I was really fascinated by Susan Slyomovics’ interpretation of the Muslim reasoning behind holding a parade. She points out that Muslims are really the only religious group in New York City that hold a parade titled by their religion (as opposed to say, the Jewish population participating in the Israel Day Parade). At the same time, religious association with Islam is not necessarily ethnic because Muslims in New York City come from all over the world. Slyomovics argues that perhaps the purpose of Muslims coming together to march in a parade is for “reconfiguring religion into ethnicity to take advantage of the discourse of ethnicity” (160). This begs the question, however, as to why Muslims in New York City feel that it is advantageous to identify themselves by ethnicity rather than religion? True, other parades in the city are generally ethnic gatherings (like the Puerto Rican Day Parade), but does that mean that a community in New York City can’t be bound together by religious association as well?

Based on Slyomovic’s description of the Muslim World Day Parade, it really does sound like the Muslim population of New York City tries to present themselves as an ethnic group thriving in the city. The parade begins, however, with prayer. The Muslim population makes a crucial statement in beginning their parade with an expression of their religious beliefs. I think that, in general, America, and specifically New York City, is anti-religious. Not necessarily in a vehement sense, but the ideal of the melting pop suggests that in order to part of the society at large, one must compromise his or her religious or cultural practices. Give a little, get a little, right?

By framing their parade with prayer, the Muslim population shows the value behind religious association, and that they need not compromise themselves in order to be part of New York City. Geographical ethnicity is not the only thing that brings people together in communal bonds. When a group shares a sense of religious beliefs, they will come together as a community no matter what part of the world they hail from. A religious community, though it will not compromise itself, is every bit as legitimately a part of the broader community of New York City as any ethnic community.

Slymovics’s indication of the New York City’s Muslim Day Parade as a means of reconfiguring “religion into an ethnicity” is the concept that stood out to me the most in this article. There seems to be a certain degree of truth behind such a suggestion as the parade is made up of individuals of a plethora of ethnicities, all of whom are bridged together under the religion of Islam. The fact that immigrant Muslims from different areas of the world can come together and take part in the prayers and festivities of the parade as one people shows that Islam does—to some extent—serve as an ethnicity.

Slymovics then goes on to an extensive discussion of the parade, emphasizing that like other groups of people who hold parades to “show their communities’ strengths,” the Muslims too are aiming to present their identity to their fellow New Yorkers. What’s interesting about the Muslim Day Parade is the distinct ways in which it is like a “typical” New York City parade and the other ways in which it is clearly not. New Yorkers are generally view parades as a manifestation of ethnic pride, and it is clear that the Muslims use this to their advantage as they incorporate a variety of signs, floats, bands, and other components that demonstrate to the public that they can and do collectively participate in American civil society.

On the other hand, the lining up and orienting of hundreds of Muslims toward the “traditional east,” resulting in the conversion of the city’s street into a place of prayer, and the inclusion of the “takbir” in the parade despite certain concerns creates a distinct foundation for the event and reinforces the religious significance of it. The dual aspects of the parade show that “Muslim rituals could operate simultaneously with secular parade rituals,” and “the result was that the parade does not always keep events apart. Sometimes the two worlds of foreign religion and urban secular American culture clashed…” In other words, the Muslim Day Parade demonstrates that while Muslims can be like the rest of New Yorkers in certain ways, they are inarguably different in other ways, leaving us to wonder whether this group of people can ever come to be fully integrated into and accepted by American society.

In regard to the nature of public discourse on racial issues, Foner states, “What was acceptable and commonplace in 1900 would be considered unthinkable today.” Prior to reading this chapter in Ellis Island to JFK, I had a rather vague idea of the nature of such discourse, and although I knew that the immigrants of the past faced intense discrimination, I was not aware of the sheer magnitude of this intensity. Foner writes that the “inferior mongrel races” of the Italians and Jews were believed to contribute to a “falling off of good looks,” lower efficiency, less democracy, and moral depravity as they were once referred to as “moral cripples.” I was absolutely horrified by such acerbic language and way of thinking.  To find out that signs such as “No Jews or Dogs Admitted Here” were once pervasive in New York City and to find out that the “swarthy, oily” Italians received lower wages for the same work as their counterparts is just really upsetting and makes one empathize deeply with the immigrants of the past. Foner’s discussion of the “sting of prejudice” endured by the predominantly south and eastern European immigrants of the past initially prompted me to take a sigh of relief and feel grateful for the apparently changed environment of the New York City of today. However, after examining Foner’s subsequent discussion of race and the “newest New Yorkers,” the rather saccharine image in mind of NYC as a place where everyone can be him or herself with perfect impunity just didn’t seem so accurate anymore.

