The crime prevention situation on the Lower East Side as described by Jessica Cattelino reminded me of the situation in Crown Heights we discussed earlier. Cattelino described two groups of people – white middle-upper class and the colored lower class – living in the Lower East Side facing similar problems of crime. She gave examples from both groups of people who wanted to volunteer for crime prevention for almost the same reasons – to help their community. Cattelino emphasized the difference in syntax – the white middle-upper class stated that they wanted to help “the community” while the colored people of the lower class wanted to help “my community”. The lower class of colored people  chose to express themselves in such a way, stated Cattelino, because they did not want to associate themselves with a general community that didn’t emphasize the different people inhabiting it. When I surveyed the situation, I realized that the group did have a lot of similarities in their argument for volunteerism. Still, the lower class demanded police presence but protested police brutality at the same time. To them, this situation occurred due to their status in society but they failed to realize that crime prevention in the upper class society thrived due to civilian involvement. For the middle-upper class, crime prevention was their duty as a citizen rather than a burden put among them. (As a side note, I found this thought process interesting because of our discussion on the meaning of citizenship. These people almost redefined it completely and made me rethink it as well. Citizenship, to them, meant receiving governmental aid while actively participating in society for the good other others. They chose to volunteer as a moral obligation as opposed to a legal one like jury duty, tying in the moral aspect of citizenship.)  Just as in Crown Heights, the two groups of people had varying views on the same situation due to societal differences.

Up until now, we have defined citizenship solely as a matter of legality. While describing civilian crime prevention on the Lower East Side, Jessica R. Cattelino expands this definition by highlighting the moral and performative aspects of one’s membership in a society. It becomes quite clear then that “citizenship” is not confined to a mere document, but is rather subjective.

So what exactly does it mean to be a citizen? According to some civilian crime-prevention participants, to be a good citizen is to be an active participant in the community. To them, “citizenship” is synonymous with “involvement” and the upholding of moral duties and civic responsibilities. In this sense, civilian crime fighting can be considered an American ideal. Poorer participants of color, however, characterize citizenship as a matter of exercising and asserting rights, specifically the right to protection. To them, civilian crime fighting is not so much an ideal as it is a necessary evil in a society where there exists unjust police neglect.

With that said, it seems as though it is quite difficult to reach a universal understanding of citizenship. Even so, is it not possible for multiple interpretations to coexist at once? Whether these participants function as “active” or “passive” citizens, are they not all united under shared social and political actions aimed at crime prevention? Despite their common goals, however, there exists a tension between these two groups. And while this tension is exacerbated by unequal allocations of resources (among other causes of friction), the core of this difference lies, in actuality, in the concept of citizenship, as it is distinctly – and strictly – defined. As Cattelino concludes, the emphasis on participation widens the gap between those who “partake of the moral good of active citizenship” and those who are viewed as “merely (and immorally) taking from the state,” a gap that is formed in the name of citizenship.

Before reading this article, I would have never thought to consider the undocumented among those who tragically died during 9/11. It’s terrible to think that so many could have passed away without any recognition.

Dealing with undocumented people in the United States is a complicated issue. One of the biggest issues the U.S. faces, is how to treat the undocumented when they are not protected by our legal system and are therefore not equals, legally, to U.S. citizens. However, I feel that in times of crises, legal citizenship should no longer become an issue, and the situation becomes more of a humanitarian crisis in which relief groups should focus on all individuals involved equally.

When the article explained that some families from other countries were given a hard time when they asked for information regarding their loved ones who worked illegally in the Twin Towers, I was not surprised but I was severely disappointed. I understand how complicated it becomes trying to find information on victims with false names and information. However, reuniting families or providing closure to loved ones should not have been exclusive to only some of those who worked in the Twin Towers, they should have tried to account for all workers from the start.

That being said, I’m surprised that so few groups stood up and tried to help the undocumented. Why did the undocumented become a separate issue to begin with? Aren’t we all human beings with some form of a family? Shouldn’t it be a natural right for a family to be reunited or even informed in a time of crises? Why didn’t relief groups focus on all individuals in the Twin Towers? Why did one relief group have to stand up and deal with all the undocumented on their own with such little resources?

