Joseph Dwan

5/7/18

Reflection 5/5: The Man in the Sharkskin Suit by Lucette Lagnado

 

“The Man in the White Sharkskin suit” by Lucette Lagnado tells of a daughter’s observations of her father’s struggles in a new country to make a living and provide for his family. Lagnado’s family fled in the aftermath of the Suez Canal crisis. Her father loved the city and had a comfortable life, both him and his family, but the antisemitism pushed him away. This occurrence of fleeing from conflict has become quite common in the past couple of decades. The comfort and the success her father had in Cairo had to be abandoned as he fled to make sure his family would be safe. Places like New York are safe havens for families like these as there are already pre existing social enclaves they can take refuge and integrate. The immigrants can have access to an area that share their same interests, the same music and the same tastes they can feel at home in.The Lagnado family struggled in the new conditions in America. Their life of luxury behind them, her father had to go so far to make ends meet by even selling ties out of a suitcase on the subway. Through the struggles the family took comfort in their own cultural section of the city. They felt comfortable around the familiarity of the music food and culture, Legando’s father spent a lot of time in the synagogue finding solace in his religion and taking advantage of the religious freedom of America. This story is one of many similar ones, but one overarching theme is hope. The hope that there is a better tomorrow, and in America, the one thing that is certain is that they have a shot at that better tomorrow.

 

Questions

1. How strenuous must the circumstances be for someone to have so much flee to someplace where they have nothing? Have your family ever experienced something similar?
2. Why do so many people choose to move to a place like America leaving everything for a small chance to achieve the American Dream?

Sam Gosda

Response 4 of 5: The Man in the Sharkskin Suit by Lucette Lagnado

The Man in the Sharkskin Suit by Lucette Lagnado is a story of her family starting from the moment her parents met. The tale is mainly focused on her father and his experience of going from a thriving bachelor in Cairo to a patriarch of a refugee family in New York City. The family had a number of struggles in Cairo, as the story begins in the middle of World War II, but the event that was the hardest on Lagnado’s father was their emigration into the United States. Once a womanizing businessman living a lavish life, Leon Lagnado had a difficult time coping with being an impoverished, infirm father in New York. It was refreshing to learn about these events in history from the very personal standpoint of a family. As you read you don’t notice that you are learning historical facts intermittently with personal ones about the Lagnado life. Continue reading “Riches to Rags”

Danielle Itshaik

Response 4 of 5

Lagnado, Lucette. The Man in the Sharkskin Suit: A Jewish Family’s Exodus from Old Cairo to the New World (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007).

In her memoir “The Man in the Sharkskin Suit: A Jewish Family’s Exodus from Old Cairo to the New World” Lucette Lagnado describes her family’s experience immigrating from Cairo, Egypt to New York. Lagnado writes about being forced leaving Egypt in 1963 and from there moving to Paris temporarily before moving to the United States. This immigration to the United States was a big change from her family’s life in Egypt. Immigration to a new place is an already difficult adjustment, but do not feel at home and yearn to go back makes it even more difficult.

Continue reading “Home is Where the Heart is”

Stefan Nikolic

5 out of 5

“The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit” by Lucette Lagnado details the journey her father went through coming to America. The story she tells is one that many immigrants had to go through. Immigrants leave their countries for a variety of reasons, but fleeing political turmoil and conflict has become more and more common in recent years. In this story Lucettes father, Leon was in love with his city. If not for the Suez Canal crisis, he would have lived out the rest of his life there, but growing antisemitism pushed him out of his beloved home. Leon had to leave his success and his wealth behind in order for his family to be safe. The things Leon and his family had to experience during their exile is something that almost all immigrant families can relate to.

