A life of “exploitation, endurance, unemployment, difficulty, and separation” (27).

The most important thing to Italians coming to America (and Italians back home) was family – la famiglia.  This stereotype is still very prevalent today, but I think it’s something true and beautiful about the Italian community.  More than mourning the loss of their Italian homeland, immigrants mourned the loss of having their extended family surrounding them.  Orsi emphasizes the fact that many came here in hopes of either going back with enough money to live in Italy, or to make enough money to bring the rest of the family over – I don’t think this is much different than other immigrant groups.  Where there might be a difference is in their passion and determination in this endeavor.  Many looked down upon the Italian community for being “docile” and weak against their padroni.  The Italians recognized how easily they could be replaced in the workforce, and therefore took the exploitation in order to keep a job.

More so than trying to instill a love and fondness for the mother country, Italian immigrants tried to instill Italian cultural values on their children – “traditional patterns of respect, familial obligations, and social behavior” (20).

One thing I found very interesting and extremely prevalent in the first two chapters was the gender inequality.  Orsi constantly talks about the “men in the street” and the “women crawling on their hands and feet.”  Though both men and women worked, I find it surprising that a population just trying to get by was able to maintain such a traditional gender role structure.

la Madonna

Virgen del Carmen – Andalucia, Spain

Devotion to the Madonna – Italian Harlem

I just wanted to briefly highlight this extremely religious, emotional, and cultural festival that is mentioned in the first chapter.  As I was reading, I was reminded of a similar festival that takes place in my father’s home country (Spain), the festival of the Virgen del Carmen.  The statue of Mary is taken out of the church and is paraded through the streets, and it is quite an honor to be carrying her.  The event attracts quite a crowd.

I’m not sure for the reason of little immigration from southern Spain to the United States, but, I think there is a lot in common with the southern European countries – especially Italy and Spain, and especially in their close ties to religiosity (whether for spiritual or superstitious reasons).

Marina B. Nebro

Nancy Foner compares tenements of the past and the apartments of today to unfold a story of the past waves of immigrants to the most recent. She points out that the current trend that differs from the past is that the suburban, outer lying boroughs are now becoming the first destination of immigrants rather than Manhattan. In the past, the four boroughs were underdeveloped and was an impractical location for immigrants to live because they nature of their work at the available transportation at the time required them and their family to live near their potential jobs.

My parents took the route much like the older immigration wave. They first moved into an apartment in Roosevelt Island, close to the city, and close to their jobs. However the biggest change and the one that has caused the shift in ethnic clusters, was the NYC’s metro system. After my parents became accustomed to New York they were able to utilize the city’s transportation system, allowing them to move further away from their job and reside in a suburban Queens, which provided an appealing location to raise their family.

The immigrant settlement patterns have changed massively due to the implication of the subway system. An upgrade from cable cars and 6mph horses, the transportation system not only allowed access to outer borrows but also paved the way to let more and different immigrants to settle and create their own ethnic communities, much like the earlier waves but in different regions and of different ethnic backgrounds. It is startling to whiteness that despite the fact that more regions are available for new immigrants to settle in, those of similar ethnic descent still find a way to develop modern day ethnic districts.

-Trish Anne Roque

I’d already known about the appalling living conditions for immigrants in the late nineteenth century, but Foner’s book reminded me. The one area in which we think of the previous generation’s immigrants as having suffered or been mistreated is housing—the squalor of the Lower East Side is a sort of archetypal image in New York City, with its own attendant institution (the Tenement museum) and chronicler (Jacob Riis). The sheer density was the most astounding. While I am aware Manhattan is crowded, and that it used to be more so, I had no idea that Manhattan was once crowded in a way that redefined what it meant to live, where not only space but air seemed to be a scarce commodity. This more than crime or employment was the bane of the old immigrant’s life, and escaping it allowed for upward mobility.

New York City developments, such as the consolidation of 1898 and the opening of the subway in 1904, finally allowed for people to move out of lower Manhattan, to settle uptown and further. There can be no doubt that this decentralization helped Italians and Jews to become more prosperous and comfortable, though homogenous neighborhoods and discrimination were still the norm.

The one thing that intrigues me about today’s immigration is the concept of ethnic succession; more specifically that new waves of immigration may have actually prevented New York from an endless fall into urban decay. As whites moved out of the city center, seeking larger homes and more segregated communities, immigrants moved in, ensuring that the city had the tax base needed to provide essential services. While immigrants also move to the suburbs, and increasingly move straight there, they are without a doubt concentrated in the five boroughs, meaning that we can thank them to some degree for the continuing viability of New York City’s infrastructure and services.

