There’s always something to fight about, whether its over power, religion, politics or land, it seems there’s a never ending parade of disagreement and conflict. On the news we hear about conflicts between countries, but if we look at our history we don’t have to look far to see just how much we fight amongst ourselves. As Jessica said in her spark “somebody is always unhappy about something” so with that, why couldn’t and why can’t we (as in today) solve our issues the way the Brownsville Community Center worked to fix theirs? According to Pritchett (which, as mentioned by so many, seems to leave out some important information) the BCC really made a difference in their community.

Unfortunately, conflict usually tends to lead to a negative response. Politicians and leaders put on their brave faces and tell the people “these are the problems we face, but we are combating them using methods that will work if we enforce them.” The leaders in Anbinder’s book like Matthews, Kerrigan and Walsh were ex-military, so is it any surprise that they all tried to dominate in politics? I mean just look at what we call our efforts to solve our problems: the “war” on poverty, the “war” against terrorism. Why do we have to be at war? Not everything needs to be battle, a struggle yes, but to call it a war is to make the solution sound just as bad as the problem.

I agreed with Susan when she said that no one is ever completely satisfied no matter how much effort gets put into improving the community situation. Like with the Board of Education and the specialized curriculum; neighborhoods wanted control of their schools, so the teacher’s unions began a strike to protest. Those that managed to create their own curriculum, like the black population, tried make a curriculum that would provide a better education for them. Specialization didn’t seem to be exactly what everyone wanted since “afrocentric” curriculums tended to send many minorities, including blacks in search of integrated schools. So all that work for nothing, a community fights for something and in the end not everyone is happy about it. After this week’s readings, I know what my mother felt every time she told me to “be the bigger person.” It’s not always about being right or getting your way, its about accepting the fact that not everything needs to be fought about. That seems to be one lesson that we never learn.

Disagreements, arguments and conflicts are bound to happen in any type of community; whether it be of the same ethnic group or a very diverse neighborhood. Conflicts are inevitable, and in a way, shape a community. However, how the conflict should be solved is tricky and difficult. There is more than one possibility to approach a problem, but which one is right and which one will lead to the best outcome is what becomes the real question and purpose to solving a conflict.

In this weeks reading, we were introduced to different conflicts emerging due to different reasons, and how they were dealt with. Rioting became a popular form of showing conflict and making visible that a problem exists and is need to be dealt with. In the articles by Rieder and Sciorra we were introduced to more violence and riots. The main reason here for conflicts being race. Furthermore,  the focus of Pritchett’s book was also racial conflicts and how they caused riots to occur. Reasons for riots in Brownsville also included the increasing crime rate, poverty, education and also sanitation in the area. To put a halt to, or at least better the condition, these conflicts were approached with political involvement by President Johnson.

However, in other communities, politics itself became a reason for riots to occur, as Jessica points out. Anbinder’s Five Points focuses on how politicians became immersed themselves in rioting instead of being the “problem-solver”. The existence of several different groups with different ideals and the necessity of then to be loyal to ones own group caused clashes between and within groups. Violence began to arise between groups such as “Dead Rabbits” and “Bowery Boys”.

All in all, conflict is a part of society and community which is inevitable. But the way conflict is dealt with might be different. However, it is acceptable to say that rioting and violence is a very “popular” way of dealing with conflicts. We all know this for a fact, itis clearly in the readings, and we continue to see this in the world today. Will this change? I think it is safe to say we have come a long way, as Alexa mentions, but we still need to come a long way from it.

Ethnic pride and identity often creates certain situations that may be conflicting to various members of a community. As seen in our readings such conflicts can result in violence and protests that in the end harm both groups of people involved. Racial tensions are often heightened among a particular community so that differences are apparent between them but in the end no one benefits except those who have highlighted the differences in the first place. For instance in the documentary we watched in class, housing policies created this barrier between minority groups and those of a higher class (mostly white Americans), yet people often overlooked those creating these policies in the first place who also benefited from them.

