User:Lvegajr
From The Peopling of New York City
Hello!
This is Luis Vega.
Post any comments on my discussion board.
Contents |
Coming To New York
This synopsis of the reading will touch the viewpoints of many writers concerning the changing face of immigrant demographics and job placement. As outlined in Foner’s book, there are clear-cut differences between housing and job markets available to immigrants today, and those that were available to the past generations of immigrants. These differences range from the mundane to the dramatic, emphasizing to a certain extent the role technology, social reform and political activism has played in the lives and dispersal of immigrants living in NYC. These differences also abound among today’s myriad immigrant groups, emphasizing the co-relational effect that income and education play with demographics and vocational opportunities, and vice-versa.
To begin with, the early Judeo-Italian immigrant wave had to deal with housing problems and job opportunities (or lack thereof) that were fundamentally different from those the majority of immigrants have to deal with today. Those were the days of tenement housing, of slums and ghettos that resembled poverty-stricken towns and villages in developing countries. In those days, technology had not yet advanced to the point where what we consider basic needs (like indoor plumbing and bathrooms, or even running water and mattresses) were readily available. Foner, in pages 43-48 of her book, describes the cramped and horrid conditions that abounded in tenement life, conditions that, for the most part, have been virtually eradicated from the slums of New York (there are, of course, exceptions). Thanks to social reform, those truly disgusting conditions were brought up to the public’s eye, leading to a host of new laws meant to ensure that landlords could never take advantage of their tenants the same way again (that they can find new ways to cut corners and take advantage of their tenants is another story). This movement towards change in the conditions of ghettos was helped, of course, by the advancement of technology, which made it easier and cheaper to provide basic necessities like water and other utilities to most immigrants. Finally, the number of immigrants who come to America with better than average educations has increased dramatically, leading to higher wages and much more favorable living conditions. Unfortunately, not everyone lives “the good life.” In fact, numerous are the tales of housing which is rented and often sub-divided illegally to make more renting spaces for would-be landlords. These places are a slew of rusting pipes and festering rat nests, oftentimes no more than basements converted into living quarters, with leaky plumbing right overhead. Still, many of these renter-immigrants draw support from themselves and their landlords, which leads to a mutually beneficial microcosm wherein an entire support system is in pace to help them adjust and find jobs here in America. Still, there is hope, as the number of immigrant home-ownership seems to be increasing slowly but steadily, and living conditions as a whole have improved dramatically since the 1920’s.
As chapter 8 of Foner’s book spoke, many immigrants in the first wave were able to make the leap into the middle-class due to a number of favorable conditions for employment. First, the country began an economic boom that lasted well until the end of wave, a boom that created more jobs in the blue-collar sector of labor. This sector provided the most favorable opportunities for immigrants, especially in such places as manufacturing and management, due to the fact that the pay was fairly decent and no extra skill was needed to earn a job. It almost got to the point where it seemed that one could earn a decent salary figure and enter the middle-class with only a smidgen of English language skills and an eight-grade education. While such a statement may be an exaggeration, the sentiment still holds true: there were far better paying job opportunities for the immigrants of old than there are now.
In contrast today, as Foner describes it, the job market has taken on an hourglass shape, with a multitude of jobs either in the top or the bottom rung of the economy. As an immigrant, one can either choose to suffer through a low-paying job with poor working conditions, or study and pay for a college education to earn a professional degree and enter the upper tier of the workforce. This may seem like a no-brainer for most people, but the sad truth is that demographics play a key role in determining that choice for immigrants, and it usually doesn’t lead to the more favorable one. Immigrants tend to bunch together, oftentimes leading to a trend where an immigrant family will branch out to a new area to avoid dealing with the conditions found in their ethnic enclave, only to have the enclave follow them. These conditions are the poorly funded and understaffed public schools that seem to go hand-in-hand with ghettos and ethnic enclaves, the lack of upward mobility, and general degradation of the community (i.e. drugs, gangs and violence). These conditions inhibit the upward growth of first-, second-, and even third-generation immigrants, who get caught in an endless cycle of poverty and ignorance and are never able to even envision a better life for themselves, let alone work towards one.
The end result is that we need to pay much more attention to the cries for help from modern enclaves. Sure, conditions may not be nearly as bad as they were a century ago, but that doesn’t change the fact that they still do not meet the standards of the rest of the society in general. So long as conditions remain unchanged, immigrants will never be able to achieve their full economic potential.
