Spark 3/8
One of the most grueling jobs that immigrants suffered through was the garment shops, which to me sounded slightly nicer than sweat shop. After doing all the readings (which started to blend together after a while in my head so that only the occasion random point like about the Chinese who open up taco stands would “wake” me up) the one common point I could latch on to was trials and suffering that immigrants went through at the mercy of a garment shop. From the Jews in the mid 19th century to the Mexicans and Ecuadorians who flooded the shops most recently, it seems as if immigrants had no choice but to work at the shops (and honestly, some didn’t have a choice).
The manner in which each group relied (or didn’t rely) on coethnic social networks had a real effect on their level of success. Take for example the comparison that Lee makes between the Jews, the Koreans, and the African Americans. Jews were employed at the garment shops early on, but those who wanted self-employment as a means of escaping their current situation went on to open up shops and stores that catered to the needs of other Jews, and the same with the Koreans. Not only did the Jews and Koreans have more access to capital, which made them more economically stable than African Americans, but they also utilized loans from family and participated in rotating credit associations. While naturally, a Korean immigrant might have a hard time getting a loan from a bank due to a lack of English language capabilities or other problems, rotating credit was an easier, albeit riskier option. African Americans on the other hand, went another route for borrowing money since borrowing from kin or friends wasn’t thought to work. I call it trust issues and agree with the African American book-store owner interview when he said “We’ve been poisoned against each other,” and “[they] would rather invest their money outside the community” (Lee 270). Another thing that caught my eye was reading about how to Jews and Koreans saw self employment as merely upward mobility, while African Americans viewed it as achieving the dream. If I owned a successful store I’d be pretty satisfied with myself, owning my own business would be my goal, not a foot hole gained towards my goal.
When reading Margaret M. Chin’s When Coethnic Assets Become Liabilities: Mexican, Ecuadorian, and Chinese Garment Workers in New York City, it struck me just how different the Chinese and the Latinos used coethnic relationships when it came to finding jobs. Chinese immigrants informed family or friends of “open seats” in a shop, which made getting a job easier and smoother than looking in a newspaper. They were brought by family and friends to learn how to sew and work in a shop. This gave the employer an easier time getting new reliable workers since the “elder” or “sponsor” employee trusted the new people. It’s a pity that Latino workers didn’t necessarily follow the example though. One of the interviews with a Mexican woman in her twenties sums up the fear that most Latino’s felt when it came to helping others get a job, “I don’t feel comfortable introducing a worker to the owner. What happens if they get the job, and it doesn’t work out? It would be a bad reflection on me,” (Chin 288). So job insecurity ran high especially since bringing a new worker (who might do the work for less) could get yourself fired if it didn’t work out or if they were hired to replace you.
For Latinos, many suffered a double risk of losing their jobs and on top of that were easily exploited. One risk was that there was always someone new who didn’t know enough about acceptable wages that could be hired to work for much less than the current employee. The second risk came from the fact that if they were undocumented it was so much easier to get fired.
We’d like to think that all an immigrant needed to move up from the bottom rung was “hard work, perseverance, discipline, and thrift,” (Lee 260) but it took more than that for immigrants to even have a shot. For immigrants, getting a job in New York wasn’t about having skills, since even middle and upper class immigrants with education and a career in their country of origin had to downgrade to low paying, labor intense work. Which is why immigrants had to do work they “were good at,” like the unskilled Italian immigrants who came and moved straight into construction, because it had no prerequisites except for a healthy able body. Foner mentioned in the chapter, getting a job required a combination of English language capabilities, coethnic connections and a willingness to work for extremely low wages. Its no wonder that as each flood of new immigrants came, the “old” immigrants moved up and left the undesirable jobs to the newcomers.
Spark 3/1
In the beginning of Foner, she says “the image and the reality are different” and that popular imagination has a way of romanticizing the old neighborhoods. She is absolutely right. If people truly thought that “the old ethnic neighborhoods were closely knit communities where their grandparents and great-grandparents struggled to realize the American dream. Conditions were hard, the story goes, but immigrants were excited about being in America and determined to do well,” then they have a completely incorrect picture about what it was really like living in tenements back then. Their “Disneyfied” versions of tenement life glossed over the hardships people had to live with every day in un-Disneyfied, real tenement life.
