Peter Kwong addresses an issue that I have witnessed first hand and have had many friends fall victim to the overgeneralization of ethnicity and surveys. In chapter four Kwong introduces the difference between “Downtown” Chinese and “Uptown” Chinese. Kwong explains that the two should be considered the same or together because by taking the average, you simply end up with contradictory numbers, statistics and characteristics. While the Downtown Chinese usually know little to no English, the Uptown Chinese consisted of Taiwanese elite (mostly scholars, college graduates, or government officials).

Kwong makes a brief point of how the two, polar opposites are affected by affirmative action. Because they are both considered of Chinese or Asian descent many schools and colleges tend to have an increased number of Uptown Chinese students due to their well off background or resources. However, those who are affected by this are the Downtown Chinese who are in need of affirmative action and are unfortunately grouped together with the Uptown Scholars.

I witnessed this first hand where many of my Chinese friends whose parents immigrated to America were not as well off as other minority group’s family. However, due to affirmative action they are not considered for the extra help that they need. The college application process was frustrating on their part. Though this was only a brief point brought up by Kwong it is one that answered a question that many second generation youths of Asian descent have been asking for awhile. It is interesting that many of us don;’t realize the division even within an immigration group of the same ethnicity. It also sheds light on misrepresentation of data that can lead to results that don’t tell the full story.

Both before and after learning about the reason behind this, I still believe that affirmative action policies should change.  Kwong further proves that affirmative action should not be based on ethnicity as previous years allowed it to. New policies should consider family income or available resources because ethnicity cannot determine how well off a family is no matter how the percentage or data if we follow generalized rules regarding ethnicity, families in need of help will always be left in the dark.

–Trish Anne Roque

An interesting topic that Peter Kwong covers in the first few chapters is the work force of Chinese women and how they affected the growth of Chinatown. According to Kwon, the timing of the arrival of the Chinese women workforce came at a time exactly when they were needed. As a result, not only were the women able to support there family they were also able to re-stimulate the industry with their income. With this occurrence Kwong  believes the new work force allowed Chinatown’s economy to expand.

The economic aspect to this theory is interesting because I am currently studying the Depression and various economic issues that happened during the time period. We see during Hoover’s reign the “trickle down theory” does not really work. Or the idea that funding at the top will eventually reach the workers down below. Over all Hoover’s attempt at fixing the economy was dismal due to his inability of allowing “direct” Federal aid. (An example would be actually creating jobs for those at the bottom.) This part struck me because it shows or further proves that if those at the bottom are employed they can stimulate the economy. For some reason, this idea could not be accepted during the great depression until the Roosevelt administration, and even he had criticism. So according to Kwong’s ideas if Hoover directly provided jobs for the unemployed during the Depression, history may have been quite different.

Or perhaps this economic stimulation only works in a small scale way (as compared to that of a national economic depression.) Where the idea of a small ethnic cluster can stimulate their own economy through an employed work force. The model does seem more reliable on a small scale like many other economic plans. However, how natural this economic stimulation occurs shown through the idea that Chinatown also provides Chinese women with some comfort due to familiarity. For example, Kwong mentions how the managers were also Chinese and there was no language barrier.

Among scholars, historians, and Foner the notion of transnationalism being a new idea seems like a mutual agreement. As stated in chapter 6, there seems to be some form of transnationalism exiting before the 1990s but the aspects and characteristics that come after are distinguishing enough for a new term.

The technological advances are one of the main factors Foner mentions which allow the modern day transnationalism to flourish. The quickness and easiness of a phone call or the affordability of plane tickets make it easier for an immigrant to be part of two nationalities. History proves that technological advances have hard hitting effects of its time period. For example, during the first wave of immigration the jobs provided to immigrants were through technological advances in steel and transportation industries. Now it allows immigrants to identify with their home country. A social aspect for many immigrants who feel as if they are subordinates in the United States.

Aside from the social aspect, I found the economic and political involvement of the home countries more interesting. Rather than the immigrants needs, Foner mentions how the home countries of these immigrants benefit from transnationalism and as a result foster it through companies or financing. I believe that the involvement of government from the home countries both politically and economically showcases and only further proves that time period is important and in today’s society the Global Market becomes an important aspect. Today, businesses and companies seek out those who can reach out to global markets. As mentioned by Foner, the fact that many of these immigrants come as professionals also plays into the role of a Global Market.  With the changing ideals of the United States, which once took an individualistic and secluded stand point politically, transnationalism becomes and idea that only deepens and widens in today’s society.