Racism
“Race … is 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.” -Nancy Foner, From Ellis Island to JFK
As this quote by Nancy Foner illustrates, race, as a social construct, is constantly changing, never stagnant, but rather pulled by the whims of its socio-historical context, i.e., its specific interpretations. What may be a defining feature of a “race” one day, one that seems to create obvious differences between two races, may the next day become simply a matter of variety within one, cohesive race. Consequently, racism, usually regardless of what sparked it, tends to follow suit, always on an ebb and flow, morphing from one form to another. An ostracized ethnic group today could be your valued business partner tomorrow. As showcased in the readings on racism, society’s perceptions of specific ethnic groups are constantly evolving due to multiple factors, three of which were chosen to be presented here: higher income levels (perceived or otherwise) coupled with a better education, “human association,” and/or a common “foe” (more on that later).
Concerning the first factor about a “higher income” and a better education, nowhere can a better example be found than with Asian Americans, specifically the Chinese. From the beginning of the first Asian arrivals on the shores of this country, Asians have been subjected to one form of stereotyping to another, running the gamut from hateful and horribly negative, to positive to a fault. Once thought of as the “yellow peril,” ready to overrun the country and dilute the purity of the Aryan race, the Chinese are now considered the “model minority”, one grand success story of a people who really embodied the American spirit and worked hard to climb the social ladder and achieve higher status among American eyes. Indeed, some go so far as to propose that in the near future, American perceptions of Asians will be to classify them as “white.” “…The model minority stereotype renders [Asians] ‘almost whites but not whites.’ New York’s Asians rank just below whites in the city’s racial hierarchy-and they generally meet with greater acceptance from middle-class white New Yorkers than other racial minorities (Foner 161-162).” Such claims are, on some level, supported by the fact that Asians tend to have the least amount of degrees of segregation from non-Hispanic whites, as Foner puts it, meaning that they tend to live side by side with whites without much conflict. So what accounts for the incredible success Asians have had in defeating racism? Simply put, the first factor outlined above: (perceived) higher income and better education. Asians are grossly overrepresented in institutes of higher learning, and they generally tend to arrive on our shores with a higher class and social status than do most other immigrants. It also helps that their home countries (especially Japan, India and China) are thought of as places of advanced economies and technology. Coupled with the model minority stereotype, most people in America tend to view them more favorably; even militant nativists, who practically desire an ethnic cleansing of this country (and fall short of performing a purge only due to the subsequent crippling of the economy that would surely follow), still claim to have a soft-spot for Asians. Of course, the truth of the situation is that most Asians actually come here as indentured servants with minimal job opportunities, but as they tend to remain within their own enclaves, in the public’s eye, their tribulations are overshadowed by the successes of the “Uptown Chinese” and the equivalent thereof for other ethnic groups. Unfortunately, while racism directed at Asians has abated, though not fully, the method by which it occurs invariably leads to the reaffirmation of racism to some other ethnic group. In other words, by claiming that Asians are becoming more “white,” and thus no longer being the targets for racism, people are actually perpetuating the falsehood that whites are superior to all others, re-instilling racist ideas against other ethnic groups, like blacks or Hispanics.
Now, one factor that isn’t widespread or “major” but can still play a role in deteriorating racism is human association. What this means is the way in which stereotypes, and consequently racism, are shattered through the simple process of actually getting to know an individual of that specific ethnic group. There are two such examples of this in the readings. The first is described by Foner: a second generation Italian once asked his boss, who had a habit of spitting racial slurs towards his Italian immigrant employees, whether that was how he felt about all Italians in general. The boss’ quick response was, “I don’t mean you Henry. You’re white.” Piri Thomas also describes such a scene in Down These Mean Streets. When his family moved to an Italian neighborhood, Thomas was ostracized by a gang of Italian youths due to his dark skin color. One day, during a scrap, one of the boys threw ground asphalt at his face, temporarily blinding him. But instead of fleeing the scene and abandoning him, the boys helped to guide him to his home and gather people’s attention to help him. Later, after he was released from the hospital, they attempted to make friends with him, though Piri declined. This description shows that such feelings can help overthrow racism and stereotypes through the common human factor in both individuals, regardless off skin color (or shade) and time period. Unfortunately, this process can only go so far, as the end result is a shattering of preconceptions for an individual only. As much as we would like for it to be so, human association only truly works on a personal level. As noted above with the second generation Italian, his boss saw him as the exception to the rule, calling him “white,” while all other Italians weren’t. But, something very interesting that occurs and has a great effect on racism is the way two ethnic groups will put aside their preconceptions of each other (for the most part) and join forces in opposition to a “common foe.”
