As basically everyone has mentioned previously, this week’s reading were centered on the idea of conflict. More specifically, these conflicts were based on race or ethnicity. In the Rieder article, Jews and Blacks especially are noted to have been casted aside in neighborhoods such as Canarsie. Brownsville Brooklyn discusses the abuse felt by Blacks. Either way, these racial tensions, at times, erupted into violence and severe conflict. The Italians and Whites wanted to reserve the territory only for Whites.

Rieder discusses the efforts made by each racial group to keep others out of the neighborhoods. People would publicly list their house as “For Sale,” but then not agree to sell to anyone who wasn’t like them. Many Italians were opposed to the maintenance of an eruv in Canarsie, for fear that it would attract more Orthodox Jews. Although Alexa argues that conflict such as those described in the readings don’t currently exist, arguments over the constructing of eruvs are continuously occurring, even in locations as close to New York City, as communities on Long Island.

As multiple people have noted, and as discussed in Brownsville Brooklyn, President Johnson worked to end the poverty struggle in New York City. As a result of this economic reform, the government hoped racial tension would subside since economic worries and tension would no longer exist. Still, however, people felt ethnic pride towards their races and racial tensions continued to exist. The constant fear of gangs was present in schools and on the streets, and many gang conflicts had their roots in ethnic conflicts. As an aside, this gang conflict can be seen vividly in the movie West Side Story.

Anyway, I’ll have to disagree with Alexa when she says that these conflicts don’t exist anymore, and agree with everyone who expresses hope for the future. People say this generation is the most accepting yet, and I hope that people continue to become more accepting and tolerant. The violence in neighborhoods like Brownsville is unnecessary and needs to end before world peace can be achieved.

As everyone’s been pointing out, the conflict that arises when different groups try to protect their turf was the common theme that linked all these readings together. Amidst the violent gang action and blockbusting, Brownsville proved to be a bit refreshing this week; though in the end the Brownsville community did not get to improve itself in the ways in which it had hoped, the BCC put so much effort into their attempts to help the community out of what seemed to be genuine interest. Though there was protesting and rock throwing described within these two chapters as well, the people involved in this council were, as Jessica quoted, “just wonderful people, committed to improving the neighborhood.” The melancholic close of chapter eight saddened me a great deal, because this council truly seemed to have to community’s best interests at heart. “…unlike many other organizations, the BCC did not face allegations of mismanagement or misuse of funds. In fact, city officials pointed to the group as a model for other antipoverty agencies” (216).

Susan’s question proved to be a bit difficult for me to answer. I know that I definitely don’t believe that singling out the blacks and trying to help them makes the situation any better. Like Alexandra pointed out, good intentions or not, this is racist within itself, and practically labels poverty as a black or “other” problem. Referring back to Alex’s response, I think that cultural awareness classes would be beneficial where “blending in” is concerned. It’s tricky to come up with a suitable response as to how to deal with the poverty problem. It brings this question onto the floor as to whether or not poverty is a race-determined issue. Or rather, the question comes to mind when I think about it at least.

Alexa brought up a point that kept tossing around restlessly in my head while reading Sciorra and Reider. I couldn’t imagine such violent, racially driven attacks happening in New York City. Or rather, I couldn’t imagine these events happening so recently. Sciorra described an event that took place only 2 decades ago- practically right before we were all born! While I know that racism still exists in New York City today, the situation’s obviously cooled down a great deal these past years. I definitely agree with Jessica when she says that New York is less tainted with conflict (on the surface at least); however, I think it’s a bit too optimistic to say that a balance between government involvement and activist influence will arise. Perhaps this could be achieved, but it may only last a given amount of time.

I can’t help but wonder whether New Yorkers would protect their turf the same way today though. It is evident that certain areas “belong” to certain ethnicities, but I can’t imagine anyone threatening their neighbor for selling their home to the “other.”

As has been noted in the sparks, this week’s readings were all about conflict. In fact I had guessed as much from the moment I saw the word “turf” in the syllabus topic title; it seems that, with the possible exception of astroturf, the word in all of its usages tends to imply some sort of violence.

We encounter it first in the articles of Sciorra and Reider, in the form of the sort of race-based conflict that we’ve touched upon so many times in class.  In Reider’s piece we find the brutal attack of African Americans passing through Canarsie recounted with pride, all in the name of the need to “protect the Italian turf” from some imagined Black invasion.  The evidence of turf-based race enmity is further laid out in Sciorra’s account of being criticized by his fellow Italians for participating in a demonstration on behalf of the African American community.  Similar racial tensions, sparked by rampant crime, poverty, and disputes over the implications of the decentralization of the NYC education system for minority-heavy neighborhoods, appeared in Brownsville during the Civil Rights Era, led to a number of massive race riots which eventually forced President Johnson to address the issue with his subsequent anti-poverty campaign.

