Spark (5/10/11) Last Reading!
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.
Spark (5/10/11)
This week’s reading focused on the problems that arose due to conflicting opinions between different groups. Anbinder’s Five Points, discusses the history of two groups known as the Dead Rabbits and the Bowery Boys, which fought in a riot after a culmination of gang violence that was fueled by political rivalry between the Democratic-supported Tammany Hall and the nativist Know Nothing Party. Similarly, in Pritchett’s Brownsville, we learn about the formation of the BCC or the Brownsville Community Council, which was established in order to fight the “war against poverty”. We also read about the battles over local schools that culminated in the 1968 Teachers Strike. Finally Sciorra and Reider’s articles talked about specific experiences dealing with racism: Sciotta focused on Italian Americans who displayed racism when toward African Americans, while Reider talked about the Jews and Blacks who were displaced in Canarsie.
The chapters in Brownsville particularly interested me this week because I felt that no matter how much effort was placed into bettering the community, no one was ever completely satisfied. This is mainly shown in the Teachers Strike issue that arose. Here’s a little background:
Even though the New York City Board of Education tried to give people in specific neighborhoods control over their schools (through decentralization), the teacher’s unions saw it as a union busting event because it reduced the collective bargaining potential of teachers and staff because education would not be centralized under one administration. The local Black population however, saw it as empowerment against a white bureaucracy. They also saw it as an effort to create an “Afrocentric” curriculum that, they believed, was better attuned to the needs of the blacks.
Ironically, I felt that the more the government tried to help the blacks, the more they just wanted to blend in. Towards the end of chapter 8, it also states that the majority of Brownsville’s black and Latinos left the neighborhood in the 1960s and 1970s in search of integrated schools and neighborhoods. Although the “Afrocentric” curriculum would be better attuned, it also meant that the education would be individualized for certain groups. In reality, however, the majority wanted integration and believed in a pluralist society, or one in which diversity is acknowledged. So my question to you all is this: Do you think the singling out the blacks to give them a “better” education was the right approach to fight against the “war on poverty”? And if not, which would be a proper way of dealing with it, which people seem to just want to fit in?
Spark (For 4/12/11)
“Each one of us feels in and out of place as we move through the streets of our neighborhood and the lives of our neighbors. Each one of us bears the burden of a collective, unchosen history…” (Sharman 207).
Russell Sharman sums up this week’s readings nicely. A search and clinging towards identity arises as the neighborhood in which a person feels so connected to (a connection that inevitably happens, no matter how much bitter discontent they feel towards this reality) transforms.
For once, Anbinder’s chapter did not steal the stage for me. It was Robert Orsi’s article about the struggle between the Italians and the Puerto Ricans (an equation which becomes even more illogical as the Haitians are added in) that perked my interest the most. What struck me so much was that even after reading this article, I could not explain the relationship between the Italians and the Puerto Ricans in a sensible manner. It was a relationship that sprung out of fear. Fear of the unknown, yet at the same time, fear of being so similar. The Italians tried to make as many tiny distinctions between themselves and the Puerto Ricans because they were so afraid of how similar they seemed. They made differentiations between the languages because both parties were afraid of how similar the languages seemed. For example, Piri Thomas himself viewed this “other” as dark skinned and clung to his tongue. However, he admitted to himself “I couldn’t help thinking how much like Spanish it sounded. Shit, that should make us something like relatives” (Orsi 327).
But this relationship goes far beyond fear. There was anger driving these feelings too. The Puerto Ricans began inhabiting the vacant apartments that the well-off Italian-American children were leaving behind. Since the Italians were a domus-centered people, this act of moving away from the family was almost seen as a betrayal. And the Puerto Ricans were the scapegoat. I feel that because the children were moving away, the Italians faced an identity crisis. To uphold such familial values in a capitalist society is tricky. The Italians didn’t want to accept that their values couldn’t withstand the capitalist system. So at this turning point where the “Italian” part of their “Italian-American” identity began to fade, they took it out on the Puerto Ricans. And in turn, the Puerto Ricans stayed away. Because my opinions on Orsi’s article can go on for much longer, I’ll just stop here and say that when the Haitians got introduced into the scene, the backwards and flawed perspective of the Italians was even more visible, especially when they had weak reasons for accepting the Haitians.