The Common Foe factor was originally a reference to the way Italians and Russian Jews in the early migration, once viewed as inferior to white Anglo-Saxons, became reasonably tolerated in light of the inrush of southern blacks and immigrants from non-western parts of the world. This is not to say that other factors didn’t also play a role beforehand to weaken society’s perceptions of these two ethnic groups, but before this time they were generally seen as white, but different, not Aryan Anglo-Saxon, which in turn made them inferior. However, the vast migration of people of color and non-westerners, lowering wages and taking jobs away, forged a sense of solidarity among citizens of European descent. Now that they perceived a common foe in people whose skin color was an entirely different hue altogether (as opposed to a shade), the term “White” became an umbrella term for European. This then is the onset of the whole white-black dynamic that has governed American race relations up till now. What is interesting to note, however, is the way this factor applies today. Instead of a “whitening” effect, the Common Foe factor actually exerts its influence on a “darkening” effect between American blacks and West Indians. As is well known, West Indians have spent the better part of these past three decades trying to disassociate themselves with American blacks, stressing their multi-cultural backgrounds, their emphasis on education and their quintessential capitalist ideals on money and class distinction. These distinctions are in some way a form of “intra-racial” racism, wherein some West Indians believe themselves to be superior to American blacks in every way. However, due to American Society’s lumping of the two groups as “black,” not to mention similar episodes of racial discrimination that hurt both ethnic groups, West Indians and blacks have slowly but surely joined forces, both politically and economically, to deal with the “threat” of inter-racial racism. Perceiving then the rest of society as a common foe, the two groups have stopped trying to disassociate themselves with one another, and worked hand in hand to protest discrimination. Milton Vickerman in his essay, “Jamaicans: Balancing Race and Ethnicity,” wrote, “[Jamaicans and African Americans] experience similar episodes of racial discrimination in public and from the police, and both groups often perceive important social institutions-e.g., the media-as being biased against blacks. In short, Jamaicans find that usually, race trumps ethnicity (213).” And so, in a totally unexpected turn of events, intra-racial racism can be overcome by joining together against inter-racial racism. With any luck, such feelings of solidarity can be channeled against racism as a whole, and thus make the distinction between, say, white and black, one day marginal if not non-existent altogether.
In conclusion, as outlined above, race and racism are fluid and constantly changing social-constructs, affected by at least three major factors, which one can only hope will one day be used to overcome racism and put aside any racial distinctions, allowing the Human Race, with all its diverse ethnicities, to achieve a higher level of existence and well-being.
Politics
When studying immigrant politics and the effect they’ve had on the lives of foreign-born New Yorkers, there are two trends that stand out frequently enough to be almost considered laws. The first is that among immigrant groups, political mobilization typically only takes effect in the face of external difficulties. The second is that a lack of political mobilization can lead to grievous violations and abuses towards an immigrant group by both outsiders and insiders. These two trends can be explored in the stories of Dominican and Chinese immigrants.
One type of political motivation that has rather old roots is transnationalism, or a type of sociopolitical status in which a citizen or resident of a sovereign state holds close ties and associations with another state, usually one from which the individual has emigrated. Transnationalism is prevalent in today’s immigrant societies, but it is not exclusively part of the modern immigrant mindset. As Nancy Foner points out, “Contemporary immigrant New Yorkers are not the first newcomers to live transnational lives. Although immigrants’ transnational connections and communities today reflect many new dynamics, there are also significant continuities with the past (169).” While today the face of transnationalism has changed, what with different immigrant ethnicities, advances in technology and freer foreign policies in both the US and the old nation, the political scheme of the 21st century looks fundamentally different from that at the turn of the 20th century. But, strangely enough, this is not so. Sure, back then it took four weeks to cross the Atlantic (as opposed to four hours today), and there was no such policy as dual citizenship (in name, though in practice that was a different story) but transnationalism was still prevalent back then as it is now. Stories abound of Italian immigrants who came to America to make money, which they would subsequently send back to their villages in Italy in order to buy land or hire laborers for their farms and/or businesses. Russian Jews would also take part in similar transnational activities, though they would also take into account the state of affairs back in Russia, especially the “home” government’s current, ever fluctuating policies concerning Jews. More often then not, transnational ties and lines of communication (i.e. letters for the most part) were used to keep tabs on things back home and, if the need arose, send money across to finance a mass migration to America. Of course, the lack of political upheaval in Italy did little to stop the fostering of transnationalism. Often times, Italians would actually, physically return to their villages to buy homes and even estates with the money they had earned here in the US. Called the ritornati, these immigrants left their towns and villages with the mindset that they would return, and most actually did.
