Goldschmidt claims that identifying Jews physically often rests on racial markers. However, in the areas he frequented, the population was of Ashkenzic Jews of European descent. I wonder what would happen to his experiment and observation if a Sphardi, or Ethiopian Jew fell into the mix. Yes, the generic image of a Jew is racially white, with that unsubstantiated large nose, and dark hair (versus Aryan looks), but such an image is inclusive only of a Jew whose family lived in European, white areas through the Diaspora. In Kew Gardens Hills, in Deal, NJ, in Israel, even, are scattered large populations of darker-skinned Jews who racially look more Hispanic, Middle Eastern, or African. Further in the chapter, Goldschmidt explores the differences in dress of various Jews, and of skin color between white and black Jews, but does not go much further into the discussion of race and religion as it applies to the racially diverse Jewish spectrum.

His discussion of physical stereotypes concerning Jews, made me think more about the other side in this book- that of the black community. Stereotypes against blacks often correlate with the way they stereotypically appear – not in terms of skin color (for that is unchangeable), but in terms of dress. Goldschmidt notes that a black man can wear dreadlocks, or a “business suit or track suit” and give across a different image. The stereotypes of the way a population behaves often correlates with the stereotypes of how they dress. But, therefore the beliefs in the stereotypes can be challenged by a manner of dress. Thus, there is something more than mere superficial appearances that identify an individual. Rather, there is something deeper. The individual can choose how to identify, can choose how to come across, and that can say much more than the physical appearance.

In his conclusion, Goldschmidt explores the construct of diversity in America. I thought it interesting that in class, many students offered understandings of diversity that involved an exchange of cultural material, while Goldschmidt’s version of diversity fits more in line with the Hassidic woman who wanted respect for her diversity. Goldschmidt employs the term “space” in relating with the form of celebrating American diversity, addressing the need to “create space in American society for other cultures and communities,” and to “create an America with conceptual and political space for all the … peoples.” Thus, he understands that there are divides between communities that are hard, if not near impossible, to bridge, often because of different operational languages and definitions at play, and that the wonder of America is that it creates the space for each structure to flourish, and not be forced to be submerged into a melting pot of assimilation. Thus, assimilation is not as correlated with diversity as is independent identity. This identity belongs to each individual to define, to create, to choose and is deeper and more complex than the mere appearances of race and physical stereotypes.

Henry Goldschmidt gives an interesting and complex analysis of difference among the Black and Jewish population of Crown Heights. He notes that—although these two distinct groups occupy the same geographical space and live in close proximity to one another—their social interactions are extremely limited.

In the third chapter of the book, one of his main focuses is to consider this social distance between Blacks and Jews in terms of the dietary restrictions strictly adhered to by the latter group. As many Lubavitchers expressed their reasoning behind their withdrawal from social interactions with neighbors, very often was the issue of maintaining kosher law at the center of the discussion. Like one Rabbi stated (when referring to a proposal by a Black individual to simply bring in kosher food whenever they would have Jews over for dinner), “We can’t use your ovens, we can’t use your dishes. It’s not just a question of buying certain food, it’s buying the food, preparing it in a certain way.”

And so, here Goldschmidt draws an important distinction between cultural cuisine and kosher cuisine, and why the terms are not interchangeable. Cultural foods take certain meaningful culinary ingredients—meaningful, in the sense that they are tied to historical roots and geographical traditions—and create a product that is materially distinct. The Jewishness of kosher foods is the result of a distinct process, and is not necessarily tied to the substance of the food itself. This view is supported by individuals of the Lubavitch community, who resent the perception of their daily life choices as being merely “cultural.” Believing themselves to be God’s chosen people, they view their day-to-day actions and decisions as being spiritually infused and directly mandated to them by God. Interpretively, part of being a strict follower of the laws of the Torah is the avoidance of “Gentile” acquaintance—something which stands in stark contrast to the efforts of Black social activists in Crown Heights.

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.

Much like married women in the Italian domus structure, Jewish mothers are considered to be the foundation of the home, responsible for “the perpetuation of the very foundations of Jewish existence.” In this sense, women have a very powerful role in maintaining Jewish practice and identity. Goldschmidt does not mention, however, that much like Italian women, they are also limited in this power and confined to certain religious expectations. It is unheard of, for example, for a woman to become a Rabbi in the orthodox community. Women are also bound by certain rules of dress, which do not apply to men. These restrictions are due to the Jewish emphasis on modesty. Similar to the “good woman” ideal of Italian culture, Judaism calls for a “modest woman” and her power ultimately lies in her strict dedication to these religious demands. Of course, as a Jewish female myself, I do not consider these demands to be restrictive of freedom and I certainly do not feel any resentment towards my religion for reasons that go beyond the confines of this discussion.

