Women have struggled for many years to have equal status in society to their counterparts. Many tactics were employed such as hunger strikes, marches, and pickets. Although women were mistreated because of these controversial actions, they persisted for their cause and remained active in the streets despite backlash. Women of color tried to collaborate with the white women for suffrage, but they were ignored and left behind in their efforts.

Woman suffragists used New York City as a platform to promote change in politics. For instance, Hornsby and Blair both took off from Staten Island in order to raise awareness about their cause. They were among the first women to take advantage of the political climate in New York City. In the late 19th century, a new term was coined in New York known as “New Women”. The spike in the literacy rates and careers available to middle and upper class women allowed them to take on a new role like never before in New York. Women felt empowered because of the education and achievements that they got in the workforce, and, as a result, created organizations for voting rights. Voting rights have been given to women in the western states, but not in the eastern states. Women of color were ignored in their efforts to help with the suffrage movements as a result of the white’s personal prejudice. The National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) became the first women’s organization to bring activism among women for suffrage. These women were inspired by the actions of the Woman’s Social and Political Union in England. Jaffe states, “In the nation’s largest, busiest, and most distracting city, suffragists had learned the first lesson of urban activism: Eye catching and ear catching street theater was a powerful tool– and a necessity— for winning the attention of the passing crowd” (147). Women who went out of their comfort zones and declared attention to raise awareness were seen as controversial in the early 1900’s. Men were offended by these brave women, showing hostility towards the pioneers’ uprisings. The suffrage spokeswomen used their own newspapers “to publicize their mistreatment thus making the point that they needed the vote to counterbalance the political power of such ‘low’ men” (Jaffe 148). The opposition among the men didn’t stop the women from leaving their mark on the movement. In 1915, women’s suffrage made its way onto the ballot in New York, which prompted thousands of marchers on the streets, one day strikes, and automobile parades on the streets of Manhattan. Although the referendum lost in 1915, activists continued fighting by carrying petitions and World War I banners. On November 6, 1917, the majority of male voters allowed New York to gain women’s suffrage. However, the women were still not pleased because they weren’t able to pass the Anthony Amendment. As a result of the NWP’s civil disobedience and “arrest and martyrdom”, they were able to achieve their goal of passing the 19th amendment in 1919.

The public called for women’s suffrage since 1848 with the Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls. Around the end of the 1800’s, many of the western states such as Utah, Colorado, and Idaho passed suffrage laws while many others were unsuccessful. Alice Paul and Lucy Burns were the main women who were in charge of organizing a suffrage parade in Washington D.C the day before President WIlson’s inauguration. Lampert states, “The event would create a highly choreographed visual spectacle that foreshadowed how women would keep the issue of suffrage before Wilson throughout his presidency” (Lampert 112). The efforts of the white middle class women failed as men insulted them and ignored their demands. Yet, the women were able to raise awareness and gain media coverage because of their actions. In 1917, many middle class women picketed with banners in front of the White House and harrassed President Woodrow Wilson when he arrived in public. The NWP believed that President WIlson had the power to progress the passing of the 19th Amendment without resistance from the public. These acts of civil disobedience resulted in jail time since women were unwilling to pay fees because they were innocent. Women escalated their protests and “compared Wilson to the enemy, German Kaiser Wilhelm II” (Lampert 116). Women were fined with longer jail terms and were attacked as a result of their actions. Paul was definitely among the braver women who led a hunger strike and disobeyed all of the commands of the prison officers. This led to a public outcry, which caused more chaos in the Occoquan jail where hundreds of women were brutally attacked. President Wilson considered the idea of a federal amendment for women’s suffrage, but the Senate denied this with a filibuster. Finally in 1919, the states voted to ratify the 19th Amendment after all of the hard work and dedication of the women. The different tactics of picketing, hunger strikes, and marches led to an increase in coverage and awareness among the public. Women persevered in the cause for their own freedom to vote and were steadfast in the many approaches that they took to succeed against the President and other important men in society.

The struggle for women’s rights, lead by Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, has been one of the most influential movements in history that continues to inspire us today. The most important thing that Brent Staples notes is that the reality of the racism that existed during that time period was hidden by Stanton from others in the fight for women’s suffrage.  African-American women didn’t really have a voice in the suffrage movement, due to leaders bowing to white supremacists’ pressure and general bigotry. “Black feminists in particular were enthusiastic to see if these remembrances own up to the real history of the fight for the vote — and whether black suffragists appear in them”(Staples). African American women were eager to advance the women’s suffrage movement to pass the 19th amendment, but their efforts were disregarded by the white women. Douglass, an African American man, made a significant contribution to the passing of the amendment that would’ve failed otherwise. Both white women and black women had different incentive for the right to vote. White women wanted to be equal to their husbands and sons, while black women wanted to feel entitled after the Emancipation Proclamation. Staples also mentions the mentality of white women who believed that “white woman would be degraded if Negro men preceded them into the franchise”. This quote emphasizes the nature of the argument that the whites thought of themselves as superior compared to other races. Although African American were also women who were fighting for the same right to vote, they were most ironically discriminated against for their color amongst white women. Even though the 19th Amendment was passed and was celebrated among white suffragists, African Americans experienced high levels of fraud and intimidation when they went to vote. African Americans were officially given the right to vote through the Voting Rights Act of 1965 half a century later. These hidden thoughts were out of the public’s eye and everyone congratulated the “white” women’s right to vote unknowing what happened to the African Americans. History tends to sublimate wrongdoings of the majority to exhibit the victories of the nation as a whole.