First of all, it is unequivocally clear that African Americans in New York City still have to grapple with the painful sting of prejudice. Foner writes, “Today, most white Americans would like to convey an image of themselves as unprejudiced and compassionate. Yet racial stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination against blacks have had a tenacious hold and persist in a variety of forms.” Even those who aren’t native-born blacks, such as West Indians and “dark Hispanics,” end up being thrown into the category of “black.” These individuals then try their hardest to prove to the rest of society that they aren’t “black” as this is a term that a wide range of people, not only native whites, have come to associate with crime, a lack of education and culture, and an antagonistic attitude. The story about the West Indian family whose newly bought house in Canarsie went up in flames even before they could move in in 1992 is the one that bothered me the most. While the frequency of such dramatic incidences is not particularly high anymore, other forms of prejudice and discrimination against the various groups of people collectively referred to as “black” are still very much alive and include things like racial slurs, insults, and offensive gestures and actions. “No matter how affluent or influential blacks may be, in public places they cannot escape the stigma of being black.” This causes one to stop for a while to think about how accepting and appreciative of “diversity” New Yorkers really are. On the surface, all seems perfect, but upon further examination, a rather troubling reality emerges.

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 9^th 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.

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.

When reading the chapter that discusses the distinctive clothing style of the Hassidim in Crown Heights, I couldn’t help but be reminded of an interview quoted in the previous chapter when a Hassidic woman said, “…if we lived in Great Neck, we’d be the same way!” Although this woman was referring to the ways in which Hassidim relate to others and this chapter veers more in the direction of how others view Hassidim form the outside, the fundamental idea remains the same. Hassidic Jews, Lubavitch in particular, will stand out no matter where they are. There was once a time when the ethnic ratio of Crown Heights displayed far more Jewish whites than Gentile blacks. Even then, the Hassidim stood apart from their white, and even Jewish non-Hassidic neighbors.

The concepts of misunderstandings with regards to identity keep coming up in every feature of the two communities in Crown Heights. In this chapter, Goldshmidt delves into visual identification of Lubavitch Hassidic Jews, and how these images are understood both by other Jews and by their Black neighbors. While the Blacks in Crown Heights view the mobs of Jewish men all in black coats as intimidating and perhaps even arrogant, the idea of being visually distinctive is extremely meaningful to the Hassidic community. He discusses the Lubavitch men who go out into the world asking people “Are you Jewish?” as a means of including all Jews, both affiliated and secular, in keeping the laws of the Torah.

The idea of clothing as an identity tag is typically considered unfair as we live in the age of “let your inner self shine through” and cliché’s of the like. This is bullshit. How one chooses to dress says a great deal about him or her. As Goldschmidt shows with the Lubavitch Hassidim, their clothing is a key identifying feature. I did not find, however, that Goldschmidt evaluated why exactly all Hassidim comply with this strict uniform. He did bring down a few historical reasons, but I want surprised that he didn’t expand more upon the Hassidic idea of segregation as a crucial part of maintaining their way of life. When Hassidic Jews dress in a certain uniform, it is not merely because their Rebbe told them to, or because that is what their Polish ancestors wore. Rather, I think it goes along with the idea that these people want to stand out, like Jewish pride. Goldshmidt mentions that Jews view themselves as “a light unto the nations”. When Hassidic Jews dress differently, they make themselves known to each other, and to the rest of the world. There is a heightened sense of community in this distinctive method of identification, that parallels the Hassidic value of mainting their insular, yet shining form of a community.