Perhaps this emphasis on modesty, in addition to the Chasidic emphasis on religious insularity, can be connected to their strong distinction between private and public spaces. I find it interesting that the insularity of Jews in Crown Heights sets them apart, yet also paradoxically unites them with other New Yorkers who also embrace the anonymity of urban life. But if this is so, why must the Lubavitch Chasidim be singled out for their insularity when it is something all urban dwellers practice to a certain extent?

It seems as though the answer lies in the varying reasons for insularity. Whereas the isolation of individuals in NYC is a result of urban culture, Jewish isolation is a result of religious factors. People often equate religion with culture, but Goldschmidt’s lengthy discussion of Kashrus highlights major differences between the two. While both cultural and kosher foods help construct collective identities, cultural food is the product of social forces, whereas kosher food is the product of God’s commandments and, therefore, transcends the constraints of the social world. For this reason, culinary exchange between blacks and Jews will not bring harmony to Crown Heights, but perhaps the ability to understand the significance behind their culinary differences will.

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

Who Has the Power? 

Last class, the main focus of our discussion centered around power. Who truly held the power in Italian Harlem, men or women? In a society so centered around the domus, it would seem as though the women held the power since they were the ones who passed along various traditions to  the younger generation. Yet, in the theatrical world of the streets, the men seemed to dominate. In a society where both sexes have power yet in different ways, who truly prevails? Or, does the subject of power suddenly become irrelevant when it is so widespread? I found myself really questioning these issues after last class.

Upon reading the current reading, I noticed something interesting. The shaping of “Cara Harlem” would not have been possible without the devotion to the Madonna. The Madonna was so integral to the community and culture that it became synonymous with 115th street. In the 1950s and 1960s (when Italian Harlem was pretty much gone), Orsi points out that the culture still lived on through the memory and connection of the Madonna. Then, I thought, perhaps this society has varying levels of power structures more complex than “Who has power?” A sort of equilibrium was certainly created in which both men and women had power in their own way. Yet, the true nucleus of Italian Harlem was in fact the Madonna. So, when analyzing who really had the power, the appropriate response would have to be her.

In this reading, Orsi delves deeper into the influence the Madonna carries over this community. It was believed the had the power to help the sick and poor just by praying to her and making promises to her. She helped to define the neighborhood of Italian Harlem by provided a stable icon to collectively worship. She also helped to grow upon the Italian-American identity by helping to provide a claim of the neighborhood, of New York City, and of American time. The ultimate goal of Italians was to convert suffering to sacrifice, and devotion to the Madonna was the way to achieve such a goal.

Thus, this society really is power-based, but not in the traditional sense. This community allowed religion to have such a profound impact over their culture and morals that gender power roles are not as significant. Yes, they are present. Society was patriarchal, women were the secret heads of the home, etc. Yet Orsi also constantly mentions this greater sense of self present in this community, and how Italian Harlem functions as a unit rather than individually. The men and women play their parts, but the domus structures their lives and world to be the way it is. And who is at the center of the domus? Well, that would be la Madonna herself.

Last class, we ended our discussion with a question as to whether or not suffering was intrinsic to Italian culture. Orsi describes the Italians’ suffering as a willing sacrifice. By embracing pain, Italians had some form of control over their destinies. They were, therefore, declaring pride, self worth, and freedom through their religious experiences. Of course, one cannot just ignore the masochistic aspect of this self-inflicting behavior. Orsi seems to argue that Italians harmed themselves as a physical outlet for their frustration. Self-inflicted pain certainly connotes masochism in this respect, but the Italians’ suffering can also be regarded as an act of selflessness.

After reading this section, it occurred to me that suffering was just another practice in which Italians sacrificed themselves for a greater good. From a young age, children were brought up to selflessly surrender their individual desires for the sake of the domus. Women, too, had to selflessly obey the demands of the domus (and endure a strict confinement to their own power within it). As Orsi writes, “The identity of Italian American women was to suffer.” In truth, the identity of Italian Americans, both men and women, was to suffer – in other words, to sacrifice everything for a greater whole and to endure the aftermath of their selflessness. In this sense, suffering was indeed intrinsic to Italian culture, both as a religious practice, as well as an everyday experience.