After being forced out of their homes they had to give up their comfort, wealth, and even their way of life. Upon finally arriving in America the Lagnado family had to struggle to survive and make ends meet. Leon even had to start selling ties out of a suitcase on the subway, yet they still found themselves, “dependent on charity for himself and his family to survive.” Many immigrants share this struggle, and find it extremely difficult to find a job in a new country where they don’t speak the language. On top of this Leon, like many immigrants, desperately missed his home city. He missed everything about it, from the sights to the smells. Upon moving to New York City he was able to find a sort of comfort in his religious community, becoming very devout and spending most of his day in the synagogue. This is very relatable to our class material because it gives insight on how enclaves begin to form. People from different countries find a second home amongst each other where they all speak the same language and can help each other out.

Questions:

1. Why would families have to give up their wealth upon moving to a new country?
2. If they already enjoy wealth in their native country, why risk it all to move?

Response 4 of 5

In “Man in the Sharkskin Suit: a Jewish Family’s Exodus from Old Cairo to the New World,” the story of the Egyptian Lagnado family is told by Lucette Lagnado, the daughter in the family and a reporter for the Wall Street Journal. She details the vivid nightlife and borderline luxuries life of her husband; she mentions the bustling cafes and night clubs in the city. He “assembled a wardrobe made by Cairo’s finest tailors in every possible fabric.” This life was very enjoyable and the tone of the book’s initial chapters make it seem like despite certain hardships and having to work, everyone enjoyed their successful life. The daughter, Lucette Lagnado, feels like her room is a part of her as well, especially of the views of street life in her window, which she grew to love.

After the war grew in size, life in Cairo became impossible to stay in and the family was forced to move to Alexandria, then Paris, and finally the United States. During their times as refugees, they struggled greatly to adjust to a life of poverty, which greatly differed from their original life. In New York City, their life was similar, one of struggle and grit. Her father resulted to selling ties on the street. He yearned for Cairo and his home country—including every aspect of it—the smells, food, people, views, etc.

This story of immigration from a country where conditions are unsafe or very undesirable is at the core of a very large percentage of US immigrants. Even though many aren’t running away from war, for example, they often are trying to escape political exile and harsh living conditions. Most times, these families immigrate to coastal cities, like New York, especially if they have knowledge of pre-existing enclaves in a city. The ill feelings the father feels as he desperately wishes for his home can be partially subdued through living in an Egyptian community. The yearning for home and comfort is often the reason for formation of enclaves and “little X” communities. In a community of such, the family would be surrounded by people similar to them, who are also going through similar problems. They would have access to restaurants that cook traditional food and play traditional music. While nothing would be able to compare to home, this is an effective way of reminiscing and finding comfort.

Like many people, the family came to the US to escape their country’s problems. They lost everything and the city provided them with a chance at the ever elusive American Dream.

1) How is the situation of having a lot, losing it, and then attempting to get it back different from the more common “nothing to something” situation?

 

2)Why did they choose to move across the world and not simply to a neighboring country?

 

3) Would their situation be different if they chose to move to a different city? Yonkers, NY?

Response 3 of 5

In George Chauncey’s piece, “Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World,” he focuses on the largely forgotten, or even purposefully hidden, lives, communities, and lifestyles of the growing and thriving gay community in early 20th century New York. Chauncey describes the gay history of New York and its many gay enclaves as “not supposed to have existed,” based on the intentional burial of truths by many influential historians. Chauncey illustrates the gay scene and their communities by addressing common beliefs and misconceptions about gays, especially those from ignorant historians and the pre-WWII era.

First, Chauncey addresses the myth of isolation, which claims that gays were not able to develop their subculture due to constant fear from the aggressive masses. Chauncy disproves this by exemplifying many bustling communities, such as Greenwich, Times Square, and Harlem, including their speakeasies, clubs, street corners, etc. He also makes mention of the flourishing of gay authors and artists from these neighborhoods, each having its own subset of unique cultural identity.

Next, he discusses the myth of invisibility, that even if these communities were to exist, they were so secretive and “underground” that they were invisible to other gay men. This claim holds very little truth, due to the style, hair color choices, key spot selection, and even mannerisms and code, all of which were giveaways for gay men to easily identify each other.