Furthermore, we read about the violence and riots associated with the Italian American community against the African American community in the articles by Sciorra and Reider. It’s interesting to note that there was such a defensive nature to ones neighborhood among the Italians. This is still sometimes seen today as various people mark certain neighborhoods as their own but it was more overtly expressed during the earlier immigration waves. However, its also surprising to me that there was such a violent past behind many neighborhoods of New York City. Often kept on the “down-low” we don’t really get to hear or read about the real immigration issues surrounding the history of New York’s population. Though it becomes clear that race and identity greatly shape the behavior of communities across the city.

I definitely believe that the issues related with race and social/economic class are still deeply rooted within our system. Certain domestic policies make it so that the majority of the minority groups aren’t really able to move up the social ladder and have those “equal opportunities” that everyone supposedly claims to have. Conflict is often used as a clever technique to distract the mainstream public from the real issues at hand.

Finally regarding Susan’s question, like others have said, this is a challenging question because it involves dealing with issues of race and social class with a different approach. Isolating this community is a problem within itself but creating this clear barrier is even more so problematic. Like I’ve stressed in my other blogs, I strongly believe real change must come from the way policies are structured in the U.S. This would mean change from the government down. Without this change in policy, many of the problems we face seem like they will be never solved because only a few powerful people benefit from these issues while the masses of people have to suffer consequently. Race, conflict, identity are all important topics that have been discussed in this week’s readings and will be continue to be important topics in the upcoming years as international conflict largely becomes a part of everyone lives.

It seems that everywhere we go we are confronted by conflicts and violence. Every morning, multiple forms of media including television, newspapers, and tabloids inform us of the conflicts taking place around the world between religious, ethnic, and political groups. There is SO MUCH violence in this world and I just don’t understand why?! Why can’t we just get along? Conflict is two-sided. As individuals who are capable of independent thought and form various opinions, it is so surprise that we oftentimes disagree. While disagreement is valid, I don’t understand how arguments jump from verbal disputes to violent ones.

People argue over many different things, but what things are worth risking physical confrontation? Depending on whom you ask, loyalty, territory, nationalism, cultural pride and racial discrimination are all things that are worth physically fighting for. In my opinion, physical confrontation is NEVER THE SOLUTION. For example: I know that if someone verbally attacked one of my friends or family members, of course I would be defensive and protect them, but would I jump on your back and claw your eyes out?  NO WAY. So that’s what I don’t get- I understand the root of conflict and disagreement, and I know it is impossible to avoid it, but I can’t understand the jump from disagreement to physical violence.

Like Rebecca, when reading this weeks reading I could not help thinking about the film “A Bronx Tale,” a heartfelt story of teenage love between an Italian American named Calogero and an African American girl named Jane growing up in the Bronx during the 1960’s. Like Joseph Sciotta, Calogero is faced with a difficult decision, whether or not to participate in the racial feud between African Americans and Italian Americans. Unlike Sciotta however, Calogero joins the neighborhood kids in both verbally and physically attacking African Americans on their turf. The two sides continue to attack one another until Calogero’s friends are blown up in their hit and run car while cruzing for African Americans to harass on the other side of town proving that violence and hatred only results in more hatred, violence and the loss of human life.

Racial violence is extremely troubling to me because it makes no sense and is based on something as arbitrary as skin color. Violence is cyclical. It won’t end until either everyone on one side is brutally killed or until a group of people gains the courage to speak up and stop it.  African Americans have frequently been used as scapegoats throughout history, and have suffered consequences for things they haven’t done.  Jews have also been scapegoats throughout history, the most recognizable incident being the Holocaust, during World War II.  Every minority has been, or will be, seen as a scapegoat and suffer needlessly.  It is up to us, the “tolerant generation”, to take matters into our own hands and end the violence.  We need to be active and get involved in current issues, because we can make a difference on future generations, and hopefully, racial violence and prejudice will truly be a thing of the past.