At the same time, I cannot be truly angry with this story. Urban renewal, displacement, ethnic changes, all of these transitions have a great effect on the person living within these changing neighborhoods. The housing and urban renewal processes described in both Pritchett and Sharman’s readings somewhat struck a nerve. Sharman looked out the window from his friend’s apartment, and realized that Lucille had once lived on that block. “But her world was razed so that I could stand in my friend’s apartment and admire the view” (204). The New York City Housing Authority as described in Pritchett basically forged a ghetto.
The point I’m trying to make (yes, there is a point amidst this whole mess of a post) is that change isn’t just a process happening outside, but it affects the inside too. As the Italians saw their children leave, they felt a threat towards their identities and took it out on the Puerto Ricans. The building that Sharman’s friend lives in is weighing heavily on top of the neighborhood that Lucille had grown up with.
Identity in a multi-ethnic community like New York City means so much. In a city where the bulldozers wreak havoc, new ethnicities pile in, and people move up, it’s hard to keep your identity solid. It’s corny, I know.
“Public housing uprooted Italians and drew in African Americans, disinvestment displaced Puerto Ricans and attracted Mexicans, and gentrification now draws in a new middle class of whites, Puerto Ricans, and blacks” (Sharman 208).
*Spark*
Anbinder: “After a brief hiatus, Americans once again considered Five Points ‘the worst slum that ever was‘” (361).
Orsi: “According to Harlem’s Italian chroniclers, these sickly, ‘so-called Puerto Ricans,’ ‘pouring into’ the neighborhood, destroyed cara Harlem and laid seige to the Church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel” (330).
Pritchett: “Like the efforts of Brownsville activists in other areas, the fight for better schools saw Brownsville take one step forward and several steps back” (132).
Sharman: “In 1961 Jane Jacobs cited East Harlem specifically as a neighborhood well on its way to ‘unslumming’ on its own before private leaders undermined investment and the city destroyed what progress had been made by erecting massive housing projects” (201).
All the quotes above mention retrogression within New York, whether it be racial, economical, or social. Why is this? Well, significant changes first seemed to begin immediately following war. In Five Points’ case, it was the Civil War, and World War II related to Brownsville and Harlem. Both instances caused intense financial stress on the areas, eventually leading to plunges in the population; the white community left for better housing options, while black and Latino groups took their place. According to Anbinder, tenements tried their best to resolve issues prevalent even before the war. These adjustments included “frequent” inspections and window installments, but failed to resolve problems with noise, stench, overcrowding, and darkness. As more and more minorities entered the area, affordable housing availability diminished, and unattractive basement dwellings once again opened. Such offensive living conditions were immortalized by photographer Jacob Riis.
With Riis’ evidence, it is brought to our attention that not much has changed in later years for areas such as Brownsville and East Harlem. The influx of blacks and Latinos into Brownsville created an image of a ghetto, leaving commentators to believe that “this will be another Harlem” (Pritchett 142). Public housing projects drew the minorities into the area with their low-cost availability, and were soon blamed for the decline of the area; as African American populations increased, so did crime and drug-trading. Even worse, “as public housing became more identified as minority housing, this became a self-reinforcing process” (Pritchett 116). Middle-income projects were proposed in order to provide neighborhood diversity. Some said that such institutions would increase segregation, but this was a better option than more low-income settlements that would make permanent the idea of the area as an ethnic settlement. When the institutions were implemented, schools already deteriorating from years of neglect became even more overcrowded. Brownsville made no effort to fix such a problem because: 1) housing issues were more important, and 2) people (AKA, whites) were leaving anyway. Social and religious institutions could not keep up with the booming population of color, and were often razed for more public housing.
The obsession with public housing was parallel to the obsession with race. Every plan considered the placement and ratio of whites, blacks, and Latinos. This prevalent social tension led to physical violence among its inhabitants. Minorities harmed other minorities, leaving people afraid to step out of their dwellings. Soon, even the minorities wanted to leave. Streets were clouded with mistrust and fear, especially since the Red Scare was in full swing. Although people made attempts to combat these issues with community organizations – such as the Brownsville Boys Club and the Brooklyn Jewish Community Center – conditions continued to worsen with passing time.
In East Harlem, when areas weren’t being razed for housing projects, they were abandoned. This process of “gentrification” continued until a patch of land was ready to be invested, according to Sharman’s article. Although it positively developed land at a later time, it immediately affected residents negatively by forcing them to relocate for the sake of urban renewal. Orsi’s article explains that not only were Italians forced out by the incoming Puerto Ricans, but they also wanted to leave after being associated with their skin color; southern Italians were discriminated as “Turks” by northern Italians, and were even sometimes identified as black. This further enforced the already existing hostility between the Italians and the African Americans.