Lastly, the myth of internalization, where gays would not resist against mistreatment due to the internalized feelings of self-hatred instilled into them by the masses. This myth, in my opinion, holds a partial truth. There were, and still are, many gay people who truly believe on the inside that they are lesser than the average straight person. They often fear shaming from their loved ones, thus preventing them from not only protesting for their rights, but even coming out. On the contrary, thousands upon thousands of gay people are now protesting, and to a lesser extent, back then as well. People started groups and coalitions to fight their oppression. This is the type of unity and sense of security that gave birth to gay enclaves, and most enclaves in general.

The City of New York has immense diversity, with substantial populations from several dozens of countries from around the world. These feelings of mistrust and fear that the gay community felt, stems at the root, from being different from the norm, which at the time was white American, born and raised. Every immigrant group, for at least the first few decades upon arrival, was treated poorly and not given equal rights. This was one of the reasons why ethnic enclaves exist, like Greenpoint for Polish people, Astoria for Greeks, Flushing for chinese, etc. People yearned for a sense of security and familiarity, both of which could be found within people of their same kind. All of these truths are maintained for the reason behind the gay enclave formation.

 

1) New York City is considered one of the country’s most progressive. How would an overwhelming amount of gays incoming to a conservative city look like? Would they still be able to from their own style of life and unique forms of communication?

 

2) How is connecting with others through your sexual identity different than connection through race or country of origin? Is it different?

 

3) Do these myths for gay men still hold true today? Does the addition of gay women change any norms or peoples views on homosexuality?

 

4) How has social media and television changed the way people view and treat gay people?

Joseph Dwan

Response 4 of 5

George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World.

 

Chauncy’s Book, Gay New York, strives to reveal a hidden layer, a hidden group in a time when it was the agreed upon sentiment at the time, homosexuality was not something to be proud of.

Gay men were on the defensive and for the majority of the 1890s to 1940s, they were pretty much off the radar. Anti- gay laws allowed prosecutors to oppress the the gay community as freely as they wished. The oppression was so severe that the gay community even developed their own systems of code to identify each other and keep the general public in the dark. Many myths eventually arouse of this underground community. One of which was that because this gay community was so secretive, isolated gay men couldn’t join because they simply couldn’t find the underground movement. This was proven untrue as gay men loudly proclaimed their uniqueness with bright red ties and bleaching their hair. The city was an easy place for the gay community to hide, the massive amounts of people meant they could blend in and change society’s view of the gay community from the inside. This eventually lead to New York city to be one of the central hubs of the gay community. This isolation of the gay community today is less severe than in the past, however the gay community will always have an opponent to fight against. New York city stands by the community with its annual Gay Pride parade. The community no longer have to hide behind secret codes and dress, and can express themselves as freely as they want.

 

Questions

• There is much coverage on the gay male struggle, however, where is the coverage on the lesbian community struggle?
• Were the cities the only such “safe havens” for the gay community?

 

By Charles Lauer (Response 3 out of 5)

The introduction to George Chauncey’s Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 debunks three widespread myths about gay male culture in turn-of-the-century New York: the myth of isolation, the myth of invisibility, and the myth of internalization.

The myth of internalization refers to the ultimately unsubstantiated belief that hostility towards the gay community halted the development of a vibrant gay subculture and forced many homosexual individuals to live secluded lives until the eventual gay liberation movement. The widespread nature of this fictitious belief is understandable. There were laws in place against almost every facet of homosexual culture. There were laws that criminalized gay men’s sexual behavior, laws that criminalized their attempts to coalesce, even laws that criminalized their culture and style. Plus, this atmosphere of discrimination made it easier for bigots, hate groups, and cops to harass gay men and simply get away with it.

Continue reading “Three Myths of Early 20th Century NYC Gay Culture”