The true tenement and Five Point conditions described in Anbinder and Foners’ books were atrocious. It was painful to read about how people lived crammed into tiny apartments as large as a modern-day living room, without enough room for people to sleep. The lengths they went to in order to get a bed was terrible- not only did they sleep on floors, but they even slept on makeshift beds of four chairs put together in the kitchen, and were rudely awakened by chairs being pulled out from under them when people came in for breakfast. It was almost better to sleep on chimneys and fire escapes, which they did when the weather was nice, than to sleep in those “apartments”.
It is no wonder there was an awful outbreak of cholera- imagine living day after day without taking a real shower, having to use buckets and sponges to clean yourself, wearing the same ripped, dirty rags day after day, and not even having a bathroom. I can’t even imagine four families sharing ONE BATHROOM. And it wasn’t even a bathroom- it was an outhouse. The sheer number of people living in such close quarters in such bad conditions… its no wonder diseases like cholera spread so fast and killed so many people.
I wasn’t surprised to read about the drunks, murders and prostitution because those types of behavior are common among the poor and destitute who live in such a situation as described above. What DID surprise me though, was the fact that white and black people lived together, drank together, and there wasn’t the tension and animosity I’ve come to expect. Even in those conditions, among the poorest of the poor, I still thought that poor whites had a sense of superiority over their black neighbors and wouldn’t live peacefully among them.
The most disheartening part of the entire situation is the lack of action taken to improve things. Many people wrote articles publicizing the conditions people lived in at Five Points, and the rich people even went “slumming” with police escorts to gawk at others’ misfortune, but did not feel a shred of obligation or desire to help these people out and donate money, clothes, food or SOMETHING. “Slumming” and visiting Five Points even became a standard part of a tourist’s itinerary! People seemed to be embarrassed and disgusted, but made no move to help! They even went so far as to say it was the poor people’s fault they lived that way because they were so lazy and just sat around drinking and prostituting all day. How could they not realize that if they had the means to escape, the poor people would be out of there in a flash? They were the victims and needed to be helped.
I’m not saying I am pro-slavery, but the South was right on this occasion- the North should worry about “fixing their own skirts” and taking care of their immediate issues, such as the living situation at Five Points, before looking to improve the South and abolish slavery.
To respond to Rebecca’s spark, I don’t think capitalism is entirely at fault. Socialism has its fair share of problems as well, and as an economic system, I think capitalism is better than socialism. The competition supported by capitalism is necessary to bolster the economy and make new improvements/ discoveries that everyone will benefit from (even if the inventor’s intention is just to become a millionaire and not to help mankind). I think human nature is at fault here. People in general are essentially greedy, lazy and selfish, especially when they fall into money. That’s why this problem would exist in a socialist society as well as a capitalist society- in a socialist society, since everyone gets equal money and possessions anyway, there is no incentive for people to work to better themselves and society. On the flip side, in a capitalist society people are so focused on amassing more wealth that they don’t stop to think about helping the very unfortunate people below them. I think it is pretty messed up that people worry about buying a third car/ second house or a fancy new gadget, when other people are struggling to find a bite to eat, or a street corner to sleep on.
Spark
On page 18 of “Brownsville, Brooklyn,” Wendell Pritchett writes: “Separating fact from myth, reality from nostalgia, is difficult.” Throughout the readings, especially the two chapters from Anbinder, I found it difficult to get a clear picture of how life in Five Points actually was. In both Pritchett and Anbinder’s novels, the hellish descriptions of Five Points and Brownsville are contradicted by tales of immigrant success and by hints that residents of these impoverished neighborhoods may have actually been relatively happy.
Anbinder reveals on page 37: “There may have been irredeemable individuals, yet the immigrants who dominated Five Points survived and eventually thrived in their new homeland. Five Points had more fighting, drinking, and vice than almost everywhere else; but also more dancing and nightlife, more dense networks of clubs and charities, and opportunities both small and large for those who seized them.”
A description of Five Points from Davy Crockett’s An Account of Col. Crockett’s Tour to the North and Down East on page 26 of “Five Points” also gives conflicting positive and negative descriptions: “The buildings are little, old, frame houses and looked like some little country village…. It appeared as if the cellar was jam full of people; and such fiddling and dancing nobody ever saw before in this world. Black and white, white and black, all hugemsnug together, happy as lords and ladies, sitting sometimes round in a ring, with a jug of liquor between them: and I do think I saw more drunk folks, men and women, that day, than I ever saw before.”
“I thought I would rather risk myself in an Indian fight than venture among these creatures after night. I said to the colonel, ‘…these are worse than savages; they are too mean to swab hells kitchen.”