Pritchett notes that “racial change occurred… when neighborhoods were no longer able to attract new white residents” (150). This relates to our in-class conversation the other week about whites as Times New Roman, the default “font” (race). Now that the areas are dominated by “minorities” (now majorities), would hypothetical-incoming whites be considered “minorities”? Or does the font-rule still apply in terms of being the default race?
Spark!
A common theme among the three readings this week was racial identities among different immigrant groups. Bobb’s readings focused on the West Indian community and their perception of Unites States in terms of race and class. Lessinger talked about the American-Indian (Asian) immigrants and how they identify themselves among American society. Finally Foner tied these two readings together by discussing many ethnic groups such as Hispanic, Indian, Pacific Islanders, White etc and relating their American experience to issues of race, class, and status.
Bobb interviewed and researched the West Indian perception of race and class in America. There were a wide range of responses regarding whether or not West Indians felt discriminated in America and how they dealt with it. Racial slurs didn’t affect many West Indians until they came to America. I thought that this finding was surprising yet understandable. In their homeland the majority of people were West Indian and very few were White. However in terms of how people saw one another, the major distinction amongst them was money-related. Even though Whites held high positions in their countries, so did many black West Indians. However, when many of these people came to America, they felt shocked at how divided the county was in terms of race. As a result, many West Indians tried to avoid racial tension by staying in their communities, which created a network for them. It was interesting to see that the children of the immigrants felt a lot more discrimination than the immigrants themselves. The first generation responded to this by saying because they were in contact with a larger community in schools, social events, etc. unlike their parents who went straight to work, they noticed racial divisions more frequently. In Lessingers reading, Indian immigrants also went through a process of assimilation like the West Indians.
Lessinger talks about how the Indian community incorporated themselves in the American life. Many of the Indian immigrants succeeded in getting a professional job and actually created a pretty good standard of living for themselves. However there was always this fear that some Indians had which was being associated with the blacks. This was also seen amongst many other immigrant groups because they were struggling to create their own identities in the United States. Furthermore a lot of people immigrated here and stayed with their own communities and also created a sort of network similar to that of West Indians. I think that wherever we go, we see that neighborhoods are divided (to an extent) by ethnic means. Even when we walked around East Harlem we saw this nationalistic pride on different blocks. There were Italian stores and flags hanging on one street while a whole different Mexican theme was erupting on another. It just goes to show that humans like to group together with those they have the most similarities with. Especially for immigrants this was an important tool they could use for their advantage. When I asked my family about where and why they immigrated to in New York the answer was Woodside because the community there consisted of people who had similar religious and cultural values that they were accustomed to back home. This theme runs through almost all immigrant groups that have come to America throughout history.
I enjoyed reading Foner’s chapter on race because it addresses the issue of race and class among various populations, making it easy to see a common ground among all immigrants. “The Sting of Prejudice,” the name of the chapter itself fits in perfectly with the subject matter, as it relates to each immigrant group who faces hardship and discrimination while trying to create a new life for themselves and their family. Its pretty interesting to see how the definition of “white” has changed over the course of history. As Foner explains there was a huge amount of racism towards the Jews and Italians when they were first coming in. For instance when she talks about how there were signs saying “No Jews or Dogs allowed,” it struck me because such slurs were openly expressed and accepted. Today almost any Jew or Italian is considered to be white in the eyes of many people. However we see discrimination against other groups today instead of the Jews and Italians (To an extent of course. Unfortunately, there are still cases of racism against all groups among some people). It seems as if any group who tried or are trying to assimilate into American society had to or is going through a similar “prejudice sting.”
The hopes are that discrimination and prejudice doesn’t affect future generations. As Lessinger talked about there have been groups started to remove common misconceptions about Indians. For instance in Columbia University a group called “Indian Youth Against Racism” rose when there were recurring instances of racism among the Indian community in the late 1980’s. With the efforts from all people from different various ethnicities I think it is possible to create equal opportunities for everyone. Obviously it’s definitely going to be a challenge but I think equal access to resources among different groups is a must for any change to occur. I think that this change has to start from the government down.
