Spring 2018: The People of New York City

Salvatore Fevola

Response 4 of 5:

George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, (New York: Basic Books, 1995), Intro and chapter 9.

in Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, George Chauncey gives us a look into the history of the gay community through not only the lens of plain history, but by approaching the history by correcting common misconceptions that people have. Referred to as myths, he brings counters the ideas that the gay community suffered isolation, invisibility, and internalization.

The myth of Isolation comes from the idea that hostility towards the gay community would prevent a subculture from being formed as well as forcing people to live solitary lives. While hostility was a major problem, it didn’t stop gay men as, “they were able to construct spheres of relative cultural autonomy in the interstices of a city governed by hostile powers.” (Chauncey 18). Through the creation of enclaves, and communities, it became easier to overpower hostility through the pride and strength found in groups. Places like Harlem, Times Square, and Greenwich Village became places where gay people could find people within their identity fairly easily. The myth of Invisibility comes from the idea that, due to the hostility towards the gay identity, gay people wanted to keep that part of themselves hidden which made it so that straight people couldn’t recognize gay people, and not even gay people could recognize gay people. Chauncey argues against this by stating that gay men “boldly announced their presence by wearing red ties, bleached hair, and the era’s other insignia of homosexuality” (Chauncey 19). The myth of internalization states that gay men internalized society’s negative views of them and led them to reject their lives and live behind fake fronts.  Yet Chauncey counters this with a claim from doctors at the time that “inverts saw nothing wrong with their sexuality and were rather proud” (Chauncey 21).

Continue reading “Gay New York”

Sam Gosda

Response 3 of 5: Gay New York by George Chauncy

George Chauncy uses his book, Gay New York, to write about the gay population of New York city in  late 19th century into the early 20th century. He discusses how the gay community is effected in different areas of the city as well as different events that occurred at the time. He also touches on the subsets of different types of gay communities. While Chauncy can be over-explanatory at times, he does a great job showing contrasting sides of homosexual life in the city.

Continue reading “Homosexual Enclaves”

John Semanduyev

Response 4 of 5:

George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, (New York: Basic Books, 1995), Intro and chapter 9.

Chauncey delves into the history of gay New York before World War 2. He restores gay history by falsifying three significant myths about gay culture and how gay people lived in general. One of the myths focused on the isolationism gay men supposedly endured. According to Chauncey, gay men were often vocal about who they were and built a healthy community within themselves. This leads to Chauncey’s discussion of gay enclaves that formed during the 1920s such as Greenwich Village. These enclaves served as a safety net for the gay community.

This opens up to the discussion about enclaves as a whole. Through our many talks in class, immigrant enclaves seemed to come up each time repeatedly. I found it fascinating that the gay community formed enclaves of their own. Perhaps it isn’t too farfetched to connect the gay experience with the immigrant experience in the early 1900s. The formation of enclaves is the result of a marginalized group of people coming together to build a place where they are surrounded by people similar to them. One difference between a gay enclave and an immigrant enclave is the motives for forming one. Immigrant enclaves were the result of fear in a chaotic new world. There is no doubt in my mind, which if I were to put myself in an immigrant’s shoes I would be attracted to live in areas where people are similar to me. I would be terrified to move to an entirely new place where no one knew my language. I believe gay enclaves were motivated by the presence of real immediate danger. Homophobia was rampant during the times and crimes against gays were very common. The gay community needed an escape from the constant day-by-day hatred they undoubtedly experienced.

Even the motives for forming enclaves by the two groups themselves are very similar. We can connect the history of what happened to the psychology of how marginalized groups behave when placed in a dangerous situation. The psychology can then be linked to the biology of natural selection that codes the instincts we depend on in our everyday lives. All in all, there is little distinction between types of marginalized groups and how they attempt to escape oppression; this implies a more significant “likeness” present in humanity.

Questions:

1. Have other marginalized groups in other countries acted similarly?
2. Is the formation of an enclave counterproductive?