Whether or not the conditions described are over exaggerated, I find it hard to imagine that anyone could be happy living in the Five Points tenements. The sweltering heat, the freezing cold, the filth, the excrement, and the perpetual darkness that flooded the tenements – conditions that should have been unbearable were endured by hundreds of desperate people. Reading about these miserable living conditions makes me especially grateful to be writing this from my own, quiet, clean, warm bedroom.
Multiple times in “Five Points,” Anbinder describes the tenements as prisons and the tenants as inmates held captive by their poverty. I found this ironic considering that the Common Council had petitioned in 1830 to replace the tenements with an actual prison but were unable to pass it because “disease would spread uncontrollably in a prison built on such low damp ground.” I scoffed at the idea that what was considered to be unfit for prisoners was suitable for hundreds of struggling, hardworking people.
Living day-to-day, unable to pay the rent, and constantly smelling shit it’s amazing to me that only some of the Five Points residents sought comfort in prostitutes and alcohol or relieved stress through the medium of drunken brawls. Hell, if I had to live in a literal shit hole and risk dying either from cholera or apartment fires everyday, I would drink every night until I blacked out and take a swing at anyone who insulted me or my ethnic background. The loathsome attitude felt by outsiders towards the Five Points residents is completely ridiculous. Instead of judging the Five Pointers, it might have been nice if someone (other than religious missionaries) tried to help them.
I got the impression from the Anbinder readings that tenement living was a lucrative industry for landlords, sub-landlords, the media (specifically newspapers), and the tourism industry. All four managed to make money off other people pain. Landlords and sub-landlords overcharged the struggling immigrants for shelter and skimped out on spending money to reduce fire hazards and protect the safely of their tenants. The newspapers sold millions of copies by covering stories about the miserable tenants and their misfortune and tour guides charged middle and upper class people money for tours of Five Points like some twisted kind of amusement park. Of course, it makes perfect sense why in capitalistic society, no one would help the Five Points residents: because Five Points was good business.
Like last week, I found the Anbinder readings to be the most captivating. The descriptions of the Five Points tenements were disgusting and yet oddly captivating. Initially, I was completely appalled by the practice of “slumming,” but I can understand why people would find Five Towns fascinating. As terrible as it was, I imagine slumming to be somewhat like stepping into a reality TV show filled with riots, fights, racial tensions, sex, alcohol addictions, and scandal. Really, how different is it from reality TV? Given the opportunity, I probably would have gone slumming too. It’s amazing how people are so captivated, so entertained by the suffering other people.
To the well off, helping the infamous Five Pointers was out of the question but Anbinder provides a handful of examples of the poorest of people helping each other. On page 88 Anbinder quotes a journalist: “The kindness of these poor people to each other is frequently astonishing but must be witnessed to be appreciated” and a House of Industry Publication: “a woman and five children in a room without a fire, and for the last two days they had no food save for a morsel given them by a neighbor almost as poor as themselves….”
The more I read about Five Towns, the more anti-capitalistic my thoughts became. The drive for money and luxury items really is a terrible thing. It creates animosity between classes and justifies the exploitation of other human beings. The poor being victimized most often, I was not at all surprised by the socialist movement in Brownsville, Brooklyn. For those suffering under capitalism, socialism seems like a reasonable solution. While socialism has its pitfalls, you have to admit capitalism is pretty screwed up. Maybe I really am a Marxist….
February 22nd Spark
After doing this week’s readings, I think of how exaggerated Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus” was for immigrants during the 1800s. One line that we all probably heard of is the one that is engraved at the bottom of the Statue Liberty; this famous line shows how America is a place that welcomes the “poor” and the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” ( Foner,9). I think of the different groups of immigrants that came to the United States and I wonder if these group of people were truly able to “breathe free” once the immigrants arrived on American soil. Nancy Foner, explains these groups of immigrants very well; she distinguishes the peopling of New York between the old immigrants, who arrive in crowded ships to Ellis Island, and the new immigrants, who enjoy an airplane flight and arrive from JFK airport.
When I think of the term Old immigrants, I think of certain ethnic groups who struggled for many reasons in order to achieve a better life in America. Foner describes these groups of immigrants who arrived in Ellis Island as “dirty and bedraggled, after a long ocean journey in steerage” (Foner 10). This era of immigration had people who did whatever they could to arrive in America because of the tremendous hardship they suffered in their homeland; most were not educated and suffered poor wages back at home that they tried to make a better living for themselves and their family. There were several different groups that wanted to achieve this goal but the main ones were the Irish, Italians, Germans, and the Chinese. Each of these groups wanted a new start to their life and they believed that America was the place for them; they were not only yearning to breathe free but they were yearning for a better income, life and opportunity.