Meanwhile, for those immigrants who stayed in America, transnational ties helped to foster feelings of political involvement which would eventually lead to large scores of immigrants mobilizing politically on a local, state and federal level. An avid hunger for all news from home ensured that immigrants kept tabs on the political scheme “back home,” which in turn gave rise to political organizations here in the US centered on shaping policies back home, either through direct financial or political support/opposition to the home country, or by influencing America’s policies concerning the home country to ensure that they essentially get what they wished. These organizations, raised to face opposition from the home country, in turn evolved into American political organizations, meant to face opposition and difficulties arising from their own, racist society. This then is an example of how external opposition stimulates the formation of political groups, and the mobilization of grassroots movements. This trend is further exemplified in the contemporary mobilization of Dominicans. They too established strong transnational ties with their island, which in turn led to the rise of more movements for political reform back in the Dominican Republic, such as dual citizenship, and the ousting of one military dictator after another. However, socioeconomic problems here in the US quickly changed the focus of their attentions on more local issues, especially racism and the civil rights movement, as well as the decline in jobs in the manufacturing sector (where Dominicans were highly concentrated). As time went on and second generation immigrants with higher educations entered the political scene, these movements began to extend towards more detailed and specialized issues, such as domestic violence and labor unions and what have you. However, even though the focus shifted, Dominican immigrants’ transnational ties were not completely forgotten. Today, it is even possible to run for political office in a town back in the Dominican Republic from an actual physical office in downtown New York City.
In contrast to the old immigrants and Dominicans, the Chinese exemplify what occurs when a lack of external opposition and of interest in the home country can lead to. Due to their internalization, distrust of government agencies and ethnic enclaving, the Chinese have effectively reduced the amount of external difficulties they face. However, in exchange, they’ve developed many internal difficulties that most other ethnicities do not face. Both the tongs and gangs run rampant in Chinatown, and high levels of violence have followed in their wake. Furthermore, Chinatown residents distrust the police and view them as either corrupt, incompetent, or both. This distrust further fuels cynicism against political mobilization. In addition, their overall lack of interest about China’s political status equates very few transnational ties, which in turn cut off the stem of political mobilization found in the other aforementioned immigrant groups. With this in mind, it is noteworthy to see that, even so, the Chinese have managed to create some political movements due to overall minority opposition and the civil rights movement, further proof for the idea that external opposition leads to political mobilization. However, these movements were typically joined by second-generation immigrants and businessmen, and they, lacking Cantonese language skills and an overall sense of what their community actually needed, quickly turned into organizations for profit and personal advancement, seen by the way they would take controversial stances against the majority on issues that affected Chinatown as a whole (Kwong 133). This then is proof that a lack of political mobilization can lead to abuses and violations on an internal level.
As seen, transnational ties lead to political mobilization focused on dealing with home country issues. Those organizations, in light of external American opposition, as well as socioeconomic problems, evolve into grassroots movements to deal with those problems. This is a common trend, but one that depends upon a desire to mobilize and an optimistic viewpoint of the prevalent political system. A lack of both of these leads to the situation in Chinatown, and a stagnation of any political movement. That in turn, fosters a breeding ground for abuse and even human rights violations by internal factors. But there is still hope, as Kwong puts it: “If Chinese workers can gain political power through grass-roots organization and intercommunity alliances, they will be able to advance their own interests and transform Chinatown into a democratic community (173).” Indeed, one can only hope that this will happen, both in Chinatown and elsewhere. However, as long as the Chinese continue to distrust external aid, government agencies and the US political system as a whole, this hope will simply be a wistful dream and nothing more. --Lvegajr 19:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
Ghettos and Enclaves
In studying ghettos and enclaves, one group that really exemplifies the situations found within is the young. Regardless of ethnicity (though we will be discussing the Chinese and Koreans in particular) the young of any ethnic enclave always receive the benefits and consequences of whatever social ideology or institution is prevalent at the time, making them a good indicator of the state of conditions in the ghetto. That being said, a look into Piri Thomas’ life, in combination with the themes presented in New Immigrants and The New Chinatown, will serve to exemplify this idea.