–Trish Anne Roque

Foner compares the immigrants of the turn of the century with the current immigrants in means of their class and jobs they took on. The difference between education and skills that the majority of the immigrants brought from each wave is linked, by Foner, with the social and economic state that New York City was in at the time. With New York City at the peak of industrialization it provided the job opportunities for the poor, mostly illiterate and uneducated immigrants of the 1880s-1910s. However, post-industrialized New York City was a new center that focus less on manufacturing and more on personal and informational serves by the 1990s.

This explanation hit home because my parents came to America as 1st generation immigrants and fall under the category that Foner describes. Both of my parents immigrate from the Philippines educated and my Mom came as a professional nurse. I was even told that becoming a nurse was a way for them and my other family members to immigrate to America. “Alongside the unlettered and unskilled are immigrant doctors, nurses, engineers, and Ph.Ds” (Page 73, Foner)

In fact, what interested me the most was the fact that so many of my relatives immigrated to America as nurses as well as other Filipinos that today, a stereotype has been developed. The stereotype being that “all Filipinos are nurses” and for many 2nd generation children this is true, where at least one or several family member is a nurse who immigrated to America around the 1990s. Because I also have a number of 2nd generation friends as well, I’ve witnessed and experienced how the current economic state of New York has influenced the new wave of immigrants without realizing. The similarities that Foner brings up about the two waves of immigrants are too general compared to the vast differences in the state of New York and the immigrants themselves. You could say that timing really had an influence on the social and economic statuses of immigrants and the way they chose to live in New York city, as a result, unconsciously creating different stereotypes and classifications in a changing urban setting.

The emergence of Eugenics, biological construction of race, during the first massive wave of immigration seems to be no coincidence; it is a common idea that this idea was a way to justify treating people differently based on their “biological attributes”. During the massive immigration from southern and western europe, this idea of eugenics created a hierarchy distinguishing the old immigrants from the new. However, a point brought up by Goldshmidt is that even among the immigrants and other lower ranks such as African Americans, utilize these “biological constructions of race” to distinguish themselves and one another.

In the chapter, Goldshmidt refers to the idea that Jews can not take off their yarmulke just as blacks can not change their color of their skin. Yet Goldshmidt says that it is still possible to dress other things, such as professional attire versus dreads, and wearing a fedora over the yarmulke. I find this claim is interesting because in my cultural anthropology class last semester i learned that race is a “cultural” construct and the only real way to distinguish between races are through ways not easily accessible, such as genetics, not through physical appearances such as facial features, hair, and attire.

In this chapter we see that many of the first hand opinions illustrate that these “physical appearances” that demonstrate the cultural idea of race is not just for others to distinguish you but also a way for them to keep their own cultural identity; though it also creates a stereotypical idea of a race or ethnicity, it also creates a place for an individual to be distinctive in an urban, diverse world.

–Trish Anne Roque

Goldschmidt covers various topics within Chapter 3 in an attempt to analyze the very clear social separation between Blacks and Jews in Crown Heights. The main two reasons being differences in religion and food. An interesting point that is brought up, is the idea that New York city and the industrialization of such an urban center already promotes such individualism that in many other cases and areas, many neighbors still do not make an effort to socialize and connect with each other. So why is there such a focus and attempt to bring together the Hasidic Jews, Afro-Caribbean, and African American communities that live together in Crown Heights? Goldshmidt simplifies the answer to the idea that there is growing tension in the community since the violence and occurrences in August of 1991 and has ultimately devloped into a much larger, political problem.

From personal experience, growing up in southern Queens, I found that I did interact with many of my neighbors. It was brought up from one account that a Hasidic woman did not want her children playing with others who did not share the same religion because the kids were “too different”. As a kid, my neighborhood was diverse and I played with and greeted my neighbors regularly. Today, though our neighbor hood has become less diverse, my family still attempt to greet and chat with our neighbors on a casual level, not to the extent of inviting them into our homes unlike when I was younger.

Goldshmidt brings up an example of the organization “Mothers to Mothers” as a way to show that Blacks and Jews can get over cultural boundaries. The argument that the two communities are simply “too different” falters because as one member explains, it is simply a matter of understanding the other’s culture. I believe that the idea that the difference in religion and food are not what separates the two communities but how each individual perceives and acts upon these differences that cause the divide. Goldshmidt’s account show two different sides to verify this, those who simply do not open themselves to a different culture and those who attempt to overcome such barriers.

–Trish Anne Roque