibrant domus community could flourish on the shores of a foreign and counter environment. Orsi gives countless pages of description of the vibrancy of the domus and comments that “the life of the domus spilled out into closely watched streets and hallways” (92). Both private and public life for the immigrants were influenced by their heritage, and while the fourth chapter offers some harsher, more critical perspectives of domus life, it yet admits that “American-born generations … always remained bound by the demands and values of the domus” (129). Somehow, the first-generation immigrants were able to create a tight enough community life that the following generations still maintained ties to whatever extent, even while dabbling in integrating into their American identity.