It’s incredible to think what the few individuals can accomplish with the right amount of dedication and determination. Tepeyac should be publically praised for their humanitarian efforts. Regardless over whether or not the people they helped were legal citizens, they still helped thousands in need and their time and effort should not go unrecognized.

-Christina Torossian

This chapter by Alyshia Gálvez explores one non-profit organization’s experience with a paradox of good intentions. The Asociación Tepeyac de New York is a group comprised of forty parish-based Guadalupan committees designed to serve the Mexican immigrant community of New York. The committees of the association were originally launched with a mission of dedication to “the social welfare and human rights of Mexican immigrants, specifically the undocumented in New York City.” The word Mexican has since been replaced with the word Latino, as the acclaim that the association reached after its successfully efforts to provide compensation to the invisible victims of the attack on the World Trade Center, the survivors and families of those perished in the towers for whom being undocumented workers meant that they left no paper trail behind, has transformed Tepeyac… in a lot of ways for the worse. The tiny organization that began with the founder being seated on five-gallon paint buckets, using crates for desks and armed with only a single phone and the leaders recruited at city playgrounds as instruments for change, demonstrated its ability to successfully use resolviendo. Resolviendo, a Spanish expression similar to the English word adaptability, became an inevitable part of the reputation of the organization after it became the first to develop an innovative system of identifying undocumented victims of the 9/11 attacks by tapping into a secret goldmine of information, coworkers. People who came to Tepeyac provided notarized affadavits that were used collectively as alternate sources of documentation for those lost whose names were not on the payroll. This allowed for speedy and more effective cross-referencing for those claiming a family member who was a victim, creating a form of evidence of their right to being compensated. Tepeyac effectively referred those whose stories checked out to the Red Cross for monetary compensation and acted as an intermediary between the government and those the association was trying to provide aid to via lobbying. Perhaps the most understated victory of this organization was the role it played in attempting to combat growing xenophobia by serving as a collective proxy which enabled undocumented immigrants effected by the disaster who would otherwise be ineligible for participation in things like protests and lobbying to open up spheres for themselves to be involved in civic processes and prepare them for the anticipated goal of being fully enfranchised citizens. Though these efforts yielded undeniably positive results, the costs of the growth of the organization and more esteemed view of it in the media were felt greatly by the very people carrying them out.

A majority of the Tepeyac’s relief for World Trade Center victims came from private organizations such as the American Jewish World Service, AFL-CIO, and the Robin Hood Foundation. Unsurprisingly the diversity of its donors meant that an organization formed to serve a very specific demographic, undocumented Mexican immigrants, has been balked out and presumed exclusionary for the very reason that many of its donors would not be in a particularly good position if they were to seek out the associations help, as many are not exclusively Mexican. Although many non-Mexican survivors did seek out the services of Tepeyac after September 11^th, the nature of the organization that asserted “its collective identity in particularly Mexican idioms,” made the continued communication with the organization for several months necessary to receive the proper paperwork to obtain a death certificate and emergency survivors’ benefits a less likely commitment made by non-Mexicans. Similarly the funding for ongoing services offered by the association was limited, and thus more likely to be allocated for services for the organization’s preexisting (largely Mexican) constituent base. This transformed the original mission to aid Mexican immigrants toward a more inclusive “Latino immigrant” group. The donations inspired due to the Asociación Tepeyac’s role in revealing the invisible victims of 9/11 also had quite a detrimental effect on the association. Contrary to its aim, the donations received made the association ineligible to continue receiving small donations, and the lack of this necessary funding made the sustained overhead of the organization that would be necessary to handle larger government grants impossible. The very people the Tepeyac organization sought to find work became those that the association itself was laying off and taking off of its payroll. Those who helped its founder to create the association lost respect for the direction it had taken and all the quintessential aspects of its origin, even including the connection to the Catholic church that inspired the Guadalupan committees at the heart of its creation, have taken a second seat and become completely out of the picture for this non-profit. This article presented an interesting and somewhat devastating look at a charity group for whom despite the best intentions, the genuine means led to a counterproductive end.