Jaffe and Lampert both characterize the women’s suffrage movement as a collective effort of all women. They highlight the marches, jail time, and activism that women struggled through in order for men to perceive them as equal. Men were against the unladylike actions that women were seen portraying in the 1900s. Jaffe tends to mention the beginnings of the suffrage movement and how women were able to raise awareness of the suffrage movement for women. Lampert emphasizes the specific actions of civil disobedience that women took to get legislation passed. He portrays the extreme measures that women went through for their equal voting rights. Lampert and Jaffe rarely mentioned the women of color who also tried to progress the issue of women’s rights. While Staples portrays the women’s suffrage as a phenomenal movement, he presents the concealed secrets that aren’t examined while discussing the women’s suffrage movement. He mentions the degradation of African American women and the elite mentality that the white women had. They were unwilling to accept the women of color into the marches and protests for the women’s suffrage movement. Two of the readings intertwine the notion of women fighting for their rights, while the other exposes the harsh reality that was unspoken in that time period.

We have discussed the white men having all of the power and advantages throughout history. Women had been domesticated and were unable to reach the same achievements as men. The women’s suffrage movement was a change from the status quo on the part of women. They worked for equal rights, as we know it. History tends to “forget” to acknowledge the colored women who were barred from showing their activism. As a result, white women were the only ones who achieved the right to vote from the 19th Amendment.  

Anisha Bhuiyan

“No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” This comes from the state of nature of Thomas Hobbes, who used it to describe the natural condition of mankind and the primitive society before there is a government, but he may never anticipate that it would happen in the twentieth century New York.  The Chapter 8 of Activist New York by Steven Jaffe introduces us the harsh living conditions of the women at that time and the intense social, family and even survival pressure of women have reached an unprecedented level. This is the exploitation of the capitalist and the lack of protection from the government deteriorated the situation. As highlighted by “Immigrant Women and Work” by Nancy Foner, the upheaval is inevitable since the pressure on female immigrants were suffering in such an inhumane way, just like the state of nature.

For the immigrant women, working and taking care of family is their way of showing value in the society and inside the family. As described by Nancy Foner, over 40% of the family income was contributed by the working female immigrants in the factories, at the cost of working at least fourteen hours a day with an extremely low wage. “They worked in hundreds of garment-making factory lofts, often for as little as three dollars for a 56- or 58-hour work week”(Jaffe 124). They did this for their family because they need to support their family to survive, not thrive in New York City. Socially, that was already the lower limit of their life in this city: they came here with no possessions and no land. Working in factories or at home was the only way to create income and maintain survival. This revealed the tragic fact: they have no way back except being exploited. Because of the competition of the factories and also the excessive supply of labor force, they only could receive the extremely low income and extremely poor working condition, which also increased their degree of suffering. “Fourteen hours you sit on a chair, often without a back, felling coats”(Foner 113). Meanwhile, the local government did not see this as severe issues because it would not affect the well-being of New York City and the people other than immigrants. On the other hand, the exploitation of the immigrants would continue benefitting the capitalists and landlords in the city, making the government less likely to protect the rights of immigrants.

Immigrant women in the family were having the same level of exploitation. They had to take care of the children and the household while making home products to earn money to support the family. “In addition, the poor living conditions and diseases were not providing a good environment for the women to work effectively. The contributions of women did not bring them to rise in the family status; they were still facing an imbalance status inside the family, which means the women had to face the pressure from husband or brothers. “Women were excluded from seats of power in the community and from positions in the religious sphere.”(Foner 116) Pressure from triple ways was added to women. In this situation, survival is the chief task in the family. As the lowest level in the family’s hierarchy, women were expected to suffer more than men did.

As the inhumane suffering went on, women’s opposition started to grow. 20,000 young garment workers picketed hundreds of shops in 1909. That means they were getting to be aware of the power of the group and started to establish trade union among themselves. “Many of these allies belonged to the Women’s Trade Union League …and working-class women in efforts to unionize female workers and to win the vote for women”(Jaffe 126). That means women, as one of the most important while also the most marginalized group since the patriarchal society, started to raise their power and gain independence after the severe sufferings. The settlement reached in February 1910 was the temporary victory of female workers and was the transition of this group from an outsider of the country to the activists in the development of the city. After that, the group expanded its influence from New York City to the whole country. The National Labor Relations Act, known as the Wagner Act, brings the vision of resistance for the working class over decades.

Although in the early times the female immigrant workers suffered greatly from the poor living and working environments and various social, economic and family pressure. The spirit of resistance made them fight for their rights altogether, which later became a power of activism in New York City. It was not only a victory for women, but it was also the success of the activist in New York City.

-Z.L

We, as a society, have become greatly accustomed to the idea of anyone working  40 hours a week from 9AM-5PM, on Mondays through Fridays. We are so used to this concept that the struggles which were faced in order to reach this norm are regularly overlooked and forgotten. Just a little over one hundred years ago, the people of the labor force in New York, specifically in the garment industry, were working 56-58 hours per week while being compensated with a little over three dollars for their labor. At the time, New York City was the largest industrial city in the country and garment production was its largest manufacturing business. Due to this, thousands of people, mostly immigrants, were affected by the crazy hours and subpar pay that they were receiving and these issues are highlighted in Chapter 8 of Activist New York by Steven Jaffe as well as “Immigrant Women and Work” by Nancy Foner.

