The part of Kwong’s Chapter 4 that resonated most with me was the education discussion. I have gone to school with mostly children of Asian immigrants my entire life. I saw how much they valued education. The children worked diligently in school only to go to an after school program on the weekdays and school on the weekends to study more. I watched how my fellow students snickered when an Asian student solved a math problem that no one else in the class understood. But as I began to see when I got older (and as Kwong states in the chapter), these trends were oversimplified. First, “Asian” became the nomenclature for “Chinese”, “Japanese”, “Korean”, “Vietnamese”, etc. These people from completely different countries were being grouped into one large stereotype: Asians (Asians work hard, Asians are good students, etc.) Second, Kwong describes the differences between the Uptown Chinese and the Downtown Chinese. Among the Chinese themselves, there are many differences. The Downtown Chinese are much less likely to conform to this “Asian” stereotype since they have less opportunities in Chinatown. If there are so many differences among one “Asian” group, it is that much more wrong to combine completely different people into one false category. It is true that many Chinese, Korean, etc. people value education more than Americans, but just as we can not generalize Americans, we can not generalize these groups either. After all, some Americans value education more than the Chinese. Kwong’s discussion of education in Chinatown highlights the more general problems with the way we view the Chinese immigrants in America. I feel that we tend to 1) refer to the Chinese immigrants as extremely hard working, resourceful, successful individuals or 2) view the immigrants as living in squalid conditions with insufficient means to support themselves. As Kwon argues, it’s just not that simple. Chinatown (like every community) has many layers and is a combination of the two above conditions. If we want to better understand Chinatown, immigration, and ethnic boundaries in general, we must stop making generalizations because oversimplifying makes us closed minded.

-On a somewhat unrelated note, I found that the exploitation of the Chinese immigrants was very similar to Orsi’s description of the Italians immigrants in East Harlem. Some of the Chinese had to work in terrible conditions and endure abuse from their bosses but they could not complain because they were “lucky to have a job”. Similarly, the Italians had to endure work related injustices because if they complained, they would lose their jobs and would eventually starve. It’s such a terrible situation that I can’t imagine being in.

Throughout this chapter, I couldn’t help noticing similarities between the Hasidic Jewish lifestyle and the Italian lifestyle in East Harlem. Goldschmidt quotes the Rebbe in saying that the “Jewish mother is largely responsible for the perpetuation of the very foundation of Jewish existence” (120). Orsi, too, wrote of the Italian mother’s large (if not complicated and contradictory) influence in the domus. The Jewish and Italian mothers alike held huge responsibilities on their shoulders to ensure that the domus/Jewish home ran smoothly and adhered to each group’s values and principles. Goldschmidt also writes that the Hasidim felt a strong difference between life in their homes and on the streets surrounding their homes. This is not surprising, since the Jews felt completely separate from their black neighbors, and vice versa. The public-private dichotomy contributed to the Jews’ identities because the more they distanced themselves from the “Blackness” of the streets, the more in tune they became with their own religion, community, lifestyle, etc. This dynamic can be compared to the public-private dichotomy experienced by the residents of Italian Harlem, though the two were different. The Italians were actually surrounded by their own people yet they constantly put on a different show in front of their neighbors. Whereas the Jews wanted to show their true colors to the Blacks to prove that they were different from them, the Italians did everything they could to conform to their neighbors’ ideals even if it meant contradicting their home lifestyles.

The meaning of food to the Hasidic Jews can also be compared to the Italians’ emphasis on food. As Goldschmidt argues, food was extremely important to the Jews because it reaffirmed their core beliefs and values, and ultimately what was most important to them. While I feel that the Italians’ focused slightly less on food (less restrictions, for example), their culinary practices were also very distinct to them. Both groups can be partially identified by what they eat since both groups place a strong emphasis on their food in relation to the broader culture. I also found it interesting that because the Jews lived in such close proximity to the Blacks, there was pressure to taste and learn about each other’s food. The Italians had the privilege of not being pressured to be “open” to other’s culinary habits simply because they didn’t live in such a shared community like the Jews did.