We often assume that social constructs are subconscious social agreements foisted by the community as a whole upon the minority in question. In his article, Steven Gregory not only offers a new perspective of the factors of a social construct (as multi-layered and faceted with various social assumptions) but also on who, in fact, controls the social constructs. Through one case example, he shows that the constructs are not necessarily as rigid as we might believe and that they are even changeable by the individual. In Lefrak City, Edna Baskin lead a small revolution in the perception of the black community by the outsiders and insiders alike. For years the residents of the apartment complexes struggled against black prejudice but through slow, mediated organization, new policies and opportunities and perspectives were born and modified the social construct of the black community in that area. The crucial turning point, though, occurred not through appeal to the larger, white community, but through the cleanup competition, in which the black youth actively rehabilitated their own image, showing that they were not, as they were perceived to be, crime- and drug-ridden youth, but caring, productive citizens. Through this initiative, the black community reached out and affiliated with other neighborhood communities and strengthened their image in the public eye. Baskin also was able to rehabilitate the image of the impoverished, large black family into an image of a homey community with family-values, with mothers and their children, with fathers in leadership positions, and their sons following in their lead. Gender-prejudice and economic distinctions also came into play in the images of this community, but in Lefrak City, they were ultimately able to transcend previous barriers and create new socially-accepted frameworks. To be sure, this could be seen as an isolated incident, and not necessarily the beginning of a movement to redefine social constructs everywhere, but from this, its evident that it can be done, and it was done, by its own members.

Steven Gregory’s concept of gender and how it is intertwined with race is very interesting.  When I first read that Edna Baskin asked her husband or brother-in-law to serve as CCA’s representative, because “‘men get more respect-they take you more seriously (pg. 382),'” I was shocked. Baskin is trying to destroy the stereotypes that have plagued the African American residents of Lefrak City, and here she is reinforcing other stereotypes, that of the woman as inferior to man.  Why should women accept their position of “back up (pg. 382)” as Baskin puts it? This is clearly a secondary role.  In fact, why should this have anything to do with race? Baskin is the founder of the CCA, therefore she should be the face of the organization to the public.  I assumed that such decisions based on gender would only hinder the CCA’s goal of changing the image of the African Americans, because Baskin clearly accepted other societal inequalities.  Once one group of sub-citizens is acknowledged, it is very easy to keep making distinctions among people based not only on race and gender, but also, religion and ethnicity.  I would have thought that to be successful, Baskin would have to abolish all stereotypes.

However, what she accomplished by simply making a man the spokesperson of the organization is beyond anything I would have thought possible. Such a decision highlights Baskin’s understanding and thoughtfulness of the situation at hand.  First there was the pragmatic goal of presenting what society saw as the strongest embodiment of power, man.  According to Baskin, it is a “white man’s world (pg. 382).” Therefore, by having a spokesman Baskin is affirming this idea and proving that she is not attempting to do anything radical, but rather just trying to be like everyone else, or at least the whites, by achieving equal status and treatment.  While reading Gregory’s essay, this answer made immediate sense to my question.  In order for Baskin’s ideas to be accepted by government officials and private corporations, she needed to frame the request in terms they understood.  Therefore, a man, albeit African American, would need to do all negotiations.

It is the second goal accomplished by making a man the face of the organization that I found more fascinating. Presenting an African American male in a position of authority and leadership, not only gave the African Americans positive male role models, but also dispelled the “negative images of black masculinity (pg. 382).”  In this way, the male African Americans are not seen as violent, but rather as responsible, not only for themselves, but within the lager picture, for an organization, the CCA.  In this way, they are contributing to the betterment of society.  What an effective strategy.  Baskin clearly understands the problems facing the African American community Lefrak City, especially their negative image, and expertly went about trying to solve them.