I think we all understand that each of this weeks readings dealt with the theme of conflict within a community.  Like many stated in their posts, many of these conflicts have to do with differences in color, social class, “turf”, political views…the list is nearly endless.  I read in horror as Anbinder described the brutal riots between the Dead Rabbits and the Bowery Boys.  I could not believe that people couldn’t even put aside their differences in order to let others even vote, and I especially could not believe that some of the women and children got themselves involved as well!  I mean really, hurling bricks off of rooftops, collecting possible weaponry…I felt as if I was reading about animals!  It was a refresher to see that in Brownsville, the government and related programs such as the BCC stepped in to stop the violence.

I would love to agree with some of my other classmates who said that we don’t really deal with such problems of violence and rioting now-a-days, but I’m afraid I don’t believe that is quite the case.  Just look at the war going on overseas, or the troubles in Egypt.  I feel like the news broadcasts a new riot outbreak too constantly!  I guess some people just don’t want to learn from the past and put aside their differences.  This goes back to the readings, in the fact that many of the people/groups who were fighting did not seem to want to reconcile.  They wanted to overcome the other group or peoples, no matter what the cost.  Sometimes, though, I think it’s better to “turn the other cheek”, in a sense, in order to maintain the peace.

Since so many others have touched upon Susan’s question, I suppose I will put in my two cents as well.  I must say that I completely agree with Eden on this one.  I am torn.  If the blacks are put into educational institutions, it might be seen as a form of racism.  Targeting one group in order to make them the same as everyone else.  However, it would greatly benefit them and allow them to advance in society.  Maybe it would be best to have such institutions easily available, but not make the people educate themselves if they had no interest.  And since everyone else worded their motivational blog endings so much nicer than I ever could, I will simply just say that I, too, hope that one day, we may all put aside our differences and see the bigger picture.  For then we may have a chance at peace.

Like many have already mentioned, the readings of this week were definitely based on tension between groups, whether the conflicts were between rival neighborhoods and politcal groups to racial groups. In Five Points, Anbinder describes the riots that occurred in Five Points because of rival neighborhoods and political groups. For example, the police force under the mayor and the state had conflicts because both believed they were the real police. They used to let criminals escape because they were arguing over who had the right to arrest the criminal. Many people in the neighborhood also weren’t too happy about the the new police, known as the Metropolitans, and attacked the new policemen. Then the riot-turned-violent between the “Dead Rabbits” and the “Bowery Boys” occurred when the “Dead Rabbits” tried to get the “Bowery Boys” out of their territory.

In Brownsville, Brooklyn, there was a different approach because it dealt with a different issue. The residents in Brownsville were trying to improve the conditions of their neighborhood during the 1960s, when the war on poverty was declared. They created the Brownsville Community Council (BCC) as a way to organize and really impact the community and combat poverty. However, crime and housing problems were still a problem in Brownsville. Another issue that Pritchett raised in Chapter 8 was schooling. Since Brownsville schools were falling apart both physically and internally, the city allowed the community to run the school themselves as an experiment so the needs can be addressed in a better way. However, problems still arose as teachers who did not agree with the way the BCC planned the curriculum and held strikes. When they attempted to integrate the children in school, they met opposition (sometimes violently) from the other communities surrounding Brownsville. And to address Susan’s question, I don’t know if singling out the blacks would have helped in the “war against poverty” because like she said, they seemed to want to integrate. I do think, though, that an improvement in schools would have definitely been helpful.

And finally, both Sciorra ad Rieder talked about the conflicts between races. In the beginning, Sciorra was the only Italian in the march about the killing of Yusef Hawkins, and he was receiving threats from the crowd outside for siding with the blacks. And like some people mentioned, Rieder blatantly described the racism that many Canarsians had for the newcomers in the area. Conflict has definitely been an issue, even in New York City. And like the topic of this week suggests, it’s based on turf, and these readings show that it can come through different forms, whether it be between neighborhoods or class and race. Each group feels entitled to their space and will protect it as much as possible, and like Jessica mentions, someone always wants to be on top.