During our last class, we wondered whether or not each family in Italian Harlem knew of the other families’ public-privaty dichotomy of power concerning men and women. Prior to this reading, I had thought strongly that everyone had to know about the dynamics in each household, since the community’s people had to be at least somewhat similar. When I read this chapter, it became even more clear to me how much the families knew about one another, especially during the time of the festa. Who are the people worshipping? A woman. Coincidence? Not entirely. The worship of a woman as opposed to a man is quite symbolic of the women’s (somewhat hidden) power. The men put on a show of having power outside the home when the most important day of the year in Italian Harlem is dedicated to worshipping a woman. As Orsi describes, the festa is the moment when a woman’s power is most obvious to the entire community.

Like many other aspects of life in East Harlem, Orsi asserts that a woman’s “power” is nothing more than a paradox. This power is also her constraint. The so called power is put upon the women in the community and they are expected to display it. So, it isn’t as if the women have a choice about whether or not they have power. Maybe they would actually prefer not to have this “power” as the title comes with much burden and pressure. The power is more akin to a trap than actual authority. Furthermore, these women are resented by the rest of the community for having this power. In other words, power is forced upon them and they are then chastised for something they have little control over. Overall, women in East Harlem, like most of the community, were essentially powerless. It amazes me that a word (power) we normally think of as meaning that a person is above the “masses” can actually mean so much more in a negative way. The women in East Harlem could certainly attest to that.

The public-private dichotomy between the mother and father that was so characteristic of life in Italian Harlem reminded me of the concept of dramaturgy that I learned in my sociology class last semester. From a dramaturgical viewpoint, people play roles in their daily lives, almost as if they are always actors. The part of dramaturgy that reminded me of the dichotomy of Italian Harlem was the concept of front stage vs. backstage. Like it sounds, backstage represents the private aspects of our lives. In Italian Harlem, the backstage occurred inside the home, where outsiders could not witness the authority of the mother. The backstage was so private in this case that great precautions were taken to prevent anyone outside the home from seeing it. As the curtain comes up, or as a family ventures onto the streets, backstage is almost forgotten as the family is now performing for the masses. In this front stage (the place that we want people to see), the father has all the authority. This whole “act” that was put on by families in East Harlem is similar to the idea of drama and chaos backstage at a theatre and the neat, polished performance given to the audience.

On a different note, the second section of this reading clarified some confusion I previously had when reading the very first chapter of the book. When I read the detailed description of the festa in Chapter 1, part of me didn’t understand how people could be so reverent to the point where they would lick the aisles of a church. This reading made me understand the reason that this devotion was so important to the residents of East Harlem. The festa symbolized so much for the immigrants: connection between generations that might otherwise have been vastly different, the bridging of New York City and their hometowns in Italy, and a return to one’s roots (in particular, the mother). Without this celebration, many of these immigrants would have nothing to pull them through the difficult other 51 weeks of the year. In a way, their devotion is what held them together and reminded them why they fought so hard to protect the domus.

To continue on the topic of “paradox” that we discussed in class, I found that these two sections introduced more paradoxes and contradictions. The first section painted the picture of a loyal, close-knit supportive life in the domus. The domus, Orsi explained, was a way for immigrants to feel grounded in a new, unstable society. People were very close and had a strong sense of community and support for one another. The second section of the reading seemed like the “behind the scenes” or “behind closed doors” aspects of the domus. Beneath the domus’ supposedly positive exterior, life inside the domus was far from picture perfect.

The main paradox I found within section two was the idea of authority in the domus. The Italian parents demanded the utmost respect from their children yet Orsi writes that the eldest son often claimed more authority than his father. This makes little sense to me. I feel that this discrepancy over who has power, who should bow down to whom, etc. would provide for much confusion as well as the sending of mixed messages within the domus. Perhaps, because my upbringing was a stark contrast to the “domus” lifestyle (think Gilmore Girls), I just don’t truly understand the mechanics of family life in the domus. Maybe it is not as confusing as it seemed, but I certainly would not want to be the father nor the eldest son in a domus because of the conflict and rivalry that existed among the members of the family.

Orsi’s description of the domus in the second section appeared, at times, cult-like. I was particularly annoyed at the number of times the Italian immigrants spoke badly of America. Orsi quoted them frequently putting down America’s methods of child rearing, education, etc. These people came to America for a reason and their disrespect of our values and methods doesn’t seem right. Many immigrants appeared to feel superior to the “American” way of life. Why are they here, then, if they hate the lifestyle so much? This is not to say that all Italians, or all immigrants, think in this way, but I always find myself tired of foreigners in America putting down the way we live.