It is safe to say that when the word “Jewish” is brought up, a great deal of people immediately conjure up images of “brusquely” walking men in long, black coats and fedoras. In the eyes of many, what it means to be Jewish is frequently condensed into this single image. In Chapter 4, Goldschmidt admits that there are numerous telltale sartorial signs that lead to one’s judgment of who is Jewish and who isn’t, and he suggests that in a sea of Gentiles, it’s often the case that the Jewish stand out. However, at the same time, he asserts that there are several variations on norms of dress within the Jewish people themselves and uses the Luvabitchers as a testament to his claim as they tend to dress less elaborately and distinctively than is typical of most Hasidim. Furthermore, he goes on to say that an increasing number of Jewish people have—to some extent—assimilated to mainstream norms of dress to a point where it’s very difficult to tell them apart based solely on appearance. Goldschmidt says that while it is unremarkably easy to identify some Jews based due to distinctive apparel and certain physical features, it is significantly easier to overlook those who are Jewish and mistake them for people who are not. In particular, Goldschmidt brings up two groups of people within the Jewish community who are frequently taken as non-Jews: Jewish women and Black Jews.

Jewish women, who typically wear skirts of modest length, full sleeved blouses, wigs, and cover their legs in public, can easily be taken for any other women in New York who prefer to dress a bit more on the conservative side. Goldschmidt brings up a very good point since a many people may not realize just how difficult it can actually be to distinguish Jews from non-Jews on the basis of physical appearance.  It is often even easier, however, to overlook a Black Jew since a great deal of people do not correlate skin of color to Jewishness. Especially in a neighborhood like Crown Heights where residents are either “Jewish” or either “black,” the concept of an overlap between the two elements is often too complicated for the public to harbor. In addition, the clothing of many Black orthodox Jews in Crown Heights does not fit in with Hasidic norms of clothing. For example, Goldschmidt states that a greater number of Black Jews appear to be more assimilated to mainstream norms of dress while some other Black Jews don very distinctive articles of clothing such as bright, colorful yarmulkes that can confer an entirely new identity upon them when misinterpreted by the public. Therefore, Goldschmidt poses a very important and thought-provoking question: how can one really distinguish a Jew from a non-Jew when “telltale sartorial signs” and “unique and instinctive facial and physical features” aren’t present?

After reading Goldschmidt’s various arguments, it becomes quite clear that there is no way to be absolutely sure of the identity of a passerby. What I found particularly interesting, however, was the way that several Jewish acquaintances of Goldschmidt maintained that they have a much easier time telling apart Jews form non-Jews for the reason that the “neshoma” of an individual just shines out to them. In fact, according to some, “the soul of a Jewish is fundamentally different from a Gentile” and there is a spiritual radiance that makes every Jew, regardless of sex and appearance, stand out from non-Jews. This line of thought brings us back once again to the mystical world of Kabbalistic thought, which seems to shape virtually every aspect of Hasidism. In every chapter, I find this theme of “esoteric Kabbalistic thought” surfacing and I am intrigued by it every time because it is most effective in helping to reveal the nature and beliefs of the Hasidic people.

Among the multitude of practices and beliefs Goldschmidt considers, that hinder dialogue between the Jews and blacks of Crown Heights, I was particularly struck by his discussions of respect for diversity, and the anonymity of urban life.

Throughout the chapter, Goldschmidt highlights the inability of Hasidic Jews to partake in certain attempts at diminishing the social divide between them and their black neighbors, due to their religious laws. Although the Lubavitchers of Crown Heights did not have discriminatory racial intentions behind their resistance – as one Hasidic woman stated: “if we lived in Great Neck, we’d be the same way!” – Goldschmidt attests, Jewish “fear of religious pollution is inexorably tied to racial segregation.” In our society, diversification is defined as understanding others through static objects such as food, that are ideologically designated to be evident markers of  “cultural” groups, and are also tied to societal views on race. To the Lubavitchers and others in the Hasidic community of Crown Heights, however, bridging the gap between the two communities could never be as simple as trying a black neighbor’s cuisine – for one, the food would have to be kosher (and that in itself constitutes complex guidelines for the preparation and consumption of the dish), but more importantly, this refers back to Jewish identity as a religious identity, and the overall ambiguity of “Jewish-ness,” as individual Jews have differing distinctions on keeping kosher.