But New York City’s conflicts were not always based on the issue of race; regional and political concerns played their own roles in the battles of NY’s history.  Anbinder cites the 19th century riots in Five Points (i.e. when a heavily mustachioed Daniel Day-Lewis killed Liam Neeson) as a chief example of conflict motivated primarily by political loyalties. While one may interpret the Bowery Boys reaction to the supposedly anti-Irish Metropolitan Police Act of 1856 as more evidence of race-based conflict, Anbinder argues that this was no the main issue at hand.  As Jessica notes, the political leaders of the era were indeed fierce and highly respected men whose charisma earned them ardently faithful supporters among the gangs of Five Points. In no time at all, the inflamed loyalty of such highly political gangs (the Bowery Boys, the Mulberry Boys, the Dead Rabbits, etc.) had burst into outright turf war.

I have to admit, it’s pretty shocking to read about this level of large-scale violence, racially motivated or otherwise, rearing its head in so recent a portion of NYC’s history.  Maybe I’m just overly sheltered, but I really could never imagine this sort of massive unrest boiling over in modern day NY; rioting just doesn’t seem to be part of the political vocabulary anymore.  So, to all of the posts expressing the hope of a more peaceful future, I think we can rest easy in the knowledge that we are already a great deal better off than we were only 50-odd years ago.

This week’s readings dealt a lot with conflicts within communities. Throughout history we see whole communities turning inward towards themselves, separating themselves in order to support conflict. As many classmates have mentioned before me, no community can exist without conflict. I think Jessica said it well when she said, “Somebody is always unhappy with something.”

In Anbinder’s book, Five Points, the community’s main conflict in the mid 19th century was over politics. The existance of political separation and different loyalties caused a rift and in turn led to gang violence and riots. In Five Points, it seems that race played a small, if any role in the existance of gangs and riots. The riots took place between groups such as the Dead Rabbits, the Bowery Boys, and the Mulberry Boys, between the Democrats and the Know Nothings. But the riots didn’t only involve those who supported the parties, they involved the political leaders as well! The problem was that the majority of the political leaders had been involved in the military in the past, and had histories of being involved with gangs and violence. What kind of community can exist when the leaders can’t even get along. That’s not a community…it’s a dis-unity.

Pritchett’s book, Brownsville, on the other hand focused on the racial factors. In the mid 20th century in Brownsville, Brooklyn, the riots that took place were caused by the desire to be ther “better” group. In the case of Brownsville, there were other contributing causes that led to riots. These included: the disagreement about the political and economic situations, poor conditions, and lack of sanitation. The rioting in Brownsville led to the introduction of political parties and political involvement in society in order to ameliorate the discomfort and resolve all problems. The political leaders in Brownsville, unlike those in Five Points wanted to improve the community. Local activists created the BCC, the Brownsville Community Council, which was meant to fight the war against poverty by bringing better education, jobs and business to the community.

Both Sciorra and Reider’s articles provided more personal examples of the racial and political problems in Brooklyn in the mid 20th century. These articles show the pattern of cultural clashes –> anger –> violence/riots/etc. This is a result of the constant fear, as we’ve mentioned numerous times throughout this course, and as William mentioned,  of the “other.” Every race or political party wants to be the best, to be number one. But this of course, is a hard feat to accomplish, when you’re only one of many. So, in order to prove superiority, groups have found it necessary, throughout history to resort to violence and rioting to “win” this title and become the “best.”

Over time, hopefully this will change. We see that, in the case of Brownsville, political leaders rose to the surface in order to battle the poor conditions and racial problems of the community. This example, since it is more recent than the example of Five Points, gives hope that things are becoming better, and society’s are finally working towards the right cause rather than working backwards against themselves. As time goes on, maybe we will be able to see and end to this desire to be superior.

Riots have caused mass bloodshed and casualties in the world we live in. However, in spite of its sheer brutality, riots have motivated people to make some sort of beneficial progress. We see this throughout the centuries of history in our readings this week. Anbinder, in his tome Five Points, discusses the prominent conflicts between gangs competing politically for power and over territory, more so than they did for racial reasons (specifically Irish boundaries). After the Metropolitan Police Act of 1856 was established and replaced city-appointed officers with state-appointed ones, people translated the move as a nativist plot against the Irish, and the Democrats initiated retaliation. During the Bowery Boy Riot, the outraged Five Pointers attacked any policeman they could find, resulting in carnage more violent that the Astor Place Riot of 1849. It was an event so involved, that “observing the conflict was almost as dangerous as participating in it” (Anbinder 288). Soon, however, the area once again began to prosper politically, and leaders once rivals reached truces.

This motivation for development through rioting is also seen during the late 1960’s, as Pritchett notes in his work Brownsville, Brooklyn. Racial tensions were running high at the time, and so were poverty levels. In fact, conditions in Brownsville in the late 20th century were much like the ones in Five Points during the mid 1800’s; there was rampant crime and poor sanitation. More and more riots sparked due to racial confrontations rather than political differences. President Lyndon Johnson hoped to battle such riots with an antipoverty bill during his “War on Poverty”. Groups such as the Brownsville Community Center (BCC) flourished with success in bringing better education, job training/opportunity, and businesses to the area.

