Abhayvir Singh
Reflection 3 of 5
“’Lost’ In The City, Spaces and Stories of South Asian New York, 1917-1965”
By Vivek Bald
Vivek Bald presents a unique narrative of the South Asian immigrant. In order to do this, he chooses an era, 1917-1965, that is not acknowledged in the larger picture of the South Asian immigrant experience. He starts with 1917 because that’s the earliest he discovered any legal, written record in regards to South Asians. This is the year of the Supreme court case the United States vs. Bhagat Singh Thind, which denied Bhagat Singh Thind citizenship because, although he classified as of Indo-Aryan origin, he was not white enough for US citizenship. He eventually did receive citizenship later on. 1965 is the year the Hart Cellar Immigration Act was passed. This law ended the quota system which allowed immigrants entry based on national origin. Instead, the focus shifted to family reunification, which is the origin of what we today refer to as ‘chain migration,’ and immigrants’ skills. Vivek Bald thus defies the conventional narrative, which assumes the origin of South Asian immigration as post-1965, and takes us back to an era where welcome or not, South Asians persisted under the radar and laid the foundations of a dynamic and heterogeneous South Asian diaspora. This is the story that is now ‘Lost’ In The City.
I found most interesting how Vivek Bald presents this erasure of the 1917-1965 story as an act of deliberateness. Referring to this in the introduction, Bald says, “The immediate post-1965 generation of immigrant professionals and their now grown-children are often both the authors and protagonists of the story of South Asians in New York.” My first reaction to this was, who are the immigrant professionals that he is referring to? As I continued the reading, I found many of his observations to be valid. As an Indian-American, I found myself agreeing with him. For example, he talks about the exclusion of the many South Asians by the larger Bollywood-inspired narrative. This fabricated narrative indeed tends to focus on mostly Indian Hindus, who comprise the majority of the Indian population. Groups such as the Punjabi Sikhs, the Bengali Muslims and the Kerala Christians are left to be painted under the same story. Another misconception that Bald tackles is one of neighborhoods and enclaves. The South Asian diaspora of 1917-1965 was one that instead of assimilating into ‘white’ neighborhoods, assimilated into African-American and/or Latino neighborhoods. Bald cites Bengalis living in Harlem and how they found home in their community. Although South Asian diaspora enclaves do exist, as demonstrated by Kirk Semple’s New York Times piece, “Take the A train to Little Guyana,” those early immigrants found home among people from all over the world.
Vivek Bald seems to signal towards a larger concept that can transcend the South Asian immigrant experience to other immigrants’ experiences. The concept of a majority group of a country and/or region, homogenizing the minorities of that same country and/or region. He also challenges our perceptions of what we as readers of history choose to accept as the norm. Why is it that we choose to think that the immigrants pre-1965 are negligible in regards to the history of South Asian diaspora? If anything, they are equally as significant and rich in their history. Bhagat Singh Thind fought for the right of Indians to obtain citizenship. Indian revolutionaries, radicals, and exiles found haven here, along with sailors deserting British forces. It’s fascinating that this picture is not acknowledged among South Asians and it takes for Vivek Bald’s research for it to be resurfaced. Perhaps it is research and inquiry that resurfaces these stories. The European immigrant experience is one that is heavily documented and researched. Thus, we now have a multi-cultural and heterogeneous picture of the European immigrant experience. For example, Jane Zeigelman’s 97 Orchard Street as well as Tyler Anbinder’s City of Dreams both portray an unbiased viewpoint, which is what Vivek Bald accomplishes for the South Asians.
Questions:
-Vivek Bald presents the South Asian immigrant experience from 1917-1965, a period of immigration long overlooked. He terms this erasure as being ‘lost’ in the narrative. What is your opinion on narratives being ‘lost?’
-Have any of your own immigrant experiences been overlooked?
-What can be done to prevent a homogenous picture from forming?
