I understand the allure of Chinatown from the point of view from an already wealthy businessman. It was obviously extremely easy to buy office or residential buildings and rent out in-demand space to immigrants of the lower socio-economic class. What I don’t understand is why these immigrants still chose to go to Chinatown, knowing that they would have to pay a great deal of money to live there.

As Peter Kwong stated, at some point in the 1970s-1980s, living in Chinatown was more expensive than the most elitist parts of Manhattan. Why then, did people choose to immigrate there? Why didn’t the masses of poorer Chinese immigrants opt for a cheaper neighborhood? Would the Chinese investors just follow them and their demand for housing?

On top of being expensive, many of these buildings were outdated, cramped, or even dilapidated. It’s obvious that these foreign investors couldn’t care less about their tenants. To an extent, I can understand these investors wanting to profit as much as possible. However, I don’t understand why they would allow tenants to live so horribly in return for so much money. Furthermore, I don’t understand why the tenants would put up with it.

Some investors bought these old buildings with the intent to create quality residential and commercial buildings. However, they also intended to kick out all the building’s previous tenants, and hike up the price even more so that only the upper-middle class could afford it. It’s disheartening to hear that only a few activist groups were able to expose these large, impersonal, and apathetic enterprises. I can only imagine what other tenants, and small business owners, who were unable to voice how unjustly they were being treated, had to endure.

It’s interesting how Chinatown thrived. It seemed to only thrive because of foreign investors and at the cost of those who lived there previously.

-Christina Torossian

An interesting topic that Peter Kwong covers in the first few chapters is the work force of Chinese women and how they affected the growth of Chinatown. According to Kwon, the timing of the arrival of the Chinese women workforce came at a time exactly when they were needed. As a result, not only were the women able to support there family they were also able to re-stimulate the industry with their income. With this occurrence Kwong  believes the new work force allowed Chinatown’s economy to expand.

The economic aspect to this theory is interesting because I am currently studying the Depression and various economic issues that happened during the time period. We see during Hoover’s reign the “trickle down theory” does not really work. Or the idea that funding at the top will eventually reach the workers down below. Over all Hoover’s attempt at fixing the economy was dismal due to his inability of allowing “direct” Federal aid. (An example would be actually creating jobs for those at the bottom.) This part struck me because it shows or further proves that if those at the bottom are employed they can stimulate the economy. For some reason, this idea could not be accepted during the great depression until the Roosevelt administration, and even he had criticism. So according to Kwong’s ideas if Hoover directly provided jobs for the unemployed during the Depression, history may have been quite different.

Or perhaps this economic stimulation only works in a small scale way (as compared to that of a national economic depression.) Where the idea of a small ethnic cluster can stimulate their own economy through an employed work force. The model does seem more reliable on a small scale like many other economic plans. However, how natural this economic stimulation occurs shown through the idea that Chinatown also provides Chinese women with some comfort due to familiarity. For example, Kwong mentions how the managers were also Chinese and there was no language barrier.

Transnationalism may not necessarily be a new idea. As we’ve been learning all semester, cases of Transnationalism have been evident as early as the late 19th century with the Italians in Italian Harlem.

However, transnationalism has been made easy recently, due to new and developing technology. For example, a hundred years ago, Italians immigrants who wished to talk to family and friends abroad, would have to save every penny until they were able to afford to send just a letter overseas. Now, because of computers and phones, it’s very easy to contact absolute anyone.

In recent times, travel has become increasingly easy. Speedier planes have replaced the dangerous and lengthy boat rides. Thus, immigrating to a new country has become far easier. Communication has also become far easier due to new technology. Instant phone calls and video chatting have replaced letters that could take days to arrive. Not only has it become easier to travel to different countries, it’s become easier to communicate with the people that were left behind. It’s become easier to communicate with anyone for that matter.

I feel that those such as Linda Basch believed that transnationalism was a new concept because it’s become far easier to communicate with people all over the world. I believe that this idea of Transnationalism, in their minds, was more closely linked to globalism, and therefore was not as applicable to people in the late 19th-early 20th century.

Perhaps the idea of transnationalism exceeds the idea of holding on to an old culture when one moves into a new country. Perhaps the term transnationalism is more about actually being able to hold on to that old culture at all.

I agree that a hundred years ago, many immigrants did hold strong ties to their homelands. However, unless they were a part of a community where everyone immigrated from the same general area, immigrants were forced to assimilate. I feel that the Italian immigrants who lived in Italian Harlem and the Russian Jews, who moved to Russian and/or Jewish communities, are two very specific examples that can’t be applied to all immigrants from that time period.

It was very difficult to hold on to an old culture when you couldn’t readily contact or visit anyone from that home country. I believe it’s only recently become possible for immigrants to be able to contact family members abroad or even visit their home countries. This could explain why many believed that transnationalism is a new concept.

-Christina Torossian

This chapter by Nancy Foner titled “Transnational Ties” introduced me to the phrase transnationalism. It refers to processes by which immigrants ‘‘forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement. . . . An essential element . . . is the multiplicity of involvements that transmigrants sustain in both home and host societies.’’ The word itself encompasses a situation familiar to many people who live in New York City. In a city so dense with immigrants its hard not to see where this term comes into play. What I thought was very interesting in Foner’s chapter was her assessment of the old transnationalism. In the 1880s to early 1900s transnationalism was looked down upon in American society.

Unlike in the past immigrants who come here are welcome to express their ties to their home countries. And as opposed to the past there more frequent connections to the culture and family left behind which may result in stronger ties. This is all due to the advancement of technology. Again I was amazed, as I usually am, by how much of a difference a decade can make. The book feels so outdated. The outdated tech included in this chapter is telephones and videotapes. I say telephones because not that many people use a telephone to call long distance and get charged that cheap rate of three dollars per minute… Also many of the younger generation don’t even now how to work a VHS recorder. As of right now the Internet has become the biggest game changer in keeping ties with loved ones in other places. People use free social networking sites to keep in contact with their family and friends. They can now Skype each other, tag each other or do whatever they want to online. The ability to instantly contact a person and see their face and surroundings in real-time probably greatly affects the ability to be a connected, transnational citizen.