However, because they still did not feel entirely included in the reformation, blacks generated “Black Power”; this move was to motivate fellow minorities to put local people in charge of public services. Thus, the BCC featured resident empowerment, and this social and political maturation led to the creation of Ocean Hill-Brownsville School Demonstration Project. As part of resident empowerment, the neighborhood wished to better the unfavorable conditions of public schools by increasing community control. They wanted to rid of racial segregation, but many times, others would retaliate against integration with violence. Brownsville soon changed its approach to the situation: “In 1960, they had argued that integration would bring about better schools; by 1965, they advocated better schools as a means to integration” (Pritchett 228). The Ocean Hill-Brownsville district community implemented a community-oriented school program, which involved more parents in education. However, riots soon burst when teachers felt that the governing board was ignoring their community-focused goals. Teachers went on strike, and were soon publically humiliated and attacked for doing so. Overtime, better compromises were made.

To answer Susan’s question, I do not think the blacks should have been separated from the others in order to provide them with a “better” education. Although intended to fight racism and poverty this way, singling out students by the color of their skin IS RACIST ITSELF! If they wanted to improve educational opportunities for all the students, I believe that they should have had classes on tolerance of other cultures, including introductions to diverse backgrounds in order to promote better awareness and understanding.

I agree with Jessica about the Sciorra and Reider articles supplementing personal information where Pritchett left absent. They show that with passing time, riots have more to do with race than anything else. But, again, these restless times brought about change later on. Sciorra writes that such instances “engendered an examination of conscience and values… in ways that simply did not exist before” (209). This could be applied to both articles, which deal with extreme racism and violence against African Americans in the late 20th century (which, may I remind you, was not too long ago). Hopefully, with time, people will learn how to express their sentiments and compromises with peaceful words more than they do with violent actions, in order to achieve what they wish to see in the world.

In “Five Points” Anbinder talks about political conflicts affecting the behavior of people out on the streets.  While this is true even today, the way we depict our opinions of political conflicts has changed.  Protests have replaced riots, and I think that’s a sign of political maturity.  In an optimistic world  view, the riots and gang fights are a part of the process.  Things will get worse before they get better.  Five Points, Anbinder says, was often the home of these riots and fights.  Interestingly enough, (and I think Jessica mentions this), the people of Five Points had little political say as they rarely voted.  Compared to Five Points, Brownsville seems to have a better political standing.  It was more organized and focused on actual progress.

In her blog, Susan asks if singling out Blacks to give them a better education was the right way to go?  I think that if the city wanted to improve the education system of the city and consequently improve the lives and futures of its students, the best thing to do would be to even out the discrepancy between upper class and lower class neighborhoods.  Our education system is very lopsided, with predominantly White schools having a higher budget and better teachers than with predominantly minority schools.

I completely agree with Jessica when she says that communities cannot exist without conflict. Throughout the semester we have seen that ethnic communities were created with some moments of conflict along the way in order to preserve ethnic identity. For example, Piri being ganged upon by Italians once he moved into their neighborhood and other examples show that conflict has occurred in order for people to preserve their community. Now in our last readings, we see this idea in all the readings in which conflict, whether for ethnic or other reasons, was used in order for people to try to save their ideals and core communities. Unfortunately this conflict  leads to boycott, demonstrations, and severe riots all for the purpose of saving their community.

In the case of Anbinder I also agree that this was not a racial issue but tension rose more from issues of loyalty to certain groups which boiled over from political elections. Having two different groups with leaders who were very tough and adamant about getting their votes led to them aggressively intimidating innocent people who just wanted to express their rights. As mentioned before, the dominant cause was loyalty and at this time it was loyalty taken on a radical level.  To me loyalty was a main factor but another was that it was on contested turf. People have formed different groups such as the Bowery Boys and Dead Rabbits on the same land and it is this that leads to communities going into conflict with each other. These groups want to be able to control the turf and as a result fight with any opposing groups. As a result, riots in which lives are lost occur between groups to try to establish full control.

The articles by Sciorra and Reider show how race can truly be a driving force in riots. For these articles, I believe that  deaths and riots came about from fear of the Other. Reider’s piece was really blatant as to how people really did not want African Americans on their turf.  It was sad to see how as soon as any African American was seen running through Canarsie, at one point in time some people felt a need to chase them down and beat them. Even when the African Americans did nothing, groups felt so proud when they either beat them or chased them down as seen by the quotes Reider uses. Unfortunately this is what was done to protect one’s turf. People like the Italians thought that this Other would end up completely controlling their neighborhood and could not live peacefully with them. The same went for Sciorra’s article because when other Italians saw him march with other demonstrators for the loss of an African American they were completely shocked and ridiculed him as if he was crazy.

As I read the articles, I realized more about how contested turf plays such a strong role when it is mixed with either the factor of loyalty or race.  It is because people at this time who are loyal to a certain group or race do not want to see people who were different. I realized that this was common in many of our readings in which immigrants had ethnic pride and identity when they made up parts of New York City and did not want others to take that from them.