The Peopling of Corona

Racial discrimination has horrible effects on immigrants and their living conditions in the United States. The conditions in the five points were horrible and while laws were put in place to try and help the area, they were of little to no effect. The white flight of course did not help. With the highways expanding out of the cities and into the suburbs, it sent the whites with them. The white population saw the immigrant population as a threat and used the suburbs as a place to hide. With the whites out of the cities, funding was cut off to cities as they were seen as dangerous investments.

It’s strange how this cycle is almost a self fulfilling prophesy. The whites are afraid of immigrants so they leave. This cuts money to the cities, making them more dangerous. The dangerous-ness sends more whites out. Rinse and repeat. It can’t possibly be blamed on the immigrants who have no choice but to live in these areas. It is the racist policies that caused the issues in the cities. Just because it’s law, doesn’t make it right.

After reading through the readings assigned in this class, I can understand why people are racist. I am not saying that it is acceptable to be racist, but I can understand how it would happen. Racism seems engrained in American history–not just in the fact that people used to be racist, but in how our country developed. It seems impossible to analyze the past, through a completely factual lens, without acknowledging how deeply engrained racism is in America. Even if the racism is incidental–such as de facto segregation–it still existed. However, should we consider this racism? When people attempt to separate other people into different groups based on physical traits, that is racist. However, when an ethnicity decides to separate itself and live in a cultural bubble, how is that racist? Unless the government (or society) treats these individuals with an unfair set of laws, this is not racist.
Yet, I feel that many people would consider this racist due to segregation by ethnicity. The more readings that we do, the more factual information I see that supports the idea that a multicultural country cannot be completely tolerant. In ten years, when we have all of the “facts” and “statistics” about the current times recorded, will the reports show the same level of de facto segregation and racism? Look at how much hate there is still alive in America today. We may now be aware of it, but does that really mean anything? What does raising awareness do, if nothing changes? Of course, we can say that the immigrants all have the same rights as us, but do they really? Are there de facto rights now too?
The more reading that I do, the more I feel that it is impossible not to be racist to some degree, and that American history almost endorses it.

Race has been a determining factor in the lives of many people in the United States. Although over the years there have been laws trying to increase the quality of life for tenement dwellers, these laws have done nothing. The government has tried to pass laws that would help the situations of people living in apartments that were in horrible living conditions. Yet, when the white people in these areas that were getting government funding moved out, the government paid less and less attention to helping these areas. White flight occurred, which is when white people move out because black people move in. This lead to less focus on areas where white people were fleeing, and since the government has been proven to show less enthusiasm in helping the non-Caucasian people, the areas became more dilapidated.

It is interesting to look at the structure of out cities from the eyes of social scientist as Foner did. What seem to be so day-to-day researchers have studies and proposed fro the faults in our society.  Though I do have an issue that a social scientist like Edward Ross seems to have some sort of bias (favoring racism and discrimination), and that can misconstrue the real reasoning behind the injustices; but then again, we could chalk that one up to human nature. I think though the main problem is institutionalized discrimination. A more blatant form of institutionalized racism can be found when looking at the Federal Housing Agency. The FHA once said that it was ok to deny mortgages to black families because of the great chances that the community they settle in would drop economically.  Though blatantly denying black families for this reason is now illegal, we now have a problem called reverse redlining. Reverse redlining is when high-cost loans are disproportionally concentrated in low income, minority communities because of the risk factor of them defaulting.

Anbinder’s reading this week showed us that when a slum seems to be “cured” it just means that it was moved somewhere else. This can also be connected to institutionalized discrimination. If one slum is “cured” it usually refers to it being gentrified. Once a community is gentrified, it is then harder for it’s old inhabitants to stay, thus causing their exodus. Once these people move to a new area, this area tends to decrease in the standards of living and benefits from the government. This can be because there won’t be as much money floating around this economy and the government interest would lessen. Also a less affluent town would not be able to acquire the proper fiscal means for the proper schooling and other needs for a growing (or dying) community. Maybe its not as much the people we think are racist but rather the body and structure of the people that is forming all of this discrimination.

“Like a wart growing on the top of a festering sore.” Ew. I can never forget this simile if I tired. I find it interesting that even with the new tenement laws in 1879 that “limited new buildings to 65% of a lot and require that every inhabited room have a window to the outside,”tenement life was still far below acceptable standards. Anbinder talks about how there still persisted overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and noise pollution which existed in the air shafts between the newly designed dumbbell buildings. Still prevalent was the lack of “tubs and running water above the first floor,” which meant people bathed a mere 6 times a year, maybe even less. After reading so much about tenements in our prior readings, conditions don’t seem to be getting much better. Although there were laws passed that attempted to fix the horrid living conditions in which residents had to face everyday, the lack of basic necessities such as running water, was still an issue. What also fascinates me is how, although human beings like everyone else in NYC, tenement dwellers were treated as animals and as an attraction, rather than people who needed help. Although Jacob Riis’ photos are excellent documentations regarding the conditions in which immigrants lived, I can’t help but imagine how the immigrants felt when their pictures were taken. If I were in their shoes (poor, living in a tenement, bathed only 6 times a year, and had to wear the same clothes for months on end) I don’t know how I would feel if someone was trying to take a picture of me for the purpose of showing the “poor” in America. I might see it as a good thing because then people will see the truth of the living conditions of the poor and maybe try to help me, or I might feel insulted, as though I am being treated as a circus attraction in which people come to see me not to help me, but for their mere entertainment.