In order to understand how and why this situation was reached, it’s important to understand the people that were working and facing these circumstances and how they got to America. In a clearly organized and informative piece, Nancy Foner is able to describe the lives of immigrant, specifically Italian and Jewish, mothers and daughters in “Immigrant Women and Work”. At first the immigrants were mostly men and as they became more established and had enough money, they brought over working-aged kids followed by the mothers/wives and young children. Many Jewish girls worked in the garment factories (Foner 111). They mainly worked outside of the house to support their families to ensure for food and a roof over their heads. Almost all of the girls income went straight into covering house expenses, while boys were given some financial independence with how they spent their money. Additionally, it was normal for boys to receive higher educations that were funded by the salaries of their sisters.

In 1910 regulations were put into place to limit the amount of hours that people had to work, however most of the girls took on over time because they were afraid of getting fired if they didn’t work extra shifts. These extra hours also helped cover expenses for their homes. In addition to barely receiving wages, these girls were fined for any mistakes they made while on the job and they also had to pay for chairs and lockers. Along with unfair pay and long hours, the working conditions of the companies were dire and unsafe. Although life was bleak filled with working at factories as well as home, there were some benefits for working girls. They were able to socialize and make friends which enable them to express their thoughts in a new environment. They were exposed to many more ideas and different people compared to what was found in the four walls of their homes. Also the freedom to work outside of the house gave many girls the freedom and liberation to choose their spouses.

Compared to immigrant daughters, the lives of immigrant mothers were vastly different. Most didn’t work and stayed at home doing domestic work. For Jewish women, this was a distinct lifestyle compared to the lives that they lead back home as many eastern- European Jewish women were involved in business and acted as the breadwinner of the family. In the US, married women making money was seen as a result of financial trouble within the family, and not as a respectable choice. During the early years of immigration, women that wanted to work would do so from home by making things or help run their shops. As an additional source of income, Jewish families would house boarders so the women would cook and clean for them which could count as working. Immigrant, married, Italian women also faced a similar reality to the Jewish mothers. However, it was more common for an Italian women to go outside and work in a factory to help support the family because their husbands would generally earn less money than the Jewish men.  The reason behind the difference why it was less acceptable for a women to work in NY is because the housework here was more taxing and difficult. Back home, people would have their own parents to help and raise their kids however this was a big thing that was missing in American life. In addition, “housework was generally more demanding in America” (Foner 119). The use of sheets and fabric was a new concept and they needed to be washed and aired on a weekly basis.

Similar to their daughters, immigrant mothers would often socialize with friends. They would also hold the power to purchase what was needed for the house from the income of their children and husband. On the other hand, due to the the fact that they were mostly always at home, Jewish and Italian mothers rarely learned English or other American customs. Although they socialized with friends in the area, they felt a lack of community in America, compared to back home.

Most of the workforce in the garment industry consisted of the immigrant daughters. In order to try and combat the horrible working conditions, unions were formed that gave the group of workers (who had no authority) power in numbers; a practice that employers were against. Through the use of strikes, boycotting, as well as picketing, women across New York were able to demand change. One of the people who first insisted for a strike was Clara Lemlich, a garment worker who was forced to work unbelievable hours in dangerous condition with barely any pay along with 20,000 other people. These practices were not welcomed with open arms and in fact,  “Employers hired prostitutes and male criminals to provoke and rough up picketers” (Jaffe 126). Employers believed that they were the only ones who had the rights to determine the wages for their employees. Surprisingly, the employers themselves did not make much more money than the immigrants that they were hiring. Due to this, there was an increase in competition for profit for themselves which meant more pressure on the workers.

One of the most unexpected results of these acts of defiance were how women of all classes joined alongside the workers. This went to show how this wasn’t just a call for better working conditions, rather a call for better treatment of women in the workplace all together. The union members were tactful and were able to get much needed publicity from the press using techniques from the women’s suffrage movement. The first win from all of this occurred in Feb. 1910 where the workers, “won higher wages and shorter hours in 320 hops, most of which recognized the union” (Jaffe 127). In addition, over the next four years the unions grew from 30,000 to 250,000. These actions also inspired male dominated unions which lead to the “Protocol of Peace”, a compromise introduced by Louis Brandeis, a Boston lawyer. The goal of this collaborative effort was to bring justice and order to the garment industry. This was a bit idealistic as many of the owners went back on their words or never accepted the terms to begin with. This was also mirrored with the working women that had striked in 1909 since when the contracts had expired, the owners went back to their old ways.

One of the most life-changing events that occured during this time period was the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. On March 25, 1911 a fire started in the company’s workshop on the eighth floor of the building in Greenwich Village. There were mostly immigrant women working on the floor who were trapped. Under a half hour 146 people were dead. The irony was that these women had asked for more sanitary and safer conditions and due to them not being granted, these people had died. This became an example for the “progressive-labor coalition” and they were supported by the 1911 Tammany Hall. This event also propelled labor laws and regulations towards better safety, hours, and working conditions.

Both of these texts together were able to fully encompass what life was like as a working woman in the early 20th century. Foner was able to provide insight about the personal and home life of these immigrant women, especially focusing on how they integrated into American society. On the other hand, Jaffe highlighted more of the history and the way that the treatment of women in the workplace evolved over time. Together these pieces of literature are able to show how far we have come today as well as how the power in the voices of the people has remained constant throughout history. It also should make us feel more grateful for all the opportunities and rights that we now have-rights that people once had to fight until death for.

