Throughout the fifth chapter of Nancy Foner’s book I kept thinking about how America has changed. Not only from the early 1900s to where she left off but changed as in where she left off to where we are now. While I won’t back up this feeling with statistics, I do believe that Americans, in general, have become more accepting to the races that were talked about within this chapter. Some examples of this change would be our president, media, music, television, and, as I see it, our slang. The evolution in slang and its affect is a bit harder to realize than the others. That is because the changes in slang occur in the younger generations, mine included. These generations have grown to accept terms that are perceived by the older generations as derogatory. One such word that’s been brought to my attention is the word nigga. Many in the younger generation use the word as a substitute for bro, friend, and boy. I’m not sure if it’s a New York City public school thing, a connotation that grew on the backs of bonds in poverty, or a result of America’s changing pop culture, but I’ve heard this word tossed around a lot in high school and it didn’t provoke any fights. The students know the history behind the word, but rather than causing separation, it has become a term of endearment used in sentences like “its my nigga (insert name).” To be fair I haven’t seen many white people say this (though urbandictionary.com tells me they use it in private) but I have heard many minorities say this to each other. I’ve seen Hispanic and black people use it with their friends. I’ve even heard Asians use it. The changing meaning of the word shows a deep contrast between the younger and older generations in attitude towards black people. Most likely this change and others like it come from shifts in our pop culture.

Another big change in America would be how people perceive the ethnicities that are seen as Muslims. This group wasn’t really talked about in the book and that is understandable. Foner’s book was published before 9/11. The event has had a huge role in creating and/or shaping a different cognition in the general populous about Muslims. The attack had a hand in propelling the very wrong, and destructive stereotype that people who are Muslims are Muslim terrorists and bomb makers who hate America. What’s worse is most people can’t discern whose Muslim leading to fear of anyone who can fit the bill. Thus the popular image of a Muslim as an Indian, Bangladeshi, or Middle Eastern person is conjured up and these groups take the hit. It’s good that most of society thinks this stereotype is garbage and many use it as a joke. But the thing is once this sort of idea is out it creates a subtle sort of color line in our subconscious affecting our judgment. Bad things happen when, through ignorance and/or overwrought emotions, people allow these stereotypes to take complete control of their view. 9/11 created the emotions and the propagation of this stereotype. Those who fit the image or are Muslim have experienced more discrimination because of what took place on that day.

In this chapter Foner explores the way in which race has consistently remained a tool for social stratification based on perceived visual distinctions between different groups and the ways in which prejudices against certain groups have evolved. To demonstrate her assertion that discriminations have evolved, she first explores the historically targeted groups of Jews and Italians. Though the dichotomy between these two groups and the larger “White” racial identity no longer appears to exist in our modern society, Foner looks at the “people of inferior breeding (144)”, once feared as the “inferior Europeans”, that would “mongrelize (144)” the “genetically pure and biologically superior… American stock (144)”, thereby “diminishing the quality of American blood (144)”. In order to create a perception of Jewish people and Italian people previously that assigned to them a lesser position on the social ladder, these people were referred to as swarthy and non-white. These very characteristics create the spectrum by which Foner describes how modern-day prejudice works. At the lowest end of the spectrum, those who are the most discriminated against and viewed as the most inferior, is a classification of people as Black while at the other end of the spectrum, those greeted with the least prejudicial sentiment and viewed as the most superior, is the classification of people as White. Ironically, this spectrum seems to exist for immigrants from all over the world, in which people who are not African American consistently try to escape being identified as such and distinguish themselves. This is true for African immigrants, West Indian immigrants, “Hispanic” immigrants and Asian immigrants across the board, who try to put themselves closer to the white end of the spectrum and distance themselves from the black end in order to escape the intolerances that accompany their distinctions.

This reading revealed the ways in which discrimination against darker skin appear to be a universal form of bigotry, not something exclusive and authentic to the United States and New York City. It baffles me that so many current minority groups and groups that were once targets of hatred who have since escaped the legislative de jure discrimination and societal de facto discrimination can so easily turn a blind eye to the way in which other groups of people are similarly being persecuted. People would rather snuff their noses at anyone they can claim to be superior to and distinguish themselves from the “have nots” than acknowledge the universal problem of using race, a societal construct to define the content of a person’s character and their place in society. The vicious cycle of people being limited and stuck in the same monetary circumstances because of the narrow-mindedness that comes with racially identifying people is being perpetuated by minority groups themselves, who will do anything to be seen as just one step away from black, and one step closer to white.