Gay New York

Salma Ali

Post 4 of 5

George Chauncey writes a book about the compelling world of urban gay life before World War II. The gay world that blossomed before the war has been forgotten by historians, however this book restores this history through the opposition of the common myths of the movement. Chauncey calls them the myths of isolation, invisibility and internalization. The myth of isolation disputes the idea that gay men had to live solitary lives and hide themselves from creating a gay subculture. The myth of invisibility discusses that even if men were gay, they remained excluded and invisible. However, this was proven to be untrue because they were highly visible figures and boldly expressed their homosexuality with the way they dressed. The myth of internalization stated that gay men allowed the stereotypes to be said and allowed it to take over their lives rather than resist it, however homosexuals have resisted these ideas and rather celebrated their uniqueness from the norm. These men were very strong in the sense that they built their community to reject the ideas that society has placed upon them and instead counteracted them by preaching that they only differ from the norm in their preferences consisting of their love life, but are in fact still normal human beings.

Chauncey also discusses the gay enclaves that were formed and the neighborhoods in which consisted of gay subculture. Greenwich Village in the 1920s was known to be a popular gay enclave and was the first to really shape gay centers. Harlem was also a very exciting center for gay life in the early 1900s.

Chauncey elaborates more on the fact that lesbians and gays were forming individual enclaves and were separate in the social world, but got together during meetings and gatherings at speakeasies. They both developed enclaves around the same time and some of the drag balls were predominantly lesbian performers and attendees. He also discusses men who had long hair and dressed in feminine-like attire or even those who were interested in art, they were often looked at as unmanly and queer by outsiders and the name used to describe gay men was “artistic”.

Reading all this information about gay enclaves is a new perspective that we have not yet spoken of in class yet and it is definitely one that I had forgotten about when discussing People of New York City. It is incredible that disregarding culture and immigrants, these gay enclaves were also taking form and shape in the 1900s in New York City. In addition, these enclaves were formed even through the fear of hatred and crime that people would try to destroy it because of the sexuality choices of these human beings. Laws were not passed to accept homosexuals to get married and so being gay in that time period was extremely difficult in the lives of these men and women. It is extremely interesting to learn that enclaves not just of individual nationalities were being formed, but also of different sexualities where people stayed to feel welcome around people just like themselves. This also interests me to know the different nationalities of the gay men and women who lived in these enclaves and if they got along with one another because they shared similar ideas in their sexualities.

Question: Did the different nationalities within each gay enclave affect the relationship amongst the people living around each other?

 

Danielle Itshaik

Response 3 of 5:

George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, (New York: Basic Books, 1995), Intro and chapter 9.

In his book “Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940”, George Chauncey delves into homosexuality and life in New York and how these two have comingled through time. Pre-WWII, the gay world “was supposed to have not existed” according to historians. However, this is not the case. In this book, Chauncey sought to acknowledge and restore this history. He begins by dissolving three myths which have fed the misconception that the gay world was almost nonexistent during 1890-1940. He continues on to correct several other misconceptions. In general, his introduction is effective in stripping down previous notions and allowing the reader to continue on with the correct ideas in mind.

Continue reading “Gay New York”

Shainu George

Response 5 of 5

Ethnicity, Sexuality and Race in Defining the People of New York

This book focused on how NYC played a major role in the homosexual world. This book challenged three myths in the gay world. The first myth is isolation. One would assume that there was no place for gays in America in the 1900’s. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. By 1930, gay neighborhoods were created in Greenwich, Harlem and Time Square in order to escape the anti- gay hostility that was present everywhere else in the city. The second myth was invisibility. Contrary to popular belief, gay men boldly announced their presence through their red ties and bleached hair. The final myth is internalization. There was a large amount of gay men who rather than internalize the hatred that they received from others, would boldly announce their homosexuality. This theme of sexuality is relevant to this class particularly because gay people make up a population of NYC. Gay people felt more inclined to stay in the city over other places. The gay neighborhoods in the city became a safe haven for homosexuals. Homosexuals were more inclined to move into Greenwich Village, at a certain point, than any other neighborhood because of its tolerance for nonconformity or eccentricity. This is specific to NYC because New Yorkers are more likely to accept ‘outsiders’ compared to most other places. The term ‘outsiders’ could refer to anything from immigrant populations to gay people.

Questions:

1)    Where did gay women stay during this time period?

2)    Did heterosexuals live in the gay enclaves when they were popular? How did they feel being surrounded by so many gays?

Stefan Nikolic

Post 4 of 5

Often times in history the mistreatment of large groups of people is left out. The book Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 by George Chauncey plans to restore the world of homosexuality to history, and make it more known to people. It challenges three myth about the history of gay life. He does so by challenging three common misconceptions about the gay social life, that he calls the myth of isolation, invisibility, and internalization.

