I found this reading to be extremely interesting—especially chapter 5. Chinatown is a very revealing social case. Peter Kwong gives such a clear and truthful description of the political structure rigidly imposed upon this detached society of Chinese immigrants and their descendants. Simply put, Chinatown is a geographically bound area in New York City run by an elite, wealthy, and powerful class—one that has control over virtually every aspect of the society, from the business sector to the armed forces to the media. And through this lens, I argue, Chinatown is a microcosm of the American political structure as a whole.

As I was reading chapter 5, I couldn’t help but feel astonished at how closely the operation of Chinatown resembled that of the larger national society. Many analogies can be drawn between these two worlds (worlds which, ultimately, are driven by the same ancient devil: greed). The most significant analogy that I will draw here is one comparing the CCBA to the U.S. government. I will start off by quoting from Kwong’s book: “The CCBA is clearly not representative of the community, nor is it a mediating force among associations. It is a body created by the largest associations, it is nondemocratic, and it exists to enable a self-appointed elite to maintain control of Chinatown.” Now replace “CCBA” with “U.S. government,” “associations” with “corporations,” and “Chinatown” with “the United States.” Wonderful.

As Kwong gives us a further account of Chinatown and the various tools by which the elite class manipulates the elements of society, we can draw even further comparisons. Using the same rules as above, we can analyze the following statement that sheds light on the psychological tools of power: “Although indifferent to the problems of the poor, Chinatown’s elite promotes an official ideology of the community . . . the ideology is proclaimed during labor/management disputes. ‘We are all immigrants in this country, trying to make a living. If we fight, we will lose our businesses to the whites and all of us will suffer.’” In the same way, the ruling American class has imposed a similar view upon the average man: “We’re all patriotic Americans, right? You don’t wanna stir up any trouble, do ya? If you do, we could lose our freedoms to the terrorists.” Interestingly, these ideologies are thrown about at a time when civil unrest, disillusionment, and revolutionary inclinations are starting to penetrate the minds of more citizens.

Finally, two very interesting analogies can be made concerning the KMT and the tongs. The KMT is like the U.S. foreign sector; the tongs are like the U.S. military forces. However, both were serving the same head: the CCBA (or the U.S. government). Taking this into consideration, let us analyze another statement: “This alliance of the CCBA, the traditional associations, and the KMT was an alliance of shared ideology and politics. Each represented the interests of an elite against labor militancy, liberal sentiments, and mass movements.” Now, the last branch of the political structure is the media—this is tacitly understood. “One important tool used by the CCBA and the KMT to dominate Chinatown is the Chinese-language press.” Just like the Chinatown newspapers were monopolized to serve the self-interests of the wealthy, elite class members of Chinatown, the U.S. media outlets—from newspapers to corporate news networks to prime time television and radio programs—function to serve a powerful, wealthy, and self-interested elite, ultimately perpetuating a type of society that is detrimental to its very own people.

The rigid governmental systems within the Chinese communities in China town provides another pretty clear reason for why the Chinese had so much trouble adapting into American society. They literally had an entire society, from soup to nuts, holed up in a small corner of the city. When the Chinese are living in such a power system, there is little to no allowance for upward mobility. Individuals are trapped in an exclusively Chinese-American society, and they cannot become integrated into mainstream American society simply because their superiors give them no such outlet.

Kwong’s description of the associations and hier-up that developed territorially in Chinatown describes nothing short of a hierarchical and elitist society. These strict horizontal divisions nullify the advantages that come along with the vertical integration in Chinese circles.

Although Kwong explains that the structures of the associations and the Chinatown government were informal political structures, I find myself thinking of the society as an unofficially official statehood. When there is a body in place that has the power to demand taxes from its subordinates, a society becomes formalized. The CCBA serves as a mechanism of centrality, and it’s force of power trickles down to the largest associations first into a pyramid-like, hierarchical structure. I feel uncomfortable calling such a complex and carefully defined system “informal”. The associations themselves seem to be unofficial and informal because of their unclear borders and instability. The higher powers in Chinese societies however, seem highly organized and powerful. They follow clearly defined guidelines as to how they govern their subordinates.