-Rida Rasheed

To grow up reading Dick and Jane books, believing their childhood is your reality, only realizing it’s your fantasy. To idolizing Shirley Temple as a young girl, only allowing your dreams of looking like her to die out. To aspire becoming President of the United States, only feeling unfit for the position. To be white, black, brown, yellow. Who knew colors could hold so much power?

Nancy Foner highlights the significance of race in America in her detailed, well-structured historical analysis – “The Sting of Prejudice.” Before attempting to understand how race affects various groups, one must define it. “Race is a changeable perception … a social and cultural construction, and what is important is how physical characteristics or traits are interpreted within particular social contexts and are used to define categories of people as inferior or superior” (Foner 142-143). In other words, race categorizes groups of people in a hierarchal structure based on physical appearance, but the way individuals conceptualize these groups is always subject to change. However, currently, it is clear that people of color do not aspire to be white, since it is biologically impossible. Rather, they push to present themselves in a light that is superior to being black.

Tracing back to the wave of eastern and southern European immigrants to America, Italians and Jews are considered to be below white. They are viewed as “polluting the country’s Anglo-Saxon or Nordic stock” with their appearance, character, and mental abilities. The influx of Italians results in Americans becoming less attractive and intelligent, while Jews burden American moral standards. Scientific racism influences these thoughts greatly as they condemn Jews for their “inborn love of money” and southern Italians for their “volatility, instability, and unreliability.” At that time, neither the press is shy to echo these stereotypes, nor politicians to sway voting. Ultimately, racial targeting of Europeans proves to be a useful weapon in reducing immigration, but now considered as inferior races, both Italians and Jews are being abused. They are verbally labeled as equivalent to blacks, restricted from certain housing units, given extremely low-wage labor, and discriminated against in the education system. Today, this is unimaginable as those of European descent are considered white. However, separation between whites and blacks is evident as ever in New York. Especially with the coming of the latest immigrants who fall in-between these two striking colors, race becomes more complex and controversial.

No questions asked, people of the slightest African descent are considered black, including those from the West Indies. After the Howard Beach murder in 1986 and Crown Heights riots in 1991, West Indians realize that regardless of the differences they see between themselves and black Americans, others will only see them as black. Unfortunately, even today, being black comes with a negative stigma and consequences in New York. Although many Americans give off an unprejudiced persona, racially motivated attacks still occur to keep segregation alive. Racial slurs are directed at West Indians assuming they are black, whites and West Indians are just as segregated residentially as whites and African Americans, and the marriage rate between whites and West Indians is just as low as the rate between whites and African Americans. Although in New York, being the color black is associated with poverty, in the United States as a whole, being black is not a barrier to social acceptance or upward mobility. In fact, since the end of World War II, West Indians have taken up professional, high-ranking positions. The sad part is that the motivation behind this wealth is that West Indians’ status will be more “whitened,” hoping to become superior to African Americans. While they do share similar political beliefs, West Indians emphasize their superiority over African Americans through their outstanding ethnic differences, classifying themselves as “harder workers, more ambitious, and greater achievers” (Foner 155). The fact that West Indians truly believe they are better than African Americans and make this known to whites in order to gain favorability not only furthers racism in New York City, but also brings the philosophy of human nature into question. The instinct desire to be viewed as above another is evident in this case. Actions are put into play to achieve the desired social standing, even if it means bringing another group down.

It is simple to distinguish between whites and blacks, but it is not so clear cut with the Latin American population. Many confuse Dominicans with blacks, Argentines with European whites, and Mexicans with American Indians, so the term Hispanic was created in order to conveniently label this group of people. However, this term is no longer ethnicity based, rather it is becoming racialized. Now, Hispanic refers to someone who is “too dark to be white, to light to be black, and who has no easily identifiable Asian traits” (Foner 156). Adding to this racialization is the federal government, which is treating this group similarly to blacks in terms of antidiscrimination and affirmative-action policies. With this comes stereotypes that Hispanics are people who do not want to abide by U.S. laws, culture, and hygiene norms. Many groups that fall within the Hispanic race attempt to escape this label due to the misconception of being Puerto Rican, the largest Hispanic group usually associated with high poverty, crime, and drug rates. Immigrants from the Caribbean and Latin America push to highlight their differences from blacks and Puerto Ricans, while Brazilian immigrants object to the Hispanic label as a whole. Their white skin, middle class rank, and well-educated backgrounds give them reason to find it insulting to be confused with the rest of the Latin population. Like the West Indians, Brazilians make an effort to gain approval from whites by emphasizing their positive differences from the others, but nevertheless are unable to escape the stigma associated with the Hispanic label. However, white Hispanics do have more advantages over darker Hispanics in terms of landing more opportunities in the labor market, being accepted in predominately white neighborhoods, and intermarrying with whites. The identity crisis for the rest of Hispanic immigrants who fall in the middle of the white and black spectrum result in many to choose to define as “other.” As a whole, they have been able to avoid inferiority associated with blacks. Unlike West Indians who struggle with race barriers regardless of their class standing, class comes into play more than race for Hispanics. White or light-skinned Hispanics are able to move easily in this white social world due to their strong educational background and occupational status, but those of the lower-class continue to struggle. Whites view their poor, dusty struggling lives as corrupting the quality of suburban life.