One important point that I gleaned from Nancy Foner’s chapter “The Sting of Prejudice” is that race is actually a concept that is constantly in flux. To begin with, it is a social construct with no basis in genetics, and therefore it can evolve as people’s viewpoints evolve. In particular, Foner demonstrates how the white immigrants of eastern and southern Europe – in particular, immigrants of Jewish and Italian ancestry – went from being openly discriminated against to more or less being absorbed within the larger white American populace. However, at the height of their discrimination, it was interesting to see how thoroughly each category – be it Jewish, Italian, or even Irish – was broken down. But of course, even though race is capable of evolving, the white immigrants have the distinct advantage of being similarly colored. Both native-born black Americans and West Indian immigrants continually face resistance despite the progress that has been made. Somehow, color continues to hold them back. Now in our “politically correct” society, discrimination is more subtle and covert.

Political correctness and its boundaries are some other issues that struck me while I read this chapter. In the early twentieth century, it was not only approved but also normal to make blatantly racist comments and overtures in speeches, interviews, and other forms of communications. Particularly in the 1920s a series of nativist books were published confirming Americans as descended from a superior Nordic race that should not be tarnished by other less superior races. Now today, as a society, tolerance is the state that we are moving towards and discourse regarding racial or ethnic stereotypes is largely inappropriate. However, in gray areas such as comedy or even in everyday conversation, where is the line drawn between freedom of expression and political correctness? Is it better or worse to internalize thoughts of hate, or could they be expressed in a different, more vicious way?

“From Ellis Island to JFK” Chapter 5: The Sting of Prejudice 

In this chapter, Foner begins to delve deeply into the concept of race, particularly racial prejudice, and its effects on New York. After reading this chapter, it became evident just how different racial prejudice is when comparing the first wave of immigration to the second. For one thing, the immigrants themselves are indeed different. When referencing the first wave, Foner talks of the struggles faced by Jewish and Italian immigrants. When referencing the more modern wave, she talks more of the white/black divide that exists.

In the first wave, Jewish and Italian immigrants had many features associated with their respective heritages. Certain physical and personality characteristics were just know as identifiably “Jewish” or “Italian”, such as skin color, moral standards, religion, etc. Some people in New York had issues with these races for fear of ruining the purity of the city. For instance, NYU was mentioned as having a sign encouraging Jewish students to drop out in the 1920s in order to establish a “white man’s college”. Derogatory terms such as “guinea” for Italians were also frequent.

In the second wave, a major issue that New York faced was the black/white divide. Of course, this is seen throughout history as well, but New Yorkers witnessed a strong wave of this in the more modern years. Races such as Italian and Jewish were now melded together to just be commonly known as “white”, and all colored people were just considered “black” regardless of actual origin. Regardless of the time period, Foner makes it clear that racial prejudice and stereotyping has always been a prevalent and inescapable thing.

I felt as though this chapter featured many things that we have already read about, especially regarding the Jewish and Italian populations. The one thing I took away from this chapter that I had never really considered before is what really defines a race. In order to truly understand the racial prejudices and stereotypes that are so heavily embedded in American society, it is important to first understand the concept of race itself, and I feel like Foner begins to scratch at this complex topic. It was mentioned that there is indeed no such thing as race, and in fact race is only real because we define it as real. It is a “social and cultural construction” only in existence to define what is superior and what is inferior. When looking at race in this way, the concept of a power struggle emerges, and thus it provides more of a justification as to why racial prejudice might exist in the first place.

In chapter five Foner builds on an idea we have already discussed in class: Immigrants from the West Indies and Afro-Carribean countries, who look black on the surface, do not want to categorized with the native-born blacks.  This is because the native-born blacks are at the bottom of the social hierarchy in New York City and are subject to much discrimination, poverty, and poor schooling.  The immigrants come to America looking for a better life, not one of constant struggle for identity and equality.  Their aspirations are understandable. Yet, the West Indians complain that they have to rigorously proclaim their ethnic pride and linguistic differences in order to avoid being seen as native-born black.  This is unfair, but, how are Americans supposed to know that a West Indian is not a native-born black before speaking to him or her? Judging based solely on looks, which obviously has its own problems, they look just like the native-born blacks.  Lest they wear patches that indicate that they are West Indian, but, everyone knows that such identification with a symbol has only negative consequences.

The West Indians are initially not accepted due to racism. Americans are obsessed with skin color and the West Indians are perceived as black.  However, arbitrary racism based on physical features does not hold as tenaciously as one would think.  According to the testimony Foner presented, many of the West Indian immigrants claimed they were treated better when they expressed their culture as distinct from that of the native-born blacks. This leads to a very simple question that Foner does not address. Why? If Americans are intent on basing a person’s character only on skin color, then all those who look black, including the West Indians, Afro-Carribeans, and black hispanics, should be discriminated against.