I don’t think that without an officially unofficial system in place, Chinatown could have remained so uniquely insular. Many other immigrant groups have come with forms of governance and leadership, but they have learned English and have integrated at least somewhat into mainstream society. With the Chinese systems in place, the immigrants do not have the capability (nor the need, some might argue) to adapt as other immigrants have.

Throughout chapters 2 and 3 of The New Chinatown, Peter Kwong chronicles the economy of New York City’s Chinatown as it grew from a self-employing, small-business community to a high finance area. Kwong begins by describing the main reason behind why Chinese immigrants desired to come to America: to escape poverty. Here, they felt there would be a greater availability of jobs, and as the Chinese immigrants settled near each other, Chinatown was born. The most distinctive feature of Chinatown, however, – and one I find quite intriguing – is the local network among Chinese merchants and employers, allowing for the development of jobs that were entirely carried out step-by-step by Chinese immigrants, from production to consumption.

Kwong follows by highlighting the pivotal role Chinese women played in the further development of Chinatown. Though many did not speak English, Chinese women were eager to work and provide for their families. This particular section of Kwong’s discussion truly resonated with me. When my grandparents first arrived in New York City in 1960 they had only one child: my uncle. Within five years, however, the family grew to include my younger uncle, my mom, and my aunt. Struggling to support four children, my grandmother sought employment and became a garment worker – an occupation within the exact industry Kwong cites as having significantly aided in the transformation of Chinatown’s economy from one focused on small businesses, to one with a burgeoning manufacturing industry. Again, just as Kwong writes, though there were not many choices of work for women at that time, my grandmother did specifically choose to work as a seamstress in a factory because it offered full health insurance for her entire family and allowed her to have flexible work hours so that she would still be able to care for her children. My grandmother was even allowed to sometimes bring my aunt – the youngest – along with her to work with her, if she was not feeling well and had taken an absence from school. 

While local exchanges and labor such as my grandmother’s certainly impacted the growing economy of the neighborhood, as Kwong discusses in chapter 3, foreign capital emerged as an important factor as well. For many immigrants residing in parts of the world that faced economic uncertainty at the time, transferring their capital became the most logical first step before immigrating to America. Though most had relatives and friends store their capital in banks on their behalf, some also invested money into their family’s businesses or real-estate ventures – a decision that gave a “tremendous boost to the Chinatown economy and foreshadowed the beginnings of real estate speculation. Here, Kwong notes that “the intention is to move capital to the United States, profits are not returned to Asia but are reinvested in this country.” I found this particular statement, though not as pertinent to his central conversation, to be quite interesting as it directly correlates to our recent class discussion on citizenship. Although the definition of a “good citizen” varies from person to person, I wonder, here Chinese immigrants have and are clearly contributing to the American economy, are they thus considered good citizens? Moreover, Kwong draws attention to the varying roles capital plays within Chinatown. Just as Foner noted in her novel, foreign capital allowed for foreign organizations to maintain political holds on the Chinese community.

Finally, in describing the growth of Chinatown through real estate, Kwong cites the importance of ownership of land to Chinese individuals, as it represents stability and power. I also personally understood this statement, as both my parents have real estate ventures and have always taught the importance of owning a form of property. Unfortunately as the community grew physically, and the economy boomed, Chinatown itself became a more lucrative investment to those within and those outside of the actual neighborhood. Furthermore, there became a “crying need” for space and low-income residents were often displaced to make room for more profitable housing and commercial businesses. This reminded me immediately of a recent proposition to demolish a portion of Elizabeth Street in Chinatown to be replaced with a large hotel. Though I am not sure of the specifics of the proposal, this instantaneously unsettled me, as it seeks to permanently alter the fabric – the people and small businesses – of Chinatown. Thus, though Chinatown was and still is quite different from other traditional ethic enclaves in that the Chinese created their own employment opportunities and in turn built their own community, with their rising economy also came rising interest from those within and outside of the community to profit from its self-produced success.