Finally, I think that the issue of race and class is a sensitive one and has been affecting immigrants since the first wave of immigration. People have a choice to comply with the standards put on them or to rise up and make a change and fight for what they truly believe in. By looking at the similarities rather than differences among our society, all groups of people can overcome the pressures of society and create peaceful and humane communities that are willing to accept and understand each other for a common cause (A little cheesy, I know but I still believe it can happen!).
Spark: Words from a rhyming maniac
Enjoy:
As I walked along merrily one day
I saw something that made me want to stay
I came upon two men going at it like hen
Listening and laughing, I took out my pen
Here, my fellow reader, was the situation
The topic at hand was immigration
Orsi: immigrants from Italy have quite the history
Hopeful and terrified, coming for a better life
For Paradise on Earth, they came to New York City
But found out that the city of dreams was a city full of strife
Piri: huh?
Orsi: scentless flowers and tasteless food, even the air rots one’s teeth
Forgetting land and tongue can’t change skin, can’t hide what’s lurking beneath
They were here to make money; need quickly changed to greed
Did the bad American air plant this nasty seed?
Piri: seeds? What seeds?
Orsi: alienation versus Americanization
Xenophobia and hostility, fitting in and family
What was their role in this great nation—
Time to introduce the city to the culture of Italy
Piri: like spaghetti?
Orsi: Hail Madonna! Hail the Holy Virgin!
Hope, peace and Forgiver of Sin
Men were to the Madonna, devoted and faithful
So their love for their wives and Italy would remain strong and not dull
Piri: uh huh….
Orsi: come join the procession, women and children
Italians in America are no longer only men
Beg Her for relief; thank Her for your joys
An illness healed, a danger passed, a child’s new toys
Piri: no school?
Orsi: even after leaving Harlem, return every year
To see the Lady on her throne, hold Her near and dear
Children of parents dead
Fulfill their vows in their stead
Piri: pay their debts, you mean
Orsi: with zealous fervor, they clean the street
So that Madonna’s blessings may it meet
Rising up higher on the ladder’s rung
But always for the Lady praises are sung
Piri: first seeds, now ladders
Orsi: teaching the people was Vigorito
To live a man’s life, to school one must go
But when the American doctor can’t save a life
People turn to the Italian midwife
Piri: schools? Doctors? Stick with one topic
Orsi: let’s end this long and complex tale
Of immigrants who to America sail
With the festa of our Lady of 115th Street
Where the Domus rules and families meet
Piri: whoa, whoa buddy—tale’s far from done
Italians in Harlem ain’t the only ones
We come from Puerto Rico, land of milk and honey
Here to el-Barrio where it ain’t that sunny
Orsi: the correct term is ‘isn’t’
Piri: runnin’ after Pops till I’m feelin’ forlorn
But it really don’t matter cuz I’m the first-born
Playin’ happily in the dirty, stinkin’ gutter
Till dopey drank and died—kid was a nutter
Orsi: he drank gutter water?
Piri: Pops moved us to Italian block cuz my li’l bro died
Real bad idea cuz I nearly went blind
But now they know tha Piri got heart
Piri don’t run when the fight’s gonna start
Orsi: don’t we all have hearts
Piri: Poppa lost his job with the WPA
How’s we gonna live from day to day?
To the Home Relief Office me and Momma go,
Beggin’ and pleadin’, feelin’ real low
Orsi nods in understanding: tell me young Piri, do you go to school?
Piri: school?! Man you a fool
School in this convo is just not cool
Me: c’mon Piri, just let us know
If it’s hard to talk about, take it slow
Piri: wasn’t my fault—blame it on the lady
All I did was touch, she really went crazy
School ain’t my turf, so I took it to the street
Principal chasin’ me, like a dog after meat
Orsi: Pardon?
Piri: he’d have had my head for my behavior
Runnin’ like mad, I saw my savior
Wonderful Miss Washington made his rampage cease
God Bless Her, May she Rest In Peace
Me: she’s dead?
Piri: er, no
Me: then why’d you say—
Piri: you’re messin’ up the rhyme!
Me: oh, sorry
Piri: but enough about school
It make me drool
Lemme tell you bout that time I wanted new shoes
Man, nearly felt my neck going through that noose
Orsi: did you kill someone?
Piri: brush, spit, polish was the ritual of the shine
But it would take too long if I wanted shoes that were fine
So me and my buddy Louie and our pal Crip
Decided to make more than a shoe shiner’s tip
Orsi: I see, I think
Piri: it was all going good—we were on top
Till we nearly got caught—damn that cop!