Why were Italian Americans so fearful of material success? According to Orsi, Italians feared that success would make a man into a “cafone,” someone who was rude, boorish, and above all, selfish. Individual prosperity, they feared, would lead a man to go against their fundamental value of sacrifice. The festa was a way in which Italian immigrants confronted this fear of materialism, reminding them to “set their goals in the larger moral context of the family.” Whereas work suggested an individual obligation, the festa emphasized mutual responsibility. Reflecting the chief morals and values of Italian culture, the festa was, first and foremost, a celebration of giving, self-sacrifice, and to a certain extent, suffering.

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.

It is no secret that the festa was a time when community came together, when “individual domus and the neighborhood” (178) combined to become one large entity and domus.  In Italy, celebrations of this sort were not Italian celebrations, but regional celebration of a town’s saint (an example is the May festival of Saint Ubaldo in Gubbio).  When different regions came together in Italy, however, they could not celebrate in unity individual saints, and instead celebrated la Madonna – the saint of the domus.  The festa emphasized the fact that “no one existed only in the domus” (182) for street life was also extremely important – everyone watched everyone else.

What was the true purpose of the festival, though?  Was it actually to strengthen the community domus?  At first, the festa “was a brave declaration of presence” (182) against the Irish and German Catholics that lived nearby.  It later “defined the boundaries of the community” (183) as the procession marched through all the streets of Italian Harlem.  The true importance of the festa, though, was it’s symbolic representation of the “divine domus.”  It represented stability that perhaps the individual domus lacked.  It represented the power of women – though Orsi goes on to state that the festa also defined women and confined them even more into the definition of a “good woman.”

I agree that there are always several sides to a story, but perhaps Orsi is trying too hard to prove that women were powerless.  Yes, men happened to be in charge of the organizational aspects of the festa, but Orsi doesn’t neglect to tell us that some women were as well.  Does it diminish the fact that these women were more socially mobile than most?  Does this make them less womanly and hence prove that women were still powerless?  I think not.  The entire procession was a celebration of the mother and the woman.  Yes, perhaps la Madonna is a perfect example of a “good woman” and therefore makes it hard for real women to live up to her, but isn’t this true for all women of the time?  The 1930s-1950s were a time of idealized women in general, especially in white America!

Marina B. Nebro

The society of Italian Harlem was a matriarchy—both in the domus and in the wider, more explicit religion of the people. Though the father was traditionally established as the head of the domus, his domain of the family was merely superficial. It was the mother who truly held the power. Orsi emphasizes that in many ways the Italian mother was someone to be feared by her relatives. Undoubtedly, it was the mother who lay down the law; though she required the help of her husband or oldest son for enforcement, she almost always had the final word on a matter. Sons or daughters wishing to marry would have to first introduce his or her beloved to the mother for approval. From there, it was up to the mother to decide if the marriage would occur or not.

At the same time, Orsi writes about the struggle that women faced in the domus. Paradoxically, he speaks of the powerlessness that accompanied their great influence in the family. One of the main focuses of the chapter is the entrapment and lack of space that many unmarried Italian women felt. They were very closely supervised by the males of the family and were rarely, if ever, allowed to leave the home on their own. Orsi portrays a sense of suffocation and greatly emphasizes the limits this placed on the women. I do believe, however, that he was overlooking many factors. For one, it seemed to be this way only because of the deep contrast between the values of the traditional Italian family and the emerging American culture. The more boundless and frivolous the American way of life became, the more it became a necessity for the Italian family to tighten its grip on new generations. The American way of life was indeed a large threat to the establishment of the domus, which, undeniably, contained within it certain elements of happiness for the Italians and other peoples—this included the longevity of marriage, family intimacy and solidarity, and simple living. Back in Italy, it is quite possible that the women did not feel constrained at all, because the intense juxtaposition of culture would not have been present.

I found it interesting how Orsi expanded the discussion to include the spiritual worship of the Italian immigrants. In this dominating Catholic tradition, the people of Italian Harlem worshipped the Virgin Mary, praying to her in their times of need and thanking her in their fevers of gratitude. They honored the statue of the Virgin on 115th Street, which was a physical reminder of the Virgin’s feminine characteristics. By being faithful to such an honorable and spiritual mamma, many immigrants alleviated the sense of guilt they felt for leaving their Italian mothers back at home. The Virgin was the focal point of the moral code and value system of Italian culture, just like the mother was the bond that held family members together in the domus.