Nancy Foner examines the reality of transnationalism in the social patterns of contemporary and past immigration to the United States. She argues that although these tendencies have been popularly espoused as modern phenomena, immigrants from the first great wave maintained transnational ties as well. She does emphasize, however, that new technology, political ties, shifts in perspective, and business relations have played an important role in the nature of transnational ties today—one that can be characterized by greater accessibility and rapidity.

A very important factor, of course, is the evolution of transport. As Foner wrote, one-way trips between the U.S. and Italy during the early 1900s would take about two weeks. Moreover, a letter sent from one end would take this same amount of time to reach the other end. Today, obviously, things are different. Foner also writes about the change in perspective of the American culture. In the past, immigrants of the first great wave were encouraged to leave behind their ethnic traditions and ideals and assimilate into “good Americans.” Nowadays, immigrants are generally encouraged to embrace their ethnic origins and maintain international connections. I say, however, that contemporary immigrants have no other choice. I find it interesting that now that this new wave of immigration is predominantly one of color, the people are being told to embrace their cultural origins. The new wave of immigrants is arriving in a country that tacitly refuses to accept them as “true” members of its society. Thus, to meet a greater level of social satisfaction, contemporary immigrants must either maintain transnational ties or conform to the subordinate subculture of hyphenated Americans.

Reading this chapter got me thinking about my own family. Despite the fact that my parents come from Central America, we do not maintain strong transnational ties. I think we are less connected to the “home country” than most people of this background. I think the reasons are more unique though (more to do with family strife than anything else). However, we do speak Spanish at home and my parents have a great deal of respect and admiration for Latin American culture and history—as do I.

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.

Throughout Chapter 6 of From Ellis Island to JFK, Nancy Foner discusses the growing complexity of citizenship and the impact transnationalism has had on both the immigrants of the past and the immigrants of today. Defined as “the processes by which immigrants ‘forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement,'” transnationality – though not always recognized – has had a long history in immigration.

As Foner asserts, immigrants at the turn of the century often sustained familial, economic, political, and cultural ties to their home societies while simultaneously developing connections to their new homes. With the uncertainty of work and the economy, many of these immigrants labored to obtain just enough money to send back to other family members and to return home for both brief visits and permanent stays – minus any financial baggage they might have carried with them when they first arrived on Ellis Island.

This desire to return to their home societies, Foner argues, was also encouraged by racism and prejudice in America: “Nonwhite immigrants, denied full acceptance in America, maintain and build ties to their communities of origin to have a place they can call home.” Yet, what I found quite interesting, was the very apparent “catch-22” associated with transnational ties. While many Americans have and still continue to discriminate against immigrants and maintain desires to limit immigration overall, immigrants, at the same time, are “expected to stay once they arrive,” because “to leave again implied the migrant came only for money; was too crass to appreciate America as a noble experiment in democracy; and spurned American good will and helping hands.”

Furthermore, immigrants are continuously pressured to abandon traditional customs and languages, emerging from this simmering melting pot as “immaculate, well-dressed, accent-free ‘American-looking’ Americans.” I found Foner’s haunting description of assimilation and institutionalization to parallel hazing and other forms of mass processes employed to prove loyalty. With that in mind, I find it quite absurd – while we continue to stigmatize immigrants and maintain anti-immigrant sentiments, we expect them to conform to our so-called inherently “American” ideals (but are we not, first, a country built upon immigrant ideals?) and declare allegiance to a country that does not wholly recognize these same immigrants.

Today, with advancements in technology, the ways in which immigrants preserve transnational ties has changed – they are now able to do so simultaneously, via phone, instant messaging, video and numerous other options. However, the economic uncertainty faced by past immigrants remains an obstacle for the immigrants of today and is still one very influential factor in maintaining dual nationality. To most, especially those in academia, transnational relationships “enhance the possibility of survival,” and more people now view themselves as “world citizens.” Even here, though, I recognize contradiction. While I believe it certainly broadens prospects to be knowledgeable of facets of multiple cultures, building transnational ties ultimately adds complexity into the definition of citizenship (explaining why many countries do not legitimize dual citizenship) and threatens the limiting categorizations created and enforced by society. Thus, unfortunately, I feel it will take much time before transnationality will be truly discussed, as doing so would first require society to recognize and respect the complexity of differences in individual identity.