Prayin’ like mad thay they wouldn’t squeal like rat
And that’s the end of that!
With that Piri walks away,
Leaving Orsi confused
“Read his book,” I say
and Orsi leaves bemused
So now dear reader, to end this fine tale
It just goes to show without fail
There’s always more than one point of view
Of a scholar, a gangster, and a rhyming maniac too.
Thank you
Spark- 3/29
As we learned from Joe Salvo in the Seminar 2 Common Event, immigration gives life to a neighborhood. In The Tenants of East Harlem, we can clearly see how the different groups of immigrants in East Harlem make the neighborhood more dynamic and diverse. Each group of immigrants comes from different backgrounds, with different interests and intentions. These differences are a big part of what makes the neighborhood dynamic.
In The Tenants of East Harlem, each person represents one ethnic group. The first two people that we read about, Jose and Lucille, represent Puerto Ricans and African Americans respectively. As children of immigrants, they represent the more stable part of the community. Their parents/ grandparents immigrated with the intention of staying and making a better living. And so by growing up in the neighborhood and staying there for such a long time, Jose and Lucille give the community familiarity and stability. Then there are the recent immigrants like Maria and Mohamed, the former from Mexico and the latter from Sierra Leone, who immigrated from further away, and with no intention of staying. Maria only wanted to stay for two years, and Mohamed one month. But both stayed longer, and as they settled in, both found it more difficult to leave, for various reasons. After reading each of their individual stories and background, I start to appreciate more the diversity of the neighborhoods in New York, especially in East Harlem.
In their segments, both Jose and Lucille reminisce about their old neighborhoods, and how it has changed. One of these changes includes the rise of public housing. It is ironic that public housing was supposed to make housing in East Harlem better; instead, it ended up being known as “state-subsidized slums” (pg. 56). What I associated with the ghetto used to be something that was supposed to deviate from the term ghetto. Public housing changed the way the community interacted with each other. As Lucille puts it, each block used to be a village in itself. Now, the community is within one building. The drama happens in the hallways, not the streets anymore. It’s interesting to see how different types of buildings can influence the way people interact with each other.
Another way the neighborhood changes is, of course, the arrival of different people. The Italians have diminished greatly in East Harlem, and “Spanish Harlem”, or El Barrio is now experiencing an increase in Mexicans, while Puerto Ricans are a decreasing majority. Jose and Lucille, the older residents in East Harlem, observe these changes, while Maria and Mohamed, the more recent immigrants, are a part of these changes. But as Maria and Mohamed settles more in New York, they will start to notice more of these changes too. For people like Mohamed, this might not be unsettling, since he does not like to stay in one place long and do the same things. As for me, when I initially think of the changes that have occurred and will occur in my neighborhood, I feel a little apprehensive. As Jose observed, not many of the old buildings are left. But after reading the accounts, change seems less like an impeding force than an inevitable part of a dynamic city.
Spark 3/15/11
East Harlem in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was known as Italian Harlem due to the large influx of Southern Italian immigrants to Manhattan. Before the arrival of Irish immigrants, East Harlem was already an ethnically diverse area with populations of Jewish workers, German Catholics and the Irish. The older residents “resented the intrusion and competition” of these newer Italian groups because the new immigrants were taking away from them the jobs of the older groups. However, these Italian immigrants did not only come for the economic opportunities but their goal of emigration was to “strengthen and preserve the family.” Italians brought with them not only a larger labor/working force but an entire new culture and religion to East Harlem.
La Madonna was very crucial and extremely essential to the lives of the Italian immigrants. She was the protector of the immigrants who would seek her guidance. The immigrants would go to her shrine to pray in any hopes of bettering their situation. Thus, la Madonna was very significant to the Italians; festes were celebrated in the streets to show their devotion for the mother-like figure. The festes were celebrated with great lavishness and many would come to gather around the festivities. However, other Catholic Americans used these festes as ways to attack Italian Americans and say that festes were just “street carnivals” and not religious celebrations. The festes were viewed as “sacrilegious.” This was just another way for the older groups to show resentment towards the old groups. However, when the Italians began moving out of East Harlem the once strong presence la Madonna had with the place began to dwindle. Nonetheless, the festes as well as the church on 115th street were symbolic of the Italian Americans.