Every time I step outside of my house, I am reminded of the immigrant-centered city I live in. My own neighborhood of Bayside, Queens has become increasingly Asian and Hispanic (mostly Asian) throughout recent years. When I go to Flushing, I feel entirely out of place. For all I know, I could be in China, Korea, Japan. I can’t read the Asian writing on store signs (thanks to a recent law, most have small English lettering somewhere underneath) and I rarely understand what those around me are saying. This is disconcerting, to say the least. Although I agree with Foner when she states that times have changed and more immigrants are mixing with other immigrants from different places as well as natives, my experience living in this particular part of New York City has made me believe that people of the same ethnicity still tend to cluster together. It only make sense. If I came to this country with no knowledge of the customs, language, etc. I know I would want to live in an area with my own people at least until I got used to the new culture.

Aside from ethnic clustering (or lack of it), Foner’s charts and analyses touched on the fact that native born blacks live in worse housing, obtain lower income, and are less accepted than many immigrants today. This astounds me. Native born blacks have less rights than those who weren’t even born here. We as natives have, for the most part, accepted foreign born Asians, Hispanics, Russians, you name it, yet we are unable to accept those who were perhaps here before us. I would speculate that this racism is in part due to United States history that blacks were largely a part of. Natives (as well as other immigrants, probably) were taught about slavery since they were young. Although our country has progressed tremendously, many people still have not gotten over the fact that blacks were once literally enslaved by whites. Immigrants (Asians, Hispanics, etc.) do not have that history with native born Americans and New Yorkers of being extremely subpar. They weren’t such a major part of our history so there has been less opportunity to discriminate against them. Although Foner spoke relatively little about the situation of Native born blacks, her data is extremely troubling. We have accepted so many immigrants of various cultures into our country; when are we going to accept the ones who lived here all along?

In Chapter Two of From Ellis Island to JFK, Nancy Foner contrasts the living conditions of   New York’s very first immigrants to modern-day immigrants. At the turn of the century, immigrants largely populated areas within the city that provided cheap housing and were located near where they worked. Today, however, with the availability of numerous transportation options – from cars to the subway – immigrants are no longer limited to residing where there is easy access to their places of occupation. Manhattan, as well as the city’s outer boroughs, are essentially all commutable, allowing immigrants to experience a suburban lifestyle their predecessors could never have imagined. Aside from obvious advances in transportation, many contemporary immigrants also arrive with a stronger and more diverse set of skills and resources, permitting them to find better jobs that can support improved housing and overall lifestyles.

Yet although much has changed, certain aspects of immigrant migration and settlement have remained the same. Many of today’s immigrants, like those in the past, gravitate towards residences near family, friends, and those who share similar languages and cultural traditions as a way to find comfort and adjust communally to a new country. In addition, immigrants in general continue to aid in the revitalization of many of New York City’s deteriorating neighborhoods by fearlessly undertaking decaying housing and retail buildings.

Throughout Foner’s discussion of immigrant geography, what struck me in particular was her mentioning of the number 7 train: “dubbed the International Express as it weaves through polyethnic neighborhoods which have no parallel in previous waves of migration.” Although I take the 7 train often, the apparent diversity of its passengers and the communities through which it passes never struck me as surprising – as a native New Yorker who calls Queens home, such a train ride is the norm. But as I read this chapter, I took the time to really consider a “normal” ride on the 7 train in comparison to other train rides I have been on in other states and in other countries – what I realized absolutely fascinates me. As Foner states, the neighborhoods connected by the 7 train truly constitute “an ethnic cross section of the planet” – a characteristic I feel successfully exemplifies the progress immigrants have made in expanding both the geography of their residences and the opportunities made available to them based on where they live. In regards to my next ride on the 7 line, I know I will take a minute to savor a train ride unique to New York City, one that unlike other largely homogenous trains throughout America and the world, offers a window into the transportation of millions of people diverse not only in their race and ethnicity, but also diverse in thoughts and experiences to provide to the advancement of the city.

New York City immigrants of the past—as we all know—were not very fortunate when it came to settling down and finding a place to stay. Individuals like Jacob Riis forced us to open our eyes to the housing issues and abysmal tenement lifestyle that most immigrants had no choice but to acquiesce to. Tenement lifestyle was absolutely horrid as many immigrants had no alternative but to crowd into small rooms, live in dimly lit spaces, expose themselves to extreme temperatures, and put themselves in great jeopardy of developing health problems due to unimaginably unsanitary living conditions. Ethnic clustering, as depicted through the dominance of the Lower East Side before the early 1900s by immigrant Jews, was also very pervasive since it made the newly arrived feel much more comfortable and in touch with their identity.