Continue reading “Homosexuality in New York”

Vijay Deopersaud

Post 1 of 5

In the study “(Un)documented immigrant media makers and the search for connection online” by Sarah Bishop, Bishop interviewed twenty-five undocumented individuals who classified as narrators. This title is quite fitting: it portrays the immigrants as victims which allows them to become more relatable.

The method that she utilized proved to be effective due to the fact that it is presented in a interview format as opposed to describing a third person account of the story. This first-person perspective humanizes the individual, contrary to the somewhat prevalent notion that undocumented immigrants are not like you and I, but instead inhuman people who are just here to take advantage of welfare systems and the like. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth based on the findings of Bishop; the stories presented are touching and strike parallels to our own lives in some senses, such as setting and common experiences. However, there still exists a dark shadow of paranoia looming over the shoulder of undocumented individuals that you can never be too careful.

This paranoia is justified, even in the piece by Bishop. Although not present for all, many chose to use pseudonyms fearing the worst not just for them but also their families. This threat is something that they can never be too careful of especially considering the current political climate. With raids even in New York City enclaves once considered safe havens for illegal immigrants, it has illegal immigrants and even non-citizen permanent residents on edge (although maybe not justified, still experience the same fear).

Interestingly enough, the diversity among interviewees is quite interesting, as when the topic of illegal immigration comes up in the media, the usual response is “these Mexicans…”. While there were many from Latin America, the presence of many undocumented immigrants from many countries in Asia and others. This misconception along with other misconceptions of undocumented immigrants serves to not only exacerbate the issue of illegal immigration but also confuses the air with false pretenses associated with such individuals. Although it is a pressing issue in society, it is made out to be much worse that it is in reality with a combination of misinformation and stigmas associated with past anomalies.

 

Questions:

• Why did some chose to hide behind the anonymity while others display their name in public even though they were aware of the risks it posed to their family and themselves?
• In what way does the internet, as much as it is a medium to allow them to express themselves, work against undocumented immigrants?
• With the quality of life being poor and freedoms being restricted, why is it that some chose to remain in spite of these challenges even though the conditions at home may not be worse (for some people not all)?

Salma Ali

Post 3 of 5

(Un)documented Immigrant Media Makers and the Search for Connection Online

In this piece, Sarah Bishop discusses how undocumented immigrants have been able to share their story through the use of digital media in our technologically advanced generation. These immigrants speak about their experiences, hardships, and confront stigmas and stereotypes placed on undocumented folks. The risk of sharing out can come with threat of deportation if not for the individual speaking out, then possibly for their family members who are not protected by DACA (deferred action for childhood arrivals, or by the DREAM act.

Bishop was able to interview a variety of different people from multiple different nationalities; all listed in her piece. It was very interesting to be able to see how although their stories varied in specific details, most of the hardships and fears were quite similar to each other disregarding their cultural background. One fear shared among them included their decision to share out their story and the fear of the aftermath of it. An example of this came from Ricardo, who Bishop explained is a student at Baruch. He shared out his story through his Youtube video titled Meet the Undocumented Immigrant who Works at a Trump Hotel. The video was a hit and has reached over 400,000 views. Although his mother is proud of him for speaking up, she was also slightly afraid of the effects of such popularity. Students like Ricardo have been able to share out through their connection to social media and the internet and for him specifically, his love for photography.

All these examples of undocumented immigrants are incredible to read and even more importantly to be heard. Social media has become such a powerful tool in today’s age because information can spread like wildfire, and sometimes when the news decides not to cover certain stories, those with voices will continue to spread and share what the news refuses to cover. It is important for this tool to be utilized for the greater good and for justice to those who suffered. I do understand the fear behind sharing your story and being exposed to deportation, but I applaud those who decided to take the risk to be able to share their firsthand experience, that only they can tell.

To tie back into the people of New York City, undocumented immigrants are not a foreign discussion for the city. There is such a diversity of people from a variety of countries who come with visas and eventually become undocumented. The stereotypes of these immigrants can cause people to not realize that some of these immigrants come to the U.S.A. early in their life and consider themselves American just as we do and we cannot tell them apart from regular citizens. Immigrants live through their fear of exposure and therefore try to assimillate and fit in with the “norm”, however some are finally standing up and identifying as their original nationality, as well as being American.

 

Questions:

• What are some of the negative effects of sharing your story through the power of media?
• Has sharing stories for undocumented immigrants become more difficult or easier since Trump has been elected?