It is the African American image more than anything else that Baskin is trying to change.  This makes sense because the African American residents in Lefrak City only need surveillance because outsiders associate them with crime, drugs, and violence.  This is an issue of their image because Gregory does not bring any statistics to prove that crime rates are higher among African Americans. In fact, the testimony given by one of the African American teenagers at the Youth Forum described how he gets to the park and is chased out by officials.  There is no basis for such treatment. Therefore, Baskin’s idea to have a male spokesperson is an effective way not only to confirm society’s idea of male authority, but also to change for the better the image of the African Americans, especially the males, in Lefrak City.

According to Susan Slyomovics, one of the main goals of New York City’s Muslim World Day Parade is to educate the people of New York City about the religion of Islam and stage a “temporary creation of Muslim space on a New York City avenue.”  In a sense, the Muslim World Day parade is supposed to be a walking exhibit from the Museum of Natural History, showing average New Yorkers what a day in life of a Muslim can be, with all its rich traditions and cultural heritage.  This parade is intended to be a celebration of America’s acceptance of Islam as well as Islam’s acceptance of America.  Yet in the last line of her article, after twenty pages of lauding Islam’s attempts to make the religion accessible to the masses, Slyomovics brazenly writes “What Muslims in America articulate ritually about Islam in public should be heard as friendly, accommodating, and familiar, it should not overheard, and at best it should still be heard only among their own.”  Not only is this the total opposite of the parade’s goal, it allows for a terrible marginalization.  Saying that allahu akbar should not be recited because of its bloody associations could be extended to almost every injustice done in the name of God for the past 3,000 years.

The takbir is one of the essential prayers of Islam and is meant to be a celebration of God’s strength and power over this world – the true definition of allahu akbar is “God is great,” no more, no less.  And yet organizers worry that this chant will offend American sensibilities because of its historical use as the justifying cry of suicide bombers and terrorists alike, including the much publicized and remembered Iran-Contra affair.  Slyomovics not only agrees with this sentiment, but she praises their judgment and their ability “intuitively recognize that crowds of Muslims may spell danger to the American public.”   One of the goals of the parade is to redefine the traditional practices in the frame of safety, happiness and religious expression – instead of eliminating the takbir to appease the intolerant, the organizers of the Muslim World Day Parade should focus on ways to give allahu akbar a positive connotation.  Slyomovics, it seems, believes that America is still incapable of digesting diversity that does not come pre-chewed and wrapped in a Hallmark card.

Susan Slyomovics’ article, while focusing on the Muslim New York City population, sheds light as well on other population groups within the city, and the interactions among them. In this class, we have discussed definitions and experiences of diversity and multiculturalism, and this essay interestingly, while assuming to analyze the Muslim’s Parade, broadens to analyze various other groups, in relation to their participation in or influence of, that group’s parade. To begin with, I noted that the parade is called a “World Day” Parade, connoting a unification across countries and cultures. The defining factor of the Parade is in promoting the Muslim community, not discriminating across ethnicity. American, African, Asian, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern Muslims gathered, in various forms of Muslim attire, on floats representing various places of Muslim significance, carrying signs primarily in English, fully representing the spectrum of Muslim influence. That members of other religions, such as Christian and Jewish, and of other affiliations entirely, such as the Irish and African American bands, participated in the parade’s procession, and that New Yorkers in general participated as viewers gave the parade a sense of multicultural respect. That the parade marched along the streets of Manhattan, further reinforced that sense, as Manhattan is the epicenter of America’s melting pot. Slymovics’ detailed history of New York City parades informs of the influences the various ethnic parades have had on each other, and as well informs of the significances of the various ethnic groups, as reflected in the placement of their parades on the city grid. The grid itself seems to be a forum for the city’s diversity to flourish, pocketing communities here and there, connected and separated by the grid-lines. That “New York City is a city of parades,” as one of the parade organizers was quoted as saying, reflects the city’s nature as a house for diverse populations. Thus,  Slyomovics’ article does more than just expose readers to the Muslim population’s parade, for, more than representing merely the Muslim population in America, their parade represented the Muslim World population, and the extent of the interweaving of different populations of the world, as can only be fully displayed in America, the home of both universality and diversity.