Although I can still see racial violence happening in New York City, I feel like people are less likely to protect their “turf” and react like they did in Sciorra’s memoir, and Five Points.  I believe that most people living in New York nowadays are more accepting that their neighborhood isn’t only going to be of one race and one group.  It is still surprising nonetheless that an event like the one in Sciorria’s memoir happened so recently.  It is especially so since in Brownsville, people of different races were working together to better their community during an even earlier period.  As Maurice Reid said in Brownsville, Brooklyn, “‘ When I moved to this community in the early 1960s, blacks, whites and Latinos were working together in many organizations.’”

One such organization was the BCC.  I thought that the BCC was a really inspiring organization, especially whey it strived to do so much.  It was active in the war against poverty, and it supported the people who wanted more control over what happens in the community.  Despite the fact that some leaders tried to use BCC for political power, BCC really seemed to be for the people.  As Praveena quoted, BCC was a model agency.

As for Susan’s question, I also feel like it’s difficult.  On one hand, I feel the same as Alex.  I don’t think that they should be singled out, because the act in itself is racist.  Educating people at an early age, teaching them tolerance of understanding of different cultures is important.  But on the other hand, this does not seem like it will be enough, especially since there are bigger factors that play into poverty, as we learned from watching the video last time.

While reading “Italians Against Racism” by Anthropologist Joseph Sciorra, which incorporated his anthropological exploration of Italian-Americans and personal experiences in his telling of the events which occurred on August 23^rd 1989 and his involvement in the public response following four days later on August 27^th, two movies immediately came to mind: “A Bronx Tale” and “Do The Right Thing” (which was mentioned on page 202). Both films served as a social commentary on the violent relationship between Italian Americans and African Americans in the Bronx and in Brooklyn. As suggested in both films and in Sciorra’s chapter “Italians Against Racism,” racism is a two-sided hatred between two groups of people based primarily on race (aka: skin color). In Sciorra’s discussion of Italian American communities response to the murder of African American17 year old Yusuf Hawkins, Sciorra explores the causes of Italian American racism towards African Americans and attempts to understand “why Italians in New York had come to base their identity in direct opposition to people of color.” I would like to specifically focus of Sciorra’s comments on the media’s involvement, the injustices of political correctness and the importance of leadership (and therefore courage) because those are the aspects of this particular reading that I find most fascinating.

Beginning with the media’s contributions to racism:  at the prayer Vigil for Yusuf Hawkins on Sunday August 27^th, 1989 led by a handful of African American reverends, Sciorra is captured on film responding to a speakers question: “Where are the members of this community” and is filmed again after the Vigil walking among a group of African American demonstrators carrying a sign that read: “Italians Against Racism.” Yet, his presence at both events is ignored by both the African American Reverends and by the media because, according to Sciorra “it was much easier for them to have a monolithic evil Italian community than to hear or imagine Italian American voices of conscience and possible partnership.”

To an extent, media keeps racism going. It adds fuel to the fire and keeps hatred burning in communities by only reporting certain details and neglecting to include the names and projects of those who try to counteract racism on a daily basis as well as those descent human beings such as Irene Deserio and her daughter who aided Yusuf in the moments preceding his death or Lucy Capezza, a woman who (among a crowd of other Bensonhurst residents) confronted the arrested suspects. I believe that every nationality, every race, every ethnicity has both good and bad people. It’s just that the bad people get more publicity than the good. By covering up the actions of good people and recognizing only the actions of the bad, the media is doing the public a major disservice. In the interest of making a buck, reporters paint an ugly picture and depict the world in a negative light because goodness and kindness just doesn’t sell. By failing to expose truth in its entirety and promoting racism and hatred, the media is almost just as bad as those who commit violent acts of racism.