The most intriguing issue brought up in the chapter was how the US’ and the world’s acceptance of transnationalism affects politics and economy. The ability to be a potential lobbyist for the home country in America is one reason why dual citizenship is very important to many countries. It’s important to note that different countries have different policies for their dual citizens and some allow dual citizens to vote in their elections. One such country is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican community in New York is the second largest concentration of voters in any Domincan election. Another reason dual citizenship is important to the home country is that “a powerful economic incentive is involved in the recognition of dual nationality by various sending countries.” Like the Dominican Republic, Philippines also relies on the remittances from their migrants. About 10% of their GDP comes from money sent back. These results of transnationalism are amazing to observe and the future results of it are unpredictable but they seem to make the world a more interesting place.

Nancy Foner, in her chapter on ‘transnational’ immigrants – or those who maintain strong roots to their home country while establishing an American identity – exposed many interesting ideas. These include the ability of transnationalism to adjust with society and how transnationalism is perceived by various people.

Foner compared transnationalism of early immigrants in the turn of the twentieth century to today’s immigrants. She stated that the rate of returning to home countries was higher for early immigrants for adjusting to new life was difficult. In addition, many immigrants left their families at home and arrived just to work so returning was necessary. In today’s day, immigrants seem to not have that problem due to advancing society and technology. Keeping ties with their home countries was easier and no longer meant just returning home. I found it interesting that this book, published in 2000, focused on the fact that technology such as telephones and emailing was a privilege for the well-off. This discussion aids in the argument of the rate of advancement in society in the past 13 years since this book was published.

Transnationalism is a complicated concept that has been around since the beginning of immigration – just with a different connotation. Another interesting analysis of transnationalism brought up the argument of whether transnationalism is beneficial. Some argued that the immigrants reluctancy to adopt American life was a form of anti-Americanization. I was intrigued by this thought because one can argue that Americanization is the concept of immigrants coming together into this melting pot. Does this melting pot ultimately consist of the various identities that immigrants bring along or various immigrants who choose to disregard their backgrounds? Transnationalism complicates the role of immigrants in America – especially naturalized citizens. What affect, if any, does transnationalism have on one’s ‘citizenship’?

The thing I found most interesting in this chapter was the constant reference to the term “transnational”, which I had never even heard before. According to Foner, transnationalism cam be defined as a process where immigrants “forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement…An essential element…is the multiplicity of involvements that transmigrants sustain in both home and host societies.” In other words, immigrants are seen as having roots in both their country of birth and their new country of residence (in most cases, the United States).

Foner goes on to point out that this seemingly new concept of transnationalism isn’t really all that new. When comparing the past wave of immigration to the more modern one (as Foner always does), it becomes clear that this allegiance to two societies among immigrants was very common due to lack of economic security, lack of full acceptance into the American culture, family back at home, etc. Immigrants of both time periods often went home or identified with their home country in other ways here. Rather than fully assimilating into American culture, they would instead try to plant themselves and their nation firmly within our cultural landscape. By supporting politicians of their ethnicity and keeping customs alive, they managed to create almost a dual form of allegiance transcending the typical definitions of citizenship. In modern times, technology also plays a large role in keeping connections with home countries. Also, greater tolerance for “ethnic pluralism and multiculturalism…have put transnational connections in a new, more positive light.” Better forms of communication and travel allow transnationalism to be a very easy part of today’s immigrant culture, yet at the same time it can create contradictory pressures as to where true allegiance lies.

When reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but keep thinking of last class when we discussed what truly defines a “citizen” and a “good citizen”. In this case, citizenship almost seems irrelevant because immigrants can call both countries home. Even if only one of those countries actually protects them by law, cultural and socioeconomic ties can easily lie with multiple societies. So, is this a new definition of citizenship emerging? If an immigrant is formally an “American” yet they have strong transnational ties to another nation, where does their inner citizenship lie? Perhaps then the term “citizen” itself is too complex in nature to adequately describe what residents of the United States are, aside from the political definition of it.

-Cassandra Price

Among scholars, historians, and Foner the notion of transnationalism being a new idea seems like a mutual agreement. As stated in chapter 6, there seems to be some form of transnationalism exiting before the 1990s but the aspects and characteristics that come after are distinguishing enough for a new term.

The technological advances are one of the main factors Foner mentions which allow the modern day transnationalism to flourish. The quickness and easiness of a phone call or the affordability of plane tickets make it easier for an immigrant to be part of two nationalities. History proves that technological advances have hard hitting effects of its time period. For example, during the first wave of immigration the jobs provided to immigrants were through technological advances in steel and transportation industries. Now it allows immigrants to identify with their home country. A social aspect for many immigrants who feel as if they are subordinates in the United States.

Aside from the social aspect, I found the economic and political involvement of the home countries more interesting. Rather than the immigrants needs, Foner mentions how the home countries of these immigrants benefit from transnationalism and as a result foster it through companies or financing. I believe that the involvement of government from the home countries both politically and economically showcases and only further proves that time period is important and in today’s society the Global Market becomes an important aspect. Today, businesses and companies seek out those who can reach out to global markets. As mentioned by Foner, the fact that many of these immigrants come as professionals also plays into the role of a Global Market.  With the changing ideals of the United States, which once took an individualistic and secluded stand point politically, transnationalism becomes and idea that only deepens and widens in today’s society.

–Trish Anne Roque