Despite the distinct waves that have reached American soil, new modes of migrant transport, and novel reasons for relocation, little has changed regarding the American immigration story. Since it’s colonial nascent, tides of Western Europeans, African Slaves, Southern and Eastern Europeans, and Russian Jews each made their way to the U.S in tides. Now today, some of the largest foreign-born populations represented in NYC consist of those from the Caribbean, Latin America, and Asia, and despite a misconception incited by ignorance and cultural and economic insecurities, most immigrants in this area are legal residents (Foner). Nevertheless, as a typical theme in the American drama, children of former immigrants develop xenophobic tendencies towards newer foreigners, epitomized by historical groups such as the Klu Klux Klan. There may be new faces, but it’s the same story. Are you even still reading this?
Although the impetus driving foreigners into the United States has shifted from the over general “search for religious freedom” or to uncover “streets of gold”, most of the varying reasons why immigrants settle in America (or even why Blacks chose to leave the racially overpriced and social rigidness of Manhattan) also has remained constant. For instance, as argued by Foner, one reason people moved was that they simply could. Furthermore, areas such as Corona, Queens or New York City as a whole serve as a symbolism of vast opportunity. Potential for social and economic mobility stimulated a rush of African American and West Indians to Queens, meanwhile foreign jets filled with both poor opportunists and learned scholars now arrive at Kennedy Airport.
Anabinder points to “enterprising” as the main attraction for Europeans, but the same can be applied for most new settlers, and who could blame them? The only color most people care about is green; black and white only become an issue when the ability to get green is obfuscated. Quite sad, yes, but unfortunately these precepts still plague the way we view each other today, and it all goes back to the American immigration story.
I probably wont read it, but feel free to discuss:
1. Is the immigration story of the early 20th century or today radically different than of previous waves?
2. How is the development of a black Corona a reflection or foreshadowing of more modern population shifts?
While reading “Black Corona,” I couldn’t help wonder why more migrant groups did not venture out of Manhattan and into less populated areas like Corona. I was quite shocked at the thriving community that blacks were able to establish within a predominantly white area. I was even more shocked that the degree of segregation and prejudice was not as high as in other areas.
Govans speaks of living next door to Italians and openly being a part of their culture. This made me think of Carlsky’s comment about green being the only color that mattered. It was not an issue of personal hate, but economics. It was imperative that a family moving to America be able to support itself through employment, and employers knew how to work this to their advantage.
In both the Gregory and Anbinder reading, there is an allusion to new immigrant groups being used as strike breakers. Older immigrants did not hate new groups solely because they were different, they hated that they threatened their ability to provide for their families. They hated that their jobs were in jeopardy if another immigrant group was ready to replace them. This can clearly be seen in the relationship between the Irish and the Italians. Employers knew that the desperation for work strove the Italians to work hard, so a strike of Irish workers was no longer a concern. This obviously would enrage the Irish because there was no longer any purpose to striking for better working conditions.
In reference to Carlsky’s question about the relationship to the immigration wave of the early 20th century and its comparison to other immigration waves, I agree that often times it is the same story with different faces. Today the controversy is over Mexicans allegedly stealing jobs. How is this any different from the situation between the Irish and the Italians?
In response to Katie, I found it so interesting how whenever there was a new wave of immigrants, the older immigrants that have already been living there for a while do not accept nor do they respect the new wave; even though just a few decades back, these older immigrants were in that same position. You think they would be a little more sympathetic.
I especially found the Five Points readings very interesting, regarding the Irish, Italian and Chinese immigrants. What I found most interesting was not the jobs that they were taking from the immigrants that were already there, but the jobs that they were creating for themselves, specifically the Italians. I’ve always seen the pictures and cartoons, most memorable being an episode from Hey Arnold!, where street monkeys were used as a form of entertainment. I’ve been so accustomed to seeing these images used in the media that although it might seem silly, I have never thought that these were actual jobs that were used as means of survival by the immigrants. I was shocked when I read about how women used to breast feed the monkeys in order to keep them healthy! (I had seen that on Taboo the day before and never associated that kind of drastic measures with the U.S.) Although these immigrants came here for “a better life” (which to answer Natasha’s question is what I think the reason most immigrants came to new York. Even though many people have different situations I think the bottom/foundation for everyone’s immigration to America is to find a better life) I think that they found a lot of hardships here. Even though immigrants specifically said that life here could not compare as to how bad life was back in let’s say Ireland, breast feeding monkeys and children and mothers begging on the streets, are pretty drastic measures to take in order to obtain food for dinner.
While reading Elissa’s comment, what immediately sprang to my mind was the song-and-dance number “America” from the musical West Side Story. The Puerto Rican immigrants in the musical expressed the same thoughts as Elissa, that they came to New York dreaming of a “better life” and were disillusioned by the hardships they faced as unwanted foreigners.
It always struck me as interesting that in a country created by immigration, Americans are historically resistant to new immigrants. As the posts and comments noted, the hostility felt towards recent arrivals to New York, and America in general, probably had more to do with economics than simple prejudices. Americans have always been wary that new immigrants will take the jobs that should rightfully go to the citizens who were here first.