But what actually was the religion and the “heart” of Italians was not centered around la Madonna but more focused on the domus-centered society of the Italians. “Domus was the heart of Italian Harlem, the foundation of its culture.” Domus was their way of life, the Italian home and family, and the religion of Italians. The values instilled upon the Italians through the means of the domus was what separated the Italians from the other immigrant groups.
While reading about the domus centered society, I noticed how much I could relate to this lifestyle. I made certain connections between the domus way of living and my own life and culture. In my culture, elders are treated with a great amount of respect and they are looked at as the head of the family. It is wrong to talk back to elders and is unaccepatable. Such is the case with the domus centered society. If one were to talk back to their parents/elders they were thought of as turning “American” and forgetting their Italians principles. The young generation of Italian Americans were becoming more independent and rebellious- in a way that they would go against their parents – as quoted in the book “In this country it is the young who rule. Older people don’t count for anything.” This brings us back to the question of what is being American and what is the American culture? There are several other aspects of the domus-centered lives which I’m pretty sure we all can relate to. For example, the concept of dating without supervision, wanting to be able to have a lively social life, having a close-knit family life, discouragement of sexual talks with parents, sacrificing oneself in order to respect the domus, etc.
Immigrants coming to America had one of two main choices: assimilate to the new “American culture” or complying with their own culture. The Italians in this case chose to comply with their domus-centered society. However, I believe this is different for each and every individual that arrives and it is their decision whether to comply with the old rules or adapt and assimilate with the new culture.
Spark 3/13
I don’t know about the rest of you, but if there’s one thing about this course that I find myself running up against again and again, it would have to be the mind-boggling scale of the task at hand: where even a single day in the life of a single person is all but impossible to trace in even a fraction of its complexity, somehow we are attempting to understand the evolution of an entire city of people across a span of well over one hundred years. And while Italian Harlem is only relatively tiny slice of the picture we’re trying to draw, its history demonstrates the same daunting fractal-like intricacy as the whole of NYC.
More than just complicated, at times Italian Harlem seems downright paradoxical; it was, as Orsi describes, “a theater of extremes” (p. 48). First among its series of characteristic contradictions was the conflict between the laying down of roots in East Harlem and the maintenance of nationalistic ties with southern Italy. By the late 19th century Italian men began to immigrate to New York sans-familia in search of the opportunities that the then-stagnant mother country couldn’t offer them. This separation from blood and country is what Orsi sites as one of the primary shapers of early Italian Harlem, but he also notes the wide variability of its effects. For some of these men, this separation bred a powerful nostalgia for the homeland. For many others, only “the keen desire to have their families with them in the new world” mattered (p. 20). Such men would take even the most exploitative work (as strike-breakers and padroni patsies) and save aggressively, for what was often years, in order to pay their families’ passage. As Italy-anchored family members had been the main tether between the early Italian Harlemites and their birth country, Orsi notes that their ties to the patrie gradually dissolved. This, however, seems contradicted again and again by the intense devotion to Italian culture and values that the people of Italian Harlem demonstrated for years after most of the direct kinship links between NY and Europe had disappeared.
In fact, Orsi writes extensively about the way that the traditional Italian idea of the domus (family based life) was woven inseparably into the fabric of the neighborhood. In Italian Harlem, responsibility to both nuclear and extended family was of the highest priority, and the worst insult one could hurl was the word cafoni: the accusation of showing disrespect to the domus. Interestingly enough, this intense focus on the importance of family loyalty made Italian Harlem a breeding ground for gangs of juvenile delinquents and mafia crime syndicates, while at the same time setting the stage for social justice advocacy and a number of progressive politicians.
Yet another of the neighborhood’s complexities is exhibited by the strange love that its residents often held for it in spite of its many flaws. As was the case with Five Points, the dirty, deadly, and densely populated Italian Harlem seemed to inspire a fair bit of nostalgia for the neighborhood that they often left as soon as they could afford to. Orsi quotes several former residents reminiscing about Italian Harlem’s incredible communal cohesiveness, the credibility of which is somewhat undermined by Orsi’s reports of a number of fierce rivalries between various Italian groups that were only truly relaxed for the annual parade of the Madonna of Mount Carmel.
The worship of the Mount Carmel madonna was one Italian Harlem’s most distinctive features. While it certainly entailed a good deal of religious fervor, the festival was in a way more an expression of devotion to Italian Harlem itself, and to the ancestral histories of its residents, than a simple religious holiday. The yearly festa of family, food, and penance was the neighborhood’s most vibrant celebration of Italian culture, and its chief unifier across the ever widening gap of generations.