Finally, Asians in America hold a different standing in race than the previous groups. Once excluded from the United States in terms of race, ethnicity, immigration, and citizenship, the “yellow race” eventually gained their rights in 1943. Over time, Asians have become the “model minority,” meaning the group other minorities should aspire to be like. Their stereotype renders them as “almost whites but not whites” — the most “Anglo-Saxon” of immigrants. Differing from blacks and Hispanics, Asians are least segregated from whites residentially and there is a high rate of intermarriage between them and whites. In addition, more white families have been adopting Asian children. Like all the other groups spoken of, Asian immigrants view themselves as superior to blacks and Hispanics and do not want to be lumped with them at the bottom of the hierarchy. What stands out about Asian immigrants is the way they consider themselves to be white before anyone can label them anything else, and the way they carry themselves attributes to this. Asians usually immigrate with degrees, ready to compete for middle-class positions, and their children are intellectually advanced, making up most of the population at top-rank schools. Before, Asian countries were considered “backwards regions,” but with Japan rising as an economic power and China becoming a large political power, their achievements cannot go unnoticed. Despite jealousy and resentment from Americans, Asian countries have deemed themselves too worthy of inferiority. However, Asian Americans are still prejudiced and discriminated against. Many refer to all Asian nationalities as “Chinese” and some groups are met with resistance when moving into all white neighborhoods. African Americans attack and destroy their shops, but as Foner states, “this hostility has a familiar ring, much like that experienced by Jewish shopkeepers and landlords in black neighborhoods in the not too distance past” (164). Just as the Jews are considered white now, she is foreshadowing Asians taking on the “white” label as well.

Living conditions for these immigrants are not great, so individuals take it upon themselves to bring this matter into light. Most notably, Jacob A. Riis, a man of immense tactic, does so in an upcoming art form of the time — photography. An immigrant himself, coming to America in 1870 from Denmark when he was twenty-one, Riis knows his strong German accent causes him to not fully be accepted in the eyes of a middle-class audience. He understands the push to prove his assimilation to American society, so it makes sense why he expects no less from the immigrants he photographs clustered in tenement homes. Although he conforms to racial stereotypes and intrudes on people’s privacy, Riis leaves an outstanding influence in the tenement-reform movement. His goal is to push his audience to act, and that’s exactly what he does. Mostly, his work consists of photographs depicting immigrants’ overcrowded lifestyles in tenement homes. Not only is his focus on the residents, but also the overall setting, including the poor conditions of the building and the landlord profiting from it. Riss is not really sure who to blame for these poor conditions, but what is certain is that he wants true change in the form of actively cleaning up the neighborhood. Regardless of his mixed views towards these immigrants, it is evident he believes in a racial hierarchal structure as well. His long lectures hit his “privileged” audience emotionally, persuading them that that becoming active will not alter their class status, rather that it is their duty to work against poverty. Riis even befriends former president, Teddy Roosevelt, taking him on a tour of the slums, ultimately successfully persuading him to close down police lodgers for more and better housing units. Overall, as Lampert writes, “His writings and photographs served as a warning: reform the rename to neighborhoods, or the anger from the residents of these neighborhoods will be directed at the audience” (69).

As perceptions in race change, so does public discourse about it. Back then, individuals did not hesitate to express racist views. However, with the civil rights revolution came laws and court decisions against discrimination, setting up a new understanding of what is acceptable to say about race in public. Contrasting to politicians speaking their outright views on racism years ago, political figures today should expect to receive backlash if racist. Conservatives are particularly against this, claiming that this new climate makes it impossible to express reality, and some, like Peter Brimelow, will go on to state that Americans will not acknowledge or speak up about the negatives of immigration due to fear of sounding racist. This statement in itself is risky in today’s newly public tolerant atmosphere, so Brimelow is feeling quite courageous after putting this out there. Low and behold, history repeats itself, and this is evidently seen through the reign of current President Trump, who would assumedly agree with Brimelow’s point of view. While these two figures are urged to “tell it how it is,” others will attack racial groups more subtly through “code words” or scientific context to gain more respect. Through police brutality and not supporting government programs assisting minorities, racism continues to persist as people attempt to get around the system, as seen so many times in the past, especially during the Reconstruction era. Progress is evident since those times, but there is a long road ahead to becoming a nation free of racial stigma.

-FN

         The idea of New York City being a place for revolutionary activism started from the late 1800’s. The Ten Years’ War was a collaboration between New York Latinos and Latin America for Cuban Independence. Although the Cubans lost the war, this contributed to a new wave of Cuban and Puerto Rican refugees fleeing to New York City. The many failed attempts at achieving freedom inspired this new wave of activists to continue the struggle to gain independence for Cuba.

         Even though immigrants migrate from their home country, they still feel patriotic towards their homeland. This loyalty caused Jose Marti to make a difference for his home country. Marti, as many other immigrants, migrated from Cuba to New York City in order to find a safe haven to organize his future revolution. He was known as a teacher and diplomat throughout Latin America, but in New York he took on a new role. Marti became a political activist and collaborated with many other migrants in order to free Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spanish autocracy. He united many Cuban and Puerto Rican exiles across the United States order to create revolutionary organizations to raise awareness of his plans to free Cuba. However, Marti characterized New York as a “double edged sword” (Jaffe 110). The city was a safe harbor that allowed for individual freedom but it also was becoming a prominent city that limited the freedom of people around the world. For instance, Cubans were enslaved in order to produce sugar that would be shipped into the Brooklyn dock (Jaffe 112). New York was prospering from the enslavement of Cubans, which intensified Marti’s feelings of New York being a threat for Cuba’s freedom. While Marti was working in New York City, he also noticed another group of people being discriminated against.