I think Elissa hit an interesting point. Although immigrants were moving to America for a better life, they didn’t exactly live in luxury. They were forced to move to places like Five Points and live in cramped apartments with little food. Somehow though, everyone agreed that this was better than staying in the motherland. So much so that Italians parents would sell their children to padrones. Sure, you could be pessimistic and say that they were just trying to make some money and save themselves from having to raise a child, but I think they honestly thought they were giving their children a better life. They got to move to American and learn how to play an instrument. All they could hope was that their children would somehow make enough money to start their own life in America and create a better environment for future generations. Of course what they didn’t know was the kind of abuse they could expect to encounter from the padrones, but you can’t really blame them for that. This is why the Five Point kept getting hit with waves of the latest immigrants. They needed a place to start. The cheap rent and bad conditions allowed them to stay in America with the little money they had while they tried to work their way up the ladder. Though living conditions were far from ideal, the idea of the American Dream gave them the hope to make it through. They could only go to sleep on the floor at night, hoping that someday, they would be a success. (a hope not too common back home)
I find it remarkable that New York’s immigrant population, which today numbers in the millions from hundreds of different countries and regions within countries, can be condensed into short, several hundred page books. It was overwhelming to be introduced to so many different personal narratives on each page of the “Black Corona” and “From Ellis Island to JFK” readings, that it was nearly impossible (and largely annoying) to keep up with them all.
As Foner’s reading states, immigration to America from other countries today is a lot different than it was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While TV shows like “Border Wars” and other suspenseful documentary series try to glorify the hardship and illegality of immigration into America, the reality is is that immigration has become easier and simpler. Foner reminds us that in the age of modern travel, immigrants are more likely to be seen well-dressed arriving in the terminal of JFK airport than huddled close, scared, and suffering like they were as they arrived on Ellis Island. Planes replace boats, and as living conditions in many countries around the world improve (I’m talking mostly about European and formerly-communist countries), those who do immigrate are generally coming from slightly better living conditions than their ancestors did.
Perhaps immigration is still like a fever to many people. Foner describes in detail the hype over immigration that was felt throughout Italy- that an Italian man would be ashamed if he hadn’t been overseas at least once. It makes me wonder if many immigrants today have truly urgent needs for immigrating, or if they are simply immigrating because they can. I do not mean to undermine immigrants who do have legitimate reasons for immigrating; I just find it funny that so many people in countries around the world make fun of Americans for being “stupid” and “fat”, while it continues to be perhaps the hugest hub for immigration in the world. Something is keeping America as the #1 spot for immigration, even to this day, despite the fact that cities like New York aren’t developing as rapidly as they were in the times of the Industrial Revolution. At this rate, since the readings mention a lot about “chains of migration” and sponsorship from family members who were already in America, the REAL cause for immigration is tradition; to stay with family. To me, it didn’t seem like such an important reason at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to me. Since immigration will always be hard, immigrants will always want to share their burden with those they are close to. Think about it- it everybody you knew and loved in America started setting their sights on immigrating to London, for example, and actually started doing it, wouldn’t it make you more likely to follow suit as well?
While I’m not exactly sure what to make of the readings just yet (am I the only one who was oddly reminded of Marx’s conflict theory and Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”?), I do have to say that, in the meantime, I agree with Carlsky – people care more about “green” than black and white. As I’ve increasingly begun to notice from the readings, we humans are quite a greedy bunch – although I must say that the debatable philanthropic efforts of Palmerston and Gore Booth were impressive and ennobling. Those endeavors alone made the horrifying (and significantly nauseating) accounts of Irish poverty somewhat more bearable to read.
In the context of immigration, it seems as though every class of society is spurred by mercantile and economic motives. The rich and/or those with power, quite obviously, displayed this in their complete and utter disregard for providing at least some shred of human dignity to the people they shamelessly exploited (like the padroni, who may not exactly have been raking in riches, but were definitely rendered higher on the social ladder due to their knowledge of the workings of the American employment system). The poor manifested this same financial pursuit in their migratory patterns – Cristoforo Columbo, the first Italian man from his village to emigrate to America, made the move when he heard that a day’s wages in the United States equaled a week’s worth of work in Italy. I hate to do this, but here is where I would loosely apply Marx’s conflict theory – social change occurred in New York’s boroughs as a result of class struggles both abroad and within our own borders. I would elaborate at this point, but I haven’t really thought this over yet and I could be totally wrong.
Also, this may be the result of my total misunderstanding of Weber (I admittedly maintain quite a rudimentary familiarity with his work), but you know how he says that religion is one of the core forces of society? I sort of got that sense from the readings, since both Anbinder and Gregory (not so much Foner, who I thought basically said the same thing in about 101 different ways) seemed to put much focus on the religious institutions of Five Points and Corona respectively when demonstrating points of social transformation.
To answer Carlsky’s second question: I have no clue. But if it does represent anything, I think it’s more of a reflection rather than a foreshadowing of modern population trends.