What struck me about the Old Immigrant era was how they went through so much just to experience a new life. They were willing to take in the horrendous stench of crowded ships in order to one day reach the American soil; in fact some risked their lives and unfortunately died on the journey to the United States. For these groups, it was a journey that was tiring and overwhelming for them but it was all done to achieve their dream. For example the Irish during the potato blight did not want to live a life any longer where they needed to gnaw off the remaining food on bones . The Italians and Chinese wanted to make a living and income greater than the minimal amount they received in their homeland which is why they turned to the land of the free.
After the struggle these group of immigrants took to reach America, I am sure they had countless joys for finally arriving here. However, what struck me was how they wanted to “breathe free” in America but ironically they were suppressed and exploited by others. One example is when the Italians took the jobs that the Irish no longer did in New York in which one of these nativists said that they needed someone to do the “dirty work” for them (Anbinder 370). It is so sad to see that these groups were only used to do work that no one else wanted to do. They were manipulated to do these jobs but the immigrants did not mind; they were thankful because these jobs still offered more wages than they could make at home. With these jobs, they could send for the families they were longing to see and finally could see after some time.
I think that the Old Immigrants that arrived in New York City were able to have a better income, but they were still suppressed because they were different. I could not stand reading that natives would say about the Chinese that they have a religion that is good but would not get them further; if the natives had a superior religion, than why do they treat different ethnic groups so terribly. Just because some of them were not educated does not give natives the right to deny them opportunity, citizenship, or put quotas on certain groups. I am so glad that this era of immigration is over and now New Immigrants arrive to JFK with college degrees and more opportunities than others had in the past.
Spark – February 22
What gives certain people the “right” to discriminate against and suppress other groups of people? This is the question that was running through my mind the whole time I was reading these chapters. Each ethnic group mentioned in Anbinder’s book (Irish, Italians, and Chinese) came to America with specific expectations in mind. They had all heard stories while still in their native countries from others who had gone to America as poor men and returned as wealthy ones. Reading of the absolutely horrifying conditions in Ireland made me feel very sorry for the Irish, and I was glad upon reading about how many of them escaped to America. However, I was very upset when I read of the bigoted views of the Irish towards other immigrant groups. What made it alright for them to pick on the Italians or the Chinese? Didn’t the Irish understand that the other immigrants were just trying to come to America for a better life? For similar reasons as they themselves had upon first coming? The same can be said about all of the immigrants, for each ethnic group, in some way or another, was biased towards immigrants of other races. One would think that since all of the newcomers were not accustomed to the way of life in America, they would try and stick together as best they could. In reality, though, each group separated and congregated mainly with others from their same native town or country.
It was interesting to read of how Five Points literally had specific blocks “dedicated” to certain immigrant groups. How different it was then from now, where I can’t even name all of the different ethnicities of my neighbors! I cannot say that I don’t enjoy this though. As Anbinder pointed out, the immigrants back then did not want to completely assimilate into the American culture, but rather brought all of their customs here with them. For this, I am so grateful! If the Irish, Chinese, and Italians came here and tried to blend in, leaving behind all of their food, languages, clothing, and customs behind, life would be extremely boring and plain!
Speaking of New York in particular, the number of immigrants that made their home here was, and is, incredible. My mind could hardly wrap itself around the numbers stated in Foner’s book. The amount of diversity continues to grow, with people coming from countries I have never even heard of before. Since I was born in New York and have not done much traveling outside of the country, I find it strange that so many people continue to long to reside here. Here am I, desperate to see the world and visit other countries, while people from those same countries I want to go to are desperate to leave their native town and come here. It was easier to grasp this concept when reading of the hardships immigrants faced, but now it is not so simple to digest. I suppose it is quite phenomenal, that after all these years, America has not lost its appeal.
Spark- Feb. 15
I found it interesting to see that, in some aspects, Colonial New York is not much different from the New York we know today. It was ethnically diverse starting when European explorers first came to New York Harbor. The Dutch West India Company wanted to increase the population on Manhattan Island by asking people to immigrate from Europe. In the chapter “Slavery in Colonial New York,” observers noticed that half the population was non-Dutch and that eighteen different languages were spoken, and this was during the 1600s. There was also a sense of maintaing heritage, especially from the French living on Staten Island. Colonial New York was also a religiously diverse area. According to Binder and Reimers, since different religious practices weren’t tolerated in Europe, the settlers came here to have this opportunity, although it was limited because many had to worship privately. The Dutch were considered very tolerant people, which probably attributes to why many people came here. These ideas were prominent more than a century before the United States of America was formed.