         Marti recognized the reality for African Americans living in New York. He asserts, “blacks are considered little more than beasts” (Jaffe 115). African Americans lived in segregated societies and were dehumanized with no individual rights as others in society. Marti realized that in the interest of obtaining Cuban independence, he must join forces with the African Americans and break down the barrier of racial segregation. For example, Jaffe states, “…It was a way to mobilize Afro-Cubans and Afro-Puerto Ricans in the city, in Florida, and in the islands to support the cause of liberation” (115). Marti created a strategic plan that would integrate the African Americans as well as unite them towards the Cubans in the revolutionary cause. He educated the working class Afro- Cubans and Afro-Puerto Ricans about the situations that were taking place in Cuba, and the urgent need for independence. As a result of Marti’s advocating against racism and educating classes, people of all races joined together in raising funds for the revolutionary cause. 

         After many years of planning for the revolution, Marti finally upheld his promise to start the revolt for Cuban independence. Although Marti died while fighting for his cause, he left behind a prominent legacy among Latino New Yorkers. Contrary to his desires, the United States acquired the economic empires of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain. The United States seized Cuba, but they were able to gain independence in 1902. His reputation in American history earned him a statue in Central Park because of his courageous actions to bring advancements for Cuban society.

         We have discussed New York as being a safe haven for individuals from around the world. Everyone brought their own unique culture with them and were still loyal to their own country even though they settled into a new territory. Many perceived America as a foe towards their own country. Marti observed the ties that the United States had with Latin America as only terms in order for Americans to benefit. This opposition towards the safe haven posed a controversy for many immigrants who had strong patriotic ties. Immigrants with strong ties to Cuba fought for their countries independence in spite of the difficulties posed by the U.S.  

-A.B

The article by The New Yorker discusses the role of pop culture as a form of mass resistance or as a catalyst for social change. Political art remains in the spotlight when it comes to identifying the main form of pop culture that acts as an instrument for economic and political control. Alex Ross quotes Walter Benjamin, ‘“There is no document of culture which is not at the same time a document of barbarism”’ (newyorker.com), which relates to the visual activism utilized in the abolitionist movement. One visual aid that sticks out is that of a drawing of an African American hanging by his/her leg, being harassed by two white males. This image documents the culture of what slavery was like, releasing its barbarism into the media, which at that time would have had a much greater impact on the population as these images weren’t as widespread or as easily accessible. Illustrations help bring unseen issues inside a community to the surface, challenging the already questionable societal norms, such as slavery. “…Mass culture advances radical politics,” states Ross, “One great contribution that they made to the art of criticism was the idea that any object, no matter how seemingly trivial, was worth a searching glance” (newyorker.com). Seemingly trifling symbolism holds great power in steering political and social reform. Luca discusses the importance of political competence where a citizen utilizes his/her role in society to “advance her interests successfully as a member of various social groups” (18). Being able to decipher symbols in political art verifies this “political competence”.

Luca in, “Questions on Citizenship”, depicts what makes up a good citizen, which includes being involved in the country’s affairs, respecting the laws, and educating the children. In relation to political art, being able to decipher the underlying tone serves as that education. Art is a “safe” yet powerful form of activism, abiding by the laws, and it often deals with the current pressing issues of the nation. “Citizenship implies a ‘sense of community’” (19), as Luca mentions, and a tension arises when there is a need to critique that community; citizenship allows all people, even the “socially disempowered,” as Luca states, to gain competence, to defend their interests, and thus, to criticize their community. Political discussion or expression between citizens acts as a form of confrontation and communication, as we see is the case with political art. Moreover, in democratic life, symbols are vital as they connect distinct groups of people and provide a common ground. Luca describes symbols as being for a collective identification; for instance, the abolitionist art, due to its heavy focus on symbolism (from visuals to captions), the art pertained to a large and varying audience.

In general, Luca states that collective identification becomes challenging with immigrants as their political identities remain with their original nationality, religion, or language. However, as communication expands, separate communities embrace the same pressing social problems, which places the communication at risk of getting lost in the “nonsense”, as Luca describes it; “The critique of the media…produced a succession of complacent exhibitions of criticism” (28). Essentially, critique becomes part of what communication stands for. Similar to the delusions that communication can fall victim to, political art is also susceptible to being twisted. Jackson opens “Making it Otherwise” by saying, “…artists are afflicted by a more than ordinary inability to accept things as they are” (167). This reminded me of Paul Revere’s engraving of the Boston Massacre where, for the purpose of communication, Crispus Attucks, an escaped slave, was depicted as a white male and not African American. Jackson discusses art in a more spiritual and sacred manner, illustrating how art can be an extension of one’s body or soul if one ceases to materialize the artwork and look deeper into it, not just at its surface. Any art, not only political, is known to evoke this deeper sense as it serves as a stimulus for reform, evoking strong emotions, and resonating with the viewer–it reveals the unseen aspects of the world.

V.B.

“Disappointed in the shortcomings of the external world, one may draw solace from the world within, and what one creates for oneself by other worldly means – including the work of art.” (Jackson 167)

Jackson presents his essay regarding the relationship between art and its creators in a unique way. From showing an artist as a refugee seeking his sanctuary through art, to being a person on the brink of madness looking for his asylum, the strong relationship between the two is evident. In this case, the art resembles a ritual, constantly performed in a prescribed manner.