So where does all of that leave us in our understanding of NYC? For all of its overwhelming intricacy, Italian East Harlem does present several of the themes we’ve come across before. Immigrants came seeking financial opportunity, set up a small and essentially homogenous ethnic enclave amidst the city’s diversity, expanded via chain migration, and eventually ran up against the dispersive Americanization that came with the passage of generations. Here’s hoping this business of characterizing the “peopling” of New York gets easier as we go along.
Spark 3/8- Immigrant Labor, Work and Economy
Immigrants could not be picky when it came to jobs—even if it meant occupations offering the lowest salaries. Many immigrants faced unstable employment; often times, they did not have jobs during the winter season. In Five Points, for example, “chronic unemployment made winter the annual season of sorrow and dread.” In response, entire families pitched in to survive the winter. “Tailoring for example, was a family affair […] men did the most difficult work […] while wives and children completed tasks requiring less experience and training.” Widows or abandoned wives had it the hardest, in my opinion. Not only did these women have to care for a family, but they had to work to sustain their family as well. Although these women performed the roles of their absent husbands, they worked female-gendered jobs. I’d like to pose a question considering gender roles during the migration to New York: Do you think the expectation for immigrant women to partake in contributing to household incomes changed the previous gender roles prescribed by the Victorian era, raising the status of women? Or could it be that because women were given jobs with lower wages, inferior rank was reinforced?
Back to immigrant labor, I’d like to add that while their work seemed so incredibly onerous and practically unmanageable, certain aspects of immigrant labor has not changed. There is a significant total of Americans today who are unemployed. How often do we know of people who lose their jobs due to the current economic recession? Even people who do have advanced degrees—the recession is reaching out to all levels of society. (I guess the biggest difference between unemployment then and now is that now there are charity organizations and much government intervention to support the needy.) Just as an example of similar economic challenge, “although peddlers enjoyed a modicum of independence, constant rejection by potential customers… made their lives especially hard.” When reading that line in Anbinder’s book it made me think of all those times when people walk down busy streets in Manhattan and constantly have desperate businessmen shoving flyers into their hands advertising the latest commodities. There are those who stride past, completely disregarding any pleas, demonstrating the rejection that the sellers face. Then there are those who are completely uninterested in the product but politely take a flyer and continue walking to their destination. On their way, they notice a garbage bin, and approach it to dispose the flyer. Unsurprisingly, the can is almost overflowing with crumpled flyers identical to the one the passer-by is holding…But, anyways, considering past and current immigrant labor, do you think that the differences outweigh the similarities?
Another issue I came across regarding immigrant labor was dignity versus money in terms of occupations. Many could not bear to work in jobs ranking the lowest of the low, even if working these jobs meant that would be earning more money, a factor that should be taken seriously considering their circumstances. In retrospect, do you think that it was right for immigrants to be more concerned about their self-respect even if they were endangering the lives of their family members? For instance, women who chose to work as seamstresses instead of other jobs were on the verge of starvation.
Regarding professionals experiencing downward mobility when coming to NY, as miserable as it may sound, it makes sense. After all, even if someone had completed medical school in their home-country, if he’s incapable of speaking English fluently, how comfortable would you be going to him when you are sick? So it is understandable that people with skills and fluency in English would get priority when it comes to professional jobs.
When reading about the interactions among co-ethnic groups, I viewed it as a continuation of chain migration. I felt like the older immigrants were willing to help newcomers because they had some degree of experience under their belts and knew the tricks of the trade. This system makes the workplace more efficient since the owners did not have to deal with training the immigrants and also because Koreans and Jews had access to resources which would enable them to get a head start on their own incomes. But in certain situations, co-ethincs had the reverse effect: it prevented immigrants from getting jobs. In any case, I think that the social networking among the ethnic groups definitely led to the contemporary culturally diverse New York. Overall, social networking seemed to benefit most groups.
Immigrants fought with fortitude to survive in New York and it is evident that their efforts were not in vain and that their dreams did, indeed, come true. Yes, many immigrants toiled incessantly merely to obtain food, could not afford to get an education and failed to ascend the social class. But their grandchildren did not become seamstresses, peddlers, tailors, newsboys, or hot-corn girls. Their grandchildren received American educations and became doctors, lawyers, actresses and even presidents. Their dreams were fulfilled. After all, our children are our future.