However, slavery was also a big deal in Colonial New York. The Dutch brought slaves to New York to help support the economy and asisst the settlers, but as time went on, they were considered inferior and the colonists attempted to justify it. At first, the slaves had half-freedom, where they were allowed to defend themsleves in court and own property. Their freedoms, however, became limited especially after the conspiracy of 1741-42, when many different forts and buildings were being burned down. At first, the fires were treated as isolated cases, but as more occurred, arson was suspected. No one had an idea of who were behind the fire, but slaves were a suspected group. Many officials became afraid that the African slaves and white servants working together could become a great problem. In July 1827, after much debate, the slaves were given freedom, which happened quite some time before the rest of the country.
To a certain extent, New York was ahead of itself in tolerance, freedom, and the abolishment of slavery, although it still had a way to go.
Spark – feb 15th
It seems to me that the image of slavery has been portrayed in a few different ways throughout history. It was interesting to learn that not all Whites who owned slaves treated them brutally or completely unequal. In many cases, slaves were given liberties by their owners, which were not granted to all slaves. Oftentimes, slaves’ lives would be spared by their owners, in exchange for only a severe punishment after they had comitted a crime or other wrongdoing.
In the very beginning, settlers came to America looking for economic opportunity, religious freedom, and social security. After time, however, the colonies hit a sort of stand-still concerning growth. The last years under Dutch rule, there was an advancement in the growth and population of New Amsterdam. In order to continue their flourishing growth-spurt, labor needed a boost. Many of the settlers were either unwilling or just too unconcerned to pick up the slack, and instead began to use slaves as a labor source. This source never ran out or was weakened, because the slaves would mate and bring new slave babies into the picture (of course these babies didn’t start work right away).
There was much ironing out to do with this source of labor. In the beginning, there were many loopholes and not many laws ensuring the slave status of the Africans imported to the colonies. As time went on, curfews were implemented, laws were passed, and slavery became more solidified. Originally, the law that no Christian could be used for forced labor, included all Black Christians. But once the Whites realized their slaves were escaping slavery this way, a new law was soon passed, stating that the religion of Africans didn’t matter. Slaves were given basic rights, like the right to own property and the right to petition against their owners, until this too began to be used against slaveowners.
When New England and New Amsterdam joined together to create New York, slavery continued, and New York was one of the largest areas to use slavery and one of the highest black-populated areas. However, as the Binders and Reimers article points out, when the Northeastern areas created the Dominion of New England, New York City became merely an outlying city, and was no longer a main port for slave entry.
In The Shadow of Slavery, it is outlined the way that slave labor was necessary for America to grow and prosper the way it did. Without slavery, the economy of the Northeast would have fallen apart centuries ago. In Manhattan alone, 40% of all households had at least one slave. Slaves constituted the majority of New York City’s working class.
Eventually in 1827, however, slavery was finally completely abolished. But the long-lived existance of slavery is very telling of it’s influence in America’s growth and development. Without slavery in colonial times, we would, right now, still be in the midst of an undeveloped nation, living in New York City, which would still also be undeveloped, unaccepting of other cultures and religions, and unadvanced in all the ways we currently are.
Spark
New York is one of the most culturally diverse places in the world. Only 18% of New Yorkers are native born children of native born parents. This diversity causes ethnicities to mix in both positive and negative ways while at the same time highlighting the similarities held amongst people of the same ethnic backgrounds. This has been documented for many years and goes back even into the 1800’s.
In the mid 19’th Century the idea of manifest destiny was running rampant in America. American’s thought themselves chosen by God to not only inhabit the land of the New World (which wasn’t actually theirs to begin with) but also expand into nations that were inferior (which Americans believed to be everyone). American’s believed they had all the characteristics to make them a surviving race. Angelo-Saxon ties, that the predominately Caucasian population had, meant a knack for government, survival against the odds that early colonists faced meant there was toughness and resiliency in the American population, etc. These gifts were believed to be divine in nature and they solidified a sense of an American Angelo-Saxon race. The idea of Manifest Destiny came around in a time when an interest in ethnology was increasing. Americans traced their lineage back to Aryans, who believed it was up to them to bring civilization to the whole world. These ideas came together and provided a means for making moves guilt free. It’s hard to tell if Manifest destiny was truly the result of a sense of national pride and divine right, or simply the desire for personal greed and the right story to make the oppression of non Angelo-Saxon’s permissible. Was it really a sense of nationalism that spurred these people on to do “God’s Will” or were they looking for land to take and money to make?
