Throughout history, it certainly seems as if a community cannot exist without conflict. Somebody is always unhappy with something, and these differing opinions create boundaries. In this week’s readings it was interesting to see just what boundaries have come about in New York City’s history, and which sides have come out on top.
Anbinder focused on the mid 19th century, and the heated and dynamic battles that ensued between different gangs of Five Points. But what set these groups apart? What sets the riots in the Sixth Ward apart from most of the other conflicts we read about, was that the boundaries were set primarily on loyalty- not on race. As Anbinder writes, “the real cause of the riot was bit regionalism in Ireland so much as politics in New York mixed with good old fashioned turf battles”.
In fact, the political leaders at that time were tough, respected, and feared, almost as if they were military leaders. Leaders like Brennan, Kerrigan, Matthews and Walsh were in fact ex-military men, involved with gangs with a history of violence. Many were also previously involved with the fire department, which was seen as a kind of brotherhood. Kerrigan, for example, as Anbinder wrote “dominated council proceedings by the sheer force of his personality” and even involved with filibusters, who essentially aimed to conquer foreign lands and sell them for profits!
Ironically, after such intense conflict over political dominance, It was hard for the denizens of sixth ward to even vote. The area became dangerous and unpredictable due to the periodic heated wars that would break out between democratic and republican gangs such as the Bowery Boys, the Mulberry Boys, the Dead Rabbits/Roach Guard…even women and children would assist in the fighting hurling crates, rocks and other objects from windowsills. In fact these groups were somehow glorified, and romanticized in the press. To get anything done politically one would have to be tough and streetwise!
Brownsville in the mid 20th century, according to Pritchett was quite different. Modern activists, as quoted in Pritchett, were “just wonderful people, committed to improving the neighborhood” which included ex garment workers and homemakers…as opposed to dynamic militarists. In any case, political involvement and conflict came about in Brownsville for the same reasons as Five Points in the 19th century (bad conditions, general discontent with the ecomonic and social situation), but of course race was a new factor. Also, this time the general populace had a chance to change situations for themselves through local activist organizations such as the BCC (Brownsville Community Council). Whereas political action was the cause for rioting in Five Points, in Brownsvile, it was the other way around: rioting was a cause for political involvement.
The two articles by Sciorra and Reider filled in where Pritchett was lacking: to actually provide first hand accounts of the actual racial and political conflicts in Mid 20th century Brooklyn. It seemed that rash or desperate actions of a few became the death sentence for others of their race: as Rieder wrote, “the vast majority of law abiding citizens were tainted by their militant neighbors”, and major cultural clashes were a cause for pent up anger that resulted in violence.
Although it seems that New York today is significantly less tainted with conflict, it still exists. I think as the years go by, however, society will finally reach that perfect balance between government involvement and activist influence. It is the social boundaries regarding race and creed, and the general refusal to reach compromise that may take much longer to fade.