The motives for immigration haven’t changed. What could they have changed from? This country is so young, so new. People are still coming here for the same things they did during the potato famine, or WWII: better opportunity, better health, or as an escape from persecution and war. I agree with Zachy’s push pull theory. Something is usually forcing the immigrants out, and the reason they come to the US instead of Canada, or Kuwait is always the same. It really is the land of opportunity.
Being one of the most liberal, diverse countries in the world, people often find niches to fill here. Although US is not all-accepting, immigrants certainly have a better chance finding acceptance somewhere in America because we are so culturally diverse. For instance, the Italians who came to Five Points had to work as street vendors and shoe shiners, but at least they were able to find work. Also, there is a much better chance of social mobility in the US than most other countries. Even though immigrants started out in lowly positions, they had opportunities to move up in society. There are significant amount of immigrants today who have been able to make a better living for themselves and their family. For instance, one of my good friend’s father came from the Dominican Republic when he was 11, but now owns his own thriving business in the city.
The idea that struck me the most is the comparison between the old wave of immigration to the new. Carlsky brought up this same point in his first question, how different were the two immigration stories? The stereotype most people assume is correct is that the old immigrants were hard working intelligent people and therefore could easily rise to the top. However, new immigrants are lazy and uneducated and live in the slums for a reason. In reality, people treated the original immigrants such as the Russian Jews and the Italians just like many people discriminate towards the Hispanic and other non-European immigrants today.
Foner directs these misguided opinions with a number of statistics about how educated each set of immigrants truly were. During the old immigration wave, the Italians were mostly peasant workers, while the Jews were mostly skilled workers like tailors. At the same time, current immigrants are professionals and highly educated, while many others are low skilled and poorly educated. Immigration is not as black and white as many think it is. It is hard to make a statement, like the immigration then is radically different from what it is now, because some things have remained the same while others have differed.
In reference to Carlsky’s question, I would say that immigration today is not really all that different from immigration in past centuries. People still arrive in our country in droves looking for a gateway from the horrendous way of life of their homeland. There is still a lot of the poverty similar to what Anbinder describes of Ireland in a lot of other countries. So there must be people wanting to be relieved of this lifestyle and seeking the “opportunity” that America is rumored to provide. Immigrants still come here to face hardship, not finding jobs right away and having to do the “dirty work” until they build reputation and prestige. The difference now is that there are laws to prevent discrimination against certain ethnic groups, making it somewhat easier for people to get jobs, as well as services to help people immediately get settled. The U.S. has embraced its reputation as a land of immigrants and allows for the thriving of other cultures (at least in New York). There are laws to prevent the unsanitary conditions of lower east side tenement buildings and to prevent children from being forced to perform on the streets, but who is to say that people don’t come to NYC and find themselves living in a very cramped apartment going to great lengths to just eat?
Carlsky’s title really struck me; “New Faces, Same Story.” The stories we hear nowadays really are quite similar to that of the Irish, Italian, and Chinese that Anbinder describes. The standards have changed as Foner shows us, with differences in education levels making a difference, but is the plight really all that different? Are the cultural, economic, and lingual barriers not the same? I don’t think so.
Firstly, I would like to commend Carlsky on his Transformers reference. Puns never get the attention they so rightfully deserve.
Now on to the readings. Regarding Carlsky’s first question, it is a difficult issue. Interestingly, this whole topic reminded me of an article I read for our English class last semester, which turns out to have been an adaptation by Foner of her book. In it, Foner takes 3 commonly held beliefs about the difference between “golden age” immigrants and immigrants of today (1- Lower immigrant quality, 2- Race differences, 3- Educational Success) and dispels them one by one. Her main point is that when we look back at immigrants of the past, we see what they have become, which took time, effort, and likely had a lot of opposition. Immigrants of today are not any worse than those before them, it’s just that we judge them as if they should be as successful right away.
What I also found fascinating was how Jews were really seen as a different race for a very long time. While today most people think of Jews as generally white people, for a while, “Jew” was a race of it’s own, with “distinct features” that make it impossible to assimilate. Historically, this view has obviously changed, and now, no one could tell I was jewish if it weren’t for my yarmulka. What this really showed me is how immigrants we see today as “different” (Hispanics, Asians, etc.) will most likely become indistinguishable one day. Our opinions of “race” will change and our perceptions of people will change. I can’t deny that it will take time though.
I agree with Carlsky when he stated that the “immigration story” of today is very similar to that of previous eras. Whether they are from the 1800s or the 20th century, immigrants all travel to America for the same few reasons: a better life, more opportunities and an escape from their burdensome lives in their own home countries. Some Immigrants today are still struggling, dealing with financial problems and prejudice. They still have trouble finding jobs to support their families, especially if they don’t speak English. Fortunately, one thing that has improved for our immigrants is that America passed laws to protect them from racial discrimination and harsh working conditions. Like Sylvia pointed out though, most of them still have to live in cramped apartments. Carlsky’s title for his blog sums up just about immigration in America: “New Faces, Same Story”. Though there are a few minor improvements, immigrants today still suffer the obstacles and hardships that previous immigrants had to endure.