It is clear that the Caucasians were not against oppressing those who were different, which ultimately meant color difference. Between black slavery and Native American oppression it’s clear that the Caucasian population of America, who traced there roots back to Aryan races, believed others were inferior. Through American literature and Slave narratives you can see how the term “American” only seemed to apply to whites. This isn’t that far off from how people identify themselves now. Even second or third generation americans often identify themselves by cultural ties. For example I say I am Italian-American even though I was born on Long Island. It’s a way to be American while still retaining your cultural identity. This is similar to the idea behind cultural neighborhoods in cities like New York. People want to live in America while being able to connect to their roots. I rarely hear people just say they’re American.
In New York there is a certain kind of assimilation. Neighborhoods form with specific cultures making up the majority of residents and children of immigrants become more and more “American”. Originally children were encouraged to cover up accents and native languages because parents believed that by assimilating, the children would be more successful. It is evident through studies that as the generations progressed children did become more successful. Now as the as the bulk of New York starts to “challenge the Angelo-Saxon protestant elite”, minority activism is starting to increase. Ethnicities start to carve out little niches for themselves and find success in these niches. While it’s un-clear exactly how people from the West Indies seemed to gravitate towards healthcare or Asian-Americans seem to excel in computer science fields, it has been shown that cultures in New York have made names for themselves in different fields.
The cultures in America, while retaining connection to their roots, are unable to avoid mixing. For better or worse, from generation to generation, an increase in multi-ethnicity is evident. Between mixed race families and close proximity between neighborhoods that allow things like clothing style and specific types of slang to overflow into different areas, New York residents are seeing a culture clash. On the negative side ethnicities are also shown to have violent clashes as well. Where as in the 1800’s whites and minorities would clash, studies show minority groups find themselves at odds with each other more often than they do with whites.
Spark
In high school, we learned two theories behind immigration in America – the idea of the melting pot, and the idea of the salad bowl. The melting pot implies that people change and assimilate based on the traditions of their neighbors, while the salad bowl is used to describe an America where people reside in the same country, but are unique, holding onto and displaying their pasts. Although I used to think that coming to America meant that people must leave behind their previous lives and cultures, in reality, the fact that they have the right to do the complete opposite is precisely what draws people to immigrate here.
As far as the Gerstle article, I agree with Handlin when he disagrees with Park. Park writes believes that out of necessity, all people eventually assimilate in order to get along with one another and achieve. Yes, people learn about the politics and laws of America in order to live and work according to the constitution; however, many don’t assimilate. Many neighborhoods are dominated by one or two ethnic groups in which people practice the same religion and hold on to the same traditions. Similarly, in reaction to the Walzer article, I disagree that people who are culturally anonymous (meaning they let go of their past ethnic identity in order to becoming part of an American melting pot) are necessarily better Americans. While he provides a valid argument that during the American Revolution the loyalists held on to their past and were antagonistic to the goals of the colonies, today, many “hyphenated Americans” aren’t supporting countries that are enemies of America, so their allegiance to other countries and cultures has no bearing on the politics of America. Additionally, America doesn’t have a draft since enough Americans are willing to enlist in the army, even though their family’s past is based in a different country.
I think that whether American citizens associate themselves with another nation in addition to the U.S., or if they simply view themselves as American-Americans, they face difficulties in America, but work hard to overcome them. The case study shows the negative consequences of discrimination and stereotypes on immigrants, but also gives evidence of support that is there for them, for example, affirmative action. The case study also found that second generation immigrants are more successful than their native born counterparts. I think this is so since their immigrant parents instill in them a drive to succeed. There are new “ethnic niches”: The jobs that certain ethnic groups are beginning to hold show a higher level of education than ever before. Immigrants maintaining their old cultures are able to be successful in America.
In the Walzer article, Gleason writes “An American nationality does in fact exist”, but the very words of the constitution “separation of church and state” preclude America from having a specific national religion and ethnic traditions. The principles that govern America and that have allowed it to stand the test of time, are the freedoms that allow people to practice any religion they desire and to live the lives they want. After all, wasn’t that the reason the Puritans came in the first place?