Upon hearing the term ritual, one may immediately think of a religious activity constantly practiced by fellow followers. To some extent however, artists do see their pieces of work as a religious practice. As described in the article, “art and ritual share one compelling element: They avail themselves of the mundane images and activities in order to transform the way the world appears to us.” (Jackson 168) As the text continues, the Japanese tea ceremony of chanoyu is discussed. Traditionally, when we think of tea, it involves the preparation, pouring and drinking of it. However, if we consider the context of most rituals, special attention must be placed to bodily movement, posture, and the senses.  If we begin to realize the beauty associated with each step, we get to learn more about the object than what we originally perceived. Overall, according to Jackson, if we begin to perceive the world in more than what is merely presented to us, than we can find not only greater value in the things around us, but also ourselves.

The theme of art once again comes up in The New Yorker. Here, we see the emergence of pop culture as art and its influence through the eyes of Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin. Both men lived during the time fascism was beginning to decline. Adorno had a good life growing up, where he wanted to be a composer. Benjamin, on the other hand, had lost his idea of reality. With his family suffering too, he began having bohemian tendencies consisting of gambling, prostitutes, and drinking/drugs. While both men met in Frankfurt and became good friends, they proved to challenge each other in a positive manner. Each individual’s success in work made the other be motivated to create something new. Over time, both Adorno and Benjamin’s work  opened up a new regime of thinker. Benjamin was especially praised for his works on concepts such as “aura” which considered the here and now of the artwork in its unique existence in a particular place.

During their time, both men began seeing the early signs of the cultic aspect, almost ritual-like, nature of pop culture. Adorno was too irritated by the idea of emerging celebrities and even compared jitterbugging to “St. Vitus’ dance or the reflexes of mutilated animals.” Benjamin praised mass culture but also stated that it advanced radical politics. Many of his followers think that the means of pop culture has given voice to oppressed people.

It is ironic to see the comparison between the two articles of Jackson and the New Yorker. Both touch upon the idea of art serving as a ritual to some individuals. In Jackson’s article, art is shown in a ritualistic manner, where every action must be presented with careful thought and meaning. In the New Yorker article, we see how pop culture, another key movement to come out of art, produced criticism over the course of its evolution. In the case of Adorno and Benjamin, both had their initial hesitations regarding the widespread coverage it began receiving. As mentioned, both sides of the argument probably agree that the cultural evolution of late capitalism ushered in catastrophe and progress at the same time.

It is clear to say indeed that you either love the art or fear what it may become.

-SK

The anarchist and, later, socialist movements that swept America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries lay the foundations for many of the ideologies and activist movements that follow into the present. In my opinion, it is one of the most significant movements to impact the world, introducing ideas and concepts ahead of its time. These movements are also one of the first times the artistic expression is actively used as a form of rebellion against an elite, bourgeois class.

“Pyramid of Capitalist System” 1911 by The International Publishing Company, Cleveland, Ohio

During this era of American history, the working class comes to recognize and sympathize each other’s plights as beginnings of communist ideology spread around the world. In New York City, the increasingly educated working class (due to prior activism resulting in compulsory public education) begin to realize that rather than competing for meager incomes from unskilled factor labor amongst various religious and ethnic groups like before, they need to fight the systemic injustice of capitalism. This realization comes from the recognition of the increasing wage gap through the housing. While the laborers had to deal with stuffy, unsanitary tenements in the corners, their employers can be found on, as Emma Goldman put it, “Fifth Avenue… laid in gold, every mansion a citadel of money and power” (Jaffe 96). This difference in standard of living of people who worked in the same building seemed unjust to the laborers who worked long hours with little pay.

When you consider the contemporary meaning of anarchy, often something similar to The Walking Dead or The Purge is what is connoted. But on the contrary, the “anarchy” that was preached during this time period was far from the contemporary meaning. In fact, what that anarchy called for then is eerily similar to many movements, including the feminist and LGBT, today. The anarchist movement focused on the achievement of one thing: freedom. Freedom in every sense: political, economic, cultural, sexual etc. While the most common one discussed is economic freedom through a communist revolution, activist Enna Goldman used anarchist ideologies to pioneer some of the first feminist arguments. One of the things Goldman argued was essential for the freedom of working-class women was contraceptives. She argued that they allowed them “to limit the number of children, control family expenses, and lead better lives” all of which are used in feminist arguments today (Jaffe 102). She makes logical claims to prove how the lack of contraceptives limit the freedom of women at a time when even speaking of contraceptives as an idea was taboo. While now it may seem obvious that the option for contraceptives should be a right, at the time it was an “anarchist” idea.

The socialist movement in America becomes an even bigger deal than other movements as it was one of the first to directly commission and use art as rebellion. This started out as a publicity stunt coordinated by heads of the IWW during the Paterson Strike to increase the visibility and positive publicity of their movement. The idea was to hold a pageant to boost the morale and raise relief funds of the tiring strikers. So, an artist by the name John Reed to help them depict the struggle they are fighting through performance. This blurred the line to be indistinguishable between art and protest. This is evident in the testimonies of those present were unable to distinguish protest from the performance. Art played a far more interesting role in forming socialist ideologies in newspapers like The Masses. As a magazine with the creed go “against rigidity and dogma wherever it is found; printing what is too naked or true for a money-making press,” it lived up to its name (Lampert 101). This ideology is part of the reason it became so popular. The Masses was a rough, gritty blend of editorials, essays, poems, and pictures to propagate socialist ideals. They criticized everything from the capitalist system to major employee abuse scandals to the United States government, not losing any of the vigor or wit even in its final days. What made it the most unique magazine is how far it pushed the limits in not only radical ideologies but in art forms too. Despite being so popular and criticizing the government during the Espionage Act of 1917 and making corporate bigwigs angry, the members of the magazine got away relatively unscathed. They were put on trial twice, both times resulting in no verdict. This privileged position was due to the fact they were white, male, and American-born, as one juror put it (Lampert 108).