Yet, this is not true. Only the native-born blacks face the worst racism.  This must be based on something other than skin color. What is inherent to the the native-born blacks, and no other group that makes them so hated? Is it the poverty many of them live in as opposed to the wealth some of the West Indian immigrants come to America with? The poor education the native-born blacks inevitably receive because of where they are living as opposed to the better education the West Indians received before coming to America?  All of this is true, but there is also the history associated with the native-born blacks.  After hundreds of years of slavery, the idea that the native-born blacks are now equal to everyone else contradicts and denies the idea that one group can be better than another.  The whites, who might be ready to end slavery and even racism based on race, are not ready to give up their coveted position in society.  Therefore, the racism and discrimination towards the native-born blacks continues, not necessarily because of their skin color, but because giving them equal rights destroys everything the whites built their society on in America, being better than everyone else.  Tolerating or at least somewhat understanding the West Indians will not threaten the white elite status, so long as they can continue being better than at least one group of people that are not immigrants, but born in America, the native-born blacks.

Two interesting ideas stuck out at me from this reading. The first is how Foner does not make undocumented immigrants a larger issue in the job market and the unemployment rates of native-born blacks and Hispanics.  The fact that immigrants depend on employers who do not check documents carefully, which therefore eliminates jobs in government and big firms and leaves only low paying jobs, is not what’s important.  What should be emphasized is that while undocumented immigrants fear deportation, their employers can actually capitalize on that fear and exploit the workers, because they do not have legal protection.

The outcome of exploiting benefits both the employer and the employees. The employer is able to maintain the cheapest price for labor, which is usually the biggest expensive, while the employees are still making more money than they made in their native country. Regardless of whether it comes with the “territory (pg. 102),” exploitation is still better than deportation.  There is no way that the native-born blacks and Hispanics could compete with such low wages.  Foner does mention how immigrants bring wages down, but she does not specifically mention undocumented immigrants. They are the biggest problem, because they reduce wages the most. In fact, while most native-born blacks and Hispanics were not willing to work for such low wages, even if they were willing, it would never happen because employers would have to pay minimum wage, for fear of legal consequences.  A possible solution to this problem would be to document the immigrants, but even then, for all the reasons Foner pointed out, even documented immigrants lower wages beyond what native-born blacks and Hispanics are willing to accept.

The bigger problem and the other thing that I noticed while reading this chapter was: “Low-skilled, poorly educated native-born blacks and Hispanics have borne the brunt of the negative impact of immigration…(pg. 106).” Why are both these groups still struggling in America? Foner presents very interesting reasons for why the native-born blacks and Hispanics were pushed out, but why do they still have those low paying jobs?  Both groups have been in America for a long time. Shouldn’t they have moved up the job ladder by now to higher paying jobs? It seems, that before the undocumented immigrants become documented, the needs of American citizens should be taken care of.   One of their needs is education.  According to Foner’s statistics, even among both foreign born and natives without high school diplomas, the foreign born are still earning more money.  However, also according to Foner’s statistics, native-borns with college degrees earn more than those foreign born with college degrees.  Therefore, to avoid being outbid by immigrants for the lowest paid jobs in society, education for all American citizens is crucial. If this means opening up new schools, hiring new teachers, or buying new books, this should be a priority.  If educated, the hope is that one can obtain a more prestigious, and therefore better paying job and not have to worry about losing a job to new immigrant arrivals.

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.

In chapter 4 Goldschmidt expressed the importance of dress to Jewish identity in terms of Hasidic, Lubavitch and black Jews. They had similar mindsets of somewhat ‘defining’ themselves by their clothing but communicated these outlooks in different forms of fashion.

I found it interesting that in spite of their relatively strict rules of clothing, Lubavitch men chose to dress comparatively ‘modern’ rather than less traditionally like other Hasidim. In the eyes of a fellow Jew this may have been ‘too liberal’. Still, in the eyes of a gentile, these men are very traditional in the ‘long black coats’. Although they may have been criticized by other Hasidim for their Americanized style of clothing, I found it very interesting that Lubavitchers were still very close knit to their dress. A black man stated that a Jewish man could take out his yarmulke or cut his sideburns to blend in with society but he could not disguise the fact that he is black. A Lubavitcher, on the other hand, stated that he related with the Black man for he could not take of his yarmulke or his beard to assimilate with society. To me, a gentile, this was hard to understand at first because the Jewish man was comparing keeping his beard, which I thought was his choice, to someone keeping their skin color. Ultimately, I recognized his spiritual devotion as a way of life, due to the ‘Jewishness’ in his blood.

A Jewish person in Crown Heights was permanently associated with this form of clothing to an extent where a Hasidic man failed to recognize a black Jewish girl and later apologized for it. Goldschmidt described the confrontation between the man and the black girls as very violent, in terms of the man’s actions. An ‘innocent’ interaction between two children turned into an attack on a black Jew. The Hasidic man ‘profusely’ apologized for punching a Jewish girl, not just for punching a teenager or shoving a girl. He explained that when punching the girl, he ‘didn’t know’ that she was Jewish. What difference would this have made? Would he have dealt with it differently if he knew or if it was a most distinctive Jewish girl?

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