The term “immigrant” frequently conjures up images of forlorn and lonely individuals toiling away in a foreign country, being forced to forget about their homeland thousands of miles away and faced with the constant pressure of having to adapt to the cultural norms of their new home while simultaneously facing discrimination and prejudice by the native population. This is, however, an incredibly distorted image of immigrants who are far from isolated from the worlds they left behind. Immigrants are, in fact, not alone but part of a “transnational household with members scattered across borders.”

Transnationalism was very much alive back in the day and is even stronger today. With respect to the immigrants of the last great wave, Italians were the “quintessential transnational New Yorkers of their time.” Due to certain unfavorable conditions in the homeland, many Italians found themselves immigrating to the United States with the monomaniac goal of finding work. Most were not concerned with starting new lives here but with saving up sums of money, which they would then take back to Italy to improve the quality of their own lives and that of their relatives at home. Many Italians saw the Unites States as a “workshop” and felt an inextricable sense of loyalty and responsibility to the people they left behind as these people often included wives, children, and parents. Money was constantly sent to family members in Italy and letters were frequently exchanged. As promised, an impressive number of Italians actually returned to Italy permanently, buying “a little house and a plot of ground” there and living markedly enhanced lives.

Today, a noticeably different kind of transnationalism pervades New York City. It is one that is definitely more far-reaching and intense due to a variety of factors including transformations in the technologies of transportation and communication dual nationality provisions by home governments. In fact, transnationalism is almost “a way of life” for the immigrants of today and is much more accepted and celebrated now than it was in the past. Today’s immigrants can be seen as living two totally separate lives, one in the home country and the other in the host country.  It’s not unusual for immigrants to buy homes in both countries, open up businesses in both countries, and boast political involvement in both countries. Scattered members of the transnational household can easily be brought together through phone calls, emails, and other forms of communication, allowing immigrants to be actively involved in matters back at home. Due to the quicker, more convenient, and relatively inexpensive trips back to the native country, immigrants can easily take part in important life events of those that they have left behind and can bring even bring relatives to join them here. As a result of this far-reaching transnationalism, immigrants are always connected to the familiarities of the home and there is little reason for having to permanently go back, explaining why the rate for return for present day immigrants is significantly less than that of past immigrants like the Italians.

I found this essay to be highly intriguing and valuable in assessing the general effect of institutionalization on small, independent organizations in the United States. The trajectory of Tepeyac was an unfortunate one, and perhaps—as Gálvez seems to have suggested—inevitable. What I believe has been outlined and described in Gálvez’s essay is the ultimate demise of Asociación Tepeyac, an organization that originated as a small, grassroots movement dedicated to serving the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. The virtually irreversible transformation that has come about the organization in the wake of 9/11 has left it in a position far removed from where it used to be—one described by the dichotomies of conformity and alienation.

Since its founding—which was really a consolidation of various smaller service organizations—Tepeyac had been fully dedicated to the task of allocating government aid to the Mexican immigrant population. Armed with a highly diligent and self-sacrificing volunteer force, the organization accomplished admirable feats and tackled problems that would have been overwhelming even for larger organizations. When the tragedy of September 11th, 2001 occurred, among those affected were immigrants and their family members living in the home country. This drastic situation elicited an emergency response from Tepeyac, which continued in its efforts to serve the undocumented (and extremely underrepresented) community in New York. This called for greater private funding and an expansion of infrastructure, which ultimately led to what is described as institutional isomorphism. It becomes clear that the increased involvement of private funding organizations led to the transformation of Tepeyac into a bureaucratic institution that greatly deviated from its grassroots base in ways detrimental to its cause. In one ironic example, many the very same people who had seen the emergence of Tepeyac and contributed earnestly to its early growth could not even be hired by the organization in its latter days due to their undocumented status.

One thing I kept thinking about as I read this essay was the example of Edna Baskin’s grassroots organization in the last essay we read. I remember reading one part about how her husband was very fixed on not accepting large private donations for the sake of preserving the integrity of Concerned Community Adults. I believe he was a very wise man.