While even now socialism has some negative connotations to it due to not just one, but two Red Scares the implications of the ideology go far ahead to redefine what natural rights we are entitled to. This is a train of thought can lead to major amendments to the constitution and help us develop what freedoms we should be given. While during the movement there was much opposition to what we should have and now some of it seems to be a given, it is important to remember that what is required by a people changes with time. The freedoms and rights we need are dynamic and will never be set, and because of this activism and opposition will be ever-present in our society. It is up to us to evaluate through discussion and example the validity and necessity of our freedoms and rights.

-PR

By the 19th century, the immigration influx had given rise to New York City’s incredible platform as a mecca for opportunity, diversity and prosperity. The numerous waves of immigrants proved the glimmer and hope New York City represented in the eyes of the many trodden and helpless. As Frederick Douglass recounted, “I was walking amid the hurrying throng and gazing upon the dazzling wonders of Broadway. The dreams of any childhood and the purposes of my manhood were now fulfilled” (Jaffe 74). Simple walking among the streets of New York City was a spectacle many wished to give their lives for and the supposed “opportunities” justified every morsel of the particular aspiration. However, hidden behind the glamor and hurrying throngs of people lied the dark truth. It distorted the reality of extreme poverty, disease-ridden tenements and most of all, it marred the existence of racism and proslavery attitude.

Although slaves in New York were freed as of 1827, the proslavery sentiment resided in the minds of many people. It can be accepted without argument that many immigrants faced extreme hardships on their way to assimilating within the American society. While the Irish and the Germans clamored over each other, they banded together over the idea of slavery. Fearing that the African Americans might steal their jobs, many white New Yorkers, especially the Irish, help hostile intentions towards the African Americans. Many African Americans were barred from restaurants, steamboats and hotels owned by white New Yorkers. The social inequality extended towards the political environment as well. As Jaffe states, “New York State’s 1821 Constitution required black men to own at least $250 in property in order to vote, and very few black New Yorkers had enough money to qualify” (75). This supposed requirement served as a systemic restriction upon the African Americans in order to impede their freedom and social mobility. While many white New Yorkers held pro slavery views, some believed themselves to be advocates of anti slavery. However, their solution to ending slavery meant to root African Americans from their homes and to deport them to Africa. The systemic racism pierced the lives of every person of color. The toxicity had rooted itself so deep that many officials had started to fund “kidnapping clubs”. This depraved society served to capture free or runaway slaves in order to sell them back into slavery, in the deep south. According to Jaffe, William Wells Brown, a black abolitionist called New York “the pro-slavery, negro-hating city…” (77).

In order to combat slavery and diminish the grip of racism and pro slavery sentiment across New York, many abolitionists took charge. According to “Practical Abolitionists: David Ruggles and the New York Committee of Vigilance,” David Ruggles “was a key member in a circle of activists based in the city’s black church congregations and in black self-help organizations…” (77). Ruggles was on the main abolitionists who set the basis for future anti-slavery movements. He gave rise to the Committee of Vigilance which became the name for manhattan’s black and white anti-slavery activists. One of the biggest feast of the committee had been the thwarting of “slave-catchers”. With the help of many black and white abolitionists, Ruggles managed to hire lawyers and guards who successfully rescued around 522 individuals from the ever-present shackles of slavery. Despite Ruggles’ constant efforts to free slaves, New York’s Democrats stood rigid in their anti-slavery views as they voted against Lincoln and his views of abolishing slavery. Tensions between blacks and whites rose to the brink as the Civil War came about. While the government allowed men to pay a fee of $300 for draft exemption, many poor immigrants took to the streets, enraged at the hand of their poverty and in turn blamed the blacks for their predicament. This gave rise to the Draft Riots of 1863 when many “white working white men and women, many of them Irish immigrants, rampaged through Manhattan’s streets, fighting with police, attacking abolitionists and Republicans, and lynching African Americans” (Jaffe, 86). The aftermath of such a violent crisis dwindled the population of African Americans in Manhattan. However, abolitionists were not deterred by this show of violence as many societies rose up across many states in order to assist African Americans in achieving their freedom.

One of the major forces behind the rise of anti-slavery sentiment was the assistance of many white abolitionists. As Nicolas Lampert writes, “American abolitionists also had their allies, especially in the British movement” (23). With the formation of Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade (SEAST) in the UK, the anti-slavery propaganda began to spread awareness of the horrendous atrocities committed against the African Americans. Most notably, an image of the slave ship spread like wildfire across UK which resulted in The Slave Trade Act of 1807, banning of African slaves in the British colonies, and their transport to the United States. The anti-slavery sentiment eventually spread across the Atlantic, giving rise to the first iterations of political art. For example, in 1835, several abolitionist groups launched the “great postal campaign,”a mailing service which spread antislavery papers and pamphlets to every town in the country. This became one of the numerous ways in which abolitionists such as Ruggles were able to work towards the end of slavery.

Even to this day, our society is marred by anti-immigrant and racist ideologies. We as Americans boast of the numerous hurdles the country has overcome along with mind-boggling technological advancements, yet we refuse to rid ourselves of the racist sentiments. We continue to harp upon the protection of our country from outsiders, yet we fail to protect those who rise within its unjust and biased confines. We may have accomplished great things as a country however, it means nothing if we still view a citizen of darker complexion with contempt and hostility.