A great deal of time has passed since the early 1900’s.  However, Foner shows us that there are still some undeniable similarities and patterns that exist between the housing of past and contemporary immigrants. When I think of where today’s immigrants live, my mind does not conjure up images of tatterdemalion and dark tenement style housing. An immigrant myself, I settled down in a small but comfortable apartment with my parents when I came to NYC at the age of two. While our living standard was far from luxurious, it definitely did not compare with the wretched descriptions given by individuals like Riis. I always thought that like my family, most immigrant families settle down in decent housing in lower-middle class neighborhoods, and therefore, I wasn’t surprised when Foner revealed that this is mostly the case. I was horrified, however, by her vivid descriptions of Mexican and Chinese immigrants living in claustrophobic and unimaginable circumstances. She purports that a very small number—seventeen percent to be exact—of immigrants live this way, but this piece of information is what I found to be the most disturbing.

What I found to be the most interesting was Foner’s take on ethnic clustering in the past and the present. One does not have to live in the city for very long before uncovering that ethnic clustering is still very much rampant today for pretty much the same reasons why it was so common back in the day. In short, ethnic clustering brings about a sense of community. Foner states, however, that more and more immigrants, especially Asian Americans, are choosing to venture out of their safe havens and into more affluent regions that are common amongst native born whites, signifying that the immigrants of today are quickly making progress in both their financial and social lives.

I identified with the point Falzer made about American patriotism. It definitely seems like we prize national symbols and compete to be the most fervent supporters of our country more than other nations; what I had not thought of was that this could be due to our lack of a unified culture. I wonder whether this sort of compensation is a good thing. On the one hand, this sort of aggressive patriotism is probably responsible for our domineering presence on the world. A more timid nation probably could not have become a superpower on par with us, even if endowed with our resources and population. On the other hand, a nation less obsessively concerned with demonstrating its affection for itself may not have become as willing to fight countless wars abroad.

Steinberg’s statement that assimilation is happening faster than we think also struck me as unusual. We think of post-1965 immigrants as remaining stubbornly separate, divided by language and secured in their own urban enclaves. This is apparently untrue; the rate of assimilation among Asian and Latino immigrants is staggering. I found this to be true based on personal experience; furthermore, I think generational assimilation is fueled by the first off the boat. Immigrant parents often actively encourage their children to join American cultural life in order to maximize the children’s chances of success. They know that their children will be furnished with the languages and culture of their home country, but also that their children will speak English and be comfortable in American society. The combination is a powerful one, and there is a strong incentive for immigrants to ensure the assimilation of their children, even if it may be too late for them. Thus, the ethnic enclave as we conceive it may come to be a thing of the past, as the children of immigrants come to define themselves as more American than anything else.

Michael Walzer poses the complicated question: what does it mean to be an American? For some, the answer may be as simple as subjection to the American sense of patriotism—that is, an uncompromising reverence for the red, white, and blue; a passion for the world of contradictory politics and inconsistent foreign affairs. For others, the answer is more thought out. Many believe that to be an American is to accept, perhaps even admire, the high level of ethnic and cultural diversity found throughout the nation. And then there are other people, myself included, that realize that America is an immense landmass lying in the Western Hemisphere consisting of many different nations and peoples. Anyone inhabiting one of these nations, ranging from Canada to the peak of Chile, is, therefore, an American. Walzer seems to be in agreement, stating, “we have appropriated the title ‘American’ even though we can claim no exclusive title to it.” So, for lack of an accurate word in the language of English, I have to introduce the Latin American way of clearing up this issue: Estadounidense. This word may be most accurately translated as United States Citizen. Moving on.

Walzer begins an early discussion of Americans’ lack of communal identity—at least in the sense of having a “homeland.” I believe this to be true. Americans are highly individualistic and when they hear the word “home” they think of their private quarters, not the broader picture of a national community. Further on, Walzer brings up an interesting argument. He says that the realm of American politics is anonymous, meaning that it is blind and unbiased to any one culture or ethnicity. I do not believe this to be true, but that is another topic of discussion. I do realize, however, that it is common for individuals of every race and culture to be enthusiastic about American politics.