Moving on to the issue of Political Correctness: Social injustices are not committed only by those who are violent or by those who manipulate truth for personal gain but also by those who stand by witnessing injustices and do nothing. Sciorra quotes Martin Luther King Jr. The quote by Martin Luther King Jr. “The tragedy of Birmingham is not what bad people did, but that good people did nothing.” In commenting on how Italian American leadership dealt with Yusuf’s murder, Sciorra brings up the modern issue of political correctness and the notion of waiting to speak until it is “politically safe to say something.” In an attempt to curb racism by forcing political correctness on people, we are actually making racism worse and not better. Instead of admitting to racism and trying to break racist habits, political correctness favors ignoring racism all together. In the interest of not sounding racist, the Italian American leaders waited too long to speak out and make an official statement to the media. The hot topics have to be addressed before they’ve had the time to cool down and solidify. Public figures need to strike while the iron is hot and try to make a change while the opinions of the public are still malleable.

Finishing with the importance of courage: The main problem is that being “politically correct” forces politicians and community members to abandon their courage. The fear of standing out and being different is soooo powerful, which is why I admire Sciorra so much for his presence at the Vigil and participation in the demonstrations, which took place on August 27^th 1989. The courage of one strong individual gives other people courage, just like Joseph Sciorra’s courage gave Stephanie Romeo the courage to abandon the angry crowds and march along side him in the name of peace.  Stephanie’s courage in turn compelled Camillio “David” Greco to march along side Sciorra along with three others in a sort of domino effect. BUT still, the actions of one or two individuals or one or two church groups are not enough.

Sciorra suggests that the diffusion of African American pop culture (such as hip hop and rap [*click for an example of Italian Rap*]) into Italian pop culture has lead to an improvement in African American – Italian American relationships. While I agree that the violence has become less prevalent between the two communities, I disagree with Sciorra’s insinuation that the problem is completely solved. The problem still exists on a grander scale, not just between Italian Americans and African Americans, but also between White Americans (including Italian Americans) and “Minorities” (African Americans, Puerto Ricans, etc) more generally. As I mentioned in the previous blog on racism, individuals can still be racism without being overtly violent. The truth is that people need to change their way of thinking in order for change to happen and that, while not impossible, is an extremely difficult process. If other’s like Sciorra are able to find their courage and speak out, if the media would reveal entire truths instead of spinning stories to create clear-cut villain-protagonist relationships, and if artists such as Spike Lee (director of “Do The Right Thing”) continue to provide social commentaries and expose social injustice, racism between whites and minorities could become a thing of the past.

From this week’s readings, it seems that conflict, of any sort, is bound to exist in a community. Be it political, racial, social, economic, or whatever else, people will find that which is different in the other inhabitants of the neighborhood and transform that into a rationale for violence, hatred, or even individual tension. This issue has been touched upon frequently in class discussion and seems to be understood to some degree. The fact is that everyone is different. Everyone possesses differing opinions, goals, appearances, political inclinations, beliefs, and lives.  If one’s beliefs don’t infringe on other’s it should be the cause for aggression. Back to the main point, if someone/a group of any sort is suffering, intervention on behalf of the government should be made. As with the situation of Brownsville, community leaders interfered and their involvement has proved beneficial.

Susan poses a question regarding “singling out the blacks to give them a “better” education” and if that is the right way to combat the “war on poverty.” In response to her question, I feel torn. On one hand, I think that by separating blacks in an educational institution, we are further reinforcing the notion of racism— by putting it into practice, even if it is in a positive way. We are drawing a thick, black line, a boundary. But on the other hand, I think that since this is done with the intention to make things equal and have everyone around the same status, the government is attempting to help them prepare…by attending to their specific needs. And perhaps once the levels balance each other out… maybe then the integration will occur.

Joseph Sciorra in “Italians against Racism” presents an explicit account of what discrimination looks like and feels like. “…I carried a handmade, poster board sign that read ITALIANS AGAINST RACISM. My use of the plural was a simple expression of hope.” I found this line quite powerful. He was a lone individual who stood across his crowd in hope to have others following him. And though not all leaders are successful on their initial attempts, they still stand as indicators of people who yearn for change.