The first thing to note is the obvious impressionability of the young. Obviously, the teenage years are formative ones, where any form of influence can cause adolescents to choose a lifestyle that goes against social norms (or conforms to them). This is apparent in Thomas’ descriptions of his youth, of his desire to have “heart” in order to prove that he was a man. His yearning to become a man and to “fit in” led him to perform rather risky endeavors (such as drug use) as well as join/create social networks (numerous gangs) and, eventually, partake of numerous illegal activities (theft, extortion, etc.). Clearly, as an impressionable youth, Thomas followed the underlying ideas of his enclave, the belief that the only form of security is in a gang, fulfilling his desire to “fit in” via social networking. Joining that gang introduced him then to a world of vice and illegal activity, which he himself felt strongly against (note his intense disgust towards junkies and their condition, claiming he would never become one), but which he eventually conformed to in his desire to prove himself to both his companions and to himself. Now one may argue that this may be an anomaly, but a look back at our own formative years quickly makes it apparent that these ideas Thomas presented may not be so far-fetched among the young population as a whole.
This knowledge goes far towards explaining the rise of youth gangs found within New York’s Chinatown. As an ethnic enclave, Chinatown’s isolationist policy towards the larger New York society really undermined the number of institutions available for positively influencing the young. Without political involvement in school boards and the City Council, after-school activities remained dreams and whims, never becoming realities. Also, the Chinese’s overwhelming disbelief in any major organized religion created a void in the social environment, and a severe shortage of religious institutions around which other ethnic groups have managed to mobilize politically (i.e. the Koreans). Finally, the Chinese’s distrust of external institutions, which they instilled in their children, curtailed the establishing of any outer social institution, such as the YMCA.
In culmination, the lack of formal legal social institutions such as churches (more on that later) and after-school activities led to a void in the lives of the young that needed to be filled by a social network. The intense academic pressure imposed upon second-generation immigrants by their parents, as well as the economic pressures their parents themselves face, strained relationships between the children and their parents, alienating them from each other and pushing the children into the waiting arms of the only, albeit illegal, social institution out there, the Tongs and the youth gangs in their employ. Even if they have been raised to believe otherwise, many youth, in order to avoid feelings of isolation and alienation, will set aside their values (like Thomas) and become involved in activities that truly harm their enclave. For example, numerous are the accounts of young people who were seen in the neighborhood with such high hopes for the future, and who return the most vicious and violent extortionists in any particular gang. The rise of opposing gangs and their Tong leaders have also lead to an influx of youth violence and even plain-day killings, none of which will be prosecuted due to the Chinese’s insistence on solidarity and the refusal to turn in any gang or tong members out of fear of physical reprisal. In order words, conditions in the ethnic enclave lead to youth involvement in gangs, which in turn leads to worsening conditions in an endless cycle.
But there is hope. As the Koreans exemplify, large, established social institutions from both without and within an ethnic enclave can lead to a sharp decrease in the amount of youth violence and delinquency, not withstanding any change in the influx of immigrants or the booming of the overall economy. The influence of their churches has created a far more positive social atmosphere wherein the youth can associate with each other without undertones of drugs and alcohol. Also, as a large and organized institution, Korean churches have acted as springboards for political involvement, especially in the school board, due to the fact that the congregation, which meets on a weekly basis anyway, can be present to discuss political needs of the community. This has led to attendance to church meetings even among the community’s non-Christian members, who come for the makeshift town hall meetings in order to participate in their community’s political life. In combination with a strong ethnic media in the form of Korean-language newspapers and even television stations, the Koreans have managed to organize themselves politically on a municipal scale as well. This, in turn, resulted in far greater cooperation with non-Korean organizations, such as social services, as well as YMCA’s and YWCA’s. Essentially, their political involvement has ensured that the Koreans, unlike the Chinese, have a wide slew of youth organizations and after-school activities to keep their young people off of the streets and part of a constructive, enjoyable, and even life-altering experience. Unfortunately, this peace is being threatened, not from within, but from without, namely the very same group that has oppressed and suppressed the Chinese living in Chinatown, the Tongs. They come from the neighboring Chinese enclaves, and they actively recruit Korean youth, perhaps in an effort to attract a newer and fresher source of manpower. For now, the tide has been stymied by the Korean community’s active political efforts to channel the energies of their youth into productive institutions. However, left unchecked, the Tongs could prove to be as harmful to the Koreans as they have been to the Chinese, more so perhaps, as the Koreans are not even their own people.
In conclusion, the youth of an ethnic enclave, as with the young of any society, are good indicators of the state of things within it, as well as being future alleviators of the stress and pressure found within. As social conditions worsen and strain is put upon the community, the young are the ones whose suffering is the most apparent. Their condition, whether they are in a youth gang or a church choir, is an excellent gauge for their social health and potential. It follows then that if enclaves focus on bettering conditions for their youth, they will, in fact, be making investments in improvements for themselves. Now it is just a matter of opening their eyes and helping them see the bigger picture, instead of following their stubborn near-sightedness.
--Lvegajr 12:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)