As an individual who, prior to reading this ethnography, had little knowledge of the complexities of Hasidic Judaism, I understand why many in the black community and those outside of Crown Heights felt Lubavitch insularity was indicative of racial disdain. I was thus struck by a comment made by the Hasidic woman I cited above. In explaining her discontent with the integration programs, she contested “there really is no respect for diversity, there’s always a lot of pressure on the Jews to come across, and be open, and share.” Here, this Hasidic woman defined “respect for diversity,” not by efforts to learn about other “cultures” or by trying ideologically-defined “ethnic” food, but by acknowledgement and acceptance of differences – in essence, she saw no issue with the lack of conversation between the two communities, and sought respect for her religious choice of insularity. This characterization of respect for diversity had never occurred to me, because my definition is similar to that of most individuals in society.

In considering this, I recognize the difficulty Goldschmidt highlights in fostering relationships between the Jews and blacks of Crown Heights. Not only are there obvious differences in physical features, language, practices etc., but there are also complex and conflicting differences in each community’s definition of themselves, definition of each other, and definition of the ways to create unity – complexities that many “multicultural” and “cultural exchange” programs, though designed with good intentions, ultimately overlook. Moreover, Goldschmidt notes that the insularity attributed to Lubavitchers is not unique to their community, arguing social distance is prevalent throughout New York City. This statement also struck me, as I took the time to consider my own relationships with my neighbors. Although my family and I are somewhat close to the family next door and I often wave to neighbors and pause for small talk, it struck me, that like the Lubavitchers and the the blacks residing side-by-side, we, as New Yorkers, rarely get to know our neighbors on a personal level, and are absolutely at peace with this separation between private and public. These social situations are common and remain unnoticed, but even though the two scenarios are very similar, the relationships – or lack thereof – between black and Jewish neighbors in Crown Heights are highlighted and seen as a “problem” requiring a remedy. Ultimately, if those in Crown Heights desire to overcome the social divide between the Jews and blacks of Crown Heights, individuals would need to avoid oversimplification of the differences between the communities and work to revise, as Goldschmidt suggests, the “broader trends in American life” that serve to encourage insularity and anonymity in urban life.

It appears from this chapter that the theme of blurry lines of identification is a theme that manifests itself in every aspect of the Black and Jewish communities of Crown Heights. Not only do the individual communities struggle with self-identity and interactive identity, but also they even struggle with geographic identity. Essentially, the “personality” of a neighborhood is defined by the culture of its inhabitants. In a neighborhood like Crown Heights we find to distinct communities, each with their own identity crises, living in tension with one another. It’s no wonder that Goldschmidt struggles to define what and where exactly is the neighborhood.

When reading Goldschmidt’s general review of the history of shifting ethnic communities in Crown Heights, I got the impression that the shift in Crown Heights from being a predominantly white, Jewish community to a Black, Afro-Caribbean and African American community, seemed natural. “White Flight” to the suburbs was a common occurrence in the sixties and seventies. What was unusual about Crown Heights, however, was that there was an active force going against the tide of natural ethnic shifts on the part of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Had the Rebbe not instructed the people in his community to stay where they were, the Lubavitcher Chassidim likely would have left with the rest of the whites and Jews in Crown Heights. Since the vast majority of Crown Heights had once been Jewish, the remaining Chassidish residents never adjusted their identification of the geographical borders of the neighborhood. Even the Jewish part of ton shrank to a mere six-block radius, the residents nevertheless held on to the old picture of Crown Heights.

The tension and confusion of geographic borders in Crown Heights continues to reflect the tensions between the two communities on a socioeconomic level. I found Goldschmidt’s explanation of the mixed-community (that is, lower income families living among higher income families) to be reminiscent of the ways in which the Blacks and the Jews in Crown Heights relate to one another. He writes that, “Jews in Crown Heights seem to be a bit worse off…than their Black neighbors” and yet everyone assumes otherwise, due to the spatial correlation between Jews and wealth, and probably some Jewish stereotypes as well. Though rather than assuming that geographic and racial/religious misunderstandings just happen to appear to parallel one another in Crown Heights, I would sooner argue that the geographic confusion of Crown Heights is one of many factors that lends itself to general misunderstandings of race and religion.