In Stephen Steinberg’s essay, the process of American assimilation is discussed. I found this piece to be very interesting. One early sentence stuck out to me, as I immediately related it to an essay by James Baldwin that I read last semester. Steinberg writes, “First-generation immigrants, who are most authentically steeped in ethnic culture, tend to throw it away, often with both hands, as they pursue the opportunities that led them to come to America in the first place.” Baldwin wrote about the “price of the ticket” that white Europeans paid in order to assimilate in the U.S., and this is what he was referring to. Steinberg makes an invaluable argument when he refers to the condition of African-Americans. The fact is obvious: they have been here longer than any early immigrant group yet have assimilated the least. It is most certainly a thing of color. It is a thing that racism and the mass media have played crucial roles in maintaining, and continue to do so today. African-Americans will never fully assimilate “until the structures of American apartheid are thoroughly dismantled and the persistent inequalities are resolved.”

When discussing the subject of immigration, a common issue that comes up is the question of “identity”. Does an immigrant identify more strongly with his or her “motherland”, or with the United States? From the beginning, America has been a place where people of all ethnic groups bond together for the pursuit of liberty. A common symbol I have heard growing up is the term “melting pot”. Yet, after reading these two selections by Walzer and Steinberg, it seems as though there is a much more complex way to define our American culture.

“What Does It Mean To Be An American?” by Michael Walzer

In this selection, we learn about the multidimensional character of the modern American citizen. America is described as a “nation of coexistence” rather than a “nation of nationalities”. Since we are a nation of coexistence, we don’t have a strong ethnic culture like other countries. Many may be American politically, and may have even been born here, yet they ultimately know that their roots are elsewhere. Ethnic traditions and beliefs are sustained in the family home and in neighborhoods of similar ethnic groups, yet support for the liberal Democratic framework of American politics is evident. Thus, a sort of hybridization has occurred where cultures are sharply defined and yet are still inherently American. This has led to the creation of the “hyphenated American”.

“The Melting Pot and the Color Line” By Stephen Steinberg 

This selection also deals with the question of if America is truly a melting pot or not. This reading questions whether or not hyphenated Americans wil endure in today’s times, or if we are just in a long process of assimilation. There is a suggestion that a mestizo America may one day exist due to the high rates of interracial marriage, and perhaps there will indeed one day be an America that can be described with the “melting pot” metaphor. However, this will still be very difficult due to the still present differences between white and African-American cultures.

Reaction

When reading these, I couldn’t help but think of our cultural autobiography assignment. In terms of ethnicity, I’m not quite sure what my identity would be. I am many nationalities (not the traditional hyphenated American). I’m Irish, Scottish, British, Norwegian, German, and Hungarian (just to name a few). So, I suppose I don’t have as strong of roots to another country. In essence, I simply feel “American”. Yet, I find it very fascinating that the America and New York that we live in today has such culture in it. I identified better with the second reading and the possibility of a strongly blended America, yet I can also understand the mindset of hyphenated Americans wanting to perserve their culture. It is this constant clash of past versus present and old traditions versus new ones that makes defining the identity of an American highly complex. One American is not exactly the same as another. Yet, that is also what creates the highly energized and exciting character of America and New York, and I’m excited to delve deeper into this topic this semester.

Identity in the United States is arguably one of the biggest issues among citizens and immigrants alike. Throughout the years, the immigrant community struggles to define itself – there is always a fierce battle between honoring the connections of the home country and assimilating into the new country. After all, what is the definition of a true American? Is it a certain look or characteristic? Or are we united by the fact that many of us have very little in common?

I personally support an argument presented in Waltzer’s article that we are somehow united by the fact that we are not united. This argument is additionally supported in Steinberg’s piece when he mentions that there is not equal assimilation for all parties involved – yes, for people of Caucasian origin the differences are becoming minute, but for those of Asian or African origin, the divide continues to exist. We are a state of many cultures and there is no solid nationality.

I do not have family members that recently immigrated. I am more of a third and fourth generation child, but I’ve come to know many people who are directly the children of immigrants. And these first generation Americans are truly following Steinberg’s argument about the melting pot – they are in a flux where they are trying to balance between their old and new cultures. I’ve seen a variety of responses towards this. Some of my friends have rebelled fiercely against their culture, such as refusing to answer in their parents’ native language or immersing themselves in national culture. Others have more of an appreciation for their culture, taking trips back to the country their parents emigrated from and frequently citing that culture. Occasionally there is even some apathy. These reactions show me that assimilation, if possible, is long and difficult, and that many continue to maintain their former cultural identities.

So maybe the goal isn’t to assimilate, but to instead appreciate the many different cultural differences – find our identity in many instead of one.