After reading about the patterns of “white flight”, the bettering of public services in Five Points because of the mere presence of whites and racism being boiled down to a science as displayed by Foner’s example about the claims about Italian immigrants, it can safely be established that racism and unwarranted prejudices are a social problem. I think we can all agree on that. However, I am seeing doubts and questions as to whether it is a federal problem also. That the actions of the government can clearly help to remedy the dangers of the slums and by helping out economic situations, can also help social situations. I think a popular question that is being asked is, “where was the government in all this? Why don’t they do something about it?”

Honestly, I think the answer is very clear. It’s not that the government is accidentally overlooking these problems of our nation, but that it is intentionally neglecting them. No matter what time period, it seems that the world has the same old problems just with new names. The Interstate Highway Act was an effort to suburbanize America, but it also divided Chicago racially. The 6 or 7 massive lanes literally acted as a divider between white Chicago and black Chicago. It is no coincidence that also the presence of whites in Corona led to the bettering or at least the maintenance of decent public works such as schools and transportation. The government also allowed a segregational restricted covenant take place in its cities, allowing white home owners to refuse to sell to blacks or latinos. The government just stood by. The government also allowed the emergence of gated communities which didn’t even pretend to be under the pretense that it enforced social rules. Since gated communities were private developments, they couldn’t easily segregate and discriminate. And even though, yes, the government did have money flow into the restructuring of Five Points by making living conditions more…livable, it was very ineffectual. Of course, this was intentional. The government has the power to gentrify red-light districts such as Times Square into a world-famous entertainment and tourist hotspot yet they can’t help the slums get on their feet to at least, make their lives tolerable? I don’t believe it for a second.

Race can be so ambiguous sometimes.  It causes debate and, even worse, discrimination.  So many laws that have been passed regarding racial discrimination have not been enforced or abided by.  This is the government’s way of indirectly not following the Constitution, which states that all men are equal.  Anbinder writes about the progression of the Five Points and how new laws were passed to make living conditions better, but nothing really changed.  In addition, things got worse in other areas as well.  What does this have to do with race? Well, Gregory talks about how simply having whites present in an area made living conditions there easier.  The irony is that many whites decided to move out of the area, know as “white flight.”  They moved just because they could, like we talked about in class.  Why wouldn’t they?  I guess I can’t blame them, but the government took this as an invitation to not treat the people in these areas with the same respect that they would have, had the whites remained there.

The fact that something so unclear to us (I, myself, am confused as to what I should write down as my “race” on papers) has negatively impacted so many people’s lives is unbelievable.  Government’s actions among these areas that we have been reading about seem by far unconstitutional, and we put up with it—even participated.

Racial discrimination is rooted in fears of the unknown.  In my ancient art history class we learned about the Greek culture and how everyone outside their territories were considered barbarians.  For many people it is much easier to write others off as bad than try to get to know how good they are.  Part of Foner’s reading describes the negative views of a social scientist towards immigrants of the time, but my guess is he never actually sat down and got to know any of these people.  Although our readings are from the late 19th century to the mid 20th century, these problems are still prevalent in today’s society.  There are still characteristically “Black”, or “Hispanic” neighborhoods.  Sanjek describes the “white flight”, which was white people leaving a neighborhood overcrowded with immigrants.  They formed what are today known as suburbs of mostly whites and left areas like Five Points filled with impoverished immigrant families.  The present neighborhoods are the remains of racial segregation from this time.  Our country says it is so diverse and accepting, but the “statistically black” neighborhoods are also the “statistically poor” neighborhoods.  The government doesn’t see the correlation?

Most of this week’s readings focused on racial discrimination against immigrants. Foner’s chapter focuses on the negative stereotypes and prejudice of these immigrants. There was a section in the chapter that mentioned Edward A. Ross, a social scientist who provided many condescending views on Italian immigrants. Ross was “troubled that newcomers, with their inborn deficiencies, would dilute America’s sturdier Anglo-Saxon stock. He condemned Jews for their inform love of money, and southern Italians for their volatility, instability and unreliability.” (Foner). I think his stereotypes are very unfair. He doesn’t have any substantial evidence to support his beliefs. He states that “Such people lack the power to take rational care of themselves.” Where is he getting this from? I know plenty of people from the mentioned races who immigrated to America and they are all very hard working and independent.

Many prejudiced citizens describe immigrants as “a hybrid race of people as worthless and futile as the good-for-nothing mongrels of Central America and Southeastern Europe”. Racism is fueled by ignorance. I think it is very unreasonable for people to discriminate against a certain race when they don’t even really know much about their culture. False stereotypes are formed, which leads to more racism. Even today, there is so much detestable discrimination towards the “inferior races” by ignorant people. Take the recent “Hunger Games” racial controversy for example. Many fans were disappointed because three of the characters were portrayed by black people. Some even posted that seeing a black character “ruined the movie”. I don’t think there will ever be a way to really stop racism. People will continue to have their biased presumptions about others.

Once again, this week’s readings were kind of like a summary of what I learned about race, and how it affected neighborhoods. However, I never really paid attention to the different races that made the up the large immigration groups. For example, in the 1880s-1920s, most of the immigrants were Italian, East European, and/or Jewish. However, the post-1965 immigration, which is still continuing today, shows an influx of Asian, Latin American, and Carribean countries. Even looking back a decade ago, there have been many changes in the United States Census. One such change included “more than one race,” which shows just how ethnically diverse the country has become. Interestingly enough, “Hispanics” are not considered a race group, as they are multi-racial.

The arrival of these new immigrants in neighborhoods raises the question of whom the neighborhood belongs to. Is it the families who have been living there for generations, or the diverse immigrants who make up the vibrant cultural affairs of that particular neighborhood? Sanjek coins the term “white flight” to describe the Caucasians who left their old neighborhoods because they felt it was being over-populated with immigrants.